China in the Asian century, Is the future truly Asian?

As China continues to develop, so does its global influence. What would the future be like for South-East Asia with a ‘risen China’?

Rising together: No, Chinese imperialism is not simply replacing US imperialism, as China emphasises win-win partnerships, says Prof Zhang. — Handout

China in the Asian century

PROF Zhang Weiwei is among the most respected scholars in China today. He is a leading expert on China’s “reform and opening up” policies and its status as a “civilisational state.”

As director of the China Institute at Shanghai’s elite Fudan University, he is also professor of International Relations and had served as English interpreter for China’s Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping. In an exclusive interview earlier in the week, Prof Zhang spoke to Sunday Star about future prospects with China.

As the leading authority on China’s civilisational state, how would you define it, as distinct from a nation state?

With China, it’s a combination of the world’s longest continuous civilisation and a super-large modern state. A civilisational state is made up of hundreds of states amalgamated into one large state.

China is a modern state respecting international law like a nation state, but culturally diverse, with sovereignty and territorial integrity.

There are four features of China’s civilisational state: a super-large population of 1.4 billion people, a continent-size territory, significant culture, and a long history.

If we are returning to an East Asian tributary system, what changes can we expect in China’s policies in this region today?

The tributary system is a Western name for China’s relations in this region (in the past). China is a “civilisational” – as an adjective – state, a modern amalgamation of many (component communities).

During the Ming Dynasty, China was a world power – but as a civilizational state more than a nation state – and did not seek to colonize other countries, unlike Western powers that were nation states. Since then, China’s status and capacity as a nation state has grown significantly. Will it then become more like Western powers now?

China today is a nation state, but different from European (nation) states. It is also still a civilisational state.

The Chinese people are not just Han, although the Han majority is 92%. There are 56 ethnic groups in China, (mostly) minorities.

But China rejected the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling on the South China Sea, initiated by the Philippines, which found China’s claims insupportable.

The tribunal was illegal; it had no right to make such decisions. The Permanent Court of Arbitration is not part of the United Nations.

How can countries in South-East Asia be convinced that the rise of China will not simply result in Chinese imperialism replacing US imperialism?

China emphasises win-win partnerships, such as in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It encourages discovering, building, and benefiting together.

Countries in South-East Asia join the BRI out of their own interest. It is not something imposed by China.

Some countries have described the Second Belt and Road Summit this year as being more consultative than the first. As for the future?

The future Belt and Road Summits will be even more open and consultative.

Is the current US-China trade dispute only a symptom of much larger differences, such as a historic divide in the reshaping of a new global order?

It is more than about trade. With the United States especially, it is zero-sum, but for China it is win-win.

The Chinese economy is larger than the US economy, or soon will be. (In PPP or purchasing power parity terms, China’s economy grew larger than the US economy in 2014.)

The United States is trying to decouple its economy from China’s. How can China ensure that it would not only withstand these efforts but also triumph?

The attempt to decouple the two economies will fail. About 85% of US companies that are already in China want to stay.

Looking at the trade structure, most Chinese exports to the US are irreplaceable. No other place in the world gives a better price-quality ratio in manufactured goods.

So the US cannot win in this decoupling because there are no alternatives (as desirable producing countries). China has the world’s largest chain or network, or factory clusters, for all kinds of goods.

How likely do you see a hot war – more than a trade war or a cold war – breaking out between a rising China and what is perceived to be a declining United States?

The US knows that it won’t win (a hot war). No two nuclear-armed countries will go to war. It would be very messy.

So far no two nuclear-armed countries have fought. There may be a small likelihood of direct confrontation, but not a war situation.

No commercial shipping has been interrupted by China. So the US need not worry.

Can Asean, or an Asean country like Malaysia, help to bring the United States and China closer together as partners rather than as rivals?

Possibly. Malaysia perhaps can help, as it is friendly to both China and the US.

As China continues in its rise, what steps is it taking to provide for more cooperative and consultative relations in this region?

Trade between China and Asean countries, for example, has grown, and has now exceeded China-US trade.

Generally, China’s relations with Asean countries are quite promising, with Free Trade Area relationships as well.

By Bunn Nagara, who is Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

Source link

Poised for growth: Shipping containers sit stacked next to gantry cranes at the Yantian International Container Terminals in Shenzhen, China. — Bloomberg

Is the future truly Asian?

 

The Region, while growing fast, faces issues such as youth joblessness, climate change and income gaps

THIS is a question that is at the heart of the tensions across the Pacific.

To Parag Khanna, author of The Future Is Asian (2019), the answer is almost self-evident.

However, if you read his book carefully, you will find that he thinks global power will be shared between Asian and Western civilisations

For the West, the rise of Asia has been frighteningly fast, because as late as 1960, most of Asia was poor, agricultural and rural, with an average income per capita of less than US$1,000 in 2010 prices.

But 50 years on, Asia has become more urban and industrialised, and is becoming a challenge to the West in terms of trade, income and innovation.

Global management consulting firm McKinsey has just published a study on “The Future is Asian” that highlights many aspects why Asia is both attractive to businessmen and yet feared as a competitor.

Conventionally, excluding the Middle East and Iran, Asia is divided into North-East Asia (China, Japan and South Korea), South-East Asia (mostly Asean), South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) and Central Asia.

But McKinsey has identified at least four Asias that are quite complementary to each other.

First, there is Advanced Asia, comprising Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Singapore, each with per capita incomes exceeding US$30,000 (RM125,600), highly urbanised and rich, with a combined GDP that is 10% of global GDP.

This group provides technology, capital and markets for the rest of Asia, but it is ageing fast.

Second, China is the world’s largest trading economy, second largest in GDP after the United States, and a growing consumer powerhouse. By 2030, the Chinese consumer market will be equal to Western Europe and the United States combined.

China is also an increasing capital provider to the rest of the world.

Third, the 11 countries of Emerging Asia (Asean plus Bhutan and Nepal, excluding Singapore) have young populations, fast growth and cultural diversity.

