Rightways: Britain

Showing posts with label Britain. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Singapore and Japan passports tied for most powerful in the world, Vaccination rates for Asean

Holders of Singapore and Japan passports can travel without a prior visa to 192 destinations.PHOTO: ST FILE

SINGAPORE - Singapore and Japan have the most powerful passports in the world, according to the latest update of a global index.

Holders of passports from the two countries can travel without a prior visa to 192 destinations, it noted last week.

This is a change from April, when Japan outstripped Singapore in having the world's most powerful passport, with Japanese passport holders able to travel to 193 destinations without a prior visa, while Singaporean passport holders had such access to 192 destinations.

In the latest update, South Korea and Germany are tied for second place, with such access to 190 countries. The two countries had been tied for third place in April, with access to 191 destinations.

Finland, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain are in third place, with access to 189 nations; while Austria and Denmark are in fourth, with access to 188 countries.

The index, administered by Henley & Partners and updated throughout the year, ranks passport power according to how many destinations their holders can travel to without a prior visa.

The global citizenship and residence advisory firm noted that the gap in travel freedom is at its widest since the index was started in 2006, with Singaporean and Japanese passport holders able to visit 166 more destinations than Afghan citizens, who can travel to only 26 nations worldwide without acquiring a visa in advance.

Britain and the United States have been facing eroding passport strength since they held the top spot in 2014. Both remain tied in seventh place, but have a score of 185, down from 187 in the first quarter of the year.

Egypt is ranked 97th, with its citizens having access to 51 countries without a prior visa, while Kenya is 77th, with access to 72 destinations visa-free.

Meanwhile, Singapore will be allowing vaccinated travellers to travel to nine more countries and return without quarantine, the authorities announced last Saturday (Oct 9).

From Oct 19, vaccinated travellers from Singapore will be able to fly to Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Britain and the US.

The scheme will be extended to South Korea from Nov 15, it was announced last Friday.

These are in addition to Brunei and Germany, which Singapore had already approved for quarantine-free travel for those fully vaccinated.

In total, there will be 11 countries that Singapore approves for quarantine-free travel.

Vaccination rates for Asean (%)

Source: Centre for Strategic & International Studies, Aminvestment Bank

Malaysia is ranked the 3rd highest among Asean countries.

This paves the way for more economic activities to resume although it may not be a full recovery, matching that of pre-covid times.

Analysts are positive on this as the high vaccination rate is a leading indicator that economic activities should recover faster in Malaysia as compared to most countries in Asean.

Friday, December 16, 2016

Settle Batang Kali massacre case, Britain told by the European Court of Human rights

Seeking justice: (Front row, from left) Adviser Tan Kai Hee, Lim Kok, a descendant of one of the victims, Dr Hou, Quek and MCA central committee member Datuk Toh Chin Yaw along with other descendants of the victims at the press conference.

International court orders amicable resolution over 1948 Batang Kali killings

KUALA LUMPUR: The British government has been ordered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to seek an amicable settlement over the Batang Kali massacre, in which its soldiers killed 24 innocent villagers on Dec 11 and 12, 1948.

https://batangkalimassacre.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/batang-kali-killings-britain-in-the-dock-over-1948-massacre-in-malaysia/

Civilians lie dead in Batang Kali, in 1948

It was also told to submit a written explanation on the merits of the massacre and state its position for a friendly settlement by Feb 7, said MCA vice-president Datuk Dr Hou Kok Chung.

The ECHR made the order recently after conducting a preliminary examination of the complaint filed by the victims’ families that London had violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life, by endorsing the massacre.

Britain has been a signatory to the European Convention since 1953, when Malaya was still its colony and its residents were considered subjects under British rule.

“The descendants of the victims have for years asked the British government for an apology, compensation and construction of a memorial, but all these have been ignored.

“So, they turned to the European Court. We hope the British government and the families can reach an out-of-court settlement,” said Hou yesterday at a press conference attended by the victims’ families and their lawyer Quek Ngee Meng.

Hou said the massacre, in which British courts had held their government responsible for the killings and ruled that the victims were not linked to communist insurgents, was “an issue too big to be ignored”.

“Though many years have passed, justice must be done and the inhumane killings must be recorded. There is a need for governments to learn from history. Let history educate people.

“During the Emergency in 1948, a lot of Chinese suffered and lived in fear,” said Hou.

The British declared emergency rule on June 18, 1948, after three estate managers were murdered in Perak by the Malayan Communist Party (MCP), an outgrowth of the anti-Japanese guerrilla movement which later turned anti-colonial.

During the 1948-60 emergency rule, Chinese were rounded up into “new villages” as they were suspected of being sympathetic to MCP. On Dec 11, 1948, British troops entered the plantation village of Batang Kali, Selangor, and questioned the rubber tappers about the MCP but to no avail.

The next day, they loaded the women and children on a military truck and shot dead 23 men, after killing one the day before.

