South China Sea Forum

[cochine]

Vietnam opposes all sovereignty violations: Spokesman

Vietnam opposes all activities that violate its sovereignty as well as militarise and threaten peace, stability, security, safety and freedom of navigation and overflight in the East Sea.

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Le Hai Binh



The statement was made on December 16 by Foreign Ministry Spokesman Le Hai Binh while answering reporters’ question on Vietnam’s response to new satellite images of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) which show that China appears to have installed weapons on seven geographic features in the East Sea.

“Vietnam is extremely worried about this imagery,” he stressed, affirming the country has sufficient legal foundation and historical evidence proving its sovereignty over Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) archipelagoes.

VNA

 

[The SC]

You do understand the qualitative difference between an agreement on policy and a signed and ratified treaty?
Also, if so, why not withdraw from / reject UNCLOS.

.

I do understand it if you want to make it a difference, hope you understand as well that the agreement was breached once and the law was also breached once.. at least from the Chinese point of view this is logical.. you can't have an important agreement with them and then breach it anytime you feel like it .. any way it was a message to Trump, that it will be Tic for Tac as far as the one China agreement is concerned, and maybe in general..

Also an important fact to note; it is more about the information the drone carried than the drone itself, China made a point about its security by letting the US know that it was playing in its backyard.

 

[Place Of Space]

The world saw that China ship shadowed the Bowditch and steal its UUV marked US Property in international water.

China said "We just take and check an unidentified object for safety reason and return it immediately to US" mean they pretend that they don't know it belongs to the Bowditch.

Could we link your comment on this into "China lied, they captured Bowditch's UUV as punishment for its operations in the past" ?

It depends on what they understand. The coin always has two sides. You hardly get a mono answer. Hope you not disappointed with this reply.

You do understand the qualitative difference between an agreement on policy and a signed and ratified treaty?
Also, if so, why not withdraw from / reject UNCLOS.


Sure, a lot more responsible. But still, very unlikely to be critical of the way China has handle this (or any) situation.
The whole idea behind / point of having private media is that there are (and should be) a variety of avenues for a variety of perspectives, perceptions and points of view to be available. The whole choice of wording ("private media run off at the mouth") says enough in relation to that basic principle.

There is no comparison with Charlie Hebdo (unless you equal the Chinese actions with those of the terrorists, which I am sure you have no intention to do). Have you visited / followed Charlie Hebdo recently? I see very little change. I sincerely hope what you say above about that terrorist attack is not veiled justification or approval of said attack....

Before their editor was shot at head I didn't hear the name of Charlie Hebdo. It defame Muslims' prophet, run horse at tongue, unfortunately the muslims' temper is not that good.

 

[gambit]

Now its getting silly.

Yes, it is. The PDF Chinese arguments gets sillier as time goes by.

At the request of the parking lot owner any private car can be removed by public and private services and Im pretty sure the U.S. is no exception in that case.

All analogies have their limits. The problem for this analogy is that the SCS does not belongs to China. Claim of ownership does not equate to actual ownership, of which requires acknowledgement by others.

Now no mater how many deliberately ignorant and dishonest spins you invent or quote from U.S. regime loyal "lawyers" their spins and lies are not the authority of truth.

Your China rests her claim to the entirety of the SCS upon UNCLOS as well as whatever feeble historical evidences her spin doctors can create.

Those who do not live by the law -- shall die by the law.

US lawyers presented their arguments as to why China was a thief in this event. So far, you PDF Chinese have yet to present your side of the law. Is it because there are no possible credible arguments based upon the law ?

So far, the most prominent argument against the Americans have been that ownership of the UUV is uncertain the moment it was dropped in the water -- because of the unmanned nature of the vehicle and that it was unattended.

There is not a shred of legal principle that would support that silly argument.

Currently, Baidu is testing driverless cars in China...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tychode...duce-driverless-cars-in-5-years/#17eaae53dad6

If we go by the silly PDF Chinese argument as presented above, if you take one of these cars, what would happen ?

Baidu would go after you with a squad of lawyers proving how even though the car had no person it it, the car absolutely belongs to the company UNDER CHINESE LAWS. Then after Baidu got you imprisoned, its CEO will use his connections with the Chinese government to have your family sent to internal exile.

How in the real world can ownership be uncertain by virtue of being unattended is beyond common sense, and common sense is not what we have been seeing from the PDF Chinese regarding this event.