Fourth, Frontier Asia and India – covering essentially South and Central Asia including Afghanistan – which have 1.8 billion in population, still rural but young.

Taken together, these four Asias today account for one-third of global GDP and 40% of the world’s middle class.

But what is remarkable is that while the region grew from trading with the rest of the world, intra-regional trade has grown faster, to 60% of total trade, with intra-regional foreign direct investment (FDI) at 66% of total inward FDI, and 74% of air traffic.

Much of Asian growth will come from rapid urbanisation, amid growing connectivity with each other. The top 20 cities in Asia will be mega conglomerates that are among the largest cities in the world with the fastest-growing income.

A major finding is that America First-style protectionism is helping to intensify the localisation and regionalisation of intra-regional connectivity in terms of trade, finance, knowledge and cultural networks.

Furthermore, the traditional savings surpluses in Asia basically went to London and New York and were recycled back in terms of foreign direct investment and portfolio flows.

But no longer.

Increasingly, Asian financial centres are emerging to compete to re-pump surplus capital from Advanced Asia and China to fund the growth in Emerging and Frontier Asia.

In short, intra-regional finance is following intra-regional trade.

In a multipolar world, no one wants to be completely dependent on any single player but prefers network connectivity to other cities and centres of activity and creativity.

As Khanna puts it: “The phrase ‘China-led Asia’ is thus no more acceptable to most Asians than the notion of a ‘US-led West’ is to Europeans.”

But are such rosy growth prospects in Asia predestined or ordained?

Based on the trajectory of demographic growth of half the world’s young population moving into middle income, the logical answer appears to be yes.

But there are at least three major bumps in that trajectory.

First, Asia, like the rest of the world, is highly vulnerable to global warming.

Large populations with faster growth mean more energy consumption, carbon emissions and natural resource degradation. Large chunks of Asia will be vulnerable to more water, food and energy stresses, as well as natural disasters (rising seas, forest fires, pandemics, typhoons, etc).

Second, even though more Asians have been lifted out of poverty, domestic inequality of income and wealth has increased in the last 20 years.

Part of this is caused by rural-urban disparities, and widening gaps in high-value knowledge and skills. Without adequate social safety nets, healthcare and social security, dissatisfaction over youth unemployment, access to housing, and deafness to problems by bureaucracies has erupted in protests everywhere.

Third, geopolitical rivalry has meant that there will be tensions between diverse Asia over territorial, cultural and religious differences that can rapidly escalate into conflict. The region is beginning to spend more on armaments and defence instead of focusing on alleviating poverty and addressing the common threat of climate change.

Two generational leaders from the West have approached these threats from very different angles.

Addressing the United Nations, 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg dramatically shamed the older generation for its lack of action on climate change.

“People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are at the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you, ” she said.

The young are idealistically appealing for unity in action against a common fate.

In contrast, addressing the UN Security Council, US President Donald Trump was arguing the case for patriotism as a solution to global issues. Climate change was not mentioned at all.

Since the older generation created most of the carbon emissions in the first place, no wonder the young are asking why they are inheriting all the problems that the old deny.

This then is the difference in passion between generations.

Globalisation occurred because of increasing flows of trade, finance, data and people. That is not stoppable by patriot-protected borders.

A multipolar Asia within a multipolar world means that even America First, however strong, will have to work with everyone, despite differences in worldviews.

All patriots will have to remember that it is the richness of diversity that keeps the world in balance.

The writer ANDREW SHENG is a distinguished fellow with the Asia Global Institute at the University of Hong Kong. This article is part of the Asian Editors Circle series, a weekly commentary by editors from the Asia News Network, an alliance of 24 news media titles across the region.

Source link


 
Read more:

China in the Asian century - Chinadaily

 

 

 Related posts:

Live: Grand celebration honoring 70th anniversary of PRC's founding 庆祝中华人民共和国成立70周年

https://youtu.be/X_Z9QE4EblY https://youtu.be/dit7zmnzAh0 Highlights: China celebrates 70th anniversary with biggest ever military ...

NO POWER, NO FORCE CAN STOP THE PROGRESS OF THE CHINESE PEOPLE AND NATION

https://youtu.be/Uv0PeiGWJyg Xi addresses grand rally to celebrate PRC's 70th founding anniversary https://youtu.be/P5ZseKvFgEk ...

China's October Revolution - a parade of strength and pride to show country’s ability to maintain peace

https://youtu.be/KL9UgfTjR8Q China to hold its largest military parade, boasting new weapons and equipment at its anniversary EVERYT...

Hong Kong in decline

US support no use for Manila to bluff South China Sea claims

The US and the Philippines began a two-week military drill on Monday. This "shoulder to shoulder" exercise is widely believed to be targeted at China. Some US analysts even argue that Washington should adopt a national strategy oriented at South China Sea to stop China's "aggression" in this region. Without a correct understanding of China's South China Sea policy and the US role in this area, these analysts miscalculated the real Asia-Pacific geopolitics.

China is depicted by many Western media as a bully in South China Sea, but the reality is that most of the Nansha Islands are forcibly occupied by those supposedly "bullied," such as the Philippines and Vietnam.

We shouldn't draw a simple conclusion that China and the US will engage in a hot war if Washington gets fully involved in this area. It's too naïve a judgment, as what the Philippines and Japan are aiming at is to turn their conflicts with China into a direct confrontation between China and the US. Such change is unlikely to happen in post-Cold War international relations.

The islands disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea are a battle for national interests. They have led to a strategic game between China and the US, but its intensity is not high.

Where the game heads to relies on how the stakeholders, especially China and the US, interact with each other. Neither Manila nor Washington can manipulate the situation. China has more power to reshape the scenario.

Both China and the US are global powers, and the islands disputes constitute just a fraction of their bilateral relationship. Neither China can cherish illusions that the US will stay neutral in the South China Sea, nor the Philippines and Japan can indulge in a reverie that Washington would jeopardize its relationship with China for their petty interests.