This massacre was claimed by the British as the “biggest success” since the emergency began, and its official parliamentary record in 1949 described the killings as “justified”.

But in 1970, the episode was given a twist when several soldiers involved in the operation told British media of their guilt over shooting innocent civilians.

In July 1993, survivors of the massacre petitioned for justice after the British Broadcasting Corporation did an independent documentary on the saga.

The survivors took their battle to the British government and later to the British courts with the help of international human rights groups.

Now their descendants are continuing the struggle for justice, this time with the help of MCA.

By Ho Wah Foon The Star/ANN

Related posts:

British Massacre - Batang Kali Victims win UK court scrutiny

Agony of British Massacre Victims' Descendants in Batang Kali, Malaysia

Batang Kali massacre by the British: justice for the dead!

Batang Kali massacre: British soldiers admitted unlawful killings

Batang Kali British Massacre Victims have a legal respite

British Massacre - Batang Kali Survivors and kin seek inquiry and damages

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Britain steps backward as EU faces decline: chaos but no negative impact, a windfall for children studying in UK

Britain steps backward as EU faces decline

The UK voted to leave the EU, with the Leave supporters beating Remain by 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent. The slight victory is likely to have opened a Pandora's box in Europe, pushing the continent into chaos.

A lose-lose situation is already emerging. The British pound fell 10 percent at one stage on Friday. The euro fell 3 percent.

David Cameron announced he would quit as British prime minister. Scotland may start a new independence referendum.

There are also calls in the Netherlands and France for a similar exit referendum.

The UK is just over 300 years old. In its heyday it was known as an empire on which the sun never set, with colonies all over the world (Britain was the former imperial power - whose military forces repeatedly invaded China in the 19th century - and the rising Asian giant, now the world's second-largest economy)

Now it is stepping back to where it was.

Britons are already showing a losing mind-set. They may become citizens of a nation that prefers to shut itself from the outside world.

The Leave advocates had been calculating whether their pensions were guaranteed or migrants were encroaching on their neighborhood. Bigger topics such as the country's aspirations or its global strategy were overlooked.

Britain has been a special member of the EU. It has not joined the eurozone, nor adopted the Schengen agreement. France and Germany have been resentful of Britain's half-hearted presence in the EU. In a sense, Britain's exit may be a relief for both sides.

However, such relief is in effect a major setback for European integration. Such setbacks don't happen in good times. Britain's exit reflects the general decline of Europe.

The world's center used to lie on the two sides of the Atlantic. Now the focus has shifted to the Pacific. East Asia has witnessed decades of high-speed growth and prosperity. Europe stays where it was, becoming the world's center of museums and tourist destinations. Unfortunately, Europe is also close to the chaotic Middle East. Waves of refugees flood into Europe, coinciding with increasing terrorist attacks.

Europe is not able to resolve the problems it is facing. The public are confused and disappointed and extremism is steading.

The Leave grouping beat out the Remain supporters by only 4 percentage points, which could have resulted from some temporary reasons. Is it really fair to decide Britain's future this way?

Such changes will benefit the US, which will lose a strong rival in terms of the dominance of its currency. Politically it will be easier for the US to influence Europe.

There is no direct political impact on Russia and China. For the Chinese people, who are at a critical time to learn about globalization and democracy, they will continue to watch the consequence of Britain's embracing of a "democratic" referendum. - Global Times.

No negative impact from UK vote for Malaysia

In good hands: Liew having a discussion with former London mayor Boris Johnson. Liew says he has confidence UK government will move the country forward on every front.

Britain is still a hugely important economy in Europe, says Liew

KUALA LUMPUR : Malaysian property firms with developments in the United Kingdom say that their ventures will not be negatively impacted as a result of the June 23 referendum whereby British citizens voted to exit the European Union.

Eco World International Bhd executive vice-chairman Tan Sri Liew Kee Sin said that while the decisive win by the Brexit camp was unexpected, the group is optimistic that the results hold a silver lining going forward.

“Now that the results of the EU referendum are known, the long uncertainty which has caused many investors to hold back on decision making is finally over. Britain is still a hugely important economy in Europe with highly principled, professional and competent leaders,” he said in a statement.

Liew added that he has every confidence that the British government will do their utmost to take proactive measures to assuage post-Brexit concerns and move the UK forward on every front.

London’s position as a prime destination for global real estate investment is unlikely to change given that many of the fundamental drivers of demand are still intact. Chief among them are transparency of laws, sesurity and ease of ownership, and shortage of supply, among others, Liew noted.

EWI, which is en route to listing on Bursa Malaysia, has three projects in London, namely the London City Island Phase 2 in East London, Embassy Gardens in Nine Elms, and Wardian London facing the Canary Wharf. All three were launched last year.

“For EWI specifically, it should be noted that through our proposed initial public offering we will be raising equity in ringgit. Now that the sterling has dropped it means that the cost we have to inject into the UK to pay for the developments there will be lower,” he points out.

