Pages

Wednesday, September 18, 2024

Withdrawal of BRP 9701 shall be a beginning of changing course by the Philippines

 

On August 26, 2024, an officer from China Coast Guard monitors Philippine Coast Guard ship 4411 which ilegally intruded into waters near China's Xianbin Jiao. Photo: China Coast Guard

It is reported that the Philippine Coast Guard ship 9701 has left Xianbin Jiao (also known as Xianbin Reef) of China's Nansha Islands, which has been illegally stationed for near five months, three days after the China-Philippine BCM meeting on the South China Sea Issue on September 11, but the Philippines did not inform the Chinese side in advance. The ship's departure shows the failure of this round of infringing provocations by the Philippines and is also a step forward in achieving peace and stability in the South China Sea.

But the Philippines and its backers will not admit defeat. How to persuade those are bent on changing the status quo in the South China Sea with infringement, and even expect to "invoke" the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty to force China to give up its sovereignty and development interests, and to persuade them to recognize that China will not retreat on her sovereignty and territorial issues, is indeed a matter that requires effort and long-term patience.

First of all, it would be absurd for the Philippines to package the evacuation of BRP 9701 as a "triumphant return" after completing the "mission." To the outside world, it was obvious that the airdrop of supplies on August 28 was only a drop in the bucket, and the ship's withdrawal was more likely a helpless move after running out of supplies. Of course, the Philippines and its supporters have always been good at packaging "victory" as proof that US commitments really "work." But this is of little practical value, other than to delight a few Filipino elites and their backers.

Second, the Philippines may stick to the "misery selling" strategy, that is, hyping up China's "inhumane" obstruction of Philippine ships to resupply. However, it was in fact the BRP 9701 that invaded and forcibly stayed in the lagoon of Xianbin Jiao, and it could completely leave the lagoon on its own. The so-called need for "humanitarian supplies" is a false claim created by the Philippines. Facts have proved that the Chinese ships exercising control in the nearby waters did not stop the Philippine ship sailing away from the reef. As soon as the BRP 9701 left Xianbin Jiao, the "humanitarian crisis" was gone with it.

Finally, the Philippine side may also smear its retreat as "freedom to come and go" within its "jurisdiction." This is certainly the freedom of speech of the Philippines. Nevertheless, the struggles in recent months have demonstrated that if the Philippine side deliberately provokes and tries to force China to accept its change of the status quo in the South China Sea, it will face strong countermeasures from China. But when they choose to withdraw, China will adhere to the principle of "good to go" and not interfere. Therefore, the Philippines enjoys the freedom to respect China's sovereignty and national interests, but it does not have the freedom to make willful provocations without being stopped or countered.

It is for sure that this round of withdrawal does not mean that the Philippines will give up. Next, the Philippine Government may accuse China of still "staying" in the waters of Xianbin Jiao. But this accusation ignores the premise that China is conducting law-enforcement patrols in waters under its own jurisdiction, and without question it can stay as long as it deems necessary. Second, the withdrawal of the Philippine Coast Guard ship 9701 was done without informing China or indicating its intention to follow up. According to the latest statement of the Philippine National Maritime Commission, the BRP 9701 will still "resume its mission" after the withdrawal and completion of replenishment. Whether it intends to storm Xianbin Jiao again after repairs and supplies or send a new ship to invade, it is still worthy of caution. But for the Philippines, the lesson should be clear: Any new provocation will only invite stronger countermeasures from China, regardless of whether its next "mission" is accompanied by any warship from a third party. If the Philippines moves this kind of illegal ground sitting or illegal stay to other islands and reefs in the South China Sea, the Chinese side is also ready to shift its position and block it at any time.

It is difficult for the Philippines to succeed in illegal sitting and staying on the Chinese territory in the South China Sea, and it cannot be ruled out that the Philippines is again hyping up a "second arbitration" on the so-called environmental issue. In this regard, the Ministry of Natural Resources of China published the "A Survey Report on the Coral Reef Ecosystem of Xianbin Jiao" on August 30, elaborating on the good ecosystem status of China's Xianbin Jiao so far, and the great efforts made by China to investigate and publicize the original ecological status of Xianbin Jiao. It is precisely the illegal stay of the BRP 9701 for nearly five months that poses a real danger of pollution to the coral ecosystem of Xianbin Jiao.

In conclusion, it is a good thing that the Philippines has withdrawn the ship, and other provocations will not work. The Philippine side should take this withdrawal as a beginning of changing its South China Sea policy and shift focus onto developing pragmatic relations with China.

