China must start behaving like a super power

Does China understand why it is having so many problems with the USA and medium and small countries? Take a look at the USA and India and ask why these two countries have relatively little problems with irritating little countries scratching their backs. The answer is simple, behave like a big power and carry a big stick. The Americans carry a hammer and treat every country as a nail, including China, to be hammered. India will not stand any nonsense or misconduct from its neighbouring states and will act firmly when they break protocol or affronted India. India would put them into their right place immediately.

China’s trouble with the USA is of a different dimension. It is about contest for big power influence with the USA trying its best to retain its unassailable Number One superpower position and would want to keep China down. The USA has been creating problems and troubles for China in every corner of the earth and in everything and issue that China is involved. There is no escape from the clutches of the American power and the Americans would want to put China in its right place, ie a power subordinated to the USA, to toe the line, to be the whipping boy when and wherever it is useful to the USA.

The problem with the Americans is difficult to handle and would be there for a long time to come until China is at parity with the Americans in military power or better. China has rightly taken the position of tolerance and patience to keep the Americans from resorting to war. The day is getting nearer for China to stand up to the Americans.

China’s problems with the medium powers like India and Japan and the little countries like the Philippines and Vietnam are easier to deal with. The Americans and the Indians have proven it many times over, that might is right and the only way to deal with provocations from medium and small countries is to carry the big stick and be ready to use it, be firm.

The constant and repetitive irritations by the Philippines in the South China Sea must be stopped. The Philippines only understand what is might and China must use it might to sit on the Philippines to prevent it from creating more mischief in the South China Sea islands. The latest episode of China sending its warship to Wufang Reef is a good example. China must be confident to stay put and keep its warships in the region. There is no need to apologise and to quickly sail away from the islands. This a sign of weakness and uncertainty. If China believes the islands belong to China, it must act accordingly and feel free and comfortable to have its warships in its own territorial waters. And China must be confident and firm to shoo away ships that try to violate its territorial sovereignty. There cannot be any doubt about its position as owners of the islands.

It is high time China gives the Philippines an ultimate to drag away the rotting junk in one of its islands or be towed away, and to send the bill to the Philippines govt for towing fee. It is ridiculous for a big power to exercise so much restraint and inactions and be provoked constantly by a little country, to be mocked at and to be used for propaganda basis. China should tell the Philippines to stay out of its territorial waters or actions would taken, like what the Philippines had been doing, escort the Filipino boats to Hainan and only release with the payment of a fine or be blasted away like what the Indonesians are doing. The only thing China should avoid is to fire at fishing boats wildly like what the Philippines did to a Taiwanese boat, behaving like pirates.

China as a big power must behave and act like a big power. There is no running away from troubles created by countries like the Philippines and Vietnam. And acting firm would only improve the situation and reduce the number of incidents from such countries. China must know its rights as a sovereign nation and the right to take charge in its territorial waters. The more China fears trouble, try to avoid trouble by being nice, the more trouble will come looking for China.

The American and western media would never say anything positive about China’s action anyway, whether China is restraining itself or dealing firmly with the provocateurs. China must just do what is right to protect its territories and interests like what the US and India are doing.

China is a big power and must act as one.

Do NOT allow another Benjamin to happen!

Is it too much to ask for more protection for our young children when they in the custody of the police?  Why are there protections and regulations in civilized countries to protect the children from the police and the adults? Why then are adults protected by law from the police but children are not?

The case of Benjamin Lim revealed the kind of deep seated thinking in the minds of the people in authority on how to treat our children. Two points came out disgustingly, one, to interrogate children without the presence of an adult, and two, to handcuff children though in this case Shanmugam said Benjamin was not.

Children are children and many are very naïve, innocent and easily frighten by the presence of authority. They are juveniles, vulnerable in many ways. Their mental make up and psychology are not equipped to face the authority especially the police and in a situation when an alleged crime or offence is involved and they are being accused of it. Human decency would say children need to be protected and the younger they are the more they should be protected.  Any asshole in Parliament or in authority wants to say otherwise? The presence of an adult to protect them, to give them some emotional and psychological support is the least that decent people must agree with.