Next that none of the PDF Chinese have the balls to address is the fact that the Chinese ship stalked the Bowditch for days all the way into Subic Bay before committing theft. If the Chinese ship stalked the Bowditch for days, that mean the Chinese knew the Bowditch's routine, which mean the Chinese ship knew all along the ownership of the UUV, which simply mean what happened was simply theft.

It is a good thing that this is not a Chinese forum like the ignominiously defunct CDF. If this is a Chinese forum, the admin staff would have scrubbed all references to the fact that this event occurred in Subic Bay, in Filipino proper, nowhere near China. Of course, there is always the chance that the Chinese member of the admin staff of this forum will take side with his fellow Chinese and remove all references to Subic Bay in my posts.

Don't pretend you can judge and teach from a position of an ignorant boy

You want to see a boy ? Go look in the mirror.

 

[Penguin]

I do understand it if you want to make it a difference, hope you understand as well that the agreement was breached once and the law was also breached once.. at least from the Chinese point of view this is logical.. you can't have an important agreement with them and then breach it anytime you feel like it .. any way it was a message to Trump, that it will be Tic for Tac as far as the one China agreement is concerned, and maybe in general..

Also an important fact to note; it is more about the information the drone carried than the drone itself, China made a point about its security by letting the US know that it was playing in its backyard.

This is not the first time China has snagged equipment from a T-AG(O)S ship. It is also not the first time that USNS Bowditch was itself harrased by Chinese ships (2001-2003). To illustrate the difference, other nations have at times protested her activities (mostly in the contiguous zone) diplomatically but never took any physical actions.

Ships of this type also aided in the search for MH370, by the way

So, keeping that in mind, IMHO, this is not related to any statements by Trump (who at this time isn't even POTUS yet and who'se policy initiatives are yet to become apparent: at this time he's just doing what he did during his campaign i.e. making bold statements left and right for domestic consumption)

Before their editor was shot at head I didn't hear the name of Charlie Hebdo. It defame Muslims' prophet, run horse at tongue, unfortunately the muslims' temper is not that good.

Well, I suppose this illustrate the situation for most people (Charlie Hebwho?). It also shows that there will always be people who are actively and specifically looking for / checking if there isn't something that insults their group somewhere. There really is no excuse for this kind of violence.

 

[Place Of Space]

This is not the first time China has snagged equipment from a T-AG(O)S ship. It is also not the first time that USNS Bowditch was itself harrased by Chinese ships (2001-2003). To illustrate the difference, other nations have at times protested her activities (mostly in the contiguous zone) diplomatically but never took any physical actions.

Ships of this type also aided in the search for MH370, by the way

So, keeping that in mind, IMHO, this is not related to any statements by Trump (who at this time isn't even POTUS yet and who'se policy initiatives are yet to become apparent: at this time he's just doing what he did during his campaign i.e. making bold statements left and right for domestic consumption)



Well, I suppose this illustrate the situation for most people (Charlie Hebwho?). It also shows that there will always be people who are actively and specifically looking for / checking if there isn't something that insults their group somewhere. There really is no excuse for this kind of violence.

Don't know what you are typing here. Think twice before you input letters.

 

[Globenim]

Yes, it is. The PDF Chinese arguments gets sillier as time goes by.

All analogies have their limits. The problem for this analogy is that the SCS does not belongs to China. Claim of ownership does not equate to actual ownership, of which requires acknowledgement by others.

You made the silly analogy about leaving cars everywhere you want including others property and police and others cant do anything about it. Don't blame me when Im pointing out how stupid and detached from reality your entire premise of an argument is whatever you where trying to prove with your flawed pro U.S. spin analogies.

Jokes on you much of its does belong to China. Your denial of ownership does not eqate to lack of ownership.

Your China rests her claim to the entirety of the SCS upon UNCLOS as well as whatever feeble historical evidences her spin doctors can create.

Those who do not live by the law -- shall die by the law.

US lawyers presented their arguments as to why China was a thief in this event. So far, you PDF Chinese have yet to present your side of the law. Is it because there are no possible credible arguments based upon the law ?

Our side of the argument is the very law, your silly "lawyers" pretend to base their "arguments" on. Its there. Very explicit and in this regard very clearly not saying at all what your "lawyers" spin out of it. We all know you resort to biased U.S. 3rd party spins because the facts themself don't serve your agenda. Thats the whole point of these spin doctor articles.

