Sulu history and the Chinese

Did you know that the Sulu people could have been Chinese nationals 250 years ago?

Sulu political relations and cooperation with China dated back to the Yuan dynasty (1278-1368). The Sulu missions convinced the Chinese to view Sulu as an equal of Malacca.

Since only foreign countries tributary to the Chinese court were allowed to enter Chinese ports, many countries or principalities in Malaysia sent tribute. Among these was Sulu. Sulu appears in Chinese sources as early as the Yuan dynasty (1278-1368), and a lengthy account of a tributary mission in 1417 from Sulu to the celestial court is recorded in the Ming Annals. Book 325 of the "History of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1643) of China," as abstracted by Groeneveldt, speaks of the Kings (Sultans) of Sulu as attacking Puni (Borneo) in 1368.

Trade with Sulu rule, European powers and the Japanese brought about the massive amounts of silver. Beginning in 1405, Emperor Yong Lo entrusted his favored eunuch Chinese Muslim named Zheng He as the admiral for a gigantic new fleet of ships designated for international tributary missions.

China’s First National Historical Archive, located in the Forbidden City of Beijing, preserves a very significant document presented by the Sultan of Sulu to the Qing emperor in the 18th century.  Dated August 1743, it is Sultan Mohammed Amirudin’s appeal to Emperor Qian Long to include the territory and inhabitants of Sulu as part of China. The document was translated into the Chinese classic language.

Qing Shi Lu, the historical annals of the Qing Dynasty, recorded the event in 1754.  It said that Qian Long denied the sultan’s request, although he did it diplomatically.

Had the emperor granted the request, then the history of Sulu would have been rewritten. (Najeeb Saleeby records in A History of Sulu "[Sultan Amirudin’s], that "Amirudin’s name is foremost in the memory of the Sulus partly because of his able administration and partly [because] he is the grandfather of all the present principal datus of Sulus." Sulu occupies a unique role in Philippine history. The island is the primary spot where Islam began to propagate. When the Spanish conquistadors colonized the Philippine Islands in 1565, they failed to take over Sulu until 1876.

Sulu also had unique relations with China. It had a rich tributary relationship with China since the early 1400s. Most of us are familiar with the story of Sultan Paduka Batara, who died in 1417 in Dezhou, Shandong province, on his way home to Sulu. This was the sultan’s first tribute mission. His heirs were left in China and are now well into their 21st generation.

At present, the special royal tomb of the sultan, which has two gates, is a huge compound with a mosque and impressive stone statues of horses, lions, grooms, rams, generals, and tortoise. 

The Chinese government has proclaimed the tomb to be under the state protection in January 1988 for its valuable and symbolic recognition of friendship between the Philippines and China.   “The Chinese local and national governments have alloted Sultan Batara’s Shrine a total of  one billion Chinese yuan or equivalent to seven billion pesos for the development, rehabilitation, renovation and construction of new buildings of the Muslim villages of the descendants of  Sultan Batara. The project is on-going and expected to finish in two or three 3 years, Tawasil said after the trip.

What we are unfamiliar with are the two "mosts" that Sulu boasts. First, it has the longest tributary relationship with China. Second, it sent the most numerous missions to China.   In all, 16 tribute missions journeyed to China, covering two dynasties and spanning 346 years—from 1417 in the Ming Dynasty to 1763 in the Qing Dynasty.

Other islands had sent tribute missions much earlier, such as Butuan in 1003, but these were few and lasted only a short time. The Butuan missions ended in 1011. More often than not, tribute missions to China were discontinued when the places were colonized by the Spaniards. That Sulu was able to continue its relations with China apparently has something to do with its independence from the Spaniards.  It had been acting as a sovereign state.

From this detail, we can surmise that China had no territorial ambitions toward the Philippine Islands.  Imagine, the Sultan of Sulu had voluntarily offered his territory as well as its people to China, and yet China refused the offer. Compared with the Spaniards and Americans who waged war from tens of thousands of miles away in order to occupy and conquer the Philippines, China was such a good neighbor.

Unfortunately, this historical fact is not well known among Filipinos, even in academic and historical circles.  The close relationship between Sulu and China can also be gleaned from the 420 documents compiled in Volume 2 of The Philippines: A Collection of Archives on the Relations Between China and Southeast Asian Countries in the Qing Dynasty. Of these, 73 documents contain materials about Sulu.  

Descendants of Chinese migrants are still in Sulu citing the current governor of Sulu Abdusakur M. Tan, who has a Chinese bloodline.

In barter trading, it is between Tausugs, Chinese, and Malaysians.

“There are only two types of foreigners who went to Sulu who did not wage war against the Moros – it is the Chinese and the Arabs,” Loong said, adding that “the Chinese entered Sulu through business ventures.” (Aileen A. Alam)

Souces and references:  BO GON JUAN waltokon.org; Neldy JoloTubagbohol.com, Aileen Alam http://zabida.com.ph/news/artist-tawasil-visits-sulu-sultans-tomb-in-china.html#.UUFTyVfgLHe

Related posts:
The former Sulu Sultanate, a foreign problem in history that became Sabah's   

Sabah's invaders from the Philippines only flog a dead horse!

The Sultan of Sulu reclaims eastern Sabah, MNLF among invaders 
Stop paying quit rent to Sultan of Sulu, it’s time to close the chapter   
Filipinos’ Sulu militant group in Sabah must leave Malaysia today

Political parties banking on votes from the civil servants, the sacrosanct!

