China’s business people, researchers, scholars say they ‘feel the chill’ in US
Growing China-US tensions have affected technology cooperation as Chinese scientists and researchers in cutting-edged sectors such as big data and artificial intelligence have seen rising obstacles in working with US counterparts this year.
Tensions have intensified after Canada announced the detention of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou at the request of the US.
This move is believed to be part of the US' intentions of dampening Chinese companies and investment, which aroused worries that McCarthyism is back in Washington.
"Some open-sourced platforms developed by American firms, such as in the machine learning algorithm sector, have started to limit access or charge fees for tapping into those platforms," a senior scientist in a Shenzhen-based AI company, who asked for anonymity, told the Global Times on Thursday.
"Some Chinese scientists were denied visas this year when they planned to attend academic meetings in the US, and the US' cautious attitude toward Chinese engineers has become more obvious," he said.
The Chinese academic community has felt the chill in relations since the beginning of this year, and the recent arrest of Meng has escalated conflict between the US and China. Some industry representatives even deemed the arrest as a long-term plan by the US to curb China's rise in high technology.
Meanwhile, the effects of the tension have also expanded to business. Hong Kong political risk consultancy SVA said they noticed a remarkable increase in inquiries from US-based companies about potential problems of traveling to China after Meng's detention for fear of China's retaliation, the Japan-based Nikkei Asian Review reported on Tuesday.
A Hong Kong-based financial technology company also moved two investor meetings from Shanghai to Manila to avoid being affected by Meng's case in consideration of its US co-founder, according to the Nikkei report.
The Trump administration has been restricting visas for the Chinese academic community studying in sensitive research fields to one year since June 11, reflecting its efforts to stop alleged intellectual property theft and hinder China's push for technological supremacy, the New York Times reported in July.
"The consensus of curbing China's influence has been forged inside the US government, and Chinese companies should be well prepared for confrontation in the long term," Sun Qingkai, partner of the major Chinese AI firm CloudWalk, told the Global Times on Thursday.
Sun's remarks are echoed by the tendency of Americans to habitually doubt anything related to China, particularly to Huawei at this moment.
The Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, released a report in October 2017 on safe cities. The report, supported by Huawei, speaks highly of a new policing technology implemented in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi and the Chinese city of Lijiang but failed to mention that the technology was provided by Huawei.
An opinion piece of The Washington Post published on December 7 listed financial support from Huawei to Brookings and interactions between the writer of the report, Darrell M. West, who is also Brookings vice president, and Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei.
It then said that such relationship raises doubts over West's scholarship practices and represents "a worrying example of China's influence on one of America's leading think tanks" without providing any hard evidence.
China's cooperation with other countries was also negatively affected, especially those in high-tech sectors. An example is the Japanese government's recent ban on Huawei and ZTE from official contracts. The move followed an earlier warning from the US about security risks involved in using Chinese-made equipment, Washington Post reported on Monday.
McCarthyism warning
The current US strategy of blaming China for its own domestic economic and social problems reflects the country's anxiety and myopia facing these problems, which would only worsen the situation, Zha Xiaogang, a research fellow at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, told the Global Times on Thursday.
Zha warned that although it seems impossible for the US to return to the McCarthy-era "red scare," when the anti-communism campaign penetrated all aspects of US society, such risks remain if the situation continues to escalate.
"There is already a dire ripple effect from the US-China trade war, which will hurt the US itself and global technology collaboration," said the Shenzhen-based senior scientist.
However, technology companies have been urging more cooperation instead of confrontation, which would hurt global advancement in this sector.
Major tech giants such as US firms Google and Apple, and China's Huawei have highlighted the importance of global collaboration, which will be the driving force for technology advancement.
Google Vice President Jay Yagnik told the Global Times in an earlier interview in September that technology has been a greater "uniter" globally from a historical view. Instead of thinking about competition, companies should think about it in terms of bringing the world together and taking society to the next level.
It is in everyone's best interest that the US and China reach an agreement on trade and future intellectual property and technology collaboration, Chris Dong, global research director at International Data Corporation, told the Global Times on Thursday.
"A more open market with less government intervention, and with mutual respect and reciprocity, will benefit not only a healthier US and China trade relationship, but also the talent and knowledge exchanges," Dong said.- Global Times
Canada can end Huawei case, but will it?
