Saifuddin Nasution This Is Disgusting. Your Fellow Minister Says Your Jabatan Is Corrupted

 

OutSyed The Box

Friday, June 30, 2023

Saifuddin Nasution This Is Disgusting. Your Fellow Minister Says Your Jabatan Is Corrupted

This is clear evidence that this Madani gomen IS SIMPLY NOT FUNCTIONING. The Minister of Tourism is making point blank accusation that the 'jaga KLIA' fellows are corrupted.

 

Memang pun this is old news. These fellows are famous for their corruption. But that was before - under the rule of Zaman Mahazalim dan Mahafiraun, under UMNO-BN and all the other crap. That is why UMNO-BN  lost the elections and they were thrown out.

But this is the new Madani gomen. Saifuddin Nasution is now the new Madani Minister of Home Affairs. 

So Saifuddin Nasution, what are you doing?

Correction : What are you going to do about this.   

Please do something drastic brother. We are 100% behind you. Take drastic action and the people will support you fully.

Saifuddin Nasution : transfer out ALL the officers not only at the KLIA but at every international airport, at every Thai border crossing and at the Singapore crossings.

Just transfer them out. If necessary send them to Pulau Sebatek.

All appointments to the airports and the border crossings must be temporary - not more than 12 months. Unless the officer shows good and professional conduct. If they are professional (with no complaints from the public) then they can stay longer.

Please look into the points raised by the Minister of Tourism and take disciplinary action against the officers involved, especially the fellows who asked for money from the foreign tourist.

Malu bro. This is disgusting. The Madani gomen is not functioning.

One last thing - may I suggest you change the name of that jabatan.  It may force them to wake up.

 p.s. What happened to online betting syndicates protected by politicians?  

Saifuddin, do something bro.

DID YOU KNOW THAT THE MOST COMMON GRADE IN THE SPM 2022 WAS AN A. TIME FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO SPM GRADES

 

OutSyed The Box

Friday, June 30, 2023

DID YOU KNOW THAT THE MOST COMMON GRADE IN THE SPM 2022 WAS AN A. TIME FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO SPM GRADES

I was quite astounded by the back and forth arguments over the number of candidates who ponteng from the 2022 SPM examinations.  The ex-Minister of Education said the number was 'only' 14,500 ponteng. 

Madani man and gang came out shooting from the hip insisting it was 30,000.   They were eager to prove the point that there are more bodoh students in the country. Hooray you won the debate.  Congratulations.

Here is a fantastic piece of news and analysis about the recent SPM grades by K. Parkaran in Free Malaysia Today. Click on the link for the full article.

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2023/06/27/when-a-20-score-is-all-it-takes-for-a-grade-at-spm/

 

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2023/06/27/when-a-20-score-is-all-it-takes-for-a-grade-at-spm/

• Teachers who marked answer scripts say pass mark 20% for maths, science
•  90,000 of 373,974 SPM candidates failed mathematics
• more than half would not pass if pass mark was 50%
• varies every year 
• pass mark decided by Exam Syndicate after papers graded
• something not right at all with our system of marking or grading 
• it seems to be ensuring numbers passing kept at respectable level
• grades may not reflect student’s actual level of mastery of subjects
• students deluding themselves they have scored good grades
• ministry doing great injustice to students
• students lulled into false sense of achievement
• education ministry habit of announcing straight A students
• create false impression students scored 80% to 90% for an A
• Far from it, even 65% falls in A category
  
• annual media event more form than substance, to give feel-good feeling
• The absence of transparency in the passing mark for the various subjects and grading of SPM results have led to many claims of manipulation for various reasons.
• Despite the denial of education ministers, current and past, that they do not manipulate the grading system, doubts will remain as long as it is not transparent.
• This includes keeping the percentage of passes very high to falsely portray that most of our students are doing well. 
• It also produces more students with A grades, apparently to show that everything is hunky dory with our standard of education
• Why is there secrecy about the passing mark for the SPM subjects? 
• It’s time to be open about what the cut-off marks are for each grade. 
• And they must be announced annually.
• That will show us the actual proficiency of the students instead of hiding the truth for cosmetic purposes. 
• Not doing so will continuously give rise to claims of manipulation even if it is not happening.
• The other issue is general poor performance in SPM examination 
• resulting in 70% of school leavers not continuing with tertiary education
  
