Freedom, GEABSOLUTE POWERS CORRUPT ABSOLUTELY, General Election (GE15), Malaysia, Politics, polling Nov 19: Destroy Umno for the betterment of Malaysia, race, religion, Solidality, support Aliran for Justice

Share This

Monday, 20 February 2012

China's next president: Xi Jinping, a 'princeling' with a big personality

Vice President Xi Jinping
Vice President Xi Jinping 
Xi Jinping: a 'princeling' with a big personality

China's heir apparent is affable and more open to economic reforms, but his intentions remain an enigma

By Tania Branigan in Beijing guardian.co.uk


 
Chinese vice-president Xi Jinping, tipped as a future leader, arrives in the US to meet officials in Washington Link to this video
 
His name is becoming more familiar but his face is still unknown to most and his opinions and intentions are an enigma.

Xi Jinping's visit to the US this week is unlikely to answer the west's most important questions.

But this is a getting-to-know-you trip for China's heir apparent, who is expected to take the helm of the world's second largest economy and fastest rising power from late this year.

The Chinese vice-president's Valentine's Day meeting with Barack Obama is notable – as are his plans to catch a Los Angeles Lakers basketball game and to return to Muscatine, the tiny Iowa town he visited in 1985 as head of an animal feed delegation.

His activities suggest he is shaping an image very different from that of the current Chinese president, Hu Jintao.

While Hu is determinedly anonymous, Xi is "a big personality", according to those who have met him.

Standing over 6ft tall, he is confident and affable. He boasts a ready smile and a glamorous second wife – the renowned People's Liberation Army singer Peng Liyuan. He has expressed his fondness for US war movies and, perhaps more surprisingly, praised the edgy independent film-maker Jia Zhangke.

This is, in part, a generational and social shift. Xi is 58 and, like the other rising stars in Chinese politics, grew up in the era of reform and opening.



While Hu's first visit to the US was in 2002, Xi and his peers have travelled frequently and several have personal links with the west. Xi's daughter is studying at Harvard and a sister is thought to live in Canada. And like many of his peers, he is a "princeling" – someone who has experienced both privilege and prejudice as the child of a powerful Communist party figure.

Xi was born in 1953 to Xi Zhongxun, a Long March hero who later became a vice-premier, and Qi Xin. He grew up in the relative comfort of Zhongnanhai, the party elite's red-walled Beijing compound.

Loneliness

But when he was only nine his father fell from grace with Mao Zedong. Six years later, as the cultural revolution wreaked havoc, young Xi was dispatched to the dusty, impoverished north-western province of Shaanxi to "learn from the masses".

He spent seven years living in a cave home in Liangjiahe village. "I ate a lot more bitterness than most people," he once told a Chinese magazine. He has described struggling with the fleas, the hard physical labour and the sheer loneliness.

All this, of course, fits into classic Communist party narratives of learning to serve the people. But political commentator Li Datong suggests this "double background" has proved genuinely formative for princelings such as Xi and might even lead them to bolder policy making.

"One aspect is their family background as children of the country's founders and the other is their experience of being sent to the countryside, which made them understand China's real situation better. It gives this generation a strong tradition of idealism and the courage to do something big," he said.

Although he has openly criticised the cultural revolution, Xi embraced the party; in a WikiLeaks cable an academic who knew Xi as a young man suggested he "chose to survive by becoming redder than red".

Family links helped him to win a place studying chemical engineering at the elite Tsinghua University, followed by a post as aide to a powerful military leader, Geng Biao – the beginning of his useful People's Liberation Army (PLA) connections.

Next came a more surprising move – his choice, says political expert Zhang Xiaojin – to an unglamorous post in Hebei province. He may have hoped to shake off suggestions of benefiting from his family name.

It was as deputy secretary of Zhengding county that he visited Muscatine, a US town of 23,000 until now best known for its melons and Mark Twain's brief sojourn there in 1855.

"He was a very polite and kind guy. I could see someone very devoted to his work – there was no golfing on that trip, that's for sure," said Eleanor Dvorchak, who hosted Xi in her son's old room, where he slept amid football wallpaper and Star Trek figurines. "He was serious. He was a man on a mission."

Sarah Lande, who organised the trip, said his confidence was obvious even through a translator.

"You could tell he was in charge … he seemed relaxed and welcoming and able to handle things," she said. "He had the words he wanted to express himself easily."

The acquaintance who spoke to WikiLeaks claimed Xi always had his "eye on the prize" of a major party post. He transferred to southern Fujian province in 1985, climbing steadily upwards over 17 years. Most of his experience has been earned in China's relatively prosperous, entrepreneurial coastal areas, where he courted investors and built up business, proving willing to adopt new ideas. The former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson called him "the kind of guy who knows how to get things over the goal line".

After the toppling of Shanghai's party secretary Chen Liangyu in a corruption scandal, Xi took charge of the city in 2007. Barely six months later his elevation to the politburo standing committee – the top political body – signalled that he was expected to succeed Hu. In October 2010 his appointment as vice-chair of the central military commission cemented his position.

He describes his own thinking as pragmatic and throughout his rise he has cultivated a down-to-earth image; in the provinces he ate in government canteens and often dressed down.

In a burst of publicity shortly before his 2007 promotion his wife lauded his humble nature and devotion to duty, revealing that on their second date he warned her he would not have much time for family life. And in a system known for corruption, he also has a clean reputation. One friend told the LA Times the worst the paper was likely to find were overdue library books.

But while Xi is well-liked and adept at glad-handing, he appears to give little of importance away. Even his popular wife has retreated into the background as he has assumed increasing prominence.

The US ambassador Gary Locke recently observed that he was "very personable" but that US officials "really don't know that much about him".

Close association with particular policies or factions has its dangers. Becoming general secretary of the party, and thus leader of China, is "an issue of who opposes you rather than who supports you", said Kerry Brown, head of the Asia programme at Chatham House.

Beyond his openness to economic reforms, Xi is known primarily as a figure who appeals to different groupings and as a safe pair of hands.

"In recent years he has taken care of large-scale events, including Olympics and anniversaries, and there haven't been any big mistakes. Xi has steadily been through these tests," said Zhang.

In 2007 he leapfrogged Li Keqiang – until then seen as likely to succeed Hu, but seen perhaps as too much Hu's protege – as the consensus candidate in a system built on collective decision making.

Xi's networks are unusually broad, according to Brown: "Provincially; through his family; and with the military through Geng Biao. His elevation is in the interests of the widest group of people and opposed by the smallest group." It is the same relatively small elite who will determine what he can do with the job.

Liberal

Some hope he shares his father's liberal sympathies: Xi senior was not only a noted economic reformer, but an ally of reformist leader Hu Yaobang. Some say he criticised the military crackdown on Tiananmen Square's pro-democracy protests in 1989.

