https://youtu.be/tpB7A1iKc5E Westerners do not understand how vital a competent government is in China. 中国政府有时就像家长，既要赚钱养家又做好榜样
Set in stone: Staff members walking near a
statue at the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of China in Beijing as the party opened its leading school for
cadres to a rare visit by foreign journalists. — AP
It is back to school for thousand of cadres of the national party to brush up on the country's progress.
EVERY year, thousands of party cadres from the Communist Party of China (CPC) returned to school to learn about the latest direction of the country as it progresses.
At the Party School of CPC Central Committee (CCPS) – the key cradle of China’s leaders – the trainees are taught Marxism classics, moral and conduct while receiving anti-corruption education.
They are also exposed to the latest in technology and various skills to lead the rural villagers out of poverty as the nation is striving towards its “Chinese Dream” of building a well-off society for all.
Located opposite the Summer Palace in Beijing, the school also conducts training and guidance to improve the governing ability of cadres while motivating them to serve as firm followers and loyal practitioners of Xi Jinping’s Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.
Just last year, 137 training sessions were organised for nearly 11,000 cadres all over the country.
The school opened its door to a group of foreign journalists recently.
We were led to a class which was in progress and the trainer, who requested to remain anonymous, was giving a lecture on various transformation and innovation programmes to improve the environment and livelihood of rural villagers.
During the short visit, we listened in on the trainer telling cadres about the use of flush toilets.
For many of us, we have taken for granted the availability of flush toilets in our homes or offices.
But for those dwelling in the mountainous areas far from water sources in China, this sanitary ware is a luxury.
The locals from a village in Shangdong have invented their own “dry toilet” in which they covered up waste with organic materials.
“The toilet does not stink at all and it is environmentally friendly.
“A little effort makes big changes in improving the environment and the people’s lives,” the trainer told the cadres, believed to be grassroots leaders from the rural areas.
The trainer also told the class the story of a village in Tonglu of Zhejiang province where the locals turned their rural agricultural home into a famous tourist spot.
He said the locals successfully transformed an abandoned pig pen into a popular cafe.
“There is a very expensive type of coffee known as mao shi kafei (Indonesia’s kopi luwak) in the world.
“If rich people can sit at a stinking pig pen while tasting a cup of expensive coffee, isn’t this another way of enjoyment?” asked the trainer.
He was motivating the class cadres to be creative and to transform abandoned poultry farms into money-making businesses as well as preserve old buildings that have witnessed special events.
The trainer also showed the class modern farming techniques known as the Integrated Rice-Duck Farming by raising ducks in the paddy field.
“With modern technology, we are able to calculate the suitable number of ducks for a paddy field of a particular size and the timing of releasing the birds,” he added.
With over 100 trainees but only a handful of female cadres, the class also learned about homestay and handicraft-making programmes.
In a tea session with the media, vice-head of academic affairs of the school, Wang Gang said currently, there are some 1,600 cadres undergoing training at the campus.
Asked why men outnumbered women trainees by a large margin, Wang Gang said they have another programme catering for female cadres.
He, however, did not elaborate.
The CCPS – also known as China National Academy of Governance – was set up in 1933, 12 years after the founding of the CPC.
Over the decades, it has groomed a large number of governing elites and talent for the party and the country.
State leaders such as the late Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi and Hu Jintao have served as its president.
The CCPS campus houses a museum, a sports centre with various facilities including swimming pool, squash court, ping pong tables and a gym for the trainees, who are required to stay in the campus throughout their training period.
Apart from providing training to the cadres, the CCPS also serves as a high-end think-tank for the party and a national research institution for philosophy and social science.
It has also taken part in exchange programmes and activities with political parties from 159 nations, 21 international and multilateral organisations.
Last year, the school received 1,248 visitors.
CPC, with over 90 million members, is the biggest political party in the world.
Losing ground: China’s spectacular rise has
affected Hong Kong’s thriving financial services industry, along with
development of port services. - Reuters
https://youtu.be/elH1PrASTAU
TWO generations ago cheap goods from Hong Kong were labelled simply “Made in Hong Kong,” but their poor quality soon made that embarrassing.
