Najib's Luconia Shoals surrender puts Ananda and Pexco's Sarawak concessions in the middle of the proverbial......

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Malaysia's virtual surrender of Luconia Shoals will have implications for oil concessions in the surrounding area, now only nominally granted by Petronas. The largest of these (their words, not mine) is the acerage granted Ananda Krishnan's Pexco. At least one of Pexco's concessions, labelled Block 3 in a Marine Sarawak document, lies just 68.25 nautical miles south west of the North Shoals.

China may or may not be within its rights to declare anything, including the Pexco concessions,within its Luconina Shoals EEZ, but that is not the point when considering the actions of a country that has shown it is happy to ignore international laws, norms and customs.

Poor Ananda, all this even after contributing RM 2 billion to the 1 MDB resuce..........

END 

Reference 

Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh decision suggests Malaysia has surrendered right to Luconia-removing own flag from Luconia Shoals in stark contrast with past practise

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These submissions by the  Government Of Singapore to the International Court Of Justice in the Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh matter were part of Singapore's ultimately successful defence against Malaysia's claim:

6.53 It should be noted that Malaysia has demonstrated her awareness of the significance of flying national emblems over territory for purposes of evidencing sovereignty. Malaysia demanded (and obtained) the lowering of the Singapore Ensign flown until 3 September 1968 over another lighthouse facility maintained by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, a territory over which Singapore does not exercise or claim sovereignty.

7.11 In the present case, neither Johor nor Malaysia ever protested against the regular flying of the British and Singapore emblems over Pedra Branca, even though this was done as a clear display of State authority and without seeking consent from Malaysia or Johor, and Malaysian officials were fully aware of this. 

7.12 Moreover, Malaysia’s long silence regarding this clear and public manifestation of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca since 1847 is in sharp contrast to Malaysia’s response to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on the lighthouse administered by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, an island which belongs to Malaysia. In 1968, Malaysia objected to the flying of the Singapore flag over Pulau Pisang Lighthouse320. Following Malaysia’s objection, Singapore ceased flying her flag on the Lighthouse. In contrast, at no time had Malaysia ever protested against Singapore’s flying of her flag over Pedra Branca. 7.13 If Malaysia had any belief that she had a claim to sovereignty over Pedra Branca, one would have expected Malaysia to have exercised or attempted to exercise her sovereign authority over the island in the same way that she had done with respect to Pulau Pisang, if only to put on record that, notwithstanding Singapore’s presence on Pedra Branca, Malaysia had sovereign authority over the island. This omission on Malaysia’s part is especially significant as it occurred shortly after Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965, when the governments of both countries treated each other with the utmost caution on bilateral issues. 

7.14 Singapore contends that, given these facts, Malaysia had consciously (and correctly) decided that, in contrast with Pulau Pisang, any protest was not appropriate with respect to the flying of the Singapore flag on Pedra Branca. 

Given that these arguments led to the decision against Malaysia, one would expect that the Government Of Malaysia would exercise and strenuously defend its right to fly the flag on all its possessions, but this was obviously not the case with Luconia Shoals.  It is hard to see that by removing its own flag, Malaysia has not surrendered its right to the Shoals.

In fact, it does seem as if China has already assumed control of the shoals:

(Hans Berekoven, an Australian  marine archaeologist) chose Malaysia's independence day, August 31 last year, to protest against the situation by raising the Malaysian flag on the tiny island.

It is the first time the video of the incident has been released.

"I took the curator of the museum that we're working with, and a couple of other Malaysian friends, and a journalist from the Borneo Post," he said.

They mounted a stainless steel flagpole into a cement footing and raised the Malaysian flag, as the China Coast Guard vessel watched from about 500m offshore.

"They must have got on the blower to Beijing and Beijing must have got on the blower to Kuala Lumpur, because suddenly there was a big kerfuffle in KL," Mr Berekoven said.

The next morning, a Malaysian aircraft flew low over Mr Berekoven's boat and the island.

"A Malaysian coast guard vessel was despatched. Went out there and unbolted the flag," he said.

"It's absolutely absurd. It's 88 miles, well within the 200 mile economic exclusion zone, and they've forced the Malaysians to take the flag down — their flag, asserting their authority, their sovereignty."

