Friday, June 12, 2015

Thalatta! Thalatta!

"Thalatta! Thalatta!" (The sea! The sea!) was the exulted call of the Greek mercenary army when they sighted the Black Sea after their long arduous retreat from Persia - in Xenophon's book 'Anabasis' (401 BCE)

TMI - Time to rename South China Sea? – Ferooze Ali

China (Taiwan), Philippines & Vietnam have similar ridiculously large claims,
bearing in mind the Filipinos once even claimed (maybe still does) the entire state of Sabah (British North Borneo) as well 

Typically, a name projects a distinct culture, identity and more importantly for land and other space resources – a connection to a certain community. Along with maps and scientific stations, it is one of the most visible markers of national presence, while territorial naming at the international level is long recognised as a strategic tool for creating new facts on the ground. [...]

... in an effort to mitigate and find middle ground in the disputed waters, there is a need for smaller countries, particularly Asean member states to include a finer strategy in its overall diplomatic approach. 

This includes the need to consider alternative names to an already entrenched South China Sea.

The seas in the disputed territory can be changed to a neutral name, which reflects a collective sharing of waters among close neighbours.

Various names have been suggested to reflect this, such as the Southern Seas or South East Asia Seas.

However, the point is to lobby and change the South China Sea into a universally acceptable name that will make any future Chinese military action be rightly perceived as intrusive and in direct violation of international waters regulations.

What else would Ferooze Ali recommend to change the South China Sea into a universally acceptable name that will make any future Chinese military action be rightly perceived as intrusive and in direct violation of international waters regulations?

UN Sea? Indian Ocean II? Maybe even the Japanese Sea, wakakaka?

In the 1960's (former, the late) President Soekarno, who was a far BIGGER megalomaniac than our Malaysian version wakakaka, insisted that what we have always known as the Indian Ocean be called the Indonesian Ocean (Samudera* Indonesia).

* ironically the word 'samudera' is an Indian word, wakakaka

Here is an article by Kompasiana on that (extract only):

Soekarno & Kapal RI Irian

Nama Samudera Indonesia pernah dipopulerkan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia zaman Bung Karno, bukan tanpa alasan, bukankah sebelum merdeka nama kepulauan Indonesia itu Hindia Belanda atau Nederlands-Indie?

Hanya saja nama Nederlands-Indie dalam bahasa Inggris ternyata Dutch East Indies. India yang pernah dikuasai Belanda ternyata hanya disebut India Timur, India aslinya ya di tanah Hindustan. Jadi nama samudera di barat selatan Indonesia itu mana yang benar? 

Mestinya nama yang diakui internasional adalah Indian Ocean atau Samudera India dan di Indonesia dulu sampai sekarang disebut Samudera Hindia, kecuali waktu tahun 1960an pada puncak kejayaan politik Sukarno. 

Akan tetapi bila orang Indonesia mau menamakan Samudera Indonesia sebagai nama lokal mengapa tidak, orang China zaman dinasti Ming, saat Laksamana Cheng Ho keliling Asia, dahulu menyebutnya dengan sebuah nama china yang artinya Lautan Barat atau Western Ocean.

I think indulging in meaningless nonsense such as mere name changing in a vain hope to effect a political and sovereignty resolution will be a fruitless and laughable venture. After all, did the name Iraq or Afghanistan or earlier, Vietnam make any future Chinese American military action be rightly perceived as intrusive and in direct violation of international waters sovereignty regulations at the respective time of occurrence of those events?

And we could easily say the same for Israel in their illegal attacks on Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine and even on the high seas with regards to criminal armed piracy on the Turkish sea vessel MV Mavi Marmara.

Instead, the ASEAN littoral states of the South China Sea could do better by combining as a bloc to engage China in diplomatic negotiations over sovereignty issues in the waters around them.

But as a first step, and indeed far more importantly, they need to resolve such sovereignty issues among themselves, where Malaysia currently has territorial disputes with Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and even Brunei.