The second point is handcuffing children. There are exceptions and age and physical considerations and the nature of the crime. In general, it is unbecoming and disgusting to put children in handcuffs for minor infringement of the law. There must be clear laws and regulations regarding the use of handcuffs like the use of the gun. The ministers must not conveniently say the discretion must be with the police. It should be the other way. The police can use their discretion when a crime is very serious, when the accused is physically big, violent and not cooperating. But when the accused is a diminutive child, a little girl or a little boy that can easily be handled by the adults, when they are physically small and not violent, cooperating, the handcuffs must be avoided and not be used foolishly and happily.  When children below certain age are handcuffed, the officers must submit a report to justify the act like the firing of a gun to prevent abuses. There must be clear guidelines to the junior officers on the ground when they can use handcuffs on children. We do not need sadist in the police force that could see nothing wrong with handcuffing children.

After this sad episode, I hope the police would come up with clear rules and regulations on the protocol to bring a child into custody and the use of handcuff.  In bringing Benjamin to the police station, was he arrested? If he is not arrested, why is an adult not permitted to be with him? The use of the handcuffs cannot be a blank cheque and allowed junior officers to ‘ownself checks ownself’, can suka suka put handcuffs on children. There have been many abuses in the past. Put it right once for all.  Why all the crocodile tears after poor children in a divorce when no one has the decency in Parliament to speak out about how the police should treat our children with care as guardians?

If it is too difficult to think, ask the Americans or the Europeans how they do it. No need to form another COI on this and wasting precious resources and time.  No need to send delegations on study trips overseas. This is nothing new. It is about how we treat our young children with decency. It speaks volumes about the mentality of the adults and their upbringing, their values and beliefs and humanity. Some adults look normal but are sick in the head, are psychopaths and did not know themselves.

It is long overdue to change the protocol in the way the police is allowed to handle children in their custody and what can or cannot be handcuffed when children are concerned. Do it right for once, for goodness sake.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty? Never heard of it?

Benjamin Lim’s case –Thou shalt not give false witness

Benjamin Lim’s case –Thou shalt not give false witness

The Benjamin Lim’s case is a hot potato that must be handled with extreme care. Threats, insinuation, allegations, wrong facts etc etc are a no no. Do not try to tell lies or tell half truths and do not try to tell untruths.

The TOC was taken to task by Shanmugam for ‘orchestrated campaign to tarnish police force’. How true was that, only the court can decide. TOC has denied the charge and given its reply in the media. Among the accusations by Shanmugam were that the TOC were reporting falsehoods. These are strong charges that could see TOC in court.

The two ministers made their ministerial statements in Parliament as the facts of the case, the truth. Sure no one would dare to go to Parliament to lie about such a thing. Now Benjamin’s father has come out to dispute some of the facts.  Let me quote a report by Clifford Lee in the Today paper,

‘Although a school counsellor had called his wife that day, the father of Benjamin Lim said the call was not to check on their son’s well being.

Neither was there  a discussion between the counsellor and his wife on whether it would be better for Benjamin to skip a school camp starting the following day so he could be with his family, the father added….

“When the school’s counsellor called Benjamin’s mother at 4.13 pm, he merely informed her that the school had a meeting, and Benjamin will be excluded from the camp. Before the mother can ask any further questions, (he hung up).” Mr Lim said, “(In) the entire conversation…there were no questions asked about (Benjamin) at all … zero questions about (his) well being,”….

Benjamin was found dead at the foot of his block at 4.20 pm.’

Someone, or some people, would be looking very ugly when the truth is confirmed.  For the time being, the MOE spokesperson said that ‘the account given by the Minister in Parliament was based on the facts as we know them at this stage.’ TOC can quote this to defend the allegation of spreading falsehood in addition to their claim that what they reported were mistakes or factual errors as they were told.

With the social media in action, do not tell lies, do not tell half truths or untruths. It can be very embarrassing when caught with the pants down and standing under the spotlight.

Shares in Standard Chartered plunged on Tuesday

Shares in Standard Chartered plunged on Tuesday after the Asia-focused bank revealed a $1.5bn (£1.1bn) loss.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35639284

The bank will take a $4bn charge on writing down the value of its loans, driven by falling commodity prices and deterioration of Indian markets.

