Critical time for DAP leader, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng

Fall from grace: Lim, who is facing two charges of corruption alongside businesswoman Phang (left), will continue as Chief Minister with the full support of his party. (Inset) The prosecution team is led by Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.

There has been widespread sympathy for Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng but he is under pressure to walk the talk and take leave while he clears his name in court.

IT was almost 7pm but the sky was still bright when a convoy of cars emerged from the underground car park of Komtar, Penang.

The only hint that this was no ordinary caravan of vehicles was the flashing lights and siren from an accompanying police car.

The moment had finally come after weeks of speculation. Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had been arrested and was being escorted to the MACC headquarters to be charged in court the next morning.

It has been a spectacular fall from grace for the DAP leader who rose to power on an awesome wave of popular support and who is known as “Tokong” among the Penang people.

Lim has claimed trial to two charges, one of which pertains to using his position to benefit his wife Betty Chew and himself in the rezoning of a piece of land belonging to a private company known as Magnificent Emblem in 2014.

Another charge is related to his purchase of a bungalow from businesswoman Phang Li Koon a year later at below market value.

Phang, a mysterious figure until thrust into the media spotlight, was charged with abetment in the property transaction.

Gossip and speculation about the nature of the charges have been brewing among the cafe society but everything should be clearer when hearing begins towards the end of the year.

Lim is not the first political head of state to have waded into troubled waters.

Former Selangor mentri besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo is now on parole after spending six months in jail for purchasing an under-valued “Balinese palace” from a company that had business links with the state government.

Another former Selangor mentri besar, Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib, also lost his job following the Australian Gold Coast affair that saw him charged with possessing undeclared foreign currency.

The late Datuk Seri Harun Idris was forced by Umno to resign in the 1970s after he was charged for corruption.

Lim is also not the first to resist taking a leave of absence after being charged in court.

Former Sabah chief minister Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan clung on after being charged for corruption. He was eventually found guilty but his penalty was not great enough to cost him his seat.

But Pairin’s time was old politics and this is supposed to be the era of new politics.

The DAP central executive committee has given Lim a ringing endorsement to stay on in his job on grounds that “there is no question of conflict of interest as Lim has no influence or control over the prosecution”.

It is only expected of DAP to stand by their top leader because if the top man falls, the party will become shaky.

But it also means that DAP is unable to walk the talk. The party is famous for asking others to step down over issues big and small but is unable to live up to the same principle when it involves one of their own. It will be hard for the party to judge others from now on.

It has put DAP figures like their Selangor chairman Tony Pua in an awkward situation. Shortly after the bungalow issue erupted, Pua had said there was no need for Lim to go on leave unless charges were brought against him.

He was quoted in a pro-Pakatan Harapan news portal as saying: “When charged, then (the person) should take time off.”

But legally speaking, the Chief Minister does not need to go on leave even with these kind of charges hanging over his head.

According to a Selangor judicial figure, forcing him out would be pre-judging him.

“He can still chair meetings, make decisions over land and development and sign documents. He can even go on with that tunnel thing.

“But having said that, a politician’s life is not only about legalities but also perception. He is representing a party that lectures others what to do. Can they still do that?” said the judicial figure.

Moreover, the Chief Minister’s focus, said the judicial figure, will now be divided between his case and running the state. There will be complications as the court case drags on.

Lim may not have influence or control over the prosecution but as the Chief Minister, he has control over the civil servants who may be called to testify in his case.

It will be awkward for potential witnesses who are his subordinates because not many people would be comfortable going to court to testify against their boss.

His presence would also bring uncertainty to the state and investors do not like uncertainty.

Still, it is his call and he has the full support of his party including that of party doyen Dr Chen Man Hin whose reputation is impeccable.

The charges against Lim are quite serious and it is only natural that he is doing what it takes to defend himself. Being Chief Minister will give him that much needed clout and back-up to face the complications ahead.

Besides, there is talk of new charges in the works related to the Taman Manggis land and also involving a company with links to “Miss Phang”, as she is known.

But there is also another side to the story why DAP is reluctant to have an acting Chief Minister take over from Lim.

Lim’s deputies are Deputy Chief Minister I Datuk Rashid Hasnon from PKR and Deputy Chief Minister II Dr P. Ramasamy from DAP.

