Share This

Showing posts with label Vietnam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vietnam. Show all posts

Sunday 9 March 2014

Tracking the mysterious MH370: 2 impostors on board, plane missing 50 min not 2 hrs after take off...

  
Missing MAS flight: Two passengers using passports stolen in Thailand

PETALING JAYA: The mystery of the missing MH370 deepened when it was reported that there were two impostors on board, both with passports that were stolen in Thailand.

Italian Luigi Maraldi, whose name is on the manifest, was not on the missing MH370 flight. Someone else had used his passport to board the plane.

According to news reports from Italy which quoted its Foreign Ministry, Luigi Maraldi’s passport was stolen last August while he was in Thailand.

Maraldi, 37, is now in Thailand.

According to Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Maraldi returned home after his passport was stolen and had a new one issued.

When officials heard of the missing plane, they went to his parents’ home but they said their son was alive and well in Thailand, and had called to say he was fine.

“I am fine, I was not on the flight,” he told his parents.

Meanwhile, London’s Daily Mirror reported that a second passenger was also using a stolen passport.

Austrian Christan Kozel has been confirmed as safe and well by authorities.

He told Austrian newspaper De Standard that his passport was stolen when he visited Thailand two years ago.

It is still unclear as to who had travelled on MH370 under the two names. - The Star/Asia News Network

Tracking firm: Plane missing about 50min after departure

PETALING JAYA: Sweden-based flight tracking service FlightRadar24 was the first to report that Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 had disappeared from radar about 50 minutes of departure, and not two hours as initially stated.

"Flight #MH370 took off from Kuala Lumpur at 1641 UTC time (12.41am local time) and disappeared from www.flightradar24.com at 1720 UTC time (about 1.21am local time) between Malaysia and Vietnam," said the company’s chief executive officer Fredrik Lindahl in an e-mail response to The Star.

Flight MH370, on a B777-200 aircraft, departed Kuala Lumpur at 12.41am on March 8. It was expected to land in Beijing at 6.30am the same day.

"Also, based on our data, there is no doubt that the last reported position of MH370 is about 150km northeast of Kuala Terengganu.

"We have good radar coverage in the area the flight went missing and the last signal was received from an altitude of 35,000 feet," said Lindahl.

MAS group chief executive officer Ahmad Jauhari Yahya had initially said at a press conference at 11am yesterday that the Subang Air Traffic Control had lost contact with the plane around 2.40am.

However, Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) director-general Datuk Azharuddin Abdul Rahman clarified later in the evening that contact was lost at 1.30am.

Meanwhile, aviation website The Aviation Herald stated that the plane was last regularly seen at 1.22am about halfway between Kuala Lumpur and Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh City.

"The aircraft was spotted over the Gulf of Thailand about 260 nautical miles north northeast of Kuala Lumpur and 120 nautical miles northeast of Kota Baru 50 minutes into the flight.

"This was followed by anomalies in the radar data of the aircraft over the next minute. Although these may be related to the aircraft, it could also be caused by the flight leaving the receiver range," it stated.

The website also reported aviation sources in China as saying that radar data suggested a steep and sudden descent of the flight, during which time the aircraft had changed track from 24 degrees to 333 degrees.

- The Star/Asia News Network

No sign of Malaysia Airline wreckage; questions over stolen passports

Watch this video

Traces of oil may be clue in plane search



STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • NEW: "We have not been able to locate anything," an airline official says
  • U.S. law enforcement sources say both passports were stolen in Thailand
  • One of the two stolen passports is listed in Interpol's database, sources say
  • Vietnamese searchers spot oil slicks in the South China Sea

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (CNN) -- There were few answers Sunday about the fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, a day after contact was lost with the commercial jetliner en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

An aerial search resumed at first light, with aircraft searching an area of the South China Sea for any sign of where the flight may have gone down, Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, the director general of civil aviation in Malaysia, told reporters

"We have not been able to locate anything, see anything," Rahman said. "There's nothing new to report."

The closest things to clues in the search for the missing jetliner are oil slicks in the Gulf of Thailand, about 90 miles south of Vietnam's Tho Chu Island -- the same area where the flight disappeared from radar early Saturday morning. A Vietnamese reconnaissance plane, part of a massive, multinational search effort, spotted the oil slicks that stretch between six and nine miles, the Vietnam government's official news agency reported.

Malaysian authorities have not yet confirmed the Vietnamese report, Rahman said.

The reported oil discovery has only added to a growing list of questions about the fate of the plane carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew members: What happened to the plane, why was no distress signal issued, and who exactly was aboard?

Passenger manifest questioned

Bits and pieces of information have begun to form, but it remains unclear how they fit into the bigger picture, if at all.