Meanwhile, in a statement reacting to the results of the UK referendum, Sime Darby Bhd, which is undertaking the Battersea Power Station project has reiterated its long term commitment to the venture.

“The results of the referendum is not expected to impact the viability of the project.

“We are confident the iconic development will continue to generate interest in the longer term and that London will continue to remain a key investment destination and financial centre,” it said.

Sime Darby has a 40% stake in Battersea. The other joint venture partners are SP Setia Bhd and the Employees Provident Fund with 40% and 20% respectively.

A research note by MIDF Research said global capital markets may take some time to adjust to the Brexit vote which could have adverse repercussions on businesses.

Its group managing director Datuk Mohd Najib Abdullah said that as a result of Brexit, the world is moving into a period of elevated uncertainty, with risk appetite plunging in a flight to safety and security.

As the UK is an important market for Malaysian exporters and an important source of foreign direct investments, any economic malaise from Europe will inevitably affect Malaysia in the longer term, Aboth directly and indirectly, MIDF said. - By afiq Isa The Star

Windfall for Malaysian parents of children studying in Britain

Parents with children studying in Britain are heaving a sigh of relief because the pound has weakened following Brexit.

The ringgit closed at RM5.66 to the pound yesterday, a drop of 4.67% compared to a month ago when it was RM6.03.

Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia chairman Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahman said tuition fees would be more affordable.

“For parents who couldn’t afford it initially, they may change their minds now,” she said when contacted.

She added that one should look at the positive instead of focusing on the negative implications.

A parent, who asked to be identified only as Auntie Chris, has a son studying biotechnology at Imperial College London, and said: “We are liquidating our accounts to take advantage of the drop in the pound, which is great news.”

She said her son, who is in his second year, planned to pursue his master’s in Britain after graduation but had put his plan on hold due to the strong pound.

“We asked him to work first, after graduating, due to the financial constraints but with the pound dropping significantly, going for his master’s may be back on the table,” she said.

Another parent, Azura Abdullah, said she did not expect her son’s tuition fees to increase any time soon.

Her son is a second-year law student at University of Exeter.

Some parents were fearful of Britain’s exit from the European Union.

Despite the weakened pound, Azura felt the price of goods may increase in the short term because Britain could no longer leverage on EU trade deals, which could increase the cost of living there for her son.

“But we hope to offset this with the lower currency rate as the pound will devalue in the short to middle term,” Azura added.

Auntie Chris said she was worried that Britain’s decision may affect job prospects for Malaysians over there.

“If Britain goes into recession, it will affect job prospects for new graduates,” she said, adding that immigration controls may also be tightened following Brexit.

Chief executive officer and provost of the University of Nottingham Malaysia campus Prof Christine Ennew said parents should expect cheaper education.

“Students should be able to do more with their money in the UK, at least in the short term, say over the next couple of years,” she said.

Prof Ennew admitted that there could be some concerns over the issuing of student visas.

“However, Boris Johnson, one of the leading figures in the Brexit camp, has always been very supportive of international students and this should give some reassurance that the visa regime will not necessarily become harder for students from outside the EU,” she said.

She added that it was likely that EU students would be more affected than those from outside the union. - The Star

Related post:

British media 'barbarians' need lessons

2016年5月13日 ... Chinese-language editorial (see below) published earlier today, the Global Times said that "barbarians" in the British media had blown the ...

Related:

Brexit reminds EU to heed the voice of people

In spite of earnest pleas for the United Kingdom to remain, and warnings of dire economic, political consequences of Brexit (or Britain's exit from the EU), the referendum was a matter of popular choice, not a process dictated by reason and cool-headed analysis.

UK-M’sian partnership remains unchanged
Pound’s sudden dip a headache
Cameron out of No. 10 by October
Our students an anxious lot
M’sian developers unfazed by EU withdrawal
UK’s departure drives KLCI down
Stunned EU tells Britain to go quickly
Impact on Malaysia minimal in the long run, says Mustapa
Britain votes to leave EU

UK walks a tightrope in Brexit poll

If the UK votes to leave, it will become an Atlantic orphan and lose its special relationship with the EU.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

School grades don't matter much?

Accounting firms PwC and EY start a trend in recruitment to help business and society

Big Four

WE all know that good grades in school won’t necessarily land you that first job. They do however go a long way towards convincing a potential employer that you’re likely to perform well if hired. That’s why you’re routinely asked to produce certificates and transcripts during the application process. How else can the employer get a quick reading on the discipline, intelligence, diligence and knowledge of a school-leaver or a fresh graduate?

But what if an employer decides that your grades shouldn’t matter as much? How will that change things?

For the answer to that, we ought to be watching the Big Four accounting firms in Britain.

