Anwar advocates for political cooperation in Asia at CPC dialogue
BEIJING: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has expressed his support for an initiative aimed at enhancing political cooperation and regional stability in Asia.
In his congratulatory message at the "CPC (Communist Party of China) in Dialogue with Political Parties of Neighbouring Countries," he said the CPC initiative reflects a commitment to regional solidarity, inclusivity, and constructive engagement during global uncertainty.
As the Chair of Asean, he said Malaysia welcomes this initiative, which aligns with the shared aspirations for a stable, prosperous, and interconnected Asia.
He said the theme "Building a Community with a Shared Future with Neighbouring Countries—Political Parties in Action' encapsulates the urgent need for political foresight and collective responsibility among Asian nations.
"We view this dialogue as more than a diplomatic engagement. It is a strategic conduit to consolidate mutual trust, amplify regional voices and chart a path towards shared destiny.
"May this dialogue serve not merely as a forum of ideas, but as a beacon of unity, a compass for regional stability and a catalyst for transnational solidarity," added Anwar, who is also PKR president.
DAP vice-chairman Teo Nie Ching, also Deputy Communications Minister, read his message.
Representatives from MCA, Amanah and the Progressive Democratic Party were also present.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
One down, two to go
HONOLULU 2011 – US President Barack Obama hosted many world leaders including from Russia, China and Japan for the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit. A few of us, part of the Malaysian media delegation, were walking back to the hotel after a quick lunch. It was a short walk. Big mistake. Just as we were about to cross the road (the hotel was about 50m away), our group was stopped by the local police. The Chinese leader and delegation were staying in the vicinity and the entourage was about to leave the hotel. For security reasons we had to wait for more than 30 minutes. No questions asked, we understood. Pattaya 2009 – Asean Summit. Thailand was forced to cancel the summit as thousands of anti-government protesters forced their way into what was supposed to be a secured area. Thai army personnel made no attempt to stop hundreds of red shirt protestors, loyal to Thaksin Shinawatra and seeking to oust Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, as they barged into the media centre, breaking the glass doors and toppling metal detectors, among other things. There was a lot of confusion, shouting and for some of us at the media centre, the fear was real. One protestor checked my media tag, took a photo with me and mumbled sorry, obviously realising his group was at the wrong place. The mayhem in Pattaya was brought by a security lax during the Asean Summit there in Thailand in 2009. Fast forward to this week. As Malaysia hosted the 46th Asean summit in Kuala Lumpur, many Malaysians took to social media venting their annoyance when the government announced road closures before and during the summit. Typical Malaysians, we don't like to be inconvenienced. What many of us do not realise is that some leaders are from high risk countries – they are susceptible for attacks. Malaysia as the host does not want any of these leaders exposed to any potential threats. A security lax will show the world our incompetence and potentially a major embarrassment for the government, as what had happened in Thailand during the Asean summit. It was a relief all around as the summit held at Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre came to an end Tuesday evening. Many worked behind the scenes. We don't know them, we don't see them but they were the frontliners and backroom officials making sure everything was in place. They will be the first ones facing the brunt from the guests. It is not easy to please everyone. Complaints about access to certain venues, the missing flags or wrong sitting arrangements were plenty. For the record, three main summits were held – the 46th Asean Summit, the second Asean-Gulf Cooperation Council and the inaugural Asean–GCC–China summit, attended by leaders of 17 countries with different interests and priorities. After each summit, a leaders' joint statement would be issued, for failure to issue one shows the inability of the chair to persuade the rest to be onboard. A joint statement carries more weightage in terms of the commitment of Asean members and all other external partners involved. It demonstrates the collective political will to