Photos: Malaysia airliner loses contact Photos: Malaysia airliner loses contact

Map: Malaysia airliner lost contactMap: Malaysia airliner lost contact

Traces of oil may be clue in search

Quest: I flew with missing first officer

Quest: Odd to lose contact while cruising
 
For instance, after the airline released a manifest, Austria denied that one of its citizens was aboard the flight. The Austrian citizen was safe and sound, and his passport had been stolen two years ago, Austrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Weiss said.

Similarly, Italy's foreign ministry confirmed none of its citizens were on Flight 370, even though an Italian was listed on the manifest.

On Saturday, Italian police visited the home of the parents of Luigi Maraldi, the man whose name appeared on the manifest, to inform them about the missing flight, said a police official in Cesena, in northern Italy.

Maraldi's father, Walter, told police he had just spoken to his son, who was fine and not on the missing flight, said the official, who is not authorized to speak to the media. Maraldi was vacationing in Thailand, his father said.

The police official said Maraldi had reported his passport stolen in Malaysia last August and had obtained a new one. But U.S. law enforcement sources told CNN that both the Austrian and Italian passports were stolen in Thailand.

"No nexus to terrorism yet," a U.S. intelligence official said, "although that's by no means definitive. We're still tracking."

Rahman, Malaysia's top civil aviation official, declined to answer questions Sunday about the stolen passports, and how people using them managed to get past security and on to the plane.

"This is part of the investigation," Rahman said at a news conference.

The U.S. government has been briefed on the stolen passports and reviewed the names of the passengers in question but found nothing at this point to indicate foul play, said a U.S. law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Of the two passports in question, the Italian one had been reported stolen and was in Interpol's database, CNN Law Enforcement Analyst Tom Fuentes said, citing sources at Interpol.

Additionally, no inquiry was made by Malaysia Airlines to determine if any passengers on the flight were traveling on stolen passports, he said. Many airlines do not check the database, he said.

During the news conference in Kuala Lumpur, Rahman declined to say whether the airline or Malaysian authorities had checked the database.

Not ruling anything out

Malaysian authorities reiterated during a news conference that they are not ruling anything out regarding the missing aircraft.

The Boeing 777-200ER departed Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 12:41 a.m. Saturday in good weather, and it was expected to land in Beijing at 6:30 a.m., a 2,300-mile (3,700-kilometer) trip.

Air traffic controllers in Subang, outside Kuala Lumpur, lost contact with the plane about 1:30 a.m., Rahman said. Earlier, the airline said the jetliner lost contact at 2:40 a.m.

The pilots did not indicate to the tower there may be a problem, and no distress signal was issued, the airline said.

It may be days, possibly weeks or months, before authorities can offer any firm answers.

It took five days for authorities to locate the wreckage of Air France Flight 447 when it crashed June 1, 2009, in the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 on board.

It took four searches over the course of nearly two years to locate the bulk of Flight 447's wreckage and the majority of the bodies in a mountain range deep under the ocean.

If Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went down in the Gulf of Thailand, the recovery may be a bit easier because it is a relatively shallow area of the South China Sea, according to marine officials.

China, Vietnam, Singapore and Malaysia were conducting search and rescue operations south of Tho Chu island in the South China Sea, according to the airline and reports from Xinhua, China's official news agency. Ships, helicopters and airplanes are being utilized.

The USS Pinckney, a destroyer conducting training in the South China Sea, is being routed to the southern Vietnamese coast to aid in the search, the U.S. Navy said. The United States is also sending a P-3C Orion surveillance plane from Japan to provide long-range search, radar and communications capabilities, the Navy said.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Coast Guard has ordered on-duty vessels to aid in the search, Xinhua reported, citing government officials. China also sent a diving and salvage team to the area where the airplane is suspected to have gone down, the news agency reported.

Because of the Americans aboard the flight, the FBI has offered to send a team of agents to Malaysia to support the investigation into the disappearance if asked, a U.S. official familiar with the issue told CNN on condition of anonymity. Earlier, an official had said FBI agents were heading to the area.

The FBI is not ruling out terrorism or any other issue as a possible cause in the jetliner's disappearance, the official said.

Officials appeared resigned to accepting the worst outcome.

"I'd just like to say our thoughts and prayers are with the bereaved families," Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said during a news conference.

Grief, especially in China

The plane carried 227 passengers, including five children under 5 years old, and 12 crew members, the airline said. At the time of its disappearance, the Malaysia Airlines plane was carrying about 7.5 hours of fuel, an airline official said.

Among the passengers there were 154 people from China or Taiwan; 38 Malaysians, and three U.S. citizens.

Relatives of the Chinese citizens on board gathered Saturday at a hotel complex in the Lido district of Beijing as a large crowd of reporters gathered outside.

"My son was only 40 years old," one woman wailed as she was led inside. "My son, my son. What am I going to do?"

Family members were kept in a hotel conference room, where media outlets had no access. Most of the family members have so far refused to talk to reporters. The airline said the public can call 603 7884 1234 for further information.