Starting in June last year, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) stopped using the UCAS tariff as an entry criterion for most of its undergraduate and graduate recruitment schemes. Developed by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the tariff is the British system for allocating points to those seeking undergraduate placements.

The system applies to a long list of entry qualifications — for example, A levels, City & Guilds diplomas, and music examinations — and the points for each qualification are worked out based on the levels of achievement.

Before this, a person usually must have a minimum number of UCAS points before PwC would consider his job application, even if he’s a graduate. This is apparently a common practice in Britain. With the policy change, the accounting firm can now overlook mediocre A-level results if the candidate has gone on to soar in his degree programme.

PwC says the reduced emphasis on UCAS points is because it’s important to be a progressive and socially inclusive employer, and because it wants to reach the broadest range of talented students.

“There’s strong correlation that exists in Britain between social class and school academic performance. This data suggests that by placing too much emphasis on UCAS scores, employers could miss out on key talent from disadvantaged backgrounds, because they may perform less well at school. That’s why, from an academic perspective, we’re focusing on your degree,” it explains on its website.

And then in August, Ernst & Young (EY) announced that it would remove academic qualifications from the entry criteria for its 2016 graduate, undergraduate and school-leaver programmes. Instead of insisting on certain standards for UCAS points and degree classification, the firm relies on “a new and enhanced suite of online “strengths” assessments and numerical tests to assess the potential of applicants”.

In other words, EY recruits by evaluating the candidates’ strengths and promise, not just their past performance.

This decision came after talent management firm Capp had studied EY’s student selection process over 18 months. The analysis found that EY’s strengths-based approach in recruitment, introduced in 2008, is a robust and reliable indicator of a candidate’s potential to succeed in his role in EY.

“At EY, we are modernising the workplace, challenging traditional thinking and ways of doing things. Transforming our recruitment process will open up opportunities for talented individuals regardless of their background and provide greater access to the profession,” says Maggie Stilwell, the managing partner for talent.

“Academic qualifications will still be taken into account and indeed remain an important consideration when assessing candidates as a whole, but will no longer act as a barrier to getting a foot in the door.”

“Our own internal research of over 400 graduates found that screening students based on academic performance alone was too blunt an approach to recruitment. It found no evidence to conclude that previous success in higher education correlated with future success in subsequent professional qualifications undertaken.”

It’s interesting that Stillwell describes an overriding dependence on academic qualifications as a blunt approach. Stephen Isherwood, the chief executive of Britain’s Association of Graduate Recruiters, has a similar view. The PwC press release on the firm’s move to drop the UCAS points entry criteria, quotes Isherwood: “Using a candidate’s UCAS points to assess his potential is a blunt tool and a barrier to social mobility. This is an innovative step by one of the most significant graduate recruiters in Britain. Other graduate employers should follow its lead.”

PwC definitely sees itself as a trendsetter, saying its new recruitment assessment process could drive radical change across its industry. However, these radical changes haven’t happened yet. So far, Deloitte and KPMG, the other two firms in the Big Four, are still sticking to their minimum academic requirements in Britain.

It’s too soon to conclude that the recruitment changes by PwC and EY are a failed experiment.

The war for talent is intense among accounting firms. Businesses can’t stay at the top without thinking out of the box, taking bold steps, and being caring. It should be no different when it comes to how they hire people.

By Errol Oh Optimistically cautious viewpoint

Executive editor Errol Oh joined an accounting firm right out of school. That doesn’t happen in Malaysia anymore.

Related:

Big Four Corporation

The Big Four are the four largest international professional services networks, offering audit, assurance, tax, consulting, advisory, actuarial, corporate finance, and legal services. Wikipedia

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Asians can and must think strategically, not to be dominated by the West

Can Asians think?

CAN Asian Think is a provocative book written in 1998 by the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, Kishore Mahbubani, a prolific and brilliant thinker.

The book is a combative rebuttal of the idea that the dominant Western (read American) ideas are universalist, arguing that the Rest (of the World) has a lot to teach the West.

Re-reading it after more than 16 years, the questions raised by Mahbubani are as relevant as ever. Personally, I found the title rather condescending – of course Asians can think! The real issue is whether Asians can think strategically in their own interest, or whether they think that the dominant Western philosophy and values are so comfortable and relevant that they simply accept that the West is best.

The intellectual tide is going full circle. Since 1998, we have experienced two full-scale crises – the Asian financial crisis of 1998-1999 in which some Western polemicists gloated over Asian hubris, and the Great Recession of 2007-2009, when even Western intellectuals questioned whether unfettered capitalism was a dead end.

As one Asian leader said, when our teacher stumbles, what does the student do? This strategic question has not been completely answered, or at least the answers are different for different Asian countries.

Now that the West has begun to recover, we are going through a reversal of fortunes. Emerging economies are going to bear the brunt of global adjustment. At least three Asian economies are counted among the Fragile Five (India, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and South Africa), and there is considerable worry that China may be going through a hard landing.

