PRCs go nuts over Fishing Islands

[Renegade777]

Clearly you need to read what you've been writing because clearly that has been lacking in terms of sense and reasoning.

 

And yes your friends have been writing just that. Chinese means must support Chinese people.

 

Don't talk rubbish lah. You are going round and round after you run out of reasons. Nevermind, take out your NRIC card and state your race.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Renegade777

[Cerano]

Don't talk rubbish lah. Take out your NRIC card and states your race or your NRIC do not state your race at all ? Please state your race.

 

Are you blind? Have you not read what ive said at all?

 

It doesnt matter what race or nationality we are.

 

If China is right then its right no matter what.

 

Nothing to do with my NRIC or your NRIC or anyone's NRIC

[Renegade777]

Are you blind? Have you not read what ive said at all?

 

It doesnt matter what race or nationality we are.

 

If China is right then its right no matter what.

 

Nothing to do with my NRIC or your NRIC or anyone's NRIC

 

Just state your nationality. It is so difficult ?

[Happily1986]

1. PRC government do not explain the absence and inertia of its sovereign objection over the occupation of Senkakus islands by Japan/US using the above "turmoil" argument.It could be that the governments realise it is not a legal argument but more of a emotional persuasion.

 

Disagreed. The PRC govt did not raise objections not because they were going to acquiesce. Rather they did not object because they weren't even aware that the Japanese had surreptitiously regarded the disputed territories as its own when Japan had to cede all territories forcibly acquired, at the end of WW2 as part of its unconditional surrender.

 

This seems to me like a sleight of hand trick because;

 

When Japan annexed the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in 1895, it detached them from Taiwan and placed them under Okinawa Prefecture. Moreover, the Japanese name

[Happily1986]

This is exactly why Zhou Enlai protested against the treaty of San Franciso: a protest signifies that the PRC does not give up sovereignty of the islands despite not being a signatory of the peace treaty of 1951, as a official protest has legal implications on sovereignty disputes in the future.

 

Refer to the above post #440 for the long list of protest.

 

 

 

I don't see it that way though. I viewed the enforcement of a treaty which curiously excludes the rightful stakeholder(s) in question as being very strange. Anyway, my original point of the Chinese not being signatories is not to illustrate that the Chinese are rebels without a legal cause/banner.

 

Rather, i am quite sure to say that the San Francisco Treaty is defective because it deliberately omits one of the stakeholders involved in the issue. As you have mentioned, legal arguments concerning disputes of territories tend to favour those which draw their basis from treaties because such arguments tend to omit emotional sway and chest thumping rhetoric. Things which the Court would most love to keep a 100 foot pole away from.

 

However, the caveat here is, the legal argument borrowing credence from treaties will be shaky if the treaty in question is defective. And i am quite sure that by deliberately excluding the Chinese at the negotiation table back then, this treaty could possibly count as one (defective treaty)

[Cerano]

Just state your nationality. It is so difficult ?

 

Im Singaporean Chinese

 

[Happily1986]

I guess the short reason could be because the language of the foreign minister can be explained as excessive caution as

China was still the undisputed hegemon of the region in the 1880s.

 

Moreover, it doesn't mean approval of the view by the higher Japanese authorities.

 

Taking a small piece of red area by smaller Japan was then still considered by many to be weaker than the regional hegemon of China.

 

 

Does it mandate that the failure to register a protest at the point of negotiation(s) is necessarily viewed as being bochup (my bad, i mean the intent to acquiesce). Surely, the absence of a written objection cannot be held as legal binding evidence that the Chinese had ceded their position?

 

If it were, i would be very worried at the prospects of the legal precedence it would otherwise herald. Just imagine, my decision is conferred recognition and acknowledgement legally not just by writing. My lack of a written reply would have been taken as one!

Edited September 23, 2012 by Happily1986

[Happily1986]

To be it in simple terms, even if PRC/ROC were not signatories, they still can demonstrate not acquiescing

by protesting against the treaty. Protest has legal implications in that the sovereign does not give up

the right to assert claim over the territory.

 

That is why Zhou Enlai protested.

 

 

Refer to my previous post #453.

[Renegade777]

Im Singaporean Chinese

 

No need debate leow. Thanks and have a great Sunday.

 

 

[Cerano]

No need debate leow. Thanks and have a great Sunday.

 

Thanks and have a great holiday in China

[2BDriver]

I believe it happened in China, a man cast his fishing line from his apartment balcony down to the river below and he did caught one fish successfully

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfBkoo7gRFM

[Wishcumstrue]

I believe it happened in China, a man cast his fishing line from his apartment balcony down to the river below and he did caught one fish successfully

 

uncle ah, I know it's TGIF... But why on earth do you wanna dig up a 3 years old thead just to post a irrelevent comment ?

 

For the benefit to current readers, suggust that taking a moment to go thru some of the very informative posts from various past contributors to get a more balanced persepctive on this topic rather than repeating same comments.

 

Afterall, its FRIDAY!!!