undertake what the leaders have agreed and spur officials to ensure implementation of the cooperation agreed. There were whispers during the summit when several countries tried to include paragraphs on highly complicated issues which not all of Asean members were ready to address to ensure balance in the outcome document. Good sense prevailed at the very last minute and the joint statement was issued. Big decisions were made at this summit including the adoption of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on 'Asean 2045: Our Shared Future' which will serve to guide Asean's direction over the next two decades. When the decision for Timor Leste's accession as the 11th member of Asean at the 47th Asean Summit in October was announced, it was met with tears of joy among Timorese officials at the summit venue. It has been a long 14 years. Officials said one Asean member state was adamant that Timor Leste goes through the process before its accession as a full member but Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan swung into action to get the full consensus. It was later brought to the leaders level where a final decision was made to admit Timor Leste. 'It is not a question of one member state against Timor Leste but rather asking it to fulfil all the conditions first. Without Asean consensus, it will further delay getting Timor Leste into the family. 'This year is all about inclusivity and yet one family member is not 100 percent in the Asean house. If we want to strictly follow the roadmap, it was near impossible for Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam to be a full member of Asean back then. 'We should give them leeway and give a timeframe to fulfill the requirements. Admit them first. We have to help them,' said one official With four months to go, Timor Leste, which was granted observer status in 2022, will now have to comply with the requirements and more importantly going through their own legislation process. The Asean chair statement stated that ministers and senior officials have been given the task to undertake the procedural steps for the admission of Timor Leste and expedite negotiations on the key agreements. Another summit which received much attention and described as ambitious is the Asean-GCC-China Summit, held for the first time. In a joint statement released on Wednesday, Asean, the GCC or Gulf Cooperation Council ( Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) and China, said they were committed to enhancing economic cooperation. 'We recognise that Asean, GCC and China encompass diverse and complementary economies which create enormous potential, broad prospects and new opportunities for greater cross-sectoral trade, investment, and economic collaboration,' the leaders said. They also expressed grave concerns over the developments in West Asia and condemned all attacks against civilians and called for a durable ceasefire and to allow the unhindered delivery of fuel, food and medicine throughout Gaza. It is interesting to note that China has long been a close partner for Asean while relations between the grouping and Arab countries have only recently started gaining momentum. Will there be another trilateral summit when the Philippines takes over the Asean chair next year? 'We hope other Asean member states understand that Malaysia is doing this for the grouping. We have always put Asean's interest as priority in initiating new initiatives for Asean. With the Asean-GCC-China Summit we are just opening up the opportunity, building a bridge beyond our region,' said a Malaysian official. A lot of praises came from all around for the participation, substance and overall organisation of the summits. The second summit will be held in October. However, for the exhausted officials, it is only a brief respite as the next big meeting is just weeks away – the annual Asean foreign ministerial where they will be joined by their dialogue partners from Australia, China, Canada, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, United Kingdom and the United States among others. Now that, to me, is the highlight of the Asean chairmanship with issues like the South China Sea, a contentious one among claimant states and user states which includes powerful countries. Given the action on the ground in recent months, there will be no doubt that some countries would want stronger language in the outcome document. Others outside the region would also want to have a say about the SCS. Yet, it is important to maintain consistency when dealing with the issue.
Borneo Post
2 hours ago
- Borneo Post
The O&G story: What next after the joint declaration?
