No single party has the strength to secure a strong majority in GE15, says observers
KUALA LUMPUR: With many political observers predicting that no single party or coalition has the strength to secure a strong majority in the 15th General Election (GE15), the return of a government formed by two or more coalitions and parties is on the cards.
The three main coalitions – Barisan Nasional, Perikatan Nasional and Pakatan Harapan – are each facing a tough battle ahead to wrest control of at least 112 seats in Parliament, the simple majority needed to form a government.
Malaysia’s political landscape has changed tremendously since Barisan’s defeat in GE14 after ruling the country for 60 years.
The subsequent political instability saw three prime ministers being sworn into office over a period of four years or so.
Barisan, however, is confident of a victory in the coming polls based on its achievements in the by-elections in the parliamentary constituencies of Cameron Highlands, Tanjung Piai and Kimanis, and the state seats of Slim and Rantau, as well as recent state polls in Melaka and Johor.
According to political analyst Prof Datuk Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, Barisan’s recent performance is not an indicator that it will win GE15 with a comfortable margin similar to that before GE14.
“No single party (or coalition) will emerge as the dominant winner (in GE15)... This is what many political observers are predicting now.
“Although Barisan won several by-elections and two state elections (after GE14), there was no political stability. So, it’s not impossible for a multi-coalition or multi-party government to be formed once again,” he said.
Nusantara Academy for Strategic Research senior fellow Dr Azmi Hassan also expects the formation of a multi-coalition or multi-party government after GE15, pointing out that the prevailing political situation might see three- to five-cornered fights in many seats.
“Although it is being said that Barisan may win the most seats, the number may not be enough to form a government.
“Post-GE15, I expect Barisan to be the dominant coalition (in the government), together with Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) and Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS).
“This is why (prime minister and Umno vice-president) Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob has put forward the idea of creating two deputy prime minister posts – one each for Sabah and Sarawak... This could possibly be Barisan’s new alignment with GPS and GRS,” the geostrategist commented.
Following GE14 on May 9, 2018, Pakatan – then comprising PKR, DAP, Bersatu and Amanah – had formed the federal government with the support of Warisan after winning a simple majority.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was subsequently appointed the seventh prime minister of Malaysia.
But 22 months later, on Feb 24, 2020, the Pakatan government collapsed after Dr Mahathir resigned as prime minister and Bersatu left the coalition.
On March 1, the nation’s first multi-coalition and multi-party government was formed, comprising Bersatu, PAS, Barisan, Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), and the Sabah-based Parti Solidariti Tanah Airku (Sabah STAR).
Five months later, Perikatan was formed, consisting of Bersatu, PAS and Sabah STAR, with the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) and Gerakan joining the alliance later.
The Perikatan-led administration survived for only 17 months, following which a multi-coalition and multi-party government comprising Barisan, Perikatan, GPS and PBS came into being on Aug 30, 2021.
Besides Barisan, Pakatan and Perikatan, GE15 will also see the participation of a newly-formed unofficial alliance, Gerakan Tanah Air (GTA), which is led by Dr Mahathir’s Pejuang and which is expected to field candidates in 121 constituencies.
On the anti-hopping law that came into effect on Oct 5, Azmi said its effectiveness in bringing about political stability would only be known after GE15.
“With this law in place now, it will not be possible for one or two MPs to bring down the government. In the event of a defection, the whole party will have to exit the government,” he said.
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia senior lecturer in political science Dr Jamaie Hamil agreed, saying that laws prohibiting an MP or individual from doing something that could undermine the stability of a government were not new in this country.
According to him, the Internal Security Act (ISA) was enforced during the Barisan era to prevent people or politicians from saying or doing things that could disrupt public order and harmony.
“It may look different, but it is the same as the anti-hopping law that’s aimed at ensuring a government’s stability,” he said.
The provisions for the anti-hopping law are enshrined in the Constitutional (Amendment) (No. 3) Act 2022, under which any MP who leaves a political party to join another will lose his or her seat.
Jamaie has a few recommendations just in case GE15 leads to the formation of a multi-coalition or multi-party government.
Among them is the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the ruling government and the Opposition, similar to what was carried out during Ismail Sabri’s administration. This would ward off conflicts that could threaten the nation’s stability.
He also suggested that the prime minister’s post be rotated among the parties in the multi-coalition or multi-party government.
He said to ensure the long-term stability of such a government, there must be strong political will and understanding among the partners so that decisions are made and implemented by consensus.
Jamaie also said that having a strong and stable multi-coalition government was crucial, considering the possibility of a global recession next year.
He added that the newly-elected leaders should also revive the racial tolerance the country used to enjoy under the leadership of the first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman.