END 

Reference

ABC Australia reports that Malaysia surrendered special rights to Luconia Shoals to China : Rights to adjoining EEZ may be lost

Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh decision suggests Malaysia has surrendered right to Luconia-removing own flag from Luconia Shoals in stark contrast with past practise

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These submissions by the  Government Of Singapore to the International Court Of Justice in the Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh matter were part of Singapore's ultimately successful defence against Malaysia's claim:

6.53 It should be noted that Malaysia has demonstrated her awareness of the significance of flying national emblems over territory for purposes of evidencing sovereignty. Malaysia demanded (and obtained) the lowering of the Singapore Ensign flown until 3 September 1968 over another lighthouse facility maintained by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, a territory over which Singapore does not exercise or claim sovereignty.

7.11 In the present case, neither Johor nor Malaysia ever protested against the regular flying of the British and Singapore emblems over Pedra Branca, even though this was done as a clear display of State authority and without seeking consent from Malaysia or Johor, and Malaysian officials were fully aware of this. 

7.12 Moreover, Malaysia’s long silence regarding this clear and public manifestation of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca since 1847 is in sharp contrast to Malaysia’s response to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on the lighthouse administered by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, an island which belongs to Malaysia. In 1968, Malaysia objected to the flying of the Singapore flag over Pulau Pisang Lighthouse320. Following Malaysia’s objection, Singapore ceased flying her flag on the Lighthouse. In contrast, at no time had Malaysia ever protested against Singapore’s flying of her flag over Pedra Branca. 7.13 If Malaysia had any belief that she had a claim to sovereignty over Pedra Branca, one would have expected Malaysia to have exercised or attempted to exercise her sovereign authority over the island in the same way that she had done with respect to Pulau Pisang, if only to put on record that, notwithstanding Singapore’s presence on Pedra Branca, Malaysia had sovereign authority over the island. This omission on Malaysia’s part is especially significant as it occurred shortly after Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965, when the governments of both countries treated each other with the utmost caution on bilateral issues. 

7.14 Singapore contends that, given these facts, Malaysia had consciously (and correctly) decided that, in contrast with Pulau Pisang, any protest was not appropriate with respect to the flying of the Singapore flag on Pedra Branca. 

Given that these arguments led to the decision against Malaysia, one would expect that the Government Of Malaysia would exercise and strenuously defend its right to fly the flag on all its possessions, but this was obviously not the case with Luconia Shoals.  It is hard to see that by removing its own flag, Malaysia has not surrendered its right to the Shoals.

In fact, it does seem as if China has already assumed control of the shoals:

(Hans Berekoven, an Australian  marine archaeologist) chose Malaysia's independence day, August 31 last year, to protest against the situation by raising the Malaysian flag on the tiny island.

It is the first time the video of the incident has been released.

"I took the curator of the museum that we're working with, and a couple of other Malaysian friends, and a journalist from the Borneo Post," he said.

They mounted a stainless steel flagpole into a cement footing and raised the Malaysian flag, as the China Coast Guard vessel watched from about 500m offshore.

"They must have got on the blower to Beijing and Beijing must have got on the blower to Kuala Lumpur, because suddenly there was a big kerfuffle in KL," Mr Berekoven said.

The next morning, a Malaysian aircraft flew low over Mr Berekoven's boat and the island.

"A Malaysian coast guard vessel was despatched. Went out there and unbolted the flag," he said.

"It's absolutely absurd. It's 88 miles, well within the 200 mile economic exclusion zone, and they've forced the Malaysians to take the flag down — their flag, asserting their authority, their sovereignty."

END 

Reference

ABC Australia reports that Malaysia surrendered special rights to Luconia Shoals to China : Rights to adjoining EEZ may be lost

ABC Australia reports that Malaysia surrendered special rights to Luconia Shoals to China : Rights to adjoining EEZ may be lost

by Ganesh Sahathevan

ABC TV reported on Sunday 7 August  an incident on or about 31 August 2015 when Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency(Agensi Penguatkuasaan Maritim Malaysia) officers removed a Malaysian flag that had been planted on Luconia Shoals by  Australian marine archaeologist Hans Berekoven. 

The planting of the flag itself has been reported before (see below) but it was only yesterday that Berekoven revealed on ABC TV   that a MMEA Bombardier surveillance plane flew over after he planted the flag, and that MMEA officers then came on to the shoal and removed the Malaysian flag.