• no longer sit for common public examination in 10 years of schooling
• sit for the SPM examination in the 11th year
  
• (UPSR) was scrapped in 2021 
• (PMR) was abolished in 2014
• no common public examinations until Form Five
  
• school-based exams no comparison without national level exams
  
• doubts about quality and security of exam papers being printed in schools.
• school-based assessments not nationally standardised like SPM examination.
• A common examination in Form Three a good idea
• Such a system, plus transparency over the SPM passing marks and the grading system, can show Malaysians the actual quality of the students and not lull them into a false sense of achievement.
• The government needs to be transparent and show Malaysians the actual figures

 

My Comments :

This is what I have been saying for years and years.

• Why is there secrecy about the passing mark for the SPM subjects? 
• It’s time to be open about what the cut-off marks are for each grade
  
• And they must be announced annually
• That will show us the actual proficiency of students instead of hiding the truth for cosmetic purposes. 
• Not doing so will continuously give rise to claims of manipulation even if it is not happening.

 

There is something else you should know about the SPM.

The most common grade in the SPM 2022 exam is an A.  

The following is a tabulation of the percentage of SPM grades by subject with data taken from the Ministry of Education. 

The MOE gave only one combined figure for Bs, Cs and then for the Ds and Es.

I divided the Bs and Cs by four (B+, B, C+ and C) to get extra plotting points for the graph.   Because B+, B, C+, C is part of the Ministry's detailed grade scoring system.

N'theless you can see that the highest percentage grade is an A grade, for ALL SIX SUBJECTS.

Lets take Mathematics. 31% of candidates got A+, A or A- . Then 8% got Bs, another 8% got Cs. Or 16% got Bs and Cs combined. 29% got a combined D and E. The highest grade is A.

(Why cant the MOE give exact breakdowns per subject?)

So the highest single grade achieved in Mathematics was an A.  Out of 100 students who sat for Mathematics, 31 of them got an A.  

Lets take English. 25% of candidates got A+, A or A- . Then 16.5% got Bs, another 16.5% got Cs. 14% got D and E respectively.  Again the highest grade is A.

You can see that for each of the six subjects listed by the Ministry, the highest grade achieved is always an A (A+, A- or A). 

Then we tried plotting the 2022 SPM results on a graph.

There are not enough data points available. As I said the MOE combines the number of passes for Bs and Cs. And also for Ds and Es. And I understand the Bs are further subdivided into B+ and B. Also C+ and C.

Why so many subdivisions?

In any case the details are not provided. 

So we had to 'extra-polate' a little and divide the combined Bs and Cs into four.  I agree this does not give accurate numbers for all categories but it helps plot the graph. 

So here is the graph that we got. I agree it is not accurate but it gives some idea.

 

This is an inverted bell-curve. The highest grades are the As on the left. Then the curve levels off around the B to E scorers. For three subjects the curve goes up again for those who fail.

Examination grades should be a proper bell curve like this one:

 

This is a bell-curve with a normal distribution.  A minority of students will fall in the lower grade side (towards the left), a larger number will fall within the passing grade in the middle, and a smaller number will be the high scorers on the right.

If this curve gets inverted (becomes upside down) there is something seriously wrong with the examinations and/or the grading system. 

All these questions raised here plus by the article in Free Malaysia Today about the setting and grading of the SPM examinations should be answered. There is too much secrecy about the whole thing.

We are dealing with the future of the country. 

I feel the politicians have screwed up the education system quite thoroughly and they are doing all sorts of shenanigans to keep the public from understanding what is really going on.

We really cannot trust the politicians. All of them.