The global business community has been alarmed by the
executive's arrest in Canada. This has created uncertainty over
international travel among corporate executives. Unconditionally freeing
Meng will allay such apprehensions.
China detains 2 Canadians
China has informed the Canadian government of the
detention of two Canadians who are under investigation on suspicion of
jeopardizing China's national security, saying their legal rights will
be protected.
https://youtu.be/eO4vHvd20EE
US act on Tibet visits interferes in internal affairs: experts
The US is on the verge of passing a law that would deny
the entry of Chinese officials who are involved in restricting
foreigners from visiting Southwest China's Tibet Autonomous Region, with
Chinese experts slamming the move for using US domestic laws to
interfere in China's internal affairs, and called for a tit-for-tat
retaliation if it were implemented
In custody: A profile of Meng is displayed on a
computer at a Huawei store in Beijing. The Chinese government, speaking
through its embassy in Canada, strenuously objected to the arrest, and
demanded Meng’s immediate release. — AP
https://youtu.be/8Uxk0mEonTA
https://youtu.be/sAha76_6YQQ
China urges release of Huawei executive
- In violation of universal human rights
Chinese officials are urging the US and Canada to clarify why Meng Wanzhou, a senior executive of Huawei Technologies, has been detained and to immediately release her, slamming the arrest as a violation of her rights.
Experts said on Thursday that Meng's detention is a move by the US to heat up the ongoing trade war between China and the US.
Meng, who is Huawei's chief financial officer and the daughter of Huawei's founder Ren Zhengfei, was detained as she was transferring flights in Canada, according to information provided by Huawei, one of China's tech giants.
Meng's detention was made following a request by the US, which is seeking her extradition on as yet unspecified charges made by prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York, a Huawei spokesperson told the Global Times on Thursday.
Meng was arrested in Vancouver on Saturday, the New York Times reported on Thursday, citing a spokesperson from Canada's Justice Department.
"China has demanded that the US and Canada immediately clarify the reasons for Meng's detention and to release her," Geng Shuang, spokesperson of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told a daily press briefing on Thursday.
He noted that Chinese consular officials in Canada have already provided assistance to Meng.
Meng's detention, made without any clearly stated charges, is an obvious violation of her human rights, said Geng.
The Chinese Embassy in Canada also said on Thursday morning that it firmly opposes and has made strong protests over the action which has seriously curtailed the rights of a Chinese citizen.
"The Chinese side has lodged stern representations with the US and Canadian side, and urged them to immediately correct the wrongdoing and restore the personal freedom of Meng Wanzhou," the Chinese Embassy in Canada said in a statement published on its website.
A Canadian source with knowledge of the arrest was quoted in the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail on Thursday as saying that US law enforcement authorities allege that Huawei violated US sanctions against Iran but provided no further details.
Although Meng's detention stems from terms of the US-Canada extradition treaty, the US should not be taking such legal action without providing concrete evidence, especially when it has been trying to restore relations with China, Hao Junbo, a Beijing-based lawyer, told the Global Times on Thursday.
Chinese officials and experts criticized the US for its long-arm jurisdiction, which not only hurts individuals but also enterprises.
Rising obstacles
Huawei has been targeted by the US for many years, from patent infringement lawsuits to political pressure, Xiang Ligang, chief executive of the telecom industry news site cctime.com, told the Global Times on Thursday.
"As the Chinese company grew stronger, it faced more obstacles in foreign markets as it is considered as a threat to local players," he said.
Cisco Systems filed the first lawsuit against Huawei in 2003. Motorola filed a lawsuit accusing Huawei of theft of trade secrets in 2010, according to media reports. The company also faced investigation by the US Congress on security issues.
Since at least 2016, US authorities have been probing Huawei's alleged shipping of US-origin products to Iran and other countries in violation of US export and sanctions laws, Reuters reported in April.
The US also asked its major allies to say 'no' to Huawei equipment, as it was worried about alleged potential Chinese meddling in 5G networks, the Wall Street Journal reported on November 23.
While the company faces rising difficulties in the US market, it has been actively exploring other markets such as the EU and Africa.
It became the world's largest telecom equipment provider in 2017, surpassing Ericsson and ZTE, industry website telecomlead.com reported in March, citing IHS data.
Huawei has a 28 percent market share in the global telecom infrastructure industry, followed by Ericsson and Nokia, which have 27 percent and 23 percent respectively, said the report.