Azmi hopes the appointments of the new Cabinet ministers will be made in accordance with their expertise and not merely on the basis of fulfilling party quotas. — Bernama
https://youtu.be/dYVLW5DjBjA Huawei CFO has strong arguments in extradition case: Canadian diplomat
https://youtu.be/jB_OVG3c1DI
https://youtu.be/ztu32BnhPj4
https://youtu.be/ln_asabsHLI
FM urges Canada to make right choice
China urged Canada to "make the right choice" on Thursday, after Canada's ambassador to China John McCallum reportedly said the Huawei executive arrested in Vancouver at the request of the US has a strong case to fight extradition.
"Any one with normal judgment can see the nature of the incident, and we hope the Canadian side makes the right choice and not to 'pull someone's chestnuts out of the fire,'" Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said at a daily briefing on Thursday.
Hua's remark comes after McCallum told reporters earlier this week that Huawei's chief finance officer Meng Wanzhou has a "strong case" to fight an extradition request.
"I think she has quite good arguments on her side," said McCallum, CNN reported.
"One, political involvement by comments from US President Donald Trump in her case. Two, there's an extraterritorial aspect to her case; and three, there's the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada did not sign on to these sanctions."
Echoing McCallum, Huang Feng, director of Beijing Normal University's Institute for International Criminal Law, noted that the US extradition request has no merit as it does not follow the basic extradition principle of double criminality.
Double criminality states that a suspect could be extradited only if similar laws one breaks exist in the extraditing country. However, Canada has no such sanctions, said Huang.
Analysts stressed that even if the US files an extradition request at the last minute, it does not mean Meng would be extradited to the US, noting that every side has to weight their choice.
Such a request has to be reviewed and approved by Canada's judicial department and local court, and though Canada's judicial departments are unlikely to refuse the extradition, Huawei's legal teams could exhaust every means of judicial remedy in Canada to stop the extradition.
The US government alleges that Meng helped Huawei dodge US sanctions on Iran and has indicated it will file a formal extradition request by the January 30 deadline, CNN reported Thursday.
Wu Xinbo, director of Fudan University's Center for American Studies, told the Global Times that if Canada does agree to extradite Meng to the US in the worst scenario, bilateral ties will face unprecedented challenges.
The extradition will cause "downgraded diplomatic relations" between China and Canada, Wu said.
It will set a precedent of enterprises facing the harshest legal punishment for alleged misconduct they are charged of in a foreign country, said Wu.
US enterprises may face similar consequences in China, he said.
The current status of China-Canada relations does have a huge impact on bilateral exchanges and cooperation, but China is not responsible for that, Hua said.
The Canadian side has to take China's concerns seriously and correct its mistakes to change the situation, she said.
US extradition mirrors Iran sanctions: just don't have law on their side' on Huawei case
The US request to extradite Huaiwei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou goes against international law and mirrors its unilateral sanctions on Iran, which is opposed by the international community, Chinese Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.
The US extradition request mirrors US sanctions on Iran. However, as everyone knows, Huawei has repeatedly stated its compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the countries in which it operates, said Hua Chunying, spokesperson of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Hua noted that China opposes unilateral US sanctions against Iran outside the UN Security Council framework. The sanctions are not in conformity with international law and have met with international opposition, including US ally Canada,she said.
Hua's comments came after the US Justice Department said on Tuesday it would continue to pursue the extradition of Meng and would meet all deadlines set by the US-Canada Extradition Treaty, Reuters reported, citing a statement released by US Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi.
Huang Feng, director of Beijing Normal University's Institute for International Criminal Law, told the Global Times this accusation is farfetched because she was allegedly accused of bank fraud at HSBC, a UK-based banking giant, not a US one, and Meng's activities were outside the US.
Canada's Department of Justice said an individual can be extradited if the alleged activity in question is recognized as a criminal in both countries.
Huang said that the extradition request cannot be passed by Canada unless the US offers solid evidence to prove that Meng violated the laws of Canada and the US.
The US action goes against international law and is unjustified, said Hua, noting that it is part of the country's political agenda to bully Chinese hi-tech firms and contain China's rightful development.
Huang also noted he found it strange that the Canadian ambassador announced the US request before the US formally send its extradition request. "Normally, none would publish relevant information unless it's formalized. So it seems like Canada is bluffing."
Ren Zhengfei, Meng's father and Huawei founder, said in an interview with foreign media on January 15, "I trust that the legal systems of Canada and the United States are open, just, and fair, and will reach a just conclusion," Ren said, according to a transcript Huawei released to media.
Meng case to further complicate China-Canada-US ties
Editor's Note:
The US has reportedly said to formally seek extradition of Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou. Since Meng was arrested on December 1 in Vancouver, the deadline for the US to file a formal extradition request is 30 January, 60 days after the arrest. What is the implication of Washington's move? How will it influence China-US-Canada relations? Global Times sought the opinion of two experts on the issue.
