The Belt and Road Initiative has been generating a lot of excitement at
Davos. It will direct investment in infrastructure across Asia over the
coming decade, but the ambitious project faces challenges in tackling
debt, supporting sustainable development and uniting a fractured
international community. How can the government and private sectors
harness the risks to guarantee the 1.5-trillion-U.S.-dollar investment
will succeed in kick-starting development and growth? Our diverse panel
reflects the global outlook of the project. We have Xu Niansha, chairman
of the China Poly Group; Heng Swee Keat, Singapore's minister of
finance; Ilham Aliyev, president of Azerbaijan, and Wang Yongqing, vice
chairman of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce. #Davos2019#BeltandRoad
Chinese VP calls for structural reform to address global imbalances
Chinese Vice President Wang Qishan on Wednesday called for further
development as a solution to addressing imbalances in the process of
economic globalization.
Subscribe to us on YouTube: https://goo.gl/lP12gA
https://youtu.be/dxRSw4E2094
Exclusive with China's top SOE watchdog, executives at WEF 2019
-- World Insight with Tian Wei talks to the Chairman of State-owned
Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of China on the
sidelines of the Davos forum. He shared his thoughts on the speed and
depth of reforming China's state-owned enterprises.
-- Tian Wei also put her finger on the pulse of reforms inside China's
top state-owned enterprises in exclusive interviews with the top
executives of China's Poly Group and China Energy. #WEF
https://youtu.be/dYVLW5DjBjA Huawei CFO has strong arguments in extradition case: Canadian diplomat
https://youtu.be/jB_OVG3c1DI
https://youtu.be/ln_asabsHLI
FM urges Canada to make right choice
China urged Canada to "make the right choice" on Thursday, after Canada's ambassador to China John McCallum reportedly said the Huawei executive arrested in Vancouver at the request of the US has a strong case to fight extradition.
"Any one with normal judgment can see the nature of the incident, and we hope the Canadian side makes the right choice and not to 'pull someone's chestnuts out of the fire,'" Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said at a daily briefing on Thursday.
Hua's remark comes after McCallum told reporters earlier this week that Huawei's chief finance officer Meng Wanzhou has a "strong case" to fight an extradition request.
"I think she has quite good arguments on her side," said McCallum, CNN reported.
"One, political involvement by comments from US President Donald Trump in her case. Two, there's an extraterritorial aspect to her case; and three, there's the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada did not sign on to these sanctions."
Echoing McCallum, Huang Feng, director of Beijing Normal University's Institute for International Criminal Law, noted that the US extradition request has no merit as it does not follow the basic extradition principle of double criminality.
Double criminality states that a suspect could be extradited only if similar laws one breaks exist in the extraditing country. However, Canada has no such sanctions, said Huang.
Analysts stressed that even if the US files an extradition request at the last minute, it does not mean Meng would be extradited to the US, noting that every side has to weight their choice.
Such a request has to be reviewed and approved by Canada's judicial department and local court, and though Canada's judicial departments are unlikely to refuse the extradition, Huawei's legal teams could exhaust every means of judicial remedy in Canada to stop the extradition.
The US government alleges that Meng helped Huawei dodge US sanctions on Iran and has indicated it will file a formal extradition request by the January 30 deadline, CNN reported Thursday.
Wu Xinbo, director of Fudan University's Center for American Studies, told the Global Times that if Canada does agree to extradite Meng to the US in the worst scenario, bilateral ties will face unprecedented challenges.
The extradition will cause "downgraded diplomatic relations" between China and Canada, Wu said.
It will set a precedent of enterprises facing the harshest legal punishment for alleged misconduct they are charged of in a foreign country, said Wu.
US enterprises may face similar consequences in China, he said.
The current status of China-Canada relations does have a huge impact on bilateral exchanges and cooperation, but China is not responsible for that, Hua said.
The Canadian side has to take China's concerns seriously and correct its mistakes to change the situation, she said.
US extradition mirrors Iran sanctions: just don't have law on their side' on Huawei case
The US request to extradite Huaiwei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou goes against international law and mirrors its unilateral sanctions on Iran, which is opposed by the international community, Chinese Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.