Escalating trade war
The US will not stop countering China's rise in the technology sector and will never drop its hostility toward China's "Made in China 2025" strategy, Wang Yanhui, head of the Shanghai-based Mobile China Alliance, told the Global Times on Thursday.
"Huawei has become another card for the US to play against China in the ongoing trade war," he said.
China and the US announced a trade truce following a meeting between the two countries' top leaders in Buenos Aires on Saturday.
But experts warned that China should be prepared for a long-lasting and heated trade war with the US, as it will continue to attempt to counter China's rising power.
"The latest Huawei incident shows that we should get ready for long-term confrontation between China and the US, as the US will not ease its stance on China and the arrest of a senior executive of a major Chinese tech company is a vivid example," Mei Xinyu, a research fellow with the Beijing-based Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, told the Global Times on Thursday.
Huawei said there is very little information about specific allegations and that the company is not aware of any misconduct by Meng.
"The company complies with all laws and regulations in the countries in which it operates, including export control and sanctions laws applied in the UN, the US and the EU," Huawei said. - Global Times by Chen Qingqing
We hope that Canadian authorities handle the case
seriously and properly. We also hope that Ms Meng will be treated
humanely and will be bailed out. We would like to see Meng's case being
handled properly, so that she can regain her freedom as soon as
possible. Chinese society has always respected Canada, and it is
sincerely hoped that the way how Canadian authorities handle this matter
will live up to Chinese people's expectation and impressions regarding
the country.
The Chinese government should seriously go behind the US
tendency to abuse legal procedures to suppress China's high-tech
enterprises. It should increase interaction with the US and exert
pressure when necessary. China has been exercising restraint, but the US
cannot act recklessly. US President Donald Trump should rein in the
hostile activities of some Americans who may imperil Sino-US relations.
US takes aim at Huawei
Arrest of telecom giant's CFO escalates US-China tech battle
THE Trump administration’s efforts to extradite the chief financial officer of China’s Huawei Technologies Co over criminal charges mark the start of an even more aggressive phase in the technology rivalry between the United States and China and will increase pressure on Washington’s allies to shun the telecommunications company.
Armed with a US extradition request, Canadian authorities arrested Meng Wanzhou on Dec 1, the same day as President Trump was holding a summit with Chinese counterpart President Xi Jinping. But White House officials said Trump had no advance knowledge of the arrest, indicating the action was on a separate track from trade talks currently under way between Washington and Beijing.
Meng’s detention underscores a sense of urgency, at the Justice Department and other US agencies, to address what they see as a growing threat to national security posed by China’s ambitions to gain an edge in the tech sector. For years, Washington has alleged the Chinese government could compel Huawei, which supplies much of the world with critical cellular network equipment, to spy or to disrupt communications.
Huawei has long said it is an employee-owned company and isn’t beholden to any government, and has never used its equipment to spy on or sabotage other countries. The Chinese government, speaking through its embassy in Canada, strenuously objected to the arrest, and demanded Meng’s immediate release.
US prosecutors made the extradition request based on a sealed indictment for alleged violations of Iran sanctions that had been prepared for some time, people familiar with the matter said. A federally appointed US overseer, formerly charged with evaluating HSBC Holdings PLC’s anti-money-laundering and sanctions controls, relayed information about suspicious Huawei transactions to federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York, some of the people said.
Meng, the daughter of Huawei’s founder, Ren Zhengfei, is now in custody in Vancouver, and a bail hearing has been scheduled for Friday, according to a spokesman for Canada’s justice department.
Some worried a lack of coordination on the various strands of the Trump administration’s China initiatives could be counterproductive, especially if Trump decides to use the detention of Meng as leverage to extract concessions in the trade talks. The two sides agreed on a 90-day window from the Dec 1 summit to settle a trade dispute that has seen the two sides exchange tit-for-tat tariffs on each other’s goods.
“I’m very concerned that that’s just going to ratchet this trade war and make negotiations much more difficult,” said Gary Locke, former US ambassador to China. “This is I think a really hot-button, almost a grenade with respect to the 90-day negotiations.”
China has a long history of reading darker motives into US actions. “The risk is conspiracy theories in Beijing,” said China scholar Michael Pillsbury at Hudson Institute, who consults regularly with the Trump trade team. He compares the events to when China rejected US explanations that the United States had made a mistake when it bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 during the Kosovo war.