Li Haidong, professor with the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University
US President Donald Trump has been deeply troubled by the government shutdown and the Russiagate investigation
As the deadline nears, Washington may be too busy coping with the shutdown chaos to consider Meng's case and make the formal extradition request. Ottawa is urging Washington to take the action.
Extradition is a strict cooperative law enforcement process between two jurisdictions. The US' filing a request does not mean that Canada must immediately send Meng to the US. Canada has to conduct a judicial review procedure to weigh the request, during which Meng's appeal will also be taken into account.
At least in the legal sense, if Meng's appeal is credible and convincing enough, there is a good chance that Ottawa would hesitate to transfer her to Washington.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that Meng's case is political in the garb of a legal procedure. If law is the only factor to be considered, I believe Meng will win the lawsuit; but when the political factors come into play, there would be increased uncertainty.
Meng's case is a long-running battle. As long as it is not resolved, it would be tough to iron out China-US-Canada relations.
Washington is unwilling to see any of its allies strengthening relations with Beijing, but China-Canada ties should not be affected by the Meng incident. Canada should abandon its role as a US puppet to sully China's image. The right thing for Ottawa to do is to immediately correct the mistake.
Chen Hongqiao, researcher at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Washington tends to make important decisions at the eleventh hour. It is used to taking a wait-and-see approach toward the two or more sides of the game, and then determine what measures to take.
In Meng's case, the US has its own strategic requirement. It needs to observe the interaction between China and Canada to make up its mind. If China takes a tough stance, the US would act prudently. If Canada requires support, the US will provide it.
Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the US on January 30 and 31 for the next round of US-China trade negotiations. The US may proceed to file a formal extradition request for Meng just days before Liu's visit as a leverage to exert pressure on Beijing to pursue its interests in the trade talks. But the US side will not bring it up during the negotiations with Beijing.
According to Reuters, US President Donald Trump stated he would intervene in the Justice Department case against Meng if it is in US national security interest and US-China trade talks. His words signal that before Meng is extradited, he could apply the president's diplomatic prerogative to intervene. The US has a system of separation of powers and its judiciary branch is independent. If Meng is extradited to the US, it would be difficult for Trump to exercise his influence.
Canada claims to be a country with the rule of law, and will deal with the US request based on laws and will not hand over Meng without careful consideration. In fact, Ottawa has been disappointed with Washington, complaining that the US is competing with China at the expense of Canada. On the surface, Meng's incident is a legal issue, but politics and diplomacy play an important role.
Prepare for protracted game over Meng
The US Department of Justice confirmed on Tuesday that it will "meet all deadlines" to seek extradition of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, signaling an extraordinarily high probability of the US filing a formal extradition request before January 30.
Washington's move will undoubtedly further intensify the dispute between the US and China over Meng's case. China must not bear any illusion and should prepare for more complicated games.
The Chinese government and media should continue to disclose and condemn that Washington and Ottawa have violated the basic legal spirit. Their sophistry must bear diplomatic and public pressure, and not to be left unimpeded in the international arena, as if Huawei did commit serious crimes.
Arresting Meng is obviously part of the US actions to crack down on Huawei. Anyone with a brain can clearly see Washington's intention to stop rising Chinese high-tech companies in the name of the law.
One thing should be made very clear: If Ottawa successfully assists Washington in the extradition of Meng, Beijing will retaliate against both of them without doubt.
The US' official request for extradition does not mean an immediate transfer of Meng. The Canadian court will then have a month to hear the US evidence and weigh the request before making judgment. Meng can also defend herself and appeal. This process may last a few months, or even years.
As a private company, Huawei is incapable of confronting the US and Canada's national system, but it can do its best to prolong the extradition process at most.
There has been a political purpose from the very beginning when news of Meng's case broke. Since Washington and Ottawa have vowed to declare that this is a 100 percent legal procedure, this political persecution must be strictly tested by their legal system.
Ottawa is stuck in the middle of Washington and Beijing, and involved in the whirlpool of geopolitical disputes. Being a US puppet is not easy. Canada may realize that it bears the blame for its ally. Its emphasis on acting by law is only a self-spiritual support in the current predicament.
Canadian public opinion is sensitive to any evidence of political persecution in this case, which can provide a potential favorable factor for Meng's defense and appeal.
Canada is a legal state under normal circumstances, and especially attaches importance to procedures and evidence. Although disguised as legal procedure, Meng's case, a case of injustice, is bound to have loopholes. Huawei has already shown its confidence in the upcoming litigation process.
China-US ties may also undergo certain subtle changes at any time which might dilute US political motives for persecuting Meng. We should never abandon such hope.
Meng's case has set an execrable precedent. Beijing's reaction will shape the world's understanding of China's national strength and will. Beijing must not be furious or cowardly.
We should take corresponding actions step by step in resolute and orderly manner, and show the world that Chinese are with reason and with restraint.