The civil service is sacrosanct, politically speaking. If you are a politician, you better think twice before speaking up against it.

ALTHOUGH more non-Malays are beginning to join the civil service, the fact that Malays make up the overwhelming majority of the 1.4 million-strong public sector remains.(The highest ratio of civil servants in the world)

It is said that nearly every Malay family has someone either in the civil service or the uniformed services.

Thus, the civil service is home to a sizeable percentage of voters. Therefore, their welfare and livelihood is a key priority of the Barisan Nasional Government which likes to project itself as its protector and benefactor.

On the other hand, the Chinese and Indians predominate in the private sector as small businessmen, professionals and wage earners.

They are largely cut off from the civil service. They have little clue how the civil servants, as a unified special interest group, think and respond in a crisis.

This is the reason why some Chinese and Indian politicians and even some thoughtless Malays make insensitive remarks about the civil service and pay a price for their faux pas.

The more seasoned politicians in Umno and other Barisan component parties managed to avoid making insensitive remarks, preferring to work with the civil service rather than against them.

When civil servants die in the line of duty, Barisan gets all worked up. It immediately moves in to comfort and reassure them as it is mindful of the civil services' vote bank.

When security personnel were killed by Sulu insurgents, the Government's game plan changed as well.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak ordered an all-out assault by a combined force of army and police personnel.

Resources were rapidly mobilised, villagers told to move out and security forces encircled the red zone and the shooting war started in earnest.

When Najib announced the decision to attack on March 5 at a gathering of religious leaders at Putra Stadium, he was given a standing ovation.

The civil servants had rejoiced that the initial decision to negotiate was over and that the army and police were on attack mode.

The Opposition, on the other hand, had fallen flat. They had failed to connect with the powerful emotional impact the crisis had on civil servants and the Malay voters.

In fact, they committed a faux pas of the worst kind imaginable when PKR vice-president Tian Chua remarked that the Lahad Datu crisis was a sandiwara by Umno and Barisan Nasional.

His remarks, published in Keadilan Daily on March 1, had riled up the Malay groups, including former servicemen, who vented their anger and demanded an apology and retraction.

Not a day passes by without someone burning or stomping on pictures of Tian Chua and lodging a police report and urging stern action.

At one anti-Tian Chua session, even former IGPs and former deputy IGPs were out condemning Tian Chua and rooting for the Malaysian security forces.

The message out there is simple while the armed forces are risking their lives in protecting the country, Opposition politicians are playing politics.

The civil service is sacrosanct, politically speaking. If you are a politician, you better think twice before speaking up against it.

Former Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo had angered civil servants when he gave out a broom as an “award” to two underperforming local councils in Novem-ber 2007.

While he wanted to improve the service, the civil servants saw it as demeaning and felt slighted. They took it out by spoiling their votes when the general election came, contributing to the fall of Barisan in Selangor.

In more recent times December 2011 Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua was forced to eat humble pie after he announced that Pakatan Rakyat would slash the civil service by half, if it takes power.

Pakatan leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had to step in and assure the civil servants that Pakatan would do no such thing if it is in power.

Even Pua, who stands in an overwhelmingly Chinese seat, was forced to clarify that he did not mean “slash by half” but reduce its numbers through synergies.

The civil service is overwhelmingly Malay and largely pro-Barisan, who is their protector and benefactor; although PAS and, to a lesser extent, PKR are making a dent.

However, it is not big enough a dent for the supposedly neutral civil servants to change direction as yet.

Comment by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

Related posts:
 Malaysia world's No.1 highest civil servants-to-population ratio! Its tenure of service legally vulnerable but notoriously difficult to dismiss!
Malaysia Flip Flop: The highest ratio ofcivil servants in the world

Using radiation to grow herbs: Tongkat Ali, Kacip Fatimah and Ginseng

BANGI: Low dosage radiation has been used to spur the growth of Tongkat Ali, Kacip Fatimah and ginseng in a pilot project by the Malaysian Nuclear Agency.

This technology can produce about 100kg of Tongkat Ali within 60 days and ginseng within 30 days, said the agency's Agrotechnology and Biosciences Division mutation breeding and plant biotechnology senior research officer Dr Rusli Ibrahim.

“For Tongkat Ali that grows in the wild, it would take 20 to 25 years to produce only 4kg,” he said after the launch of the Symposium on Radiation and Nuclear Technologies for Crop Improvement and Productivity in Sustainable Agriculture.

Dr Rusli said they would use low dosage radiation, such as gamma rays, on the roots of Tongkat Ali, Kacip Fatimah and ginseng.

“This will accelerate the growth of the root,” he said, adding that the pilot project was located in the Industrial Park in Nilai.

“The system is the first of its kind in Malaysia and South-East Asia,” he said, adding that he had studied about the technology in South Korea.

Toxicity tests will be conducted at the end of the production to ensure they are safe for consumption.

He said the three plants were chosen as there was high demand for them in the United States, South Korea, Europe and the Middle East.

“We are looking for industry partners who are interested in taking up the technology for commercialisation purposes.”

Dr Rusli stressed that the agency had come up with a safe way to use nuclear technology to increase the productivity of agriculture products in the country.

It is a common misconception that nuclear radiation is dangerous, he said.

“We are talking about using gamma rays and X-rays in small amounts to accelerate the growth of the plants.”

“X-rays are being used on humans for health check-ups. So, it is safe,” he said.

