hey, i want to ship depleted uranium on your ship? What route? I dont care. You decide
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious Terrex AFV confiscation in HKG: The Implications and Revelations
- Thread starter Papsmearer
- Start date
so s2pig of dem ...
dey shud brame apl n hk n prc if dey did not win ze contract ...
dey shud oso sue apl n hk n prc 4 jeopardising their chances of winning ze US$121.5m contract ... US$121.5m woh! ... can feed ah loon n his jingang 4 1 yr ...
according 2 dose txt in brack, which presumably was extracted from ze oz article , it says sinkielanz military failed 2 update demselves ... so, u shud not put brame on on apl ... most likely, it is not in anybodyz kpi, so no 1 bothered ...
btw, cannot access dat article as it requires subscription ...
ya, man! ...
like wat ah seng wenger said ... evry1 tinks dey haf ze prettiest wife @ home ...
Another case of an honest mistake lah.
Anyone know what happened to those 26 cracked trains that were returned to China?
Did anyone at SMRT get punished or was it just another honest mistake.
Maybe the PAP should stop doing business in China since they lack the quanxi or business know how.
SAF cant send beloved commandos? They too busy training for NDP?
U are right, i can almost assure you that the Terrex has many features that the Chinese vehicles do not have and would like to incorporate
here is the Article.
Rowan Callick
[h=1]China’s stance on personnel carriers highlights regional friction[/h]
- The Australian
- 12:00AM December 1, 2016
- Save
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on email
- Share more...
- 2
- [h=2]Rowan Callick[/h]
China Correspondent
Beijing
The seizure by Hong Kong’s Customs of nine Terrex *armoured personnel carriers owned by the Singapore Army is throwing a spotlight on the complex, swirling relationships *between China, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong.
These Chinese-speaking *jurisdictions are more contrasting in their governance and cultures than English-speaking countries such as Australia, the US and Britain.
The four share linguistic and cultural affinities, but vary vastly in other ways. It was once said that they together comprise “Greater China”. But that concept has fallen into disuse as people in the smaller jurisdictions have taken to self-describing as Taiwanese and Hong Kongers, as well, of course, as Singaporeans — rather than primarily as “Chinese”.
All four are involved in the chain of events through which the carriers ended up in Hong Kong, for they had been used by Singaporean soldiers exercising in Taiwan.
And China is of course *engaged as the sovereign of Hong Kong, as well as claiming sovereignty over Taiwan.
The vituperation in the coverage of the seizure highlights the intense emotions between the four, especially on the part of those in China who feel betrayed that any people of “Chinese” *ethnic origin should fail to *acknowledge the authority of the People’s Republic.
In Singapore’s case, the background is long and deep. Deng Xiaoping and Lee Kuan Yew were close. Deng viewed Singapore as a model for the potential development of the People’s *Republic.
Singapore’s 20th-century concerns about communist *incursions in its surrounding neighbourhood were, Beijing has implied, quietly addressed.
But now, when China has been seeking friends in the *region over the South China Sea and other issues, Singapore seems to be among those most questioning of Beijing’s role, and semi-hosts small American surface ships, as Darwin hosts US marine training.
China’s nationalistic Global Times has led the attack against Singapore fiercely.
On Tuesday its Chinese-language edition published a news story citing a “military expert” who said the designer of the personnel carriers “has little to be proud of. It is merely an assembly of parts from different countries, and its performance is not outstanding compared with similar vehicles.”
The article said “neither China’s People’s Liberation Army nor its defence industry will care about gaining information about it. China’s land *vehicles are much more *advanced than Singapore’s.”
So there.
The publication said “this matter is completely Singapore’s fault”, since such equipment should not have been taken to Taiwan, with which China *opposes any military contacts.
It conceded that “Singapore is good at playing a big country *diplomatically, although it is a small one”.
But this small nation has such a bad image, it said, that Chinese people would prefer the vehicles to be confiscated and melted down in a steel mill.
It added about Stanley Lo, the Singapore ambassador to China — who said on Monday his government would not be cowed by the incident — that “he must have had his head kicked by a donkey”.
There is a history to this *antipathy. Lo became outraged two months ago about Global Times comments on Singapore’s position on the South China Sea; the city-state has been more critical of China than some ASEAN peers.
Global Times editor Hu Xijin had written that at a conference, Singapore echoed the stances of the US and Japan over territorial disputes in the region. Lo *attacked the report as fabricated.
Wang Haibin, a senior consultant at Oak Valley Think Tank in China who is being *widely cited there on this issue, said about Singapore: “Being small and weak are not obstacles to survival, but arrogance is.”
Since the demise of Lee, he said, the country had “rapidly stepped from prosperity to arrogance, and with the European Union and America retreating from globalisation and ideological confrontation, Singapore has stepped up to the frontline to *resist China”.
The vehicles were carried to Hong Kong in a ship owned by a line that in June was sold by Singapore’s Temasek Holdings to French-controlled CMA-CGM, one of the world’s biggest shipping companies.