The author is an assistant research fellow from the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Source link 

Engagement is vital

  •   Chinese Coast Guard vessels fire water cannons towards a Philippine resupply vessel Unaizah May 4 on its way to a resupply mission at Seco...

Philippine conspiracy of illegally occupying Ren’ai Jiao doomed to end in failure


Re

The Philippines should not underestimate the high costs that will inevitably arise from challenging China and undermining regional security, nor should it assume that it has the backing of major powers. For the P
Philippine vessel's illegal behavior and despicable motive

The Philippines' despicable actions disregard the safety of its own vessel and its personnel, and disrupt peace and stability in the South China Sea.

Tuesday, September 17, 2024

Does Google's monopoly impact search results? Search quality under scrutiny

 

Search for something on Google these days, and you don't just see results, but a page topped with ads, often linking to websites built for turning views and clicks into cash. Now after a landmark US court finding, the advertising and tech titan is facing a reckoning. — Photo: Lukas Schulze/dpa

LOS ANGELES: The founders of Internet search and digital advertising giant Google wrote in a 1998 paper that goals for online advertising “do not always correspond” to useful Internet search results.

Now, after Google was found to hold an illegal search monopoly, critics suggest the company that became synonymous with Internet search has, as Sergey Brin and Larry Page feared, shifted “away from the needs of the consumers”.

Google, high-profile technology-industry critic Ed Zitron said in an interview, “got greedy”.

These days, those who put a search term into Google often find relevant information but also get a page topped with ads, frequently followed by links to websites with content built for turning views and clicks into cash. Lately, search results prominently feature e-commerce websites like Amazon and crowd-sourced sites like Reddit and Google’s own YouTube, recent research shows.

Google did not respond to questions about its search product and the monopoly finding in US federal court. In a blog post this year, the company said it has used “advanced spam-fighting systems” for decades, and in 2022 started adjusting its website ranking systems to “reduce unhelpful, unoriginal content and keep it at very low levels”. while “algorithmic enhancements” would help “surface the most helpful information”.

Last month’s blockbuster monopoly finding by Judge Amit P. Mehta in the US Department of Justice lawsuit against Google has spotlighted the Mountain View, California, company’s wildly popular search engine. Mehta, in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, said Google’s conclusion in a 2020 study that it would not lose search revenue if it slashed search quality is proof of illegal monopoly power.

On September 6, Mehta kicks off the next phase of the DOJ case against Google – which he said controls at least 90% of the US Internet search market – to strip its monopoly over search. The judge, in his 277-page ruling, zeroed in on the company’s payments to companies like Apple and Samsung to make Google the default search engine, saying “most devices in the United States come preloaded exclusively with Google”.

Critics argue that the company’s freedom from competition allows it to shirk quality while the money – US$238bil (RM1 trillion) in advertising revenue last year – rolls in.

Zitron, chief executive of San Francisco public relations firm EZPR and host of the iHeart podcast “Better Offline”, said internal Google emails revealed in the court case suggest a high-level management shift led to less user-friendly changes to search results.

Five years ago, top Google executives declared a “Code Yellow” emergency over falling growth in search queries and the hefty ad revenue they generate, the emails show. As Google bean counters sought fixes, search executives fretted over the conflict identified by founders Brin and Page. Search chief Ben Gomes complained his department was being pushed “too close to the money” and becoming “too involved with ads for the good of the product and company”.

A little more than a year later, Google lumped search and advertising into one unit under advertising head Prabhakar Raghavan. Gomes, after two decades building search, was exiled to education initiatives.

Google started prioritising the number of searches over the quality of results, “so they can show you as many ads as possible”, Zitron contended.

The company’s search-results page has in recent years grown top-heavy with ads labeled “sponsored” that may not help the user but are lucrative for Google. Spammers and marketers use keywords and content trickery to push certain websites higher in results, forcing Google to play catch-up while users pay in wasted time and frustration.

“I’ve never experienced as many people complaining or citing issues with Google’s results as I have in the last year,'” said Lily Ray, a vice president at marketing agency Amsive, which researches Google search trends. “I’m seeing a ton of spam in Google search results. It’s never been this visible to me”.

Mehta said “some evidence” shows Google’s search spending has declined, and in the rare instances that competition arose, the company quickly invested in improvements. But the judge said innovation can boost already dominant market share, and described Google as tech’s “highest quality search engine”.

However, Christopher Hockett, an adjunct professor at UC Berkeley’s law school, said “the backdrop of all this is that if you had more competition, then you would have higher quality".

