The Malaysian state of Penang is winning from global investors’ search for safe havens, amid the U.S.-China trade tensions.
Foreign direct investments into its manufacturing sector surged 1,360% to 8.47 billion ringgit (US$2 billion) in the first quarter from a year ago, more than for the entire 2018. The state stands to gain from changes in the global supply chain as it’s well-connected with a strong talent pool and supportive public policies, Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said in a Wednesday statement.
The state, already home to companies from Intel Corp. to Dell Technologies Inc., makes up 42% of Malaysia’s manufacturing FDI. Recent investments in Penang include U.S. semiconductor company Micron Technology Inc's new solid-state drive assembly and testing centre, and Florida-based Jabil Circuit Inc's purchase of 20 acres of land to expand its facility.
“Malaysia is reaping benefits from business relocation, as well as trade and investment diversions caused by the trade war,” Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng said in a Thursday statement, adding that the rise in investments as well as industrial production signal “healthy” economic growth in the second quarter.
Chow is wary of the near-term outlook and cautions that the investment surge may not be repeated in the second or third quarters. While some companies benefit from the trade war, others are negatively affected as their customers take a wait-and-see approach, he said. Penang’s investment outlook remains “on the right track” over the medium to long term, Chow said.
The state had moved quickly to court investors amid the trade war, signing a cooperation deal with China Chamber of International Commerce, giving subsidized rental rates for small businesses and setting up a seed fund for technology start ups.- Bloomberg Penang bags big jump in investments
More than RM8bil recorded in the first quarter of the year
Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow and State
Tourism Development, Arts, Culture and Heritage Committee chairman Yeoh
Soon Hin speaking during a press conference at KOMTAR. - LIM BENG
TATT/The Star
THE state recorded RM8.85bil in total approved manufacturing investments in the first quarter of 2019, exceeding the RM5.78bil it received for the whole of last year.
Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said the investments in the first quarter were 768% higher than the investments in the same period in 2018.
“Penang garnered 41 projects at the start of this year,” he said at a press conference held at his office in Komtar.
“They amount to RM8.85bil and will bring in more than 10,000 jobs.
“The state is a key contributor to the country’s foreign direct manufacturing investment (FDI), representing 42% of the country’s total FDI.”
Chow highlighted the many attractions of Penang for investors.
“We boast a robust supply chain, strong talent pool, well-established infrastructure and support services to investors.
‘The combination of all these advantages makes Penang a preferred destination for investments.”
He was quoting the latest data from the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (Mida).
However, Chow was more cautious about the business climate later this year.
He said that while Penang could remain a preferred investment destination in the mid to long run, the US-China trade war would have a huge impact in the coming two quarters of the year.
“We believe the meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping later this month will be crucial.
“We feel our stellar performance in the first quarter might not be repeated in the second and third quarters of this year.
“Nevertheless, Penang’s investment outlook is on the right track over the medium to long term.
“The state government will continue to focus on bringing in high quality investments that can create high-value jobs and suit the state’s industry profile,” he said.
Penang's approved manufacturing investments rise more than seven-fold in 1Q19
Penang attracted approved investments worth RM8.8 billion in the manufacturing sector in the first quarter (1Q) of 2019, up 763% from RM1.02 billion in the same period last year.
Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said despite the intensifying trade and technology disputes between the United States and China that created uncertainties in the global trade and economic outlook, Penang remained a favoured investment destination.
"According to the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (MIDA), from January to March this year, Penang successfully garnered 41 projects amounting to RM8.85 billion, which represented 35% of Malaysia's total approved investments in manufacturing," he told a press conference here today.
The approved manufacturing investments in 1Q19 had already surpassed the full-year approved investment figure of RM5.8 billion in 2018, he said, adding that they were expected to create 10,073 job opportunities in Penang.
Of the total investments approved in the quarter under review, foreign direct investment accounted for RM8.47 billion while the rest was domestic investment, Chow said.
"The optimal combination of robust supply chain, strong talent pool, well-established infrastructure and the state's support services to investors makes Penang a preferred destination for investments," he said.
However, Chow, who is also the chairman of the Penang Strategic Investment Advisory Council, said while Penang could be a preferred investment destination in the middle to long run, he was cautiously optimistic on the near-term outlook due to the latest trade war development.
He said there was a truce in the trade war in 1Q but the situation had worsened since.
"US President Donald Trump has threatened to slap tariffs on another US$300 billion of Chinese exports to the US, and the meeting between Trump and China's leader Xi Jinping later this month is crucial," he said.
He also cautioned that the superb investment performance in the manufacturing sector in 1Q might not be repeated in the second and third quarters; however, Penang's investment outlook would be on the right track over the medium to longer term.
"Through InvestPenang, the Penang government will continue to focus on bringing in high quality investments that would create high value jobs and suit the state's industry profile," he said.- The Edge Market.
It gives me great pleasure to attend the 18th Shangri-la Dialogue. I would like to thank Dr. John Chipman for inviting me here and thank the Singapore government, the Ministry of Defense in particular, for the warm hospitality. I would also like to congratulate His Excellency Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on his excellent keynote address the other day. This is my first attendance at the Shangri-la Dialogue as China's defense minister. I am here for mutual confidence, cooperation and peace. I am glad to speak on China and International Security Cooperation.
I. Humanity is at a crossroad. Building a community with a shared future for mankind is the right path forward and the trend of the times.