Its director-general Datuk Dr Muhamad Lebai Juri said they had been able to increase the productivity of certain plants in a shorter time due to the use of nuclear technology.

“This advanced bioreactor system was developed for the production of raw materials and bioactive compounds from herbal and medicinal plants for commercial production.”

Earlier, Forum for Nuclear Cooperation in Asia coordinator Dr Sueo Machi said the use of nuclear technology played an important role in agriculture.

“It reduces the excess use of pesticide and chemical fertilisation. The overuse of chemicals can possibly pollute the environment,” he said.

By WONG PEK MEI 

The Star/Asia News Network

China massive restructuring to boost efficiency, fight corruption

China’s Communist Party Chief Xi Jinping reads as attendants serve tea at the Great Hall of the People during the third plenary session of the National People’s Congress in Beijing, yesterday.  


VIDEO: LC: TIAN WEI ON NPC CPPCC CCTV News - CNTV English

(Reuters) - China unveiled a government restructuring plan on Sunday, cutting cabinet-level entities by two and dissolving its powerful Railways Ministry, as the country's new leaders look to boost efficiency and combat corruption.

The reforms mark the biggest reduction in ministries since 1998 when then-premier Zhu Rongji oversaw the overhaul of the State Council, and coincides with growing public concern over transparency and overlapping bureaucracies.

The government will join the Family Planning Commission -- the agency that controls the controversial one-child policy -- with the Health Ministry, and strengthen the powers of the food and drug regulators, it said in a report released during the on-going annual meeting of parliament.

"Currently, numerous operational, organizational and division of labor problems exist in State Council ministries," State Council Secretary-General Ma Kai said in a speech on the plan to the National People's Congress.

Ma added that "breach of duty, using positions for personal gain and corruption" under the structure had not been effectively constrained.

China's president-in-waiting Xi Jinping and premier-designate Li Keqiang assume their new roles after the annual congress concludes next week.

The Railways Ministry and Family Planning Commission have been particularly unpopular, and their restructuring was widely expected.

The Railways Ministry has faced numerous problems over the past few years, including heavy debts from funding new high-speed lines, waste and fraud.

Railways planning will be coordinated under the broader transport ministry. The government has pledged to open the rail industry to private investment on an unprecedented scale.

Family planning officials, meanwhile, have been known to compel women to have abortions to meet birth-rate targets. High profile cases have sparked national fury, such as when a woman in inland Shaanxi province was forced to abort her 7-month pregnancy last year.

Some analysts have said the merger of the health and family planning agencies would be a blow to the political base needed to maintain the one-child policy, which many demographers say should be relaxed.

The report said family planning must continue "on the basis of stable and low birth rates", but added that policies would be "improved". China's one-child policy is still generally enforced, although there are a number of family situations exempt from the rule.

A recently retired official from the Family Planning Commission who maintains close ties with the agency, said the merger does not mean the commission's power will be reduced.

"For such a long time, hundreds of millions of people had to have contraception and birth control, this kind of work is necessary. But it's possible that there will be fewer things done by force," the retired official said.

SUPER MINISTRIES

The restructuring plan, which will cut cabinet-level agencies to 25, will also boost the role of the food and drug regulators, placing it within the cabinet in response to an almost never-ending series of scandals over product safety.

Prosecutions for producing or selling fake drugs or toxic food jumped to more than 8,000 in 2012, more than five times the number in 2011, according to a report by the office of China's top prosecutor also issued on Sunday.

China's maritime enforcement agencies will be consolidated, as well, giving the National Oceanic Administration control over coast guard forces, customs police and fisheries enforcement as China faces growing tensions with Japan and South East Asian neighbors over disputed seas.

The move will bring China's maritime law enforcement forces, currently scattered among different ministries, under the unified management of a single administration, according to a report delivered by State Councilor Ma Kai at the annual parliamentary session on Sunday.

The new agency will still be named the National Oceanic Administration (NOA). It will have under its control the coast guard forces of the Public Security Ministry, the fisheries law enforcement command of the Agriculture Ministry and the maritime anti-smuggling police of the General Administration of Customs, Ma said in his report about the plan on the institutional restructuring and functional transformation of the State Council, China's cabinet.

The NOA currently has only one maritime law enforcement department, China Marine Surveillance.

The proposed administration, administered by the Ministry of Land and Resources, will carry out law enforcement activities in the name of China's maritime police bureau and under the operational direction of the Ministry of Public Security, said Ma, who is also the secretary-general of the State Council.

In addition to law enforcement, other functions of the new administration include outlining the oceanic development plan, supervising and managing the use of sea waters, and protecting ocean ecology, Ma said.

A high-level consultative and coordinating body, the National Oceanic Commission, will also be set up to formulate oceanic development strategies and coordinate important oceanic affairs, Ma said.

One parliament delegate said on the sidelines of the congress session that the move was not linked to the military.

"Our coastline is very long and our oceans cover a vast area. There is no military thinking behind it," said Zhang Guibai.

China will also merge its two media watchdogs -- the General Administration of Press and Publication and the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television -- and restructure the National Energy Administration, Ma said.

The move is meant to coordinate the resources of each sector and promote the reform of cultural institutions, Ma said in his report on the plan for the institutional reform and functional transformation of the State Council, China's cabinet.

The new administration will be responsible for promoting the development of these sectors and supervising related agencies and their businesses, said Ma, who is also secretary-general of the State Council.