They say that grassroots organisations burgeoned during the vice-president's stint in Zhejiang, and there was progress in the election of independent candidates at local polls. But the Chinese Human Rights Defenders network has argued the province also saw "zealous persecution" of dissidents, underground Christians and activists: "His track record does not bode well," it wrote. Other China watchers point to shattered hopes that Hu might prove politically liberal.

Nor does Xi's confidence in overseas dealings necessarily indicate a more emollient approach to foreign relations. His most-quoted remark to date was made on a trip to Mexico in 2009: "There are some well-fed foreigners who have nothing better to do than point fingers at our affairs. China does not, first, export revolution; second, export poverty and hunger; third, cause troubles for you. What else is there to say?"

In any case, to read Xi as a man in sole control of the agenda is to fundamentally misunderstand the Chinese political system. He will be "first among equals" in the nine-member standing committee, say analysts. Hu and other former leaders will still exert influence; and 2011's five-year plan has plotted the immediate course.

The system "is in favour of moderation, and nothing can change quickly. Steady as it goes. The political rhythm first has to be installed … significant shifts will come later," said Dr David Kelly, director of the Beijing-based political thinktank China Policy.

Some think Xi's networks may allow him to strike out more confidently than Hu. Others think he will struggle to win support for bold decisions needed to tackle the country's mounting challenges. "I think he's a more instinctive and gut-driven politician and may surprise us. Others say the system and the vested interests around him are too strong," said Brown.

His leadership will be shaped by his colleagues and framed by external forces. "What's very important is the capacity to be on the right side of history," said Cheng Li, an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "He himself probably does not know what he will do."

Pocket profile

Born June 1953

Career His father was a revolutionary hero and a steady rise through party ranks, aided by expert networking, is set to take Xi to the very top. His family background has dogged him at times but also speeded him on his course.

High point Emerging as heir apparent to Hu Jintao at the 17th party congress in 2007. Many had expected Li Keqiang – now expected to become premier – to take the position.

Low point Coming last in the vote for membership of the central committee in 1997, amid hostility to princelings. Connections won him a place as an alternate.

What he says "Are you trying to give me a fright?" (when asked by a reporter, in 2002, whether he would be a top leader within the decade).

What they say "He's more assertive than Hu Jintao. When he enters the room, you know there is a significant presence here … [But] when they rise through their hierarchy, it serves no purpose to indicate differences or even alternative directions." (Henry Kissinger)

Related posts:

China and the US: the princeling and the professor
 US-China heralded a new 'great power relationship' 

Sunday, 19 February 2012

Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard

Debate on Chinese issues sets new level in standard of political maturity in the country

KUALA LUMPUR: The highly anticipated debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng has set a new standard of political maturity in the country.





No winner or loser was declared but the two leaders achieved the objective of reaching out to the Chinese community in one of the most exciting televised debates to articulate their parties' views and directions.

Both leaders have also agreed to a second round, which is expected to draw an even bigger audience as it will be conducted in either English or Bahasa Malaysia.

Yesterday's debate, conducted in Mandarin, has set the pace for a new political culture where leaders from opposing parties are able to come together on the same platform to debate issues with a clear head instead of just firing salvos from different ends.

Those who saw the debate generally felt that both leaders showed courage as they took on sensitive questions such as those pertaining to corruption, the hudud law, land issues and Chinese schools.

There was maturity in the way they presented themselves before the audience at the Berjaya Times Square venue and hundreds of thousands more watching the debate live at home or in coffee shops, food courts and other public places.

While the debate sometimes veered away from the main topic “Chinese at a Crossroads: Is the Two-Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?”, it was nevertheless an exciting hour of verbal sparring, juxtaposed with Chinese proverbs to convey their messages better to the community.

By dinner and supper time yesterday, the debate had led to more debates at kopitiam and eateries throughout the country on who was the better speaker and which party could best represent the community.

Transcript of the opening remarks in the debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng

(Before the debate, moderator Tan Ah Chai (CEO of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall), Dr Chua (CSL) and Lim (LGE) went up the stage to an enthusiastic round of applause. Both speakers drew lots to determine the first speaker. Dr Chua was to go first. The debate started with the Moderator's opening remarks and introduction of the two speakers).
 
CSL: Dear Speaker, distinguished Chief Minister of Penang, and members of the floor, good afternoon. In a democratic society, a two party system is a good idea if there are adequate check and balances in place. Unfortunately, after March 3 (in 2008), the opposition has been practising the politics of hate as it relentlessly attacked the government to gain power.

DAP is, now, not the DAP from the past. After it enters into a pact with PAS, PAS can control everything in Pakatan because they have the manpower and resources. So it would not be impossible for PAS to create a government that will implement the hudud law.

When PAS becomes dominant, the opposition will say don't worry, it will all be good. This is the biggest political lie. Look at Kedah - men and women need to sit separately. No alcohol in Kelantan, no cinema in Bangi. This clearly shows DAP is a slave to PAS.

We want to congratulate the DAP on misleading the rakyat and spreading propaganda, because when it comes to promoting and packaging their agenda, the DAP could get an Oscar for it. For 48 years, DAP was supported by the Chinese, and they have gained their support by "repackaging" their agenda. In DAP's history of 48 years it has only contested in Chinese majority areas, adopting the policy of using Chinese against the Chinese.

The DAP wants to teach Umno a lesson but they dare not face Umno. In fact, they only challenge the Chinese based political party.

DAP often says that its party has been given the Chief Minister's position in Penang. However, this also gives false hope to the Chinese that this could be possible in other states too. I would like to tell them that currently, in other states, it is not possible in this political climate.

DAP today has changed, and no longer is the DAP of the past. Today, in alliance with PAS and PKR, DAP is no longer championing the DAP agenda, but instead helping PAS and PKR to come into power.

In the last general election, for instance, DAP has won more seats than PAS and PKR combined. Logically, the "big brother" or Pakatan leader should be from DAP. But no, the "Big Brother" is still PKR and many mentris besar are from PAS.

In a multi-racial country, we also cannot accept Islamic rule. So, we have to oppose PKR because PAS' biggest supporter is PKR.

LGE: Dear Speaker, MCA president Dr Chua, members of the floor. I thank the organisers for organising this debate. Debate is an important element of democracy. That is why, I hope that debate will have a role to play in the democracy of this country, similar to the US and Europe.

I think what the Malaysians really want is not to see both of us debate. What they want to see is a debate between (Prime Minister) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and (Pakatan leader) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The one who does not have the courage to come to the debate, cannot be a Prime Minister.

Dr Chua accused DAP as a party that is being used by PAS. But we often hear, Najib say that PAS, instead, is being used by DAP. I believe that this contradictory stand is a tactic often used by Barisan Nasional.

In Pakatan Rakyat, we do not use each other. We are just prepared to be used by the rakyat. We are not against the Malays or non-Malays, but we are against corruption and poor governance.

I have my doubts about this title because now we are already in a two-race system, because the Prime Minister himself is still talking about the Malays and non-Malays frequently. The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that for him it is "Malays first".