The world today is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century. Destabilizing, uncertain factors and challenges continue to rise. President Xi Jinping's great vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind is the answer to harmonious coexistence of people across the world, the effective solution to global problems and the right path towards world peace and human progress. We take note that the US expounded on its perspective on regional affairs yesterday. We believe that any such perspective should take into account the common security and interests of regional countries. No approaches to regional issues should resort to military blocs, nor should they undermine the interests of others. We hold different views with the US side on several issues, and firmly oppose its wrong words and actions concerning Taiwan and the South China Sea. Now let's think about the following questions:
First, which should we choose, peace and development or conflict and confrontation? Peace and development remain the call of our times and the trend of history. However, global and regional hotspots flare up one after another and the risk of conflict and war persists. What is the cause for regional wars and conflicts, the spread of terrorism, the chaos in the Middle East and the refugee crisis in Europe? Who are behind all these and what is the root cause? These are the questions to be reflected on. Some deliberately create division and hostility, provoke confrontation, meddle with regional affairs, interfere in internal affairs of others, and frequently resort to arms. Whose interests on earth do they serve and whose do they harm?
Second, which should we choose, openness and inclusiveness or isolation and exclusiveness? See the world with an open and inclusive mind, and there will be friends and partners everywhere. See the world with a narrow and exclusive mind, and there are only enemies and adversaries. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, lately we see a growing backlash against globalization and a surge of protectionism. A certain country champions unilateralism, puts its own interests before others, withdraws from international treaties and organizations. Aren't there many countries suffering from the willful infringement and sanctions?
Third, which should we choose, win-win cooperation or zero-sum game? Win-win cooperation makes the pie bigger and brings more benefits to all. However, zero-sum game makes no winner and harms the interests of both sides. Currently, over 150 countries and international organizations have proactively joined China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Not long ago, over 6,000 delegates from 150 countries and 92 international organizations gathered in Beijing for the second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. People can tell what is right.
Fourth, which should we choose, mutual learning among civilizations or arrogance and prejudice? A few days ago, China successfully hosted the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations. We believe that human civilizations are and should be colorful, equal, inclusive and willing to learn from each other. Not a single civilization should be worshiped or belittled. There are scars and tragedies in the history of human civilization which do not go away, to name only a few, the enslavement of Africans, the expulsion of native American Indians, the colonization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and the killing of Jewish people. Unfortunately, some people recently pick up the decadent idea of "clash of civilizations". As racist and narrow-minded as it is, this is not right. How can we tolerate such a regress of history?
II. Facing complex and volatile international security situation, the Chinese government and armed forces stay committed to regional and world prosperity and stability.
Those who are familiar with China's modern history must know that the country was once poor and weak and went through enormous misery. The Chinese people know only too well the value of peace and the cruelty and destructiveness of war. Over the years, some have been recklessly hyping up, exaggerating and dramatizing the "China threat theory", partly due to the lack of understanding of China's history, culture and policies, but more likely due to misunderstanding, prejudice, or even a hidden agenda.
China sticks to the path of peaceful development. Such a commitment is underpinned by China's socialist system, the independent foreign policy of peace, and the cultural tradition that values peace and harmony. China shall follow the path of peaceful development, which is a solemn commitment to the people of China and the world. This has been written into the Constitution of the Communist Party of China and the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, thus reaffirmed as the will of the CPC and the state. If this is not even convincing enough for some people, then we don't know what they would believe? Over the past 70 years since the founding of the P.R.C., China has never provoked a war or conflict, nor has it ever invaded another country or taken an inch of land from others. In the future, no matter how strong it becomes, China shall never threaten anyone, seek hegemony or establish spheres of influence. History has proven and will continue to prove that China will not follow the beaten path of big powers seeking hegemony when it grows strong. Hegemony does not conform to China's values and national interests.
China adopts a military strategy of active defense. China's military strategy adheres to the principles of defense, self-defense and post-strike response. It stresses that "we will not attack unless we are attacked, but we will surely counterattack if attacked". China develops its military entirely for self-defense. The purpose is to defend the country and provide the people with a peaceful working environment, and ensure that our people are free from the disasters of war and enjoy a better life. We have never bullied or preyed on others, and we shall not let others bully or prey on us either. China develops its military to cope with security threats. Similar scenario can be found in the past when China had to develop nuclear capabilities of its own under nuclear threat. China's defense expenditure is reasonable and appropriate. China enhances national defense in order to meet the legitimate needs to defend its own security as well as contribute to the world force for peace.
The Chinese military is dedicated to safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests. The PLA is the people's force under the leadership of the CPC. The PLA has fought many battles and is not afraid of sacrifice. In face of aggression, coercion or hardships, it has stridden forward from victory to victory. The more severe the pressure and difficulties are, the stronger and braver the Chinese people become. Adversity only brings our nation greater solidarity and strength. As the lyrics of the Chinese national anthem go, "Arise, all those who do not want be enslaved. Let's build the new Great Wall with our flesh and blood." Faced with daunting and complex security challenges, the PLA vows not to yield a single inch of the country's sacred land, but it shall not seize anything from others either. The PLA has no intention to cause anybody trouble, but it is not afraid to face up to troubles. Should anyone risk crossing the bottom line, the PLA will resolutely take action and defeat all enemies.
