Tuesday, January 28, 2003
129
A long time ago, well, maybe not so long ago but it was long enough, they were two brothers. They helped each other out and compromised on almost everything. They minded their own business but never reluctant to help each other out in times of desperation. There was even time when a bully came up at them and they stood together against the bully. Yes, that was a long time ago. One could only assume they would be good brothers for all eternity.
But one day, the mother of these two brothers bought them a cake. They enjoyed the cake together, having a chat with a few laugh just like they had as always. Then, it was time for the last piece. The smaller brother reached for it and thought the other wouldn’t mind. How wrong the little one could be. The older brother had wanted it too. The brothers started to argue. Harsh words were exchanged and they hurt each other pride. In the end, both of the brothers refused to compromise until the cake went bad.
Yet, the cake was so small and uninteresting.
I mean, c’mon, they are arguing about water and the ownership of a freaking lighthouse on a bunch of rock in the middle of the sea!
That is stupid. Malaysia should just sell the water at the agreed price and wait until the water agreements end if it doesn’t want to sell the water anymore. The amount of money generated this water arrangement is nothing compared to Malaysia’s total GDP. Malaysia may operate at a loss but if Singapore is booming, Johor will also enjoy the ripe. In the end, both will prosper. I say just sell the water at 6 cent per gallon and move on. I am sure Malaysia and Singapore have other more important stuffs to do.
Concerning the tiny piece of rock, heck, it’s merely a few kilometers from the Malaysian’s shore while the rock is more than fifty kilometers off Singapore. Where is the common sense? Just give it to Malaysia.
Moving on the subject, the current action by the Singaporean navy is somewhat questionable. Everybody realizes that Singapore is trying to practice the “effective occupation”, the principle that won Malaysia the Sipadan - Ligitan case recently. Nevertheless, the Singaporean Navy has only recently aggressively patrol Pulau Batu Puteh. From my opinion, that is not effective occupation. Looking back at Sipadan – Ligitan, Malaysia has enforced its law and patrol the sea around Sipadan – Ligitan for decades. Singapore on the other hand has only started to patrol the tiny rock for the pass what, months? Weeks?
In addition, Singapore increased patrol had even caused a laugh in Malaysia and Indonesia. Singapore so jealously guarded Pulau Batu Puteh that while looking for “trespassing” Malaysian vessels, it failed to see a huge tanker immediately in front of them. I know its bad for me to say that but hey, sometimes the truth hurts.
By the way, effective occupation worked for Malaysia because Indonesia failed to counter Malaysia activities due to the turmoil in Indonesia’s domestic affair. Indonesia was still licking it wound caused by East Timor and the riot in Sulawesi. At same time, Acheh was waiting for an opportunity of a lifetime. By comparison, Malaysia is far from losing Kelantan (I know, I know, it’s a bad joke) and like it or not, Malaysia currently is doing economically better than Singapore. Plus, the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh was not built by Singapore. It was built by the British with the consent of the Sultan of Johor. Thus, effective occupation won’t work for Singapore.
Also, Singapore is arguing that the Malaysian Royal Navy frequently intrudes Pulau Batu Puteh. Well, I think intruding Pulau Batu Puteh is like saying the Malaysian Army is intruding Kuala Lumpur. By the way, the ICJ hasn’t even decided on the case yet. Might I add, if the Malaysian Royal Navy ever crosses Singapore precious border, how about Singapore Royal Air Force intrusion of Johor air space?
Give me a break.
Damn, look at how entry digressed.
Damn, I forgot, I’m a Green. I’m pro-peace (I’ve just found out that the term pro-peace looks better than anti-war - something that I learned from The Daily. That is the first time I learned something from The Daily. Wait, maybe the second time. Who cares…)
A long time ago, well, maybe not so long ago but it was long enough, they were two brothers. They helped each other out and compromised on almost everything. They minded their own business but never reluctant to help each other out in times of desperation. There was even time when a bully came up at them and they stood together against the bully. Yes, that was a long time ago. One could only assume they would be good brothers for all eternity.
But one day, the mother of these two brothers bought them a cake. They enjoyed the cake together, having a chat with a few laugh just like they had as always. Then, it was time for the last piece. The smaller brother reached for it and thought the other wouldn’t mind. How wrong the little one could be. The older brother had wanted it too. The brothers started to argue. Harsh words were exchanged and they hurt each other pride. In the end, both of the brothers refused to compromise until the cake went bad.
Yet, the cake was so small and uninteresting.
I mean, c’mon, they are arguing about water and the ownership of a freaking lighthouse on a bunch of rock in the middle of the sea!
That is stupid. Malaysia should just sell the water at the agreed price and wait until the water agreements end if it doesn’t want to sell the water anymore. The amount of money generated this water arrangement is nothing compared to Malaysia’s total GDP. Malaysia may operate at a loss but if Singapore is booming, Johor will also enjoy the ripe. In the end, both will prosper. I say just sell the water at 6 cent per gallon and move on. I am sure Malaysia and Singapore have other more important stuffs to do.
Concerning the tiny piece of rock, heck, it’s merely a few kilometers from the Malaysian’s shore while the rock is more than fifty kilometers off Singapore. Where is the common sense? Just give it to Malaysia.
Moving on the subject, the current action by the Singaporean navy is somewhat questionable. Everybody realizes that Singapore is trying to practice the “effective occupation”, the principle that won Malaysia the Sipadan - Ligitan case recently. Nevertheless, the Singaporean Navy has only recently aggressively patrol Pulau Batu Puteh. From my opinion, that is not effective occupation. Looking back at Sipadan – Ligitan, Malaysia has enforced its law and patrol the sea around Sipadan – Ligitan for decades. Singapore on the other hand has only started to patrol the tiny rock for the pass what, months? Weeks?
In addition, Singapore increased patrol had even caused a laugh in Malaysia and Indonesia. Singapore so jealously guarded Pulau Batu Puteh that while looking for “trespassing” Malaysian vessels, it failed to see a huge tanker immediately in front of them. I know its bad for me to say that but hey, sometimes the truth hurts.
By the way, effective occupation worked for Malaysia because Indonesia failed to counter Malaysia activities due to the turmoil in Indonesia’s domestic affair. Indonesia was still licking it wound caused by East Timor and the riot in Sulawesi. At same time, Acheh was waiting for an opportunity of a lifetime. By comparison, Malaysia is far from losing Kelantan (I know, I know, it’s a bad joke) and like it or not, Malaysia currently is doing economically better than Singapore. Plus, the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh was not built by Singapore. It was built by the British with the consent of the Sultan of Johor. Thus, effective occupation won’t work for Singapore.
Also, Singapore is arguing that the Malaysian Royal Navy frequently intrudes Pulau Batu Puteh. Well, I think intruding Pulau Batu Puteh is like saying the Malaysian Army is intruding Kuala Lumpur. By the way, the ICJ hasn’t even decided on the case yet. Might I add, if the Malaysian Royal Navy ever crosses Singapore precious border, how about Singapore Royal Air Force intrusion of Johor air space?
Give me a break.
Damn, look at how entry digressed.
Damn, I forgot, I’m a Green. I’m pro-peace (I’ve just found out that the term pro-peace looks better than anti-war - something that I learned from The Daily. That is the first time I learned something from The Daily. Wait, maybe the second time. Who cares…)
