{"id":148371,"date":"2018-01-23T22:45:50","date_gmt":"2018-01-24T03:45:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=148371"},"modified":"2018-01-23T22:45:50","modified_gmt":"2018-01-24T03:45:50","slug":"no-new-chinese-construction-in-scarborough-shoal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/01\/23\/no-new-chinese-construction-in-scarborough-shoal\/","title":{"rendered":"No new Chinese construction in Scarborough Shoal"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_148377\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-148377\" style=\"width: 640px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/640px-Scarborough_Shoal_Landsat.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-148377\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/640px-Scarborough_Shoal_Landsat.jpg\" alt=\"A Philippine air patrol over Scarborough (Panatag) Shoal Tuesday showed no new Chinese construction over the disputed maritime area. (Photo By NASA - http:\/\/www.oceandots.com\/pacific\/scarborough\/scarborough2.php, Public Domain)\" width=\"640\" height=\"415\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/640px-Scarborough_Shoal_Landsat.jpg 640w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/640px-Scarborough_Shoal_Landsat-300x195.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-148377\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">A Philippine air patrol over Scarborough (Panatag) Shoal Tuesday showed no new Chinese construction over the disputed maritime area. (<a href=\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=9541388\">Photo By NASA, Public Domain<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>MANILA\u00a0&#8212; A Philippine air patrol over Scarborough (Panatag) Shoal Tuesday showed no new Chinese construction over the disputed maritime area.<\/p>\n<p>This was announced by Northern Luzon Command (NOLCOM) spokesperson Lt. Col. Isagani Nato in an interview last Tuesday.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;<em>Wala namang problema sa lugar nung pagpunta namin. Walang<\/em>\u00a0construction,&#8221; he added.<\/p>\n<p>In the same air patrol, which was conducted by one C-295, four possible Chinese coast guard ships and one Chinese fishing vessel were sighted.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;<em>Yung tingin namin kasi puti pero hindi ko ma<\/em>-sure<em>\u00a0kung lahat yun,<\/em>\u00a0coast guard (vessel),&#8221; the NOLCOM spokesperson said who added that they were flying at 5,000 feet at the time.<\/p>\n<p>Also spotted were five Filipino fishing boats and their crew who seemed to be going about their business.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;<em>Wala namang problema sa tingin namin<\/em>,&#8221; he added.<\/p>\n<p>Nato said that the C-295 was not challenged by the Chinese during their patrol mission which lasted for about 30 minutes.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MANILA\u00a0&#8212; A Philippine air patrol over Scarborough (Panatag) Shoal Tuesday showed no new Chinese construction over the disputed maritime area. &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":148377,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[44448,44446,44447],"class_list":["post-148371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","tag-chinese-construction","tag-philippine-air-patrol","tag-scarborough-panatag-shoal","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148371","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=148371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148371\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/148377"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}