China has more confidence than ever to face the US in the South China Sea chessboard. A growing US-China relationship benefits the US, which mandates that US doesn't allow its warships to be locked in a dangerous standoff with China.

What's more, China's actions have never really touched the nerve of the US. People with insight can see the restraint and prudence of China's South China Sea policy.

The other stakeholders in this area should cast away illusions that the US would be their "big daddy." Bilateral negotiations with China are the only way to address these disputes and to protect their own interests.

Washington's military deployment in Asia-Pacific can hardly be turned into real deterrence against China, but the US won't stop making mischief in this area. However, under the framework of a new type of major power relationship, China is gathering more experience to play the chess with the US.

Countries like the Philippines and Japan should better update their knowledge about China. Borrowing power from the US and scaring China reflects nothing but their short-sightedness.

Source:Global Times Published: 2014-5-7 0:33:01

Related:

Vietnam has infringed on China’s sovereignty

Yi Xianliang, deputy director-general of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs of China’s For...

Related posts: 

Philippine police fired at Chinese fishing boat; gunmen kidnapping farm manager and tourists...

Captain recalls attack by Philippine police "They rushed toward us in a boat and fired at us," He Junting, captain of the f...

Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world?

Hilary Clinton , US Secretary of State, made a very important statement on South China Sea area. She stated on July 23, 2010 at ...

•  US hypocritically abuses principles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)...  

 The high-profile interventions by the US in the disputes between China and some of its neighbors over some islands or reefs and maritime entitlements in recent years, have seen the US frequent making use of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It seems that according to the US, China has become a violator of UNCLOS.    

Who owns Diaoyu Islands?

Historical documents dating back to the Ming Dynasty establish Diaoyu Islands as Chinese territory. The challenge to Chinese ownership came from Japanese annexation of the islands in 1894-5 following the first Sino-Japanese War. 

TENSIONS are rising in the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands — five tiny islands and three rocks covering a mere 7sq km in the East China Sea.

It is a pity that this is happening especially when Chinese-Japanese economic ties have reached a new level since the end of last year with the two countries agreeing to use their respective currencies in their bilateral trade, instead of the US dollar.

To de-escalate tensions, Japan should make the first move. It was the Japanese government’s purchase of three of the islands from the Kurihara family on Sept 11, 2012 that ignited the present crisis. That decision should be rescinded immediately.

In fact, Japan has been upping the ante on Diaoyu — which Japan calls the Senkaku Islands — for some time now. It will be recalled that on Sept 7, 2010 when a Chinese fishing boat collided accidentally with a Japanese patrol vessel near Diaoyu, the captain and the crew of the Chinese boat were detained by the Japanese Coast Guard for a few days.

Though they were all released in the end, the incident revealed a new toughness on the part of the Japanese. The Chinese have been reacting to this and other such incidents.

What explains this new toughness? Some analysts attribute it partly to the growth of the political right in Japanese politics.

Japanese economic stagnation for more than two decades and China’s success in replacing Japan as the world’s second-most important economy have increased the influence of conservative nationalist forces in the country who are now targeting China.

Impending elections within the ruling Democratic Party and the forthcoming general election have also widened the berth for conservative politics.

It is also not a coincidence that the Japanese right-wing has become more vocal — especially vis-a-vis China — at a time when the United States is seeking to re-assert its presence and its power in the Asia-Pacific region. In the last couple of years, US political and military officials have on a number of occasions underscored the significance of US-Japan security ties.

Even on the Diaoyu dispute, the US government, while professing to remain neutral, has through the Pentagon made it clear that the Japan-US Security Treaty would come into force in the event of a military conflict between Japan and China.

This stance has to be viewed in the larger context of the US’ active military alignment with the Philippines in its recent clash with China over the Huangyan Island in the South China Sea and its support for Vietnam in its long-standing tiff with China over parts of the Spratly Islands and the Paracels.

For both Japan and the US there may also be other reasons why the Diaoyu Islands are important.

In 1968-9, a United Nations agency, it is reported, had discovered potential oil and gas reserves near Diaoyu. The US military, it is not widely known, also uses one of the five islands — Kuba — as a practice range for aircraft bombing.

Whatever the reasons for holding on to Diaoyu, Japan’s claim to ownership is weak. There are books, reports and maps from the 15th century, during the period of the Ming Dynasty, that establish in no uncertain terms that Diaoyu is Chinese territory. The books Voyage with a Tail Wind and Record of the Imperial Envoy’s Visit to Ryukyu bear testimony to this.

Even writings by Japanese scholars in the late 19th century acknowledged this fact. The challenge to Chinese ownership of Diaoyu came from Japanese annexation of the Islands in 1894-5 following the first Sino-Japanese War. China under the Ching Dynasty was too weak to fight back and regain lost territory. But annexation through military force does not confer legitimacy upon the act of conquest.

This is why when Japan was defeated in the Second World War the victors who included China and the US recognised that Diaoyu was Chinese territory.

Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration acknowledged this though for administrative purposes Diaoyu was placed under US control as part of its governance over the Ryukyu Islands. The US was then the occupying power in Japan following the latter’s surrender.

However, when China was taken over by the Chinese Communist Party in 1949, the US changed its position and began to treat the Islands as part of Japan. The Chinese communist leadership protested vehemently.

In 1971, the US Senate returned the Diaoyu Islands, together with Okinawa, to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty. Again, the Chinese government in Beijing objected, as did the Taiwan government which also regards the islands as part of China.

Since the normalisation of relations between China and Japan in 1972, both sides have agreed to allow their fishermen to operate in the waters surrounding the islands without resolving the issue of ownership.

Of course, neither China nor Japan has relinquished even an iota of its claim in the last 40 years. Recent incidents have, however, forced this unresolved issue into the open.