What we want is a two-party system where all Malaysians could be taken care of. Right now, we see that Umno takes care of the interests of the Malays, the MCA takes care of the Chinese, and the MIC takes care of the Indians. As for DAP, they couldn't figure out who we represent.

A two-party system will take care of everyone, and every Malaysian will be taken care of. We don't agree with the idea of Malay supremacy. What we want, is for the power to lie in the hands of the rakyat. I do not know which Umno leader will have the courage to champion Malaysian supremacy instead of Malay supremacy.

The Barisan National attacks the opposition front, accusing it of racism, as it continues to point out cases of corruption. However, corruption has no skin colour. Pakatan will ensure transparency by revealing the assets of its leader, conducting open tenders, taking corrupt officers - and not innocent citizens like Teoh Beng Hock - to task.

We could also say, if not for the support of 40% of Malays in Penang, I won't be standing here as chief minister. I hope the public will support us for a change of Government.

This then is the two-party system that we want - let the rakyat decide the government.

A good verbal fight

On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai

Lim failed to respond to questions concerning DAP’s stand on hudud law and Pakatan Rakyat’s economic plans.

IT was billed as the Battle of Two Fighting Cocks and Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng certainly lived up to the expectations of Malaysians.

Right from the start, they traded verbal blows with each other but still maintained the decorum expected of speakers in their positions.

The highly-charged atmosphere, with supporters of both sides applauding every point, also ensured that the one-hour war of words came to a fitting climax, heralding in a new political culture that will hopefully pave the way for future debates of this nature.

Questions from the floor were passionate although in some instances they deviated from the topic of the debate. But both speakers did not allow themselves to be rattled. They acquitted themselves well and maintained the spirit of being able to disagree without being disagreeable.

That the debate was conducted fully in Mandarin, even though both speakers were not Chinese-educated, reminded us of the reality that in this country we are able to understand one another, no matter the language, and the days of speaking only to a single-language constituency are over.

The fact that many of us, including this writer, had to rely on the Malay translation by Astro, also confirms that politicians have to be careful about what they say because the message will always get through, no matter the language.

But it was a jolly good show, all things considered. Dr Chua has certainly set a precedent when he decided to take on DAP strongman Lim.

Their styles are different and both have their strong points.

As is normal in all debates, zooming in on the opponent’s Achilles heel often results in the opponent doing his best to skirt around the issues. That much was obvious when Lim failed to adequately respond to Dr Chua’s questions concerning the DAP’s stand on hudud law and Pakatan Rakyat’s socio-economic plan.

The MCA president’s experience was obvious, especially as he rounded off the debate with his anecdote to Lim about the heroes in the Chinese historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Lim, however, was also able to highlight the point that a viable two-party system simply means that any side can be thrown out if it does not live up to the people’s expectations.

It is common for opposition leaders to throw challenges but it is rare for those who represent the government to take them on.

In the political history of Malaysia, one can count by the fingers the number of public debates that have taken place between the two sides.

There have not been many debates of this nature because it is always easier for the politicians to take their rhetoric to ceramahs in front of their own supporters where they know their adversaries are not in attendance.

The entertainment approach appeals to the crowd and the speaker does not have to be on guard with whatever he says even if it can be outlandish.

But in a one-to-one debate such as the one we witnessed yesterday, especially in front of a televised audience, it is a different ball game.

The most recent debate between two Chinese politicians was way back in August 2008, soon after the political tsunami.

Back then, Lim and Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon squared off in a debate touted as “Chief Minister versus ex-Chief Minister” and the topic concerned a land controversy in Penang.

Another debate took place in the 1990s between the then Youth chiefs of MCA and DAP, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and Lim respectively, on the rather interesting topic of “Who is the political parasite?”

This writer covered the event which was carried over two nights. It enthralled a packed audience at the Selangor Assembly Hall. Everyone had their view as to who won but I think both were winners for their readiness to debate against each other.

Although it was highly entertaining, that debate lacked constructive purpose and focus and I believe both veered away from the topic, which itself was too general.

One of the most watched televised debates was between PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and then Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek in 2008. They faced off to argue about the rising price of oil and the opposition’s boast that if they came to power, they would reduce the oil price the next day.

It was quite brave of Shabery, a relatively junior minister then, to take on Anwar, given the latter’s reputation as an orator. In the end, both men actually did well although Anwar did have the edge.

But the biggest debate, unfortunately, did not take place in Malaysia but in the United States where Anwar, who was then in Umno, took on PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang at the University of Illinois in 1982. This was the period of kafir-mengkafir, where each accused the other of being infidels.

At that time, PAS followers refused to attend prayers in mosques led by imams perceived to be aligned to Umno, which was also accused of working with infidel parties like MCA and Gerakan.

But, of course, there are no permanent enemies or friends in politics. Who would have thought that Anwar would now be a PAS ally in Pakatan?

It augurs well for our political maturing process that younger leaders are coming to the fore.

Recently, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin took on PKR’s Rafizi Ramli in the United Kingdom and the debate was conducted in a civil manner. Intellect and knowledge were the important factors in their debate.

Certainly, we hope that yesterday’s debate between Dr Chua and Lim will spur more Malaysian politicians to spar with each other in the same way.

Malaysians are pretty tired of the current name-calling politics where intellectual discourse seems to be absent.

Democracy is not just about voting once every five years. It is also about being able to articulate one’s thoughts openly. Dissent does not make one subversive and anti-national.

We as stakeholders cannot leave demo­cracy entirely to the politicians. We must be ready to broaden our minds by reading and analysing everything.

It is not just the Chinese who are at the crossroads, as the overall theme of the Asli/Insap forum indicated. All Malaysians are at the crossroads and we have to be sure which road we take. There is no room for second guessing.

Verbal combat with their own agenda

Analysis By Joceline Tan

The debate will probably be remembered less for what was actually said than the way the two political leaders took on each other in a high-octane atmosphere.

THERE had been so much hype over the debate between Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek that some were afraid that the outcome would be an anti-climax.

But it turned out to be quite an interesting debate – for what was said as well as the way the two leaders carried themselves and handled the rather high-octane situation.

It was a clear-cut fight and as former think-tank head Khaw Veon Szu pointed out, both men came on stage with an agenda which they tried their best to exploit to the maximum.

Right from the start, it was clear that Dr Chua’s aim was to tell the audience out there that MCA had accomplished real things for the Chinese and he wanted to expose Lim’s showmanship and politics, and to nail him on how DAP intends to reconcile its partnership with a party that has the Islamic State and hudud law as its goal.

Lim’s aim was two-pronged – he wanted to remind the Chinese that MCA is with Umno, currently the target of Chinese discontent.

Lim has been trying to portray himself as the underdog in the run-up to the debate but he is coming from a position of strength as the Chief Minister, party secretary-general and an MP-cum-assemblyman and he spent quite a bit of time trumpeting what he had done in Penang and the Buku Jingga.