Shares in the bank tumbled by 4% to a record low of 418.7p.

CEO said: “It rips at our soul every time we look at these numbers and we don’t ever want to have to stand up and tell this story again.”



And that’s not all.

StanChart faces accusations over ‘dirty debt’.  It bought a $100 million “dirty debt” from a M’sian bank and used it to demand compensation from the Tanzanian government despite knowing that the loan had been part of an embezzlement scheme, according to claims in a legal row in Tanzania. The debt was originally owed to the M’sian bank by a M’sian company, Mechmar.

Update qt 7.00am: HoHoHo woild endorse this spin Sir John Peace, Standard Chartered’s outgoing chairman, said: “While our 2015 financial results were poor, they are set against a backdrop of continuing geo-political and economic headwinds and volatility across many of our markets as well as the effects of deliberate management actions.”

Don’t blame us. World’s in bad shape. We juz reflecting it.

 Cynical Investor



What had happened to Stanchart is nothing new. Remember those American and European banks that were declaring billions of dollars of profits till the eve of the financial crisis? Yes they were reporting how well they were doing and how many billions they were making. Then overnight all declared bankrupt with big holes in their accounts that could not be patched and needed to be saved by the govt?


When  big banks are reporting big big profit, be very careful. With the world economy in a limbo, with many companies losing money, how did the banks made all the big big profits, in the billions? Are the banks so clever, like the casinos?  Wait for more ‘Stancharts’ to reveal themselves and the big holes they are hiding.

PROOF OF CHINA’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLES & REEFS OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA by Dan Yong

Part 1: PROOF OF CHINA’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLES & REEFS OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA
==========================

1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Island

a) China Sea Pilot compiled and printed by the Hydrography Department of the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom in 1912 has accounts of the activities of the Chinese people on the Nansha Islands in a number of places.

b) The Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong) carried an article on Dec. 31 of 1973 which quotes the British High Commissioner to Singapore as having said in 1970: "Spratly Island (Nanwei Island in Chinese) was a Chinese dependency, part of Kwangtung Province… and was returned to China after the war. We can not find any indication of its having been acquired by any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China."

2. France

a) Le Monde Colonial Illustre mentioned the Nansha Islands in its September 1933 issue. According to that issue, when a French gunboat named Malicieuse surveyed the Nanwei Island of the Nansha Islands in 1930, they saw three Chinese on the island and when France invaded nine of the Nansha Islands by force in April 1933, they found all the people on the islands were Chinese, with 7 Chinese on the Nanzi Reef, 5 on the Zhongye Island, 4 on the Nanwei Island, thatched houses, water wells and holy statues left by Chinese on the Nanyue Island and a signboard with Chinese characters marking a grain storage on the Taiping Island.

b) Atlas International Larousse published in 1965 in France marks the Xisha, Nansha and Dongsha Islands by their Chinese names and gives clear indication of their ownership as China in brackets.

3) Japan

a) Yearbook of New China published in Japan in 1966 describes the coastline of China as 11 thousand kilometers long from Liaodong Peninsula in the north to the Nansha Islands in the south, or 20 thousand kilometers if including the coastlines of all the islands along its coast;

b) Yearbook of the World published in Japan in 1972 says that Chinese territory includes not only the mainland, but also Hainan Island, Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea.

4. The United States

a) Columbia Lippincott World Toponymic Dictionary published in the United States in 1961 states that the Nansha Islands on the South China Sea are part of Guangdong Province and belong to China.

b) The Worldmark Encyclopaedia of the Nations published in the United States in 1963 says that the islands of the People's Republic extend southward to include those isles and coral reefs on the South China Sea at the north latitude 4°.

c) World Administrative Divisions Encyclopaedia published in 1971 says that the People's Republic has a number of archipelagoes, including Hainan Island near the South China Sea, which is the largest, and a few others on the South China Sea extending to as far as the north latitude 4°, such as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.