Apart from taking the first step by abrogating its purchase of the islands, as we have proposed, Japan should also come to terms with undeniable historical, legal and ethical facts. It must accept the irrefutable reality that the Diaoyu Islands belong to China.

We realise that there are powerful vested interests that will not allow Japan to embrace this truth.

Nonetheless, we should all try to persuade the Japanese government and the Japanese people that it would be in their best interest to do so.

Governments in Asia should convey this message to Japanese elites through quiet diplomacy. Citizen groups throughout the continent should speak up in a firm and courteous manner.

The media too should play its role by laying out the arguments for an amicable resolution of the dispute which respects truth and justice.

Comment by CHANDRA MUZAFFAR

>Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Related posts:

Japan should drop its sense of superiority and tricks over China, Asia 

China defense ministry acts as Japan buys its Diaoyu Islands 

China's vessels patrol Diaoyu Islands after Japan illegally purchases and nationalizes them

Japan's buying Diaoyu Islands provokes China to strike back 

Japan, the deputy sheriff in Asia?

Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world?

Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State, made a very important statement on South China Sea area.

She stated on July 23, 2010 at the ASEAN meeting in Hanoi: "Legitimate claims to maritime space in the South China Sea should be derived SOLELY from legitimate claims to land features." Translation: Why China has claim over some islands/islets so far away from its homeland? Although Mrs. Clinton is a lawyer, she is wrong… based on international convention. There are many other important key considerations (historic claim, administration, etc). If “distance” is the ONLY measure of sovereignty, then US needs to give up Guam; UK needs to give up Falkland Island (to Argentina). And, many islets in the world need to find new owners.

Many people, including many journalists, in the world do not realize that historically, China’s claim on South China Sea islands started in the Ming Dynasty (1368), followed by Qing Dynasty (1644), followed by Republic of China (1911). Some people argue that it started even before Ming Dynasty. The current Beijing government just inherited the national map from Republic of China (in 1949). So this old claim started some 700 years ago and way before USA was born.

I hope people can live in peace as we become more civilized… in cooperation and prosperity. So it is a good thing the countries are proceeding to clearly settle on a “new” national boundary/interests arrangement (ownership, benefit sharing, etc) that the neighboring countries can accept… with or without USA help. In my view, the faster the better… so less feeling and fishermen will get hurt.

I understand, as the sole global power, USA has the responsibility to maintain peace and order where it concerns our interests. But we need to be an “honest broker” (to gain goodwill and other benefits), otherwise whatever we do is not sustainable. By starting the discussion on the South China Sea islands with such a BADLY ADVISED statement, Secretary Clinton is SOWING THE SEED of another big problem for America and the Sino-American relationship. 

“The earliest discovery by the Chinese people of the Nansha Islands can be traced back to as early as the Han Dynasty. Yang Fu of the East Han Dynasty (23-220 A.D.) made reference to the Nansha Islands in his book entitled Yiwu Zhi (Records of Rarities) , which reads: "Zhanghai qitou, shui qian er duo cishi"("There are islets, sand cays, reefs and banks in the South China Sea, the water there is shallow and filled with magnetic rocks or stones"). Chinese people then called the South China Sea Zhanghai and all the islands, reefs, shoals and isles in the South China Sea, including the Nansha and Xisha Islands, Qitou.”

There had been NO dispute over the sovereignty rights of China to the South China Sea and the numerous islands in it, by any other countries, for all those periods.

But, when the Western colonialists started invading and squatting all over Asia in the last 300 years, taking advantage of the declining power of the Qing Dynasty, they intentionally carved out various regions of land and sea as their “protected territories”. Then they forced the Manchu Court to sign many bogus “treaties” in which they claimed the Western “sovereignty rights” over these Chinese territories!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%A1ch_Long_V%C4%A9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands

Excerpt from the above link:

“In 1933, France reasserted its claims from 1887 to the Spratly and Paracel Islands on behalf of its then-colony Vietnam. It occupied a number of the Spratly Islands, including Itu Aba, built weather stations on two, and administered them as part of French Indochina. This occupation was protested by the Republic of China government because France admitted finding Chinese fishermen there when French war ships visited the nine islands. In 1935, the ROC government also announced a sovereignty claim on the Spratly Islands.”

On September 4th, 1958, the Government of the People’s Republic of China issued a declaration of the Chinese sea territories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%A1ch_Long_V%C4%A9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands

Excerpt from the above link:

“In 1933, France reasserted its claims from 1887 to the Spratly and Paracel Islands on behalf of its then-colony Vietnam. It occupied a number of the Spratly Islands, including Itu Aba, built weather stations on two, and administered them as part of French Indochina. This occupation was protested by the Republic of China government because France admitted finding Chinese fishermen there when French war ships visited the nine islands. In 1935, the ROC government also announced a sovereignty claim on the Spratly Islands.”

On September 4th, 1958, the Government of the People’s Republic of China issued a declaration of the Chinese sea territories.

http://news3.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/20...ent_705061.htm

Excerpt from the above link (that are translated to English):

“(1) This width of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China is twelve national miles. This provision applies to all Territories of the People's Republic of China, including the mainland China and offshore islands, Taiwan (separated from the mainland and offshore islands by high seas) and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Archipelago, the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha islands (Paracells), the Zhongsha Islands, the Nansha Islands (Spratlys) and other islands belonging to China.”

(The Declaration by PRC, as clear from the above excerpt, specifically spells out the Xisha and Nansha islands, among other islands and sea boundaries.)

On September 14, 1958, ONLY 10 DAYS LATER, Vietnam Prime Minister at the time, Pham Van Dong, sent a cable to the Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, on behalf of the Vietnam government, expressing complete acknowledgment and support for China’s claims.

http://conghambannuoc.tripod.com/

Excerpt from the above link (that are translated to English):

“The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam acknowledges and supports the Declaration on September 4th, 1958 by the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), on the PRC’s decision concerning China’s sea territories.”