In Malaysia, the families and loved ones of those aboard the flight were gathered at the Everly Hotel in Putrajaya, south of Kuala Lumpur, according to Bernama, the Malaysian national news agency.

Twenty of the passengers aboard the flight work with Freescale Semiconductor, a company based in Austin, Texas. The company said that 12 of the employees are from Malaysia and eight are from China.

The airline's website said the flight was piloted by a veteran.

Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah, a 53-year-old Malaysian, has 18,365 total flying hours and joined Malaysia Airlines in 1981, the website said. The first officer is Fariq Ab Hamid, 27, a Malaysian with a total of 2,763 flying hours. He joined Malaysia Airlines in 2007.

Still an 'urgent need' to find plane

"The lack of communications suggests to me that something most unfortunate has happened," said Mary Schiavo, former inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation, in an interview with CNN International.

"But that, of course, does not mean that there are not many persons that need to be rescued and secured. There's still a very urgent need to find that plane and to render aid," she said.

Malaysia Airlines operates in Southeast Asia, East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and on the route between Europe and Australasia.

It has 15 Boeing 777-200ER planes in its fleet, CNN's Richard Quest reported. The missing airplane was delivered to Malaysia Airlines in 2002.

Part of the company is in the private sector, but the government owns most of it.

Malayan Airways Limited began flying in 1937 as an air service between Penang and Singapore. A decade later, it began flying commercially as the national airline.

In 1963, when Malaysia was formed, the airline was renamed Malaysian Airlines Limited.

Within 20 years, it had grown from a single aircraft operator into a company with 2,400 employees and a fleet operator.

If this aircraft has crashed with a total loss, it would the deadliest aviation incident since November 2001, when an American Airlines Airbus A300 crashed in Belle Harbor, Queens, shortly after takeoff from JFK Airport. Killed were 265 people, including five people on the ground.

- Contributed by Chelsea J. Carter and Jim Clancy, CNN

Related post:

Saturday 8 March 2014

Malaysia plane carrying 239 people missing, crashed off Vietnam? Malaysian minister denies crash report!

Chinese Foreign Miniser Wang Yi said in today´s press conference that he is very worried about...

Reports from China's Xinhua news agency say the plane was lost in airspace controlled by Vietnam.

The aircraft did not enter airspace controlled by China and did not make contact with Chinese controllers, Xinhua said.

A report on a Chinese TV network, citing the microblogging website Weibo, said 160 Chinese nationals were on board the flight.


Distressed family members of those on board the flight have also been gathering at Beijing airport.

Chang Ken Fei, a Malaysian waiting at the airport for friends to arrive, said: "I got here at 7:00am. At first I thought the plane was just delayed as normal, so I came a bit later, I've just been waiting and waiting."

"I asked them what was going on but they just tell us, 'we don't know'."

If the plane is found to have crashed, the loss would mark the second fatal accident involving a Boeing 777 in less than a year, after an unblemished safety record since the jet entered service in 1995.

Last year, an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 crash landed in San Francisco, killing three passengers.

Boeing said it was aware of reports that the Malaysia Airlines plane was missing and was monitoring the situation but had no further comment.

Among previous accidents involving Malaysia Airlines planes, one of the smaller Twin Otter aircraft crashed upon landing in Malaysia's Sabah state on Borneo island last October, killing a co-pilot and a passenger.

And a jet crashed in 1977 in southern Malaysia, killing all 93 passengers and seven crew.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malaysia Airlines has still not been able to confirm what happened to the flight. The airline has confirmed that there were 4 Americans — 3 adults and one infant — aboard the flight, which also carried Canadians and Australians, and a majority of Chinese and Malay passengers.
 
Malaysia Airlines lost contact with a commercial aircraft bound from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, China, the airline reported Saturday morning.

Flight MH370, a Boeing 777-200ER that was carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew members, was scheduled to land at 6:30 a.m., but lost contact with air traffic control at 2:40 a.m. on March 8. Its whereabouts are unknown.

At 7:24 a.m. local time, the airline posted a message to its Facebook page stating it was working with local search and rescue authorities to find the aircraft, and that it would continue to provide updates. It encouraged the public to contact a number provided for information.

Screen Shot 2014-03-07 at 5.34.03 PMA search for the flight on FlightAware.com showed its status as "result unknown" and included a map that depicted its partially completed route.

Malaysia Airlines VP of operations Fuad Sharuji told CNN's Anderson Cooper that it had tried but "failed to establish any contact" with the plane before he detailed concerns about how much fuel it was carrying.

There were "about seven hours of fuel on board this aircraft and we suspect that by 8:30 this aircraft would have run out of fuel," Faruji said. He added, "At the moment we have no idea where this aircraft is right now."

Kuala Lumpur is the hub for Malaysia Airlines, which services over 60 destinations globally with a heavy presence in Asia, according to its website. The airline told the BBC that it would hold a press conference on the situation later in the day.