The US extradition request mirrors US sanctions on Iran. However, as everyone knows, Huawei has repeatedly stated its compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the countries in which it operates, said Hua Chunying, spokesperson of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Hua noted that China opposes unilateral US sanctions against Iran outside the UN Security Council framework. The sanctions are not in conformity with international law and have met with international opposition, including US ally Canada,she said.
Hua's comments came after the US Justice Department said on Tuesday it would continue to pursue the extradition of Meng and would meet all deadlines set by the US-Canada Extradition Treaty, Reuters reported, citing a statement released by US Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi.
Huang Feng, director of Beijing Normal University's Institute for International Criminal Law, told the Global Times this accusation is farfetched because she was allegedly accused of bank fraud at HSBC, a UK-based banking giant, not a US one, and Meng's activities were outside the US.
Canada's Department of Justice said an individual can be extradited if the alleged activity in question is recognized as a criminal in both countries.
Huang said that the extradition request cannot be passed by Canada unless the US offers solid evidence to prove that Meng violated the laws of Canada and the US.
The US action goes against international law and is unjustified, said Hua, noting that it is part of the country's political agenda to bully Chinese hi-tech firms and contain China's rightful development.
Huang also noted he found it strange that the Canadian ambassador announced the US request before the US formally send its extradition request. "Normally, none would publish relevant information unless it's formalized. So it seems like Canada is bluffing."
Ren Zhengfei, Meng's father and Huawei founder, said in an interview with foreign media on January 15, "I trust that the legal systems of Canada and the United States are open, just, and fair, and will reach a just conclusion," Ren said, according to a transcript Huawei released to media.
Meng case to further complicate China-Canada-US ties
Editor's Note:
The US has reportedly said to formally seek extradition of Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou. Since Meng was arrested on December 1 in Vancouver, the deadline for the US to file a formal extradition request is 30 January, 60 days after the arrest. What is the implication of Washington's move? How will it influence China-US-Canada relations? Global Times sought the opinion of two experts on the issue.
Li Haidong, professor with the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University
US President Donald Trump has been deeply troubled by the government shutdown and the Russiagate investigation
As the deadline nears, Washington may be too busy coping with the shutdown chaos to consider Meng's case and make the formal extradition request. Ottawa is urging Washington to take the action.
Extradition is a strict cooperative law enforcement process between two jurisdictions. The US' filing a request does not mean that Canada must immediately send Meng to the US. Canada has to conduct a judicial review procedure to weigh the request, during which Meng's appeal will also be taken into account.
At least in the legal sense, if Meng's appeal is credible and convincing enough, there is a good chance that Ottawa would hesitate to transfer her to Washington.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that Meng's case is political in the garb of a legal procedure. If law is the only factor to be considered, I believe Meng will win the lawsuit; but when the political factors come into play, there would be increased uncertainty.
Meng's case is a long-running battle. As long as it is not resolved, it would be tough to iron out China-US-Canada relations.
Washington is unwilling to see any of its allies strengthening relations with Beijing, but China-Canada ties should not be affected by the Meng incident. Canada should abandon its role as a US puppet to sully China's image. The right thing for Ottawa to do is to immediately correct the mistake.
Chen Hongqiao, researcher at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Washington tends to make important decisions at the eleventh hour. It is used to taking a wait-and-see approach toward the two or more sides of the game, and then determine what measures to take.
In Meng's case, the US has its own strategic requirement. It needs to observe the interaction between China and Canada to make up its mind. If China takes a tough stance, the US would act prudently. If Canada requires support, the US will provide it.
Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the US on January 30 and 31 for the next round of US-China trade negotiations. The US may proceed to file a formal extradition request for Meng just days before Liu's visit as a leverage to exert pressure on Beijing to pursue its interests in the trade talks. But the US side will not bring it up during the negotiations with Beijing.
According to Reuters, US President Donald Trump stated he would intervene in the Justice Department case against Meng if it is in US national security interest and US-China trade talks. His words signal that before Meng is extradited, he could apply the president's diplomatic prerogative to intervene. The US has a system of separation of powers and its judiciary branch is independent. If Meng is extradited to the US, it would be difficult for Trump to exercise his influence.
Canada claims to be a country with the rule of law, and will deal with the US request based on laws and will not hand over Meng without careful consideration. In fact, Ottawa has been disappointed with Washington, complaining that the US is competing with China at the expense of Canada. On the surface, Meng's incident is a legal issue, but politics and diplomacy play an important role.