For marketing reasons they were then labelled “Made in the British Empire” or “Empire Made.” Britain, home of the First Industrial Revolution, was better regarded than any Far Eastern outpost.
However, manufacturing could never suffice for Hong Kong’s economy because of limited land and rising property prices.
Enter the space-efficient financial services industry, along with development of port services. Then a generation ago Hong Kong began to face its biggest challenge: China’s spectacular rise.
But if Hong Kong would be part of China again, wouldn’t it also enjoy the mainland’s rising fortunes?
Hong Kongers always had a problem with the first part ever since Britain’s takeover in 1841.
From the late-1970s the West was all for China’s “opening up” policies. Hong Kongers looked across the water to see Shenzhen’s phenomenal rise from old market town to bustling modern metropolis.
Shenzhen had twice Hong Kong’s population and a much faster rate of development. As just one cog in China’s production behemoth, Shenzhen soon buried Hong Kong’s prospect as a manufacturing centre.
In global references Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou is the world’s biggest productive mega region, demographically twice the size of the next biggest in Nagoya-Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe.
But Hong Kongers still regarded themselves as a breed apart from the mainland – a “Made in the British Empire” attitude dies hard.
Surely Hong Kong still had superlative status as a leading port and financial services centre?
Not quite, especially when Shanghai would soon outclass it on both counts.
Hong Kong slipped to fifth place among the world’s busiest container ports. Among the world’s Top 10, six are now on China’s mainland.
The Shanghai Municipality’s population is 3.5 times Hong Kong’s, with an area 5.7 times as large, meaning a more relaxed population density of just 62% of Hong Kong’s.
Shanghai’s 2018 nominal GDP was US$494bil (RM2.04 trillion), which was 136.1% of Hong Kong’s. Even Shenzhen is catching up with Hong Kong, falling short by just 3.3%.
Business is Hong Kong’s business, but the mainland is doing better in both performance and prospects.
The Hong Kong stock market is not necessarily stable. Since the 1960s it has experienced a dozen market crashes.
Shanghai’s Stock Exchange market capitalisation of US$5.01 trillion is larger than Hong Kong’s by 26.5%. Hong Kong’s exceeded Shenzhen’s by only 12.8%.
Hong Kong as business enclave has been eclipsed and outdone by the mainland. At the same time its future increasingly depends on the mainland.
Since 1997, Hong Kong dropped from representing 20% to just 3% of China’s GDP.
For China today Hong Kong is just another Chinese city, meaning it is dispensable. Shenzhen and the rest of the mainland do not need a nettlesome Hong Kong for China’s continued rise.
Hong Kong protesters have committed at least a dozen strategic errors.
One, they assume Hong Kong is essential to the mainland’s future when only the reverse is true. There is no equivalence between Hong Kong and the mainland in any way that works for Hong Kong.
Two, protest appeals to mainlanders for support mistakenly attempt to rekindle the spirit of Tienanmen Square protests a generation ago. Those protesters are now part of the system in a prosperous new China, actively engaged in business or government. Their original 1989 complaint of corruption in high places is keenly addressed by Beijing.
Three, attempts to solicit mainlanders’ support are badly confused with prejudice against them. Within days of trying to spread the protest message to mainlanders in July, protesters attacked mainland traders, shoppers and tourists.
Four, protesters violently attacked police personnel, alienating many Hong Kongers including most protesters. It signalled a slide towards civil disorder.
Five, vandalising the Legislative Council building established illegal conduct and further alienated everyone else.
Six, more violence was targeted at the liaison office when sympathisers had thought protesters would never do that. It confirmed the criminality discrediting the protests as a whole.
Seven, besides disrupting traffic and commerce, harassing passengers at the airport and train stations. It did nothing to promote their cause to the general public but quite the opposite.
Eight, protests did not subside even after Hong Kong’s Executive backed down on the extradition Bill. It revealed the unreasonable nature of the protests.
Nine, no protester had demanded democracy for Hong Kong in 156 years of British colonial rule. If they had, they may have a legitimate basis for demanding democracy today.
Ten, it was foolish to unfurl the Union Jack and call for reverting to British rule. Seeking the denial of democracy by a foreign hand exposes the hypocrisy of the protests.