Research by Illinois-based Amsive shows Google’s updates in recent years made certain kinds of websites less visible, including those using stock images or photos grabbed from social media, or presenting AI-generated content, or lacking expertise, or containing intrusive ads or many cash-for-clicks links. But for product searches, many high-ranking product-comparison websites make money when a user clicks through to a brand’s site for a purchase, or, Ray noted, are “pay-to-play” operations that charge brands to be included on their site.

Changes Google made this year appear to have down-ranked product-review sites, while e-commerce stores, especially Amazon, appear up high, often along with YouTube, Amsive said. The New York Times’ popular Wirecutter website, with product reviews based on extensive testing, now frequently falls below Internet forum sites Reddit and Quora in best-product results, Ray said.

Reddit’s visibility leaped more than 1,000% this year over 2023, Amsive found. In July 2023, the Google search, “how to potty train a boy” generated only pregnancy and medical sites – plus YouTube – in the top 10 results, with the Mayo Clinic at No. 1. By July of this year, a five-year-old post from Reddit moved from 50th to 2nd position, higher than “authoritative sites like the Mayo Clinic", Amsive reported.

Google could have developed technology to seek out the most helpful answers to questions, but appears to have decided to “just put Reddit on there”, Zitron said.

Thousands of layoffs at Google in recent years have eroded institutional knowledge in search, Zitron said, and “they may have fired so many people that the thing doesn’t work anymore”.

Google’s race to compete in the generative AI frenzy kicked off by the release of ChatGPT in 2022 “might explain why some things have been left by the wayside” on search, Ray said. Also, she added, “They’re a monopoly. They’re the default search engine. Their stock is going up and up. What incentive do they have to fix it?”

Barry Schwartz, chief executive of New York software company RustyBrick and an editor at blogs Search Engine Land and Search Engine Roundtable, said Google is constantly innovating and experimenting in search. “I probably see five to 10 new things a day as far as testing,” Schwartz said. “Probably one of their top things that they focus on is making sure the content in the search results is useful.”

Still, Schwartz said, “If Google was under competitive fire and they had to do more, I think they would.” – tca/dpa

Source link 

Related


The making of Malaysia, Challenges along the MA63 road

 

Almost 61 years on, many Malaysians still do not understand how Malaysia was formed, with the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) remaining a thorny issue for some, especially in Sabah and Sarawak.


Efforts are being made to realise the malaysia agreement 1963 and experts are stressing the need to honour the promises made to Sabah and Sarawak. Can we expect to see more of the agreement come to fruition?

On September 16, 1963, marked another historical moment when Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined the Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia. Singapore left the coalition two years later. This event initiated a new era to build and develop our country prior to the Independence gained in 1957. Since then, Malaysia Day is celebrated on September 16, every year to commemorate the establishment of Malaysia and as an event to continue creating a unified Malaysia.

Our country is well-known for its cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. Embracing and appreciating the beauty of differences make Malaysians grow fond of each other and stand together to become a great nation. Look at how strong we stand to combat the COVID-19 together, and continue to break the chain as ONE, we can survive and overcome this great challenge!

Wishing all Malaysians, a Happy Malaysia Day! Hope this day will keep us united with harmony!


The making of Malaysia

Six decades on, many Malaysians still do not understand how Malaysia was formed, with MA63 remaining a thorny issue.

RESOLVING demands in the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) is more than just realising the key terms spelt out by Sabah and Sarawak when the two regions inked the paper six decades ago to form the Federation of Malaysia with Malaya.

Experts say it is also about honouring the Constitution upholding people’s rights.

Most agree that the 18- and 20-point list of terms made by Sarawak and Sabah respectively before signing the merger to create the new country remain relevant with regards to the two regions’ economic development and administration.

Today, despite the challenges after decades of efforts to uphold MA63, several notable milestones have been achieved; most notably the amendment to Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution in 2021 to elevate the status of Sabah and Sarawak as regions from their previous status as “states”.

Earlier this year, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusof announced that nine basic demands based on the MA63 had also been met.

As of now, 14 demands are being looked into, including oil royalty, petroleum cash payments, the regions’ rights to the continental shelves, and an increase in civil service appointments in Sabah and Sarawak under the Federal Constitution’s Article 112.

Fadillah says it will take some time for the matters to be resolved due to various complexities and strings of reviews, among others. Nevertheless, in terms of progress, can we expect to see more of the key terms fulfilled and developments on the agreement soon?

Slow but steady progress

When asked about the notable progress following the amendments to the Constitution, experts express their takes with some caution instead of being comfortable with current developments.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Ethnic Studies Institute senior research fellow Assoc Prof Dr Zaini Othman says he would

prefer to “reflect and comfortably pen it out in the manner of ‘works in progress’.

