Japan stole Diaoyu Islands

China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has accused Tokyo of stealing disputed islands. Source: AAP

United Nations:  CHINESE Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has sparked angry exchanges at the UN by accusing Japan of stealing disputed islands. 

Chinese and Japanese envoys had the exchanges on Thursday after Yang heightened tensions over the East China Sea islands, and reopened old diplomatic wounds over World War II.

The Japanese government's purchase of the uninhabited islands from a private owner this month has infuriated Beijing and set off violent protests in China.

"China strongly urges Japan to immediately stop all activities that violate China's territorial sovereignty, take concrete actions to correct its mistakes and return to the track of resolving the dispute through negotiation," Yang told the UN assembly.

He reaffirmed his country's claim that Japan tricked China into signing a treaty ceding the islands in 1895.

Japan says the islands were legally incorporated into its territory.

"The moves taken by Japan are totally illegal and invalid," the Chinese minister said.

"They can in no way change the historical fact that Japan stole Diaoyu and its affiliated islands from China and the fact that China has territorial sovereignty over them."

Japan's move was in "outright denial" of its defeat in World War II, he added, reaffirming China's repeated references to the 1939-45 war.

Yang's speech sparked sharp exchanges between Japanese and Chinese diplomats as each sought a right of reply.

Japan's deputy UN ambassador, Kazuo Kodama, said that "an assertion that Japan took the islands from China cannot logically stand".

Kodama added the references to World War II were "unconvincing and unproductive".

China's UN envoy Li Baodong responded: "The Japanese delegate once again brazenly distorted history, resorting to spurious fallacious arguments that defy all reason and logic to justify their aggression of Chinese territory.

"The Japanese government still clings to its obsolete colonial mindset.

"China is capable of safeguarding the integrity of its territory."

When Kodama responded that the islands "are clearly an inherent territory of Japan", Li returned to the attack.

He  said his Japanese counterpart "feels no guilt for Japan's history of aggression and colonialism".

The Japanese government's purchase of the islands was based purely on "the logic of robbers", he stormed.

China has demanded the return of the uninhabited islands, known as the Diaoyu in Chinese and the Senkaku in Japanese, for decades. Taiwan also claims the islands. -  AFP/Agencies

A man reads the white paper on the Diaoyu Islands at a bookstore in downtown Beijing on Friday. The white paper, entitled Diaoyu Islands, an Inherent Territory of China, published in Chinese, English and Japanese, hit the market on Friday. It has been issued both at home and abroad to assert China's sovereignty over the island and its affiliated islets. Photo: Guo Yingguang/GT

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi accused Japan of stealing the Diaoyu Islands in an address to the UN General Assembly in New York Thursday, urging it to immediately stop infringing on China's territorial sovereignty, correct its mistakes through concrete actions and return to the track of resolving the disputes through negotiation.

Yang used the general debate of the ongoing session of the UN General Assembly to state China's stance over recent rows stirred up by Japan's "nationalization" of the islets.

His remarks came after Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's insistence that no territorial issue exists over the islets during a speech on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday.

"The Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets have been an integral part of China's territory since ancient times," Yang said. "China has indisputable historical and legal evidence in this regard."

Yang said Japan stole the islands in 1895 at the end of the Sino-Japanese War and forced the Chinese government to sign an unequal treaty to cede these islands and other Chinese territories.

After World War II, the Diaoyu Islands and other Chinese territories occupied by Japan were returned to China in accordance with the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other international documents, he said.

The Chinese Foreign Minister stated that, by taking such unilateral actions as the "island purchase," the Japanese government had grossly violated China's sovereignty.

"This is an outright denial of the outcome of the victory in the global anti-fascist war and poses a grave challenge to the post-war international order and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter," he said.

Yang emphasized that the moves taken by Japan are totally "illegal" and "invalid," which can in no way change the "historical fact" that Japan stole the Diaoyu Islands from China and the fact that China has territorial sovereignty over them.

 "The Chinese government is firm in upholding China's territorial sovereignty," he added.
>In a rebuttal session following Yang's speech, Li Baodong, China's permanent representative to the UN, said that "the Japanese government still clings to its old-time colonial mindset," the Xinhua News Agency reported.

According to Xinhua, Li said Japan's "purchase" of the islands is based purely on "the logic of robbers."

"Its purpose is to legalize the stealing and occupation of the Chinese territory through this illegal means and to confuse international public opinion and deceive the people of the world," Li was quoted by Xinhua.

Zhou Hongjun, a professor with the International Law Faculty at the East China University of Politics and Law, told the Global Times that Japan's denial of any territorial issue is void.