According to Reuters, Boeing's 777 had a solid safety record after its 1995 introduction up until last summer's Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco, Calif.

We will continue to update this post with more information as it arises.

-  mashable.com

Wednesday 16 October 2013

South China Sea breakthrough helps China, Vietnam build trust, boost cooperation

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (R, front) meets with representatives of youth from both China and Vietnam at Vietnam National University in Hanoi, Vietnam, Oct. 15, 2013. (Xinhua/Liu Jiansheng)

The establishment of a bilateral work group to discuss joint maritime development was a "breakthrough" for China and Vietnam on their way to peacefully handle maritime disputes, analysts say.

During the talks with his Vietnamese counterpart Nguyen Tan Dung, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang urged the two sides to pursue substantive progress in their joint development in waters out of the mouth of the Beibu Bay, a semi-enclosed sea whose delimitation remains under negotiation between China and Vietnam, and accumulate experience for broader maritime cooperation.

Analysts said the establishment of the group sends a positive signal of the bilateral readiness for solving difficult problems through cooperation, and the two countries are taking a step-by-step approach in solving the disputes.

"Joint development in waters out of the mouth of the Beibu Bay is acceptable to both sides. The approach that the two countries are taking is to start with the easiest and then to the difficult," said Zhang Yunling, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The relationship between China and Vietnam has been overshadowed by maritime frictions in the South China Sea, but the two countries have made efforts to maintain frequent high-level exchanges this year. Li's visit followed trips of the Vietnamese president, prime minister and deputy prime minister to China earlier this year.

The South China Sea issue involves several parties and the disputes between China and Vietnam are, in deed, bigger and more complicated, said Wu Shicun, president of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies (NISCSS).

"The agreement reached by China and Vietnam, undoubtedly, send a clear message to other claimants that putting aside bickering on sovereignty and sitting at the table for joint development is a pragmatic choice. The attempts to internationalize the South China Sea issue will result in the deterioration of bilateral ties and worsen the situation," Wu said.

The decision to establish the group was announced just two days after China and Brunei vowed in a statement to encourage closer joint exploration and exploitation of maritime oil and gas resources in the South China Sea.

In a pioneering move, China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Brunei National Petroleum Company Sendirian Berhad have inked a deal on establishing a joint venture on oil field services.

Considering that disputes between Beijing and Hanoi over the South China Sea have, from time to time, upset bilateral ties in recent years, the multiple results Li's visit to Vietnam achieved are clear evidence that the two neighbors are showing a greater political will to rise above their disputes and forge a mutually acceptable path of cooperation, said Qu Xing, president of the China Institute of International Studies.

Li returned to Beijing on Tuesday after attending the East Asia leaders meetings and paying official visits to Brunei, Thailand and Vietnam.

HANOI, Xinhua

Related:

South China Sea Conflict

Sunday 6 October 2013

Vietnamese hero defeated French and US dies aged 102

.
Vo Nguyen Giap, the celebrated general who masterminded the defeat of the French military at Dien Bien Phu and led North Vietnam's forces against the US, has died aged 102 at a military hospital in Hanoi.

Giap, whose victory at Dien Bien Phu triggered France's departure from Indo-China, was a self-taught leader regarded as one of the great military geniuses of the post-second world war era.

He remained as the commander of the North's forces supporting the Viet Cong throughout the subsequent Vietnam war, being credited with the 1968 Tet offensive.

Giap, known as the Red Napoleon, was a national hero whose reputation was second only to that of Ho Chi Minh.

While some, such as the American journalist Stanley Karnow, regarded him as a strategist in the mould of Wellington, others, including the US general William Westmorland, believed his success was down to his ruthlessness.

Indeed, Westmorland complained to Karnow: "Any American commander who took the same vast losses as General Giap would have been sacked overnight."

Giap was born in the village of An Xa on 25 August 1911 and attended the University of Hanoi, gaining degrees in politics and law, before working as a journalist.

He was jailed briefly in 1930 for leading anti-French protests and later earned a law degree from Hanoi University.

He fled French police in 1940 and met Ho Chi Minh in southwestern China before returning to rural northern Vietnam to recruit guerrillas for the Viet Minh, a forerunner to the southern insurgency later known as the Viet Cong.

During his time abroad, his wife was arrested by the French and died in prison. He later remarried and had five children.

In 1944, Ho Chi Minh called on Giap to organize and lead guerrilla forces against Japanese invaders during World War II. After Japan surrendered to Allied forces the following year, the Viet Minh continued their fight for independence from France.

Giap was known for his fiery temper and as a merciless strategist, but also for being a bit of a dandy: Old photos show him reviewing his troops in a white suit and snappy tie, in sharp contrast to Ho Chi Minh, clad in shorts and sandals.