We need an honest RCI (Royal Commission of Inquiry) to look into the detailed grading and scoring of the SPM exams.

Russian Wagner Mercenery Rebellion – Why It Looks More Like A Staged Drama Than A Genuine Revolt

Russian Wagner Mercenery Rebellion – Why It Looks More Like A Staged Drama Than A Genuine Revolt



Stalin used to allow – even encourage – mini rebellions to occur so that the revolutionary who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953 could cling to power by flushing out traitors. He would suddenly disappear from the office without announcement for a few weeks, presenting the opportunity to enemies to make their move, before ruthlessly exterminating them.



So, the burning question is did Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of Wagner Group military company, really want to march all the way to Moscow in the infamous 24-hour rebellion? Or was it just a staged attempted mutiny orchestrated by Russian president Vladimir Putin to flush out enemies from within? The West would like the world to believe it was a genuine rebellion.



By trumpeting the narrative that the chaos has “exploded” Putin’s grip on power, the U.S. and its allies hope to win the psychology war that the Russian dictator isn’t invincible. More importantly, the White House hopes it could continue pumping billions of taxpayers’ money into Ukraine War based on the excuse that the weakened Putin can be overthrown.



However, according to the Washington Post, U.S. intelligence knew about Prigozhin’s plans to rebel since mid-June. If Washington knew, you can bet your last penny that the Kremlin did too. Even if Moscow was so useless that they failed to spot miles of hostile military convoy on its way to attack the capital, President Biden will vigorously try to get hold of Putin to tell him.



That’s because if Civil War starts in Russia, rogue operators or ultra-nationalists could take over Russia’s 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons and threaten the Western powers. Yet, Moscow did absolutely nothing to stop him early. If the Russian military intelligence had been so clueless and incompetent in the first place, the country would have been split and conquered ages ago.



The Western media clumsily rushed to broadcast the end of Putin regime the moment the Wagner boss mobilized his 25,000 troops to Moscow. Some even applauded Prigozhin’s bravery in toppling Putin. When the mutiny didn’t happen, the media quickly crucified Prigozhin and laughed at his miscalculation. In the end, he called off his march on Moscow to save “Russian blood”.



But there are still many loopholes in the rebellion story that it’s laughable the head of the feared Wagner Group could be so dumb in executing his plan. As a start, Prigozhin claimed that the Russian army, presumably under instruction from the Russian Defence Ministry, had attacked his forces. However, photographs of the attack’s location did not show such onslaught.



Secondly, Prigozhin whined, moaned and bitched about how the incompetent and corrupt Russian Generals, especially Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, failed to supply food and ammunition to his mercenary troops. Armed with tanks, missiles and other heavy equipments, some 25,000 mercenaries appeared unstoppable as they drove deep into Russian territory.



Incredibly, crowds of people – families and children – waved both Wagner and Russian flags as the convoy captured the port city of Rostov-an-Don. The presence of heavily armed soldiers was quickly seized by locals to take pictures and selfies instead. How could the people support the rebels who were about to destroy the nation? Everyone was celebrating, and nobody cared about the mutiny.



Equally strange was the lack of evidence of mass casualties that would normally happen in a coup. In fact, the rebels, whom Putin called “traitors”, did not meet any resistance along the 700-km as they progressed northward. At the very least, the Russian Air Force should have sent some fighter jets to bomb the highway packed with the rebels or sitting ducks. Why it didn’t happen?




Third, the Wagner military convoy suddenly stopped within 200-km (124 miles) of Moscow after a deal was conveniently struck with the help of Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko. A close buddy of Putin, Lukashenko told Prigozhin that not only he could live in exile peacefully in Belarus, but all charges against him would be dropped if he ended his mutiny.



Fourth, camps to accommodate at least 8,000 Wagner fighters were already being built in the Mogilev region in Belarus, as if Lukashenko knew in advance of the revolt. Everyone knows the Belarusian Army is extremely weak. To make the rebellion even more dramatic, Prigozhin left a huge of his own army to join Russia as he confidently flew into Belarus in a private jet.