The countermeasures taken by China have put the waters off the Diaoyu Islands under the substantial control of both China and Japan, reversing Japan's "illegal" control of the area in recent years, said Zhou.

"We ought to consolidate and extend our progress," Zhou said.

On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Yang met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday.

Reuters quoted a senior US State Department official as saying that during the talks, Clinton said it was important to ratchet down the quarrel over the islands that has soured ties between Asia's two largest economies.

"We believe that Japan and China have the resources, have the restraint, and have the ability to work on this directly and take tensions down," the official said.

Separately, the Chinese embassy in Tokyo said in a statement on its website that it received a suspicious envelope on Thursday, and that after an inspection by Japanese police, a rifle bullet was found in the envelope on Friday.

The embassy said that the Japanese police are investigating the incident, and the embassy has demanded Japanese police take concrete measures to protect the safety of Chinese organizations, enterprises and citizens in Japan.

Kyodo reported that the envelope bore the name of Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda.

A spokeswoman at the prime minister's office only said that Noda had not sent the bullet, without elaborating on any action it might take, reported AFP. - Agencies

Related posts:
Who owns Diaoyu Islands?
China announces geographic codes for Diaoyu Islands baseline to UN
Japan's buying Diaoyu Islands provokes China to strike ...
China's vessels patrol Diaoyu Islands after Japan illegally purchases and nationalizes them 

Fearful of China's rise?

PETALING JAYA: China may overtake the United States as the biggest economic power in the next four to six years but this does not mean that it will instantly become the world's superpower, says a leading expert on China.

Dr Martin Jacques, 67, author of the global bestseller When China Rules the World: the End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order, said it would take several decades, from between 2030 and 2040, before it could even achieve developed state status.

“It'd be a long way to go as a superpower,” he said at a talk on “China As Global Superpower: What It Means For Asia and The World”, hosted by the Asian Centre for Media Studies, based in Menara Star.

The second edition of his book was released recently and 40% of its content was new.

“This includes an extensive chapter analysing events after the 2008 financial crisis,” he said.

Expert on China: Dr Jacques presenting a talk hosted by the Asian Centre for Media Studies at Menara Star.

 

His first was shortlisted for two major literary awards.

Dr Jacques said Westerners were fearful of China's rise due to scant knowledge and understanding of China and that it was a communist country.

They fear the country might throw its weight and its military power around.

However, Dr Jacques pointed out that China had no major interest in developing military power after Deng Xiaoping took over the country from the late 1970s to 1990s.

On fears that a communist country was not democratic, he argued that being democratic had not stopped Europeans from conquering others.

“Although China has a lot of problems now, it doesn't mean that it can't be humane and more democratic,” said Dr Jacques.

“Maybe, it will develop universal suffrage without following the Western way.”

Dr Jacques pointed out that the China Development Bank and China Export-Import Bank gave loans of more than US$110bil (RM338.415bil) to other developing countries in 2009 and 2010 while the World Bank only made loan commitments of US$100.3bil (RM307.65bil).

Dr Jacques, a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the London School of Economics (University of London), visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, and Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy, Washington DC, was the former editor of Marxism Today, deputy editor of The Independent and a co-founder of the think tank Demos.

Fresh insight on China

PETALING JAYA: China continues to grab world headlines and dominate international news for many reasons. The world's second largest economy is now expected to be the biggest in only a few years, with many far-reaching implications to follow.

World-renowned author and academic Dr Martin Jacques (pic) will be presenting a fresh look at the new China in a talk at Menara Star in Petaling Jaya at 2pm on Thursday.

His talk titled “China As Global Superpower: What It Means For Asia and The World” is hosted by the Asian Center for Media Studies, based at Star Publications (M) Bhd.

Dr Jacques is the author of the global bestseller When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order, which has been translated into 11 languages, shortlisted for two major literary awards and described as the best book on China in many years.

To keep track of the rapid changes in China, Dr Jacques has just released the second edition of his book, incorporating the latest data and an extended analysis which includes a new section.

The discussant for the talk will be Dr Lee Poh Ping, a Senior Research Fellow in the Institute of China Studies at Universiti Malaya.

Dr Lee has written and published extensively on East Asian affairs and presented university seminars on Dr Jacques' work.

The talk will be moderated by The Star's associate editor Bunn Nagara.

The event at the Cybertorium in Menara Star is open to the public free of charge, with no registration required

 The Star/Asia News Network

Malaysia's minimum wage saga continues

AFTER all the debate between proponents and opposers and the accompanying fanfare which dragged on for years, the Human Resources Minister finally issued an order in July 2012, declaring that Minimum Wages need to be paid from January 2013.

