Trade war looms over EU tax

Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR

This week, 26 countries will meet to organise retaliation against the EU over its move to tax airlines for their emissions. This may be the first salvo in dangerous trade wars fought over climate change. 

A TRADE war is looming over the European Union’s move to impose charges on airlines on the basis of the greenhouse gases they emit during the planes’ entire flights into and out of European airports.

Many countries whose airlines are affected – including China, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil and the United States – consider this to be unfair or illegal or both.

Since their protests have not yielded results, officials of 26 countries are meeting in Moscow this week to discuss retaliatory action against the EU.

The EU’s move, which took effect on Jan 1, and the tit-for-tat actions by the offended countries, is the first full-blown international battle over whether countries can or should take unilateral trade measures on the ground of addressing climate change.



Developing countries in particular have been concerned over increasing signs that the developed countries are preparing to take protectionist measures to tax or block the entry of their goods and services on the ground that greenhouse gases above an acceptable level are emitted in producing the goods or undertaking the service.

Besides the airlines case, several other measures are being planned by the EU or by the United States that will affect the cost of developing countries’ exports.

In fact, trade measures linked to climate change may become the main new sources of protectionism.

The EU’s aviation emissions tax is thus an important test case, and this could explain the furious and coordinated response by the developing countries, which form the majority of the protesting 26 nations meeting in Moscow.

The countries are particularly angry that the EU is imposing a charge or tax on emissions from the entire flight of an airline, and not just on the portion of the flights that are in European airspace.

The EU action takes effect by including the aviation sector (and airlines of all countries) in the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

Beyond a certain level of free allowances, the airlines have to buy emission permits depending on the quantity emitted during the flights.

As the free allowances are reduced in future years, the cost to be paid will also jump, thus increasingly raising the price of passenger tickets and the cost of transporting goods, and affecting the profitability or viability of the airlines.

The China Air Transport Association has estimated that Chinese airlines would have to pay 800 million yuan (RM387mil) for 2012, the first year of the EU scheme, and that the cost will treble by 2020.
The total cost to all airlines in 2012 is estimated at 505mil (RM2bil), at the carbon price of 5.84 (RM23.30) per tonne last week, according to Reuter Thomsom Carbon Point.

Last September, when the carbon price was 12 (RM48) per tonne, Carbon Point had estimated the cost to be 1.1bil (RM4.4bil) in 2012, rising to 10.4bil (RM41.6bil) in 2020.

While this may generate a lot of resources for Europe, airlines in developing countries will in turn have to pay a lot.

There are many reasons why the concerns of the affected countries are justified, as shown by Indian trade law expert R.V. Anuradha, in her paper on Unilateral Measures and Climate Change.

Since each country has sovereignty over the airspace above its territory (reaffirmed by the Chicago Convention), the EU tax based on flight portions that are not on European airspace infringes the principle of sovereignty.

The UN Climate Convention’s Kyoto Protocol states that Annex I parties (developed countries) shall pursue actions on emissions arising from aviation through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

Consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, only Annex I countries are mandated to have legally binding targets. This UNFCCC principle is violated by the EU requirement affecting airlines from both developed and developing countries.

ICAO members have been discussing, but have yet to reach agreement on, actions to curb aviation emissions. Last October, 25 countries issued a paper in ICAO protesting against the EU measure.

While the United States has challenged the EU action in a European court, China has ordered its airlines not to comply with the EU scheme unless the government gives them permission.

In addition, retaliation measures such as imposing levies on European airlines and reviewing the access and landing rights agreements with European countries are being considered by the 26 countries.

What happens in this aviation case is significant because there are many other unilateral measures linked to climate change being lined up by developed countries.

These include the EU plan to impose charges on emissions from maritime bunker fuel, a US Congress bill that requires charges on energy-intensive imports from developing countries that do not have similar levels of emissions controls as the US, and several schemes involving labels and standards linked to emissions.

If these unilateral measures are implemented, then developing countries will really feel they are being victimised for a problem – climate change – that historically has been largely caused by the developed countries.

Moreover, this will lead to a growing crisis of both the climate change regime and the multilateral trade regime.

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

Vice President Xi Jinping 

Xi Jinping: a 'princeling' with a big personality

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

By Tania Branigan in Beijing guardian.co.uk


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Loneliness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pocket profile

Born June 1953

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

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

Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Before the debate, moderator Tan Ah Chai (CEO of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall), Dr Chua (CSL) and Lim (LGE) went up the stage to an enthusiastic round of applause. Both speakers drew lots to determine the first speaker. Dr Chua was to go first. The debate started with the Moderator's opening remarks and introduction of the two speakers).

 
CSL: Dear Speaker, distinguished Chief Minister of Penang, and members of the floor, good afternoon. In a democratic society, a two party system is a good idea if there are adequate check and balances in place. Unfortunately, after March 3 (in 2008), the opposition has been practising the politics of hate as it relentlessly attacked the government to gain power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A good verbal fight

On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their styles are different and both have their strong points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verbal combat with their own agenda

Analysis By Joceline Tan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Related posts:

Malaysian Two Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” A question of one or two sarongs!
Malaysian Chinese Forum kicks off with a bang; Chua-Lim showdown!
Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started ahead of tomorrow Chua-Lim debate!

Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum; Chua-Lim Debate on 18/2/2012

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

Soi Lek fires salvos at Guan Eng ahead of debate



 Chua: People the winner in the debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernama

11:42AM Feb 18, 2012

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

Hall erupts as MCA, DAP titans face off

4.55PM Feb 18, 2012

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

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

Tensions runs high in the packed ballroom at the Berjaya Hotel, Kuala Lumpur with a 600-strong crowd.

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

LIVE REPORTS

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

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

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

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

5.05pm: After March 8, 2008. DAP has been practising the politics of hatred, says Chua.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.12pm: It's now Lim Guan Eng's turn.

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

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

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

By ISABELLE LAI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malaysian Two Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” A question of one or two sarongs!

Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard

Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum; Chua-Lim Debate, all hype but no climax

Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started ahead of tomorrow Chua-Lim debate! 

Unconventional Thinking: Small is Beautiful!

Cover via Amazon

Lessons from unconventional thinking

THINK ASIAN By ANDREW SHENG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Related articles

• Small is beautiful ... but Schumacher's economics of scale runs deeper | Andrew Simms (guardian.co.uk)
• The Top Ten Management Primer on Buddhism and Its Economic Implications: All That You Need to Know About &Ldquo;gross National Happiness" (socyberty.com)
• The Big Ideas podcast: EF Schumacher's 'small is beautiful' (guardian.co.uk)
• Economics is lost - it must rediscover life's values | Victoria Chick (guardian.co.uk)
• An Indexing Matter - Part 2 (astoried.wordpress.com)