The International community has been overwhelmingly supporting China’s legitimate and inviolable sovereign on the sea territories claimed by China.

http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/In...20the%20Na.htm

“2. The International Civil Aviation Organization held its first conference on Asia-Pacific regional aviation in Manila of the Philippines on 27 October 1955. Sixteen countries or regions were represented at the conference, including South Viet Nam and the Taiwan authorities, apart from Australia, Canada, Chile, Dominica, Japan, the Laos, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and France. The Chief Representative of the Philippines served as Chairman of the conference and the Chief Representative of France its first Vice Chairman. It was agreed at the conference that the Dongsha, Xisha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea were located at the communication hub of the Pacific and therefore the meteorological reports of these islands were vital to world civil aviation service. In this context, the conference adopted Resolution No. 24, asking China's Taiwan authorities to improve meteorological observation on the Nansha Islands, four times a day. When this resolution was put for voting, all the representatives, including those of the Philippines and the South Viet Nam, were for it. No representative at the conference made any objection to or reservation about it.”

It is evident from all above historic records, international treaties, and acknowledgment by ALL regional neighbor-countries, that China has the INDISPUTABLE lawful and legitimate sovereignty over the South China Sea and all the offshore islands on it.

US won't take sides in South China Sea dispute

Updated: 2012-05-02 12:24 By Zhao Shengnan (China Daily)

The United States said on Monday that it would not take sides in the Huangyan Island standoff between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea and reiterated support for a diplomatic resolution to the territorial dispute.

Washington does not take sides on competing sovereignty claims there, but has a national interest in maintaining freedom of navigation as well as peace and stability, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, after meeting top diplomatic and defense officials from the Philippines.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Alberto del Rosario and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin attended the 2+2 dialogue with their US counterparts, Clinton and Leon Panetta, in Washington.

"The United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all those involved for resolving the various disputes that they encounter," Clinton said. "We oppose the threat or use of force by any party to advance its claims."

Gazmin alluded to tension with China over islands in the South China Sea as he called for the need to "intensify our mutual trust to uphold maritime security and the freedom of navigation".

"We should be able to work together to build a minimum, credible defense posture for the Philippines, especially in upholding maritime security," Gazmin said.

The Philippines and China have been embroiled in the Huangyan Island dispute, with both nations stationing vessels there for nearly three weeks to assert their sovereignty.

China on Monday highlighted remarks made by the Philippine president about de-escalating the tension over the island, urging the Philippines to "match its words with deeds" and return to the proper pathway of diplomatic solutions.

Speaking of the tension, Philippine President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III said he had issued instructions to his military, telling them not to intensify the issue.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin stressed that there is no change in China's stance of using diplomatic channels to peacefully resolve the issue, which was triggered when a Philippine warship harassed Chinese fishermen and raised concerns over China's sovereignty of the island.

The Philippine officials also stressed diplomacy when asked what aid they had requested from Washington, saying that Manila sought to bring the South China Sea issue to international legal bodies.

Clinton reaffirmed the US commitment to the 60-year-old Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines, calling the Philippines a country "at the heart" of the new US strategy toward the Asia-Pacific.

Washington would help improve the Philippines' "maritime presence and capabilities" with the transfer of a second high-endurance (coast guard) cutter this year, Panetta said.

The US emphasis on neutrality and a diplomatic resolution would encourage Manila to be more restrained on the Huangyan Island issue, said Fan Jishe, a US studies expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

"Washington doesn't want territorial disputes between its Asian allies and China to be obstacles to China-US relations," he said.

Xinhua and Reuters contributed to this story.

Related posts:
Tensions in South China Sea: US and Philippines Naval ... 
China's warns US of Confrontation over South China Sea 
Philippine Group Protests US-Filipino War Games! 
Thailand-China upgrades ties while Philippines spat ...   
China, ASEAN and the South China Sea
South China Sea Islands Dispute

International Recognition Of China's Sovereignty over the Nansha ..

Malaysian History & Legend; facts & fallacies; myths, heroes or zeroes?

Let Hang Tuah legend live on

On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai, The Star

Like Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes in England, Hang Tuah could be cleverly promoted as a tourist attraction in Malacca. 

THE current debate over whether the legendary warrior Hang Tuah actually existed or is merely a figment of imagination should be taken positively. At least there is a renewed interest in history, a subject many Malaysians regard as boring.

Our students have bad memories of studying History, which will be a compulsory subject in schools, because of unimaginative and uninspiring teachers who turned their classes into tedious note-taking exercises.

They did not inspire their students with stories of how we could learn from the past and how relevant history is to us. History is not about forcing students to just memorise dates and signing of treaties.

History is about his story, and teachers should respond with lively accounts, even personal trivia, of the personalities involved to spice up their classes.

With a short remark, Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim restarted a debate on the existence of Hang Tuah, who is said to have lived during the reign of Sultan Mansur Shah in 15th century Malacca. Hang Tuah is believed to be the greatest of all of the sultan’s admirals and was described as a ferocious fighter.

Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim says there’s a lot about our history that we don’t know about.



Certainly, he has been and is still held in the highest regard in Malaysian Malay culture, and so when our eminent historian said he did not exist, many Malaysians felt let down, even cheated.

Many remember learning in school that Hang Tuah was a hero with a steadfast sense of loyalty who readily sacrificed his friendship with his best friend Hang Jebat after the latter rebelled against the Sultan.

Furthermore, we are also being told that Princess Hang Li Po, who was supposedly married to Sultan Mansur Shah, is probably fictitious as well.

But to be fair to Prof Khoo, he is not the first historian to dispute the existence of Hang Tuah or Hang Li Po. It has long been the subject of conjecture at university level. At school level, however, students seemed to be just happy to swallow what their teachers taught them.

The conventional method of teaching history could be the reason for this, but lack of critical thinking in our education system is another factor. Most students rely entirely on notes given to them and they don’t do their own research on the subject.

Teachers could address this shortcoming by, for example, stating specifically that Hang Tuah is a subject of myth and legend at the start of lessons. Students should also be informed that the location of his tomb, if it exists, remains in dispute.

