The Hague ruling – Sing a song of six pence

The main media are still publishing articles crowing about the rulings from The Hague tribunal as if they are oblivious to its dark sides. In our blog we have established that the Permanent Court of Arbitration is not what it is supposed to be. Some even said that the PCA was only providing secretarial services to a ‘make shift’ tribunal hammered together by the Japanese and the Americans to give it a semblance of legitimacy when it had totally nothing to do with the PCA. The UN has also dissociated itself from this farcical setup as it has a dedicated court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas, ITLOS to deal with such issues in an internationally recognized court of law.

The other point to note is that The Hague rulings were issued under the name of the PCA and the PCA has not said anything to distance itself from the rulings.

The issue here is not so simple. It looks like there is another big conspiracy cooked up by the Americans, Japanese, the Philippines and the western media to sing a song of six pence, that The Hague ruling is legitimate and binding. The local Today paper has at least 3 articles about The Hague rulings today with the authors taking the position that it is legal and legitimate. Prominent academics attached their names to this story. I have not read the ST, very likely the same kind of stories would be rolled out, to give a picture of legality and legitimacy to The Hague rulings on the South China Sea.

Is this true? If not, if The Hague in this case is not what it is, that the tribunal was anything but legitimate, why are the main media putting up such articles to make it sound legitimate? What is the agenda and who is behind this international scam? Have the main media established the background of this make shift tribunal? Or they just don’t bother and for some reasons must sing the song of six pence?

What is the truth? What is real and what is unreal? Would the main media be involved in plastering half truths or untruths in their pages and want the readers to think that these are the truths? There is no excuse for publishing half truths or lies as the main media have all the resources and professionals to establish the facts and truths.

Would there be investigative journalists to get into the details of this Hague tribunal to tell the world what is going on?  The Fourth Estate is the last bastion to stand up for justice and righteousness. When the Fourth Estate is also corrupted and joined the Dark Side, there will be no light on earth.

The Empire rules from the Dark Side.

SGX outage – a positive perspective, just think everything is fine

The stock exchange was out of business for more than five hours yesterday, the system was down and no trading for the whole afternoon session starting from 11.38 am due to some system fault. And as usual there were a lot of hue and cry by the remisier community. This is only natural as the down time would affect their income. So SGX please bear with the noises. Luckily no one is thinking of suing the SGX for loss of income. Half a day got no business can be very serious especially when the income is already down to $1,000 pm. How to make ends meet?  For those contra players that incurred losses as a result of the outage, just too bad, bear with it. The system cannot be perfect, sure got problems now and then. Nonetheless as reported in the Mypaper, ‘Frustration and disappointment gripped the trading floor, as remisiers took calls from anxious clients.’ What to do?

Oh, Jimmy Ho, President of Remisiers Society, don’t say this is unacceptable leh. Cool man. It is definitely acceptable. Hear this…

The most sensible comment came from David Gerald, SIAS Ceo. This was what he said and quoted in the Mypaper. ‘As I understand, duplicate trades are not problems unique to SGX…The trading halt is necessary in the interest of investors and to allow brokers to reconcile the positions.’  I must say this is true. With so many trades done, the brokers need time and better a lunch break to reconcile their positions. Now they have to wait for outages to do such a chore. So when there is no outage, I wonder how are they going to cope with their businesses and reconciliations? Really jialat. How nice to have lunch breaks to do reconciliation when they are so busy and cannot cope with the hectic trading.

David Gerald was also quoted in the Today paper saying, ‘Singapore is not the only financial centre where this sort of thing happens. It has and is happening in the American and European markets, as well as in Hong Kong and Japan,…Investors must understand that this is one of the risks they have to take in this market, like investors in the overseas market understand this risk well.’

I hear hear this kind of comments also feel shiok already. This is normal lah, so don’t get over excited. Boon Wan should also tell the critics of train breakdown that it is normal and common. So many trains running for so many hours, having a few breakdowns are normal mah. And when got breakdowns, can use breakdown time for repairs and maintenance and fault findings.

Quietly I said to myself, heng ah, that fella is no more around. Wonder what he would say if he could get up again. I think he would have to get use to new normal. Making mistake is ok.  Only one question that I am unable to reconcile, why pay people millions to make mistakes? Maybe I will find time to reconcile this contradiction in the next outage.