Either one of them could act in Lim’s place if he goes on leave. But the sentiment in this Chinese-dominated party is that senior state executive council member Chow Kon Yeow should be the acting Chief Minister.

DAP would look terrible if Chow leap-frogs over the two deputies. It would only reinforce the perception that DAP is a Chinese chauvinist party.

However, if either Rashid or Dr Ramasamy takes over, the party’s right-wing Chinese base would be badly affected. Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea, DAP probably thought it would be better for Lim to remain at the top.

DAP leaders have slammed the charges as baseless and an attempt to topple a democratically elected leader. It is quite clear they intend to approach this as a political trial and to win over the court of public opinion.

A lot of Lim’s time will be spent convincing the public that he is innocent and a victim. Events like “Walk with Guan Eng” and “Session with the People” have been planned for today.

His supporters have tried to liken his dilemma to what Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim went through in 1998. It is not the best of comparisons given that Anwar was able to galvanise a whole generation of young Malays who flooded the streets in anger.

What DAP may have failed to take note of was that many Chinese intelligentsia have been wary of Lim’s leadership since the Mercedes-Benz episode. Lim had opted for a Mercedes S300L as his official car a mere three months after the state purchased a new fleet of Toyota Camry for the state leaders.

This was evident in comments by the Huazong chairman of Negri Sembilan, Lau Zhi Wen, who is as anti-Barisan Nasional as one gets and has often run down the 1MDB issue.

Lau’s comments in the wake of the court case have gone viral among the Chinese-speaking circle.

He recalled the early days when Lim flew economy class and provided hope for change and greater transparency. He said the people had longed for another Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat who was respected for his simple lifestyle.

But Lau said that Lim changed after winning by a bigger majority in 2013.

“Many said you grew arrogant, others still deify you. You changed cars, flew business class and bought a RM5mil bungalow for RM2.8mil,” he said.

Lau said he had high expectations of the Penang Chief Minister but would no longer speak up for him.

The Chinese vernacular press that would have once defended him to the hilt was also visibly neutral. The thing is Lim does not have as many friends in the Chinese media as when he started out as Chief Minister.

The Chinese vernacular media was instrumental in helping to propel DAP to power. They put Lim on a pedestal but now, eight years down the road, many of them have stories to tell about how they were treated by Lim and his staff and they are not pleasant stories.

The same goes for some of the lawyers watching the drama at the Penang courts on Thursday. A few years ago, they would have come out for him but on that day, their response was: “Let justice take its course.”

DAP is hopeful and confident that the court case will swing sympathy and support towards Lim and arrest the resurgence of support for Barisan.

They are painting their secretary-general as a victim of selective prosecution. Lim has also been trying to tug at the heartstrings with famous sayings that he would prefer to die standing than live on bended knees, and playing up his overnight detention at the MACC headquarters.

The court case proper has yet to start but the court of public opinion is already in session.



By Joceline Tan

Who's is who?

Judge: Judicial Commissioner Datuk Azmi Arifin

Accused: 1. Lim Guan Eng 2. Phang Li Koon

Prosecution:
1. Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali 2. DPP Masri Mohd daud 3. DPP Mohd dusuki Mokhtar 4. DPP udiman lut Mohamed 5. DPP Mohd Ashrof Adrin Kamarul 6. DPP Mohd Zain Ibrahim 7. DPP Muhammad Fadzlan Mohd Noorbr

Lim Guan Eng’s counsel:
1. Gobind Singh Deo (lead) 2. Ramkarpal Singh 3. R.S.N Rayer 4. M. Kulasegaran 5. P. Subramaniam 6. M. Manoharanbr

Phang Li Koon’s counsel:
1. Datuk K. Kumaraendran (lead) 2. Dev Kumaraendran 3. Raj Shankar 4. Chetan Jethawanibr />

US containing a rising Chinese power

Might the rush to arbitration be nothing more than a US provocation to provide an excuse for military engagement? asks Shannon Ezra

The most effective way to halt China's global rise is to exert control over its gateway to the sea, through which it conducts 80 percent of its trade, says the writer. File picture: Eugene Hoshiko. Credit: AP

Dialogue 06/05/2016 South China Sea & Sino-US ties - CCTV News - CCTV.com English

english.cntv.cn

Video: South China Sea Is Indisputable Part of China

Video: 8th China-U.S. S&ED & 7th CPE

Johannesburg - If the containment of China is one of the key strategic pillars of US foreign policy, the impending outcome of The Hague’s arbitration on the South China Sea dispute is of critical importance to the US.