Giap never received any formal military training, joking that he attended the military academy "of the bush."

At Dien Bien Phu, his Viet Minh army surprised elite French forces by surrounding them. Digging miles (kilometers) of trenches, the Vietnamese dragged heavy artillery over steep mountains and slowly closed in during the bloody, 56-day battle that ended with French surrender on May 7, 1954.

"If a nation is determined to stand up, it is very strong," Giap told foreign journalists in 2004 prior to the battle's 50th anniversary. "We are very proud that Vietnam was the first colony that could stand up and gain independence on its own."

It was the final act that led to French withdrawal and the Geneva Accords that partitioned Vietnam into north and south in 1956. It paved the way for war against Saigon and its U.S. sponsors less than a decade later.

The general drew on his Dien Bien Phu experience to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail, a clandestine jungle network that snaked through neighboring — and ostensibly neutral — Laos and Cambodia, to supply his troops fighting on southern battlefields.

Against American forces with their sophisticated weapons and B-52 bombers, Giap's forces again prevailed. But more than a million of his troops perished in what is known in Vietnam as the "American War."

"We had to use the small against the big; backward weapons to defeat modern weapons," Giap said. "At the end, it was the human factor that determined the victory."

It was his command of Viet Minh forces during the eight-week battle of Dien Bien Phu, which raged from March to May in 1954, that made his reputation.

Vietnamese forces, who wore sandals made of car tyres and lugged their artillery piece by piece over mountains, managed to encircle and crush the French troops in a bloody engagement immortalised in Bernard Fall's Hell in a Very Small Place.

Although he was at first a renowned exponent of guerilla tactics, Giap commanded a devastating conventional assault at Dien Bien Phu, in which his forces used Chinese-supplied artillery to prevent effective resupply by air of the base deep in the hills of north-western Vietnam.

During the bitter fighting that would follow, the garrison, comprising a series of outposts in a deep valley, gradually succumbed.

On the brink of being overrun by Giap's forces, the French commander, Christian de Castries, was forbidden to surrender in an infamous order from his superior, General René Cogny in Hanoi, who told him: "You will fight to the end. It is out of the question to run up the white flag after your heroic resistance."

The unlikely victory, which is still studied at military schools, led not only to Vietnam's independence but hastened the collapse of colonialism across Indochina and beyond.

Giap went on to defeat the US-backed South Vietnam government in April 1975, reuniting a country that had been split into communist and non-communist states. He regularly accepted heavy combat losses to achieve his goals.

"No other wars for national liberation were as fierce or caused as many losses as this war," Giap told the Associated Press in 2005 in one of his last-known interviews with foreign media on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the former South Vietnamese capital.

"But we still fought because for Vietnam, nothing is more precious than independence and freedom," he said, repeating a famous quote by Ho Chi Minh.

In later life Giap served as deputy premier and minister of defence.

He is survived by Dang Bich Ha, his wife since 1949, and four children.

Sources: AP & the guardian

Also on HuffPost:

Sunday 14 October 2012

Cost of vehicle ownership in Malaysia


MALAYSIA is perceived to be one of the costlier countries in the region when it comes to vehicle prices. But industry observers believe that this is compensated by the fact that the country’s fuel prices are heavily subsidised, and that it also enjoys the lowest interest rates in South-East Asia.

“One should not compare vehicle cost of ownership in the region purely based on the price of the car alone,” says Malaysian Automotive Association president Datuk Aishah Ahmad.

According to data by the Malaysia Automotive Institute (MAI), the average interest rate in Malaysia for a loan tenure of between 60 months and 108 months is between 2.5% and 3.6% - which is the lowest in Asean.

Interest rates in Vietnam is the highest, which has a flat rate of 16% per annum for loans that range between 12 months and 60 months.

“Given the fact that Malaysia’s interest rates are the lowest in the region, as well as the fact that fuel prices are subsidised, the total cost of vehicle ownership is one of the lowest in Asean,” says MAI chief executive officer Madani Sahari. The cost of interest rates used in MAI’s calculations is over 5 years.

The MAI is the think-tank for the Malaysian automotive industry.

Madani notes also that the price of subsidised RON 95 in Malaysia was one of the lowest in the region at RM1.90 per litre. Comparatively, the cost for the fuel in Thailand is RM3.80 per litre, Indonesia (RM3.35 per litre), Singapore (RM5.10 per litre), Vietnam (RM3.60 per litre) and the Philippines (RM3.20 per litre).

“In terms of road tax, we are also quite competitive in Asean. Malaysia is still cheaper compared with countries such as Thailand and Indonesia and comparative to Vietnam and the Philippines,” he says.

Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua Sdn Bhd managing director Datuk Aminar Rashid Salleh says Malaysians are blessed to have their fuel subsidised.


“We have low fuel prices and interest rates. All of these factors have contributed to Malaysia’s low cost of vehicle ownership.”