The Chinese military stays committed to safeguarding regional and world security and stability. China is an active supporter of UN Peacekeeping Operations. It is the largest troop contributor among the permanent members of the UN Security Council and a major contributor of funds. We have established a peacekeeping standby force of 8,000 troops that is ready to be deployed. For years, China has been active in promoting bilateral and multilateral security cooperation. The China-Russia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination has been running at a high level. The state-to-state and military-to-military relations between China and the US remain generally stable, despite twists and difficulties. We have strengthened the sense of shared destiny with ASEAN countries, deepened traditional friendship with India, Pakistan and other South Asian countries, maintained peaceful coexistence and good-neighborliness with surrounding countries, and built good relationship with the countries and militaries of Africa and Latin America. In October this year, China will host the 9th Beijing Xiangshan Forum. We welcome defense and military leaders and scholars from all over the world to attend the Forum.
III. While striving for common prosperity in the Asia-Pacific, we must respect the core interests and accommodate the security concerns of all.
China advocates that all countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. We should respect and accommodate the legitimate security concerns of one another. China understands and respects the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries, and supports the social systems and development paths they independently choose. China is not able to progress in isolation from the rest of the world; the world also needs China to prosper. We in China do not covet the interests, nor envy the development, of others. However, we shall never give up our legitimate rights and interests. No country should ever expect China to allow its sovereignty, security and development interests to be infringed upon. As for the recent trade friction started by the US, if the US wants to talk, we will keep the door open. If they want a fight, we will fight till the end. As what the general public of China says these days, "A talk? Welcome. A fight? Ready. Bully us? No way." I would like to further illustrate China's position on a few issues you may be interested in.
First, on Taiwan. The Taiwan question bears on China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Not a single country in the world would tolerate secession. I visited the US last year. American friends told me that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest American president because he led the country to victory in the Civil War and prevented the secession of the US. The US is indivisible, so is China. China must be and will be reunified. We find no excuse not to do so. If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs for national unity. Hereby, I have a message for the DPP authorities and the external forces. First, no attempts to split China shall succeed. Second, foreign intervention in the Taiwan question is doomed to failure. We took note that the US side mentioned the Taiwan Relations Acts in yesterday's speech. Is it of Taiwan or the US? Is it a Chinese law or an international law? We can find no justifiable reasons for the US to interfere in the Taiwan question by its domestic law. Third, any underestimation of the PLA's resolve and will is extremely dangerous. We will strive for the prospects of peaceful reunification with utmost sincerity and greatest efforts, but we make no promise to renounce the use of force. Safeguarding national unity is a sacred duty of the PLA. If the PLA cannot even safeguard the unity of our motherland, what do we need it for?
Second, on the South China Sea. The current situation in the South China Sea is improving towards greater stability. It is attributed to the common efforts of the countries in the region. However, there are always people trying to rake in profits by stirring up troubles in the region. Before the Dialogue, I paid a visit to Vietnam and Singapore and reached broad consensus with Gen. Ngo Xuan Lich and Dr. Ng Eng Hen on maintaining the stability in the South China Sea. I have a few questions concerning the issue to discuss with you.
First, who on earth is threatening security and stability in the South China Sea? Over 100,000 ships sail through the South China Sea each year. None has been threatened. The problem, however, is that in recent years some countries outside the region come to the South China Sea to flex muscles, in the name of freedom of navigation. The large-scale force projection and offensive operations in the region are the most serious destabilizing and uncertain factors in the South China Sea.
Second, who would benefit and who would suffer from the chaos in the South China Sea? In case of chaos in the South China Sea, we, the regional countries, are the ones to take the blunt. What are the purposes for certain countries to send military vessels and aircraft all the way from afar to the region? Aren't there enough examples that some big countries intervene in regional affairs, make troubles, walk away and leave a mess behind?
Third, should the stability in the South China Sea be maintained by countries in the region or outside the region? China and ASEAN countries have made positive progress in negotiating the COC. We hope that relevant parties will not underestimate the wisdom and ability of regional countries to properly handle differences and maintain peace. However, we welcome constructive suggestions from all countries.
Fourth, is China's construction on its South China Sea islands and reefs militarization? It is the legitimate rights of a sovereign state to carry out construction on its own territory. China built limited defense facilities on the islands and reefs for self-defense. Where there are threats, there are defenses. In face of heavily armed warships and military aircraft, how can we stay impervious and not build some defense facilities?
Third, on the DPRK nuclear issue. China is committed to denuclearization, peace and stability of the Peninsula and to a negotiated solution through dialogue and consultation. In recent years, the Chinese side has made active efforts in promoting peace talks and played an irreplaceable and constructive role. We hope that the US and the DPRK will accommodate each other's concerns with cool heads and patience, work towards the same goal and resume the dialogue for peace at an early date. The US and the DPRK should follow the dual-track approach and combine denuclearization with the establishment of a peace mechanism. We hope that the international community will positively respond to the legitimate concerns of the DPRK, trigger the reversible clause of the UN Security Council resolutions in due course, push for a declaration on the end of the war, and actively build trust among all parties.
Fourth, on China-US relations. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between China and the US. Despite all the ups and downs, China-US relationship has been steadily growing in the past 40 years. The most valuable lesson we have learned from the 4-decade-long relationship is that cooperation benefits the two sides while confrontation hurts both. Looking forward, the two countries should follow the consensus by the two heads of state and promote a China-US relationship featuring coordination, cooperation and stability. Through continued communication, the militaries of the two countries have agreed on many important issues. First, in terms of implementing the consensus of the heads of state, the two militaries agreed on building their relationship a stabilizer for the overall relations. Second, we agree on maintaining regular communication on the strategic level. The day before yesterday, I had a candid and practical discussion with Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. We reaffirmed the importance of maintaining communication and to develop a constructive military-to-military relationship. Third, in terms of managing risks and preventing conflicts, the two sides recognize that military conflicts or even a war between them would bring disasters to both countries and the world. It takes two to cooperate, but only one to start a fight. We hope that the US side will work with us towards the same goal, follow the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, and steer the China-US relations in the right direction.