And Prigozhin, the convict-turned-oligarch known as “Putin’s Chef”, somehow believes Putin will let bygones be bygones after his betrayal. The bigger question is this – if the Russian president was so weak that he had to forgive and accommodate the traitor, why didn’t Prigozhin proceed with his crusade to Moscow anyway, seize power, and crown himself as the new Russian president?



Sure, we’re supposed to believe that Putin, after bulldozing some tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus in order to intimidate and threaten NATO, is now reduced to a powerless dictator who depends on Lukashenko. Interestingly, from the beginning, Prigozhin had never declared war on Putin, but only on the incompetent Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and his gang.



That would bring us to the next question – what’s Putin’s game plan of the entire drama? Like Joseph Stalin, president Putin might want to flush out traitors among his circle. If the Wagner warlord had hoped the regular Russian army would rise alongside him, the plan failed. Senior Russian generals who might have agreed to support him, if there’s any, had obviously chicken out.



After helping to capture the city of Bakhmut, Prigozhin’s half-baked mutiny also provides a good cover story for Wagner mercenaries to be absorbed legitimately into the Russian regular army. Putin now has a stronger grip on defence minister Sergei Shoigu and army chief of staff Valery Gerasimov, both of whom were said to be hated by other generals.



There’s one compelling reason why the rebellion has been staged by Putin – to deploy Prigozhin and Wagner troops in Belarus to threaten Eastern Europe. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who initially laughed at the chaos in Russia, has now raised alarm over “instability” in the region over threat of attacks from the Wagner mercenaries.



Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said – “If Wagner deploys its serial killers in Belarus, all neighbouring countries face even bigger danger of instability”. Was it a coincidence that after deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Prigozhin was also parachuted into the country to threaten NATO? Wagner fighters now have the option of signing a contract with the Russian defence ministry, or “can go to Belarus”.



Crucially, the Wagner mercenaries, now legitimately positioned in Belarus, can stage a surprise attack on Ukrainian Kiev. The best part is Putin and Russia, after condemning the rebellion and severing ties with the Wagner leader, can claim deniability or responsibility if Prigozhin sends his boys to attack not only Ukraine, but also the Eastern Europe countries.

Minister admits to KLIA commotion, says presence exposed corruption

Minister admits to KLIA commotion, says presence exposed corruption


Tourism, Arts and Culture Minister Tiong King Sing has broken his silence, admitting that he was the minister implicated in the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) Terminal 1 commotion yesterday.

However, he claimed that his presence exposed corruption among officials at the airport.

“I’m grateful because my presence uncovered an event that embarrasses the country - that is, corruption among some officers and the chronic abuse of power at the country’s borders.

“I didn’t want to reveal this because I was acting on a more practical channel and platform. However, since this issue has gone viral, I will explain it,” he said in a statement.

Tiong clarified that the Chinese national he had defended was actually being detained without a reason given. He said that both the immigration officer involved and the tourist had communication issues.

“I was informed that the tourist had completed all the documentation but communication failure between the two parties prevented the Immigration Department from obtaining the necessary documents from her,” he said.

He said that he has been lobbying for translators for foreign nationals from the Middle East, China, and India from as early as March to streamline the process of arrivals and ensure efficiency.

Tiong’s explanation comes after a report by BebasNews alleging that an unnamed minister had purportedly barged into the international arrivals hall to defend a Chinese national being barred from entering Malaysia.

The Chinese national was detained at KLIA since June 28 after arriving in the country before Tiong’s arrival yesterday.

BebasNews, quoting a source, reported that the minister learned about the incident and entered the KLIA arrivals hall without first applying for a pass.


‘Such matters affect country’s image’

The minister said there was a prevalent issue of foreign nationals arriving into Malaysia and having their cell phones confiscated and not being given a reason for their detention.

“Does this (phenomenon) follow legal procedures and standards? I have also been informed that officers change the law at their own will while on the field.