Any countries and forces that persecute Chinese citizens and infringe on China's interests will pay a heavy price. Global Times
Ottawa is now as sensitive as a frightened bird. A few
words by the ambassador should not have posed any impact on court
decisions. Nonetheless, judging from the reactions of many politicians
and journalists in Canada, McCallum's remarks are like a dreadful
monster.
Canadian Ambassador to China John McCallum admitted on
Thursday that he misspoke on the case of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou by
suggesting that she had a strong case to fight extradition to the US.
It's hard to accurately understand the potential of 5G
technology and its significance nowadays. More imagination should be
encouraged. However, referring to 5G competition as an arms race and
attaching so much importance to the dominance of the technology is
typical American thinking.
China's Huawei Technologies launched the world's first core
chip specifically designed for 5G base stations on Thursday in Beijing,
securing its leading position for 5G deployments in spite of political
pressure.
The Point: Is a Chinese-made subway new victim of espionage hysteria?
https://youtu.be/dYVLW5DjBjA Huawei CFO has strong arguments in extradition case: Canadian diplomat https://youtu.be/jB_OVG3c1DI https://youtu.be/ztu32BnhPj4 https://youtu.be/ln_asabsHLI
FM urges Canada to make right choice
China urged Canada to "make the right choice" on Thursday, after Canada's ambassador to China John McCallum reportedly said the Huawei executive arrested in Vancouver at the request of the US has a strong case to fight extradition.
"Any one with normal judgment can see the nature of the incident, and we hope the Canadian side makes the right choice and not to 'pull someone's chestnuts out of the fire,'" Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said at a daily briefing on Thursday.
Hua's remark comes after McCallum told reporters earlier this week that Huawei's chief finance officer Meng Wanzhou has a "strong case" to fight an extradition request.
"I think she has quite good arguments on her side," said McCallum, CNN reported.
"One, political involvement by comments from US President Donald Trump in her case. Two, there's an extraterritorial aspect to her case; and three, there's the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada did not sign on to these sanctions."
Echoing McCallum, Huang Feng, director of Beijing Normal University's Institute for International Criminal Law, noted that the US extradition request has no merit as it does not follow the basic extradition principle of double criminality.
Double criminality states that a suspect could be extradited only if similar laws one breaks exist in the extraditing country. However, Canada has no such sanctions, said Huang.
Analysts stressed that even if the US files an extradition request at the last minute, it does not mean Meng would be extradited to the US, noting that every side has to weight their choice.
Such a request has to be reviewed and approved by Canada's judicial department and local court, and though Canada's judicial departments are unlikely to refuse the extradition, Huawei's legal teams could exhaust every means of judicial remedy in Canada to stop the extradition.
The US government alleges that Meng helped Huawei dodge US sanctions on Iran and has indicated it will file a formal extradition request by the January 30 deadline, CNN reported Thursday.
Wu Xinbo, director of Fudan University's Center for American Studies, told the Global Times that if Canada does agree to extradite Meng to the US in the worst scenario, bilateral ties will face unprecedented challenges.
The extradition will cause "downgraded diplomatic relations" between China and Canada, Wu said.
It will set a precedent of enterprises facing the harshest legal punishment for alleged misconduct they are charged of in a foreign country, said Wu.
US enterprises may face similar consequences in China, he said.
The current status of China-Canada relations does have a huge impact on bilateral exchanges and cooperation, but China is not responsible for that, Hua said.
The Canadian side has to take China's concerns seriously and correct its mistakes to change the situation, she said.
US extradition mirrors Iran sanctions: just don't have law on their side' on Huawei case
The US request to extradite Huaiwei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou goes against international law and mirrors its unilateral sanctions on Iran, which is opposed by the international community, Chinese Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.
The US extradition request mirrors US sanctions on Iran. However, as everyone knows, Huawei has repeatedly stated its compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the countries in which it operates, said Hua Chunying, spokesperson of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Hua noted that China opposes unilateral US sanctions against Iran outside the UN Security Council framework. The sanctions are not in conformity with international law and have met with international opposition, including US ally Canada,she said.
Hua's comments came after the US Justice Department said on Tuesday it would continue to pursue the extradition of Meng and would meet all deadlines set by the US-Canada Extradition Treaty, Reuters reported, citing a statement released by US Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi.
Huang Feng, director of Beijing Normal University's Institute for International Criminal Law, told the Global Times this accusation is farfetched because she was allegedly accused of bank fraud at HSBC, a UK-based banking giant, not a US one, and Meng's activities were outside the US.
Canada's Department of Justice said an individual can be extradited if the alleged activity in question is recognized as a criminal in both countries.
Huang said that the extradition request cannot be passed by Canada unless the US offers solid evidence to prove that Meng violated the laws of Canada and the US.