The achievement China has made in the past 70 years since the country was founded is not a windfall or a handout from others. Neither was it made by engaging in military expansion or colonial exploitation. Instead, the country has developed through its people's hard work, wisdom and bravery as well as the win-win cooperation with the world since reform and opening-up. At present, under the strong leadership of the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, China enjoys political stability, social cohesion and steady economic growth. Blessed with peace, harmony, prosperity and good governance, the country is making progress on all fronts. The Chinese people are committed to realizing the Chinese Dream of great national rejuvenation. The Chinese military is ready to work with the armed forces of other Asia-Pacific countries to jointly respond to challenges, promote the building of an Asia-Pacific community with a shared future and safeguard peace and stability in the region.
June 4 marks the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square incident. The Communist Party of China and the Chinese government have determined the nature of the incident. Chinese society has also made a comprehensive summary of it. Dropping the incident thereafter has been aimed at helping the country leave the shadow behind, avoid disputes, and help all Chinese people face the future.
We consider such practice a political success, although some people have criticized it from the perspective of news governance. Merely afflicting China once, the incident has not become a long-term nightmare for the country. Neither has the incident's anniversary ever been placed in the teeth of the storm. It has become a faded historical event, rather than an actual entanglement.
The Chinese government's control of the incident in 1989 has been a watershed marking the differences between China and former Eastern European socialist countries, including the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Since the incident, China has successfully become the world's second largest economy, with rapid improvement of people's living standards. The policy of avoiding arguing has served as a contributor to the country's economic take-off.
Today's China obviously has no political conditions to suddenly reproduce the riot of 30 years ago. Chinese society, including its intellectual elite, is now far more mature than it was in 1989. In those years, China's reform was carried out prior to those of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. China was completely inexperienced, with an intellectual circle filled with idealism. Chinese society today has seen enough of the political tragedies that occurred in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and some Arab countries.
Having become politically mature, we now understand the significance of the country's continuous development through evolutions instead of revolutions. We are also aware of the difficulties and complexity at the practical level.
As a vaccination for the Chinese society, the Tiananmen incident will greatly increase China's immunity against any major political turmoil in the future.
We have noticed that every year around June 4, certain forces outside the Chinese mainland stir up public opinion and attack China. Such forces consist of two groups of people: student leaders and dissidents who fled abroad after 1989, and Western politicians and media outlets.
The first group's understanding of the incident remains fixed in 1989. They refuse to correct their understanding of China's development and the changes that the world has been through. Their interests have been decoupled from the Chinese people and have merged with anti-China forces outside China. Their attitude toward the incident cannot represent those of today's Chinese public.
Western politicians' discussions of the incident are mainly influenced by their countries' relations with China. Due to the deterioration of China-US ties, US officials have launched fierce attacks against China that have focused on the incident since last year. But Chinese people are clear that those officials are not genuinely concerned about Chinese human rights, but are making use of the incident as a diplomatic tool to challenge China.
However, all these noises will have no real impact on Chinese society. The actions of the external forces are completely in vain.
The US offers its commiserations for so-called human
rights violations in China, yet in actions, it has been trampling on
China's human rights for years. It is time for Mr Pompeo and his
colleagues to stop the self-contradictory moves.
The Indo-Pacific region is seen as a “priority theater”
by both the Pentagon and senior officials of the US Indo-Pacific
Command. They are quite blunt about the possibility of a potential armed
conflict with China, emphasizing that the US is not afraid of the cost
of violent conflicts.
On Sunday, China released a comprehensive white paper to formalize its positions on trade negotiations with the U.S. The set of statements come as the trade war escalates and Beijing threatens to hit back with a retaliatory blacklist of U.S. firms. Here are some key takeaways from the press conference announcing the white paper:
U.S. ‘responsible’ for stalled trade talks
The “U.S. government bears responsibility” for setbacks in trade talks, chided the paper, adding that the U.S. has imposed additional tariffs on Chinese goods that impede economic cooperation between the two countries and globally.
While it’s “common” for both sides to propose “adjustments to the text and language” in ongoing negotiations, the U.S. administration “kept changing its demands” in the “previous more than ten rounds of negotiations,” the paper alleged.
On the other hand, reports of China backtracking on previous trade deals are mere “mudslinging,” Wang Shouwen, the Chinese vice minister of commerce and deputy China international trade representative, said as he led the Sunday presser.
China ready to fight if forced to
China does not want a trade war with the U.S, but it’s not afraid of one and will fight one if necessary, said the white paper.
Beijing’s position on trade talks has never changed — that cooperation serves the interests of both countries and conflict can only hurt both — according to the paper. CNBC’s Eunice Yoon pointed out that Beijing’s latest stance repeats previous statements made back in September.
#China white paper highlights out on state media. My take on msg so far:
-China is the grown-up
-China is the victim
-China wants talks but only as an equal
-China will fight US for as long as it takes
(Not too diff from Sep 2018 white paper same topic) https://t.co/A5LCw3kZVL
#China white paper highlights out on state media. My take on msg so far:
-China is the grown-up
-China is the victim
-China wants talks but only as an equal
-China will fight US for as long as it takes
(Not too diff from Sep 2018 white paper same topic) http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-06/02/c_138110190.htm…
Deals must be equal
Difference and frictions remain on the economic and trade fronts between the two countries, but China is willing to work with the U.S. to reach a “mutually beneficial and win-win agreement,” stated the paper. However, cooperation has to be based on principles and must not compromise China’s core interests.