“In fact, the woman who was detained was not given proper food during her detention, which clearly goes against the law.

“I understand that the woman was only fed once during the 15 hours of her detention,” Tiong said.

He claimed that some immigration officers request bribes of up to RM3,000 from detained tourists in order to be released, including a flight ticket back to their home country.

He added that an additional RM3,000 would be requested from these officers to return these tourists to their home country via a “special route” as well as RM12,000 for “processing costs”.

Tiong further denied allegations levelled against him, claiming that he was releasing foreign tourists detained by immigration authorities.

“I have no authority to do that and I would only damage my own reputation if I did so. I am still sane and know my limits as tourism, arts and culture minister.

“What’s the use of me being a minister if I don’t focus seriously on national interests?

“Besides, such matters affect our country’s image and scare away foreign tourists. If we are not serious about this issue now, it will never get resolved.

“Could it be that there are a few officials who are afraid that this matter will be revealed as it affects their personal interests?” he questioned.


Issue to be raised in cabinet

He said that during his visit to KLIA, he had brought an investigation officer from the Tourism Ministry’s integrity unit.

The minister also called for MACC’s involvement in the matter, adding that he would provide information to the anti-graft commission for further investigation.

Tiong added that he would also raise the issue to the cabinet, including a proposal to abolish third-party agents handling foreign tourists who are denied entry into the country.

“It is seemingly chronic as the issue of non-transparency and abuse of power worsens the country’s image on an international scale.

“Hence, we should cancel all third parties in flight ticket management for immigration detainees in Malaysia.

“I would like to suggest that this matter be handled by airlines to prevent such incidents from happening again,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Immigration Department said that it has begun investigations into the incident.

Turmoil strikes Bersatu associate wing as leaders sacked

Turmoil strikes Bersatu associate wing as leaders sacked


Amid preparations for the upcoming six state elections, the Bersatu associate wing is reportedly in turmoil following the abrupt dismissal of at least three top leaders.

In a letter dated June 16, the wing’s assistant secretary Dr Richard Ng said he had received instructions regarding the immediate termination of the appointments of several existing committee members.

Bersatu associate wing assistant secretary Dr Richard Ng


"A new committee is currently in the process of being formed.

“In relation to this, the dismissed leaders are requested not to use their previous posts in any correspondence and communication with the public," Ng stated in the letter.

The letter, which did not mention the names of the dismissed leaders or clarify the source of the dismissal instructions, left details undisclosed.

However, several sources from Bersatu told Malaysiakini that the three leaders are the wing’s deputy chief Dr Mahaganapathy Dass, information chief S Subramaniam and committee member MU Raja.

S Subramaniam


When contacted, Subramaniam confirmed that he had seen the letter, stating accepts any decision made by Bersatu associate wing chairperson Chong Fat Full.

"This is my second 'dismissal' within three weeks. The first time, I was informed through a WhatsApp message. This time, the letter was issued without mentioning the name of the dismissed leader.

"I accept Chong's decision as the appointment and dismissal of a committee member is within his authority.

“However, I hope Chong can provide a strong reason because dismissal without reason will have a negative impact," he said.

Subramaniam mentioned that the matter has been conveyed to Bersatu president, Muhyiddin Yassin.

Meanwhile, Raja stated that he has yet to receive any dismissal letter.

"I have not received any letter. As far as I'm concerned, I am still a member of the Bersatu associate wing," he said.

Malaysiakini has reached out to Chong for comments.

The Bersatu associate wing was established in 2021 within the party to represent the party’s non-bumiputera members.

The untold truth about Taiwan’s real legal position

The untold truth about Taiwan’s real legal position

BY RICHARD CULLEN

The daily Western presentation of Taiwan as a functionally independent nation on the verge of being “invaded” by China flies in the face of the actual facts, as specified by global agreements recognized and codified by people on both sides of the strait.