Even though China disregards the arbitration process as illegitimate, the decision of the tribunal, which is due in the next 10 days, will ratchet up tensions in one of the world's most hotly contested bodies of water. It will set the stage for what could degenerate into a serious conflagration, as the US pulls out all the stops to encircle China, and China takes measures to assert its sovereignty.

America’s objective is to contain a rising power, which presents itself as a major challenge to US global hegemony. Geo-strategically, the most effective way to impede China’s rise is to exert control, through proxies, over China’s gateway to the sea, through which it conducts 80 percent of its trade and transports its energy supplies.

This strategic waterway has turned into a game of chess between China, which claims sovereignty over four main archipelagos, and some of its neighbours along the South China Sea, which have made a series of territorial claims and are backed by the US.

The US claims its interest in the South China Sea is to protect the freedom of navigation as US trade through this waterway is worth $1.2 trillion (R17.6 trillion) annually. To date, China has posed no threat to international navigation in the waters of the South China Sea and also seeks to protect its annual $5 trillion worth of trade.

Despite the tug of war, the situation was under control prior to 2009. When President Barack Obama took office in that year, he announced his keystone foreign policy undertaking as a “strategic pivot to Asia” or rebalancing strategy to the Asia-Pacific. The entire region intuitively recognised that the rebalance was, and is, about China.

A new determination emerged within the US administration to support the territorial claims in the South China Sea of China’s neighbours. It was in this way that the US was arguably the invisible hand behind the rising tension in the region since 2009.

From the Chinese perspective, it was the US that plotted behind the scenes the arbitration of its South China Sea dispute with the Philippines. There have been allegations that the US staffed a team of lawyers to lead the Philippines through the arbitration process, and encouraged them to launch their arbitration case when a Japanese national was president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The Japanese national in question had been previously opposed to China’s positions in previous cases and became one of the five arbitrators in the case.

From the time that the Philippines took the unilateral initiative of taking the South China Sea arbitration to the tribunal in January 2013, China has refused to accept or participate in the arbitration. It maintains that territorial sovereignty issues are beyond the purview of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

As for maritime delimitation, China made an exclusion declaration in 2006, thereby lawfully excluding itself from any compulsory dispute settlement procedure by a third party. Apart from China, more than 30 other countries, including the UK, France, and Russia have made the same exclusion declaration.

China also maintains that, together with the Philippines, they have reaffirmed settling the South China Sea dispute through bilateral negotiations. This is in keeping with the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, signed between China and the Association of South-east Asian Nations, which explicitly states that the parties concerned should undertake to resolve their disputes through consultations and negotiations.

From the perspective of the Philippines, there have been a number of exchanges of views with China since 1995, which led to no resolution. But China argues that the two states have never engaged in any serious negotiations on the dispute. According to UNCLOS, China has the right to choose the means of dispute settlement, which means it cannot be forced to accept dispute settlement which is imposed on it, including a third-party settlement. But this has not stopped the arbitration from continuing without China’s participation.

What kind of consequences could the rush to arbitration, encouraged by the US, result in? Would China withdraw from UNCLOS and expand its Air Defence Identification Zone over all its territories in the South China Sea?

This was always a likely scenario, which begs the question of whether the US is keen to provoke a military confrontation as part of its containment strategy. Why else would it be deploying 60 percent of its naval fleet and 60 percent of its overseas air force to the South China Sea by 2030?

By Shannon Ebrahim who is the foreign editor for Independent Media http://www.iol.co.za/

Related:

Expert: Negotiation is only way for South China Sea issues

  http://t.cn/R5R1nar 

• Overview of the South China Sea Disputes ep.2：The Current Situation

http://english.cntv.cn/2016/07/01/VIDEFqZVHU17UA77AL1fVaQZ160701.shtml

The nine-dashed line was first discovered and owned by China. It is a maritime boundary line formed after China’s long-term jurisdiction and development of the South China Sea islands.

China holds sovereignty and jurisdiction rights within the nine-dashed line. Other countries’ ships have the right to freedom of navigation and their aircraft enjoy rights to fly over the territory.
There had been no problem with the nine-dashed line before the 1970s, but with Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries pushing further territorial claims, more governments are beginning to deny legitimacy of the nine-dashed line.