By doing so the Malaysian Government has signalled that it will not enforce its hitherto exclusive right to administer and enjoy the economic zone on and around Luconia Shoal. Given that China has been asserting what it says is its right to the shoal (and the entire South China Sea) ,it follows that China can now enjoy equal if not greater right to the shoal and the surrounding economic zone. 

The map below illustrates what has been lost.The polygons represent oil concessions awarded by Malaysia and Indonesia. 

The map may be viewed and enlarged at this link.

END 

Malaysian Mig-29 and F-5 Decisions in 2016?

Feb 16, 2016Angus Batey | ShowNews

• • EMAIL
• INSHARE

COMMENTS 0

Two A400Ms have now been delivered to the RMAF.

Compared to many other nations in the region, Malaysia has a relationship to China that seems positively laid-back. The government in Kuala Lumpur has long held a relaxed attitude toward supposed Chinese aggression, and even the curious case of the mooring of a Chinese Coast Guard vessel in Malaysian waters hasn’t caused much fuss.

At some point around 2013, an island formed in an area of reefs known both as Luconia Shoals and as Gugusan Beting Patinggi Ali, some 80 miles off the Sarawak coast. The new island aroused some territorial interest, despite its location well inside Malaysia’s economic zone. Around the same time, a Chinese Coast Guard vessel dropped anchor in the shoals and didn’t leave.

Last year, a Malaysian minister insisted that the area belonged to Malaysia and that its navy and coast guard were monitoring the area “to ensure the sovereignty of the country.” In August, the Malaysian government said it had been sending weekly letters of protest to China. Toward the end of September, local fishermen reported being threatened by armed men on the Chinese ship.

Last June, the shoals had a Malaysian flag planted on them, apparently for the first time – not by the Malaysian government, but by a German-born Australian marine archaeologist Hans Berekoven, who discovered the wreck of the HMS Viscount Melbourne near the shoals. The Melbourne sank while sailing from Singapore to Macau in 1842.

This leisurely approach to territorial disputes seems to be reflected in the progress of the nation’s military procurement programs. A decision is expected this year on a replacement for the Royal Malaysian Air Force’s MiG-29 and F-5 fleets, though the discussion has been ongoing since the start of the decade. All the usual suspects – BoeingF/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab JAS 39 Gripen – are in the running.

One new aircraft type is in service: The RMAF took delivery of its first Airbus A400M last year, and the second of four arrived in January.

Marine archaeologist stamps Malaysia’s mark on Luconia Shoals

 September 8, 2015, Tuesday Cindy Lai, reporters@theborneopost.com


AS the exploration of Viscount Melbourne, a 150-year-old British cargo vessel, that sank right under Luconia Shoals continues, amateur marine archaeologist Captain Hans Berekoven and his wife Roz as well as their team of marine researchers went on to make a bold move – re-establishing Malaysia’s sovereignty on the site by planting the ‘Jalur Gemilang’ there.

Upon planting the flag, Hans made an emotional statement that the move was important to warn China to back down.

“Even though Luconia Breakers and Shoals lie 322 miles within Malaysia’s Exclusive Economic Zone, they remain hotly disputed territory between the two countries due to the extensive, untapped oil and natural gas resources.

“For the past two years, with China Coast Guard vessel permanently anchoring in the area, in a distance of a mile away, I hereby strongly stand by my decision of putting the flag as I believe it was a more appropriate thing to do, in order to secure the safety,” he said.

Hans was among the group of explorers, amateur marine archaeologists as well as a Sarawak Museum curator who were on the flag-planting mission. The team set off to the site on the eve of Merdeka Day, and managed to complete their mission on Aug 31.

“The simple gesture was certainly a memorable one for Malaysia on this day of Independence, as we did this in full view of the Chinese Coast Guard and Royal Malaysian Navy vessels which were both nearby.

“The Malaysian government must take a serious look into this matter because it is also a maritime archaeological site of Viscount Melbourne,” he reiterated.

Multi-Governmental Support for Civilisation Research

In fact, the discovery of Viscount Melbourne was a coincidence as, according to Berekoven, during their research on Sunda Shelf they found clues leading to the shipwreck.

He revealed that he was currently on a mission to gather relevant information relating to Sunda Shelf, a sunken site surrounding Southern Asia that could prove a lost civilisation of over 12,000 years old.