Eleven, it was foolhardy to unfurl “Old Glory,” calling for US intervention during a US-China trade war. With trade a major basis of Hong Kong’s survival, it was politically suicidal.
Twelve, protesters fail to understand that no other country can or would do what is necessary to boost Hong Kong’s fortunes. Only the mainland can do that if it wants to.
Young protesters still to find employment amid poor conditions and rising costs may think they have legitimate grievances.
Yet all the solutions – more investment, better job prospects, even improved governance – can come meaningfully only via the mainland.
Beijing can deploy troops to Hong Kong, but to what end?
Hong Kong’s worst punishment is getting exactly what the protesters want – isolation. That will leave it further behind as the mainland prospers, surging ahead.
Hong Kong can stew in its own juices until tender. Beijing may let the anger fester and rot until then.
Hong Kong’s strength as money-making hub is also its weakness. Its stock market can crash again, which can also send a message to Taiwan.
Hong Kong tycoons are already looking for more places abroad to stash their fortunes. Without decisive mainland investment, the economic enclave can die a natural death.
What’s left of Hong Kong’s Establishment will then surely discipline rowdy mobs. The triads have already shown leadership here, symbolising the decline.
By Bunn Nagara, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.
‘China is Not an Enemy’ Says Open Letter Signed by 100 American China Experts to Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump. Photo: VCG
Experts tell Trump that China is not the enemy, so who is?
https://youtu.be/1hf5VAKG-TU
A hundred American academics, diplomats and experts from the military and business communities signed an open letter calling on President Donald Trump to reexamine his policy toward China. The letter was published Wednesday in the Washington Post.
In the letter, titled “China is Not an Enemy,” the signatories express concern over the negative orientation of the Trump administration’s China policy.
“We do not believe Beijing is an economic enemy or an existential national security threat that must be confronted in every sphere,” the experts say in the letter.
The five authors are M. Taylor Fravel, a professor at MIT; J. Stapleton Roy, a former U.S. ambassador to China; Michael D. Swaine of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Susan A. Thornton, the former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs; and Ezra Vogel, a professor at the Harvard University Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies.
The deterioration of the bilateral relationship is not in the interests of the U.S. or the rest of the world, and Trump’s attempt to “decouple China from the global economy” will damage the U.S. global reputation, according to the letter.
“The United States cannot significantly slow China’s rise without damaging itself,” the authors write.
“The fear that Beijing will replace the United States as the global leader is exaggerated,” the letter says. “Most other countries have no interest in such an outcome, and it is not clear that Beijing itself sees this goal as necessary or feasible.”
The key message of the letter is that the U.S. should not make China its enemy, especially in a rash manner, said Li Cheng, director of the Brookings Institution's John L. Thornton China Center, who signed the letter.
Signatories are representative as they hold different views toward China — some are pro-China and others are more critical, Li said. But they all disagree with the Trump administration’s China policy, Li said.
“I won’t say we are the majority,” Li said. “Maybe we are the minority that can’t change some people’s extreme views, but among those who reexamine the U.S. policy on China, many have started reconsideration.” Additional scholars have endorsed the letter after its publication online, he said.
A better policy orientation for the U.S. would focus on building long-term alliances that support economic and security objectives based on a realistic assessment of China’s ideology, interests, goals and actions, the experts write.
“We believe that the large number of signers of this open letter clearly indicates that there is no single Washington consensus endorsing an overall adversarial stance toward China, as some believe exists,” the letter concludes.
Views toward China vary significantly among different social groups in the U.S. and also inside the government, Li said.
“There is a need for different voices to let China know that there is no consensus on America’s China policy, and there won’t be one for a long time,” Li said.
Most of the signers are older experts who don’t represent the views of younger Americans, some observers said. Although the open letter originally targeted senior scholars with strong academic backgrounds, Li said it’s inappropriate to argue that younger scholars view China in a more adversarial way. A public poll showed that Americans under 29 are actually friendlier toward China, Li said.
Older scholars and officials have a better understanding of China after witnessing the country’s changes over recent decades, but members of younger generations will also know China better as time goes by, Li said.
“A proper discussion of China policy is very important, and it shouldn’t be limited inside the government,” Li said. Although it is unclear whether the letter will influence policy, he said it sends a strong message that “the views toward China between the U.S. government and scholars are different.”