President Obama’s trip to Asia was a belated personal confirmation of his “Pivot to East Asia” policy, first articulated in 2012 by then Secretary of State and Presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton. As the United States began to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, and its discovery of shale oil making it less dependent on the Middle East, the Pivot strategy involved strengthening bilateral ties with allies in East Asia, and working relationships with emerging powers, such as China. The immediate unintended consequence of the Pivot policy was the eruption of the Ukraine crisis, whereby Russia took advantage of European weakness and diversion of US attention to effectively bring Crimea back to the Russian sphere of influence.

All of a sudden, the Cold War, defined as the struggle between Big Powers, re-emerged into the global risk equation.

Russian soldiers march at the Red Square in Moscow during a Victory Day parade. Thousands of Russian troops marched in Red Square to mark 69 years since victory in World War II in a show of military might amid tensions in Ukraine following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. -AFP

The word “pivot” originally arose from a paper “The Geographical Pivot of History”, delivered exactly 110 years ago by Sir Halford Mackinder (1861-1947), then director of the London School of Economics. In his second book in 1919, Mackinder, considered the father of geopolitics and geostrategy theory, enscapsulated his theory of the Heartland in a dictum: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.”

The Heartland is of course Central Asia, previously part of the Soviet Union, and the World-Island is the largest landmass of Euroasia, from Atlantic Europe to the East Asian Pacific coast, which commands 50% of the world’s resources. Many of today’s areas of geopolitical risk are at the frontiers of the Heartland – Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and the South China Sea.

Mackinder’s innovation was to examine national strategy on a global scale, recognising that the British empire must use geography and strategic policy to its advantage against competing great powers.

Former British colonies understood very well the British strategy of “divide and rule”, playing off one faction against the other, so that Britain could rule a subcontinent like India without expending too much resources. But Britain did not hesitate to apply gunboats or cannon to maintain the strategic balance. Similarly, Britain played off one European power against another, until weakened by two world wars, her former colony, the United States emerged as the global superpower.

Seen from the long lens of history, we are in the second Anglo-Saxon empire, with America being the new Rome. Just as the Roman empire shifted its capital from Rome to Constantinople (now Istanbul) in the 20th century, power shifted westward from London to Washington DC.

In the 20th century, two island economies, Britain and Japan, played leading roles in intervening in the continents of Europe and Asia through maritime power, but by the 21st century, air and technological power through size and scale changed the game in favour of the United States. The United States is a continental economy defended by two oceans, the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic, without a military rival within the Americas.

In contrast, Asia has been historically riven by war and territorial disputes.

In his new book, the Revenge of Geography, geostrategist Robert Kaplan argued how politics and warfare were determined throughout history largely by geography.

Even though the arrival of air travel and Internet suggest that the world may become borderless, the reality is that the world is becoming more and more crowded.

When the First World War broke out in 1914, the global population was only 1.7 billion, with a death count of 16 million. By the Second World War, the death count reached as high as 85 million, when world population was only 2.3 billion.

The next World War will be fought over water and energy resources, because there are limits to natural resources even as the global population exceeds 7 billion, going towards 9 billion by 2030.

For the world to avoid global conflict will require great skills and mutual understanding, because the geopolitical risks of political miscalculation and accidents are extremely high in an age of rising tensions due to inequality, chauvinism, religious and ethnic polarisation. As an old African saying goes, when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. In the next big fight between the nuclear powers, there will be no winners.

Now that is something that not just Asians must seriously think about.

- Contributed by Tan Sri Andrew Sheng

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is Distinguished Fellow of the Fung Global Institute. The views expressed are entirely the writer's own.

Friday, December 6, 2013

Chinese tell Cameron: return the treasures Britain looted from China!

Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron (L) listens to China's Premier Li Keqiang as the two leaders deliver statements following a signing ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Dec. 2, 2013 Reuters

BEIJING: British Prime Minister David Cameron faced demands for the return of priceless artefacts looted from Beijing in the 19th century on Wednesday, the last day of his visit to China.

Cameron travelled to the southwestern city of Chengdu on the third day of what embassy officials said was the largest ever British trade mission to the country.

British officials say £5.6 billion-worth of deals have been signed so far on the trip, but Cameron has been derided by both Chinese state-run media and the country’s sharp-tongued Internet users.

The prime minister last Friday set up his own microblogging page on Sina Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, attracting more than 230,000 followers by Wednesday. He invited netizens to ask questions, saying that he would aim to reply during the visit.

One of the most popular questions was posted by a prominent Chinese think-tank, the China Center for International Economic Exchanges, which is headed by former vice-premier Zeng Peiyan and includes as its members many top government officials and leading economists.

“When will Britain return the illegally plundered artefacts?” the organisation asked, referring to 23,000 items in the British Museum which it says were looted by the British Army, part of the Eight-Nation Alliance that put down the Boxer Rebellion at the end of the 19th century, a popular uprising against the incursion of European imperial powers in China.