Indeed, how can the ASEAN littoral states negotiate with China when they can't even resolve such issues among themselves?


  1. This is more worthy news

  2. The South China Sea is actually part of the Pacific Ocean. The cause of dispute is clear. It is strongly rumored that South China Sea holds huge oil and gas reserves beneath its seabed. To give it a name change could easily lead to a war. Well, the West would love to send their mercenaries… i.e. like the exulted call of “Thalatta! Thalatta!” - by the Greek mercenary army. Wakakaka…

    However, below is an interesting article that links oil and gas drilling to earthquakes. Thus, earthquakes also make oil and gas easier to be found.

    Truly, I would support that the Indian Ocean should be renamed as Indonesian Ocean or Samudera Hindia. We should ask the Dutch, why not? Please take note that Hindia is not India.

    I agree with KT, and I would not egged ASEAN littoral states on negotiating with China when they can’t even resolve such issue among themselves?

    1. From Forbes:
      The 35 islands and hundreds more reefs and guano-covered rocks are spread across an area the size of California but comprise less land area than San Francisco. The Chinese and Vietnamese think there might be great bonanzas of oil and gas there. The U.S. Energy Information Administration thinks the chance of that is roughly zero.

      Indeed the Spratlys are not important for any oil and gas under them — but rather because of the oil and gas (and everything else under the sun) that floats past them. More than half of world maritime trade passes through the South China Sea, with the world’s busiest shipping lane passing right by the Spratlys. That includes billions of barrels of oil a year and hundreds of billions of cubic feet worth of liquefied natural gas. Control this flow and you control the energy security of Asia.

    2. The South China Sea is so big. There is oil and gas. It is a question of whether you've got the money to throw/invest in the exploration. It just take one company to find oil and the rest would follow and invest. It is for the future.

  3. Chao cibai hasan, what the fuck you are going to do about this? Sign from Allah.........hahahahaha......fuck you

  4. Looes - I receive "ilham" from the winds that if you stop chao cibai-ing KT and me, the earthquake would stop? Apa macam? Why not you try to be sober for 40 days? Be good yea...

  5. What is in a name ? Plenty.
    In the context of a country claiming a piece of land or water as its own sovereign territory, place names have tremendous moral and emotional power, sometimes even legal power under international law.
    For the Occupied West Bank, Israel has extinguished the name of Palestine or Jordan in its official statements. Instead they use the ancient Hebrew names of Judea and Samaria.
    Argentina insists on its right to the Malvinas.
    When Prussia , then Germany ruled the Polish city of Gdansk, the name was erased for over a century, replaced by the German name of Danzig instead.

    So in the context of China's Nine-Dashed Line claim over 80% of the sea area, the fact it is internationally called the South China Sea is already half argument won. However, it is silly to rename the sea, just for the sake of international politics.

    All the countries of South East Asia have illogical and even downright silly claims over various portions of the Sea. However, in over 5 decades that the various states have been in existence, none has chosen to militarise the claims, except now, with China.

    That is why the Chinese construction of concrete airfields on artificial reclaimed land in the Spratlys, 1,200 kilometres from the Chinese territory of Hainan is an unprecedented escalation.
    On Mischief Reef also in the Spratlys, military narrow beam radar (typically used for missile and anti-aircraft gun target guidance) have been detected by both Philippines and US forces.

    Malaysia is being stupid , keeping quiet and softly, softly for fear of antagonising China. No one is suggesting escalating this into a military tension, but Malaysia must clearly tell China and the world that the Chinese exercise of sovereign military activity on the disputed islands is unacceptable.

    The International Court of Justice ruling awarding former Pulau Batu Putih to Singapore should have been a wake up call.
    Unfortunately, Malaysia's BTN-ised Government Legal Service, especially its political Attorney General probably lacks the IQ and Brain matter to understand the implications of the wording in the ruling.

    In International Law, peaceful possession over an extended period of time, especially without any publicised objection by the other party, is 9/10's of the law.