The merger will be conducive to establishing a modern communication system, which is rapidly shaped by digital information technology, and boosting the country's cultural influence, said a statement from the State Commission Office for Public Sector Reform, which explains the reason of the institutional reform

Sources: Reuters - Reporting by Michael Martina, Shen Yan, Sui-Lee Wee and Ben Blanchard; Editing by Jonathan Standing and Michael Perry; CCTV, Xinhua

Related posts:
China all out to rejuvenate the nation 
The West envious of global economy led by China 

Chavez’s legacy will live on

While his death sparked an outpouring of grief, his legacy will forever be remembered.
 
HUGO Chavez, who died last week, mourned by millions of Venezuelan citizens and people around the South American region, was a figure that was larger than life.

During his 14 years as president of Venezuela, he managed to institute profound changes with effects on his country and the developing world long after his death.

Some leaders and media outlets in the West have been giving misleading or trivialised commentaries, just as they tried to demonise him during his lifetime.

This is to be expected, since Chavez was felt by the establishment as a thorn in the flesh.

He had not minced words in criticising and acting against the so-called Washington Consensus, a nexus of policies and institutions (including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the US Treasury) that promoted a version of free-market fundamentalism that adversely affected the economic and social life of the Latin American region.

Chavez’s greatest feat was to identify and break out from the straightjacket of the Washington Consensus and to formulate policies that were very different, which he believed would benefit the people, especially the poor.

One of the first things he did as president, after being elected in 1998 with a large majority, was to re-organise the national oil industry and to play a leading role in reviving Opec, the organisation of oil exporting countries.

The price of oil shot up from around US$10 (RM30) a barrel in 1998 to US$20 (RM60), and then to around the US$100 (RM300) level where it now is.

The country’s net oil export revenues climbed from around US$14bil (RM42bil) in 1999 to US$60bil (RM180bil) in 2011.

The hugely increased oil revenues was the basis for financing many innovative social programmes.

Known as “missions”, they included raising literacy and education levels, providing healthcare to the poor through thousands of doctors and health assistants in the communities and providing cheap food for the urban population through special supermarkets.

In the rural areas, there were separate “missions” to look after the peasants, resolve problems of mining communities, and meet the interests of indigenous peoples.

These well-documented social programmes and accompanying economic policies did much to improve the lot of the poor.

According to data compiled by the London-based Guardian, from 1999 (when Chavez assumed the presidency) to 2011, GDP per capita rose from US$4,105 to US$10,801, (RM12,740 to RM33,530) extreme poverty decreased from 23.4% of the population to 8.5% and infant mortality fell from a rate of 20 per 1,000 live births to a rate of 13 per 1,000 live births in 2011.

On the other hand, Venezuela still faces serious problems: an over-dependency on oil, high inflation and a high crime rate.

The pro-poor orientation and policies of the state were responsible for the strong support of the poor for Chavez.

Their devotion to the president was evident in the outpouring of grief and the massive turnout at his lying in state and his funeral.

To his critics, Chavez had simply used oil money to “bribe the poor” to vote for him.

But for Chavez and his colleagues in what they termed the “Bolivarian revolution”, re-orienting institutions and policies to benefit the poor was the main reason to be in government.

Chavez’s influence went far beyond Venezuela. His policies, and fiery rhetoric, set alight the imagination of social movements and the public in South America, and started an important trend.

Following his ascent to power, several other leaders assumed political leadership in neighbouring countries who also bucked the ideology and policies of the Washington Consensus.

The assumption to power of so many such leaders have broken the political sway of Washington and the economic spell of the Washington consensus in the region.

Chavez’s legacy may just be as important as a master builder of regional unity and integration.

In his tribute to Chavez the former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva credited Chavez for his leadership role in the setting up of so many regional institutions in recent years.

They include the 2008 treaty that established the Union of South American Nations, the setting up in 2011 of the political forum of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (that does not include the United States and Canada) and the Bank of the South.

“Of the many leaders I have met, few have believed so much in the unity of our continent and its diverse peoples – indigenous Indians, descendants of Europeans and Africans, recent immigrants – as he did,” said Lula of Chavez.

Chavez was also a believer and practitioner of broader South-South solidarity and cooperation.

He used his country’s oil revenues to finance economic and social programmes in poorer neighbouring countries, from selling oil at below market prices to treatment for the blind.

His memory and grasp of issues and people were also phenomenal.

When I approached him in the main aisle of the conference hall of the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2010, and introduced myself as director of the South Centre, he immediately recalled his knowledge of the centre and his meeting with and admiration for Julius Nyerere, the former Tanzanian President, founding chairman of the centre and another towering pioneer of South-South cooperation.

Without hesitation or ceremony, Chavez invited me to visit Caracas and to organise a large conference to promote South-South solidarity. Alas, we were not able to make that proposed conference a reality before Chavez passed away.

Chavez lit up that Copenhagen conference by telling the thousand-strong audience, that included many heads of state and governments, of his disappointment with the rich countries for not doing enough to contain the climate crisis.

“They spend trillions of dollars bailing out the banks. If only the climate was a bank it would have been saved by now,” he said.

The straight talking and colourful Chavez will be missed; his legacy will live on.

Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR

Related posts:

'Latin Spring' still on course after Hugo Chavez' death from caner

CIA Assasinating South American Head of States with Cancer Virus , Chavez the latest Victim a US Plot? 