They just fabricate their own narrative cherrypicking lines and glossing over the very explicit exceptions to that alleged "protection against Chinese seizing" I already mentioned. The U.S. themself admits to violate them with minced words. Just because your pirate ships deliberately ignore Chinese law and customs does not mean they are not violating them. It should be obvious without the provided exceptions of violating the states laws and customs that this make believe law, as missconstrued by your U.S. spin doctors and the whole "argument" of the U.S. lawyers builds on, would be a silly statue no one would ever agree to and China obviously never did. But these articles are not made for critical thinking people, they are just a farce to fool unwashed naive masses and a propaganda tools for dishonest trolls like you who just use them as a distraction from the plain undoctored facts.

China didn't agree to some butchered interpretation of biased U.S. lawyers of UNCLOS selectively quoting some lines that fit their deceptive own narrative. China agreed UNCLOS, some parts not, but still just UNCLOS. As long as we don't violate that one, no matter how many "expert" opinions you can fabricate, we are acting lawfull and you guys got dealt with legitimately.

So far, the most prominent argument against the Americans have been that ownership of the UUV is uncertain the moment it was dropped in the water -- because of the unmanned nature of the vehicle and that it was unattended.

There is not a shred of legal principle that would support that silly argument.

Currently, Baidu is testing driverless cars in China...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tychode...duce-driverless-cars-in-5-years/#17eaae53dad6

If we go by the silly PDF Chinese argument as presented above, if you take one of these cars, what would happen ?

Baidu would go after you with a squad of lawyers proving how even though the car had no person it it, the car absolutely belongs to the company UNDER CHINESE LAWS. Then after Baidu got you imprisoned, its CEO will use his connections with the Chinese government to have your family sent to internal exile.

How in the real world can ownership be uncertain by virtue of being unattended is beyond common sense, and common sense is not what we have been seeing from the PDF Chinese regarding this event.

Thats something completely different from your silly first argument about leaving your car unattended on someones else property and not even the police being able to do anything about it.

Baidu isn't sending driverless cars into the world without ever having consulted police and authorities and receiving a permit. Of course the can be dealt with if its demmed necessary. If some foreign unidentified driverless car would be driving on a Chinese street without respecting CHINESE LAW AND CUSTOMS, by prior consulting and announcement of this potential dangerous devices test on a public street to the police and authorities and requesting an explicit permit, you can bet you best piece that its going to immediately taken off the streets by police and private people have all the rights to deny it access to their property including parking lots and have it just towed away as long there is no precedent that makes it a "normal" situation.

I hope you are just pretending.You sound like some hick from the countrside or teenager who has no clue how the 21st century works outside of some Wikipedia parrotting. Sometimes I wonder if you ever even lived in the U.S. and its not all just some Vietnamese village fanboy fantasy.
Theres a very big difference between uncooperative U.S. pirates invading China with some secretive devices lurking around somewhere and test drives of a new but well announced clearly visible device of a lawfull Chinese company that cooperates with the Chinese authorities moving around designated areas. Its silly you even try to allege the same treatment should apply.

Again you can keep crying "freedomland" like a child. The same thing would happen in every European or American city in a reversed situation.

Next that none of the PDF Chinese have the balls to address is the fact that the Chinese ship stalked the Bowditch for days all the way into Subic Bay before committing theft. If the Chinese ship stalked the Bowditch for days, that mean the Chinese knew the Bowditch's routine, which mean the Chinese ship knew all along the ownership of the UUV, which simply mean what happened was simply theft.

It is a good thing that this is not a Chinese forum like the ignominiously defunct CDF. If this is a Chinese forum, the admin staff would have scrubbed all references to the fact that this event occurred in Subic Bay, in Filipino proper, nowhere near China. Of course, there is always the chance that the Chinese member of the admin staff of this forum will take side with his fellow Chinese and remove all references to Subic Bay in my posts.

Doesn't take balls to ignore biased spins and fabrications by the U.S. regime to justify their violations. Its obvious Chinese coast guard is nearby U.S. ships near Chinese islands provoking China with violations of Chinas sovereignty. The rest of the story is just unproven allegations trying to pin it against China. Yet it doesnt justify your violations or makes the reaction by Chinese coast guard illegal either ways. Period.

You want to see a boy ? Go look in the mirror.

You are probably not seeing the irony here either. Talk like a child. Get treated like one.