“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” Wang said.
He said one needs not “overinterpret” China’s soon-to-come entity list, adding that it mainly targets foreign companies that run against market rules and violate the spirit of contracts, cut off supplies to Chinese firms for uncommercial reasons, damage the legitimate rights of Chinese companies, or threaten China’s national security and public interests.
China respects IP rights
The paper also touched on issues that are at the center of the prolonged U.S.-China trade dispute, including China’s dealings with intellectual property rights. U.S. allegations of China over IP theft are “an unfounded fabrication,” said the white paper, adding that China has made great efforts in recent years to protect and enforce IP rights.
Wang claimed that China pays the U.S. a significant sum to license IP rights every year. Of the $35.6 billion it shelled out for IP fees in 2018, nearly a quarter went to the U.S.
Investments are mutually beneficial
The white paper claimed that bilateral investments between the two countries are mutually beneficial rather than undermining for U.S. interests when taken account of “trade in goods and services as well as two-way investment.”
The Chinese government also pushed back at claims that it exerts influence on businesses’ overseas investments.
“The government is not involved in companies’ business activities and does not ask them to make specific investments or acquisitions,” said Wang. “Even if we make such requests, companies won’t obey.”
In response to China’s probe into FedEx over Huawei packages that went stray, Wang assured that “foreign businesses are welcome to operate legally in China, but when they break rules, they have to cooperate with regulatory investigations. That’s indisputable.”
The Shenzhen-based smartphone and telecom giant has been hit hard by during the trade negotiations as the Trump administration orders U.S. businesses to sever ties with the Chinese firm.
On a global scale, the Trump administration has made enough
enemies and its blunders in the Middle East and Latin America have
caused intractable crises. None of these will make Trump successful in
the 2020 election. Undoubtedly, messing up the China-US relationship
will never make the US great again.
Chinese authorities announced on Saturday that relevant
department has decided to open an investigation into whether FedEx
violated the legitimate rights and interests of its Chinese clients.
Huawei recently revealed to the media that FedEx had diverted two
parcels sent from Japan destined for an address in China to the US, and
two others from Vietnam to Hong Kong and Singapore respectively were
also diverted to a US address after delay.
Source: Global Times | 2019/6/1 23:36:25
China's Ministry of Commerce announced on Friday that the
country will release its non-reliable entity list. Foreign entities,
individuals and companies that block and shut the supply chain, or take
discriminatory measures over non-commercial reasons, and when their
actions endanger the business of Chinese companies will be included in
the list.
Source: Global Times | 2019/5/31 20:09:26
The annual Shangri-La Dialogue kicked off in Singapore
Friday. Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and Acting US Defense
Secretary Patrick Shanahan will attend the event and make a speech,
raising observers' expectations on this year's Dialogue.
China
does not want a trade war, but it is not afraid of one and it will
fight one if necessary. China's position on this has never changed, the
white paper pointed out.
A heated online feud between two high-profile news anchors from China and the US ended on Thursday morning in a seemingly friendly manner, but also laid bare the prejudice of some US elites against China.
The highly anticipated debate between Liu Xin of China Global Television Network (CGTN) and Trish Regan of the Fox Business Network, hailed as a first of its kind, also underscored the urgent need for the two countries to conduct better engagement as the trade and technology war has escalated to dangerous levels, Chinese analysts noted Thursday.
After days of hype, Liu appeared on Regan's primetime show Thursday morning Beijing time, where the two anchors went head-to-head over a wide range of issues, from the ongoing trade war to China's economic system.
Many in China praised Liu's performance for pushing back Regan's questions with clearly biased connotations, despite Liu being at a disadvantage because it was the US anchor's turf and she was in control of the conversation.
"Liu was very calm and showed great demeanor; in contrast, [Regan] appeared to be fanning the flames, instigating war and judging from an established angle," one Sina Weibo user wrote.
Clear prejudice
Despite her apparent attempt to appear fair and friendly with occasional smiles, Regan's prejudice was palpable throughout the showdown lasting around 16 minutes.
She started off the conversation by introducing Liu as a member of the Community Party of China (CPC) and painted Liu as a spokesperson of the CPC, drawing an immediate rebuke from Liu, who said she was not a CPC member.
"Please don't assume," Liu said. "I'm here today, only speaking for myself as Liu Xin, a journalist working for CGTN."
"Right off the bat, [Regan] put a huge label on Liu, saying Liu was representing the CPC… so the American was obviously biased," another Sina Weibo user wrote. Some online even pointed out that there were about 88 million CPC members and 1.4 billion people in China. "How hard can it be to understand that?" one wrote.
After mumbling about unsupported claims that China steals US technologies, Regan dropped another ideologically biased question, while appearing to be asking about China's economic system: "How do you define state capitalism?"
As she did throughout the show, Liu responded with sound arguments, educating the US anchor about China's socialist economy with Chinese characteristics, where market forces play an increasingly bigger role and the private sector is a major force in the economy.
"Such prejudice [against China] has long existed in the US," said Liang Haiming, dean of Hainan University's Belt and Road Research Institute, who also focuses on China-US trade relations. "This will not change from one exchange like this."