The US action goes against international law and is unjustified, said Hua, noting that it is part of the country's political agenda to bully Chinese hi-tech firms and contain China's rightful development.
Huang also noted he found it strange that the Canadian ambassador announced the US request before the US formally send its extradition request. "Normally, none would publish relevant information unless it's formalized. So it seems like Canada is bluffing."
Ren Zhengfei, Meng's father and Huawei founder, said in an interview with foreign media on January 15, "I trust that the legal systems of Canada and the United States are open, just, and fair, and will reach a just conclusion," Ren said, according to a transcript Huawei released to media.
Meng case to further complicate China-Canada-US ties
Editor's Note:
The US has reportedly said to formally seek extradition of Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou. Since Meng was arrested on December 1 in Vancouver, the deadline for the US to file a formal extradition request is 30 January, 60 days after the arrest. What is the implication of Washington's move? How will it influence China-US-Canada relations? Global Times sought the opinion of two experts on the issue.
Li Haidong, professor with the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University
US President Donald Trump has been deeply troubled by the government shutdown and the Russiagate investigation
As the deadline nears, Washington may be too busy coping with the shutdown chaos to consider Meng's case and make the formal extradition request. Ottawa is urging Washington to take the action.
Extradition is a strict cooperative law enforcement process between two jurisdictions. The US' filing a request does not mean that Canada must immediately send Meng to the US. Canada has to conduct a judicial review procedure to weigh the request, during which Meng's appeal will also be taken into account.
At least in the legal sense, if Meng's appeal is credible and convincing enough, there is a good chance that Ottawa would hesitate to transfer her to Washington.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that Meng's case is political in the garb of a legal procedure. If law is the only factor to be considered, I believe Meng will win the lawsuit; but when the political factors come into play, there would be increased uncertainty.
Meng's case is a long-running battle. As long as it is not resolved, it would be tough to iron out China-US-Canada relations.
Washington is unwilling to see any of its allies strengthening relations with Beijing, but China-Canada ties should not be affected by the Meng incident. Canada should abandon its role as a US puppet to sully China's image. The right thing for Ottawa to do is to immediately correct the mistake.
Chen Hongqiao, researcher at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Washington tends to make important decisions at the eleventh hour. It is used to taking a wait-and-see approach toward the two or more sides of the game, and then determine what measures to take.
In Meng's case, the US has its own strategic requirement. It needs to observe the interaction between China and Canada to make up its mind. If China takes a tough stance, the US would act prudently. If Canada requires support, the US will provide it.
Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the US on January 30 and 31 for the next round of US-China trade negotiations. The US may proceed to file a formal extradition request for Meng just days before Liu's visit as a leverage to exert pressure on Beijing to pursue its interests in the trade talks. But the US side will not bring it up during the negotiations with Beijing.
According to Reuters, US President Donald Trump stated he would intervene in the Justice Department case against Meng if it is in US national security interest and US-China trade talks. His words signal that before Meng is extradited, he could apply the president's diplomatic prerogative to intervene. The US has a system of separation of powers and its judiciary branch is independent. If Meng is extradited to the US, it would be difficult for Trump to exercise his influence.
Canada claims to be a country with the rule of law, and will deal with the US request based on laws and will not hand over Meng without careful consideration. In fact, Ottawa has been disappointed with Washington, complaining that the US is competing with China at the expense of Canada. On the surface, Meng's incident is a legal issue, but politics and diplomacy play an important role.
Prepare for protracted game over Meng
The US Department of Justice confirmed on Tuesday that it will "meet all deadlines" to seek extradition of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, signaling an extraordinarily high probability of the US filing a formal extradition request before January 30.
Washington's move will undoubtedly further intensify the dispute between the US and China over Meng's case. China must not bear any illusion and should prepare for more complicated games.
The Chinese government and media should continue to disclose and condemn that Washington and Ottawa have violated the basic legal spirit. Their sophistry must bear diplomatic and public pressure, and not to be left unimpeded in the international arena, as if Huawei did commit serious crimes.
Arresting Meng is obviously part of the US actions to crack down on Huawei. Anyone with a brain can clearly see Washington's intention to stop rising Chinese high-tech companies in the name of the law.
One thing should be made very clear: If Ottawa successfully assists Washington in the extradition of Meng, Beijing will retaliate against both of them without doubt.
The US' official request for extradition does not mean an immediate transfer of Meng. The Canadian court will then have a month to hear the US evidence and weigh the request before making judgment. Meng can also defend herself and appeal. This process may last a few months, or even years.
As a private company, Huawei is incapable of confronting the US and Canada's national system, but it can do its best to prolong the extradition process at most.
There has been a political purpose from the very beginning when news of Meng's case broke. Since Washington and Ottawa have vowed to declare that this is a 100 percent legal procedure, this political persecution must be strictly tested by their legal system.