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (left) and Premier of Sarawak uk Patinggi Tan Sri Abang Johari Tun Openg exchanging the documents on the joint declaration, signed in Putrajaya recently. — Photo courtesy of the Office of Premier of Sarawak WILLIAM Shakespeare's famous line, 'All's well that ends well', from the play of the same name, takes on a complex meaning when applied to the oil and gas (O&G) joint declaration. Still, Sarawakians are proud and delighted to commemorate this milestone as a significant turning point in the state's O&G story. While it might appear to acknowledge a satisfactory resolution, the agreement also implicitly acknowledges the disturbing procedures and compromises, leading to this so-called 'positive outcome' or 'happy ending'. And so, what next? The declaration's 'happy ending' might mask a path of questionable decisions and compromises before the two contending parties arrived at the joint declaration. The line, thus, becomes a point of debate and discussion, prompting audiences to consider what truly constitutes a successful resolution and the ethical costs involved in achieving it. Challenging question Imagine being presented with a challenging question on a Cambridge HSC General Paper examination that requires careful consideration of the possible long-term effects of the newly-signed O&G agreement between Sarawak and Kuala Lumpur. The question challenges us to analyse the ramifications of this agreement and to provide an analytical trajectory of the potential paths for the state and the O&G sector. Students in Form 6 and university undergraduates in public policy and government should engage in this exercise to assess their understanding of the subject content, and their ability to critically connect it to the current socio-political context. They should be up for the challenge! This makes us question if we really understand the intricacy of the issue at hand. In retrospect, it compels us to examine if our sentiments and limited viewpoints have impeded our capacity to conduct a fair and impartial analysis of the situation. Setting the context is obviously the right starting point and proceeding from there to view rising expectations and interlocking implications that would follow, is a natural course to expect. Complicated bargains The recently-inked agreement establishing operational jurisdiction for O&G activities between Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) and Petroleum Sarawak Bhd (Petros) is a start in the right direction, but it is unlikely to entirely fulfil both entities' objectives and expectations. It is anticipated that ongoing negotiations and adjustments will be necessary to reach a truly mutually agreeable operating framework. The agreement demonstrates a willingness to collaborate and share resources, but the complexities surrounding revenue-sharing, operational control, and future exploration rights may still pose challenges. Generally speaking, resource agreements with high political and financial stakes – like the one aimed at resolving the O&G dispute between Sarawak and Kuala Lumpur – are complicated bargains. Even though the signed declaration may include crucial issues like income-sharing, regulatory power, and production-sharing, we need to acknowledge that Petronas and Petros may have inherent differences in priorities. For example, Petros would want a higher proportion of the revenue from O&G for Sarawak's development, while Petronas is devoted to striking a balance between national duty and profitability. The ink is dry on the joint declaration, but expectations are high on how soon the O&G would truly turn a page. The line of enquiry raises the question – what happens next? This pact might be a landmark, but it is also the starting line. Navigating shifting power politics, volatile prices, and the ever-present pressure for decarbonisation means the O&G industry faces a future that is as challenging as ever. How effectively will this signed declaration translate into tangible definers of progress, or will it need to be revisited and reviewed from time to time? These are pertinent questions that challenge us to look beyond today. Only time will tell, but one thing is certain – the next chapter is unwritten, and the stakes may be high. The Prime Minister and Premier of Sarawak with federal and state leaders posing for a photo-call after the historic signing of the joint declaration. — Photo courtesy of the Office of Premier of Sarawak Other considerations There may be other considerations that need to be addressed to allow the agreement to be transacted effectively, and to create a conducive environment for future cooperation to be promoted. Such considerations may involve making joint investments to facilitate technology transfer in the local O&G sector and build local capacity, establishing robust and transparent mechanisms for dispute resolution, to putting in place rigorous environmental protection policies throughout the O&G value chain. Additionally, maintaining social peace and sustainable development will require ensuring that local communities affected by O&G operations are included in the long-term agenda, and that they are to receive equitable benefits. Effective management of these social challenges requires a genuine 'give and take' approach in the allocation of resources and opportunities. Navigating this requires open channels, continuous dialogue from all of us – among the federal government, Sarawak state government, Petronas, Petros, and the local communities. For Sarawak, invalidating the Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974 is a complicated legal and political issue. The Sarawak state administration sees it as a possible, but drastic, measure to reclaim more authority over its O&G resources. The contention is based on the belief that the PDA is intruding into Sarawak's constitutional rights and thus, watering down the state's rightful portion of revenue and ownership of its natural resources within its territory. But such a move would spark an extended legal contest with the