Better dialogue
However, Regan, who had fiercely defended the trade war the US government has initiated against China without concrete proof, did show a much softer tone and even appeared to be backing down from some of her earlier comments.
The showdown on Thursday appeared to be friendlier than their earlier fiery exchanges online, drawing praise from some Chinese and even Chinese officials.
Reacting to the debate, Lu Kang, spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, said that he was happy to see "rational, open and frank" dialogue between Chinese and US people in different areas.
At a time when tensions between the two economic powers are running high, the two countries need more effective dialogue rather than constant finger-pointing and the debate might have set a great example for that, analysts said.
"This is like in 1971, when the US ping-pong team was invited to China. No one remembers who won the matches, but people remember only that the US team went to China," Feng Da Hsuan, chief adviser of the China Silk Road iValley Research Institute and former vice president for research at the University of Texas at Dallas, told the Global Times, referring to a ping-ping match that has been widely credited as the start of China-US diplomatic relations in the early 1970s.
Anchors’ debate trumps China-US tensions
The debate between Fox Business' Trish Regan and China Global Television Network (CGTN)'s Liu Xin began around 8:30 on Thursday (Beijing time) and lasted only 16 minutes, much shorter than people had expected. The debate went more like an interview where Regan kept throwing questions and Liu responded.
Before the debate started, other topics and an advertisement were broadcast, including a long talk by Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido. After the event, Michael Pillsbury from Washington DC-based Hudson Institute, who is known for his anti-China stance, appeared to make his comments.
The international community has shown interest in the debate mainly because of the conflict between China and the US, which has gone far beyond being a squabble to do with trade. There is increasingly intense exchange of opinions but both sides barely conceded to each other's stance.
A straight-out face-to-face talk between the two anchors would have been generally welcomed, although there are some people who just wanted to be bystanders.
Anyway, the debate has made headlines. This shows that there was too little effective communication between Beijing and Washington. The US is a country where the press is largely free but their reports about the trade war and China have been colored with views of the US political elite. The voice that reflects China's views can hardly spread in the US. American media outlets would censor China's voices to fit the agenda set by the US administration, thus rendering the message going across almost ineffectual.
There were no big flaws in the anchors' performance in the debate. Regan was aggressive while talking about China in an earlier broadcast, but this time she was restrained - more like an anchor. In the meantime, Liu was humble and candid. The whole dialogue was cordial.
What they talked about was not surprising - the possibility of zero tariffs between China and the US, disputes about intellectual property, and whether China is a developing or developed country. When the debate began, Regan introduced Liu as a member of the Communist Party of China (CPC), but Liu corrected Regan by saying that she was not, "Please don't assume that I'm a member. And I don't speak for the CPC. Here, today, I'm only speaking for myself as Liu Xin, a journalist working for CGTN."
This has demonstrated that Regan, as well as many other US media staff, don't understand how the Chinese system led by the CPC works. They have taken many things for granted. Such misunderstanding colors US public opinion about China.
Apparently, the brief dialogue came short on being thorough. It was far from meeting people's expectation. But it was still regarded as conducive. It is better to make such efforts rather than desisting from trying to have effective communication between China and the US.
We hope the debate could remind people of the importance of China-US talks and help the two countries get rid of political shackles and utilitarianism in consultations and strive to break the estrangement.
Have the anchors set a good example? It depends on what happens in the future. We hope people can say "yes" when they look back someday.
By Shan Renping - a commentator with the Global Times. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Newspaper headline: Anchors’ debate trumps China-US tensions
THE United States ranks low in the credibility stakes. It can no longer wax lyrical about free trade and fair play because the world now knows that when it finds itself facing stiff competition, it uses a ruling the magnitude of a nuclear bomb to retaliate.
Firstly, US president Donald Trump declared a national emergency and barred American companies from doing business with companies deemed a national security risk.
Then, companies like Google and Microsoft stopped making software and services available to Huawei, China’s biggest smartphone vendor.
The ban essentially means that future Huawei phones will no longer get Google play apps, YouTube, and almost certainly no updates to Android Q or other platform-level upgrades since these would require Google’s sign-off, too.
Sure, you can still make calls or use WeChat and other Chinese platforms, but for users in most parts of the world, the phone is pretty much useless.
Word is that Huawei poses a security risk, but no clarification has been forthcoming to what these threats include exactly.
There is a sense of déjà vu here.
The world was once told by the US and its allies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but we learnt in the end there were none. Now, we have the Iran threat, but that’s another story all together.
From what little info has trickled into the worldwide web, the suggestion is that Chinese-manufactured devices have hidden back doors that could potentially allow an attacker to gain special access.
It sounds like a script excerpt from a James Bond movie, with spooks using a master password to break into high security facilities.
But incredibly, Huawei and ZTE Corp, another telecommunications equipment manufacturer, were cleared by the US House of Representatives permanent select committee on intelligence.
The two had been accused of providing “incomplete, contradictory and evasive responses to the committee’s core concerns” during their year-long investigation on the threat they supposedly pose to American interests.
In the end, the committee found no concrete evidence of infringement. But that didn’t stop the two companies from being labelled a national security risk and getting kicked out of the US.
IS, the German internet security watchdog, inspected Huawei laboratories in Germany and found no evidence of espionage, and The New York Times quoted American officials saying that the case against the company had “no smoking gun – just a heightened concern about the firm’s rising technological dominance”.
Rightly or wrongly, in the game of perception, the US has lost its moral ground. Thanks, in many ways, to an impulsive president.
