Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia
No News Is Bad News
World trade disruption fears with racist Trump’s return, but Malaysia has even more worries with racial and religious bigotry
https://youtu.be/RJpeH_Ww8H4?si=9EEw6tpz0vgeSLdg (US companies shifts out of China for fear of Trump’s 60% tariff threat)
KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 11, 2024: The return of the racist Donald Trump as the US president has sparked fears of his threat to impose 60% tariffs on China-related trade and business.
And they believe it will happen as it would be resuming Trump’s social, world and economic policies after he won the presidency in 2016 - and furthering his anti-China agenda for the US.
However, the imposition of such hefty tariffs will not only hurt China but also the US and the rest of the world (view the above video clip for details).
Americans will, especially, feel the excruciating financial and economic pain witgh having to pary for costlier goods and services.
This is a comment on social media in response to the above video clip:
Slapping a 60% tariff rate on China is slapping yourself on the face..no one will win a tariff war..expect China to stay silent and let you slap..? American firms are moving out and also being kicked out of China...moving to where..? Vietnam..? Wait till they see the infrastructure and "highway" roads in Vietnam ..they are atrociously backward with treks of sand, gravel, dirt and dust all over... and the English spoken is horrendous..if they speak any ??..easy to say something when you have not even been there..!!
For Malaysia, its is double jeopardy for trade and investors - they have to grapple with the Anwar Ibrahim-led so-called Madani Unity Government (UG)’s pandering with racial and religious bigotry, triggering growing jittery of local and foreign investors.
No News Is Bad News reproduces below a commentary by Dr Mohd Tajuddin Rasdi, a Professor of Architecture in a local university and another analysis titled The causes and consequences of Trump’s comeback:
A tale of two flags
-11 Nov 2024, 07:30 AM
I have many Chinese Malaysians as friends and colleagues, and I don’t recall hearing any one of them wanting to abandon Malaysia to live in China.
Several politicians from parties based on race and religion have on several occasions raised concerns over the waving of China’s national flag.
Before this issue came up, I had no idea that waving the flag of another country could be considered a crime punishable by the law. That was a real surprise to me, in this day and age of globalisation and the borderless internet.
A lawyer friend I had consulted said the law was created by the British during the colonial era, when the fight against communism and the idea of Malays siding with Indonesia were threats to national security.
However, is it valid now that there are no more communist or Indonesian threats to the country? Why is it okay to fervently wave the Palestinian flag but not to wave China’s flag?
Furthermore, as far as I can tell, it’s predominantly the Malays who waved Palestinian flags here while in the Teluk Intan incident, China’s flag was waved by Chinese nationals visiting Malaysia.
Let us also put on record that the Palestinians have a religious tie with Malays in Malaysia, while the Chinese in both countries have cultural and religious ties with one another.
So, why the fuss?
Relations with China
Plus, we have trade relations with China while we do not have any significant economic ties with Palestine.
We have 24,000 students from China enrolled at Malaysian higher education institutions.
I supervise four PhD students from China at UCSI University. I am told that Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, of which I am on the board of directors, has thousands of graduate students from China.
There were discussions about the clash of culture between the students from China and the conservative Malay-Muslim populace of Bangi, where UKM is located.
Double standard
The political parties making an issue of the China flags have obviously been supportive of waving the Palestinian flags.
During the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the US went to war against Iraq. I never supported Saddam and Iraq but most Malays did and they waved Iraqi flags everywhere.
Why was that not a concern? According to the possibly 70-year-old law, the waving of any flag of any other country would be considered an infraction. Why the double standard over China’s flag and the flag of so-called Muslim nations?
Security issue
My father fought the communist insurgents when he was in the Police Field Force. My mother suffered so much anxiety having to care for six children while not knowing if my father would return home.
Eventually, she suffered from a crippling anxiety disorder for 30 years until her death.
The communists were a threat. My father was also on alert during the Indonesian Confrontation of 1964. I was two years old and can still remember my father bringing home a Bren or a Sten submachine gun. As a normal boy, guns were exciting toys then.
In the present day, Anwar Ibrahim has just returned from a four-day trip to China during which he discussed trade. Malaysia has normalised relations with China for decades now, since the time of Abdul Razak Hussein, the father of Najib.
The US no longer looks like a viable or even a decent partner in trade, culture and politics, and so we have BRICS, of which Malaysia is a partner country.
Identity politics
As in the olden days of the Melaka sultanate, we still have to look to China for our protection. In turn, we offer the Chinese people our country as their second home and for their holidaymaking. We are a peaceful country and that is a salable commodity of ours.
So why do these two Malay- and religious-based political parties raise such a hue and cry over the waving of China flags by Chinese nationals?
I have many Chinese Malaysians as friends and colleagues, and I do not remember hearing any one of them wanting to abandon Malaysia to live in China. They are all Malaysians and are happy to be so, despite the shenanigans of a few naughty race- and religion- based political parties.
The reason, to me, is obvious.