In fact, it looked like Lim came prepared with a stack of notes and actually read from the notes when making his preamble. Many of those watching the debate were puzzled when he kept referring to the notes on the rostrum, flipping the pages even when he was answering questions from the floor.

In hindsight, it was evident he was not really answering the question but had decided to stick to the script. As a result, he ended up saying most what he had come to say.

“Many people could see that he was reading from a prepared text. But it’s a shame he did not really address the questions,” said MCA vice-president Gan Ping Sieu.

In between, there was lots of gamesmanship as well as one-upmanship.

One hour is really too brief for two parties with so much history between them to actually do much but more than one hour may have been too much politics for some people to swallow on a Saturday afternoon.

And as usual, the most asked question was: Who won?

It is hard to say actually. Both men did their share of attacking, they showed they were not afraid to take each other on and even though both men are actually “bananas,” they handled the language very well. Neither of them were educated in Chinese schools but went to national schools. They only picked up Mandarin in earnest after going into politics.

They are known as “bananas” among those who are Chinese-educated, the inference being that they are Chinese (yellow outside) but Western in thinking (white inside).

Lim has evidently picked up the lingo along the ceramah route and he used quite a number of phrases that had a catchy rhyme. For example, he said people did not want lies (bei pian) but they want change (yao bian).

Dr Chua demonstrated that he is quite well-versed in Chinese history; he told Lim not to emulate the fierce and ruthless general Zhang Fei but to be more like Liu Be, a benevolent ruler who was guided by the legendary strategist Zhuge Liang.

Not many people will remember what was said months down the road but what the two leaders actually achieved out of it.

Dr Chua has certainly carved a new notch as an MCA president who is not afraid to take on his opponent. He was the real underdog because unlike Lim, he has neither a government post nor did he contest the last general election. And it takes a lot to stand up there and take Lim on, given the DAP’s supremacy in Chinese politics today.

The MCA president was quite unflappable and he is certainly able to think on his feet without having to refer to any prepared text.

Lim is better known as a ceramah orator who breathes fire when put behind a rostrum. He showed a more civil side and despite his over-dependence on his notes, he very cleverly side-stepped tricky issues that come from partnering an Islamist party.

Their bigger audience was of course those outside the hall. Lim is already well-known to his Chinese audience and the debate gives him the chance to reach out to the non-Chinese, to show them the other side of his personality.

As for Dr Chua, he should score some points with the Chinese who are always looking for leaders who can think, work and fight at the same time. After yesterday, many Chinese would conclude that this is one MCA president who speaks up and is not afraid of challenges.

If one has to identify a loser, it would the overly boisterous segment of the audience, some of whom think they are at a school debate. A debate should not be determined by how much noise is made. The quality of questions could also have been better and there were several who spoke as though they were there to quarrel rather than pose questions.

But there was also unanimous agreement that the moderator Tang Ah Chai was commendable. Tang has a social activist background and has often been associated with the Opposition. But he was professional and many liked the way he handled the speakers and the floor.

Tang said it for many democracy-loving Malaysians when he concluded that everyone should have the chance to speak up on the future of the country and that even if people disagree with one another, they should listen and have the courage and maturity to appreciate what is good for the country.

Chua: If Umno falls, PAS will benefit more, not DAP or PKR

Reports by FOONG PEK YEE, LIM WEY WEN, YUEN MEIKENG, LEE YEN MUN, ISABELLE LAI, NG SI HOOI, BEH YUEN HUI, TAN EE LOO, REGINA LEE, JOSEPH SIPALAN and QISHIN TARIQ

PAS will be the principal beneficiary if Pakatan Rakyat comes to power in the next general election, Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said.

The MCA president said if Umno fell, the principal beneficiary would be PAS and not the DAP or PKR.

“This is common sense. So, let's not be deceived by dishonest rhetoric. Let us face the hard truth.”

Pointing out that a vote for DAP is a vote for PAS and PKR, he said that to empower DAP is to strengthen PAS.

“This would pave the way for PAS to be the taiko or lao da (big brother) in the state and federal government.

“In Perak in the last elections, DAP won 18 state seats, PKR won seven seats and PAS won only six seats, but it was a PAS candidate who became the Mentri Besar (Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin),” Dr Chua said in his opening speech at the Malaysian Chinese at Political Crossroads conference in Kuala Lumpur.

During the conference, the much-anticipated debate between Dr Chua and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng on Is the Two-Party System Becoming a Two-Race System was held. The event was jointly organised by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) and MCA think-tank Insap.

Dr Chua said the DAP, which liked to allude to their success in forming the Penang state government and having a DAP leader as the Chief Minister, has been giving false hope to the Chinese that this is possible in other states.

“By tradition, this is only possible in Penang but not other states as yet,” Dr Chua pointed out.

He said the DAP had been planting hope in the minds of about 6.5 million Malaysian Chinese that a Chinese-led government is possible and that the Malaysian Chinese had been short-changed by the MCA.

The MCA president noted that the next elections is at a crossroads not just for the Chinese alone, but also for the nation and all Malaysians.

Dr Chua likened Lim to a true street fighter constantly issuing countless statements to condemn or challenge others, and forgetting that he has a state to look after.

The Pakatan in Penang, he said, had yet to deliver its many promises; like building an international golf course, low cost houses, upgrading the public transport system, easing the horrendous traffic jams and upgrading the numerous run down hawker centres.

He also reminded Lim that the increase in foreign direct investments in Penang was a result of the federal government's transformation programmes under Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's leadership which saw an increase in the nation's competitiveness, ease of doing business and better public security.

Dr Chua also cautioned that Selangor would face serious water shortage if the state government did not address the issue fast.

“If the Pakatan Rakyat delivered all its promises as stated in the Buku Jingga, it will cost taxpayers a total of RM199bil to RM254bil and the federal budget deficit will rise to 27.5% of year one.

“Public debt will soar to RM617.1 bil in year one. Malaysia will go bankrupt by the second year of Pakatan's tenure as the budget deficit will have exceeded 10% of the GDP and public debt will have exceeded 100% of the GDP,” he said.

Related Stories:
Malaysians from all walks of life hungry for more debates
Large crowd jostles for space outside forum hall
Dr Chua vs Guan Eng: Part 2 coming your way
Dr Chua vs Guan Eng: What they said
Analysts agree Chua had the edge over Lim and was the better debater
Kudos for moderator who kept the peace
Forum kicks off with Chua's fiery speech
It's not even a battle of wits, says Chua
Proverbs used to push their points across

 Related posts:

Malaysian Two Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” A question of one or two sarongs!
Malaysian Chinese Forum kicks off with a bang; Chua-Lim showdown!
Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started ahead of tomorrow Chua-Lim debate!
Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum; Chua-Lim Debate on 18/2/2012

Saturday, 18 February 2012

Malaysian Chinese Forum kicks off with a bang; Chua-Lim showdown!