In the case of Hang Li Po, her existence has long been disputed since she was never recorded in the chronicles of the ruling Ming dynasty. Others say that if she ever existed, she was probably a very beautiful maid in the imperial house who was picked to assume the role of a princess, which is said to be a common practice.

But we should not let the legend of Hang Tuah be forgotten. He should remain a symbol of morality, loyalty, bravery and humility – principles that are enduring.

In fact, Hang Tuah has not even been promoted or marketed as well as other figures of fiction like Sherlock Holmes, the detective created by Scottish author and physician Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The London-based “consulting detective” has now made it into several movies, including two contemporary versions, besides being in the books and TV productions.

Holmes’ fictional home address, 221B, Baker Street, has been turned into a museum under government protection for its “historical and architectural” importance. Never mind if he’s not real; Sherlock Holmes is being so well marketed that there is even a statue of him outside the Baker Street tube station.

Most of us would also know of the legendary Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men, what with the penchant among film and TV producers to feature heroes, be they real or fictional. In English folklore, Robin Hood, known for “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor”, was described as living in Sherwood Forest in Nottinghamshire, a county in England.

Cashing in on Robin Hood’s heroism, Nottinghamshire has aggressively promoted Sherwood Forest as a tourist attraction and there is even a Robin Hood airport and the Robin Hood statue.

So what if Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood and the Loch Ness monster are all not real? The locals are certainly benefiting tremendously from tourist money earned from spinning tales of these legends.

In Malacca, however, it is easier to get a T-shirt printed with Che Guevera’s iconic face than one with Hang Tuah’s. Never mind if the face of Hang Tuah resembles M. Nasir or P. Ramlee. Where can tourists buy replicas of the magical Taming Sari, the keris used by Hang Tuah? And where is the path that tourists can take to the Hang Li Po trail up Bukit Cina, a site supposedly given to the entourage who accompanied her from China?

There should be a statue of Hang Tuah where tourists can pose for photographs which they can take home to remind them of the legend. There should even be a museum in Malacca to pay tribute to him, and where re-runs of the Hang Tuah movies could be screened.

So, instead of just whining and feeling depressed over Prof Khoo’s thesis, we should ask ourselves why we have not cleverly promoted Hang Tuah and the other legendary figures in Malacca. Keep the legend alive.

Don’t twist history facts

STPM History reference books should be scrutinised by relevant history experts to ensure that facts are correct.

Our STPM Tamadun Islam reference books touch on Islamic history in China but some of the facts in the books must not be accepted at face value for some of the statements have been made without quoting any credible source.

There are some writers who have quoted non-Malaysian authors from the 20th century who had little knowledge about China’s history but merely based it on their fantasised ideas and twisted facts derived perhaps from their own assumptions.

The writers who touched on the topic have been an embarrassment to those in the academic fraternity as they had based their facts from what they had obtained from the old authors. For instance, the STPM books claim that the Ming Dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang (old spelling Chu Yuan-chang) was a Muslim, when in fact, he was not.

Historical evidence proves that Zhu Yuanzhang (also known as Ming Taizu, or the Emperor Hongwu) was once a Buddhist monk before he founded the Ming Dynasty in 1368.

When the tomb of Zhu Yuanzhang’s father (located in present Fengyang, Anhui Province, China) was upgraded, a tablet was erected, and on it the emperor had written about certain events and his reasons for becoming a Buddhist monk.

On a manuscript written personally by him titled Red Dream, Zhu Yuanzhang had described how he sought Buddha’s guidance on his next move when the Huangjue Monastery was set on fire by corrupt troops during the war-torn period. The Buddhist monks had also risked execution by the troops.

Zhu Yuanzhang’s personal writings found in a mosque in Nanjing praising Islam showed the Chinese emperor’s religious tolerance. This should not be interpreted to mean that he was a Muslim.

It must be remembered that Zhu Yuanzhang had, on no less than 30 written accounts, personally heaped praises on Buddhism and Taoism.

Other primary sources linking Zhu Yuanzhang to Buddhism can be found in Ming Taizu Shilu, Juan 1, which was the first part of Ming Shilu (Veritable Records of the Ming Dynasty). The documents were actually compiled facts from contemporary records in Zhu Yuanzhang’s reign, a year after his death in 1398.

The final version of Ming Taizu Shilu was completed in 1418 and sanctioned by Zhu Yuanzhang’s son Zhu Di (Emperor Yongle).

For the sake of keeping history as it is, it is important that STPM history book writers quote facts based on primary and secondary sources who are reliable, otherwise such facts may be seen to be twisted and biased.

GAN 
Via e-mail

Don't ignore real heroes of history

 New Straits Times 

Tan Sri Prof Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim provoked a storm of controversy when he said that there was no evidence that legendary warrior Hang Tuah ever existed. Malaysian Archaeologists Association president Datuk Prof Emeritus Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman has refuted this claim, saying the tomb of Hang Tuah in Malacca proves the legendary warrior’s existence. Literary figure Dr Kassim Ahmad, who compiled the Hikayat Hang Tuah, also stressed that Hang Tuah was a real person. So did he exist or not? Arman Ahmad sits down with Khoo to find out

Question:  Can you tell us how this issue first came about?

Answer: During a talk at a local university, I posed a question to the audience.

I asked why in our country today we tend to play up mythical figures instead of people who really contributed a lot to our country.

Very often, when I ask people who was the first Malay to be absorbed into the civil service, they will say they don't know.

Nobody remembers who was the first Malay doctor, too, for example. Many of these real role models are forgotten.

Western society remembers its historical figures and separates legend and history. Unfortunately, the same can't be said here.

Question:  There has been tremendous hue and cry from the public after you said that Hang Tuah may have been a myth. Many people disagree with you. How do you feel about this? What caused you to speak up?

Answer: Hang Tuah was made popular through the Bangsawan theatre during the pre-war era. There is no doubt that he was very popular. But at the end of the day, what do you want to learn about in school as part of history? Myth or fact?