To the Chinese, the ransacking of the Forbidden City, and the earlier destruction of the Old Summer Palace in Beijing in 1860 about which one British officer wrote: “You can scarcely imagine the beauty and magnificence of the places we burnt. It made one’s heart sore to burn them” – remain key symbols of how the country was once dominated by foreign powers.

Even now the ruling Communist party appeals to nationalism to bolster its popularity.

Beijing was outraged by Cameron’s meeting with the Dalai Lama – who it condemns as a dangerous separatist – last year, which led to a diplomatic deep-freeze between the two nations.

Despite the trip being billed as a trade mission, it has widely been seen as an attempt to repair some of the damage caused to China-British relations.

But a leading state newspaper launched an attack on Cameron Tuesday, saying Britain should recognise it is not a major power but “just an old European country apt for travel and study” in an editorial under the headline “China won’t fall for Cameron’s ‘sincerity’”.

The prime minister has taken more than 100 businesspeople with him to China, including the heads of Jaguar Land Rover, Rolls Royce and Royal Dutch Shell and the chief executive of the London Stock Exchange. - By AFP

China won’t fall for Cameron’s ‘sincerity

The UK Prime Minister David Cameron arrived in China Monday, starting his three-day tour in the country. The once halted Sino-British relations, due to Cameron's meeting with the Dalai Lama last year, may see an ice-breaking. This year, China has been actively engaged in relations with Germany and France, which propels the urgency of the Cameron administration to end the chilliness of bilateral relations.

Some analysts say that the UK, France and Germany have reached an unwritten understanding on the issue of the Dalai Lama to provoke China. When the leadership of one country meets with the Dalai Lama, the other two countries develop ties with China.

Such an argument does echo the real situation of China's relations with Europe, especially when yesterday, the British Royal Navy's Chief of Staff, Admiral George Zambellas met with Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera and supported Japan's stance toward China's recently declared Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea. This has added doubts over Cameron's sincerity in improving ties with China.

Perhaps there is no need to talk about "sincerity" in terms of Sino-British relations. What Cameron does is out of his own political interest and the UK's national interest. His visit this time can hardly be the end of the conflict between China and the UK.

Beijing needs to speed up the pace of turning its strength into diplomatic resources and make London pay the price for when it intrudes into the interests of China.

China has gained some achievement in countering European leaders' moves of meeting with the Dalai Lama. China's strategic initiatives in its relations with Europe have been increasing. The UK, France and Germany dare not make joint provocations toward China over the Dalai Lama issue.

The Chinese government will surely show courtesy to Cameron. But the public does not forget his stance on certain issues. We know that the British government has been making carping comments on Hong Kong implementing universal suffrage for the chief executive's election in 2017. It also gives ulterior support for those who advocate opposition between Hong Kong and the central government. This has added to the negative impression the Chinese public holds toward the UK. Chinese people believe that if London interferes in Hong Kong's transition process of implementing universal suffrage, Sino-British ties can be halted again.

The Cameron administration should acknowledge that the UK is not a big power in the eyes of the Chinese. It is just an old European country apt for travel and study. This has gradually become the habitual thought of the Chinese people.

China has believed in "diplomacy is no small matter," while after years of ups and downs, we have acquired the strategic confidence that "diplomacy is no big matter." China will act accordingly given how it is treated.

Finally, let us show courtesy to Cameron and wish him a pleasant trip. - By Global Time

Monday, December 2, 2013

Defeated Japan ought to honor terms dictated by Cairo Declaration in post-war world order

As the world is commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Cairo Declaration Sunday, it is high time that Japan observed the terms dictated by the historic document.

Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill met at the Cairo Conference in Cairo, November 25, 1943.

Chinese embassy marks 70th anniversary of Cairo Declaration

Declaration supports China´s Diaoyu Islands sovereignty CCTV News - CNTV English

On Dec. 1, 1943, the Cairo Declaration was broadcast in a communique on radio in Chongqing, Washington and London, setting the tone for an imminent end to the most destructive war in human history.

The landmark document, issued by China, the United States and Britain, voiced the determination of the Allies of World War II to continue military actions until Japan's unconditional surrender.

It also set goals for the post-war order, in which Japan shall restore all the territories it has stolen from China, including Taiwan. The Diaoyu Islands, which for recent years Japan has claimed as its own territory, was then affiliated islands of Taiwan.

The Cairo Declaration serves as a cornerstone of the post-war order in East Asia. By incorporating history, international law and bilateral treaties, the document laid the foundation for regional peace.

On July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Declaration, issued by the United States,Britain and China, reaffirmed that the terms of the Cairo Declaration would be carried out, and stipulated that "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

By signing the Instrument of Surrender a month later, Japan specifically accepted the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, which incorporated the terms of the Cairo Declaration.