Soi Lek fires salvos at Guan Eng ahead of debate



 Chua: People the winner in the debate

Chua and Penang chief minister Guan Eng agreed to keep the debate professional and not as a platform to decide who is the winner or loser.

KUALA LUMPUR: The people has emerged as the ultimate winner in the debate between the MCA and DAP here today as it allowed the Malaysian public to evaluate for themselves the policies and stands of the Barisan Nasional and the opposition.

“The winner is the rakyat and not Lim Guan Eng (DAP secretary-general) or Chua Soi Lek,” said MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek in a joint news conference soon after concluding the debate, which drew a hugh public interest, especially from the Chinese community and was telecast live on Astro, that is on Astro AEC and Awani.

“An engagement like this will allow the rakyat to see the stands of BN and Pakatan,” he said after the hour-long debate titled “Is the two-party system becoming a two-race system?” organised by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) and MCA’s think-tank, Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research (Insap).

Right from the beginning, Chua and his fellow debater, the Penang chief minister, agreed to keep the debate professional and not as a platform to decide who is the winner or loser.

The debate was conducted in Mandarin and was moderated by Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall chief executive officer Tan Ah Chai.

On a question whether both parties had answered the questions raised in the debate, Chua said he believed he could have provided better explanation if they were given more time and opportunity.

Meanwhile, Lim said the debate could be a good beginning to become a more matured democratic society, adding that such an event should be more frequently organised.

“I think this is something good and I hope this will not be the first and last. I feel it will open up the mind of our rakyat because issues must be debated rationally,” he said.

Lim said both he and Chua had agreed to meet again for another round of public debate, which would be in Bahasa Malaysia or English, and they would decide later on other details of the debate including topics, time and venue.

Lim added the ultimate debate that the people were awaiting to see would be between Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Bernama
MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek kicked off the much anticipated ‘Malaysian Chinese At the Political Crossroads’ conference today with an all out verbal assault against Pakatan Rakyat, ahead of his debate against DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng.

Hall erupts as MCA, DAP titans face off
Two of the most prominent Chinese politicians go head-to-head in a rare televised debate with MCA president Chua Soi Lek facing off DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng.

The debate topic is titled 'Chinese at the crossroads: Is the two-party system becoming a two-race system?'.

chua soi lek and lim guan eng debateTensions runs high in the packed ballroom at the Berjaya Hotel, Kuala Lumpur with a 600-strong crowd.

About 200 more who failed to secure entry passes are viewing following the debate through a big screen outside the hall (left).

LIVE REPORTS

4.55pm: The ballroom erupts as rival supporters chant stands up to chant the respective names of the debators as they take the stage.

5pm: Moderator Tan Ah Chai, chief executive officer of the Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, kicks off the session by explaining the rules.

For the opening speeches, each debator will be allowed to speak for eight minutes.

5.02pm: The duo draw steps up to the moderator's podium to lots enclosed in a envelope, to choose the first speaker. Chua Soi Lek will go first.

Debate Chua Soi Lek5.05pm: After March 8, 2008. DAP has been practising the politics of hatred, says Chua.

He adds DAP has changed and is now teaming up with PAS, which wants to implement a theocratic state. He says DAP cannot stop PAS.

"DAP is just talking big," said Chua, triggering the first major applause from the floor, albiet from the MCA side.

He backs up his argument by stating that Kedah practice gender segregation while PAS is opposing to cinemas in Bangi, Selangor.

5.07pm: DAP likes to tell the Chinese that voting the opposition would improve living standards, pointing to how a DAP candidate can become a chief minister of Penang, says Chua.

Chua says DAP was giving false hopes to the Chinese that such a situation can happen in other states too.

5.10pm: Chua says that in multi-cultural country, Malaysians cannot support PAS because of its Islamic state agenda.

"Who is PAS' biggest ally?" asks Chua, to which the MCA crowd shouts in unison "DAP!".

Debate Lim Guan Eng5.12pm: It's now Lim Guan Eng's turn.

He thanks the organisers for organising the debate but says that what the public wants to see is a debate between PM Najib Razak and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

5.14pm: "We in Pakatan Rakyat don't make use of each other. Our concern is how the public makes use of us.

"We aren't against the Malays. We aren't against the Chinese. We are against corruption," says Lim, whipping the Pakatan crowd into a frenzy...

By ISABELLE LAI

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum kicked off with a bang Saturday as MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek brought down the house with his fiery opening speech.

Dr Chua appeared to be metaphorically rolling up his sleeves in preparation for his debate with political opponent, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng in the evening.

"He (Lim) is more interested in issuing countless statements to condemn or challenge others, behaving like a true street fighter. He has forgotten that he has a state to look after," said Dr Chua to tumultous applause.

The forum, jointly-organised by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute and MCA think-tank Insap, is being held at Berjaya Times Square here, with the highly-anticipated debate set to begin at 5pm.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak also could not resist referring to the Dr Chua-Lim showdown, saying with a grin that he heard there would be a "boxing match" in the evening.

"He (Chua) is going into the ring. As I can see from his speech, he is very well prepared.

"So we wish him all the very best, and as the boxing term goes, we hope he will punch above his weight," quipped Najib in his speech.

Both DAP and MCA delegates as well as members of the public will comprise the 750-strong audience who will later witness the debate, which will be conducted in Mandarin.

Overseas radio listeners can tune in to The Star's 988FM live broadcast via the station's website. www.988.com.my.

Local listeners should tune in to these frequencies: Kedah, Perlis,Langkawi (FM96.1), Taiping (FM96.1/94.5), Kuantan and Pahang (FM90.4),north Johor and Malacca (FM98.2), Penang (FM94.5), Ipoh (FM99.8), KlangValley (FM98.8), Negri Sembilan (FM93.3) and south Johor and Singapore (FM99.9).

Astro AEC (Channel 301) will also air the debate live, with a repeat telecast at 11pm while live streaming is available via its website www.astro.com.my/bendiquan.

Non-Mandarin speakers can watch the Bahasa Malaysia version on Astro Awani (Channel 501).

The debate will also be aired live on Astro AEC (Channel 301).

Unconventional Thinking: Small is Beautiful!

Cover of "Small Is Beautiful: Economics a...
Cover via Amazon

Lessons from unconventional thinking

THINK ASIAN By ANDREW SHENG

AT a time when there is great awareness that mainstream economic theory is seriously flawed, many of us are looking for alternative models of economic thinking.

I have in my collection a book by an English economist EF Schumacher called Small is Beautiful, first published in 1973, but never read it. Last month, I finally read it and was overwhelmed by its brilliant and unconventional approach to economic thinking.

The book became almost cult reading when it came out 40 years ago, in the aftermath of the first energy crisis.

The author was a Jewish refugee from Germany to England who studied in Oxford and Columbia Universities. He became the Economic Advisor to the British National Coal Board and was sent in 1955 to work in Burma as an economic development advisor.