 

[Penguin]

Don't know what you are typing here. Think twice before you input letters.

It is not my problem your level of comprension is insufficient. Certainly not a reason for me to change. How's the verbal diarrhea?

 

[TaiShang]

China’s aircraft carrier conducts drills, may head to South China Sea
Source: Globaltimes.cn Published: 2016/12/24

China’s aircraft carrier Liaoning held drills recently in the Yellow Sea and will undertake further drills in other parts of the country’s maritime area.

China’s first aircraft carrier Liaoning, together with a fleet of destroyers and multiple groups of J-15 carrier-borne fighter jets, conducted the drills under the direction of Wu Shengli, commander of the Navy of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), according to navy.81.cn, a website of PLA Daily.

The J-15 fighters took off from the aircraft carrier and conducted aerial refueling and air combat exercises on Thursday.

Liaoning will conduct further drills in other parts of China’s maritime area which includes the Bohai Sea, the Yellow Sea, the East China Sea and the South China Sea.

 

[samsara]

You made the silly analogy about leaving cars everywhere you want including others property and police and others cant do anything about it. Don't blame me when Im pointing out how stupid and detached from reality your entire premise of an argument is whatever you where trying to prove with your flawed pro U.S. spin analogies.

Jokes on you much of its does belong to China. Your denial of ownership does not eqate to lack of ownership.



Our side of the argument is the very law, your silly "lawyers" pretend to base their "arguments" on. Its there. Very explicit and in this regard very clearly not saying at all what your "lawyers" spin out of it. We all know you resort to biased U.S. 3rd party spins because the facts themself don't serve your agenda. Thats the whole point of these spin doctor articles.

They just fabricate their own narrative cherrypicking lines and glossing over the very explicit exceptions to that alleged "protection against Chinese seizing" I already mentioned. The U.S. themself admits to violate them with minced words. Just because your pirate ships deliberately ignore Chinese law and customs does not mean they are not violating them. It should be obvious without the provided exceptions of violating the states laws and customs that this make believe law, as missconstrued by your U.S. spin doctors and the whole "argument" of the U.S. lawyers builds on, would be a silly statue no one would ever agree to and China obviously never did. But these articles are not made for critical thinking people, they are just a farce to fool unwashed naive masses and a propaganda tools for dishonest trolls like you who just use them as a distraction from the plain undoctored facts.

China didn't agree to some butchered interpretation of biased U.S. lawyers of UNCLOS selectively quoting some lines that fit their deceptive own narrative. China agreed UNCLOS, some parts not, but still just UNCLOS. As long as we don't violate that one, no matter how many "expert" opinions you can fabricate, we are acting lawfull and you guys got dealt with legitimately.



Thats something completely different from your silly first argument about leaving your car unattended on someones else property and not even the police being able to do anything about it.

Baidu isn't sending driverless cars into the world without ever having consulted police and authorities and receiving a permit. Of course the can be dealt with if its demmed necessary. If some foreign unidentified driverless car would be driving on a Chinese street without respecting CHINESE LAW AND CUSTOMS, by prior consulting and announcement of this potential dangerous devices test on a public street to the police and authorities and requesting an explicit permit, you can bet you best piece that its going to immediately taken off the streets by police and private people have all the rights to deny it access to their property including parking lots and have it just towed away as long there is no precedent that makes it a "normal" situation.

I hope you are just pretending.You sound like some hick from the countrside or teenager who has no clue how the 21st century works outside of some Wikipedia parrotting. Sometimes I wonder if you ever even lived in the U.S. and its not all just some Vietnamese village fanboy fantasy.
Theres a very big difference between uncooperative U.S. pirates invading China with some secretive devices lurking around somewhere and test drives of a new but well announced clearly visible device of a lawfull Chinese company that cooperates with the Chinese authorities moving around designated areas. Its silly you even try to allege the same treatment should apply.

Again you can keep crying "freedomland" like a child. The same thing would happen in every European or American city in a reversed situation.


Doesn't take balls to ignore biased spins and fabrications by the U.S. regime to justify their violations. Its obvious Chinese coast guard is nearby U.S. ships near Chinese islands provoking China with violations of Chinas sovereignty. The rest of the story is just unproven allegations trying to pin it against China. Yet it doesnt justify your violations or makes the reaction by Chinese coast guard illegal either ways. Period.


You are probably not seeing the irony here either. Talk like a child. Get treated like one.