• China’s governing constitutional instruments specify that the mainland and Taiwan are one country;

• And so does the constitutional document of Taiwan, Republic of China – it ALSO specifies that the two entities are a single, indivisible country;

• To this day, the ROC Constitution ostensibly applies not just to Taiwan but to the whole of China, indicating the Taipei-based government’s control over Tibet and other parts;

• China’s “Nine Dash Line” under which the country claims a large portion of the South China Sea is actually a reduced version of Taiwan’s “Eleven Dash Line”, which Taiwan still applies to the same waters;

• Journalists correctly mention that some countries (193) legally support China while others (13) legally support Taiwan; but they omit the key fact that both groups (read the small print) legally support the principle that mainland China and Taiwan are a single country;

• While some in Taiwan’s DPP openly push for independence, the party would have to rip up or massively amend Taiwan’s own constitutional document to do so.

Professor of Law Richard Cullen reports on the actual legal situation, and how it evolved, to clear up the widely circulated myths about the relationship between mainland China and Taiwan.

***

AMIDST THE ACUTE geopolitical debate about the status of Taiwan, the clear constitutional consensus that there is One China, which includes Taiwan, is largely overlooked.

We need to examine some key historical developments in order to comprehend how this has come to pass; and why this agreement endures.

It will also become plain, as we investigate these events, why certain parties, today, find this agreed cross-strait fundamental legal perspective to be a notably awkward component of the foundations that lie beneath the acrimonious geopolitical debate.


THREE CENTURIES AGO

Taiwan was formally established as a part of China well over 300 years ago, in 1684, when the Manchu, Qing Dynasty annexed Taiwan, following the Manchu defeat of the Ming Dynasty.

Taiwan is close to the province of Fujian.


Subsequently, Taiwan was absorbed as a colony within the rapidly emerging new Japanese Empire, as a war prize, after Japan defeated Qing Dynasty China in 1895, in the First Sino-Japanese War.

After the dropping of American atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945. One consequence of this surrender was that Japan’s imperial rule over Taiwan was essentially terminated with immediate effect (subject to the completion of handover procedures) in August 1945.


THE RE-OCCUPATION OF TAIWAN ISLAND

By October 1945, the then globally recognized Chinese Government – the Republic of China (ROC) Kuomintang (KMT) Government – began to re-occupy Taiwan. By May, 1947 the KMT had established, in accord with the ROC Constitution, a Province of Taiwan Government in Taipei.

Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in Taiwan. Image by Rovin Ferrer/ Unsplash.


By late 1949, the Communist Party of China (CPC) had defeated the KMT in the Chinese Civil War, which re-commenced in 1945-46, once it was clear that Japan faced defeat in the Second Sino Japanese War (and WW2). The People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established by the CPC on October 1, 1949. The KMT – and, thus, the ROC – meanwhile, retreated to Taiwan.

Staunch American support – including the threat of using atomic weapons against the PRC – helped ensured that the CPC was prevented from taking over Taiwan in the 1950s. But it also became clear that the KMT aim to make China one, again (including Taiwan) under the ROC Constitution, was not going to happen.


THE ROC CONSTITUTION

But what were the origins and fundamental scope of that ROC Constitution?

Following the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, the Republic of China was established in 1912, when a Provisional Constitution for the ROC was drawn up. Further Provisional Constitutions were promulgated, including one in 1931. After extensive drafting and debate, the original version of the current ROC Constitution took effect on December 25, 1947, almost two years before the defeat of the KMT in the Chinese Civil War.

Page one of the original constitution, drafted 1946, ratified 1947.


Since then, the ROC Constitution has been amended a number of times, but its essential structure has not been altered in the sense that it remains, to this day, a constitution that ostensibly applies not just to Taiwan but to all of China. Given that when this constitution was first applied, the KMT was globally recognized as the government of all of China (including Taiwan), this is not surprising.