Since last year, the two countries have been locked in a trade war, slapping tit-for-tat tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of each other’s goods. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump agreed last week at a G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, to resume trade talks. The U.S. also agreed not to impose new tariffs on Chinese imports.
This story was updated with Li’s comments.
By Qing Ying, Ren Qiuyu and Han Wei
Contact reporter Ren Qiuyu (qiuyuren@caixin.com); Han Wei (weihan@caixin.com)
An open letter to US President Donald Trump signed by
scores of Asia specialists including former US diplomats and military
officers has revealed that rational voices are emerging to challenge
paranoid ideas, Chinese experts noted on Thursday.
China insists all trade war tariffs must be eliminated as part of a trade deal
During an interview Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt still refused to directly criticize the violent protesters who stormed and vandalized the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Instead, he superficially stated that the UK condemns "all violence" and warned China again. He did not elaborate on the "serious consequences" that he previously warned China that it may face, but said the UK is "keeping options open" over China.
Almost all analyses believe Hunt is putting on an air. Nobody believes the UK will send its only aircraft carrier to China's coast. Nor would anyone believe the UK will punish Beijing at the cost of hurting trade with China. The UK has been dwarfed by China in military and trade. Hunt's inappropriate statements make many British people nervous: Will Beijing cancel an order from the UK to warn British politicians?
If China-UK relations deteriorate, will expelling Chinese diplomats become a card for London? This was the way that the Theresa May government used to deal with Moscow when a former Russian spy was poisoned in the UK. BBC reporters asked Hunt about the possibility for expelling diplomats. But it seems more like these BBC reporters, who bully politicians for pleasure, were using the unreliable option to make things difficult for Hunt.
Launching a diplomatic war against China leads to nowhere. European countries will not stand by London on the Hong Kong issue. By worsening diplomatic relations with China, the UK will only isolate itself.
What's important is that Beijing has done nothing wrong on the Hong Kong issue. It is obvious to all that China persists in the "one country, two systems" policy, and Hong Kong's system is different from the mainland's. The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, proposed by Hong Kong regional government, was a small cause of the unrest. It was politicized and magnified by opposition factions. The situation escalated according to the logic under Hong Kong's system, not that of the mainland. But such storming and vandalizing is not acceptable under Hong Kong's system or any system worldwide.
Instead of blaming violent protesters, Hunt directed his ire against Beijing, which is based on his selfish interests to win the election. Hunt wants to defeat Boris Johnson. In charge of diplomacy, Hunt believes the Hong Kong issue is a chance that dropped into his and the UK's lap. But this is not the 19th century when the Opium War broke out. The UK has gone past its prime.
Hunt knew that Beijing would sniff at his threat of "serious consequences." But he still said it because he needed to play in front of voters. This is political fraud. Hunt obviously believes that the British people can be manipulated like a flock of sheep.
But Hunt's stunt has no good effect. Many British people are more worried whether Hunt's words would lead to "serious consequences" from China. Purpose and ability should match in diplomatic strategy, but Hunt is obviously outwardly strong and inwardly weak. Even the British people think his performance is amusing.
In a few short years, one minute the UK calls its relations with China the "Golden Era," and the next minute it warns China of "serious consequences." Although these statements are from different administrations and politicians, the UK still shows inconsistency in policy. The country also swung from side to side on Brexit. The UK's politics have become politicians' coffers and plots. They are undermining the UK's image.
Under such circumstances, we should not be too serious when dealing with the UK. Regardless of whether it shows a friendly or an opportunistic gesture, we should remind ourselves this will not be its first or last attitude toward China, and by saying that we mean it will be in a relatively short time, to be specific. - Global Times
US President-elect Donald Trump appointed Peter Navarro, a strident critic of China, as head of the new National Trade Council on Wednesday. Most of the Trump's views in his accusation against China during and after the election are influenced by Navarro. Moreover, Trump's special adviser Carl Icahn and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross also take a hard line on the trade with China. The possibility of a potential trade war between China and the US after Trump takes office has come under heated discussion.