“Things are still on the table and all parties involved, especially the newly elected federal government led by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which frequently pledges that they are working very hard to find a constructive method to resolve what I call ‘the politics of managing MA63’.

“It’s all about balancing ‘the idealist politics’ on one hand and ‘the real politics’ on the other.”

Institute of Borneo Studies’ Prof Datuk Dr Jayum Jawan from Universiti of Malaysia, Sarawak, says so far the public has not read much on what exactly has been accomplished.

This is other than “some increase in allocation, which does not need any Constitutional

amendments, and in fact, there is no guarantee that the next prime minister will follow through with

nd the same amount.”

Prof Jayum also says there has been no details about how Sarawak’s people will benefit from its negotiations with national oil and gas company PETRONAS over the sharing of oil revenue from the region’s offshores.

“In fact, why is Sarawak negotiating with PETRONAS? The latter is not a government body.

And post amendments made to the Constitution, he points out that the return of Bintulu Port to Sarawak’s authority will “benefit the state’s coffers”.

But how will all of this actually benefit Sarawak’s people?

Prof Jayum says there are many state-centric issues, including

infrastructure and development-related matters, that Sarawak needs to look into following the increase in state revenue.

“There are collapsed bridges in Kapit, while the former resettlement schemes of Nanga Tada, Nanga Ngungun, and Nanag Jagau as well as Sekuau are still lacking and lagging in infrastructure.

“Also, despite the Pan-borneo road’s construction, there is not enough increase in economic activities to sustain the livelihood of the resettled people in these four security resettlement schemes.

“My recent visit discovered major disappointment among the settlers, who felt that they have been abandoned, not given comprehensive help to chart their

future by either the federal or state government.”

Very relevant

It does not help that there are some who question the relevance of ongoing efforts to champion MA63.

Noting that calling for the realisation of MA63 is not about meeting the regions’ demands per se, Zaini stresses that this issue should not be raised at all, since it centres on honouring the Constitution and the rights of the country’s founders.

“To me, it is not about ‘how relevant’ (is the agreement). It is all about the concept and form of our country. On Sept 16, 1963, all parties and entities agreed to form a ‘federal state’ named ‘Persekutuan Malaysia’ (Federation of Malaysia).”

He says the concept of Malaysia’s federacy should already ascertain the standing of the key terms in MA63.

“The federation managed to exist under the auspicious agreement of MA63. It is under this particular ‘political philosophy and nuance’ that all Malaysians have to abide by ‘the federalist agreement’ as spelt out within the agreement, which is structurally manifested and enshrined in the Malaysia Constitution 1963.

“In other words, as long as Malaysia recognised herself as a ‘federal state’, no questions about ‘the relevancy’ of the MA63 should arise unless all parties agree to change the concept and form of the country from federal

to non-federal state.”

Ongoing talks

On Friday, Anwar sat with Sabah and Sarawak leaders to chair the MA63 Implementation Action Council in Kota Kinabalu. Those in the know say the meeting proceeded cordially, as the Prime Minister was already prepared to announce a piece of good news which some say signifies the Federal Government’s commitment to resolving the MA63 key terms.

Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor later expressed his elation after Anwar announced an Rm300mil increase in the interim special grant – now at Rm600mil – from the Federal Government for next year.

The special grant is made pending resolution of Sabah’s 40% revenue entitlement.

Hajiji, in earlier reports, had said the fundamental Constitutional rights of the state concerning the 40% revenue special grant are under Articles 112C and 112D of the Constitution, and that the matter is now under the purview of the MA63 technical committee chaired by Fadillah.

Other than Hajiji, the meeting was also attended by Sarawak Premier Tan Sri Abang Johari Openg; both have agreed to enter into a high-level discussion on the regions’ respective claims, including the return of the continental shelf under the Territorial Sea Act 2012, royalties, and stamp duty.

But things are not completely easy and breezy. Fadillah says as of now, many technical issues cannot be resolved at the committee level due to differences in legal jurisdictions.

“For instance, Sabah and Sarawak view the land sales’ stamp duty as under their authority, but the Federal Government considers the matter as an instrument of sale under its prerogative.”

What’s next on the table?

When it comes to negotiations, Prof Jayum says that Sarawak leaders must stand on the right premise concerning talks with the Prime Minister.

“It is neither about demanding nor negotiating, but asking that Anwar’s government honour the long-abandoned agreement.”

It must also be pointed out that

“Sarawak need not wait to do better in managing its territory.

“For example, autonomy, it is already there. What else does the territory need? Sarawak has the power to filter unwanted elements from coming in and disturbing peace within Sarawak.

