The World Via The UN Must Condemn Australia For Bullying and Stealing The Timor Sea From The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste

When Timor-Leste gained its independence from Indonesia on May 20th, 2002, the boundary of its Timor Sea which it shares with Australia had yet to be settled. The Australia-East Timor disputes over maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea have been simmering for a long time. Both Australia and East Timor brought the dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague for arbitration However, Australia pre-empts the case of being decided by the court in favour of East Timor when its Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop and its Attorney General George Brandis jointly declared , " In line with our pre-existing legally binding treaties, ( with Indonesia and not recognized by Timor-Leste government ) Australia will not accept the jurisdiction to conduct hearings on maritime boundaries." This is tantamount to Australia not accepting the tribunal's award on the disputes

Australia in fraudulently referring to its pre-existing treaties with Indonesia as fait accompli does not hold water because they have never been recognized by the East Timorese government and people. However, an interim Timor Sea Arrangement was signed between Australia and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET ) in July, 2001. The Timor Sea Treaty between Australia and East Timor took effect in April, 2003, and both parties consensously agreed on the exploitation of resources and on January, 2006 , they signed the agreement on certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea in which both agreed to share the dispute for 50 years and make a 50-50 split on the profits in the disputed Greater Sunrise region.

However, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ) most oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea fall within East Timor territory. Thus the East Timorese government attempts to settle border disputes with Australia via negotiations on law which was later turned down by Australia.

East Timor protested to to an Australian spying scandal in 2012 , when Australia on the pretext of giving aid to East Timor was able to steal vital information regarding the Timor Sea negotiations which put East Timor to great disadvantage and this intensified the maritime disputes.East Timor then demanded negotiations with Australia to settle the disputes via bilateral talks. Australia has yet to agree to bilateral talks and in the meantime it refused to accept the PCA arbitration case.

Australia was too quick to condemn China in the recent fake and bogus tribunal over the South China Sea issue and its Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull cynically claimed , " It is an important decision , it is one that has been made in accordance with international law and it should be respected by both parties, and indeed by all parties and claiments." It is a shame its Foreign Minister , Julie Bishop doesn't seem to agree when it is applied to Australia's cheating and stealing of East Timor's territorial seas and resources. Julie Bishop reiterated Australia's committment to exercising its rights to freedom of navigation ( referring to South China ) and in her own words to ignore the ruling  would be a serious international transgression " and that Australia would stand with the international community in calling for both sides to treat the arbitration (no doubt illegal and illicit ) as final and binding.

This has exposed the hypocrisy and double standard of Australia for that opinion might have been taken more seriously if Australia followed up on its hollow commendation for multilateralism and international law with adherence to those ideals itself in the context of its disputes with East Timor Republic. In the present case Australia is both bullying East Timor and stealing its territorial seas , thus depriving East Timor of its rightful sovereignty over the Timor Sea.

It must be remembered that for its own shameful and selfish ends , Australia is the only country in the world that endorsed the 1975-1999 Indonesia occupation of East Timor during which more than 180,000 East Timorese soldiers and citizens were killed. Australia was complicit in the atrocities and the only Western nation to recognize Indonesian annexation of Timor-Leste , a means to an end , ensuring the ratification of the 1989 Timor Gap Treaty, between Australia and Indonesia which favoured Australia.

Southernglory1
Thursday, 8th September,20

Elected Presidency – Cheng Bock in or out?

This must be the question in the minds of many after the recommendations by the Constitutional Commission were revealed. Nothing surprising and all the changes were more or less expected, like a child with all the right DNAs of the conceiving parents. So what is new?

Many are seeing the intended consequences of the Commission and the intended results based on a preconceived idea or agenda of what the Commission was all about from the very start of its existence. And they are not disappointed. Let me point out a few unintended consequences arising from the recommendations that would prove tricky and slimy in times to come.

The first point is the stringent criteria for an Elected President that, and I quote a comment by Chok Tong in the media, ‘We do not want to have a very high powered man who can be your President to be doing nothing for six years.’ This remark by Chok Tong was in response to a suggestion for a Vice President. But it is still very appropriate in the case of the EP whose 6 years would mainly be kissing children and waving at the crowds and shaking hands with the people visiting the Istana on public holidays.

The big question, why is there a need for such a high powered man with a string of stringent criteria? Is the job of the EP more important, more complicated and more demanding than that of the PM? Is the PM’s job so ‘senang’ that any Tom, Dick and Harry could take over without a single criteria on his suitability other than he is not insane? How many of you would agree that the PM’s job is definitely hundreds of times more difficult and complicated and demanding than the EP? It’s a no brainer really.