The United States and other countries have intervened in the South China Sea issue; using the so-called freedom of navigation in the South China Sea to deny the nine-dashed line to disregard China’s territorial rights.

Xi eyes joint bid to boost Manila ties

Beijing would like to improve relations with Manila through joint efforts, President Xi Jinping told the Philippines' new president, who was sworn in on Thursday.

 

South China Sea arbitration nothing more than a political farce: People’s DailyGiven the lack of legal validity of the arbitral tribunal of the South China Sea case, China does not accept any propositions or actions based on the...

Duterte's inauguration can put ties on new track

Immediately prior to Rodrigo Duterte's inauguration as the new Philippine leader, The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration announced it would deliver a ruling on July 12 in the Philippines' case against China over their South China Sea dispute.

• Fmr. ICJ judge: Negotiation best way to resolve dispute

 More support for China against arbitration

Tribunal arbitration escalates sea tensions

The tribunal’s involvement goes against the principles of the convention.

South China Sea arbitration abuses international law, threatens world order

World Insight 06/28/2016 South China Sea

A seminar on the South China Sea Arbitration and International Rule of Law was held on Sunday in the Hague, the location of the Permanent Court of Arbitration's arbitral tribunal. At the seminar hosted by both Chinese and Dutch academic institutions, experts from various countries warned that the unilateral filing of the South China Sea arbitration case by the Aquino administration of the Philippines and the arbitral tribunal’s overreach and abuse of power is a desecration of the spirit of the rule of law and pose a threat to current international order.

Exclusive interview: Limitation of UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System

A legal expert at the University of Oxford has published a paper on resolving disputes in the South China Sea. It relates to the arbitration unilaterally initiated by the Philippines against China.

With this move, the Philippines is just adorning itself with borrowed plumes. First of all, estoppel is a basic principle of international law. As is known to all, China and ASEAN countries, including the Philippines, signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002, in which all sides agreed to settle disputes over the South China Sea through friendly negotiation and consultation by parties directly concerned.

Experts call for reasonable and effective dialogue on China South Sea issue

A group of experts on international law have called the arbitration that was unilaterally filed by the Philippines against China over the South China Sea "questionable".

In 2011, the Philippines and China issued a joint statement, reiterating their respect and observation of the DOC. However, just two years later, the Aquino administration unilaterally submitted the South China Sea case for arbitration in spite of its previous commitments.

Secondly, the Philippines ignores basic historical facts by presumptuously claiming that the Chinese people never lived or conducted activities in the South China Sea region, thus bearing no sovereignty over the islands in the region.

Cambodia criticizes arbitration filed by Philippines

Cambodia's ruling party has spoken out against the arbitration court's upcoming decision over the South China Sea issue.

Yet no one can deny the historical fact that those islands have been part of China’s territory since ancient times. Successive Chinese governments have continued to govern the islands through multiple approaches including setting administrative divisions, military patrols and conducting salvages at sea.

Respecting historical fact is an important principle of international law. Through its lack of respect for the facts, the South China Sea case violates this principle.

Chinese Foreign Ministry condemns Japan

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei has condemned Japan's remarks over the South China Sea arbitration unilaterally launched by the Philippines. He urged for Japan to stop making such irresponsible remarks.

Moreover, the Philippines’ interpretation of the legal status of the islands and reefs in the South China Sea is not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) and other international laws.

South China Sea FAQ ep12: Why does Beijing reject Manila's arbitration case?

The requests raised by the Philippines in the arbitration case are, in essence, about territorial sovereignty and maritime demarcation.

The Southeast Asian nation claims that the Huangyan Island and the Nansha islands cannot be considered islands as such no one can establish exclusive economic zones or claim the continental shelves there. Such an argument flies in the face of objective reality.

• South China Sea FAQ ep13: China's solution for resolving the disputes

• 
  South China Sea FAQ ep13: China's solution for resolving the disputes. As tensions in the South China Sea region continue, China continues to insist on a dual-track approach to resolve disputes. This is governed by the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea made in 2002 between China...

The Philippines deliberately misrepresented factual information about the islands and reefs in the South China Sea during the trial and carelessly negated the integrity of the Nansha islands as well as the island status of Taiping Island and other large islands in area. However, its claims are not only inconsistent with reality, but also incompatible with UNCLOS and other international laws.