Most of the world’s population thinks the bullying of Huawei is simply Trump’s hallmark. It isn’t about a security risk, but an economic threat.
Outside China, Huawei is arguably the most successful Chinese consumer brand so far. Thanks to a good and relatively cheaper product, it is now the second largest phone vendor in the world.
One strong accusation levelled at Huawei is that it enjoys Chinese government backing, and that China uses its spies to steal US technology for these private companies.
It’s a really warped perspective because, using the same logic, why is the US president taking such a hard line against a private company that’s merely selling phones?
The answer could well lie in the technology race.
Now, it’s about who launches 5G first, the next generation of mobile broadband imminently replacing 4G.
With 5G, we will see exponentially faster download and upload speeds. Huawei is widely renowned for being 12 months ahead of its competitors in the 5G race.
It began to develop its own 5G technology in as early as 2009. In 2013, Huawei hired more than 300 top experts from the wireless industry around the world and announced that they had invested US$600mil (RM2.5bil) in 5G research.
In 2016, Huawei set up a 5G product line for such devices.
What started as a three-man company now has thousands of employees engaged in 5G product development. Following this, in 2017, and then in 2018, Huawei invested almost US$1.4bil (RM5.8bil) in 5G product development.
The South China Morning Post has, however, also reported that apart from its tremendous commercial benefits, 5G – the fifth generation of mobile communication – is revolutionising military and security technology, which is partly why it has become a focal point in the US’ efforts to contain China’s rise as a tech power, and the Western nation’s allegations against Chinese companies is simply symptomatic of its insecurities.
“The future landscape of warfare and cybersecurity could be fundamentally changed by 5G.
“But experts say 5G is more susceptible to hacking than previous networks, at a time of rising security concerns and US-China tensions on various interconnected fronts that include trade, influence in the Asia-Pacific region and technological rivalry.
“These tensions provide the backdrop to controversy surrounding Huawei, the world’s largest telecoms equipment supplier.”
It’s also a fight between China and the US on who leads the artificial intelligence domain, as with 5G advancements, it means “whereas existing networks connect people to people, the next generation will connect a vast network of sensors, robots and autonomous vehicles through sophisticated artificial intelligence.
“The so-called Internet of Things will allow objects to ‘communicate’ with each other by exchanging vast volumes of data in real time, and without human intervention.
“Autonomous factories, long-distance surgery or robots preparing your breakfast – things that previously existed only in science fiction – will be made possible.
“Meanwhile, though, it is being identified by many military experts as the cornerstone of future military technology,” the newspaper reported.
As TV personality Trevor Noah says, humorously, in his show, the 5G war isn’t just about “loading an entire movie in three seconds but about the Chinese spying – which the US also wants to do.”
He sarcastically added that “the US is losing the 5G race and luckily, we have a maniac in our team who’s willing to play dirty.”
As the battle rages on, spilling into the already acrimonious US-China trade war, the controversy has become more bitter, and complicated, with the US egging its allies to ban Huawei from building its next generation of mobile phone networks. So far, Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have either banned Huawei or are reviewing whether to do so.
Japan, a US ally, seems to have been dragged into the propaganda of persecuting Huawei, too.
In China, the actions against Huawei have stirred a storm of nationalism, with the Chinese calling for a boycott of iPhone, a reaction which could eventually affect other American and European products, at the rate things are escalating.
Even within the Chinese diaspora, the messages of unequivocal support for Huawei have gone viral in the world’s social media sphere.
The irony is that the iPhone is not only assembled in China, but its very inception starts in that country at a much earlier stage, and from a much deeper part of the earth, too.
At least 90% of rare earth minerals – naturally occurring solids whose combination comprises essential iPhone parts – are mined in China, notably in Mongolia, it’s reported.
“Lanthanides, scandium, yttrium and some other alien-sounding names at the bottom of the periodic table (remember your secondary school?) make the iPhone ‘light, bright and loud.’ Its colour screen, glass polishing, circuitry, speakers and vibration unit come from a mix of these rare earth minerals,” it says in Finances Online.
The report added that where American companies would take months to pool thousands of industrial engineers, and even more months to construct new assembly lines to accommodate a trivial but urgent change in an iPhone spec (say, its glass panel needing to curve to hatch on the body six weeks prior to launching), it only takes 15 days in China to do the same.
“To put it in perspective, one production line in China can assemble 72,000 iPhone 5 back plates daily; one factory can have four to five production lines and China can have as much as a hundred of these factories, opening or closing a few of them depending on the current demand.
“The last part – opening and closing plants like a mom-and-pop store – is almost impossible in an American economy.
“It is no longer a city counting the number of manufacturing plants it has, but the manufacturing plant can be counted as a city in many Asian economic zones.”
And it’s common knowledge that Mickey Mouse merchandise is made in China, and likewise all the branded sportswear sold globally. The profits these companies are raking in are simply down to the low cost of operation.
Trump should know and do better. Instead of threatening and bullying Huawei with trumped up charges, he should urge American companies to be more competitive, make better products and keep prices low.
I am dumping my iPhone, upgrading my South Korean Samsung and for the first time, getting myself a Huawei. I hear the camera is really good, and it doesn’t even need a zoom lens for magnification. And that sophistication comes from a license to thrill.
By Wong Chun Wai
Wong Chun Wai began his career as a journalist in Penang, and has served The Star for over 27 years in various capacities and roles. He is now editorial and corporate affairs adviser to the group, after having served as group managing director/chief executive officer.