Trump’s Top China Expert Isn’t a China Expert
Peter Navarro doesn't speak Chinese, and has scant in-country experience. Should that matter?
University of California at Irvine Economics Professor Peter
Navarro, head of White House National Trade Council nominee for
president-elect Donald Trump, arrives in the lobby of Trump Tower in New
York, U.S., on Thursday, Jan. 5, 2017. A top congressional ally to
Trump said Thursday that Republicans will repeal Obamacare, including
some funding provisions, quickly while a replacement plan is due in "six
to eight months." Photographer: Albin Lohr-Jones/Pool via https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/13/peter-navarro-profile-national-trade-council-donald-trump-china-expert
The issue needs to be considered in the backdrop of a major adjustment of the US policies toward China. At present, there is a glaring contrast between the economic prosperity and political stability in China and the economic downturn and political division in the US, which stings the US policy elites who are steadfast defenders of the US hegemony and its role as the world leader. Those elites tend to believe that the increasingly powerful China has not made the changes approved by the US and is trying to upend the international order shaped by the US.
Thus, it has now gradually become an expectation for the incoming US government to discard the long-standing engagement policy and adopt tougher or more confrontational policies toward China instead.
Against this backdrop, the trade topics closely associated with employment and welfare have become more sensitive but quite effective tools for the China hawks to create an unfriendly public opinion against China. The China-US trade disputes are no longer simply economic topics, but have strong political and strategic implications.
The manufacturing industry is not only the foundation for the US economic recovery, but also the key to solving the unemployment problem and guaranteeing social stability. The imbalance of China-US economic and trade relationship is considered by economists represented by Navarro as the critical reason for the weakening US manufacturing industry. They believe that the current close trade ties have boosted China's rapid development, whereas the hundreds of billions of dollars of US trade deficit with China has led to the current economic woes in the US. They also blame the US manufacturing companies that moved their factories to China for the high domestic unemployment rate.
In other words, the field of trade, which has long been regarded as mutually beneficial, is now considered by advisers of the incoming US government to be detrimental to their country's interests. The US maintains that a major trade policy adjustment needs to be urgently pushed forward to give China a head-on blow.
Although bilateral trade generally works by following WTO rules, the US policy elites, represented by Navarro, maintain that their country's serious inherent economic problems are caused by both China, which fails to address bilateral trade problems impartially, and the US government, which neglects the American public's demands. They keep overstating China's negative role to the American public, and thus have made full preparation for a big policy change toward China in the coming years.
Given the current policymaking atmosphere in the US as well as Trump's picks of advisers, the US has a strong desire to make a major confrontational policy adjustment in its trade with China in the future. However, it still remains uncertain if the adjustment will directly lead to a trade war.
The high interdependence of bilateral trade indicates that any form of trade war provoked by the US will ultimately hurt itself. It is probably difficult for the Trump team to figure out how much self-damage their country is able to withstand.
During the election campaign, Trump denounced the greediness of Wall Street magnates and promised to create new jobs, but, ironically, the officials he appointed after winning the election mostly came from the Wall Street.
China's economic power is no longer as it was before, and its defining power over bilateral relations in trade and all the other aspects is stronger than ever. It is impossible for China to sit back and let the US destroy the mutually beneficial situation in trade. Instead, China will firmly push forward the future bilateral ties under the concept of building a new type of major power relationship.
In contrast to the uncertain US trade policies toward China, China's policies toward the US are clear and concise: get rid of any barriers and push forward bilateral relations in a stable and mutually beneficial direction. The evolution of China-US relationship has always been a process of moving forward and addressing various conflicts along the way. It is hoped "the China-US trade war" will only be a verbal clash, instead of a clash in real action.
By Li Haidong Source:Global Times Published: 2016/12/25 13:43:39
The author is a professor with the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Right after the G20 summit in Japan, US Senator Marco Rubio made the headlines again by calling for legislation to continue the ban on Huawei, even after US President Donald Trump said he would lift some of the restrictions on US companies doing business with the Chinese tech giant.
Senator Rubio Prepares To Blast China ...
forbes.com
Rubio is a salient representative of the US political extreme. Some US politicians appear to take advantage of the split in US society and are using their extreme political views to gain more voters as well as please different political groups. This actually reflects the increasingly prominent malfunction of US politics.