5. Viet Nam

a) Vice Foreign Minister Dung Van Khiem of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam received Mr. Li Zhimin, charge d'affaires ad interim of the Chinese Embassy in Viet Nam and told him that "according to Vietnamese data, the Xisha and Nansha Islands are historically part of Chinese territory." Mr. Le Doc, Acting Director of the Asian Department of the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, who was present then, added that "judging from history, these islands were already part of China at the time of the Song Dynasty."

b) Nhan Dan of Viet Nam reported in great detail on September 6, 1958 the Chinese Government's Declaration of September 4, 1958 that the breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China should be 12 nautical miles and that this provision should apply to all territories of the People's Republic of China, including all islands on the South China Sea. On September 14 the same year, Premier Pham Van Dong of the Vietnamese Government solemnly stated in his note to Premier Zhou Enlai that Viet Nam "recognizes and supports the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's territorial sea."

c) It is stated in the lesson The People's Republic of China of a standard Vietnamese school textbook on geography published in 1974 that the islands from the Nansha and Xisha Islands to Hainan Island and Taiwan constitute a great wall for the defense of the mainland of China.

B. The maps printed by other countries in the world that mark the islands on the South China Sea as part of Chinese territory include:

1. The Welt-Atlas published by the Federal Republic of Germany in 1954, 1961 and 1970 respectively;

2. World Atlas published by the Soviet Union in 1954 and 1967 respectively;

3. World Atlas published by Romania in 1957;

4. Oxford Australian Atlas and Philips Record Atlas published by Britain in 1957 and Encyclopaedia Britannica World Atlas published by Britain in 1958;

5. World Atlas drawn and printed by the mapping unit of the Headquarters of the General Staff of the People's Army of Viet Nam in 1960;

6. Haack Welt Atlas published by German Democratic in 1968;

7. Daily Telegraph World Atlas published by Britain in 1968;

8. Atlas International Larousse published by France in 1968 and 1969 respectively;

9. World Map Ordinary published by the Institut Geographique National (IGN) of France in 1968;

10. World Atlas published by the Surveying and Mapping Bureau of the Prime Minister's Office of Viet Nam in 1972; and

11. China Atlas published by Neibonsya of Japan in 1973.

C. China's sovereignty over the Nansha Islands is recognized in numerous international conferences.

1. The 1951 San Francisco Conference on Peace Treaty called on Japan to give up the Xisha and Nansha Islands. Andrei Gromyko, Head of the Delegation of the Soviet Union to the Conference, pointed out in his statement that the Xisha and Nansha Islands were an inalienable part of Chinese territory. It is true that the San Francisco Peace Treaty failed to unambiguously ask Japan to restore the Xisha and Nansha Islands to China. But the Xisha, Nansha, Dongsha and Zhongsha Islands that Japan was asked to abandun by the Peace Agreement of San Francisco Conference were all clearly marked as Chinese territory in the fifteenth map A Map of Southeast Asia of the Standard World Atlas published by Japan in 1952, the second year after the peace conference in San Francisco, which was recommended by the then Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuo Okazaki in his own handwriting.

2. The International Civil Aviation Organization held its first conference on Asia-Pacific regional aviation in Manila of the Philippines on 27 October 1955. Sixteen countries or regions were represented at the conference, including South Viet Nam and the Taiwan authorities, apart from Australia, Canada, Chile, Dominica, Japan, the Laos, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and France. The Chief Representative of the Philippines served as Chairman of the conference and the Chief Representative of France its first Vice Chairman. It was agreed at the conference that the Dongsha, Xisha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea were located at the communication hub of the Pacific and therefore the meteorological reports of these islands were vital to world civil aviation service. In this context, the conference adopted Resolution No. 24, asking China's Taiwan authorities to improve meteorological observation on the Nansha Islands, four times a day. When this resolution was put for voting, all the representatives, including those of the Philippines and the South Viet Nam, were for it. 

No representative at the conference made any objection to or reservation about it.

 

Research and posted by Dan Yong

 

What is important to the above factual articles is whether they are truths or fabrications. Can anyone prove that they are false by quoting factual evidence to back up his claims? Why are the Americans and the western media refusing to acknowledge these facts and events? Why are the Americans and the west lying and not wanting to tell these truths?