While the intention was to ensure that all employees will be paid a certain minimum salary, RM900 in peninsular Malaysia, the way in which the order was worded has created problems and headaches for employers, not so much for those who are not paying the minimum wage of RM900 currently, but for employers whose current remuneration package for employees is far above that of RM900.

The blame for this rests squarely on the formulators of the law and the order.

This is further compounded by the recent issuance of so called “Guidelines – method of implementation of the Minimum Wages Order 2012”.

The National Wages Consultative Council Act, (the Act) under which the Minimum Wage Order has been promulgated, states that “wages” has the same meaning as that found in the Employment Act 1955.

“Wages” as defined in the Employment Act 1955 means basic wages and all other payments in cash payable to an employee for work done in respect of his contract of service but does not include the listed exclusions.

However, the Act has also provided a definition for “minimum wages”, to mean, the basic wages to be or as determined under the order made by the Minister under Section 23.

Section 24(2) of the Act goes further to state that where the basic wages in an employment contract is lower than the minimum wage rate as specified in the Minimum Wages Order the minimum wage rate (RM900) shall be substituted for the ‘basic wage’ in the employment contract.

There are many employers, who for a variety of reasons, provide a low basic wage but top up the remuneration package with a variety of other payments such as commissions, allowances, service charge, shift allowance and other payment in cash.

In many instances, the calculation of the additional payments are based on the current “basic wage”.

At the end of each month, these employees earn much more than the minimum RM900.

Often employers fix a low basic wage but pay high rates for other payments, the calculation of which, as mentioned earlier, is sometimes linked to the basic wage. They do so to encourage productivity.

They are not short paying their employees but that is how the wage payments are structured in the country with each industry having its own peculiar structure.

Many instances can be cited where employees paid as much as RM1,500 or even more per month.

The Minimum Wages Order requires that the “basic wage” be now moved up to RM900.

The introduction of minimum wages was never intended to affect these good employers but to compel the ones who pay below RM900 to raise the wages of their employees to a minimum level of RM900 per month.

The Minimum Wages Order in Para 6, however, goes on to suggest that employers and employees and where trade unions exist, could go about and re-negotiate a restructuring of wages before the coming into force of the order.

How on earth are employers, who do not have a union, going to go about this renegotiating with their employees? What if they disagree?

Would any employee or trade union in the right frame of mind agree to raise his current basic (which is lower than RM900) to the new figure of RM900 (thereby helping the employer to conform with the requirement of the Minimum Wages Order) and permit all the other benefits that he is receiving (which is related to the basic) to be lowered so that the end result is that he is placed at a position, (in terms of total remuneration received at the end of the month ) no different than the original amount that he is currently receiving?

The Minimum Wages Order has indeed created confusion in the labour market and that is putting it very mildly. Fortunately, the order comes into force only in January 2013, giving time for corrective measures.

In an attempt to provide some clarity and explanation to this confused state of affairs, the National Wages Consultative Council exercising the powers provided under Section 4(2) of the Act has decided that apart from the matters contained in the Minimum Wages Order 1212 it shall issue some guideline relating to the method of implementation of the order.

Nowhere in Section 4(1) (which refers to the functions of the council) are powers given to it to elaborate, explain, modify or issue guidelines relating to the method of implementing the Minimum Wages Order issued by the Minister under Section 23(1).

If at all the council wants to make any recommendations it could exercise the provision under Section 22(1)(e).

In such an instance it has to make its recommendations to the Government through the Minister.

The Minister, if he agrees with the recommendation, can then issue an order as provided for under Section 22(1). .

Clearly, the drafting of the Minimum Wages Order could have been done much more professionally bearing in mind the objective of the introduction of the minimum wage law.

It is still not too late to remedy the situation and help relieve the unnecessary turmoil the vast majority of employers are now facing.

Up till now so much management time has been lost trying to find answers to the hundreds of questions raised by law abiding employers in the different industries for which no one in the ministry has been able to provide clear-cut answers.

Needless to say, any law enacted must be simple, well drafted, easy to understand and achieve what it is set out to do.

If it creates problems, especially for those who ought not to be affected by it, then something is fundamentally wrong with it.

PETER RAIAPPAN Kuala Lumpur

Related posts:
 Malaysia's minimum wage, and its implications
Malaysia's Minimum wage's benefits and effects
Are Malaysian Employment Laws Challenging?
What's minimum wage in Malaysia?