VERY WELL SAID, Globenim!!

The US cannot even intimidate Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, why do they think that they will be able to intimidate China in the South China Sea?

Btw if they don't like this drone treatment, next time they should send the spying drone under clear military clothes instead of hiding beneath the civilian outfits. Just manned up guys!

 

[TaiShang]

This is entirely defensive, if true. But you know how US military agencies think; they think very politically and unprofessionally to suit their agenda, like how they try to bring down Trump via a soft coup.

***

China Reportedly Aims to Send More Missiles to Disputed South China Sea Islands

24.12.2016, Sputnik News

Beijing intends to deploy more surface-to-air missiles to the disputed islands in the South China Sea, US media reported on Friday.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — US intelligence agencies say they think China will move CSA-6b and HQ-9 weapons to the contested South China Sea territories from the island of Hainan, Fox News reported.

US authorities has come to the conclusion based on new satellite images from Hainan, according to media report.

。。。

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/asia/201612241048946680-china-more-missiles-spratly/

 

[gambit]

Your denial of ownership does not eqate to lack of ownership.

In this case -- it does.

The goal of providing proof of ownership is not to show proof of ownership but to convince others that, if they have contesting/challenging claims to the same item, their claims are inferior to yours.

If you buy something, which is more convincing, the sales clerk saying that you bought that item, or you showing the receipt containing date of purchase, the price, and even which cashier machine that processed the transaction ? The receipt, of course. The receipt is usually powerful enough that by itself it will discourage me from claiming ownership of what you bought.

Ownership is very much binary. Black or white. Yes or no. One or zero. Either you have complete ownership or you do not. If you have virtual control of %99.999 of the item, you do not own it for real. Either you own the item %100 or you do not.

So far, China's claim to the entirety of the SCS have been lacking. The 'receipt', as in China showing historical maps and a few archaeological artifacts, have NOT been sufficiently convincing in others' views. Maybe in the eyes of God is that 'receipt' good enough, but until God Himself speaks up, whatever evidences China presented have not been convincing.

Why does China go to great lengths presenting these evidences, from historical to legal via UNCLOS ? And yes, by presenting historical maps and archaeological artifacts, China have argued ownership using UNCLOS.

Because the alternative is violence. When you present your receipt for what you purchased, you are hoping that the receipt alone will convince me to withdraw my contesting claim. China want a peaceful resolution to the issue.

That means -- that if others found China's evidences less than %100 convincing, China can either resort to violence to control the SCS or withdraw her claim.

So until China can convince US and others in the region that the entirety of the SCS belongs to China, our denial of ownership does equals to complete lack of ownership.

Baidu isn't sending driverless cars into the world without ever having consulted police and authorities and receiving a permit.

That is not the point.

The argument from your fellow Chinese said nothing about notifying anyone, simply that if an item is unattended, it is free to be possessed, or at least control, by anyone.

https://defence.pk/threads/south-china-sea-forum.196058/page-760#post-9034019

His argument was flawed from the start.

A road implies rules and order, which further implies authority and control. The SCS is not a road but in reality more like an expanse of undeveloped ground -- like a desert. Leaving an unattended vehicle in the middle of the desert does not get in anyone's way. There are no right of way rules, or where I must park.

So my question, based upon his flawed argument, is that if Baidu leave its car unattended, can I simply take possession of it ?

Our UUV was deployed into the ocean wild. There is no authority figure to notify that it belongs to US. Therefore, common sense takes over. If you see markings on the UUV, clearly common sense suggests that the thing belongs to someone whether it is unattended or not, and you should either leave it alone or at least try to return it to the owner, if you can find him.

China did not exercise common sense. China simply took our UUV right in our plain sight. China was a thief.

Doesn't take balls to ignore biased spins and fabrications by the U.S. regime to justify their violations. Its obvious Chinese coast guard is nearby U.S. ships near Chinese islands provoking China with violations of Chinas sovereignty. The rest of the story is just unproven allegations trying to pin it against China. Yet it doesnt justify your violations or makes the reaction by Chinese coast guard illegal either ways. Period.

This event happened inside Subic Bay. Are you denying that ?

You are probably not seeing the irony here either. Talk like a child. Get treated like one.

I am treating you like an adult, which is more than you deserve.

The US cannot even intimidate Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, why do they think that they will be able to intimidate China in the South China Sea?

Yes we can and we have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Bowditch_(T-AGS-62)

The Bowditch was once escorted by a US warship and China did nothing.