Prepare for protracted game over Meng
The US Department of Justice confirmed on Tuesday that it will "meet all deadlines" to seek extradition of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, signaling an extraordinarily high probability of the US filing a formal extradition request before January 30.
Washington's move will undoubtedly further intensify the dispute between the US and China over Meng's case. China must not bear any illusion and should prepare for more complicated games.
The Chinese government and media should continue to disclose and condemn that Washington and Ottawa have violated the basic legal spirit. Their sophistry must bear diplomatic and public pressure, and not to be left unimpeded in the international arena, as if Huawei did commit serious crimes.
Arresting Meng is obviously part of the US actions to crack down on Huawei. Anyone with a brain can clearly see Washington's intention to stop rising Chinese high-tech companies in the name of the law.
One thing should be made very clear: If Ottawa successfully assists Washington in the extradition of Meng, Beijing will retaliate against both of them without doubt.
The US' official request for extradition does not mean an immediate transfer of Meng. The Canadian court will then have a month to hear the US evidence and weigh the request before making judgment. Meng can also defend herself and appeal. This process may last a few months, or even years.
As a private company, Huawei is incapable of confronting the US and Canada's national system, but it can do its best to prolong the extradition process at most.
There has been a political purpose from the very beginning when news of Meng's case broke. Since Washington and Ottawa have vowed to declare that this is a 100 percent legal procedure, this political persecution must be strictly tested by their legal system.
Ottawa is stuck in the middle of Washington and Beijing, and involved in the whirlpool of geopolitical disputes. Being a US puppet is not easy. Canada may realize that it bears the blame for its ally. Its emphasis on acting by law is only a self-spiritual support in the current predicament.
Canadian public opinion is sensitive to any evidence of political persecution in this case, which can provide a potential favorable factor for Meng's defense and appeal.
Canada is a legal state under normal circumstances, and especially attaches importance to procedures and evidence. Although disguised as legal procedure, Meng's case, a case of injustice, is bound to have loopholes. Huawei has already shown its confidence in the upcoming litigation process.
China-US ties may also undergo certain subtle changes at any time which might dilute US political motives for persecuting Meng. We should never abandon such hope.
Meng's case has set an execrable precedent. Beijing's reaction will shape the world's understanding of China's national strength and will. Beijing must not be furious or cowardly.
We should take corresponding actions step by step in resolute and orderly manner, and show the world that Chinese are with reason and with restraint.
Any countries and forces that persecute Chinese citizens and infringe on China's interests will pay a heavy price. Global Times
Ottawa is now as sensitive as a frightened bird. A few
words by the ambassador should not have posed any impact on court
decisions. Nonetheless, judging from the reactions of many politicians
and journalists in Canada, McCallum's remarks are like a dreadful
monster.
Canadian Ambassador to China John McCallum admitted on
Thursday that he misspoke on the case of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou by
suggesting that she had a strong case to fight extradition to the US.
It's hard to accurately understand the potential of 5G
technology and its significance nowadays. More imagination should be
encouraged. However, referring to 5G competition as an arms race and
attaching so much importance to the dominance of the technology is
typical American thinking.
China's Huawei Technologies launched the world's first core
chip specifically designed for 5G base stations on Thursday in Beijing,
securing its leading position for 5G deployments in spite of political
pressure.
The Point: Is a Chinese-made subway new victim of espionage hysteria?
SC innovation, digital and strategy executive
director Chin Wei Min said those who have identified themselves to the
commission can operate up to March 1. “Even if they don’t want to be in
this business anymore, whatever they are holding, whether it’s money,
crypto assets or digital assets, should be returned to their clients.
Otherwise, we will take action.
KUALA LUMPUR: All companies engaging in digital assets will have to make themselves known to the Securities Commission (SC) by Friday, even if they have decided not to carry on once the regulatory framework comes into force.
This includes operators who are not registered with Bank Negara under the anti-money laundering and counter financing of terrorism – digital currencies (sector six) and those operating “underground”.
The SC will reserve the right to take action against those who fail to identify themselves by Friday on grounds of breaching the securities law.
SC innovation, digital and strategy executive director Chin Wei Min said those who have identified themselves to the commission can operate up to March 1.
“Even if they don’t want to be in this business anymore, whatever they are holding, whether it’s money, crypto assets or digital assets, should be returned to their clients. Otherwise, we will take action.