It was from his experience there, including staying in a Buddhist monastery that he evolved highly a non-Western way to consider human development, including living within the limits of natural resources and using intermediate technology.

This explains why Chapter 4 of this book was called Buddhist Economics.

The book is actually a collection of essays written at different times. Like his teachers, Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith, Schumacher wrote in elegant and striking prose:-

“One of the most fateful errors of our age is the belief that the problem of production has been solved. The illusion... is mainly due to our inability to recognise that the modern industrial system, with all its intellectual sophistication, consumes the very basis on which it has been erected. To use the language of the economist, it lives on irreplaceable capital which it cheerfully treats as income.”

He immediately plunges into an attack on the whole philosophy of modern economics that reduces everything into monetary values as measured by GDP, arguing that the logic of limitless growth is wrong: “... that economic growth, which viewed from the point of view of economics, physics, chemistry, and technology, has no discernable limit must necessary run into decisive bottlenecks when viewed from the point of view of the environmental sciences. An attitude to life which seeks fulfilment in the single-minded pursuit of wealth in short, materialism does not fit into this world, because it contains within itself no limiting principle, while the environment in which it is placed is strictly limited.”



Being a system-wide thinker, he deplored the narrowness of economics:-

“Economists themselves, like most specialists, normally suffer from a kind of metaphysical blindness, assuming that theirs is a science of absolute and invariable truths, without any presuppositions.”

He was probably the earliest to recognise that the concepts of GDP ignored the costs of depletion of natural resources and the high social damage through pollution: “It is inherent in the methodology of economics to ignore man's dependence on the natural world.”

Most recent reviewers of his book commended him on the accuracy of his forecasts (forty years ago) on population and the rate of consumption of energy resources.

Some reviewers consider that the book brilliantly explained the “Why” of the need to conserve, but not the “how”. I think he went deeper than that.

Schumacher was not just a social philosopher but a practical observer of large scale social organisations, particularly bureaucracies. The realist side of him can be found from this quote: “An ounce of practice is generally worth more than a ton of theory.”

Indeed, he was very insightful of the importance of smallness in large organisation. This was because as organisations become larger and larger, they become more impersonal.

He recognised the inherent contradictions within large organisations that have alternating phases of centralising and decentralising.

Here, he noted that the solution is not either-or, but the-one-and-the-other-at-the-same-time. In other words, contradictions and illogical situations are inherent in large systems.

This is because all organisations struggle to have “the orderliness of order and the disorderliness of creative freedom.” Every organisation struggles with the orderly administrator versus the creative (disorderly) entrepreneur or innovator.

From this basic contradiction, Schumacher has a theory of large-scale organisation divided into five principles, which are worthwhile researching further.

The first principle is Subsidiarity which is that the upper authority should delegate to the lower level powers where it is obvious that the lower levels can function more efficiently than the central authority.

The second principle is Vindication namely, governance by exception. The centre delegates and only intervenes under exceptional circumstances which are clearly defined.

The third principle is Identification the subsidiary must have clear accounting in the form of balance sheets and profit and loss account.

The fourth principle is Motivation here he recognises that motivation at the lower levels of large organisation is low if everything is directed from the top. This is where the values of the organisation become critical in addition to rewards in terms of money.

The fifth is the Principle of the Middle Axiom. He notes that “the centre can easily look after order; it is not so easy to look after freedom and creativity.”

The word “Axiom” means a self-evident truth. The Principle of the Middle Axiom is “an order from above which is yet not an order.”

In practical terms, you set out an objective, but do not detail and direct how that objective is to be achieved, giving some degree of innovation and freedom for the subsidiary levels of the organisation to achieve the objectives.

What is amazing is that 40 years ago, Schumacher quoted Chairman Mao for the best formulation of the necessary interplay between theory and practice: “Go to the practical people, learn from them; then synthesise their experience into principles and theories; and then return to the practical people and call upon them to put these principles and methods into practice so as to solve their problems and achieve freedom and happiness.”

All these sound very simple, but are actually quite hard to practice. Schumacher has certainly convinced me that there are good alternatives to current conventional economic thinking.

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is President of the Fung Global Institute (as@andrewsheng.net)

  Related articles

China's Helping Hand for Europe

Made In China by CHOW HOW BAN

China has promised to help the EU deal with its debt problems through the stability facilities, but it should not be misread as a pledge to buy more European government bonds.

Sino-EU ties: Chinese vice-premier Li Keqiang (right) talking to Barroso (left) and Van Rompuy during their meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Wednesday. — AFP

EUROPE has played a big role in China’s economic successes throughout the past three decades. That was the main tone the European Union (EU) brought to Beijing for the China-EU Summit on Tuesday.

And China’s response was that it would offer the EU more help to overcome the eurozone sovereign debt crisis – an assurance from the economic powerhouse that the EU pretty much hoped for.

The friendly exchanges between the Chinese and EU leaders laid the foundation for the success of the summit. Sino-EU trade relations have continued to thrive amid the debt crisis in Europe, with trade volume surpassing €460bil (RM1.83 trillion) last year. Europe is China’s biggest export destination.



 “Over the past decades, China has become an even greater force in regional and global affairs and its economic and social development has been immense,” European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said after the summit attended by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, his Cabinet members and European Council president Herman Van Rompuy.

“Europe can only rejoice at this success. I believe that Europe can legitimately claim some parts of the success because China’s economy has greatly benefited from Europe’s open policies and open markets.

“As Europe and China are inter-connected and inter-dependent, we should work even more closely on different fronts to deepen our relations.”

He assured the Chinese leaders that the EU was doing what it takes to restore the confidence of investors and international stakeholders and its partners amid the crisis.

Wen said China was ready to help Europe deal with its debt problems but the EU would have to take its own initiatives as well as address the issues.

“China’s willingness to support the EU in dealing with its debt crisis is sincere and resolute. China will continue to join hands with the EU for mutual benefit despite the fast-changing global economic situation,” he said.

Last week, Wen had told German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a meeting during her official visit to China that China would consider getting more involved in solving the debt woes in Europe, especially through the European Stability Mechanism and European Financial Stability Facility.

“Resolving the debt crisis relies fundamentally on the efforts made by the EU itself.

“We expect the debt-stricken nations, according to their own situations, to strengthen fiscal consolidation, reduce their deficits and lower their debt risks,” he said.

However, analysts said that Wen’s promise to help the EU deal with its debt problems through the stability facilities should not be misread as China’s intention to buy more European government bonds.

Speaking at a forum on Monday, Lou Jiwei, chairman of China Investment Corporation (CIC), a sovereign wealth fund tasked with managing China’s foreign exchange reserves of US$3.2 trillion (RM9.7 trillion), said Merkel expressed her hope that long-term investors like CIC would buy German, French, Italian and Spanish debts.

“Some people think that there have been some positive improvements in the eurozone debt crisis in the short-term as the EU came up with some fiscal policies. But they have not got to the root of the problem and we should be able to see the effects in June or July,” he said.