'Latin Spring' still on course after Hugo Chavez' death from caner

The post-Chavez era is unlikely to be very different, mainly because the West is still unprepared to change.

 A supporter lines up to pay her last respects to late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, outside the Military Academy in Caracas on March 8, 2013. Venezuela gave Hugo Chavez a lavish farewell on Friday at a state funeral that brought some of the world's most notorious strongmen to... 

THE expected death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez from cancer has produced predictable reactions all-round. The left mourned a fallen hero who had “made” a revolution, the right basked in quiet hopefulness for change, and the rest offered condolences to the extent their politics afforded.

Yet the leader who broke the mould of Venezuelan politics seemed to deserve less conventional responses to his 14 years of reshaping the country.

In an otherwise balanced airing, the BBC featured pundits variously calling Chavez “a communist” and “anti-American”, blithely repeating the familiar line about his links with Iranian and Russian counterparts being merely superficial.

CNN took a business angle in accusing Chavez of under-investing in Venezuela’s oil sector. And so on. Critics elsewhere alleged that he was just another Latin American strongman who promoted the cult of the individual and undermined democratic institutions.

Evidently, Chavez did not dampen public enthusiasm for his leadership. But his failure in upholding democratic institutions applies particularly only within the narrow context of formal democratic procedure.

His biggest contribution to Venezuela is to awaken the people to their democratic birthrights like adequate housing, healthcare and education.

This change has been so profound as to remake national politics, so that even opposition politicians now have to promise the same thing, only more. In a primal democratic institution and process, the masses would vote with their feet against any candidate who dared to offer the people less.

This transformation is further based on overturning decades of unquestioned allegiance to the Washington Consensus of “open markets”, “privatisation” and “deregulation”. A Latin America that has changed thus is not about to change back too soon.

True enough, Chavez had been a Latin American strongman. But that quality was more cultural than political, as he adopted the classically paternalistic, macho style of the Latin caudillo.

The difference, again, is that while previous Latin American caudillos tended to be pro-US right-wing dictators, Chavez was not that. So he is regarded differently or not at all.

There is no doubt that Chavez and his policies were popular and not just populist. One of the biggest problems for his opponents has been his transformation of the state to serve public, rather than privileged private, interests.

Critics have also tended to fundamentally misread history, believing that Chavez had reinvented Venezuela. The reality is that Chavez himself had been a product of the times in the region, rather than the other way round.

The same regional moment had also produced similarly progressive leaders in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. This so-called “turn to the left” in the region may instead be named the “Latin Spring”.

Since the turn of the century, the movement swept a region like the “Arab Spring” later did, but with key differences. The Latin Spring involved more countries, far more people, and was established democratically rather than through bloodshed and foreign military intervention.

But despite its strengths, it was not regarded positively by the Western establishment and mainstream media, because another key difference was that it went against Western-friendly despots rather than Western-averse ones.

And Chavez was placed at the head of the movement because Venezuela was seen to have started it all. From the lack of a positive reception came the negative perceptions.

But the fact is that neither Chavez nor any other individual, however gifted, could have masterminded or stage-managed a historic regional movement even if he wanted to.

The various Latin American countries are all sovereign nation states dominated by no single individual. There is also no single power “guiding” them other than the US that had done so before.

The new era is one of each country taking charge of its own affairs for itself, based on the people taking charge of the state. The time of death squads, Iran-Contras and transnational corporations lording it over the peasants is past.

It happened before, but in piecemeal fashion: the fall of Nicaragua’s Somoza, Bolivia’s Suarez and Chile’s Pinochet. It was never a broad movement like today’s.

The scale and reach of the present movement is much larger than any single country’s experience. It is also set to outlive individuals like Chavez.

Failing to recognise this will mean failing to deal adequately with these countries, at a time in history when they are also becoming more important. It would also allow Cold War ideology to claim more unwitting victims.

Chavez’s opponents and critics have long linked him with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, an apparent error that is true and justified but only unintentionally. Like Castro, he was essentially a Third World nationalist pushed into making less than ideal linkages around the globe by default.

But today’s newly awakened Latin America cannot be pushed into the fold of a non-existent Soviet Union, nor of a Russia or China too preoccupied with its own internal challenges and anxious only for foreign markets or sources of raw materials.

Instead, they are more likely to be pushed more closely to one another, finding common cause among themselves and in relation to Washington and its Consensus”. The new Latin America will remain different from before, long after Chavez ‘s presidency despite its significant national contribution to it.

Behind The Headlines by BUNN NAGARA

Related post:

CIA Assasinating South American Head of States with Cancer Virus , Chavez the latest Victim a US Plot?

http://youtu.be/jFqcMG6XjgQ

Stop paying quit rent to Sultan of Sulu, it’s time to close the chapter

Safeguarding our territory: Malaysian troops moving into Tanduo village during an operation to flush out the armed intruders. — (Handout photo by Defence Ministry)

 

A major shift in Malaysia's position on the Philippine claim to Sabah is needed. 
 
THE Philippines Government officially announced their claim to North Borneo (now Sabah) on June 22, 1962. Despite numerous attempts to settle the issue, it still festers on, exemplified by the latest tragic events unfolding on the east coast of Sabah.

The Philippine claim is based on two documents dated Jan 22, 1878. By the first document, Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzam granted (pajak) all his territorial possessions in Borneo (tanah besar Pulau Berunai) to Gustavus Baron de Overbeck and Alfred Dent Esquire as representatives of a British Company for a yearly payment/ quit rent (hasil pajakan) of five thousand dollars (Spanish dollars).