“Based on my research and information gathered, it is possible that the lost civilisation of Sunda Shelf is much older than that of other known civilisations.

“According to history, the oldest known civilisation is said to be established 6,000 years ago. However, clues have shown that a 12,000-year-old civilisation was established on the floor of South China and Java Sea.

“The Ice Age, how it shaped the world and how it changed everything when the sea level went down and the Biblical flood that swept everything in a dramatic, very quick catastrophic event, we might not know exactly what happened, but we will find it.”

Hans added that the geological event is important because there are possibilities that 70 per cent of the animal on earth and more than 90 per cent of human vanished due to this during that time.

“If there was a city here (on Sunda Shelf), there is an indication that it could take thousands of years for human population to slowly build up and rapidly increase.

“If proven to be true, it will be a sensation that we could re-write history and rearrange the sequence of civilisations including Mesopotamia, India, Persian, Greek or Roman, according to the number of years,” he reiterated.

Hans further revealed that the Australian government had expressed interest in his project and pledged its support if he could get a formal invitation from Indonesia to participate.

“Now that we found historic wrecks, and we are attracting supports and the time is very good, we are now hoping to get support and formal invitation from Malaysia as well, and then we would have a three-governmental enterprise and we can hire seismic survey vessel and we could go up these rivers of Sunda Shelf using seismic ray to look underneath the surface.”

Though with high hopes, Hans said if he failed to get support, he would have to do it on his own effort, which would take more than a decade to complete.

“Either seismic survey vessel or bottom profiler, the expenses could take up to AUS$80,000 a day, which is why we need a multi-governmental strength to share the cost and manpower.

“Public support is needed as well as they too, need to know because they are also part of the civilisation,” he said.

Establishing Exhibition Centre

After Hans’ meeting with local businessman, Troy Yaw, the idea of setting up an exhibition centre was suggested as a way to appreciate the historic shipwreck.

During a recent interview with Yaw on the project, he told The Borneo Post that due to the nature and number of artefacts that they have managed to salvage, it is possible to set up an exhibition centre.

“The effort of bringing up these artefacts already takes a lot of time and energy, because being buried more than 42 metres underwater at such a low temperature limits divers to only 10 minutes per trip.”

On the venue, Yaw said it would only be decided once the artefacts were ready.

“For now, not only we need to make sure there are a sufficient number of artefacts for public display, we have to take into account the maintenance expenses that would include air-conditioning system (to maintain low temperature), the electricity and water bills, security guard etc.

“Should we successfully establish such a centre, it would create a platform for educational purpose, for young people to learn about our maritime history,” he said.

A maritime history fan himself, Yaw further said he would make sure that the exhibit centre feature sculptures of significant maritime figures like Admiral Zheng He, a Chinese-Muslim from Yunnan, China.

“It is important to introduce Zheng He (or Cheng Ho) due to his navigating skills and his broad horizon voyaging to places. Study carefully, we would find that Zheng He’s fleets visited Malacca, Brunei, Java, Thailand, Southeast Asia, India, Africa and Arabia, dispensing and receiving goods along the way.”

Australia will be spying on Russia-China drills to learn of what Russians & Chinese want Australia to know

Comment

Australia's Department of Defence has also indicated that the highly stealthy Collins class submarines
and P3-Orions (these days kept at home in Darwin) will be used in the exercise.This sounds more like an act of desperation by a department trying to show that it is doing something.

Australia set to gather intelligence on
military drills between
China and Russia

• David Wroe

 

Australia is likely to have military assets in the South China Sea to gather vital intelligence on a joint drill between Chinese and Russian forces next month, Fairfax Media understands.

The exercise between Chinese and Russian ships and planes is intended to send a signal of defiance to the West but defence sources and experts say it will also provide a gold mine of intelligence on how the major powers' militaries work together.

A Defence source told Fairfax Media that assets were expected to be used to collect information, though the source declined to say what kind.

"It would be foolish for Defence to miss an opportunity like this," the source said.

Surface warships could also observe from over the horizon though this is less likely because they are committed elsewhere. This overt observation is more likely to be undertaken by the US Navy, Fairfax Media has been told.The deployment of a Collins Class submarine would be one option. The simplest way to observe the drills would be with the RAAF's P-3 Orion surveillance planes, which routinely fly over the South China Sea as part of Operation Gateway.