    In fact, the Hague court did not deny that the Johor Sultanate originally owned Pedra Branca. However, for over 120 years , the Crown Colony of Singapore, and its successor, the Republic of Singapore, exercised sovereign activity on the island - operating a Singapore government-owned lighthouse, manned by Singaporeans on the island.

    Malaysia was not able to unearth a single shred of evidence that the Johor Sultanate, its successor state, the Federation of Malaya, then Malaysia, over a period of 100 years, had ever made clear to Singapore - "that Island belongs to us, you are only allowed to operate the lighthouse with our permission".

    China understands this law very well, that is why it is already exercising sovereign activity on these disputed islands.

    That is how Malaysia lost Pedra Branca - by silence , and that is how it is going to lose sea zone less than 80 km from Bintulu, Sarawak - James Shoal - to China, Hainan Island, 1200 km away, by its silence.

    By the way, I have chosen to highlight the relative distance to Malaysian territory and to the nearest internationally recognised Chinese territory - Hainan Island, to show the unreasonableness of China's Nine-Dash-Line claim, jutting like a phallus into almost the whole of the South China Sea.

    Asean must not allow China to take its preferred path on the Nine-Dash-Line issue , divide the South East Asian states and deal with them individually. And Asean must not allow China to gain sovereign rights over the disputed seas, by silence.
    Silence is nearly consent, from an international legal point of view.

    1. to say that Johor didn't voice any objections for the last 100 years fails to recognize that Poms were ruling us as a colony for more than a hundred years until 1957 and Singapore until 1963

    2. as for Israel using "the ancient Hebrew names of Judea and Samaria" for the West Bank, it's not recognized by anyone, not even their best ally, the USA.

      Incidentally, as a side note, it's not "Hebrew" but "Israelite" - there's a big difference between the two words, which I'll be blogging on soon

    3. wakakakakakakaka....sigh..

      'to say that Johor didn't voice any objections for the last 100 years fails to recognize that Poms were ruling us as a colony for more than a hundred years until 1957 and Singapore until 1963'

      kt...kt.. havent u been concurring with yr sifu & those ketuanan kakis about the POMs been 'ONLY' acted as advisors to the Melayu sultanates at the 'invitation' of the blue-bloodeds??????

      Why the terbalik NOW????

      Fact-twister extraordinaire???

      Grow some more skin on yr face lah & get someone to teach u 厚黑学, iff u need to follow yr sifu's iron mask appearance!


    4. as I mentioned earlier, Prof Khoo was partially incorrect and correct, incorrect because the POMs directly ruled over the two crown colonies of Penang and Sing and the Strait Settlements which included Malacca, and correct because they were technically in their role as British Residents in the Malay Sultanates, the last meaning that the sultanates were not colonised.

      In my above statement I accept that I was technically too casual (mea culpa), but then the British Residents, as the one in Johor, were de facto handling the sort of stuff associated with external affairs which would include the use of Johor's Pedra Branca as a light house for British controlled sea navigation around their crown colony of Sing

      Nothing sinister nor duplicitous in my explanation above, but as mentioned I accept I had been too technically casual in my choice of words - but I'm glad I made you happy, wakakaka

    5. let's pick a bone from the kt's chicken egg;

      '....they were technically in their role as British Residents in the Malay Sultanates, the last meaning that the sultanates were not colonised.'

      Then pls do explain under what power/jurisdiction that the British Residents could be exiled Sultan Abdullah Muhammad Shah II to the Seychelles in 1894? Ditto with Perak, too.

      wahlau-eh! The advising British Residents had more power than a ruling sultan in a sovereign state!

    6. due to clashes between Perak' local chiefs and Chinese tin miners, Sultan Abdullah II himself wrote to and invited the British to send a Resident-Advisor to support his rule. Thus he had British support and ascended to the Perak throne over his rival (Ismail) by the Treaty of Pangkor and accorded extensive powers to the Resident. When Birch was assassinated, he was implicated. While the actual assassins were executed, he was exiled to the Seychelles for his complicity in the crime, ironically by the powers he accorded to the British. You can say that it was a combination fo such extended powers plus the British gunboat diplomacy. Didn't Mao tell us that power comes from the barrel of a gun?