The normalization of Sino-Japanese relations was also achieved within the framework of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration. In the Sino-Japanese Joint Communique inked in 1972, Japan agreed that "it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."

Six years later, in the China-Japan Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1978, the two countries pledged to strictly observe the principles in the joint communique, and vowed that "they will use peaceful means to settle all disputes and will refrain from the use of force or the threats of the use thereof."

The post-war order in East Asia, which has weathered the vicissitudes of time, remains steadfast in its commitment to the restoration of territories seized or occupied by invaders, as well as the international status of those countries that fell victim to Japan's aggressive war.

On such basis, East Asia has quickly emerged from the ashes of war to become enviable economic powerhouses of the world. Amid overall peace, Japan, China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore as well as many Southeast Asian countries and regions have witnessed spectacular growth in past decades.

The Cairo Declaration, as well as other related documents, have served as legal guardians for economic prosperity in East Asia.

To ignore these documents and allow the then militarist invaders maintain their stolen land would defy the post-war East Asian order, risk a resurgence of the once rampant Japanese militarism, and breed historical resentment in countries, on which Japan's war of aggression had wreaked havoc.

China loves peace and needs a peaceful environment for its domestic development. It is Japan that has provoked the dispute over the Diaoyu Islands, and heightened regional tension to challenge the post-war order.

Despite the strong opposition from China, Japan, on Sept. 10th last year, unilaterally announced its "nationalization" of the Diaoyu Islands, riding roughshod over the declaration.

Over the past year, Abe's government has turned a blind eye to the evidence presented by the Chinese government and the testimony given by Japanese witnesses, and refused to recognize the agreement to "shelve the disputes" over the islands issue, which was struck by the two sides in 1970s.

If Japan would not even admit the dispute, how could dialogues and negotiations be launched to seek a settlement?

To amend Japan's current pacifist peaceful constitution and beef up its military muscle is the major factor behind the Abe administration's hell-bentness on having its own way.

As stipulated in its post-war pacifist constitution, Japan has no right to wage war. The so-called "China threat" is a lame excuse Japan has invented to break the restraints imposed by the constitution.

What's more, the Abe administration takes an apathetic stand on war crimes Japan committed some 70 years ago.

Provocative remarks and actions, such as quibbling with the definition of "aggression", sparing no efforts to revise the country's war-renouncing constitution and visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, have been repeatedly brought up by the prime minister.

The dispute over Diaoyu Islands has thus borne heavily on Japan's understanding on its aggressive and militarist past, its intention to amend the pacifist constitution and the post-war order in East Asia dictated by the Cairo Declaration.

The post-war order in East Asia and in the Asia-Pacific at large, as prescribed by the Cairo Declaration, serves not only as an warning and caution against the catastrophe of war and a penalty on war crime perpetrators, but also an important gateway toward the hard-won regional peace, all of which entails a regular and in-depth review of the historic document.- Xinhu

Experts say Cairo Declaration establishes post-war world order

The Cairo Declaration, issued by Britain, China and the United States in 1943, is of great significance in rebuilding the international order after the end of World War II, experts said.

On the eve of the 70th anniversary of the signing of the declaration, which stated that all the territories Japan had stolen from the Chinese should be restored to China, experts at home and abroad called on the international community to jointly safeguard the established international order.

The most important significance of the Cairo Declaration is that major territories seized by Japan since 1895 should be restored, said Michael Schaller, a regents professor of the University of Arizona.

He said the declaration included a determination that Japan should "give up virtually all the territory it had acquired by force since 1895 and 1914, including northeast China, the island of Taiwan and nearby islands ... and Pescadores."

"When Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration ... as part of its agreement to surrender, it acknowledged that in doing so it was also accepting the terms of the Cairo Declaration ..." added Schaller, who is also a member of the Society for the Historians of American Foreign Relations.

"I don't think there was any ambiguity or confusion about the fact that Japan would need to surrender all territories it had seized on the Asian mainland and Taiwan. I don't think that even today's strident Japanese nationalists question that," he said.

Dan Plesch, director of the Center for International Studies and Diplomacy at SOAS University of London, said the Cairo Declaration was the culmination of a success for China during World War II.

"This in turn was only made possible because of the heroic resistance of the Chinese people to Japanese aggression," he said.

In regard to the role played by the declaration in post-war reconstruction and today's world order, Plesch said the document was an important agreement that led to the end of World War II.

"Its content, particularly with respect to Japan, was part of the settlement which enabled the war to come to an end with the Japanese surrender," he said.

Plesch said that as the declaration stipulated the solution to territorial and border issues, any defiant moves are "potentially highly destabilizing with respect to international order."

Huang Dahui, director of the Center for East Asian Studies at Renmin University in Beijing, said that in face of Japan's flagrant defiance of the post-war order set up by the Cairo Declaration and other documents of international law, the international community should have a better understanding of the declaration to ensure obedience to relevant terms.

