Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-pm-mahathir-tpp-review-trans-pacific-trade-10413064
09 Jun 2018 10:32AM
Michael Loh
Mahathir's reinstatement as PM will not only transform Malaysia internally equitably but will give notice to behaviour to countries that do not confrom to the rule of law in respect of international agreements.
Kwai Meng Tang
If everything is a disadvantage to Malaysia may be Malaysia should go it alone in any matter by themselves. May be even leave ASEAN also. Nobody should doubt Malaysia to go it alone and survive in this turbulent world.
Jm Chow
The rule of law ?
Which powerful nation follow the rule of law !
Let's take the International Court of Justice as an example.
Has the ICJ the power to enact laws for all the nations in the United Nations.
NO.
Americans will follow the rule of laws...ONLY those laws enacted by the US congress and signed by the President.
NO one else, not ICJ, not WTO...can enact laws for the American or for the USA to follow.
Only Americans can make laws for Americans. NO ONE else.
This applies to every nation around the world...
Only MPs elected by us can enact laws for us to follow...NO ONE else.
Has the ICJ unlimited power to arbitrate and adjudicate disputes between the USA and another nation ?
NO.
In the Case concerning US Military and Paramilitary Activities and Nicaragua in 1984, the USA found that ICJ exercise legal authority in excess its authorised legal jurisdiction.
International tribunals are bodies of limited competence, empowered to adjudicate only those matters which have been submitted to them by the BOTH parties and only in the manner prescribed by their constitutive documents.'
When ICJ acted beyond the authority granted to it,.... its acts, exceeds its authority, ....the judgement become "null and void." The ICJ judgement become ILLEGAL.
Following this case, the USA withdrew from ICJ (for good reason.)
The USA DO NOT follow the rule of law? No. The USA do not follow ILLEGAL laws/
In the case of the island dispute between the Philippines and China.... the ICJ, without BOTH parties agreeing to allow the ICJ to adjudicate their dispute....(like the US-Nicaragua case in 1984)...the ICJ acted in excess of its authority and limited power.
Its judgement become ILLEGAL.
Both the USA and China, both major powers ... do not follow the rule of ILLEGAL law (of ICJ)
This is geo-politics...NOT legal matters.
Western media ....demonize China for refusing to recognize the illegal ICJ jurisdiction. ..yet it blindly supported USA when the USA refused to submit to ICJ judgement...and the USA withdrew from ICJ.
Western media has a serious credibility problem.
Those who sing chorus with Western media...are people who don't use their brain...or of low intellect (have low brain power)
Which powerful nation follow the rule of law !
Let's take the International Court of Justice as an example.
Has the ICJ the power to enact laws for all the nations in the United Nations.
NO.
Americans will follow the rule of laws...ONLY those laws enacted by the US congress and signed by the President.
NO one else, not ICJ, not WTO...can enact laws for the American or for the USA to follow.
Only Americans can make laws for Americans. NO ONE else.
This applies to every nation around the world...
Only MPs elected by us can enact laws for us to follow...NO ONE else.
Has the ICJ unlimited power to arbitrate and adjudicate disputes between the USA and another nation ?
NO.
In the Case concerning US Military and Paramilitary Activities and Nicaragua in 1984, the USA found that ICJ exercise legal authority in excess its authorised legal jurisdiction.
International tribunals are bodies of limited competence, empowered to adjudicate only those matters which have been submitted to them by the BOTH parties and only in the manner prescribed by their constitutive documents.'
When ICJ acted beyond the authority granted to it,.... its acts, exceeds its authority, ....the judgement become "null and void." The ICJ judgement become ILLEGAL.
Following this case, the USA withdrew from ICJ (for good reason.)
The USA DO NOT follow the rule of law? No. The USA do not follow ILLEGAL laws/
In the case of the island dispute between the Philippines and China.... the ICJ, without BOTH parties agreeing to allow the ICJ to adjudicate their dispute....(like the US-Nicaragua case in 1984)...the ICJ acted in excess of its authority and limited power.
Its judgement become ILLEGAL.
Both the USA and China, both major powers ... do not follow the rule of ILLEGAL law (of ICJ)
This is geo-politics...NOT legal matters.
Western media ....demonize China for refusing to recognize the illegal ICJ jurisdiction. ..yet it blindly supported USA when the USA refused to submit to ICJ judgement...and the USA withdrew from ICJ.
Western media has a serious credibility problem.