By the second document, the said Sultan appointed Overbeck as “Dato' Bendahara and Rajah of Sandakan” with the fullest powers of a “supreme ruler” (penghulu pemerintah atas kerajaan yang tersebut itu).

Descendants of Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzam (the number cannot be ascertained, but is large), represented by the Kiram Corporation and the Philippine Government, have always claimed that this 1878 grant was a lease (pajakan) and not a cession as claimed by Malaysia. The continuous annual payment of the quit rent or cession monies of five thousand dollars (now RM5,300) to these descendants is cited as further proof of this contention. Based on these grounds, they claim, Sabah belongs to the Philippines/ the Sultan of Sulu's descendants.

Before discussing how Malaysia has been responding to this assertion and how it should alter its position drastically, a little bit of historical narrative is in order.

Without going too far back in time, it is suffice to say historical documents confirm that both the Sultanate of Brunei and the Sultanate of Sulu exercised political control over parts of present-day Sabah (there was no State or Negeri Sabah at that time) in the late 19th century. Brunei had defacto jurisdiction on the west coast from Kimanis to Pandasan, while Sulu ruled the east coast from Marudu to the Sibuku River. The interior was largely independent under local indigenous suku chiefs.

Both Sultanates, however, claimed dejure jurisdiction from the Pandasan on the west coast to the Sibuku River on the east. Both Sultanates were also in a state of decline. Brunei was suffering from internal decay while large parts of its territories were being swallowed up by the new state of Sarawak under the Brookes.

In the Philippine region, the Spanish authorities in Manila had been trying to subjugate the independent and powerful kingdom of Sulu for three centuries without success. In 1871, the Spaniards launched another exerted campaign to conquer the stubborn kingdom.

It was in this kind of environment that a number of European and American speculators became interested in obtaining territorial concessions from the two weak Sultanates for speculative purposes. Among them were Lee Moses and Joseph Torrey of America; and Baron von Overbeck and Alfred Dent who had formed a company called the Overbeck-Dent Association on March 27, 1877 in London for the purpose of obtaining land concessions in Sabah and selling them for a profit.

Overbeck and Dent acquired Brunei's jurisdiction over its Sabah possessions in five documents dated Dec 29, 1877 from the Sultan of Brunei and his ministers. After this, Overbeck sailed to Jolo where he also obtained the rights of the Sultan of Sulu in Sabah through two agreements concluded on Jan 22, 1878.

Why was Sultan Muhammad Jamaluladzan prepared to lease/ grant/ pajak his territories in Sabah to Overbeck and Dent? Sulu was on the brink of capitulating to the Spaniards and as such Sultan Muhammad was hopeful of obtaining some assistance from the Overbeck-Dent Association and possibly even from Britain. Placed in such dire straits, he was therefore not adverse to giving Overbeck and Dent territorial concessions in Sabah with some hope of salvation.

In the event, no such aid came either from the Overbeck-Dent Association or the British Government. Six months after the Overbeck-Dent grants were concluded, Sulu was conquered by the Spanish authorities on July 2 1878. With the fall of Sulu, the said Sultanate ceased to be an independent entity as it was incorporated as part of the Spanish colonial administration of the Philippines.

In 1898, Spain lost the Philippines to the United States by the Peace of Paris (Dec 10, 1898), which ended the Spanish-American War. The US ruled the Philippines till 1946 when independence was granted.

The sultanate ended when Sultan Jamalul Kiram II signed the Carpenter Agreement on March 22, 1915, in which he ceded all political power to the United States.

 

Carpenter, Governor of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu, Philippine Islands,  from 1913-1920, with the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram II.

Meanwhile, in 1936, the US colonial administration of the Philippines abolished the Sulu Sultanate upon the death of Sultan Jamalul Kiram II (1894-1936) in the same year in an attempt to create a unitary State of the Philippines. Jamalul Kiram III is a self- appointed “Sultan” with a dubious legal status.

Now, coming back to the question of Malaysia's ongoing treatment of the claim, and why and how it should completely alter this position. Since the official announcement of the claim by the Philippine Government on June 22, 1962, Malaysia has been pursuing an ambivalent policy. On the one hand, it has persistently rejected the Philippines claim, but on the other it has compromised Malaysia's sovereignty by agreeing to settle the “dispute” by peaceful means (such as the Manila Agreement, Aug 3, 1963) and a number of other mutual agreements between the two countries.

Most damaging of all is Malaysia's willingness to honour the clause in the 1878 Sulu grant pertaining to the payment of the annual quit rent or cession monies as Malaysia says, of RM5,300, to the descendants of the former Sulu Sultanate. To this day, Malaysia is still paying this quit rent, lending credence to the claimants' argument that the 1878 grant was a lease and not a cession and therefore it still belongs to them.

If Malaysia continues to follow this policy, there will be no end to this problem except to buy out the rights of the descendents of the Sultan of Sulu. But this course is fraught with danger as it will lead to further legal complications with the Philippines and even endless litigation with the descendants.

My proposal is that Malaysia should go by the laws of “effectivities”, as in the case of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) judgement pertaining to the issue of sovereignty over the Sipadan and Ligitan islands, and the law of acts of a'titre de souverain as in the case of Pulau Batu Puteh. No title, however strong, is valid once the original owner fails to exercise acts consistent with the position of a'titre de souverain. The opposite is true, that is, the holder of the lease may not have original title but he ultimately gains permanent possession of the lease by virtue of continuous state “effectivities”.