He said it would be more likely for investors to invest in infrastructure and industrial projects, which would help in the economic recovery of the European nations.

In its editorial, People’s Daily said the eurozone debt crisis stemmed from the zone’s monetary and financial systems and its flaws in economic governance and policy-making mechanism.

“The unification of the euro currency has failed to promote fiscal unification because the EU member states are reluctant to give up their control over tax revenues,” it said.

“EU politicians may have the determination to safeguard the eurozone but they do not have fiscal resources which can be channelled in a unified way to troubled nations and do not have a proper mechanism to solve the debt issue. This has resulted in a worsening of the crisis.”

During its short trip to China, besides having deeper exchanges of views on EU-China relations with the Chinese leaders, the EU delegation was also on a mission to convince Chinese scholars and investors that Europe was on the right track to come through the crisis.

“Incomplete governance and surveillance in the euro area have caused imbalances and divergences in competitiveness. The sovereign debt crisis has been a wake-up call,” Barroso said.

“But the EU has acted decisively to tackle the crisis, strengthen economic governance, stabilise public finances and implement structural reforms such as the European Stability Mechanism and European Financial Stability Facility with a combined fund of €500bil (RM1.99 trillion) as financial aid for some member states.

“Other measures aimed at creating more jobs and ensuring sustainable growth include the EU2020 Strategy, a blueprint which will get the economy back on track over the next eight years with education, research and innovation as key drivers.

“In my view, what Europe has been doing, particularly during the most recent period, constitutes a basis for investors to regain confidence in Europe.”

Friday, 17 February 2012

US-China heralded a new 'great power relationship'

China seeks ‘great power relationship’ with U.S. but warns against meddling in Tibet, Taiwan

Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

China's Vice President Xi Jinping: “China welcomes the United States playing a constructive role in promoting the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region, and at the same time we hope the U.S. side will truly respect the interests and concerns of countries in the region, including China.”hare

By Chris Buckley and Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON – China’s Vice President Xi Jinping on Wednesday offered deeper co-operation with the United States on trade and hot spots like North Korea and Iran, but warned Washington to heed Beijing’s demands on Tibet, Taiwan and other contentious issues.

“Sino-U.S. relations stand at a new historic starting point,” China’s expected next leader told U.S. business groups after meetings on Tuesday with President Barack Obama and other top U.S. officials.

China and the United States should strive to create “a new type of great power relationship for the 21st century,” Xi said.

But he said the two powers also had to “strive to avoid misunderstandings and avert misjudgments” and should “truly respect each other’s core interests and major concerns.”

Xi’s visit to United States this week presents a chance for him to boost his international standing before his expected promotion to head of China’s communist party later this year and president of the world’s most populous nation in 2013.

Even as Xi continued his U.S. visit, Obama, at a campaign-style stop in Milwaukee, took aim at China’s trade practices, saying he will not stand idly by when American’s competitors “don’t play by the rules.” “I directed my administration to create a Trade Enforcement Unit with one job: investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China,” Obama told factory workers.

Xi met with House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Harry Reid on Wednesday morning and after his speech was headed to Iowa for the next leg of his trip, which finishes later this week in Los Angeles.

Xi addressed a number of sore spots in the U.S.-China relationship, including Beijing’s currency policy.

Many U.S. lawmakers complain the yuan is significantly undervalued, giving Chinese companies an unfair price advantage that helped lift the U.S. trade deficit with China to a record US$295.5-billion in 2011.

Xi said currency reforms already taken by Beijing helped boost U.S. exports to China to more than US$100-billion in 2011 and has significantly reduced China’s overall trade surplus.

“China has become the United States’ fastest growing export market,” Xi said. “The trade surplus as a proportion of GDP has been falling from over 7% to 2%, at a level internationally recognized as reasonable.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner acknowledged on Wednesday that Beijing is gradually letting its currency rise, but not fast enough to please the United States.

“We think they have some ways to go, we would like them to move more quickly,” he told a congressional panel.



SHARED CHALLENGES

Xi is poised to become China’s next leader following a decade in which it has risen to become the world’s second largest economy while the United States has fought two wars and endured the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression that sapped its resources.

“The world is currently undergoing profound changes, and China and the United States face shared challenges and shared responsibilities in international affairs,” Xi said.

“We should further use bilateral and multilateral mechanisms to enhance coordination between China and the United States on hotspots, including developments on the Korean peninsula and the Iran nuclear issue,” he said.

At the same time, he urged Washington not to support movements in Taiwan and Tibet for independence.

China deems the self-ruled island of Taiwan to be an illegitimate breakaway from mainland rule since 1949, and has warned that the island must accept eventual reunification.

In recent years, tensions between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have eased as economic flows have grown. But Beijing remains wary of U.S. involvement in the issue, which it calls an internal affair.

In early 2010, the Obama administrations decision to move forward with proposed arms sales to Taiwan triggered vehement criticism from Beijing, including warnings of sanctions against U.S. companies involved in the sales. Those warnings petered out, but Xi made clear that Taiwan remains an acute concern for Beijing’s dealings with Washington.

Tensions over Chinese control of Tibet have flared in past months when a succession of protests and self-immolations have exposed volatile discontent. Chinese officials have repeatedly blamed those tensions on separatists or supporters of the Dalai Lama, the exiled Buddhist leader of the region.

Xi also acknowledged the Obama administration’s recent “pivot” toward Asia, but warned it not to push too far.

“China welcomes the United States playing a constructive role in promoting the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region, and at the same time we hope the U.S. side will truly respect the interests and concerns of countries in the region, including China.”

© Thomson Reuters 2012

Xi sees new 'starting point' for US-China ties

By Andrew Beatty (AFP) 

WASHINGTON — Chinese heir apparent Xi Jinping heralded "a new historical starting point" for ties with the United States, wooing US business leaders with a glimpse of a more cooperative future.

Speaking during a lavish ballroom luncheon with the upper crust of corporate America, Vice President Xi described deeper Sino-American ties as an "unstoppable river that keeps surging ahead."

Glossing over the tumultuous twists and turns in 30 years of Cold War-dominated relations, Xi said interests had become ever-more intertwined. "It is a course that cannot be stopped or reversed," he said.

Xi welcomed Washington's interest in the Asia Pacific region, and said cooperation was needed on a range of challenges from North Korea to Iran, so long as China's interests are also respected.

Xi is on his maiden visit to the United States as a top official, a trip many hope will help close a chapter in relations characterized by mistrust and mudslinging, particularly in the commercial sphere.

As the tectonic plates of global trade have shifted in recent decades, China and the United States -- the world's two largest economies -- have frequently collided, jutted and bumped against each other, sometimes to damaging effect for both.

With Xi widely tipped to lead China from 2013 and Obama in a November re-election battle, the visit is being seen as a dress rehearsal for the next generation of US-China relations.