Madani points out that over a five-year period, the average road tax and insurance in Malaysia was among the lowest in the region, costing RM1,990 and RM15,310 respectively.

The five-year cost of road tax and insurance in Singapore was the highest at RM13,779 and RM39,806 respectively, compared with Indonesia (RM9,186 and RM22,965), Thailand (RM2,297 and RM33,682) and the Philippines (RM1,531 and RM14,238).

When comparing vehicle prices, especially those of popular international marques such as Toyota, Honda and BMW, Madani points out that prices in Malaysia were still lower compared with countries such as Singapore and Vietnam.

According to data from the MAI, a 1.5-litre Toyota Vios (as at September 2012) costs RM87,313 in Malaysia but costs RM88,456 and RM303,136 in Vietnam and Singapore respectively. The Vios is cheapest in the Philippines at RM60,271.

A brand new 1.5-litre Honda City meanwhile retails for RM88,443 locally and costs RM106,090 and RM295,800 in Vietnam and Singapore respectively and lowest in the Philippines at RM61,472.

The BMW 3 series, a popular premium model that is represented in most Asean countries, costs RM238,800 in Malaysia. It costs RM248,200 and RM541,200 respectively in Vietnam and Singapore. It costs the least in Indonesia, retailing at RM191,900.

However, when taking into account the vehicles’ selling price, down payment and loan repayment (including interest rates), road tax and insurance, as well as the fuel prices of the different countries, the total vehicle cost of ownership for a 1.5-litre Toyota Vios is RM130,382, which is the second lowest in the region after Philippines, where the total vehicle cost of ownership is RM128,933.

Total vehicle cost of ownership for the Toyota Camry (2.5-litre) in Malaysia is also second lowest in the region at RM243,182. The total vehicle cost of ownership for the Toyota Altis (1.8-litre) in Malaysia is however the cheapest in the region at RM163,973.

After the Philippines, Malaysia also boasts the second lowest total vehicle cost of ownership for the Honda City (1.5-litre), Civic (1.8-litre) and Accord (2.4-litre) models in the region. Malaysia also has the lowest total vehicle cost of ownership for the BMW 3 series.

By EUGENE MAHALINGAM eugenicz@thestar.com.my

Sunday 2 September 2012

Pitching for the Asean 10

Asean countries are still developing because there is still much to do, and much to learn about how to do it.


IF Asean is sometimes accused of being a talking shop, it also vividly demonstrates the value and virtues of some talking shops.

Officials’ meetings at various levels are legion, growing in number and scope over half a century until they average a few a day for every day of the year.

Between these are the summits, being more prominent in comprising heads of governments. Besides the content of the proceedings, the frequency of the summits themselves may indicate the state of the South-East Asian region.

When leaders from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand met in Bangkok in 1967 to found Asean, that was somehow not considered a summit. So the “first” summit came only in 1976 in Bali, with the “Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South-East Asia” and the “Declaration of Asean Concord.”

The second summit came the following year in Kuala Lumpur, coinciding with an Asean-Japan dialogue. Although this was only one year after the first, it was a whole decade after Asean’s founding and would be another full decade before the next.

The third summit (Manila, 1987) decided to hold summits every five years. By the seventh (Bandar Seri Begawan) it would be every year, then after skipping 2006 the Philippines hosted the 12th in Cebu amid local protests.

The 14th summit slated for 2008 in Thailand was postponed to early 2009 over domestic disturbances, then put off for another two months in the broken Pattaya gathering. From then on, summits would be biannual affairs.

Between and beyond the summits, whether or not local scandals and protests add to the news value of Asean gatherings, the original five member nations seem to attract more attention if not also more interest. This is anomalous since Asean membership confers equal status on all members regardless of size, age, clout or political system.

The newer members can actually be quite pivotal in their own way, as Vietnam and then Cambodia had been, and as Myanmar may be now. And several of the older members need not be particularly significant to the Asean 10 as a whole, much less beyond.

With such issues in mind, Malaysia’s Foreign Policy Studies Group last week held another roundtable conference in Kuala Lumpur on how relations between Malaysia and the CLM countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar) can contribute to Asean consolidation.

An earlier roundtable comprised delegates from Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam in assessing how their countries’ relations with Malaysia could progress in the same vein. Vietnam, as the largest and most developed of Asean’s newer CLMV members, had also introduced reforms earliest to qualify to join the earlier dialogue with some of the original members.

Other CLMV countries have progressed on other fronts on their own. It is now 20 years since Cambodia, for example, reached agreement with Malaysia on visa-free travel.

Laos is another country that Malaysia has assisted, with the establishment of bilateral relations (in 1966) even before Asean was founded. Since then, relations have flourished, particularly after Malaysia worked to welcome Vientiane into Asean.