federal government and would have devastating impacts on the national O&G industry. As such, before taking this path, Sarawak must explore and have access. The Sarawak administration sees invalidating the PDA 1974 as a possible, but drastic, measure to reclaim more authority over its O&G resources. — Bernama photo Crucial shift point Some critics view the joint agreement as a shift point, which sets the groundwork for a more just and sustainable partnership. Notwithstanding, it remains to be said that the O&G agreement still requires good faith and continued vigilance to ensure its long-term success and mutual advantage. Ultimately, the success of the signed declaration will be gauged by its ability to improve the life of the people of Sarawak, as well as to contribute to the progress and prosperity of the country. The joint declaration on O&G represents a move towards greater cooperation and a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities. It does show that the federal government is willing to discuss and give Sarawak more power over its resources and independence. This negotiated arrangement to address Sarawak's concerns about its O&G rights is significant within the broader context of devolution under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 63), and it should not be viewed in isolation of other socio-political dynamics. Beyond the historic joint agreement, it is hoped that the Kuala Lumpur-Kuching cooperation will serve as the basis for future agreements and legal discourse that, rather than being adversarial, uphold the spirit and letter of MA63. However, the true impact of the joint declaration will depend on its implementation and how the modifications to Sarawak's revenue-sharing, regulatory authority, and operational domain are defined. Sarawak in advantageous position A closer examination reveals that Sarawak may have secured a more advantageous position, although both sides are likely touting the agreement as a win-win. Interestingly, a shift in the power dynamic is apparent with Sarawak's increased control over its O&G resources, which may be achieved through greater revenue-sharing, decision-making power in exploration and production, and participation in the value chain. As Sarawakians, we would like to view it as a decisive victory for our state, and we recognise that its long-term economic effects and the details of its implementation must follow suit. Equally gratifying to us is that initial indications suggest the joint agreement is a significant step towards greater autonomy and resource control for Sarawak. Sarawak's greater control over its hydrocarbon resources is the primary factor contributing to its advantage. Sarawak can avoid depending on federal funding by actively participating in the lucrative O&G industry and producing a sizeable amount of revenue for the state through Petros. This increase could improve the standard of living of Sarawakians by funding the development of infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other important areas. Sarawak can avoid depending on federal funding by actively participating in the lucrative O&G industry and producing a sizeable amount of revenue for the state through Petros. Sustainable, equitable collaboration Discerning critics will concur with me that further discussion is necessary in several crucial areas to reinforce the Kuala Lumpur-Sarawak joint declaration on O&G in Sarawak. Clarifying the definition of 'net revenue' and putting in place transparent, mutually agreed-upon accounting practices are crucial to avoid disputes regarding revenue sharing. Sarawak's role in overseeing O&G operations, including enforcing environmental rules, must be strengthened to ensure that resources are used responsibly. Investing in Sarawakian talent development in the O&G sector through focused education and training programmes would give power to the local communities and make the industry more sustainable. Lastly, to avoid problems and keep the collaboration strong and productive, there should be a clear way to resolve disputes that includes specific steps and deadlines. Although we commend Kuala Lumpur and Sarawak for their willingness to collaborate and pool resources, there may still be 'gaps' due to the intricacies of revenue-sharing, operational control, and future exploration rights. Neither side should lose sight of this. Given this, the joint declaration should be regarded as a transitional stage that aims to establish the framework for a more sustainable and equitable collaboration. Amidst the signed declaration, Petronas appears to be devoted to striking a balance between national duty and profitability. — AFP photo Secure Petros' position However, to guarantee its long-term success and mutual gain, both parties must maintain their vigilance and act in good faith. The declaration's actual effectiveness will ultimately be determined by how it affects Sarawakians' quality of and the country's general prosperity. Petros has secured a favourable bargain. This stems from several considerations. First, the power balance shifted from one heavily federally dominated to one of state dominance as a result of the mutual understanding, which gives Sarawak increased authority over the extraction, development, and production of O&G resources inside its borders. This includes greater control over operational choices, profit-sharing, and direct access to its natural resources. Additionally, the deal enables Sarawak to develop its O&G industry knowledge and capabilities, generating jobs and promoting technological development in the state. Sarawak can strengthen its position and ensure future prosperity by ensuring that future development is in line with its nuanced needs and priorities rather than being limited by federal interests. This can be achieved by having a defining say in resource management decisions. * Toman Mamora is 'Tokoh Media Sarawak 2022', recipient of Shell Journalism Gold Award (1996) and AZAM Best Writer Gold Award (1998). He remains true to his decades-long passion for critical writing as he seeks to gain insight into some untold stories of societal value. MA63 oil and gas PDA Petronas Petros sarawak