    7. Good twist for Perak. How about Selangor then?

      So....colonized or not????

      Just answer truthfully lah!!!

    8. my dear CK, you can find out yourself as I'm not a provider of such information, but a blogger who posts topical issues in accordance with my wishes, views and opinions. I can entertain my readers/visitors to a certain extent but I'm not at their complete disposal, wakakaka

    9. Kaytee's admission of defeat to CK.........hahahahaha

      This is fun

    10. I'm NOT trying to nail u.

      But I want honesty from u, while u twist & blog! Otherwise, declare as so about u taking side!

      So, what happen NOW - 'A meeting place to exchange views'?

      Should I add ' at my pleasure & must of collinear thinking."?

      U know my view & I know yrs in our previous interchange in this topic. U'd turned & ignored my arguments then & now u r doing the same!

      That call for yr ulterior motive for yr blogging - in the same take as about yr showcasing of yr biblical knowledge in thrashing the 2 other earlier Abrahamic faiths.

      I sincerely think that there r more to yr declared superficial intention. Sama sama as yr sifu? Not just bruised ego, wounded pride.....sigh...

      Then again, snake & rat r known to be in same lair under the control/influence of the 'master'. No?????

    11. wakakaka, don't find comfort in looes teasing lies - he's a provocateur who would say any damn thing just to rile people, thus you haven't nail me in the least. BTW, I'm not ignoring your arguments if they are reasonable. For example, if you want to insist that the sultanates were colonised (when they were not) then what's the point of discussing any further - if you wish to believe there's sinister intentions on my part, you're welcomed to do so but you're definitely barking up the wrong tree

    12. Hisham rais is a provacateur too. So does pak samad. Heck, even martin mcguinness is a provacateur

  6. What is happening in South China Sea is the works of the Americans who are determined to contain China at all costs. East China Sea have been controlled by Japan and Taiwan, Americans strong allies and the only sea rout open for China is the South China Sea and the Chinese will do everything ever go to war to protect this region falling to the Americans. With the Americans tenacious provocation and Japan in the process to petrol this area……I won’t be surprise that China soon up the ante to build missiles base here.

    Understandable China assertions on the South China Sea were done with defensive purposes. During Second Sino-Japanese war, Japan invaded Manchuria bringing in their armies from Korea peninsular then marched into central China in the course of the Second World War. They blockage all the sea routs from East China Sea to South China Sea squeezing China out from supplies forcing the Chinese deep into the interior. China has taken a devastating beating because they are not prepared for a total war. Here they learned a good lesson……is they reason why they have to fortify South China Sea from the Americans powerful navy from any blockage.

    China will not allow any Americans troops at their border too… precisely the reason they send in their army to aids North Korea during the Korean War when the North were about to be defeated and change the tide of the war denying the American a strong foothold in Korea peninsular. Al least now they have a buffer…..any funny ideas from the Americans and Japanese to bring in armies from here will turn Korean peninsula into a catastrophic battle ground. South China Sea will face the same fate is not a guess….but a logical and wise strategy for China to stop American powerful navy here with their planes and deadly missiles.


    Johor did not get a British "Adviser" until 1914.
    Before 1914, Johor was legally and also in fact an independent state, the Sultanate of Johor.
    No doubt Britain was exerting interference and influence starting way back in the 1850's, but Johor was not administered by the British until 1914.

    The International Court of Justice also took note of this fact.

    Also, there is no way Malaysia can blame Britain for its silence on the subject from 1957 until 1979, when Malaysia , for the first time, published a map showing Pulau Batu Putih as part of its territory.

    1. my earlier response to you was in regards to your comment about "Johor didn't voice any objections for the last 100 years" with emphasis on the "last 100 years"