Myanmar today is still undergoing a transition, and therefore also very much a focus of world media attention. Its people now have a greater sense of nationhood following a raft of reforms, mindful of the national interest from economic priorities to the prerogative of rejecting foreign military bases on its soil.

A Malaysian delegate said that the US, following news reports last Sunday, was now looking for a suitable site for a new “missile shield” system in the region. The US and China were the two proverbial “elephants in the room”, and the geopolitical rivalry between them very much an issue for all delegates.

No individual, organisation or country at the roundtable, whether officially or unofficially, was left undisturbed by major power rivalry contaminating the Asean region. This was the more so when preparations abroad tended to centre around a military build-up, with the US “pivot to Asia” involving stationing 60% of its military assets in the Asia-Pacific.

According to one recent analysis, at current and anticipated rates China’s economy could surpass the US’ as early as 2016, and US overall decline could become evident by 2020. Ironically, as with its former Soviet adversary before it, the decline would be underscored by excessive military expenditure and a warlike mindset.

Given these scenarios, it is important to be reminded of some pertinent underlying issues. These may be framed by some telling questions that must be asked, for which answers are vitally needed.

First, are the CLM countries necessarily more dependent on a regional superpower-as-benefactor like China economically, compared to Asean’s older and more developed members. Not so, especially when considering that the latter, with larger economies, have more at stake in dealing with a rising China.

Second, is China even likely to consider challenging US dominance in the region? Despite occasionally dire pronouncements by some there is no evidence of that, indeed quite the reverse: beyond assertions of its old maritime claims, Beijing’s relations with all countries in the region have been progressing and progressive.

US military dominance in the Asia-Pacific is often credited with keeping the regional peace, particularly in the high seas. Is this assumption merited if piracy and terrorism are not included in the calculus, since there may not be any other military force out to wreak havoc in the region post-1945?

Fourth, how much value is there still in the assumption that the US military posture is and will remain the status quo entity in the region? The status quo is helping China’s economy grow, with secure shipping and harmonious development, while the US economy is continually taxed by its large and growing military presence.

Fifth, and by extension, how much pulling power is there today in US efforts at soliciting allies? The problem with enlisting in an alliance for other countries is that to be identified as an ally of a major power is also to identify as an ally against another major power.

Dividing the region in Cold War fashion does not help anyone, and never did. To enlist with a (relatively) declining superpower creates further problems of its own for such allies.

Sixth, can China’s reported flexing of its muscles in the South China Sea and the East China Sea in any way be a show of strength? Since it only gives Beijing a negative image just as it needs to look good, without any gain in return, it is instead a point of weakness.

Seventh, can US efforts to contain China ever work? There is no shortage of instances that verify containment, a situation confirmed by official denials.

So, eighth, why try to contain China at all when in the process the US only loses goodwill before losing face? Perhaps old habits die hard, but more likely the military-industrial complex dies harder.

Smaller countries in Asean and elsewhere have much to learn from the major powers, notably the US and China. Sadly, the lessons are just as much what not to do as they are about what to do.

BEHIND THE HEADLINES By BUNN NAGARA sunday@thestar.com.my

Related posts:
 Events in East Asia, stakes and realities
US threat: superpower gun barrels pivot east 
Japan aids armed forces of China's neighbors 
Japan, the deputy sheriff in Asia? 
The US Pacific free trade deal that's anything but free?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday 24 June 2012

China lawmakers slam Vietnam violates South China Sea code of conduct

Correct erroneous maritime law, Vietnam urged

The National People's Congress (NPC), China's top legislature, on Friday urged Vietnam to correct an erroneous maritime law it passed on Thursday.


Hanoi's disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea have given rise to frictions, and analysts said the passed law may internationalize the issue and bring a heavy blow to bilateral relations.

The Foreign Affairs Committee of the NPC expressed its position concerning the recent passing of the Vietnamese Law of the Sea in a letter to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Vietnamese National Assembly.

The Vietnamese National Assembly passed the Vietnamese Law of the Sea to include China's Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands in the South China Sea within Vietnam's sovereignty and jurisdiction.

The NPC expressed its firm opposition to the move and urged the Vietnamese National Assembly "to correct the erroneous practice immediately."

"The move by the Vietnamese National Assembly is a serious violation of China's territorial sovereignty and is illegal and invalid.

It violates the consensus reached by both leaders, as well as the principles of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea," the NPC Foreign Affairs Committee said in the letter.

"The NPC Foreign Affairs Committee hopes the Vietnamese National Assembly to honestly respect China's territorial sovereignty and correct the wrongful practice so as to safeguard the China-Vietnam comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership as well as the friendly relations between China's NPC and the Vietnamese National Assembly," the letter said.

The NPC also reaffirmed in the letter that China has indisputable sovereignty over the Xisha islands, Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters.
- Xinhua/Asia News Network

Related articles/post:

Administrative level status of islands raised

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

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


Thursday 24 May 2012

United we stand, divided we fall in South China Sea?