“On education, there is no need to ask for education autonomy. Sarawak already has the authority to set a foundation to help students.

“There is already sufficient power and authority given in the State List under the 9th Schedule

of the Federal Constitution.”

Zaini says there are several unresolved MA63 terms related to oil royalties and cash payments for petroleum, oil minerals and oil fields.

“Additionally, there are outstanding matters regarding the Territorial Sea Act 2012, rights over the continental shelf, and an increase in public service appointments in Sabah and Sarawak.”

Despite the latest developments, Zaini says people must realise that measures related to the 40% revenue entitlement for Sabah, for example, remain a work in progress.

“No specific measures have been announced as yet, despite the dissatisfaction expressed by the Sabah government over the slow progress and the ‘neither here nor there attitude’ of the Federal Government.”

Politics also play a role in ensuring MA63’S key terms are met, says Zaini. For instance, he says the political divisions in Sabah have affected negotiations.

“These divisions, in many ways have further marginalised and weakened the negotiating power between the state and federal leadership, and have been cited as major hurdles to realising the agreement’s objectives.

“Former Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia has emphasised that political unity is crucial to avoid external manipulation and ensure the effective restoration and implementation of the territory’s rights under MA63.”

Challenges along the MA63 road

THE road towards the creation of a country and honouring the Malaysia Agreement 1963 )MA63) is not without bumps, obviously.

For instance, the Kelantan government had on Sept 11, 1963 – four days before the announcement on the Federation of Malaysia – filed a suit to argue that the MA63 and its subsequent Act were not binding on Kelantan on the grounds that the latter had effectively abolished Malaya, contrary to the 1957 Malaya Agreement.

The state said any proposed changes would require the consent of each constituent state, which in the case of the formation of Malaysia, was not obtained. However, the suit was dismissed by then Chief Justice of Malaya James Thomson who ruled that no law or Constitution was violated. (See graphic on pages 24 and 25 for more.)

The announcement of the Federation of Malaysia as a new country then went on without a hitch. However, just 10 months later, on July 21, 1964, racial tensions erupted into violence during a procession celebrating the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday in Singapore.

Throughout the remainder of 1964 and into 1965, political and economic disputes between Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party and Umno intensified. The protracted disagreements led to Singapore being expelled from Malaysia on Aug 9, 1965 (though some argue Singapore left of its own accord).

And later as Malaysia stepped into the 1970s, Sabah and Sarawak faced significant challenges in asserting their rights as spelt out in the MA63.

Among others, the Petroleum Development Act of 1974 was mooted to centralise the control of oil and gas resources under

PETRONAS, sparking disputes over revenue sharing and resource management. Both states felt the centralisation unfairly disadvantaged them.

Sabah and Sarawak have also long sought greater autonomy in areas like education and healthcare, clashing with federal policies that they feel do not address their unique needs. Economic disparities have been a major issue, with complaints about inadequate development funds and unfair revenue distribution.

However, as the country moves forward, a change in government in the 14th General Election renewed the calls for honouring the agreement, which had also been listed under the then Pakatan Harapan’s manifesto.

But again, hurdles remained when the Pakatan government failed to obtain the two-thirds Parliament majority it needed to amend Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution during a sitting on Aug 9, 2019.

A two-thirds vote majority, which amounts to 148 out of the 222 seats in the Dewan Rakyat, is needed to amend the Constitution. Pakatan managed to secure 138 votes, with no lawmakers disagreeing. However, 59 MPS abstained from voting.

Former federal minister (now Sarawak Yang Di-pertua Negeri) Tun Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar criticised PH government’s proposed constitutional amendment on Sabah and Sarawak, labeling it as a “political ploy.” He said Sarawak’s ruling coalition, Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS), had proposed an amendment that explicitly referenced MA63 in Article 1(2).

Their proposed changes aimed to clarify the status of the states in relation to MA63.

Nevertheless, on Dec 14, 2021, the government successfully made the constitutional amendment to re-establish Sabah and Sarawak as equal partners with Peninsular Malaysia (nee Malaya).

The Bill passed with 199 MPS voting in favour and 21 absent. Wan Junaidi said the amendment places MA63 alongside the Federal Agreements of 1948 and 1957, ensuring these states are acknowledged as autonomous entities within Malaysia.article 160(2) now includes MA63, reflecting the formation of Malaysia more accurately. The amendment also officially designates Sept 16, 1963, as Malaysia Day, correcting the Constitution’s previous focus on Malayan Independence. This change ensures that Sabah and Sarawak’s demands are now part of the Federal Constitution.

The Star Malaysia
15 Sep 2024