Advertisement

The Australian Defence Force has in the past adjusted the timing of Operation Gateway patrols to match events of particular interest.

Defence has previously said it varies the path of such patrols depending on what is worth observing, including whether to devote more effort for example to the South China Sea rather than the Indian Ocean.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting in June. Photo: AP

Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said it would be "routine business for Australia to want to observe such an exercise with its P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft".

"I imagine there would be a great deal of interest from us and the Americans in how effectively the Chinese and Russians are able to operate together," he said.

The RAAF's P-3 Orion surveillance planes routinely fly over the South China Sea. 

Mr Jennings, a former senior Defence Department official, said the joint exercise was "more about political show than genuine military co-operation".

"Increasingly [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] identify each other as like-minded countries that are prepared to push against the established international system," he said. "It's a marriage of strategic convenience which is designed to create maximum discomfort for the US and its allies."

Retired Royal Australian Navy rear admiral James Goldrick said it would "certainly be worthwhile" to observe the drills. Planes or ships would not need to get too close, but rather could observe from over the horizon and pick up signals and radar signatures.

"It wouldn't be a matter of having to fly 500 metres overhead," he said.

Mr Goldrick said even if they weren't natural allies in the long term, China's and Russia's interests currently were aligned around opposing "the world order that they see effectively as having been set up by the US".

Mr Putin had calculated that China rather than the US was a preferable relationship to "restore Russia to where it thinks it ought to be", he said.

Follow us on Twitter

Australia will be spying on Russia-China drills to learn of what Russians & Chinese want Australia to know

Comment

Australia's Department of Defence has also indicated that the highly stealthy Collins class submarines
and P3-Orions (these days kept at home in Darwin) will be used in the exercise.This sounds more like an act of desperation by a department trying to show that it is doing something.

Australia set to gather intelligence on
military drills between
China and Russia

• David Wroe

 

Australia is likely to have military assets in the South China Sea to gather vital intelligence on a joint drill between Chinese and Russian forces next month, Fairfax Media understands.

The exercise between Chinese and Russian ships and planes is intended to send a signal of defiance to the West but defence sources and experts say it will also provide a gold mine of intelligence on how the major powers' militaries work together.

A Defence source told Fairfax Media that assets were expected to be used to collect information, though the source declined to say what kind.

"It would be foolish for Defence to miss an opportunity like this," the source said.

Surface warships could also observe from over the horizon though this is less likely because they are committed elsewhere. This overt observation is more likely to be undertaken by the US Navy, Fairfax Media has been told.The deployment of a Collins Class submarine would be one option. The simplest way to observe the drills would be with the RAAF's P-3 Orion surveillance planes, which routinely fly over the South China Sea as part of Operation Gateway.

Advertisement

The Australian Defence Force has in the past adjusted the timing of Operation Gateway patrols to match events of particular interest.

Defence has previously said it varies the path of such patrols depending on what is worth observing, including whether to devote more effort for example to the South China Sea rather than the Indian Ocean.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting in June. Photo: AP

Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said it would be "routine business for Australia to want to observe such an exercise with its P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft".

"I imagine there would be a great deal of interest from us and the Americans in how effectively the Chinese and Russians are able to operate together," he said.

The RAAF's P-3 Orion surveillance planes routinely fly over the South China Sea. 

Mr Jennings, a former senior Defence Department official, said the joint exercise was "more about political show than genuine military co-operation".

"Increasingly [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping] identify each other as like-minded countries that are prepared to push against the established international system," he said. "It's a marriage of strategic convenience which is designed to create maximum discomfort for the US and its allies."

Retired Royal Australian Navy rear admiral James Goldrick said it would "certainly be worthwhile" to observe the drills. Planes or ships would not need to get too close, but rather could observe from over the horizon and pick up signals and radar signatures.

"It wouldn't be a matter of having to fly 500 metres overhead," he said.

Mr Goldrick said even if they weren't natural allies in the long term, China's and Russia's interests currently were aligned around opposing "the world order that they see effectively as having been set up by the US".

Mr Putin had calculated that China rather than the US was a preferable relationship to "restore Russia to where it thinks it ought to be", he said.

Follow us on Twitter