The continuing standoff between China and the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island) is a reminder that Asean needs to get its act together sooner rather than later.

THE South China Sea, spread over 3.6 million sq km, has long been a hotbed of overlapping bilateral and multilateral territorial claims.

China claims “indisputable sovereignty” over three-fourths of the South China Sea, including the Paracel and Spratly group of islands, the Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal. Parts of the Spratly islands are also claimed by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam.

The Paracels are claimed by China and Vietnam while the Scarborough Shoal involves the Philippines and China.

What makes these claims significant, and complicated, is the real possibility that the South China Sea may contain some of the world’s most significant deposits of oil and gas. Some estimates suggest that the region may contain as much as 20-30 billion tonnes of oil or 12% of global reserves.

Earlier this year, the Philippines invited foreign companies to drill for oil in the Scarborough Shoal area. China immediately condemned the move. The People’s Daily, in an editorial, even went so far as to call for “substantial moves, such as economic sanctions, to counter aggression from the Philippines”.

China has repeatedly stated that it wants to settle these conflicting claims through peaceful negotiations. However, it has not been averse to using force when challenged; it forcibly took the Paracels and seven of the Spratly islands from Vietnam following skirmishes in 1974 and 1988, respectively.

This stands in contrast to the peaceful resolution of island disputes between Malaysia and Singapore, and Malaysia and Indonesia, through the auspices of the International Court of Justice.

Malaysia and Thailand also set a sterling example in 1979 by agreeing to put aside overlapping boundary claims in the Gulf of Thailand and jointly exploiting oil resources there, a win-win situation for both sides. A similar agreement was signed between Malaysia and Vietnam in 1992.

Territorial sovereignty can, of course, be a highly emotive issue. Nations often work themselves into a frenzy and go to great lengths to defend a pile of rock, a shoal or a frozen bit of mountain.

India and Pakistan, for example, have squared off against each other for more than 20 years over a worthless patch of ice in the Himalayas, 5,700m above sea level.

More soldiers have died of harsh weather conditions than actual combat but the madness goes on with no end in sight.

In 1996, Asean ministers, recognising the potential for conflict arising from overlapping claims in the South China Sea, agreed to negotiate a regional framework for managing the issue. It has been a difficult process.

In 2002, Asean and China managed only a joint declaration committing themselves to the peaceful resolution of their territorial disputes. It has not, however, prevented tense situations from developing as we have seen in the Scarborough Shoal.

Understandably, Asean is extremely wary of upsetting China. China has become too big, too powerful, too overwhelming to antagonise.

At the same time, Asean is also deeply divided on the question of how to respond to issues that are strictly bilateral in nature or limited to just a few of its members.

The Philippines, for example, has long pressed for a tougher Asean position in order to strengthen its hand vis-à-vis China, something that other Asean countries have been reluctant to endorse fearing it will only lead to further confrontation.

There is, in fact, a sense within Asean that the Philippines has mismanaged its handling of the issue, a view that is also shared by quite a few Filipino commentators. Now that the United States has signalled its reluctance to be drawn into the dispute, Asean leaders are hoping Manila will reassess its position.

Asean needs to realise, however, that its greatest strength in dealing with China or any one else for that matter, on this or any other issue, is its own unity and solidarity. United it stands, divided it falls.

All issues that affect regional security, whether bilateral or multilateral in nature, need to be managed together for the good of the whole Asean community.

Asean leaders must, therefore, find common purpose to help develop an effective framework to resolve these kinds of disputes.

In the end, the options, short of war, in the South China Sea are limited.

China and the Asean countries can put aside their competing claims and jointly work to exploit the resources of the South China Sea, as Malaysia and Thailand have done, or resort to international arbitration.

The former could well lead to a real zone of peace, cooperation and prosperity and cement the already burgeoning relations between China and the Asean countries. The latter is bound to leave sore losers and a divided region.

For China, a win-win solution with Asean will also undercut efforts by other powers to exploit regional fears of China in an attempt to build new alliances aimed at Beijing.

Whatever it is, the worst thing Asean and China can do is to let the issue fester.

By Dennis Ignatius Diplomatically Speaking

> Datuk Dennis Ignatius is a 36-year veteran of the Malaysian foreign service. He has served in London, Beijing and Washington and was ambassador to Chile and Argentina. He was twice Undersecretary for American Affairs. He retired as High Commis­sioner to Canada in July 2008.

Related posts:
Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world?
Manila provocation blasted; Philippine Newspaper: Huangyan ...
China warns Philippines over Huangyan Island as ...

Tuesday 24 April 2012

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


Excerpt from the above link:


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

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


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


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


Excerpt from the above link:


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


http://conghambannuoc.tripod.com/


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


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


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


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


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


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


US won't take sides in South China Sea dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xinhua and Reuters contributed to this story.

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

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