Further, we armed Taiwan and China did nothing. So yes, the US can and have intimidated China.

 

[samsara]

Yes we can and we have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Bowditch_(T-AGS-62)

The Bowditch was once escorted by a US warship and China did nothing.

Further, we armed Taiwan and China did nothing. So yes, the US can and have intimidated China.

WRONG! Nope, each of the major powers: CHN - USA; RUS - USA are trying to avoid the direct military clash each other, a clash that may go beyond control and eventually go to the devastating nuclear exchanges. While Clash in words are still benign.

The sane minds within those major powers try to stay clear from such direct conflict. Fear is not the right word to describe them. If they are covered by fears in their interactions, we all won't see Russia going into Syria helping Assad to defend his country from the regime change attempt... we won't see China defending its claim on the South China Sea and goes on with all the constructions on the islands it rules incl. the defensive installations despite all the navy fleet show-off by the USA there. Each major power makes its own moves in many complex arenas but I count the most on the real, physical ones!

By historical reasons USA keeps on selling certain quantity of weapons to Taiwan but at the same time it won't recognize the renegade island as an independent entity either. This pragmatic approach is matched by the same pragmatic one by China too.... but if the USA ever ditches its One-China Policy, then all hell breaks loose!

Fear is simply not the right word to depict the complex relationships among the major powers! Each major power has its own TRUE red line not to be crossed by the others (not that kind of Obama's red line the so-called line in the sand). Always keep this matter in mind.

 

[cochine]

Last update 10:06 | 25/12/2016

China’s air route to Hoang Sa violates Vietnam’s sovereignty

China’s launch of a regular air route to the airport on Phu Lam in Hoang Sa (Paracel) archipelago seriously violates Vietnam’s sovereignty over the archipelago, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Le Hai Binh said on December 23.

Foreign Ministry Spokesman Le Hai Binh



The spokesperson made the statement in response to China’s inauguration of a civilian air route to the airport in Phu Lam on Hoang Sa archipelago on December 22.

Binh stressed that Vietnam has full legal foundations and historical evidence to assert its sovereignty of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa (Spratly) archipelagoes.

“Vietnam resolutely protests China’s above-mentioned actions, and demands that China immediately end actions violating Vietnam’s sovereignty over Hoang Sa archipelago”, Binh stated.

VNA

 

[samsara]

Regular Civil Charter Flight opens linking Haikou and Sansha

By Ma Zhiping and Liu Xiaoli in Haikou | China Daily | Updated: 2016-12-23

Passengers board a flight at an airport on Yongxing Island. The first regular civil charter flight
between Haikou, capital of Hainan province, and the island was operated on Thursday (22 Dec).
Song Guoqiang / For China Daily

Sansha, the southernmost island city of China in the South China Sea, welcomed its first regular civil charter flight on Thursday (12/22).

The plane took off from Meilan International Airport in Haikou, capital of Hainan province, at 8:45 am on Thursday and landed at Sansha Yongxing Airport after a one-hour flight.

For years, people had to take a ship to get to Yongxing, but now they have more choices.

Location of Sansha-Yongxing Island in the South China Sea

There will be one flight per day from Haikou to Yongxing Island, where the city government of Sansha is based. The flight takes off from Haikou every morning, arriving on Yongxing Island at 10:20 am, while the return flight takes off at 1 pm.

The one-way flight ticket is fixed at a price of 1,200 yuan ($173), according to Sansha's official website.

The launch of the civil aviation service was regarded as one of the city's efforts to improve the quality of daily work and life of local residents in Sansha.

Both public servants and their relatives, as well as fishermen and workers on Sansha, can buy tickets from the airport operation company after receiving official permission.

Yongxing Airport now operates as both a military and civil airport after it passed a civil industry inspection earlier this month and was awarded an operation license last week. The airport completed construction to expand the facility in May this year.

Sansha was officially established in 2012 to administer the Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha island groups and their surrounding waters in the South China Sea.

In another development, a new cruise ship, Nanhai Zhimeng, will make its maiden voyage later this month, traveling from Sanya to the Yongle Islands, which are administered by Sansha, according to the city's tourism bureau.

The cruise ship has completed a trial voyage and has seen rapid ticket sales since bookings opened in late November. The ship has maximum capacity of 893 passengers.

~~~~~~~~

Seasons Greeting and Happy Holidays!