Lazada Malaysia

Our Govermental ministers ought be ashamed of themselves.

Why is an ambassador doing the job that should have been done by our Govermental ministers ,to do the Petaling street walkabout and calm down the tense communal relations .
Not any single strong statement by any of our Govermental ministers against the so blatant and public expression of intent to stir anti-communal relations was even made...

They should be ashamed of themselves if it takes an ambassador-a foreigner- to lead the way to show concern by a simple act of a walkabout and issuing statements in guise of good relations..

As if they don't know their jobs to safeguard the entrenched constitutional charter safeguarding all communities..

Btw Ambassador Huang Huikang's visit to Petaling Street last Friday, saying
China would not sit idly by if its interests are affected.
(Noone seem to have latched on to this remark.and pondered more on it!).
And also it seemed to have overshadowed the US issued alert of a potential terror threat in Jln Alor..Not much coverage there.
(Personally,i do find the timing of the alert somewhat odd!)

Just wondering how it is seen as China meddling or Interferring in domestic affairs
That usually means a foreign diplomat condemning policies or actions by  a local government.

But when its Malaysia's very own  policy to reject racism and extremism or ethnocentrism......
Should it not  therefore,be seen as  China voicing out its support of the official Malaysian policy and actually help Malaysia promote those values..

As our Govermental ministers stay put in their high bigoted airs and didn't even whimper any rebuke to the likes of  Jamal and Ali they ran riot with their seditious statements.

 But now crawling out from their respective cracks and crannies ,like bitten by fireants, to protest a goodwill gesture -when the ambassador was  tactfully doing their jobs for them..

(Although i do not fully agree with the view but does not mean i do not subscribe to some salient points either.The thought provoking insights highlighted in bold)

China’s Unconventional Diplomacy

by Dato’ Dennis Ignatius
COMMENT Wisma Putra is right to summon Ambassador Huang Huikang of China to protest his unwarranted interference in our domestic affairs. Huang’s symbolically-charged visit to Petaling Street, in the heart of Chinatown, and his insensitive remarks, broke a long-standing taboo in Malaysia-China relations.
Today’s report that the acting Foreign Minister has reversed the decision to summon the Ambassador is utterly disgraceful and shows just how weak and indecisive the Najib Abdul Razak administration is. The signal it sends is that Malaysia can be pushed around without consequences. It is yet another shameless abrogation by the government of its responsibilities.
Contentious bilateral issues
In the arduous negotiations leading to the normalisation of bilateral relations in 1974, the most contentious issues involved China’s policy towards overseas Chinese, as they were then called.
China had always considered Chinese living abroad as overseas citizens with special rights and obligations. It was not the loyalty of Malaysian Chinese that was in question but China’s insistence in demanding their allegiance. The other issue was China’s support for the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). Radio Suara Revolusi Malaya, the Voice of the Malayan People’s Revolution, was based in China.
It was only after these two contentious issues were satisfactorily resolved – with China agreeing to fully respect the sovereignty and independence of Malaysia – that full normalisation of relations could proceed and, subsequently, blossom.
Viewed against this historical background, Ambassador Huang’s visit to Petaling Street on the eve of another red shirt rally was an unprecedented breach of a solemn undertaking.
An unwarranted intrusion
His statement that China would “not sit idly by” over any “infringement on China’s national interests, violations of legal rights and interests of Chinese citizens and businesses which may damage the friendly relationship between China and the host country” was particularly astonishing.
What legitimate Chinese national interest was at stake in the Petaling Street issue? Which legal rights of Chinese citizens were violated by the proposed red shirt rally? How do tense race relations in Malaysia impinge on friendly relations with China, unless, of course, China still considers itself the overlord of all ethnic Chinese, whatever their citizenship?
No question that the behaviour of people like Jamal Yunos and Ali Tinju was utterly disgraceful. And shame on Prime Minster Najib Abdu Razak and Deputy Prime Minister Zahid Hamidi for not acting decisively against the red shirts and discharging their constitutional responsibility to protect and defend Malaysian citizens, irrespective of their ethnic background.
If only Najib or Zahid had taken a page from the Ambassador’s playbook and gone to Petaling Street to reassure the people there, perhaps it might not have come to this.
Nevertheless, none of the above justifies Ambassador Huang’s intervention. Besides, he should know that the struggle that is unfolding in Malaysia today is not about race – as the red-shirts want it to be – but about good governance, an end to endemic corruption and building a strong, united and democratic nation.
Huang’ visit, with all its racial connotations was, therefore, as unwelcome as it was unhelpful. I hope he has now noted the overwhelming rejection by Malaysian Chinese themselves of any involvement by Beijing in our domestic politics. It should underline the fact that China has absolutely no role to play in the evolution of our political system.
A dangerous precedent
China’s interference also carries with it the danger that others might feel similarly tempted to get involved in Malaysia’s evolving political situation. Imagine the Saudi Ambassador threatening unspecified consequences if hudud is rejected. Or the Indian ambassador mediating between the perpetually warring MIC factions. Or the Indonesian ambassador insisting that any criticism of Najib or Zahid, both of whom are of Indonesian origin, might negatively impact bilateral relations.
Unfortunately, some UMNO leaders themselves have set the precedent by claiming that a wealthy Arab ruler essentially paid Najib millions of dollars for “his anti-Jewish stance”. Is our foreign policy now for sale to the highest bidder? Are policies initiated to serve the national interest or merely to enrich a select few? If that doesn’t compromise our independence, what does?
Pressure tactics
More ominously, given the way China’s bureaucracy works, Ambassador Huang’s actions would almost certainly have been cleared at the highest levels of government in Beijing and might well signal a more assertive strategy towards Malaysia.
Could China now be trying to exploit Malaysia’s internal difficulties to advance its own interests? It is no secret, for example, that China has been unhappy with the Najib administration’s close military cooperation with the United States as well as the government’s support for the highly controversial American-inspired Trans-Pacific trade deal.
Seen from this perspective, China might well be warning Najib against too close a relationship with the US. Whatever it is, the threat about “not sitting idly by” is reminiscent of the kind of language that Beijing has used in the past to warn recalcitrant governments of tough action unless it gets its way.
To now hear a Chinese Ambassador use those words against Malaysia is nothing short of outrageous. It is cheap swagger, a crude bully attempt and completely unacceptable.
I suppose this is what happens when we have a weak, scandal-plagued government whose policies have divided the nation, weakened our economy, undermined our resilience and rendered us vulnerable to external interference.Wisma Putra’s backtracking on the summons just proves this point.
Is Wisma Putra up to the challenge?
I certainly hope Wisma Putra is fully awake to the challenges that China poses and is up to the task of managing relations with such an increasingly assertive neighbour. A prompt review of our relations with China would certainly be appropriate now. In the meantime, Ambassador Huang’s unacceptable behaviour requires a firm response: Wisma Putra, if it truly concerned about protecting our national interests, should request his prompt removal.