So, should not the criteria for the EP be made applicable to the PM, and more, make it even more stringent as the importance and complexity of the job demands a bigger superman. It is simply nonsensical for such an important job to be given to anyone without passing the same criteria as the cosy job of the EP. Tiok or boh tiok? If not, then the stringent criteria imposed on the Presidential candidate would become nonsensical as well.

The next unintended consequence of the recommendation is that all new citizens would be equally eligible to be the EP as long as they met the criteria, with no regards to their place of birth. They are eligible the moment they get their citizenship, fresh from the oven, as they said. Is this fair to the rest of the true blue citizens? Any new citizen from PRC or India or anywhere else would have the same right as a native citizen to be the EP.  This is as good as selling out the citizens’ rights to the Johnny come lately. Good, tiok, can, acceptable, never mind?

Another unthought of consequences, ok, I am being intellectually arrogant here to think that the wise men and woman did not think of it, is that Pinoys would stand a good chance to be a minority EP. The Indian Indian new citizens would fall under the Indian category so no sweat, they are eligible if no Indians are elected over 30 years, or an Others ie Europeans could enjoy the same privilege. They must thank God that they are classified as Others and automatically qualified as a minority.

What is this Pinoy thing that is so special? If I am not mistaken, the Pinoys are classified as Malays in their Identity Cards. So they could hitch a ride in the Malay category to be a minority EP when the time comes. Lucky buggers. The Malay pool of eligible candidates for minority EP is thus enlarged and there should be no fear of no qualified candidates. The Pinoys are qualified legally by this classification. OK, this anomaly or privilege for the Pinoys would not be applicable if I am mistaken and they are classified as Pinoys and not Malays. I stand corrected on this.

What other things to consider about the recommendations? Oh there is a point that needs further clarification on the 5 terms and 30 year absence of a minority President. I will touch on this in another post.

Did I miss out on more unintended consequences on the EP issue? Surely there must be plenty. Oh, did Cheng Bock qualify or kena booted out for good? I will address this in the next post together with the 5 terms/30 year criteria.

Elected President - Pandora box or a can of worms?

The minority President issue is now the top agenda of Hsien Loong. From what he said and the publicity given to the issue, the amount of effort and resources poured into this black hole, he is adamant to see it through and there is no stopping it, come what may…unless.

Raising this racial issue of protecting minority representation, and the likely outcome of race being enshrined in the Constitution, is a very dangerous precedent to set. All the works of LKY and the first generation of leaders to make this a multi racial society where everyone is equal regardless of race or religion would go kaput.  Race would become a national issue and be institutionalized and embedded in the Constitution that the pioneer leaders fear to tread and did all they could to keep it out of national politics.

Some may see this as the opening of the Pandora box. Some would see it as the opening of a can of worms.  The big question in everyone’s mind is why now when the PAP had all the time and opportunity to put in a Malay President in the last 50 years after Yusof Ishak? After Yusof Ishak there were Sheares, Nair, Wee, all appointed by the PAP and PAP could appoint any Malay leaders if it wanted to. It was so simple!

Then the next 3 elected presidents with Nathan taking two 6 year terms, why didn’t the PAP deem it fit all these years not to put up a Malay president candidate? Never think of it, it only happened yesterday and now they are thinking how important and urgent this is that it must be done today like a do or die matter?  Is it just an after thought or there is more to it than just a minority president, specifically a Malay president?

The biggest worm crawling out from the can is the argument and the call for a Malay PM.  This has never been talk about before. Why not a Malay PM? And the newspaper’s list of 6 Chinese candidates as the possible PM after Hsien Loong makes the story more uncomfortable and out of sync at this moment. Tokenism or seriousness to want the Malay to play a vital role in the country’s leadership? If the role of Malay is so important in political leadership, to be the EP, why not the premiership? There are voices asking for his PM seat now. More shit is being stirred up in the process. Here is a comment from TRE.

‘PM Lee has hinted that next Elected President will be a Malay.
So why don’t he insist that next Prime Minister be a Malay.
Possible candidates – Yacoub Ibrahim, Zulkifli Masagos, Halimah Yacoob.’ (Spelling error inherent in the quote)

This call for a Malay PM is becoming very uncomfortable and growing louder. This is something the PAP did not expect. It is only heard in the social media but not the main media. What is the excuse of not putting up a Malay PM or a minority PM?  Meritocracy?  Is meritocracy the issue or should race also be an issue? Would it not be better to have a Malay PM in charge to make it really representative?