The arrest indicated the Justice Department had significant evidence against Meng, and that additional charges were likely, said Brian Fleming, a trade and national security lawyer at Miller & Chevalier. “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” he said.
The arrest could also add ammunition to an extraordinary US government campaign to persuade wireless and Internet providers in allied countries to stop using telecommunications equipment from Huawei, said national security experts.
US officials say they are intensifying efforts to curb Huawei because wireless carriers world-wide are about to upgrade to 5G, a new wireless technology that will connect many more items—factory parts, self-driving cars and everyday objects like wearable health monitors – to the Internet. US officials say they don’t want to give Beijing the potential to interfere with an ever-growing universe of connected devices.
Tech rivalry: The high-tech trade war shows
that for all the hoopla over manufacturing jobs, steel autos and
tariffs, the real competition is in the tech sector. — Reuters
IF you only scan the headlines, you could be forgiven for thinking that the US-China trade war is mainly about tariffs.
After all, the president and trade-warrior-in-chief has called himself “Tariff Man”. And the tentative trade deal between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping was mainly about tariffs, especially on items like automobiles.
But the startling arrest in Canada of a Chinese telecom company executive should wake people up to the fact that there’s a second US-China trade war going on – a much more stealthy conflict, fought with weapons much subtler and more devastating than tariffs. And the prize in that other struggle is domination of the information-technology industry.
The arrested executive, Wanzhou Meng, is the chief financial officer of telecom-equipment manufacturer Huawei Technologies Co (and its founder’s daughter). The official reason for her arrest is that Huawei is suspected of selling technology to Iran, in violation of US sanctions.
It’s the second big Chinese tech company to be accused of breaching those sanctions – the first was ZTE Corp in 2017. The United States punished ZTE by forbidding it from buying American components – most importantly, telecom chips made by US-based Qualcomm Inc.
Those purchasing restrictions were eventually lifted after ZTE agreed to pay a fine, and it seems certain that Huawei will also eventually escape severe punishment. But these episodes highlight Chinese companies’ dependence on critical US technology.
The United States. still makes – or at least, designs – the best computer chips in the world. China assembles lots of electronics, but without those crucial inputs of US technology, products made by companies such as Huawei would be of much lower quality.
Export restrictions, and threats of restrictions, are thus probably not just about sanctions – they’re about making life harder for the main competitors of US tech companies.
Huawei just passed Apple Inc to become the world’s second-largest smartphone maker by market share (Samsung Electronics Co is first). This marks a change for China, whose companies have long been stuck doing low-value assembly while companies in rich countries do the high-value design, marketing and component manufacturing.
US moves against Huawei and ZTE may be intended to force China to remain a cheap supplier instead of a threatening competitor.
The subtle, far-sighted nature of this approach suggests that the impetus for the high-tech trade war goes far beyond what Trump, with his focus on tariffs and old-line manufacturing industries, would think of. It seems likely that US tech companies, as well as the military intelligence communities, are influencing policy here as well.
In fact, more systematic efforts to block Chinese access to US components are in the works. The Export Control Reform Act, passed this summer, increased regulatory oversight of US exports of “emerging” and “foundational” technologies deemed to have national-security importance. Although national security is certainly a concern, it’s generally hard to separate high-tech industrial and corporate dominance from military dominance, so this too should be seen as part of the trade war.
A second weapon in the high-tech trade war is investment restrictions. The Trump administration has greatly expanded its power to block Chinese investments in US technology companies, through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The goal of investment restrictions is to prevent Chinese companies from copying or stealing American ideas and technologies. Chinese companies can buy American companies and transfer their intellectual property overseas, or have their employees train their Chinese replacements.
Even minority stakes can allow a Chinese investor access to industrial secrets that would otherwise be off-limits. By blocking these investors, the Trump administration hopes to preserve US technological dominance, at least for a little while longer.
Notably, the European Union is also moving to restrict Chinese investments. The fact that Europe, which has opposed Trump’s tariffs, is copying American investment restrictions, should be a signal that the less-publicised high-tech trade war is actually the important one.
The high-tech trade war shows that for all the hoopla over manufacturing jobs, steel, autos and tariffs, the real competition is in the tech sector.