Both these political parties have no good idea on developing Malaysia if they ever come to power. These two political parties have no choice but to resort to old identity politics, turning China and the Chinese into bogeymen, in order to attract young Malay voters.
Outdated law
I do not think that the law about waving flags is relevant any more. As an academic, I share my knowledge and experience with the world and I read what the world says about many issues.
Malaysia, as a business-oriented nation, must cater to all markets willing to buy our products and not restrict ourselves to old boundaries of political ideology and cultural animosity. We must even use vaccines from non-Muslim countries in order to survive as part of the human species.
Would it be wrong for me to display the flags of all the countries that I feel I could learn from? It will never mean that I am disloyal to Malaysia.
The days of living under a rock with race- and religion-based issues should no longer be entertained because all religion is for all humanity and every one is part of the human race.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
The causes and consequences of Trump’s comeback
-11 Nov 2024, 07:15 AM
For one, many countries will be affected by Donald Trump’s isolationist ‘America First’ policy.
During the just-concluded US election campaign, I did not follow opinion polls, pore over “evidence-based” predictions, or read “expert” analyses of the race. As soon as I saw some of the most famous faces in American pop culture – from Taylor Swift and Beyoncé to Oprah Winfrey and Bruce Springsteen – campaigning for vice-president Kamala Harris, I knew she was going to lose.
This might seem counter-intuitive: these celebrities have millions of fans, so it stands to reason that they can influence millions of voters.
But in an election framed by one side as a battle pitting “the people” against “the elites,” associating oneself with ultra-wealthy celebrities – people who live in gated mansions, fly in private jets, and walk down public streets flanked by security guards – is a losing strategy.
The last thing the people want, as they struggle with high prices and fear for their futures, is for elites to tell them how to vote.
This sentiment is not unique to the US. Israel’s liberal left has always enjoyed the overwhelming support of musicians, artists, and filmmakers; its representatives always receive the endorsement of the liberal Haaretz newspaper. And it has not had an electoral victory in a generation.
As a friend once quipped: If you want to win an election, make sure that Haaretz is against you. Couldn’t Donald Trump say the same about The New York Times?
Many of the 73 million Americans who voted for Trump in this election were motivated by legitimate grievances over issues like economic insecurity and immigration. One can criticise their apparent willingness to accept Trump’s misogynistic and otherwise offensive rhetoric, his habit of abandoning allies and trampling on democratic norms, and his obvious authoritarian ambitions.
One might consider it objectionable to cast a vote for a candidate who, after losing the last election, incited a mob of his supporters to march on the US Capitol to disrupt the certification of the results.
But whether or not Democratic leaders like these voters’ priorities, they probably should not disparage large swaths of the electorate, say, by calling them “deplorables,” as Hillary Clinton did during the 2016 campaign, or implying that they are “garbage,” as Joe Biden did last month.
Again, the US is not unique in this regard. In Israel – where, as in America, elections tend to be part of an ongoing culture war – the late comedian Dudu Topaz’s disparaging comments in 1981 about supporters of the right-wing populist Likud party is thought to have driven swing voters to back Likud leader Menachem Begin, rather than Labor party leader Shimon Peres. In 2015, it was writer Yair Garbuz who helped galvanise Benjamin Netanyahu’s voters by calling them “kissers of talismans and worshippers of the graves of saints”.
In any case, if a failed insurrection is not enough to turn people against Trump, are celebrity endorsements really going to work? This brings us to another shortcoming of the left: a tendency to underestimate the strength and durability of their opponents’ appeal. When Likud emerged in 1977, the left viewed it as a blip, incapable of lasting.
Today, Likud’s Netanyahu is the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history. In America, the Trump phenomenon, widely dismissed in 2016 as a fluke, now looks like a persistent trend.
Despite his inflammatory rhetoric and utter lack of regard for the truth, Netanyahu has enjoyed the steadfast support of a large share of working people, religious conservatives, and other groups for whom “progressive” values, from cooperation and compromise to gender equality, are anathema. The same is true for Trump – the first Republican to win the popular vote in two decades.
Despite being wealthy and privileged, both Trump and Netanyahu present themselves as uniquely qualified to challenge the out-of-touch liberal elites and their allies, not least the mainstream media. The left might see through their claims to act in the people’s interest, but this is no reason to assume that voters will, too.
The Democrats’ failure to mount an effective challenge to Trump will have far-reaching consequences. For starters, Trump’s victory will have a galvanising effect on similar authoritarian projects globally.
The world is locked in an ideological battle between autocratic regimes – think China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia – and democracies. If the democratic camp is to prevail, US leadership is essential. Under Trump, such leadership is uncertain.
For example, Trump seems prepared to abandon Ukraine. There is reason to think that he might start by freezing the front lines. But, while this could open the way for peace negotiations with Russia, it also summons the specter of the Munich Agreement, under which Britain and France sacrificed part of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler in 1938.
Forcing Ukraine to cede large amounts of territory to Russia will not bring “peace for our time” any more than giving the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany prevented Hitler from occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia six months later and starting World War II six months after that.