It is a bit upsetting that around Kuala Lumpur, you can find streets named after Hang Jebat and Hang Tuah but not named after real historical figures of the past.

There is a street name Jalan Maharajalela, but was it named after the man accused of murdering J.W.W. Birch?  That man's name was Maharajalela Pandak Lam. Maharajalela was just an honorific title.

 We all know Jalan Raja Chulan, but do we know who Raja Chulan was?

The whole point is there is a lot of history that people don't know about.

Question:  You are an academic, but you now have to deal with a very politically charged topic. How are you handling all this?

Answer:  Times have changed. Once, our society was very particular about the truth, and whenever people make statements, they have to be able to back up their statement with facts. Today, you can say anything you like in public. You can read the writing  of bloggers online and they say anything they like.

In the academic field, you are not allowed to do that . When someone writes a thesis, he is not allowed to say anything he likes. He has to back up his statement with facts. Unfortunately, some people have begun to attack me.

I even learnt that someone asked (Malay rights group) Perkasa to report to the police that I insulted royalty, which is rather absurd really.

The great tradition underlying the Malay monarchy was how they could trace their lineage back to Iskandar Dzulkarnain (Alexander the Great). Hang Tuah was just a "Laksamana" and had nothing to do with royalty.

This is also the first time I'm being attacked by Dr Syed Husin Ali, but he is not a historian . He was never trained in history.

Question: The Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals), which is the primary record of history during the Malacca Sultanate, did mention Hang Tuah. How accurate is it in recording history?

Answer: The Sejarah Melayu is not precise historiography.

It is a historical document if you want to know how people used to think in those days. But we cannot confirm how much of it is fact, and how much of it is pure fable. It does not record dates, and has characters that we cannot confirm existed.

For example, it does not tell us when Malacca was first founded or when a ruler ascended the throne or passed away. We have no knowledge when Hang Jebat died. History cannot be like that. It has to be very precise.

On the other hand, Ming records from China are very precise. They recorded the names of the first ruler, second ruler of Malacca, along with the dates of their reign. These facts were recorded at that particular time, and not some time after the incident.

We know from these records that in 1414, Megat Iskandar Shah came to China to report the death of his father, Parameswara. China had close ties and protected Malacca at the time. It is recorded that their first envoy to Malacca left in 1403 and arrived there in 1404.

Ming Dynasty records are the best documents on history.

Question:  In Ming records, was Hang Li Po ever mentioned?

Answer:  Hang Li Po was not mentioned in the Ming records. Sejarah Melayu is not considered historiography. It is a literary text. Hang Tuah was never mentioned in the Ming records.

Question:  What does Hang -- as in Hang Tuah or Hang Li Po  -- signify? Is it an honorary title?

Answer:  This still can't be concluded from our current body of knowledge.

Question:  Could Hang Tuah and his band of men have been Chinese like some people claim?

Answer:  How can we justify that Kasturi is a Chinese name when it's a common Indian name?

Question:  If Hang Tuah did not exist, then why is there a tomb that supposedly holds his body in Malacca?  Malacca state recognises this as Hang Tuah's tomb.

Answer:  How come there is a tomb  when he did not come back from the mountain (Gunung Ledang)? How come they accept part of the story and not accept the other part?

Question:  Malacca State Museums Department director Datuk Khamis Abas said Hang Tuah was a legendary Malay warrior and this was proven in the research. What do you have to say about this?

Answer:  He used the word "legendary", right?

Question:  Heroes like Hang Tuah, King Arthur, Robin Hood or even Braveheart, despite doubts over their historical integrity, have a tremendous impact in uplifting a nation's spirit. Do you feel bad about deconstructing a national hero?

Answer:   From the time I started studying history seriously in 1956, we never talked about legends.

We were always trying our best to find primary sources to write the history of Malaya.

Today, we have great bodies of knowledge at our disposal. There are hundreds of theses written by university students. Most of them are unpublished and in our libraries. Good articles can also be found in contemporary newspapers.

You have to be diligent in going through these sources. We do not encourage historians to sit on a comfortable chair and imagine things. If you are a man of letters, then you can do as you like.

Question:  What other historical figures or facts in Malaysia are myths as well?

Answer:  Not many. But at one time there was a big controversy about whether Mat Kilau was still living.

We have British contemporary records that showed he died a long time ago. Then I heard stories, which could not be confirmed, that said this man was actually a Bangsawan actor from Singapore.

Question:  What direction will the new history curriculum take after this?

Answer:  It's not ready yet. They are still discussing it. They have actually dropped him from the school textbooks for some time.

 In the last four, five years, we have not seen him in school textbooks.

Question:  What other heroes have we forgotten but could be part of the school syllabus?

Answer:  Panglima Awang. He was taken to Portugal from Malacca and actually sailed with Ferdinand Magellan's fleet. When they came back to Malacca, he had completed the journey around the world. He was the first man to sail around the world.

This is a real hero and his story is proven and recorded in history. It's worthwhile to bring this back to the school syllabus.

Another example is the first Malay doctor, Dr Abdul Latiff Abdul Razak,  from Selangor. In the old P. Ramlee films, you might notice that the doctor is always named Dr Latiff.

Question: As a work of literature, do you think Hang Tuah the hero was a good role model?

Answer:  When Tuah lost his weapon, Jebat allowed him to pick it up again. When Jebat lost his weapon, Tuah took advantage.

If you want to teach nilai murni (good values),  who is the real hero?

But, at the end of the day, it is up to society to decide, not me.

Of course, for the Malay Muslims,  the Quran will give you the right answer for every situation.

Still, Hang Tuah had his good values. But while praising him, it is important that we don't neglect the real Malaysian heroes of history.

If you have a hero, then a hero must be able to cope with any kind of questions society may ask.

Surely, the younger generation, with a scientific mind, must ask many things. You cannot tell them, don't worry about whether he is real, just accept these values that we put across to you.