“The reason we also allow people to continue with their withdrawals and sell down is to ensure that there is an orderly market.
“The last thing we want is to cause confusion, and hopefully, there are no untoward fraudulent activities that people will capitalise on in this transition period and take advantage of investors,” he told a media briefing here yesterday.
While the regulation does not affect operators who are not incorporated in Malaysia, the SC can still take action against them under the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 if the products are marketed, sold, or its operations exist in Malaysia.
Operators who identify themselves to the SC must state their intent, whether they want to resume their activities, of which certain obligations have to be met, or whether they want to wind down their business.
The SC will put up a list of operators and companies that have registered and received a letter from the commission for investors to check if their monies are with legitimate sources.
Chin also reiterated that operators are not allowed to accept new investors, list new products or conduct any sales and marketing activities during this period.
A statement by the SC last Thursday said platform operators would not be allowed to accept new investors and are only allowed to facilitate the withdrawal or transfer of client assets with the written instruction of investors.
They are also not allowed to conduct any initial coin offerings (ICOs) without prior authorisation.
Chin called on all ongoing ICOs to cease activities and the monies or digital assets to be returned to investors until the operators apply for authorisation and after they understand the SC requirements.
The guidelines are expected to be released by the end of the first quarter this year.
“If you are looking at the ones that are out there currently, the standards of the white paper are of low quality. It is important that this falls under regulated activity.
“We recognise that this is an alternative fundraising avenue. The idea here is to allow us to take out all the scams and fraudulent activities and at the same time, provide a platform for our early stage entrepreneurs to raise money,” said Chin, adding that the SC did not want people to take advantage of this as investors are pumping in money on the other end.
This is a high-risk investment and Chin also hinted that there could be a certain threshold for investors.
The Capital Markets and Services (prescription of securities) (digital currency and digital token) order 2019, which kicked in last Tuesday, will see those operating unauthorised ICOs or digital asset exchanges facing up to a 10-year jail term and up to a RM10mil fine.
The Finance Ministry said it viewed digital assets as well as its underlying blockchain technologies as having the potential to bring about innovation in both old and new industries.
How to escape a sinking car?
https://youtu.be/xJ8OJ2s7Sq4
GEORGE TOWN: The tragic crash on Penang Bridge, which saw a student killed after his car plunged into the sea, has raised a thousand questions.
Online commenters questioned the height of the railings, whether there should be a curfew for those aged above 18 as well as the need for responsible drinking.
Facebook user Asger Abdul Wahab questioned the height of the railing, on which people had stood to jump and commit suicide in the past.
“If the side railings weren’t low, at least the vehicle could have landed on the side of the bridge instead of going over the bridge,” he said.
For Sanush Jeyaratnam, the tragedy highlighted the need for a curfew, as suggested by the government, for those aged 18 and below.
One comment stated that those aged 21 and below should not be out after midnight without adult supervision.
Another Facebook user said the accident did not mean that alchohol consumption should be stopped as it was all about responsible drinking.
Junior Chamber International (JCI) George Town charter president Kyara Ng said the disaster sparked a discussion among their group members, who are aged between 21 and 26.
“I think there is a great need to continue to create more awareness about accidents linked to driving under the influence,” she said.
Defensive driving trainer K.G. Nah noted that when the driver in the black car on Penang Bridge overtook from the left, he went into an “oversteer situation” and all of the car’s weight was transferred to the front tyres.
“In an oversteer, even a trained race car driver will have trouble controlling the vehicle at high speeds,” he said.
He explained that when the rear tyres no longer hold the weight of the car, they lose traction and can no longer follow the lead of the front tyres, causing the car to skid out of control.
Another term for cars in this situation is “tail happy”.
Nah, who received a copy of the dashboard camera footage of the crash, said he watched it frame by frame but could not see the brake lights come on behind the black car until it crashed into the sports utility vehicle (SUV).
“For the car to go into an oversteer without evident braking, it was going at an incredibly high speed,” he added.
As for the SUV, Nah said it was tragic that it was hit in the rear left passenger door.
“Any car slammed in the rear flank will spin out of control and at that speed, the car flipped with enough force to roll over the bridge parapet and fall into the sea,” he added.