Such a scenario would be particularly catastrophic for Europe, which is unprepared to carry the burden of Ukraine’s war effort on its own.
Making matters worse for Europe, Trump’s frequent criticism of Nato – including (not unreasonably) European members’ failure to meet their military-spending targets – has raised doubts about his commitment to the Alliance. He might even impose tariffs on imports from the European Union, as he did during his first presidency, in a bid to protect American industry.
Trump’s isolationist “America First” approach also has implications for Taiwan, to which he is unlikely to offer the kinds of defense commitments Biden has provided. That would be good news for China, though Trump will otherwise maintain his confrontational approach to the country.
Among those celebrating Trump’s victory are Netanyahu and his allies, who expect to be given free rein to continue their colonisation project in the Palestinian West Bank. But they might soon find that Trump’s drive to reduce America’s involvement in foreign affairs also applies to the Middle East.
Notwithstanding his incendiary rhetoric, Trump has shown no inclination towards war. It is thus likely that he will press Israel to end the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon, even if it means that Netanyahu has to dissolve his precious coalition of extremists who fantasise about building a new Middle East order by waging war with Iran.
Drawing the US into such an enterprise has long been Netanyahu’s dream. But, unlike Biden, Trump will not sacrifice himself politically in the name of radical Zionism.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, is vice-president of the Toledo International Center for Peace. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Update:
Fears of Trump trade wars cast shadow over Asia-Pacific summit
-12 Nov 2024, 10:35 AM
Protectionist policies on trade and fossil fuels risk undermining alliances built by president Joe Biden.
Apec, founded in 1989 to promote regional trade, unites 21 economies representing 62% of global GDP and over 40% of global commerce. (AP pic)
LIMA: The presidents of the US, China and other Asia Pacific nations gather in Lima this week for an economic summit overshadowed by the prospect of a world embroiled in trade wars under Donald Trump.
It will be the last Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit for Joe Biden before he hands the presidency to Trump next year after a rout for the Democratic party in Nov 5 presidential elections.
Trump’s “America First” agenda, with protectionist stances on global commerce, fossil fuel extraction and foreign conflicts, is threatening alliances Biden had built on issues ranging from the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, to climate change and trade.
Biden will be in the Peruvian capital later this week with China’s Xi Jinping, who had called for the two countries to find ways to “get along” after Trump’s victory.
It is not known if the men will meet for private talks, nor has any envoy from Trump’s Republican party been confirmed to attend the summit.
The president-elect has promised to slap huge new tariffs on Beijing in an attempt to balance bilateral trade, which he claims has left America holding the short end of the stick.
He also threatened tariffs of 25% or more on goods coming from Mexico unless it stops an “onslaught of criminals and drugs” crossing the border.
“Trump’s victory will definitely impact the Apec summit, given his rather protectionist narrative,” international relations professor Oscar Vidarte of the Catholic University of Peru told AFP.
“Apec is obviously weakened,” he added.
Apec, created in 1989 with a goal of regional trade liberalisation, brings together 21 economies that jointly represent 62% of global GDP and over 40% of global commerce.
With the theme: “Empower. Include. Grow,” the 2024 summit programme was to focus on trade and investment for inclusive growth, innovation, and sustainable growth for its members’ common good.
But uncertainty over Trump’s next moves now clouds the event’s agenda – as it does with the COP29 climate talks under way in Azerbaijan, and a G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro next week.
‘A tougher stance’
Biden had not removed all the tariffs imposed on China during Trump’s first term from 2017-2021.
But observers say the 47th president’s increasingly pugilistic narrative will drive the wedge between Washington and Beijing ever deeper.
“With respect to the two main issues on the agenda – migration and China – Trump will take a tougher stance… than Biden,” Michael Shifter, an expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, told AFP.
“There is a risk, however, that pressuring governments in the Pacific Basin to pick sides between China and the US could be counterproductive, increasing China’s presence and influence in Latin America.”
While in Peru, Xi will inaugurate South America’s first Chinese-funded port, in Chancay, north of Lima.
Expected to serve as a major trade hub, the US$3.5-billion complex is seen as symbolic of Beijing’s growing influence in South America, where it has built a vast array of railways, highways and other infrastructure.
China is an ally of Western pariahs Russia and North Korea, and is building up its own military capacity while ramping up pressure on Taiwan, which it claims as part of its territory.
But the world’s second-largest economy is grappling with a prolonged housing crisis and sluggish consumption that can only be made worse by Trump’s tariffs.
Economists say punitive tariffs will likely also harm the American economy and affect trade with neighbours Canada and Mexico – both Apec members – as well as Europe.
Starting Wednesday, Lima will receive government ministers and business leaders of Apec member countries, which also include Russia, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Chile and Australia.
Ministerial meetings will take place Thursday, followed by talks at the level of heads of state the following two days.
Russia’s Vladimir Putin is not attending the summit, for which Peru has deployed more than 13,000 soldiers in Lima.
No comments:
Post a Comment