It is an important reason why China is concerned that the US-launched trade war against China will not end in the short term.
We believe there are rational people who know China well at the US government's decision-making level. Even so, lawmakers like Rubio have gone too far. They are not messing with China but rather wearing down the credibility of US politics.
The US political system is becoming increasingly flawed. Many politicians deliberately act up to firmly oppose anything that would benefit China for the sake of being anti-China. That the political landscape is becoming extreme in the US is providing these politicians with the opportunity to play to their base if they show an open anti-China stance.
Rubio is one such politician. He paints himself as being hostile to China to draw attention. Despite the fact that the trade war and the Huawei ban are harming the interests of the US, Rubio insists on this excessively tough stance toward China because that could spark controversies which could end up favoring him.
This is what Rubio, an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, needs to fulfill his political ambitions. Such narrow-minded thinking has de facto escalated the US-launched trade war against China.
Rubio doesn't understand China and probably barely knows China's history. But taking advantage of being anti-China, he can create hot debates and make headlines, and thus gain more assets for his political career.
Even though people who don't know much about the world's second-largest economy can be a senator in the US, it is a joke that someone like Rubio can pretend to be a China hand and comment on China's policies. This is one of the key reasons for the ratcheted-up tensions between China and the US.
The fundamental split in the US political system provides openings for hawkish politicians who have long been hostile toward China. The US is now in the throes of the 2020 presidential campaign, when candidates vie with each other to make outrageous remarks to appeal to their supporters.
This marked increase in radicals in US politics makes it much more difficult for the US government to function normally and for Republicans and Democrats to reach compromises, especially on major issues.
Even though there are signs of China-US trade frictions turning around, as the US political system will not fundamentally change in the short term, China must remain vigilant and prepare for a long-term trade war, in case the hawks gain the upper hand.
By Xu Hailin Source:Global Times Published: 2019/6/30 19:53:39
Impractical move: China is generally aware
that the Hong Kong people cannot sustain any form of protest because
rent and bills need to be paid and protests don’t gain a voice, neither
by yellow shirts nor umbrellas. — AFP
The future of the Hong Kong people lies with China but the challenge for Beijing is to make Hong Kongers feel that they are a fundamental part of the Middle Kingdom. -If there is a history lesson that the Chinese can learn from British Malaya in handling the Hong Kong protests, it's that the British administered their colonies well and without the need for any heavy-handed approaches, even they robbed these colonies of their rich minerals.
YOU’VE got to hand it to the British because they are really the masters at the game. Anyone who has studied basic Malayan history would know that officials during colonial times merely identified themselves as advisers.
They were British civil servants, but they called the shots.
Adding insult to injury, the Malay Rulers – as the Sultans were called then – were “led” to believe they still ran the states.
Under British Malaya – a set of states on the Malay peninsula and Singapore under British rule between the 18th and 20th centuries – British colonial officials had the last say on almost everything except religion and customary matters, which they cleverly left to the palaces.
So, in theory, the Rulers held their positions, kept their perks and all royal protocols befitting royalty, but their wings were clipped.
These were the federated states, but in the case of Straits Settlement states, British governors were appointed.
So, the famous Malacca Sultanate, with its rich lineage of Sultans, found itself having a governor, a Caucasian, as did Penang and Singapore.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad put it aptly when he said last week in his speech in Britain that “Malaysia is a member of the Commonwealth, but there is nothing much in common with the wealth dominated by certain countries”.
“The British acknowledged the Malay Sultans as Rulers, but the Sultans never ruled. Therefore, when they criticised us as dictators, I don’t think they really meant it,” he said.
There was more. Under British rule in the 20th century, the British introduced repressive laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), used against communist insurgents.
Under the ISA, a person could be held for 60 days in solitary confinement and up to two years’ extension without trial.
Despite this, the British told the world, with a straight face, that they taught us, the natives, principles of justice, democracy and fairness, and that we all cried when they abandoned us when the Japanese invaded Malaya in 1941, and when we gained independence in 1957.
Our first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, kept the law when the Union Jack was lowered in 1957, which marked our independence.