There is speculation in Taiwan that the resulting rationalisations involved cutting the former direct route from Kaohsiung in Taiwan to Singapore, so that the ships now sail via Hong Kong, and that Singapore’s military may have failed to update its arrangements and paperwork accordingly.
Questions are also being asked in Taiwan about whether the vehicles contained their battlefield management systems — which co-ordinate their communications with other platforms. These are likely to be compatible with US and NATO systems, and those in use by Asian allies including Australia.
Answers to some of these questions may never be forthcoming publicly.
But the overall message from the issue is clear — that China, as its power rises, wishes places with which it expects to find at least cultural compatibility to *refrain from opposing it at the very least.
Singapore’s role as a conduit with Taiwan has been of value to China as recently as a year ago, when it hosted the historic meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and former Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou, the first between such leaders since Taiwan and the People’s Republic split in 1949.
Now the disliked Democratic Progressive Party is in power, under President Tsai Ing-wen, Beijing would expect at least some accommodative distancing by Singapore. But no.
The fates however, have delivered a handy riposte in the shape of the personnel carriers, and China will wring maximum value from that awkwardness.
The above article also mentions that Zikapore's ambassador to China, Stanley Lo, should be kicked in the head by a donkey. LOL. Who agrees with that?
China’s nationalistic Global Times has led the attack against Singapore fiercely.
On Tuesday its Chinese-language edition published a news story citing a “military expert” who said the designer of the personnel carriers “has little to be proud of. It is merely an assembly of parts from different countries, and its performance is not outstanding compared with similar vehicles.”
The article said “neither China’s People’s Liberation Army nor its defence industry will care about gaining information about it. China’s land *vehicles are much more *advanced than Singapore’s.”
So there.
The publication said “this matter is completely Singapore’s fault”, since such equipment should not have been taken to Taiwan, with which China *opposes any military contacts.
It conceded that “Singapore is good at playing a big country *diplomatically, although it is a small one”.
But this small nation has such a bad image, it said, that Chinese people would prefer the vehicles to be confiscated and melted down in a steel mill.
It added about Stanley Lo, the Singapore ambassador to China — who said on Monday his government would not be cowed by the incident — that “he must have had his head kicked by a donkey”.
There is a history to this *antipathy. Lo became outraged two months ago about Global Times comments on Singapore’s position on the South China Sea; the city-state has been more critical of China than some ASEAN peers.
Global Times editor Hu Xijin had written that at a conference, Singapore echoed the stances of the US and Japan over territorial disputes in the region. Lo *attacked the report as fabricated.
Wang Haibin, a senior consultant at Oak Valley Think Tank in China who is being *widely cited there on this issue, said about Singapore: “Being small and weak are not obstacles to survival, but arrogance is.”
Since the demise of Lee, he said, the country had “rapidly stepped from prosperity to arrogance, and with the European Union and America retreating from globalisation and ideological confrontation, Singapore has stepped up to the frontline to *resist China”.
China’s nationalistic Global Times has led the attack against Singapore fiercely.
On Tuesday its Chinese-language edition published a news story citing a “military expert” who said the designer of the personnel carriers “has little to be proud of. It is merely an assembly of parts from different countries, and its performance is not outstanding compared with similar vehicles.”
The article said “neither China’s People’s Liberation Army nor its defence industry will care about gaining information about it. China’s land *vehicles are much more *advanced than Singapore’s.”
So there.
The publication said “this matter is completely Singapore’s fault”, since such equipment should not have been taken to Taiwan, with which China *opposes any military contacts.
It conceded that “Singapore is good at playing a big country *diplomatically, although it is a small one”.
But this small nation has such a bad image, it said, that Chinese people would prefer the vehicles to be confiscated and melted down in a steel mill.
It added about Stanley Lo, the Singapore ambassador to China — who said on Monday his government would not be cowed by the incident — that “he must have had his head kicked by a donkey”.
There is a history to this *antipathy. Lo became outraged two months ago about Global Times comments on Singapore’s position on the South China Sea; the city-state has been more critical of China than some ASEAN peers.
Global Times editor Hu Xijin had written that at a conference, Singapore echoed the stances of the US and Japan over territorial disputes in the region. Lo *attacked the report as fabricated.
Wang Haibin, a senior consultant at Oak Valley Think Tank in China who is being *widely cited there on this issue, said about Singapore: “Being small and weak are not obstacles to survival, but arrogance is.”
Since the demise of Lee, he said, the country had “rapidly stepped from prosperity to arrogance, and with the European Union and America retreating from globalisation and ideological confrontation, Singapore has stepped up to the frontline to *resist China”.
I agree!! Also LHL, NEH, VB too
The right thing for an ambassador to do is to defuse tension instead of adding fuel to fire with statement like this.
I disagree, should be kicked in the balls.
Hush let him f'kin explain how he does his trick.
[video=youtube_share;AIiO7563QFc]https://youtu.be/AIiO7563QFc[/video]
U is asking too much from someone who is ball less.
[video=youtube_share;bmIt74zUx8I]https://youtu.be/bmIt74zUx8I[/video]
Big Boys having an academic discussion on each other.
Big Boys having an academic discussion on each other.
Similar threads