Question:  Our people have been very poor recorders of history in the past. Do you think something drastic needs to be done so that we not only record history but correctly interpret it in the future?

Answer:  History in this country has been so neglected. Our history is a jumble   that has not been properly verified by professional and well- trained historians.

Our schools must educate the children properly about history. Children must know about their own society as well as country.

Malay history tends to be mixed together with fables. English and even Chinese history had tendencies to build up epics as well.

But once they entered the modern age, science and technology became important. It is crucial that young people looked logically and critically at things. A lot of questions need to be answered.

You cannot give answers based on fables. The young people, when they lose confidence, won't respect their own society.

Question:  How do we verify the facts of history?

Answer:  We always have to rely on empirical evidence. You can speculate whatever you like, but at the end of the day, you have to admit that it is purely speculation.

In the past, they did not make a distinction between legend and myth when they recorded history. You also have to consider the fact that these hikayat were discovered very much later.

 They were not available to the public in those days. One of the first people to collect Malay manuscripts was Sir Stamford Raffles when he came to Singapore in 1819.

 If you take Sejarah Melayu, there are no less than about 20 versions.

Question:  Dr Kassim Ahmad said that Hang Tuah must have been based on some real person. What is your opinion on this?

Answer:  We have no evidence of any kind. That's the whole trouble. The modern study of history is almost considered a science -- you must have proof -- without proof how do you draw the conclusions?

Question:  As a historian since the 1950s, do you think Malaysians appreciate history?

Answer:  It is only beginning to be taught in the universities. Universiti Malaya was founded in 1949. The history department was very strong and very concerned about writing history from a Malayan perspective.

Before that, our history concentrated on what British officials did, and neglected the locals. The department of history began to write the first Malayan-centric history.

Question:  There are some people who don't care whether Hang Tuah existed or not. They just want someone who represents their value sets and aspirations. What would you say to them?

Answer:  If we are concerned about studying the values of that period, then it's a different discipline.

For example, it is very important that Sejarah Melayu and Hikayat Hang Tuah be part of Malay classical literature because they teach the value sets, but we should not confuse them with history.

Sources of history

ALLOW me to comment on Dr Firdaus Hanafiah’s remarks on the importance of oral sources in the writing of history.

It is strange that he does not realise that he is entering a domain which may not be very clear to him if he is not a trained historian.

It has always been the tradition in the past to explain to young first-year history students the difference between oral sources and written sources.

Where written documentary evidence is available, oral sources must be used sparingly and, more important still, critically.

But if written sources are not available, then oral sources can be used with caution.

Dr Firdaus seems to have the impression that the existence of the kerajaan in the history of Peninsular Malaysia is dependent on the veracity of the Hang Tuah-Hang Jebat fable.

He is obviously unaware that long ago, the importance of the kerajaan (meaning “monarchy” rather than “government”) was fully acknowledged by the British; and the Malays were, at the same time, acknowledged as “the subjects of the Rulers”, hence, they occupied a special position in the country.

Other residents of the Malay Peninsula were not eligible to become citizens until the establishment of the Federation of Malaya in 1948.

When the British first decided to intervene in the administration of the Malay monarchies in order mainly to protect the interests of “British subjects” (most of them Straits Chinese) who had large-scale commercial interests in the Malay states, they did not annex the Malay kingdoms but signed treaties with the Rulers and they promised to protect the Malay states.

W. Ormsby-Gore of the Colonial Office visited the Malay states in 1927. In his report the following year, he said, when referring to the Malay states: “They were, they are, and they must remain Malay states. These states were, when our co-operation in government was first invited, Mohamedan monarchies and such they are today.

“We have neither the right nor the desire to vary the system of government.”

The British reiterated their stand at the 1931 Durbar (Conference of Rulers) held at Sri Menanti in 1931.

Following the Durbar, the slogan “Malaya for the Malays” was popularised.

As mentioned earlier, from the British point of view, the existence of the Peninsula
Malay civilisation was based on the existence of the kerajaan.

They never spoke of Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat; and no Malay kerajaan existing today falls back on the Hang Tuah-Hang Jebat fable as the foundation of its daulat.

What has been emphasised, since the beginning, was that when the two earliest kingdoms (Kedah and Malacca) were founded, the daulat (legitimacy) in each case was derived from Alexander the Great. This has been the Great Tradition.

Reliable written (indeed contemporary sources) for the history of the Malay Peninsula are still available, though not necessarily within the country.

The most important are probably the Ming Records, still preserved in China. They are contemporary records and go back to the days when Malacca had close relations with China, which sent its first envoy (Ying Ching) to Malacca in 1403.

Even if one wants to know what Parameswara ate when he visited China a few years later, the menu is available.

Then there are also Portuguese sources and, possibly Thai sources too since Thailand or Siam once had a great deal of influence on the Malay Peninsula.

But the Thai sources have been neglected. What we really need today are diligent scholars (not people with powerful imagination) who will plough through reliable sources to obtain correct information about our history.

People who have not done first-hand research should not argue with those who have.

History is based on empirical evidence. If the evidence is inadequate, a historian may speculate but he has to admit that it is speculation and not logical conclusion.

As an example, the British officials, at one time, liked to refer to the Malay chieftains as “pirates”.

Can Dr Firdaus answer them based on oral sources?

Indeed, the proper way to answer them is not to scold them but to prove them wrong by referring to the British legal definition of “piracy” at that time. The answer is there in British records.

However, my main concern is not whether the kerajaan of Malacca was real or not. Given the huge amount of documentary evidence available, it would be a waste of time to turn that into an issue for debate.

But does the average Malaysian know what written sources are available for the history of the Malay Peninsula between the 16th and the 19th centuries?

PROF KHOO KAY KIM, Kuala Lumpur.

Related posts:

• Call for a damn good shot: Light not founded Penang ... 
• Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality ...
• Malaysian Universities need decolonization, relook the ...