A COUPLE of weeks ago, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad talked about the Sedition Act. He calmly explained to all Malaysians that it isn’t meant to avoid criticisms about wrongdoing, it isn’t meant to shackle whistleblowers, and it’s completely not sedition if you tell the truth.
“If you say something factual, you cannot be punished for it,” said Dr Mahathir, “But, on the other hand, if we shut the mouths of everyone, to the point that people cannot even speak up against acts of crime, then there will be injustice in the country.” (“Be clear on what insult means”, Nation, The Star, Jan 11; online at tinyurl.com/star-insult.)
Basically, it sounded like he could have been talking about anything – except the Sedition Act. Now, the Sedition Act is not unfamiliar to Pakatan Harapan. In its own manifesto, PH said that it would revoke the Sedition Act if it came to power, giving the reason that it is a law “inherited from the British colonial era without amendment to improve weaknesses”. And then after PH formed the government, it seemed to kind of casually forget this.
I have written about the Sedition Act before (“Lost in translation?”, Contradictheory, Star2, March 29, 2015; online at tinyurl.com/star-sedition). If you’re not reading this column online, here’s a summary of what I said then: I pointed out the problem that you can be guilty of sedition even if all you are doing is repeating what somebody else has said. And to top it off, it doesn’t matter if what you said was true, nor does it matter if you said it with the best of intentions. It’s like saying somebody’s dress is figure-hugging, and hearing them answer, “Are you saying I’m fat?”
It’s all there in the Act. The Act talks about whether “things” have a “seditious tendency”. These include actions, speech, words and publications, for example, and whether they influence people to feel hatred, contempt or disaffection for the Rulers or the government. Whether the “things” are true or not doesn’t matter.
The Act also says, “The intention of the person charged at the time ... shall be deemed to be irrelevant”.
Why is it interpreted like that? It’s hard to say, but I think it does make it easier for the authorities to manage anti-government sentiments.
For example, it’s possible to be selective with the truth to manipulate a situation. So, technically, what somebody said might be fact, but might also be misleading.
Secondly, intent is something that can be very difficult to establish. You have to get into the mind of the accused and tease out what he or she intended by what he or she said or wrote.
For example, if all you wrote on a Facebook page is that somebody should be investigated for doing a Very Bad Thing, then you have sown the seeds of doubt in the minds of the audience. You might argue, I didn’t know it wasn’t true, I just wanted to see justice being done. What, people got upset by what I wrote? I didn’t know that would happen.
This is precisely the sort of annoying thing I have to face on social media almost every day. Somebody re-posts or retweets a rumour en masse to others with two button clicks and when you ask them why didn’t they just check it first, they shrug and say, “I just wanted people to know – just in case”.
(That’s really what we should have a law against: Indiscriminate and irresponsible retweets. The penalty would be to copy pages of Wikipedia by hand for the local library.)
But the thing is, it should be hard to put somebody in jail.
The system of justice we have now focuses on the presumption of innocence. In other words, people have to gather evidence and prove to the court that you are guilty. And people should be entitled to the best possible defence, and saying I am normally a good person who does good things should be taken into account.
Intent matters. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. Intent is the bedrock of whether we are kind to others because we want everyone to thrive, or because we want to later take advantage of them.
If we want to be able to prosecute people for saying hateful things that disturb society, you must show intent. Either make clear the context or show a pattern of previous behaviour. It’s the difference between an Internet troll and Karpal Singh.
The Sedition Act, in a way, does try to at least cover situations where you are trying to right a perceived wrong in society. But in a case like when artist Zunar (Zulkiflee Anwar Haque) drew cartoons making fun of alleged crimes in the previous government, it is clear there is still much leeway for interpretation there.
The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them. It’s an opportunity for the truth to shine instead of hiding out.
There are many who blame the PH government for being hypocritical for not keeping its election promise and maintaining the Sedition Act. I don’t disagree.
But the fact is that Dr Mahathir touched on the two things that perhaps could potentially make the Act fairer. He said it is OK if we told the truth. And it is OK if we want to stop injustice.
And I can’t think of why any Malaysian wouldn’t want to do both.
The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them.
star2@thestar.com.my Dzof Azmi
Logic is the antithesis of emotion but mathematician-turned-scriptwriter Dzof Azmi’s theory is that people need both to make sense of life’s vagaries and contradictions. Write to Dzof at star2@thestar.com.my.