Losing the lead in the global technology race means lower profits and a disappearing military advantage. But it also means losing the powerful knowledge-industry clustering effects that have been an engine of US economic growth in the post-manufacturing age. Bluntly put, the United States can afford to lose its lead in furniture manufacturing; it can’t afford to lose its dominance in the tech sector.
The question is whether the high-tech trade war will succeed in keeping China in second place. China has long wanted to catch up in semiconductor manufacturing, but export controls will make that goal a necessity rather than an aspiration. And investment restrictions may spur China to upgrade its own homegrown research and development capacity.
In other words, in the age when China and the United States were economically co-dependent, China might have been content to accept lower profit margins and keep copying American technology instead of developing its own. But with the coming of the high-tech trade war, that co-dependency is coming to an end. Perhaps that was always inevitable, as China pressed forward on the technological frontier. In any case, the Trump administration’s recent moves against Chinese tech – and some similar moves by the EU – should be seen as the first shots in a long war.
After years of planning, the robotic Chang'e-4 mission will launch tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. EST.
Rising space power China is preparing to launch a ground-breaking mission to soft-land an unmanned spacecraft on the far side of ... China prepares mission to land spacecraft on moon's far side. By Christopher Bodeen | AP.
US President Barack Obama deplanes upon his arrival at the Royal Malaysian Airforce base to attend the 27th Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit in Subang, outside Kuala Lumpur on November 20, 2015. - AFP
Issues of good governance, democracy and human rights will always be low on the agenda of any country when dealing in foreign affairs.
THE first American president to visit us was Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. His reasons for visiting were probably the same as President Barack Obama’s: security (although in those days it was about the “threat” of Vietnam and the feared domino effect of nations falling under the thrall of Communism, whereas now it’s Islamic State) and economy (although then it was probably more about ensuring we keep on supplying tin and rubber whereas now it’s about keeping us from being too influenced by China).
Whenever the President of the United States visit another country, he is bound to make waves of some sort. According to oral history (i.e. my mum and dad), when LBJ came here all sorts of craziness ensued, like the inexplicable chopping-down of strategic trees; as though some renegade monkey was going to throw himself at the presidential convoy.
Our Prime Minister at the time, Tunku Abdul Rahman, wasn’t too fussed about the visit, saying that Johnson needn’t have come at all.
Obama’s visit wasn’t quite as colourful, with security measures being limited to thousands of guns and the closing of the Federal Highway (no more monkeys in KL) and all our leaders expectedly excited and giddy.
What I found interesting about Mr Obama’s trip is his consistent request to meet with “the youth” and civil society. He did it the last time he was here and he did it again this time.
This is all well and good; he’s quite a charming, intelligent fellow and he says soothing things. So what if he gave us a couple of hours of traffic hell (in this sense, the American Presidency is fair for he treats his citizens and foreigners alike: I have been reliably informed that whenever Obama visits his favourite restaurant in Malibu, the whole town is gridlocked by security measures. What, you can’t do take away, Barack?).
Anyway, I see no harm in all these meetings. But then neither do I see any good. At least not any real and lasting good, apart from perhaps the thrill of meeting one of the most powerful people on earth and having him say things that match your own world view.
The world of social media went a bit loopy when a young man at the “town hall meeting” with youths asked the President to raise issues of good governance with our Prime Minister, to which he replied that he would. And maybe he did, but at the end of the day, so what?
Frankly that’s all he will do, a bit of lip service, because issues of good governance, democracy and human rights will always be low on the agenda of any country when dealing in international affairs. They may make a big song and dance about it, but they don’t really care.
And before you accuse me of anti-Americanism, I believe this applies to most, if not all, countries. The Americans like us because we appear to be hard in the so-called “war on terror”.
They need us, not because we are such a huge trading partner, but because they want us on their side (by way of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) in the economic battles that they have been, and will be, continuing to fight against China.
We see this behaviour of putting self-interest over any sort of serious stand on principle happening again and again. Why is it that the United Nations Security Council did nothing when Saddam Hussein massacred thousands of Kurds using chemical weapons, but took hurried military action when he invaded Kuwait?
Perhaps it is because at the time of the Kurdish genocide, Saddam was fighting Iran which was deemed by some, at least, as the great enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if he is a genocidal butcher.
It is trite to mention the hypocrisies abound in international relations. Anyone with the vaguest interest in world affairs can see it. To expect any less is naïve.