Ottawa is stuck in the middle of Washington and Beijing, and involved in the whirlpool of geopolitical disputes. Being a US puppet is not easy. Canada may realize that it bears the blame for its ally. Its emphasis on acting by law is only a self-spiritual support in the current predicament.
Canadian public opinion is sensitive to any evidence of political persecution in this case, which can provide a potential favorable factor for Meng's defense and appeal.
Canada is a legal state under normal circumstances, and especially attaches importance to procedures and evidence. Although disguised as legal procedure, Meng's case, a case of injustice, is bound to have loopholes. Huawei has already shown its confidence in the upcoming litigation process.
China-US ties may also undergo certain subtle changes at any time which might dilute US political motives for persecuting Meng. We should never abandon such hope.
Meng's case has set an execrable precedent. Beijing's reaction will shape the world's understanding of China's national strength and will. Beijing must not be furious or cowardly.
We should take corresponding actions step by step in resolute and orderly manner, and show the world that Chinese are with reason and with restraint.
Any countries and forces that persecute Chinese citizens and infringe on China's interests will pay a heavy price. Global Times
Ottawa is now as sensitive as a frightened bird. A few words by the ambassador should not have posed any impact on court decisions. Nonetheless, judging from the reactions of many politicians and journalists in Canada, McCallum's remarks are like a dreadful monster.
Canadian Ambassador to China John McCallum admitted on Thursday that he misspoke on the case of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou by suggesting that she had a strong case to fight extradition to the US.
It's hard to accurately understand the potential of 5G technology and its significance nowadays. More imagination should be encouraged. However, referring to 5G competition as an arms race and attaching so much importance to the dominance of the technology is typical American thinking.
China's Huawei Technologies launched the world's first core chip specifically designed for 5G base stations on Thursday in Beijing, securing its leading position for 5G deployments in spite of political pressure.
The Point: Is a Chinese-made subway new victim of espionage hysteria?
American economist Jeffrey D. Sachs says Canada is doing the Trump
administration's bidding in its handling of the Huawei case. To read
more: https://www.cbc.ca/1.4947966
Nobody is supposed to win any war, and the US is anxiously proving that true in skirmishes with China over IT, trade and ‘national security’.
CHINA will not have Ivanka Trump arrested if she were to transit through Hong Kong airport, even now.
Beijing does not have the intent or capacity for that – nor the recklessness required for it, particularly in the throes of a trade war.
But US authorities had Sabrina Meng Wanzhou arrested while transiting through Vancouver airport. Ivanka and Sabrina are prominent businesswomen, but there are also differences between them. Ivanka is the daughter of President Donald Trump. In China and elsewhere, Sabrina is the daughter of modern China and its historic rise.
Critics of Sabrina’s arrest call it a kidnapping. The charges against her are unclear, the intent lacks transparency, and the action itself is unprecedented even for US double standards and a maverick president.
British politician George Galloway condemned Sabrina’s arrest as piracy, a death wish and an act of war. Prof Jeffrey Sachs calls it almost an act of war on China’s business world exposing Washington’s “supreme hypocrisy.” He finds the official pretext lacking credibility. Sachs says that in the past nine years alone, the US penalised 25 other companies from almost as many countries for violating unilateral US sanctions on doing business in third, fourth or fifth countries.
Yet in all these cases the US held the company responsible rather than an individual officer of the company. The case against Huawei had taken an unprecedented and disturbing character from the start.
Jack Ma says the trade war itself is only part of the complicated and now troubling relationship between the US and China. It is so messy that he sees any resolution only in another 20 years.
At one level, today’s US phobia about doing business with China relates to what Washington calls security concerns. Huawei founder and Sabrina’s father Ren Zhengfei was reportedly an elected official of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1982.
What would that mean for Ma of Alibaba, confirmed only two weeks ago as a current card-carrying member of the CPC? Nobody outside Washington seems too bothered.
Business, especially international trade, is supposed to be above petty political differences in a very diverse world. But apparently, pettiness matters in a trade war scenario veering towards a cold war. The trade war mindset and the persecution of Huawei are situated within global superpower and geopolitical rivalry between the world’s two biggest economies.
China is still a developing country despite its many achievements, and is determined to press ahead with more growth to develop its poorer regions. Huawei is in the forefront of this national resurgence.
The US remains the world’s technology leader and sole superpower – and intends to stay that way. Since a hyper-competitive international environment does not always favour it, it has resolved to block any challenge while complaining about trade with China.
Owing to China’s population size, significant GDP growth per capita would mean development on a massive scale. And because of reliance on international markets and global supply chains, connectivity makes infrastructure and IT vital.
The current US position on China consists of the phobias and manias of senior administration officials around Trump.
Among the most prominent is economics hawk Prof Peter Navarro, head of the White House National Trade Council. The author of Death By China was conspicuously left out of Trump’s cordial visit to China last year.