The Cairo Declaration stated in explicit terms that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa (Taiwan), and Pescadores" shall be restored to the Chinese, he said, adding that the Diaoyu Islands, then administrated by Taiwan, should be included in the returned territories.

The Japanese government, however, took a unilateral action to "nationalize" the Diaoyu Islands in a move not only to severely infringe upon China's territorial sovereignty, but also to publicly challenge the outcome of the world anti-fascist war and the post-war international order, Huang said.

The three signatories of the Cairo Declaration -- Britain, China and the United States -- should work together to ensure the implementation of the document and safeguard the fruits of the victory, he said. - Xinhua

Related posts:
1. China sets up air defence zone over East China Sea, a strategic move
2. Who owns Diaoyu Islands?
3. Japan stole Diaoyu Islands
4. Japan’s buying Diaoyu Islands provokes China to strike back
5. Japan should drop its sense of superiority and tricks over China, Asia
6.China defense ministry acts as Japan buys its Diaoyu Islands
7. China's vessels patrol Diaoyu Islands after Japan illegally purchases and nationalizes them
8. Japan, the deputy sheriff in Asia?.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Winning education: America and China!

Providing a student with a taste of life in two of the most powerful and dynamic nations in the world is a winning combination.

I AM always being asked by anxious parents about where they should send their sons and daughters to school or university.

As a graduate of a British university, most people would expect me to be a big promoter of UK institutions.
In the past, that would have been the case, but nowadays I’m no longer so convinced.

Indeed, the smartest Malaysian parents have already anticipated changing trends, sending their offspring to the United States, especially schools on the East Coast (and Ivy League colleges).

At the same time, virtually every young Chinese Malaysian scion is expected to spend at least a year or so brushing up his or her Mandarin in Beijing.

Some even attempt courses at the city’s prestigious Peking University.

To my mind, it’s a winning combination: providing a student with a taste of life in two of the most powerful and dynamic nations in the world.

This doesn’t mean that I think American graduates (even Ivy Leaguers) are cleverer than their British counterparts.

If anything, they’re just more articulate and confident.

These are qualities, however, that tend to evaporate the moment they put pen to paper.

Indeed, I’ve never understood the educational value of multiple choice tests so in vogue in the American education system.

Why is this trend occurring?

Well, for one thing, American universities really score in terms of the money at their disposal and the incredibly diverse student body.

This in turn creates a superb and influential network for the future for their students.

At the same time, one of the most high-profile recent British graduates was Bo GuaGua, the son of disgraced Communist Party apparatchik Bo Xilai.

The young Bo studied at the elite British public school, Harrow, followed by Oxford University’s Balliol College.

When his father and mother fell so spectacularly from grace, GuaGua’s ostentatious ways and flamboyant educational choices were viewed as evidence of his parent’s waywardness and lack of discretion.

With China now the source of the world’s largest number of overseas students (surpassing even India), GuaGua’s disastrous stint in the UK may well prove to be a powerful disincentive for other parents in Beijing and Shanghai.

Indeed, a million Chinese students were studying abroad by the end of 2006 and in 2011 alone, 340,000 students headed overseas.

The shift may well take time as London remains an important financial capital despite its fading diplomatic leverage.

Still, the Great Power rivalry across the Pacific means that the United States possesses a powerful allure for Chinese parents as they seek to prepare their children for the future.

The children of China’s new rich can now be found in places like the Phillips Andover Academy (founded in 1778, the alma mater of President George W. Bush), its rival Phillips Exeter (1781) and the Groton School (1884, where President Franklin Delano Roosevelt studied).

They’re attractive to Chinese parents because it gives their children the edge for entry to Ivy League universities like Harvard or Yale.

Even Bo GuaGua headed to the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) to study public policy after Oxford.

US Department of Homeland Security numbers indicate that there were 6,725 Chinese students in American secondary schools in 2011, compared to just 65 in 2006.

Overall, more than 157,000 Chinese students studied in America that year – a full 22% of the total number of foreign students there.

China again surpassed India as the largest source of overseas students for America in 2010.

Malaysia, in contrast sent just 6,190 students to America that year.

It would seem that many Malaysians still hanker for British educational institutions – perhaps to our disadvantage.

As this is being written, the best and brightest minds from the world’s two superpowers are rubbing shoulders in the schoolyards and lecture halls of America as well as, increasingly, China.

It’s always a good thing when young people come together.

Perhaps the long-feared clash between China and the West may not materialise after all as children from both compete in their respective elite institutions instead.

Ceritalah
By Karim Raslan

Beware of Malaysian Chinese school leavers being lured into dubious degree and diploma programs !

Taikonauts teach from space

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Stop paying quit rent to Sultan of Sulu, it’s time to close the chapter

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).

Related posts:

The Sultan of Sulu reclaims eastern Sabah, MNLF among invaders

The former Sulu Sultanate, a foreign problem in history that became Sabah's

Pages