Not many Malaysians are aware that the British imposed the ISA. Of course, during that era, only the radical left-wingers, with communist tendencies, were detained.
One ISA detainee, who was imprisoned under the British and then under the Malaysian government, said: “With the British guards, they would cheerily come every morning and wished the detainees a good day.” That was the difference.
Fast forward to 2019 and the massive turnout in Hong Kong against the controversial extradition Bill, with proposed amendments allowing for criminal suspects to be sent to China, has made international news.
It has prompted concern in Hong Kong and elsewhere that anyone from the city’s residents to foreign and Chinese nationals living or travelling through the international financial hub could be at risk if they were wanted by Beijing.
Basically, Hong Kong residents would rather face HK courts than be deported to mainland China.
Many have no faith in China’s judicial system compared to the British-style HK courts, which inherited the British legal system, and where most of the judges and lawyers are also British-trained.
The HK people can’t be blamed for their anger and suspicion since the international community has read of Chinese nationals being short-changed, or even neglected by the courts in the pursuit of justice.
And we can even read of income tax defaulters, under investigation, being hauled off to undisclosed locations, while dissidents have been taken away, and disappeared without a trace.
This bad press, verified or otherwise, would have scared many people, even though one wonders how many of these HK protesters believe, in their hearts of hearts, that they would ever get arrested and sent to China.
But the irony is that under British rule in HK, like many governments, the British widely used the law as a tool to consolidate control of Hong Kong in the hands of a privileged minority.
Legal expert Richard Daniel Klien wrote that “the British enacted legislation which in some respects instituted two sets of laws – one for the Europeans and another for the Chinese. Laws were passed to ensure no Chinese would live in the most desirable parts of Hong Kong, which the British wished to preserve as their exclusive enclaves.
“In a land in which ninety-eight per cent of the population were Chinese, English was the official language.
“The Chinese language was not permitted to be used in government offices.
“Laws regulating conduct were written exclusively in English, a language which the vast majority of the population could not understand.
“The astonishing truth of the failure of the Hong Kong Chinese to develop a significant pro-democracy or pro-independence movement, while other British colonies obtained independence long ago, testifies to the success of the British laws in accomplishing the goal of continued colonial rule over this land of six million inhabitants.”
MK Chan wrote in a law review report that “to most people in Hong Kong, the preservation of the existing legal system is of crucial importance to the high degree of autonomy the post-colonial Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is supposed to enjoy under Chinese sovereignty according to the “One Country, Two Systems” formula.
“However, this widely shared perception is flawed for one simple reason: the legal system in Hong Kong today has its own serious defects. It is not only alien in origin,” and “markedly different from the legal system in the People’s Republic of China but also defective and inadequate”.
No protest has gained voice, neither through yellow shirts nor umbrellas. And no protests were staged because the British didn’t allow elections during the colonial rule from over a century and a half.
The 1995 Hong Kong Legislative Council election for members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong was only finally held that year – it was the first and last fully elected legislative election in the colonial period before the nation was returned to China two years later. So much for democracy and freedom.
No HK resident protested that only the white men could hold top posts in government bodies, places where there were many qualified HK civil servants who could speak and write in English better than their superiors.
To put it bluntly, there was not even a squeak – and we know how corrupt the HK police were in the 1970s – about the force being headed by Britons.
To be fair, the British transformed HK from a barren island to an international hub, with a working administration system that has won the confidence of the international community.
However, the responsibility of the British ended in 1997 when HK was handed over to the Chinese. It has lost its right to tell the Chinese what to do.
But what has brought this resentment towards China, from HK Chinese people, and perhaps, even a yearning, for British rule?
Not long ago, it was reported that some localists had taken to thumbing their nose at “China’s heavy-handed meddling” by waving the British flag at football matches, booing the Chinese anthem and chanting “We are Hong Kong! Hong Kong is not China!” in English.
Reports have also surfaced about a small Hong Kong-United Kingdom Reunification Campaign, which angled for a return to British rule but ultimately dismissed as quirky.
Then there are HK people who talk about the “good times” under British rule.
If there is a history lesson which the Chinese can learn from British Malaya, it’s that the Brits administered their colonies well and without the need for any heavy-handed approaches, even as they robbed these colonies of their rich minerals.