DENNIS IGNATIUS was a career foreign service officer who served in London, Beijing, Washington, Santiago, Buenos Aires and Ottawa. He retired as High Commissioner to Canada in 2008.
Although Dato Din surmised it well in his posts below.
Din Merican7Yes, the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a country isaccepted by all members of the United Nations. It is a cardinal principle embodied in the UN Charter. ASEAN members too must sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia which contains this non-interference clause, and so must its dialogue partners in the ASEAN Regional Forum.
But the world has changed since human rights violations in UN member countries have become common throughout the world where governments fail to protect their citizens; in stead they have committed untold cruelties including genocide against  their own people. Bosnia, Rwanda and  Cambodia  come to mind.
So today, the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is increasingly being talked about  as an alternative to dealing with  rouge regimes. This means that while it is the solemn  duty the State to prevent and halt genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities, the international community has a role that cannot be blocked by the invocation of sovereignty. Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility where States are accountable for the welfare of their people. This principle is enshrined in Article 1 of the Genocide Convention and embodied in the principle of “sovereignty as responsibility” and in the concept of R2P.
Of course, the present situation in Malaysia where the Malays in red shirts are given a free hand to threaten Malaysian Chinese  does warrant intervention from the international community under R2P.
I see no harm for an Ambassador to express his concern on behalf of his government  or in his personal capacity over ultra Malay extremism against the Chinese community which has been doing business in the Petaling Street area of Kuala Lumpur for generations. It is, in fact, is shameful that the MCA, Gerakan and Chinese business tycoons did not react but are complicit in this UMNO sponsored madness.
Ambassador Dato Ignatius is overreacting to Ambassador Huang’s comments. ‘The Chinese Ambassador, a seasoned diplomat, was a guest at the Moon Cake Festival function by businessmen and shopkeepers in Petaling Street. He was merely reminding the Najib Administration of the need to exercise caution and prudence.  Despite the unfortunate MH370 tragedy, Malaysia and China enjoys close and harmonious trade and investment relations for more than 30 years since Tun Abdul Razak established diplomatic relations with that country in 1974.
Wisma Putra is correct to reverse its decision to summon Ambassador Huang to protest ” his unwarranted interference in our domestic affairs”. Let us not make a mountain out of a molehill and allow our emotions to get the better of us.–Din Merican