In this case, the Sultan of Sulu and its successors including the Philippine government have failed to conduct any acts of a'titre de souverain since 1882, and so they have legally lost their title.

On the other hand, the successors of the Overbeck-Dent Association, that is the British North Borneo Company (1882-1946); the British Colonial Administration (1946-1963); and Malaysia, (from 1963) have been exercising continuous acts of a'titre de souverain for a period of 131 years.

Since we have all this evidence on our side, Malaysia should now take a new stand by totally rejecting the validity of the 1878 grants on the grounds of “effectivitie” and a'titre de souverain. It should also immediately stop paying the so-called annual quit rent or cession monies. This payment has always brought huge embarrassment to Malaysia and has in fact compromised its sovereignty.

We should also never agree to go to the International Court of Justice not because our case is weak (it is very strong), but because we don't want to trade the fate of sovereign territories and people through the judgment of any court, even the ICJ.

There's one more point that should be pondered upon. No country or state or nation which has obtained independence has ever paid ownership monies to its former masters. The 13 Colonies of America did not do so, India did not do so, the Federation of Malaya did not do so.

Sabah became an independent state on Aug 31, 1963 and decided to form the Federation of Malaysia with three other partners on Sept 16, 1963. It is strange indeed, if not preposterous, that a sovereign state is paying ownership or cession monies to certain people based on a colonial, pre-independence treaty that is 131 years old!

Comment by EMERITUS PROF DR D.S RANJIT SINGH

Emeritus Prof D. S. Ranjit Singh is Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Government and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia (ranjit@uum.edu.my). 

Related posts:

The Sultan of Sulu reclaims eastern Sabah, MNLF among invaders

The former Sulu Sultanate, a foreign problem in history that became Sabah's  

CIA Assasinating South American Head of States with Cancer Virus , Chavez the latest Victim a US Plot?

  
JNN 8 Mar 2013 Caracas : The Venezuelan president himself, before he died Wednesday, wondered aloud whether the US government – or the banksters who own it – gave him, and its other leading Latin American enemies, cancer.





“How did it happen that six leaders of Latin American countries which had criticized US policies and tried to create an influential alliance in order to be independent and sovereign states, fell ill simultaneously with the same disease?”

A little over a year ago, Chavez went on Venezuelan national radio and said: “I don’t know but… it is very odd that we have seen Lugo affected by cancer, Dilma when she was a candidate, me, going into an election year, not long ago Lula and now Cristina… It is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some leaders in Latin America. It’s at the very least strange, very strange.”

Strange indeed… so strange that if you think Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Paraguayan Fernando Lugo, and former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – Latin America’s top anti-US empire leaders – all just happened to contract cancer around the same time by sheer chance, you must be some kind of crazy coincidence theorist.

Am I 100% certain that the CIA killed Hugo Chavez? Absolutely not.

It could have been non-governmental assassins working for the bankers.

But any way you slice it, the masters of the US empire are undoubtedly responsible for giving Chavez and other Latin American leaders cancer. How do we know that? Just examine the Empire’s track record.
Fidel Castro’s bodyguard, Fabian Escalante, estimates that the CIA attempted to kill the Cuban president an astonishing 638 times. The CIA’s methods included exploding cigars, biological warfare agents painted on Castro’s diving suit, deadly pills, toxic bacteria in coffee, an exploding speaker’s podium, snipers, poison-wielding female friends, and explosive underwater sea shells.

The CIA’s assassination attempts against Castro were like a Tom and Jerry cartoon, with the CIA as the murderously inept cat, and the Cuban president as a clever and very lucky mouse. Some might even argue that Castro’s survival, in the face of 638 assassination attempts by the world’s greatest power, is evidence that El Presidente’s communist atheism was incorrect, and that God, or at least a guardian angel, must have been watching over “Infidel Castro” all along.

Theology aside, the CIA’s endless attempts on Castro’s life provide ample evidence that US authorities will stop at nothing in their efforts to murder their Latin American enemies.

John Perkins, in his bestselling book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, supplies more evidence that the bankers that own the US government routinely murder heads of state, using private assassins as well as CIA killers.

Perkins, during his career as an “economic hit man,” gained first-hand knowledge about how the big international bankers maintain their empire in Latin America and elsewhere. Perkins’ job was to visit leaders of foreign countries and convince them to accept loans that could never be paid back. Why? The bankers want to force these nations into debt slavery. When the country goes bankrupt, the bankers seize the nation’s natural resources and establish complete control over its government and economy.

Perkins would meet with a targeted nation’s leader and say: “I have a fist-full of hundred dollar bills in one hand, and a bullet in the other. Which do you want?” If the leader accepted the loans, thereby enslaving his country, he got the payoff. If he angrily chased Perkins out of his office, the bankers would call in the “asteroids” to assassinate the uncooperative head of state.

The “asteroids” are the world’s most expensive and accomplished professional killers. They work on contract – sometimes to the CIA, sometimes to the bankers, and sometimes to wealthy private individuals. And though their specialty is causing plane crashes, they are capable of killing people, including heads of state, in any number of ways.