And Kenneth J, hold your horses man. ‘Trading outages damage Singapore Stock Exchange’s reputation?’ It would not lah. The outages are normal lah. Everywhere also got outages. Not to worry, not to worry. Peace, peace. Everything is fine, will be fine.

The mischievous rulings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration exposed

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is an independent judicial body established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to adjudicate disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the Convention. The Tribunal is composed of 21 independent members, elected from among persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and of recognized competence in the field of the law of the sea.

The Tribunal has jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, and over all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal (Statute, article 21)….

The mechanism established by the Convention provides for four alternative means for the settlement of disputes: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the Convention, and a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII to the Convention. 

A State Party is free to choose one or more of these means by a written declaration to be made under article 287 of the Convention and deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations (declarations made by States Parties under article 287).

If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same settlement procedure, the dispute may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree….

The Tribunal has jurisdiction over all disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, subject to the provisions of article 297 and to the declarations made in accordance with article 298 of the Convention.

Article 297 and declarations made under article 298 of the Convention do not prevent parties from agreeing to submit to the Tribunal a dispute otherwise excluded from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under these provisions (Convention, article 299).

The above are text in the official site for the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea.

Li Jinming, a professor of international maritime law at Xiamen University, pointed out that the use of terms such “UN tribunal” or “UN-backed tribunal” – frequently reported by Western media – is incorrect, as they confuse the PCA with the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/141125/arbitral-court-not-a-un-agency#ixzz4EXyUEu5K

So far the UN has never stood up to claim any relationship with the Permanent Court of Arbitration and it is puzzling why countries and reputable academics and even the crafty politicians would claim that this PCA is an UN institution or backed by the UN. What is obviously a glaring question now is that why would the Philippines, with its backers in the US and Japan, chose to go to the PCA and not the ITLOS? The distinction and authority of the two institutions are blinding. One is an official institution of the UN and the other is a private institution that has nothing to do with the UN.

The value of the PCA and its judgement is clearly a case of two willing parties agreeing to seek its arbitration. It is totally irrelevant and meaningless when another party refused to be arbitrated by the PCA. A one sided arbitration and judgment by the PCA is as good a piece of waste paper to an unwilling party. How silly it is for the Philippines and those calling for China to abide by a nothing more than a back lane commercial institution ruling is hilarious. The PCA’s ruling has no credibility and legal standing to an unwilling party. Period.

Again, why did the Philippines go the PCA and not the ITLOS? Base on the issues raised, the ITLOS would have thrown out the case as inadmissible. The ITLOS would abide by the provisions of UNCLOS, article 298, that forbid it to judge over an issue of territorial claims. And the Philippines and its backers, the Americans and Japanese knew very well that they did not have a prima facie case to start with.

More questions. For objectivity, fairness and justice, the provisions of the ITLOS are very specific, from the appointment of neutral judges to the consent of both litigants are spelt clearly. It does not arrogate itself to judge on territorial disputes without the consent of both parties. It has a panel of independent judges to hear the case, not judges to be appointed at the whims and fancies of interested parties and not judges that are paid by the interested parties as in this ICA case.

In this South China Sea dispute, it is obvious who foot the bills of the judges, the court and the legal counsels, and who did not. How could this be a fair trial conducted by disinterested parties? And what authority has a private institution, a ‘back lane’ tribunal has on sovereign states to demand that sovereign states respect and accept its judgment?

The Americans, the Japanese and the Philippines would want the rest of the world to believe that the PCA is an authoritative body, an international body sanctioned by the UN and has the jurisdiction and power to decide the fate of nation states and to delineate their territorial space, that its decision is final and binding and to disregard them is to ignore international laws and order.

How convenient to take such a stand with the western media and cronies singing the same tune, that the PCA represents the international law and order. What a joke. It is an insult to the intelligence of the people of the world and sovereign states to think they could pull wool over their eyes.  The PCA is a private institution whose judgment is only as good as willing litigants want it to be, nothing more, nothing less. It has no legal status and has no jurisdiction over national territorial issues.