Since then, Navarro has moved closer to the Oval Office. So have other hawks circling China.
John Bolton is a Bush-era neo-conservative savouring entry into Trump’s inner circle. That did not happen in the first year, but now he is National Security Adviser. Bolton is notorious as instigator of the Iraq invasion. Now he has focused his foreign aggression on a trade war, indicating he had more to do with Sabrina’s arrest than Trump himself.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is another hawk eager to target Beijing. He regards China as a “trade threat” and has grown personally close to Trump.
The Economist called US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross a protectionist, and he has submitted to the hawkish trend against China. His shares in some China companies are no longer an issue, especially after he has turned his China experience to serve US nationalist interests.
Yet for all their devices, the attack on China by targeting Huawei will not dampen – much less stop – China’s rise. It will teach China to be more vigilant about trade partners, steel it for future pitfalls, and redouble its efforts to grow stronger.
Already there are signs of Sabrina’s arrest being counter-productive, with other forms of blowback against US interests virtually assured.
First, Beijing’s support for Chinese firms like Huawei operating internationally will grow. Even greater state-industry collaboration in China’s national interests, particularly when abroad, can be expected.
Second, China’s corporate sector will offer even greater support for the Government and the CPC in return. As this happens at multiple levels, China’s international competitiveness can only heighten.
Third, public support in China for Chinese companies has also grown, fuelling the rise of Chinese nationalism. Even before Sabrina’s arrest, a nationwide survey found majorities in 300 Chinese cities would boycott US companies.
Fourth, public support for the Chinese state and the CPC continues to accumulate. Whenever the national interest is threatened, all sectors close ranks against the common foe.
Fifth, the action against Huawei has provoked China and triggered its people’s national pride. The extent to which this will multiply is still uncertain, but a clear sense of it is evident in social media.
Sixth, international support for China and its campaign for free trade are set to grow. This involves more than just companies fearful of similar actions for violating US sanctions, since the US has alienated itself from even its allies.
Seventh, the Chinese diaspora in Canada has come out in support of Sabrina and other unfortunate Chinese nationals caught in such a situation. It has become more than just a national or criminal matter.
Eighth, Chinese Americans may also feel the racist pinch of US policy and act similarly. Will they then become suspects to their own Government?
Malaysian entrepreneur and Harvard MBA Tan Hock Eng’s Singapore-based Broadcom was supposed to take over California-based Quallcom in the biggest IT deal in the world. But in March this year the US scrapped the deal in the name of “national security interests.” To many ethnic Chinese that was a racist move.
Ninth, while some countries may sympathise with China over Huawei, others may just be put off by the US action and attitude. The result would be a net loss for US standing and prestige.
To provoke a rising China and get away with it requires consistently deft handling and masterful strategies. Both are lacking in Washington.
Trump has not been focused enough to even make senior administration appointments after two years. Melania Trump has also been pressuring her husband to dismiss the Deputy National Security Adviser.
The departure of senior staff has already been peaking on its own, many for personal reasons. Then Robert Mueller’s continuing investigations and indictments will add further to the dismissals.
All this is what comes of a “trade war” that is about more than just trade, involving more than any conventional notion of war.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said two Canadian
citizens being kept in custody by China are unlawfully detained and they
should be returned. Pompeo made the accusation on Friday during a joint
press conference after the US-Canada 2+2 ministerial meeting
American economist Jeffrey D. Sachs says Canada is doing the Trump administration's bidding in its handling of the Huawei case. To read more: https://www.cbc.ca/1.4947966
Nobody is supposed to win any war, and the US is anxiously proving that true in skirmishes with China over IT, trade and ‘national security’.
CHINA will not have Ivanka Trump arrested if she were to transit through Hong Kong airport, even now.
Beijing does not have the intent or capacity for that – nor the recklessness required for it, particularly in the throes of a trade war.
But US authorities had Sabrina Meng Wanzhou arrested while transiting through Vancouver airport. Ivanka and Sabrina are prominent businesswomen, but there are also differences between them. Ivanka is the daughter of President Donald Trump. In China and elsewhere, Sabrina is the daughter of modern China and its historic rise.
Critics of Sabrina’s arrest call it a kidnapping. The charges against her are unclear, the intent lacks transparency, and the action itself is unprecedented even for US double standards and a maverick president.
British politician George Galloway condemned Sabrina’s arrest as piracy, a death wish and an act of war. Prof Jeffrey Sachs calls it almost an act of war on China’s business world exposing Washington’s “supreme hypocrisy.” He finds the official pretext lacking credibility. Sachs says that in the past nine years alone, the US penalised 25 other companies from almost as many countries for violating unilateral US sanctions on doing business in third, fourth or fifth countries.
Yet in all these cases the US held the company responsible rather than an individual officer of the company. The case against Huawei had taken an unprecedented and disturbing character from the start.