Those who sing chorus with Western media...are people who don't use their brain...or of low intellect (have low brain power)
Michael Loh
Jm Chow
I thank the many posts for my comment. First of all, I wish to correct the confusion (by many people) between the law of the land and international law. While the ICJ comes within the ambit of international law and its decision has no force of coercion except by mutual consent, on the other hand, laws of the land (sovereign law) enacted by parliament can be enforce by coercion (the police). Hence, when the ICJ decides in favour of the Philippines on the issues of the SC sea against China. China can refuse to abide by the decision and there is nothing the Philippines can do, except by going to war with China. In the 21st centruy, the concept of the rule of law is increasing taking centre stage in the time of emancipation. The rule of law is not law as interpreted in the sense of the law of the land nor is it ignoring its rules could have dire consequences of coercion from the police. The rule of law simply means, following it has its virtue in morality and decency towards human existence. One good example is when Najib lost GE 14, he could have called in the army and declare an emergency. Thus avoid, handing over power but he did not as he did follow the rule of law in handing over power to Mahathir. Lastly, The rule of law is simply, "An Unqualified Human Good" : E.P. Thompson
I thank the many posts for my comment. First of all, I wish to correct the confusion (by many people) between the law of the land and international law. While the ICJ comes within the ambit of international law and its decision has no force of coercion except by mutual consent, on the other hand, laws of the land (sovereign law) enacted by parliament can be enforce by coercion (the police). Hence, when the ICJ decides in favour of the Philippines on the issues of the SC sea against China. China can refuse to abide by the decision and there is nothing the Philippines can do, except by going to war with China. In the 21st centruy, the concept of the rule of law is increasing taking centre stage in the time of emancipation. The rule of law is not law as interpreted in the sense of the law of the land nor is it ignoring its rules could have dire consequences of coercion from the police. The rule of law simply means, following it has its virtue in morality and decency towards human existence. One good example is when Najib lost GE 14, he could have called in the army and declare an emergency. Thus avoid, handing over power but he did not as he did follow the rule of law in handing over power to Mahathir. Lastly, The rule of law is simply, "An Unqualified Human Good" : E.P. Thompson
Frank Kam ·
This man thinks that after winning the election he is now king of the world or what ????
Kwai Meng Tang
This man is already 92 he probably wants to make an impact as quickly and as much as possible before he leaves this world. So in order to do that he needs to turn everything the previous government did or done upside down to achieve his objectives.
Like · Reply · 2h
Abdul Rahman Mohamed Ali
He is doing what LKY will do "Waking up from the grave" . Think small boy. Hahaha.
Kwai Meng Tang
If he considers Malaysia to be a small country than Singapore must the smallest.
Ricky Lim ·
Think after the CPTPP is sign - Dr M cannot review the CPTPP.
He can either ratified or not ratified the CPTPP - and cannot re-negotiate.
Think if he choose not to ratified the CPTPP - the rest of 10 members can continue to trade among themselves under the CPTPP and Malaysia will not enjoy as member of the CPTPP (basically left out of the CPTPP).
The above understanding need to be confirmed by the relevant authorities.
He can either ratified or not ratified the CPTPP - and cannot re-negotiate.
Think if he choose not to ratified the CPTPP - the rest of 10 members can continue to trade among themselves under the CPTPP and Malaysia will not enjoy as member of the CPTPP (basically left out of the CPTPP).
The above understanding need to be confirmed by the relevant authorities.
Ricky Lim ·
Trump leave the TPP and want to rejoin but review the CPTPP - Trump was stopped by all the 11 members in the CPTPP.
Now if Dr M want to review the CPTPP - he may face the same consequences as Trump.
Now if Dr M want to review the CPTPP - he may face the same consequences as Trump.
Like · Reply · 1m
Daniel Tan
Thank you dr.m for taking serious action by weeding out those agreements that doesn't benifits us. In all agreement it must be win win situation.
Remember what happen after the opium war when china was attacked by the 8 allies of usa?
China signed those disadvantage agreements.
Najib sign blindlingly and anything to his personal favor.
Thank you dr.m.
Please review more agreement signed by umno before 509.
Remember what happen after the opium war when china was attacked by the 8 allies of usa?
China signed those disadvantage agreements.
Najib sign blindlingly and anything to his personal favor.
Thank you dr.m.
Please review more agreement signed by umno before 509.
Ricky Lim ·
Firstly, all international agreement signed are legally binding and there are obligations that signatories need to comply with if one decide to rescind.
Secondly, it means sending a signal to foreign Countries to avoid entering into agreement with Malaysia in future - as signed international agreement can flip flop as and when anyone like or dislike.
Secondly, it means sending a signal to foreign Countries to avoid entering into agreement with Malaysia in future - as signed international agreement can flip flop as and when anyone like or dislike.
Like · Reply · 1m
Ricky Lim ·
You can be very sure that foreign investors will avoid investing in Malaysia --- because no investors will invest in a Country - where policies, signed agreement, contract - can be changed, rescind any oh how - at the wink and fancy.
Who will be out of their mind to commit large amount of money into a Country - and then are told that the investment contract have been cancelled - and investor as a result lose money.
And then say sorry, let negotiate, you cannot take back the committed money even though the contract for exit clause say so - who on earth will from here on - bring money into this Country to get burn again?
Who will be out of their mind to commit large amount of money into a Country - and then are told that the investment contract have been cancelled - and investor as a result lose money.
And then say sorry, let negotiate, you cannot take back the committed money even though the contract for exit clause say so - who on earth will from here on - bring money into this Country to get burn again?
Chin Guan Lee
Today sign, tomorrow review, another day cancel. Playing like small boy.
Like · Reply · 6m
Kwai Meng Tang
There Is a lesson to be learned about Malaysia especially when comes to agreement that take a long period of time to come into effect. When a current government okayed the agreement a change of government might not be okay about the agreement signed by the previous government.
No comments:
Post a Comment