TAIWAN’S CONSTITUTION SAYS IT INCLUDES TIBET, FOR EXAMPLE

Thus, within the ROC Constitution, as it currently applies, there are repeated references to the geographical-political constituent parts of China, including Provinces, Mongolian Leagues and Banners and Tibet. Meanwhile, Article 4 states that the territory of the ROC cannot be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly.

In fact, the list of ROC, nominal, territorial disputes with jurisdictions on the Asian mainland (including, Afghanistan, India, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan and the USSR) remained quite extensive for some decades after 1949.

Taiwan’s documents assume leadership over all China, including Tibet. Photo by Daniele Salutari on Unsplash.


The PRC, meanwhile, resolved most of its continental, international territorial disputes, with India being the key exception. (The PRC negotiated treaties settling these border disputes on behalf of China were typically not recognized as legitimate by the ROC (which maintained Taipei’s claim to represent all of China.))


NINE-DASH LINE IS ‘REDUCED’ VERSION

Both the ROC and the PRC maintain largely overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Thus, the contested “Nine Dash Line”, which underpins PRC claims to extensive jurisdiction of large parts of the South China Sea is, in fact, a reduced (in favour of Vietnam) version of the earlier ROC, “Eleven Dash Line”, which Taiwan still applies.

Both the PRC and the ROC also strongly contest Japanese control of the Diaoyu (or Senkaku) Islands in the East China Sea.

This Taiwanese military emblem shows the island, not as a separate country, but as part of the whole.


TAIWAN HAD TWO GOVERNMENTS IN TAIPEI

A further indicative aspect of how the ROC Constitution has been applied (within Taiwan controlled territory) since 1949 is that until 1998, the Taiwanese governing system comprised a National Government based in Taipei – and a separate Province of Taiwan Government – with each government essentially having jurisdiction over the same geographical area.

From 1957 to 2018, this was the Taiwan Provincial Government. Image: Vegafish/ Wikimedia Commons.


The ROC on Taiwan also once supported a separate, operating but largely nominal Province of Fujian Government, which came into existence due to the KMT maintaining political control over certain small offshore island groups (Kinmen and Matsu) geographically part of Fujian Province on the Mainland. (These islands are located in the Taiwan Strait very close to the Mainland.)

Until late 1971, the claimed but nominal ROC jurisdiction over all of China was widely recognized internationally – and especially by the United Nations. The ROC, representing China, became one of the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council (holding a veto power), along with Britain, France, the US and the USSR (now Russia).

Eventually the geopolitical tectonic plates shifted, however, and, in late 1971, the United Nations voted by a large margin to stop recognizing the KMT Government in Taiwan as the government of all of China and switch that recognition to the PRC Government based in Beijing.

Subsequently, many countries began to accept that the sole legitimate government of China was based in Beijing, including Australia in 1972 and the US in 1979.


OVERWHELMING MAJORITY

Today, Beijing maintains full diplomatic relations, on this same basis, with the overwhelming majority of UN Member States. The ROC on Taiwan now retains full diplomatic relations with just 12 of the 193 UN Member States – plus the Holy See, which governs Vatican City.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is the current governing party in Taiwan and Tsai Ing-wen is the DPP President of Taiwan. The Voice of America recently confirmed, the DPP favours independence for Taiwan.


THIS IS AWKWARD

Awkwardly, as we have seen above, the ROC Constitution, under which the DPP governs Taiwan, insistently supports the unity of all of China – including Taiwan. Indeed, the ROC Constitution would require massive amendment if it were to be transformed into a constitution which could provide a Basic Law for a constitutionally independent Taiwan. Any such move would, in turn, cross a critically bright, PRC political red-line, triggering plainly foreseeable, grave consequences.

The agreement that Taiwan is part of China is universally acknowledged.


Taiwan’s own constitution, the ROC Constitution, has, thus, created an entrenched, major formal deterrent to any reckless political action aimed at undermining the shared, cross-strait constitutional consensus that there is only One China – including Taiwan.

The misleading “western lens” view is pushed by many journalists critical of China, including some in Hong Kong.