During the trip, Xi has worked US constituencies key to the bilateral ties: official Washington, corporate leaders and, in Iowa, a return to small-town America which he visited more than two decades ago.

His stops in Washington have included the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, Congress and the US-China Business Council.

Throughout his trip Xi has received the trappings of a state visit -- even if he is only head of state in waiting.

In a broad-ranging speech that was short on specifics Wednesday, Xi told business leaders that increased understanding, mutual respect for core interests, trade and cooperation in international affairs should form the basis for relations.

"Over the past 33 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties, the friendship between our two peoples has deepened, mutually beneficial cooperation has expanded and our interests have become increasingly interconnected," he said.

At the luncheon Xi was introduced by former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger whose secret trip to China in 1971 paved the way for the normalization of relations between Washington and Beijing.

The pair were flanked by a cadre of Chinese Communist Party officials, as well as executives from Coca Cola, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Procter & Gamble and Estee Lauder.

Coca Cola CEO Muhtar Kent expressed the cautious optimism felt in the US business community about future ties with China.

He described Xi's visit as "another important milestone toward building an enduring and constructive relationship between our two nations."

The Chinese vice president largely steered clear of specific policy pronouncements, but stressed the mutual benefits of trade, pointing out that 47 of 50 US states had seen their exports with China grow in the last decade.

Despite deepening ties, many Americans and their lawmakers angrily accuse Beijing of not playing by the rules.

They accuse China of keeping the value of its currency unfairly low to fuel inexpensive exports, which have catalyzed China's headlong dash toward becoming an economic superpower.

From June 2010, Beijing has allowed the yuan to rise 8.5 percent against the dollar, in part because of domestic inflation pressures -- making the yuan an increasingly dubious scapegoat for lopsided trade.

In the last decade, trade between the two countries has increased over 275 percent and is now worth half a trillion dollars a year.

But Chinese exports still make up 80 percent of bilateral trade, despite China joining the World Trade Organization a decade ago, leading to accusations of protectionism from US industry.

Xi, repeating a long standing gripe, said the US would need to reform its own trade restrictions on exports to China in order to right that imbalance.

"It is very important for addressing the China-US trade imbalance that the United States adjusts its economic policies and structure, including removing various restrictions on exports to China, in particular easing control on civilian high-tech exports to China as soon as possible," he said.

China has often blamed the US deficit on Washington's own rules on exporting sensitive equipment that could be adapted for military or intelligence use.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved

How frail the Malaysian unity!

How frail our unity is

WHY NOT? By WONG SAI WAN saiwan@thestar.com.my

Malaysians always boast about how we can live with each other but yet that multi-racial fabric is easily torn.

REPORTERS for English newspapers in Malaysia are taught from their very first day not to write their reports on racial lines but to promote national unity and, more importantly, not to incite racial hatred.

The most common example of this is reporting on court cases.

This is why court reporters go out of the way to find out the occupations of the protagonists in the trial.

More often than not, one would read in a paper like ours that “a factory worker was charged with stabbing a clerk at a shopping complex”, without reference to the ethnicity of the people involved.

The thinking of our newspaper gurus in the early days was that although we were made up of various communities, it was best we saw each other as Malaysians, and to mention someone’s ethnic background was considered bad form.

Of course, there was an underlying reason for it.

Editors those days were also conscious of promoting unity and maintaining good race relations.

Imagine the sort of problems that could arise if the story above read: “A Malay factory worker was charged with stabbing a Chinese clerk at a shopping complex.”

Such writing, it was argued, would do nothing for the development of the country or race relations.

In fact, there were some who argued that such a writing style would only inflame hatred, especially if the report was about violence.

It would not be wrong to say such thinking became even more pronounced after the racial riots of May 13, 1969.

I was taught this no-race mantra when I joined this newspaper in 1984. In fact, my editor told me, the mere mention of the name would be a dead giveaway of the person’s race (his words, not mine).



“Wong Sai Wan cannot be an Indian person” was his favourite reminder to me each time he caught me writing an article where I mentioned someone by his ethnicity.

However, things have changed over the past three decades.

Although most English language newspapers in this country still do not report crime and court articles according to ethnicity, most of us now allow mention of language or ethnicity if it gives perspective to an article, especially features.

After 40 years, we would have all thought that we would be mature enough to handle any form of differences without referring to it in terms of race or religion.

Along with the millions of other Malaysians, I often shake my head in disbelief when opportunist politicians try to use the race card to shore up their flagging popularity.

I was so proud to see young Malaysians reject the position taken by these older politicians from both sides of the divide and instead to treat any issue based on merit and not on the colour of one’s skin.

Since 2008, I have been slowly converted to the position that Malaysia has become mature enough to handle conflicts and criminal violence even if the perpetrators were identified by race or religion.

Yes, our society has created code words to describe each other and most of the time these descriptions are taken in good humour.

These code words evolve with time. For example, during my younger days, all Malays were referred to as Ah Mat, Chinese as Ah Chong and Indians as Muthu.

Nowadays, the nicknames have changed to Mat Rempit, Ah Beng and Macha.

These monikers are slightly crude, but not derogatory – at least that’s what I think and see from the reaction within our modern society.

However, then came the infamous I-City KFC incident.  It was a simple case of a restaurant worker losing his cool and punching a customer who obviously also lost his cool.

However, the incident, unlike similar fights that had happened numerous times in other restaurants, was captured on video and uploaded on YouTube.

It went viral after it was shared on Facebook. The clip was uploaded without moderation to give it some sort of perspective.

The person who taped it with a handphone described it as a fight at KFC.

What happened over the next few hours of the uploading of the video on cyberspace was truly disgusting. Malaysians put a racial slant on the incident.

Most of those who took the side of the customer, Danny Ng, were non-Malays, while the restaurant staff were mainly defended by Malays.

On Facebook, supporters on either side started to verbally attack each other – with some making up various stories of how the incident started, and the supposed quarrel between Ng and the staff.

The words used by the two groups to attack each other were derogatory and racist. The so-called unity we boast about was shattered.

Ng has since denied that the incident was racial in nature and clarified that neither he nor the KFC staff used any racial slurs.

However, those on the social media ignored this and continued to make all sorts of comments.

Facebook and YouTube are the most popular forms of social media. Opinions are shaped on these two websites.

Comments there become a strong reflection of the state of our own society.

Sadly, in this case, we failed big time. Malaysians have come across as immature, racist and unforgiving.

Malaysians need to show the world that we can handle ourselves, accept each other and celebrate our differences.

Fortunately, the “quarrel” occurred over cyberspace, and maybe it was a good place to let off steam without taking it into the real world.

This incident has shown that our unity is very fragile and our race relations far from adequate.

Our leaders must realise this and not rely on bigotry to gain popularity with only a certain segment of society.

> Executive Editor Wong Sai Wan loves his fried chicken but also hates poor service.

 Related post:


Let’s all be Malaysians first !