Besides, there is another danger of having a big power like the US mess around with our national problems. If they do so, it will be all too easy for the rabid so-called nationalists amongst us to scream that foreign intervention is leading to loss of sovereignty and national pride. Their “patriotism” will muddy the waters, adding issues to confuse people when there need not be any added issues at all.
The point of this article is this – for those of us who want to create a nation with true democracy and respect for human rights, we’re on our own folks.
By Azman Sharom brave new world The Star/Asia News Network
Azmi Sharom (azmi.sharom@gmail.com) is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.
Safeguarding
our territory: Malaysian troops moving into Tanduo village during an
operation to flush out the armed intruders. — (Handout photo by Defence
Ministry)
A major shift in Malaysia's position on the Philippine claim to Sabah is needed.
THE
Philippines Government officially announced their claim to North Borneo
(now Sabah) on June 22, 1962. Despite numerous attempts to settle the
issue, it still festers on, exemplified by the latest tragic events
unfolding on the east coast of Sabah.
The Philippine claim is based on two documents dated Jan 22, 1878. By the first document, Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzam granted (pajak) all his territorial possessions in Borneo (tanah besar Pulau Berunai)
to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent Esquire as
representatives of a British Company for a yearly payment/ quit rent (hasil pajakan) of five thousand dollars (Spanish dollars).
By
the second document, the said Sultan appointed Overbeck as “Dato'
Bendahara and Rajah of Sandakan” with the fullest powers of a “supreme
ruler” (penghulu pemerintah atas kerajaan yang tersebut itu).
Descendants of Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzam (the number cannot be ascertained, but is large), represented by the Kiram Corporation and the Philippine Government, have always claimed that this 1878 grant was a lease (pajakan)
and not a cession as claimed by Malaysia. The continuous annual payment
of the quit rent or cession monies of five thousand dollars (now
RM5,300) to these descendants is cited as further proof of this
contention. Based on these grounds, they claim, Sabah belongs to the
Philippines/ the Sultan of Sulu's descendants.
Before discussing
how Malaysia has been responding to this assertion and how it should
alter its position drastically, a little bit of historical narrative is
in order.
Without going too far back in time, it is suffice to
say historical documents confirm that both the Sultanate of Brunei and
the Sultanate of Sulu exercised political control over parts of
present-day Sabah (there was no State or Negeri Sabah at that time) in
the late 19th century. Brunei had defacto jurisdiction on the
west coast from Kimanis to Pandasan, while Sulu ruled the east coast
from Marudu to the Sibuku River. The interior was largely independent
under local indigenous suku chiefs.
Both Sultanates, however, claimed dejure
jurisdiction from the Pandasan on the west coast to the Sibuku River on
the east. Both Sultanates were also in a state of decline. Brunei was
suffering from internal decay while large parts of its territories were
being swallowed up by the new state of Sarawak under the Brookes.
In
the Philippine region, the Spanish authorities in Manila had been
trying to subjugate the independent and powerful kingdom of Sulu for
three centuries without success. In 1871, the Spaniards launched another
exerted campaign to conquer the stubborn kingdom.
It was in this
kind of environment that a number of European and American speculators
became interested in obtaining territorial concessions from the two weak
Sultanates for speculative purposes. Among them were Lee Moses and
Joseph Torrey of America; and Baron von Overbeck and Alfred Dent who had
formed a company called the Overbeck-Dent Association on March 27, 1877
in London for the purpose of obtaining land concessions in Sabah and
selling them for a profit.
Overbeck and Dent acquired Brunei's
jurisdiction over its Sabah possessions in five documents dated Dec 29,
1877 from the Sultan of Brunei and his ministers. After this, Overbeck
sailed to Jolo where he also obtained the rights of the Sultan of Sulu
in Sabah through two agreements concluded on Jan 22, 1878.
Why was Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzan prepared to lease/ grant/ pajak his
territories in Sabah to Overbeck and Dent? Sulu was on the brink of
capitulating to the Spaniards and as such Sultan Muhammad was hopeful of
obtaining some assistance from the Overbeck-Dent Association and
possibly even from Britain. Placed in such dire straits, he was
therefore not adverse to giving Overbeck and Dent territorial
concessions in Sabah with some hope of salvation.