The legal representatives of the Philippines also withheld necessary information concerning other islands in the South China Sea (not included in its arbitration request) on purpose, and refused to present them to the court. It is safe to say that the Philippines’ argument concerning the South China Sea islands and reefs lacks basic credibility.

Taking this into consideration, the arbitral tribunal has clearly violated UNCLOS, abused the UNCLOS settlement procedure and exceeded its jurisdiction by accepting the unilateral request of the Philippines and even trying to deliver a verdict on the South China Sea issue. Its self-proclaimed “jurisprudence” and “normative power” demonstrate great irony.

The core of the South China Sea issue between China and the Philippines are territorial and maritime delimitation disputes. Territorial issues do not fall within the scope of UNCLOS authority. Additionally, as early as 2006, China has excluded compulsory settlement procedures from maritime delimitation disputes in accordance with Article 298 of UNCLOS.

As a temporary institution founded on UNCLOS, the tribunal has zero jurisdiction over this case. Arbitration and other international judicial methods to resolve disputes means resorting to third-party settlement. However, this option has already been excluded by internationally binding bilateral agreements between China and the Philippines.

The tribunal chose to ignore these binding documents and breached the premises, exclusions and exceptions for compulsory settlement procedure stipulated in UNCLOS to establish jurisdiction on its own.

The tribunal’s blatant disregard for the agreement China and the Philippines made concerning settling disputes has irresponsibly broken the consensus reached between the two states and has seriously violated China’s right as a sovereign state and UNCLOS signatory to choose its own dispute settlement method.

What’s more, by repeatedly referencing UNCLOS and extending the convention’s coverage to all maritime issues, the tribunal has in fact turned a blind eye to conventional international law.

Any practitioner of international law is aware that articles in UNCLOS are a summary of the historical maritime practices and common will of all countries. UNCLOS shows nothing but respect to conventional international law. However, the tribunal today has discredited all previous practices, contradicting the basic purpose and spirit of UNCLOS.

International law has played a significant role in maintaining a relatively stable international order after World War II. In the decades after the war, hundreds of international treaties were drafted to regulate the conduct of states and people’s lives.

From the planet where we live to outer space, from security to arms control, from economic development to environmental protection, from human rights to judicial cooperation and other areas, these international laws are ubiquitous. The diplomatic actions of every county call for international law. In other words, it is a commonly recognized standard for the international community. The world would fall into chaos without it, and the law of the jungle would once again dominate.

Therefore, the abuse of international law by the Philippines and the tribunal has undermined the authority of the law, which will in turn greatly impact the stability of international order.

It is worth mentioning that the US, a country outside the region, has been eager to play a hand in the issue. Those who are familiar with the “America-style” of dealing with international affairs know that “safeguarding the integrity of international law” is a catchphrase for the country when it comes to international dealings.

However, as a country that attaches such importance to the protection of international law, why has the US supported the illegal acts of the Philippines and the tribunal? The answer is simple: The US only protects those international laws that benefit itself. In the eyes of the US, any illegal act can be considered “an act that protects international law” so long as it benefits its own strategic interests.

A scholar at the seminar pointed out that what the Philippines has done to China today could happen to other countries in the future. If the tribunal comes to a conclusion that does not conform to the facts and the law, then the same twisted logic could be misapplied to other countries with territorial disputes.

Such apprehension is not without merit. If the irresponsible actions of the Philippines, the US and the arbitral tribunal are not faced head on, they will severely affect the authority of international law. From this perspective, China's fight against the abuse of international law is not only the country safeguarding its territorial sovereignty, but also a contribution to lasting peace and stability in the world. - People daily

Related:

Who is sterring up trouble in the South China Sea




Related posts:


China urges Philippines to quit arbitration; Pushes back against US ...

Jun 9, 2016 ... China urges Philippines to quit arbitration; Pushes back against US ... SINGAPORE: China rebuffed US pressure to curb its activity in the South ...

Analysts pooh-pooh US Defence Secretary's 'self-isolation'

Jun 6, 2016 ... Analysts pooh-pooh US Defence Secretary's 'self-isolation' as an ... China "self- isolation" claims at best "exaggerated," said Huang Jing, ...