In this South China Sea ruling it is as good as a farce, totally devoid of credibility and legal standing. It is a political and mischievous act to deceive the world that it is legal and binding on China. Anyone that believes the PCA ruling is a legal and binding judgment must be an idiot whose intellect is next to zero. The Americans, Japanese and the Philippines must be laughing themselves silly that there are so many simpletons in the world that could be so easily duped by such an amateurist ploy.

PS. It is important to enlighten the masses that did not have the full facts of the case and did not know what the Permanent Court of Arbitration is all about. Even main stream media are in a daze and telling its readers that the PCA is an UN backed institution. Did they do their homework, done their due diligence? They are supposed to be professional news makers, to check and double check their facts before putting it out as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

How many main stream media are worthy and reliable in this regard? How many are plain stooges, paid by the Americans and Japanese to take a false stand? For sure they are not paid by the Pinoys as the Pinoys could not afford such wasteful paychecks. I am very sure that the judges in the PCA are not paid by the Pinoys. You know who were the paymasters? No prizes for the right answers.

Neo colonialism in the South China Sea

When the Europeans embarked on their conquest of the world, to colonise the world, the rule of the game was that might was right. They went about with their gunboats and cannons to rob, loot, rape and seize countries occupied by the natives they claimed to be savages, and they were given God’s power and blessing to take their lands and everything, including their lives.
 
The European practically seized every corner of the earth regardless of the objections and protests of their owners. Being newly industrialized countries, with new technologies and weapons, they just ran down the natives as sub humans. The natives have no rights to their land and possessions. The Europeans were there to take them away and to rule them.
 
There is a new kind of colonialism raising its ugly heads in the South China Sea. The difference, the colonialists were new nations that were once colonized, new states given independence by their former colonial masters. Now they are out to seize islands in the South China Sea. They did not know that these islands were there since time immemorial. They just knew, as they did not have the skills and technology to discover the existence and where about of these islands till they were given independence and starting to acquire some wealth and technology to discover the existence of such islands. They did not know that the islands were claimed by China centuries ago, centuries before they became independent nations of today.
 
Their ignorance of history, of the ownership of the islands are good enough reasons to claim these islands as theirs, and like the Europeans, totally ignored the rights of their owners. They are claiming their rights based on a new law set by a new organizations called UNCLOS. They demanded that the new laws take precedent over historical rights of ownership.
 
Another big difference is that the new countries were not the invincible Europeans running roughshod over the poorly equipped and armed natives. These little countries are trying to seize the islands of China, a super power with enough power to colonise them if needed to. What an irony? Little countries trying to colonise the territories of a bigger nation and power and think they could get away with it. Even the mighty Europeans had to return most of their colonized land except those that owned by smaller and weaker countries that they could over powered.
 
Would this new colonization of China’s islands in the South China Sea ended in the favour of the new little colonial powers?

Taiwan – The first victim of the Hague kangaroo court

The Taiwan govt thought by being a good boy, stayed out of the fray while the Americans and Japanese conspired with some Asean states to wrestle Chinese islands and the interest of Taiwan would be protected. Afterall Taiwan is being courted by both the Americans and Japanese and is considered to be one of them. Surely they will not do anything to harm the interest of Taiwan in the South China Sea. Taiwan also owned several islands there with the biggest Taiping Island or  Itu Aba, big enough to have an airfield and home to a few hundred Taiwanese.

What the Taiwanese did not bargain for and could not believe their collaborator friends would do them in, is the ruling that the Taiping Island is a reef. What a joke and what a shocking awakening. The Taiwanese have been sacrificed as a dispensable pawn. In the minds of the Americans and Japanese, Taiwan would return to China some day and it is better to cut Taiwan off the deal, that the Taiping Island pronounced by the kangaroo court is a reef and would not be entitled to a 200nm EEZ.

Now what are the Taiwanese going to do? Pay a visit to Washington to beg for a new ruling? Forget it, it is a done deal. Taiwan is enemy in the long run and its interests in the South China Sea would not be worthy to be protected. Protecting Taiwanese interests in the Taiping Island is as good as protecting China’s interests. The Americans and the Japanese have it all worked out.  Taiwanese is useful only in the short term to be used to pressure China but nothing more.

Thank you for being a good boy.  Taiping Island is a reef. Want to buy more mediocre American weapons to shoot at China? Taiwan would not be allowed to be turned into a Trojan Horse to undermine the strategic interests of the USA and Japan in the South China Sea. Period.