This isn’t just speculation. John Perkins actually knows some of these CIA-linked professional killers personally. And he has testified about their murders of Latin American leaders.Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is dedicated to Perkins’ murdered friends Gen. Torrijos of Panama and President Jaime Roldos of Ecuador. Both were killed by CIA-linked “asteroids” in engineered plane crashes.

Do CIA-linked killers sometimes induce cancer in their victims? Apparently they do. One notable victim: Jack Ruby (née Jack Rubenstein), a mobster who was himself a professional killer, and whose last hit was the choreographed murder of JFK-assassination patsy Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police Department. Ruby begged to be taken to Washington to tell the real story of the JFK murder, but instead died in prison, of a sudden and mysterious cancer, before he could reveal what he knew.

Have the CIA-bankster “asteroids” ever tried to kill Latin American leaders with cancer? The answer is an unequivocal “yes.”

Edward Haslam’s book Dr. Mary’s Monkey proves what JFK assassination prosecutor Jim Garrison had earlier alleged: Child-molesting CIA agent David Ferrie, one of President Kennedy’s killers, had experimented extensively with cancer-causing viruses for the CIA in his huge home laboratory. The purpose: To give Fidel Castro and other Latin American leaders cancer. (Ferrie himself was killed by the CIA shortly before he was scheduled to testify in court about his role in the JFK assassination.)

To summarize: We know that the bankers who own the US government routinely try to kill any Latin American leader who refuses to be their puppet. We know that they have mounted thousands of assassination attempts against Latin American leaders, including more than 600 against Castro alone. We know that they have been experimenting with cancer viruses, and killing people with cancer, since the 1960s.

So if you think Hugo Chavez died a natural death, I am afraid that you are terminally naïve.

Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro has announced the expulsion of two US embassy officials for allegedly spying on the country’s military, accusing Washington of having infected late President Hugo Chavez with the cancer virus.

Maduro charged the US administration in a televised speech on Tuesday, after holding an emergency meeting with high military command and civilian leaders and hours before the announcement of President Chavez’s death.

Caracas accused the US embassy’s Air Force attache, Colonel David Delmonaco, and assistant air attache, Major Devlin Kostal, of trying to stir up a military plot against the Venezuelan government.

Washington confirmed that the two officials were employed at the embassy, saying Delmonaco was en route back to the US, and Kostal was in America at the time.

Maduro also said that, “We have no doubt” that the President’s cancer, first diagnosed in 2011, was induced by “the historical enemies of our homeland,” a thinly-veiled reference to the US.

He compared the situation to the death of the late leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat, who Maduro claimed was “inoculated with an illness.”

US State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said in a statement that Washington “definitely rejects” the assertion that the US was involved in Chavez’s illness.

On Tuesday, the 58-year-old Venezuelan leader died after a two-year battle with cancer.

Back in 2011, Chavez had accused the US of developing a technology for infecting Latin American leaders with cancer.

Argentinean President Cristina Kirchner Fernandez, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and former Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo have all received treatment for cancer disease.

“Wouldn’t it be weird if they [the US] had developed a technology for inducing cancer and nobody knows up until now?” Chavez had said at the time.

Russian Communist Party head Gennady Zyuganov today demanded an international investigation into the death of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, claiming it was “far from a coincidence” that six leaders of Latin-American countries who had criticized the U.S. simultaneously fell ill with cancer.

“How did it happen that six leaders of Latin American countries which had criticized US policies and tried to create an influential alliance in order to be independent and sovereign states, fell ill simultaneously with the same disease?” Zyuganov told Russian state television, urging an investigation under “international control” into Chavez’s death.

Zyuganov is accurate so far as his claim that six Latin-American leaders were diagnosed with cancer within a relatively close period of time, most notably Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in December 2012, although later analysis proved that she had never actually suffered from the illness.

Current Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo, and the former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, have all been hit with cancer in the last few years. In 2006 it was also reported that retired Cuban leader Fidel Castro was also diagnosed with cancer.

- Jafria Community's Voice

 “Chavez Death Could Be A US Plot”

The death of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez from cancer may have been part of a plot by the United States to infect its enemies in Latin America with the disease, the leader of Russia’s Communist party, Gennady Zyuganov, speculated on Wednesday.

“How did it happen that six leaders of Latin American countries which had criticized US policies and tried to create an influential alliance in order to be independent and sovereign states, fell ill simultaneously with the same disease?” Zyuganov said in comments carried by Russian state television.

“In my view, this was far from a coincidence,” said Zyuganov, the head of Russia’s second-largest political party. He urged an investigation under “international control” into Chavez’s death.

Zyuganov’s claim echoed accusations by Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro, who alleged last week that Chavez had fallen victim to an “imperialist” plot.

“The old enemies of our fatherland looked for a way to harm his health,” Maduro said,



Chavez, who died on Tuesday at the age of 58 after an almost two-year battle with cancer, had himself speculated that the United States may have developed methods to infect its enemies with the disease.

“Would it be so strange that they’ve invented the technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?” Chavez – who once famously called former US President George W. Bush “the devil” – said in late 2011, after he had been diagnosed with the disease.

He was speaking a day after Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

“Fidel [Castro] always told me, ‘Chávez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat … a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what,’ he said in late 2011 after he had been diagnosed with cancer,” Chavez added.

Castro was himself the target of numerous US assassination plots, according to declassified documents published by the CIA in 2007.

Among the other leftwing Latin America leaders diagnosed with cancer are Brazil’s current president, Dilma Rousseff, Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo, and the former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

By Stephen Gowans Global Research