On The Beat made its debut on Feb 23 1997 and Chun Wai has penned the column weekly without a break, except for the occasional press holiday when the paper was not published. In May 2011, a compilation of selected articles of On The Beat was published as a book and launched in conjunction with his 50th birthday. Chun Wai also comments on current issues in The Star.
US President Donald Trump on Thursday announced a $16
billion aid package for farmers to offset their losses from the trade
war with China. He said the package "will be paid for by the billions of
dollars" from tariffs on Chinese imports.
All Chinese companies wishing to get to the high-tech
mountaintop should learn from Huawei's composed example. If only there
were a group of Chinese companies sharing intellectual property with
foreign partners, then certain malicious forces would hesitate at a
crackdown.
China's economic potential is far greater than that of
the US, the largest economy. There is no doubt that China's economic
prospects are the best in the world. These facts drive China's core
competitiveness. They will make Washington feel its ability falls short
of its wishes when it comes to containing Beijing.
Chinese people do not know whether we should call US
approaches hegemonic politics or profiteering politics. But in short,
they are crooked means. The threat of tariffs will not work. Neither
will US threats against Chinese companies create a shock wave against
China. The US is picking a wrong opponent at a wrong time. It will find
no way of crafting a good result from a strategic mistake.
The US is having a profound effect on the global economic
order by abusing national security and trampling on commercial
principles. Current US administration is destroying the reputation and
national image that generations of Americans have built. Such arrogance
and hegemony are by no means good signs for the US.
New world order: People visit the bund in front of Shanghai's financial district of Pudong. The US-China trade war looks like the beginning of a profound break in the global order. As China and the United form two opposing economic and geopolitical coalitions, the rest of the world will be forced to choose. - Reuters
President Donald Trump has long said the goal of his trade policy is simply to get better deals for Americans. But as the trade war intensifies, it seems increasingly likely that his policies will lead to something more: a lasting break with China and a new alignment of global power.
First, consider the evidence for the break.
The current impasse in trade talks was sparked by a sudden change in terms on the part of the Chinese negotiators.
This change likely caught the administration off guard, but Trump’s response is notable: He immediately ramped up tariffs, then announced a ban on business with Chinese telecommunications firm and national champion Huawei Technologies Co.
These actions have backed Chinese President Xi Jinping into a corner and turned the trade dispute into a matter of Chinese national pride.
This limits the possibility not only of a quick resolution, but also of the chances that the Chinese people will accept any concessions to the US.
Trump’s handling of this situation stands in sharp contrast to his negotiating strategy on other issues.
Though the president railed against NAFTA throughout his campaign, he’s touted its replacement as a huge success, even though it is only cosmetically different, and has been willing to suspend his tariffs on Canada and Mexico to ease its passage through Congress.
Likewise, Trump has been more than willing to trumpet his successful negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un even though the evidence for such success is thin.
Meanwhile, the president’s tough talk against Europe and Japan for their trade practices, and against NATO allies for their defence spending, has been mostly bluster.
When it comes to China, however, the president is doubling down.
He has encouraged US supply chains to move out of China and established subsidy programmes to cushion farmers from the effects of a protracted trade war.
Which leads to the long-term implications of this battle. A protracted trade war would almost guarantee a global realignment.
Supply chains that run through both the US and China would constantly be subject to disruptions, so global manufacturers would have to decide whether to pursue an America-centric or China-centric strategy.
That’s already the case in the digital sphere, where Chinese restrictions on the Internet divide the world into two parts: that which is served by US tech giants such as Google and Facebook, and that which relies on Chinese firms such as Baidu and WeChat.
China’s threat to cut off US access to rare-earth minerals points to a potential bifurcation in commodities markets as well.
The trend is clear: As China’s economic and geopolitical power grows, countries within China’s sphere of influence will feel increasing pressure to integrate their economies with Chinese supply chains and multinationals rather than American ones.
At the same time, as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Tyler Cowen points out, the rise of China is a main driver of populist sentiment in the UK and Australia.
This creates political pressure in those countries for further isolation from China.
In the US, Trump has made it clear that he sees the trade war with China as politically advantageous for him, and he’s probably right.
It’s probably also true that this anti-China sentiment will outlast him.
Break in global order
Add up all these factors, and the US-China trade war looks like the beginning of a profound break in the global order. As China and the US form two opposing economic and geopolitical coalitions, the rest of the world will be forced to choose.
Maybe the European Union can form a third unaligned pole, as France and Germany’s membership in the EU (and the UK’s absence from it) provides them with the negotiating power to avoid falling under the Chinese or American sphere of influence.
Of course, in some ways this type of multipolar alignment would be a return to the past. The dual-superpower world that existed for much of the second half of the 20th century was always an exception, and the era of American supremacy that began after the collapse of the Soviet Union was never going to last.
Until recently, however, a new kind of bipolar arrangement seemed possible: a kind of competitive partnership between China and the US, with the EU playing a supporting role.
The events of the last few weeks have left that looking increasingly unlikely. — Bloomberg Opinion
By Karl W. Smith , a former assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina’s school of government.
China now has no choice but to pursue technological independence, and will burn the cash to achieve it.
... A similar process took place when ZTE Corp. was banned from buying
U.S. products after reneging on a deal to settle charges of breaking
trade sanctions. ... The U.S. ended up
Chinese
President Xi Jinping said that "we are on a new Long March now" during
his inspection tour of Jiangxi Province this week and encouraged people
to gain strength from the spirit of the Long March to overcome
difficulties and obstacles, China's state media outlets reported on
Thursday.