This has established a thorny underlying, ultimately geopolitical problem for the DPP – and for Washington (along with other China Threat devotees) even as the US continues to play the Taiwan card as part of its massive project to try and contain the rise of China.


ONE CHINA POLICY REMAINS UNIVERSALLY ENDORSED

As for those 13 jurisdictions that still recognize the ROC based in Taiwan as the sole legitimate government of China, it follows that this means they are each a party to the very firm view, embodied in the ROC Constitution, that there is only One China, which includes Taiwan. Therefore, bearing in mind that this is the view shared by all of those many other jurisdictions recognizing Beijing diplomatically, the One China principle continues, in essence, to be universally endorsed.

Although it is most unlikely that the then ROC President, Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT could have envisaged, in 1947, the particular, impulse-controlling – and unifying – influence of the remarkable ROC Constitution over 75 years later, we can surely be thankful that it continues to have this constructive, long-term impact.


Richard Cullen is a Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong and a popular writer on public affairs.

Tiong says airport ‘visit’ exposed corruption

UPDATED 1745 hrs with Malaysiakini report - see below FMT report

FMT:

Tiong says airport ‘visit’ exposed corruption

The tourism, arts and culture minister says he will lodge a report with the anti-graft agency.

Tourism, arts and culture minister Tiong King Sing denied that he was attempting to help secure the release of the foreigner. (Facebook pic)


PETALING JAYA: Tiong King Sing said his visit to Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) had exposed the alleged corrupt activities at the country’s main gateway.

The tourism, arts and culture minister had also admitted that he was at the centre of the commotion recently.

“My presence uncovered a culture of corruption by a few officials and chronic abuse of power,” he said in a statement.

He added that he will be providing the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission with details.

Earlier today, transport minister Loke Siew Fook said airport authorities were investigating the incident where a minister had allegedly barged into the arrival hall without a pass to help a Chinese national who was detained.

Bebas News reported that a minister allegedly caused a commotion by entering the international arrival hall to help a Chinese citizen who was denied entry into the country.

The minister then allegedly scolded KLIA auxiliary police and immigration officers while trying to help the Chinese national.

However, Tiong denied that he was attempting to help secure the release of the foreigner.

“I have no authority for that, and I would only damage my own reputation if I did so.”

MORE TO COME

*********

Minister admits to KLIA commotion, says presence exposed corruption


Tourism, Arts and Culture Minister Tiong King Sing has broken his silence, admitting that he was the minister implicated in the Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) Terminal 1 commotion yesterday.

However, he claimed that his presence exposed corruption among officials at the airport.

“I’m grateful because my presence uncovered an event that embarrasses the country - that is, corruption among some officers and the chronic abuse of power at the country’s borders.

“I didn’t want to reveal this because I was acting on a more practical channel and platform. However, since this issue has gone viral, I will explain it,” he said in a statement.

Tiong clarified that the Chinese national he had defended was actually being detained without a reason given. He mentioned that both the immigration officer involved and the tourist also had communication issues.

“I was informed that the tourist had completed all the documentation but communication failure between the two parties prevented the Immigration Department from obtaining the necessary documents from her,” he said.

Tiong’s explanation comes after a report by BebasNews alleging that an unnamed minister had purportedly barged into the international arrivals hall to defend a Chinese national being barred from entering Malaysia.

BebasNews, quoting a source, reported that the minister learned about the incident and entered the KLIA arrivals hall without first applying for a pass.

Tiong today denied allegations levelled against him, which had claimed that he was releasing foreign tourists detained by immigration authorities.

“I have no authority to do that, and I would only damage my own reputation if I did so. I’m still sane and know my limits as tourism, arts and culture minister.

“But what's the use of me being a minister if I don't focus seriously on national interests?

“Besides, such matters affect our country’s image and scare away foreign tourists. If we are not serious about this issue now, it will never get resolved.

“Could it be that there are a few officials who are afraid that this matter will be revealed as it affects their personal interests?” he questioned.

[More to follow]