Jack Ma says the trade war itself is only part of the complicated and now troubling relationship between the US and China. It is so messy that he sees any resolution only in another 20 years.
At one level, today’s US phobia about doing business with China relates to what Washington calls security concerns. Huawei founder and Sabrina’s father Ren Zhengfei was reportedly an elected official of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1982.
What would that mean for Ma of Alibaba, confirmed only two weeks ago as a current card-carrying member of the CPC? Nobody outside Washington seems too bothered.
Business, especially international trade, is supposed to be above petty political differences in a very diverse world. But apparently, pettiness matters in a trade war scenario veering towards a cold war. The trade war mindset and the persecution of Huawei are situated within global superpower and geopolitical rivalry between the world’s two biggest economies.
China is still a developing country despite its many achievements, and is determined to press ahead with more growth to develop its poorer regions. Huawei is in the forefront of this national resurgence.
The US remains the world’s technology leader and sole superpower – and intends to stay that way. Since a hyper-competitive international environment does not always favour it, it has resolved to block any challenge while complaining about trade with China.
Owing to China’s population size, significant GDP growth per capita would mean development on a massive scale. And because of reliance on international markets and global supply chains, connectivity makes infrastructure and IT vital.
The current US position on China consists of the phobias and manias of senior administration officials around Trump.
Among the most prominent is economics hawk Prof Peter Navarro, head of the White House National Trade Council. The author of Death By China was conspicuously left out of Trump’s cordial visit to China last year.
Since then, Navarro has moved closer to the Oval Office. So have other hawks circling China.
John Bolton is a Bush-era neo-conservative savouring entry into Trump’s inner circle. That did not happen in the first year, but now he is National Security Adviser. Bolton is notorious as instigator of the Iraq invasion. Now he has focused his foreign aggression on a trade war, indicating he had more to do with Sabrina’s arrest than Trump himself.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is another hawk eager to target Beijing. He regards China as a “trade threat” and has grown personally close to Trump.
The Economist called US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross a protectionist, and he has submitted to the hawkish trend against China. His shares in some China companies are no longer an issue, especially after he has turned his China experience to serve US nationalist interests.
Yet for all their devices, the attack on China by targeting Huawei will not dampen – much less stop – China’s rise. It will teach China to be more vigilant about trade partners, steel it for future pitfalls, and redouble its efforts to grow stronger.
Already there are signs of Sabrina’s arrest being counter-productive, with other forms of blowback against US interests virtually assured.
First, Beijing’s support for Chinese firms like Huawei operating internationally will grow. Even greater state-industry collaboration in China’s national interests, particularly when abroad, can be expected.
Second, China’s corporate sector will offer even greater support for the Government and the CPC in return. As this happens at multiple levels, China’s international competitiveness can only heighten.
Third, public support in China for Chinese companies has also grown, fuelling the rise of Chinese nationalism. Even before Sabrina’s arrest, a nationwide survey found majorities in 300 Chinese cities would boycott US companies.
Fourth, public support for the Chinese state and the CPC continues to accumulate. Whenever the national interest is threatened, all sectors close ranks against the common foe.
Fifth, the action against Huawei has provoked China and triggered its people’s national pride. The extent to which this will multiply is still uncertain, but a clear sense of it is evident in social media.
Sixth, international support for China and its campaign for free trade are set to grow. This involves more than just companies fearful of similar actions for violating US sanctions, since the US has alienated itself from even its allies.
Seventh, the Chinese diaspora in Canada has come out in support of Sabrina and other unfortunate Chinese nationals caught in such a situation. It has become more than just a national or criminal matter.
Eighth, Chinese Americans may also feel the racist pinch of US policy and act similarly. Will they then become suspects to their own Government?
Malaysian entrepreneur and Harvard MBA Tan Hock Eng’s Singapore-based Broadcom was supposed to take over California-based Quallcom in the biggest IT deal in the world. But in March this year the US scrapped the deal in the name of “national security interests.” To many ethnic Chinese that was a racist move.
Ninth, while some countries may sympathise with China over Huawei, others may just be put off by the US action and attitude. The result would be a net loss for US standing and prestige.
To provoke a rising China and get away with it requires consistently deft handling and masterful strategies. Both are lacking in Washington.
Trump has not been focused enough to even make senior administration appointments after two years. Melania Trump has also been pressuring her husband to dismiss the Deputy National Security Adviser.
The departure of senior staff has already been peaking on its own, many for personal reasons. Then Robert Mueller’s continuing investigations and indictments will add further to the dismissals.
All this is what comes of a “trade war” that is about more than just trade, involving more than any conventional notion of war.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said two Canadian citizens being kept in custody by China are unlawfully detained and they should be returned. Pompeo made the accusation on Friday during a joint press conference after the US-Canada 2+2 ministerial meeting
