You seriously think the present govt has to answer for why 3000 yrs of "array of choices" didn't our ancestors lay claim, and if they did not lay claim then so now they also have no rights? Is that really your argument? And your point of dragging 3000 yrs of history?
Anyhow, our ancestors did lay claim, at least in the Qing's dynasty... but maybe not before that. So? Still no claim then?
They use Ming dynasty documents only to dispute nonsensical claims that these lands (or island: Taiwan) never belonged to China.
too bad to disappoint u, yes they have to. cos 1, the famous CCP quote was 'according to historical records, here and here were under chinese rule during when and when', and 2, CCP take their mianzi more seriously than u thought. they always want everything to look swee swee from the outside.
since china had a long history and they dont always control every part of china they have now, the same logic can be used against them. people can also use the same trick, 'according to ur chinese history records, u dont control here and here during when and when, so spit it out'. so it is best to choose a point in history that others cannot use it back on them. no matter u agree or not, ming dynasty territory is the official stand point CCP took. u can argue all day and thats not gonna change. even for taiwan, CCP doesnt use the fact that sun quan during the 3 kingdoms already sent expeditions there. CCP took koxinga, or zheng cheng gong, as the starting point of chinese control over taiwan.
the point for the history part was just to explain briefly how things bcame the way it is today. its easier to put things on the table wholesale than to answer individual question here and there. satisfied?
btw, the referendum was held in 1945, the fact that Mao sent a congratulatory note was new to me.
I use end of Qing Dynasty becoz shortly after 1911, the country was in chaos so lands that were craved away (like outer Mongolia under ROC rule) should've been included in the current China (which was not). But you're right, PRC shouldn't have agreed to outer Mongolia independence. Why did they... well... perhaps Russia was too strong, or as Commies, they had to listen to big bro Russia? Who knows?
thats simply bcos 1, ur info was limited, plz dont forget that sg dont allow commie publications. and 2, CCP systematically revised mao's documents and literature after 1950, to cover up their politically incorrect statements.
But i cannot agree with your point that since CCP allowed outer Outer Mongolia to go independence means they should allow Tibet, Taiwan, XinJiang. Just becoz it happened, it should be allowed to happened again? Why not just let UK have Hong Kong then? Esp Taiwan... what? KMT lost a civil war, retreat to one part of the country and declare independence? Is that how it works? No country in this globe would willingly allow their countries to be split like this. I may not agree with PAP, but if SDP thinks it can retreat to Tekong and form a new country, is sorely mistaken. And btw, i haven't heard of any country that supports independence for XinJiang, Tibet or Taiwan (and pls dun quote unheard of African countries bought over by Taiwan).
never said that. but it would provide an excuse for others and put CCP in a difficult position. so the easiest method to solve this was to claim everything from a safe spot: mongol wasnt part of china in ming dynasty. so allowing mongol to go independence is showing friendship to the mongol people, a support for the liberation of the mongol ppl from the evil manchu and kmt imperialist. see the point? not only they shed the burden of explaination, they gained legitimacy in overthrowing the previous govt.
HK was part of china during ming dynasty, and so is taiwan, so the chinese dont have to give it up. in fact they were either leased or annexed under 'unequal treaties' so to speak. why they have to give it up? the simple rule of negotiation is to have a common ground. u dont argue compare apples to oranges. just like in physics or economics models we set the required assumptions then we go on to analyse and illustrate. we dont anyhow bring in variables.
so if CCP pick a particular time frame for a particular territory dispute, they have to use the same time frame for all disputes. u have to be consistent, not double standards. if not mongols could just claim all of china since kublai khan succeeded in conquering the chinese.
Anyhow, back to the issue (title). And let me make it even easier... if one day SDP got into a civil war with PAP, and won. I suppose it is only natural that SDP would stick to the Singapore borders that PAP has drawn. Why didn't SDP include Johor? Becoz Johor wasn't part of Singapore under PAP rule. And why did SDP include Pulau Hantu? Becoz it was part of Singapore under PAP rule. [replace SDP with CCP, PAP with KMT, Singapore with China, Johor with Korea/Vietnam, Pulau Hantu with Tibet]
And to your other points raised... And why did it allow christmas islands to be sold to UK... well whatever the reason, it doesn't mean Singapore should sell off other islands like Pulau Hantu as well. And if PAP retreated to Pulau Tekong and tried to declare it as ROT (Republic of Tekong), i'm pretty sure SDP would send SAF over. 3000 years back? This island belonged to Monkeys... and the point being?
Is that really that hard to understand why every country in this globe now recognizes China sovereignty over Tibet, Xin-Jiang, Taiwan?
partially correct and partially incorrect, cos again you are over-simplifying things.
what if, say hypothetically speaking, johor was part of PAP singapore for 300yrs, and PAP lost it to some foreign powers recently. then SDP went on to defeat PAP. now in order to prove that SDP was the better guy, the righteous one, shouldnt SDP take back johor? probably they should consider.
to make things worst, say PAP singapore lost even some more land besides johor, to other different foreign powers. now should the new SDP just sit back and pretend nothing happened? then what is good in SDP compared to PAP? if they behave the same way, what makes SDP the legit one? now lets say SDP want to claim back certain territories, can he say to A, ubin was mine 50 yrs ago, then say to B, tekong was mine 150 yrs ago, and to C, johor was mine 300 yrs ago. do u think A, B and C foreign powers will agree to this differential treatment? definitely not. look at the chinese disputes with japan, vietnam, philippines, malaysia, korea and russia, and u will know. the chinese made a uniform territorial claim on all disputed land, with ming documents. when a country with a long and unbroken history like china want to claim 'territorial integrity', the logical and immediate question will undoubtly be 'territorial integrity' of 'when'? and china is presently the one and only civilisation with thousand yrs of unbroken history, so one cannot simply dump its past if one would like to talk about its territorial changes and its relevance to present territory.
so back to ur scenarion SDP will not choose 3000yrs to claim ROT, cos they dont own it. the malays own it. SDP will specifically choose a time frame that suits them best. and this is exactly what the chinese did. they chose ming dynasty. u just answered ur own question.
recognising chinese control over its territories and denouncing the right to self governance are two different things altogether. so if msia one day became powderful enuff to take over sg, u also lan lan change to malaysian citizen?
the point is u have no idea what 3000 yrs is and u cannot appreciate the history and culture of ur ancestors, simple as that. just like some angmohs had no idea about 'tibet is in chinese control for 600 yrs' really really meant. their nation is only 300 yrs old. the insect that lived for a week cannot appreciate seasonal changes, its beyond their understanding, get it?