View Comments (11)

• ... Meanwhile, RMAF is putting *out* all the stops at this year’s LIMA...

  So no golden eagles from thai or indo?

  Reply
  Nope

• Off topic

  UK buys 5x wedgetail AWACS for USD1.98 billion.

• The Tejas fit for RMAF. It's 4++ features and latest technology make it special among it's class.

• The relationship between Singapore is back to old age... they willing send a F-15SG is still a sign consider a good friend...

  If the RMAF chief statement is valid and clear about mixture of east and west for a balance... we should go for the West on LCA if LCA will be a workhorse like Nuri, while MRCA will be to the east..another Su-30mkm or we go for Su-57 on 5th generation fighter.

  The west I will prefer the following in sequence
  M-346FA
  Gripen -C or D(can it still can consider a light figther?)
  F/A-50

• No. The relationship between my and sg is not well. As far as many Sg people r concern My is unreliable partner alway looking for problem. Lucky sg govt got sane brains to still maintaining a relationship. But the damage to ties by the old doctor is deep and will taking generations to heal. If u ask many sg people if we shld help my, the ans is no.

• "If u ask many sg people if we shld help my, the ans is no."

  I agree that that is the sentiment among Singaporeans due to the current Straits of Johor border dispute and the price of water. And in my opinion, international court is the best place to establish the definition of "after 25 years" and territorial entitlements arising from baseline.

  This is my opinion of the dispute and Singapore's statements in particular.

  1. In the first instance, no statement or map from Singapore to date has introduced a formal territorial claim to the area. Maps provided by Singapore show previous and current port limits, but do not show sovereign territorial limits within which one can promulgate port limits. Without such a claim by Singapore, it is not possible determine even the extent to which Singapore rejects Malaysia’s territorial claims or its right to operate therein.

  2. Singapore's transport minister Khaw Boon Wan issued an official statement: "Quite apart from the fact that Singapore has never accepted their 1979 territorial claims, the recent purported extension of the Johor Bahru Port Limits goes beyond what even Malaysia itself claimed as its territorial waters." Reference: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/khaw-boon-wan-full-statement-malaysia-intrusion-singapore-waters-11006758

  This has to be interpreted carefully with respect to "goes beyond." Singapore and Malaysia have formally agreed on our maritime border except for an area off Tuas, now at the heart of the dispute. Our countries have never agreed on a line in this area, so Malaysia has not agreed on a line and then violated it. Malaysia’s extended port limits are fully contained by this disputed area and do not violate the agreed maritime border. It is true that we are now claiming beyond what we claimed unilaterally in our 1979 map. As strange as it makes us look, it is far from necessarily wrong.

  3. Singapore's ministry of foreign affairs says we should "forthwith cease these provocative violations of Singapore sovereignty and return to the status quo ante before Oct 25, 2018, without prejudice to our respective positions on maritime boundary claims in the area ... attempts to create facts on the ground add nothing to Malaysia’s legal case." Reference: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-stands-firm-in-dispute-over-its-territorial-waters-rejects-kls-call-to-stop

  This appears hypocritical because Singapore's Khaw Boon Wan issued a statement that bases Singpapore's position on the facts on the ground they have effected: "Since at least 1999, Singapore has been exercising its jurisdiction in the waters now covered by the recent extension of the Johor Bahru Port Limits. We have been patrolling the area regularly, and protested any intrusions or unauthorised activities."

  4. Careful consideration is again warranted with respect to the Khaw Boon Wan’s claim of Singapore having “exercising its jurisdiction.”

  The transport minister provided a map that does not show any formal claims over the disputed area prior to 6 December, 2018. The map shows the port limits that Singapore delimited prior to 6 December, 2018 and by definition and by Singapore’s claim that it has patrolled the area “since at least 1999” shows that Singapore has done so outside its port limits.

  In the same statement, the transport minister went on to announce the extension of Singapore's port limits over the disputed area. This appears to lend belated support to their "exercising jurisdiction" outside of their port limits and in the absence of a formal territorial claim.

  The minister’s statement claimed that Singapore has “been patrolling the area regularly” and “protested” activities therein. It stopped short of claiming that Singapore has pursued legal action or performed enforcement functions against the “illegal activities” it claims to have taken place, or citing any examples thereof. Despite Singapore having deemed these activities “illegal,” it is likely that Singapore was unable to pursue such actions and functions due to the absence of a formal territorial claim.

  The minister’s claim of “patrolling” is vague. Notably absent is any claim that the acts of “patrolling” amounted to the enforcement of any powers under the ambit of Singapore law, or that they were performed within the sovereign territory of Singapore. The transit of state vessels through an area, even if for security purposes, does not amount to the exercise of powers under the ambit of its laws.

• Relationship between My and Sg is certainly not well. It is a very big surprise that RSAF still send the mud Hen. The Doc had change the dynamics of relationship, within less than 24 months, multiple " problems" suddenly crop up from nothing.

  My goodness seriously? Tejas is 4++? No wonder IAF buying by the hundreds!

• Our PM @ Pakistan cooking up a multi million dollar deal involving industrial trade exchange with Pakistan PM Imran Khan, Proton & other Malaysian products for military stuff, possibly JF17?

  Reply
  No idea

• "As far as many Sg people r concern My is unreliable partner alway looking for problem. Lucky sg govt got sane brains to still maintaining a relationship. But the damage to ties by the old doctor is deep and will taking generations to heal."

  Singaporeans seem to feel that since his return, Dr M has been out to spoil our relationship with Singapore and that Najib was a better friend.

  But who is to say that Dr M is a troublemaker rather than that Najib was soft on defending our dues. One could say that at best, he had his priorities elsewhere and at worst, was compromised by whatever Singapore knew about MO1.

  As said, I would love to see our disagreements taken to international court and settled for good. If we are proven right then Singapore should assume some of the blame. And vice versa, of course.

• Steelshot, judging by news reports it seems Tun M's comments in Pakistan lend weight to speculations that Malaysia may lean towards 'China' for fighter planes. It showed a picture of Tun leaning into a jet fighter cockpit. Could it be the old man's contemplating buying the JF17?