In the event,
no such aid came either from the Overbeck-Dent Association or the
British Government. Six months after the Overbeck-Dent grants were
concluded, Sulu was conquered by the Spanish authorities on July 2 1878.
With the fall of Sulu, the said Sultanate ceased to be an independent
entity as it was incorporated as part of the Spanish colonial
administration of the Philippines.
In 1898, Spain lost the
Philippines to the United States by the Peace of Paris (Dec 10, 1898),
which ended the Spanish-American War. The US ruled the Philippines till
1946 when independence was granted.
The sultanate ended when Sultan
Jamalul Kiram II signed the Carpenter Agreement on March 22, 1915, in
which he ceded all political power to the United States.
Carpenter, Governor of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu, Philippine
Islands, from 1913-1920, with the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II.
Meanwhile, in 1936, the US
colonial administration of the Philippines abolished the Sulu Sultanate
upon the death of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II (1894-1936) in the same year
in an attempt to create a unitary State of the Philippines. Jamalul
Kiram III is a self- appointed “Sultan” with a dubious legal status.
Now,
coming back to the question of Malaysia's ongoing treatment of the
claim, and why and how it should completely alter this position. Since
the official announcement of the claim by the Philippine Government on
June 22, 1962, Malaysia has been pursuing an ambivalent policy. On the
one hand, it has persistently rejected the Philippines claim, but on the
other it has compromised Malaysia's sovereignty by agreeing to settle
the “dispute” by peaceful means (such as the Manila Agreement, Aug 3,
1963) and a number of other mutual agreements between the two countries.
Most
damaging of all is Malaysia's willingness to honour the clause in the
1878 Sulu grant pertaining to the payment of the annual quit rent or
cession monies as Malaysia says, of RM5,300, to the descendants of the
former Sulu Sultanate. To this day, Malaysia is still paying this quit
rent, lending credence to the claimants' argument that the 1878 grant
was a lease and not a cession and therefore it still belongs to them.
If
Malaysia continues to follow this policy, there will be no end to this
problem except to buy out the rights of the descendents of the Sultan of
Sulu. But this course is fraught with danger as it will lead to further
legal complications with the Philippines and even endless litigation
with the descendants.
My proposal is that Malaysia should go by
the laws of “effectivities”, as in the case of the International Court
of Justice's (ICJ) judgement pertaining to the issue of sovereignty over
the Sipadan and Ligitan islands, and the law of acts of a'titre de souverain as
in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh. No title, however strong, is valid
once the original owner fails to exercise acts consistent with the
position of a'titre de souverain. The opposite is true, that is,
the holder of the lease may not have original title but he ultimately
gains permanent possession of the lease by virtue of continuous state
“effectivities”.
In this case, the Sultan of Sulu and its successors including the Philippine government have failed to conduct any acts of a'titre de souverain since 1882, and so they have legally lost their title.
On
the other hand, the successors of the Overbeck-Dent Association, that
is the British North Borneo Company (1882-1946); the British Colonial
Administration (1946-1963); and Malaysia, (from 1963) have been
exercising continuous acts of a'titre de souverain for a period of 131 years.
Since
we have all this evidence on our side, Malaysia should now take a new
stand by totally rejecting the validity of the 1878 grants on the
grounds of “effectivitie” and a'titre de souverain. It should
also immediately stop paying the so-called annual quit rent or cession
monies. This payment has always brought huge embarrassment to Malaysia
and has in fact compromised its sovereignty.
We should also never
agree to go to the International Court of Justice not because our case
is weak (it is very strong), but because we don't want to trade the fate
of sovereign territories and people through the judgment of any court,
even the ICJ.
There's one more point that should be pondered
upon. No country or state or nation which has obtained independence has
ever paid ownership monies to its former masters. The 13 Colonies of
America did not do so, India did not do so, the Federation of Malaya did
not do so.
Sabah became an independent state on Aug 31, 1963 and
decided to form the Federation of Malaysia with three other partners on
Sept 16, 1963. It is strange indeed, if not preposterous, that a
sovereign state is paying ownership or cession monies to certain people
based on a colonial, pre-independence treaty that is 131 years old!
Comment by EMERITUS PROF DR D.S RANJIT SINGH
Emeritus
Prof D. S. Ranjit Singh is Visiting Professor at the College of Law,
Government and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia
(ranjit@uum.edu.my).