Reports of Beijing’s transgressions in the territory, such as the kidnapping by mainland agents of local booksellers, or the National People’s Congress purportedly stepping into local judicial cases, won’t win the hearts of the HK people.
Beijing must put on a softer face and display plenty of patience in dealing with HK. There is really no rush for China, especially with risking an international black eye at a time when it can ill afford to do so.
Yes, China is concerned about how its billion people will react if they see these hot-headed HK protesters abusing policemen.
The lessons from the breakup of the Soviet Union – and the wounded pride and dignity that follows – are always etched in the minds of Chinese leaders.
When CNN and BBC reporters talk about individual rights, they have no idea what Beijing or even the Chinese diaspora think.
But the people of HK must also accept the harsh reality – HK is now China’s sovereignty, and more and more of its independence, or even importance, will slowly fade away.
China doesn’t need HK as much as it used to as a strategic financial hub, because Chinese cities, including Beijing and Shanghai, have even eclipsed the former island nation. No matter how big or how long these protests run for, China knows the HK people don’t have the stamina, because rent and bills need to be paid, and protest sittings on streets don’t last anyway.
And the other blow is the British government’s refusal to grant citizenship to the 3.5 million Hongkongers born there under the British flag.
China needs to work harder on winning hearts and minds, and to make the HK people feel they are a fundamental part of China, and Chinese culture and pride.
HK people have always been independent because they were brought up differently and under different sets of political and legal systems, and that must be understood. There is no need to ramp through any laws, indicating that the HK people are unhappy.
The destiny of the HK people lies with China, and not Britain, but the challenge for Beijing is to make the people of HK feel those sentiments and be proud of it.
And speaking of extradition, let’s not forget that the US is also seeking to get WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange extradited from the UK for alleged crimes under the Espionage Act 1917, of which remains unclear.
He is the first journalist to have the book thrown at him for whistleblowing.
That’s not all. The US wants Huawei chief financial office Sabrina Meng Wanzhou to be extradited from Canada over charges which smell suspiciously like trumped up accusations. - by wong chun wai
Huawei products should not be linked to politics: Ren
U.S. ban not to affect Huawei's high-end and 5G products: Ren
https://youtu.be/Yz6tKCEhvqA
Huawei is a commercial company, and the use of its products is a choice for consumers based on their likes and should not be linked to politics, said Ren Zhengfei, founder and president of Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. on Tuesday.
Ren made the remarks after the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce put Huawei and its affiliates on an "Entity List," which would restrict the sale or transfer of U.S. technologies to the company. The ban has triggered opposition from markets worldwide.
Huawei maintains mass production capacities for specific key components, including chips, and the U.S. ban will not result in negative business growth, Ren told reporters.
The telecommunications giant projected slower but positive growth this year.
Huawei posted a 39 percent year-on-year revenue growth in the first quarter of the year. The growth has slowed slightly in the second quarter, but the slowing will not hurt the company, Ren said.
"Huawei had made preparations for the extreme situations even before the Chinese Lunar New Year," he said.
He noted, however, that it would not reject the U.S. supply chain, citing Huawei's announced purchase of 50 million chips from Qualcomm in 2018.
"As long as the U.S. government allows U.S. companies to export the components, Huawei will continue to buy while sticking to its own research and development," he said.
Ren said he appreciated the support of a large number of U.S. components suppliers over the years, and they are also lobbying for the easing of U.S. government-imposed restrictions.
He said Huawei is also in talks with companies like Google for potential remedy solutions, he said.
China can hardly make the US clear about all these
issues. The only option for China is to do its own things well and
accept the fact that the China-US trade war will last in the days that
follow. As China becomes stronger, it will eventually see the US willing
to reflect upon itself.
The overall output value of China's satellite navigation
and positioning services industry reached 301.6 billion yuan ($43
billion) in 2018, up 18.3 percent on a year-on-year basis, with the
country's home-developed BeiDou satellite system contributing 80 percent
to the core production value, reads an official white paper.
China sent a new satellite of the BeiDou Navigation
Satellite System (BDS) into space from the Xichang Satellite Launch
Center in Sichuan Province at 11:48 p.m. Friday.