The more this EP is being discussed and kicked around using race as the raison d’tre, more worms would start to crawl out from the can. And like the Pandora box, there is no way to close the box or seal the can again.  Heed the old wisdom, do not open the Pandora box, or the can of worms. The founding fathers with all their wisdom have worked diligently to seal the can of worms for good.  No race politics!

What is happening today would make them turn in their graves.

What would happen when it is the turn of a Malay President? Would he be rolled out as the best Malay candidate for the Presidency? Or would he be rolled out as the best Singaporean for the Presidency? Next, this is the best Malay President to represent all races? This is the most meritorious candidate, chosen and elected based on merit, or based on race? Meritocracy is not compromised?

What do you think?

Anti China rantings by obsequious pro American running dogs

The self appointed American running dogs are putting a show again of their most anti China rantings every time when the topic of ASEAN and South China Issues crop up. They behave as little USAs and the dangerous thing is that they could be planted USA's fifth columns to undermind and sour ASEAN and China relationship so as to destabilize the whole of the South China Sea region to the intent and benefit of the imperial world hegemony, the Evil Empire, USA.

Each of these American lackeys try to outdo each other in condemning China for the wrong reasons in their savagery remarks and derogatory statements about China. They are even more vociferous than their American masters in wanting to defame and condemn China and putting China in a bad light. They behave as if they are eager to pick a fight with China as proxies on behalf of their American masters.

These shameless American running dogs who could possibly be paid American fifth columns in ASEAN countries are playing with fire in trying to stir up muddy waters in the South China Sea issue and create animosity between China and some greedy ASEAN countries who on the behest of the evil Americans had stolen some Chinese islands in the South China Sea corridor. Also these faceless traitors to ASEAN- China relationship are by their insidious actions and behaviour working to the detriment of ASEAN-China friendship and to the benefit of the underlying American interest of securing full control and hegemony of the whole South China Sea and East China Sea, the ultimate aim of which is the American plan to contain China and prevent her from peaceful development.

These Amertican lackeys and running dogs who work as strategic research writers as well as lecturers in many of ASEAN and Singapore institutes of higher studies in the universities and in the institutes of international political and strategic studies could post a danger to Singapore and ASEAN countries. They could in their lectures poison young minds who are under their lectureship with wrong and bias views and attitudes toward China and this will not bode well for the future of ASEAN-China relationship when these young people grow up to inherit their countries' leadership.

These American running dogs who eat and grow fat at the expense of tax payers' money with very high salaries should be removed and despatched forthwith into oblivion for the safety of Singapore and Asean countries and for the peace and stability of Asia.

Southernglory1
Tuesday, 6th September,2016

Trojan Horses and Little USAs, got difference meh?

The South China Sea dispute has led to the often quipped terms in the lips of the protagonists like Trojan Horses and Little USAs. Both terms are unique in their origins, from Singapore or by Singaporeans. You don’t hear them being repeated by leaders, diplomats or analysts from other Asean countries, not even from the USA. And the way the terms were used, especially Trojan Horses, came with very strong negative connotations.

What about the term Little USAs, are there any negative connotations? It depends on where the person using it is coming from. This term first appeared in an article by Simon Tay. He put it politely and tried not to ruffle feathers knowing where the sensitivity is.

What does the term Trojan Horses mean?  No guessing, it means exactly in the same way as the Trojan Horse of Troy. It means those countries in Asean that were labeled as Trojan Horses of China were the agents of China and out to protect China’s interest in the South China Sea and to harm Asean.

What about Little USAs? Actually Little USAs and Trojan Horses are terms that meant the same thing and doing the same thing, serving their masters and working to protect the interests of their masters. If one is ugly, the other is just as hideous.

The Trojan Horses have been named as Laos and Cambodia. What about the Little USAs, who are they or which countries are the Little USAs or Trojan Horses of the USA? A clue, not the Philippines, not Vietnam. They are open in opposing China and siding with the USA.

While there will be Little USAs versus Trojan Horses to support their masters, Singapore’s relations with China is on the mend with Hsien Loong and Xi Jinping saying that there might be differences but these should not be allowed to affect the strong bilateral ties. So, would Singapore’s civil servants still be allowed to accuse China of trying to divide and rule Asean? Or would they be allowed to call China’s friends Trojan Horses?  If these would continue, then Singapore is really punching above its weight, a class of its own, and China just got to accept it and take the bollocking as sign of strong bilateral relations.