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Stop scaring future world leaders off US campuses
HERE'S yet another way in which US President Donald Trump is making America neither Great Again nor strong, but weaker, and for a long time to come: He's sabotaging the US-centred trans-national intellectual and personal networks that have amplified American power by breaking the pipeline of future leaders of foreign countries who were educated and shaped in the US. His administration is doing that by expelling, harassing, or intimi-dating foreigners at US univer-sities. It revoked the visas of more than 1,400 international students on American campuses. In some cases, the government alleged that students were pro-Palestinian protesters, in others that they committed 'crimes', even if those turned out to be unpaid parking tickets or were even non-existent. Many of the revocations had no clear rationale at all. As part of the specific showdown between the White House and Harvard University, the administration threatened to stop the institution from enrolling international students altogether; however, on Friday a federal judge temporarily halted the ban. Before that, the many lawsuits brought by international students over their visa statuses caused enough chaos that the government promised to restore due process to its review of student visas. Whether it does or not, though, the damage may already be done. No matter how many students this bureaucratic jihad ultimately forces to go home, it will dissuade myriad other young talents abroad from applying to study in America in the first place. Why should they subject themselves to legal risk or hostility (on top of America's outlandish tuition costs) when they could instead get their degrees in other countries? And among those bright young things forming new ideas, expertise, and friendships outside rather than inside of the US will be some of tomorrow's world leaders. To grasp what America in the coming years will miss out on, consider the subtle but influential webs of soft power that have long been among the boons of America's status as an educational superpower. When covering the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, or again the global one of the late 2000s, I often heard that negotiations among countries and institutions went better than expected – and better for the US, in particular – because a lot of the people in the meetings had spent time on the same campuses, studied under the same professors, or even sat in the same classrooms. They wore different garb and spoke English in different accents. But they shared the language and mentality of, say, Harvard's Kennedy School, or the economics departments at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or the University of Chicago. Mario Draghi, for example, has been an Italian and a European central banker (as well as a prime minister of Italy), just as Raghu-ram Rajan ran India's central bank and the research side of the International Monetary Fund, among other things. But both got their PhDs at MIT, and were influenced by Stanley Fischer, a titan of finance (and himself a former central banker of Israel). As a professor at MIT, Fischer in fact mentored future central bankers on most continents except Antarctica. Mark Carney, a former central bank governor in Britain and Canada (and Canada's current Prime Minister), is not among them – he went to Harvard instead. In some cases, these biographies make for stories of stunning success for the individuals as well as for the world and the host country, the US. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is a Nigerian who studied at Harvard and MIT, then went on to reform Nigeria's economy in two stints as Finance minister, before working at the World Bank and running the World Trade Organisation. She's still Nigerian, but now a US citizen as well. The list of US-educated heads of state is also long. For ambitious Latin Americans and Africans, a stint or two on an American campus is practically a rite of passage. The founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, sent his younger son to Stanford and the elder to Harvard's Kennedy School; that one later became Singapore's third prime minister. Taiwan's current president got his master's degree from Harvard; his predecessor got hers from Cornell. The Jordanian king also studied in America (at Georgetown), as did much of his policy elite. Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, did not, but that makes him an outlier among Saudi royals. The Israelis love to take a swing through American campuses, including incumbent Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (MIT and Harvard). On it goes, from Moldova to South Korea and Indonesia, where the current president did not study in the US but his influential Finance Minister, Sri Mulyani Indrawati, did (University of Illinois); she has called her American years formative. Whether an American educa-tion always makes foreign leaders more pro-American or pro-Western, or even just more capable, is moot. At a minimum, though, it lets international students see the world and their own countries through American eyes, narratives, metaphors, and references. It gives them a literal and figurative vocabulary with which they will later run international organisations or negotiate with the White House. The scholar Joseph Nye defined soft power as the ability to get others to want what you want. To the extent that a US education gets others to think as Americans think, it is the ideal tool of soft power, if you choose to see it that way. There are of course many other reasons for the US to host international students – about a million a year as of last count. Foreigners who study in America go on to invent and pioneer new technologies and business models at disproportionate rates, and most do it in and for the US. If the Trump administration pushes them away, those talents will innovate in and for China instead, or other adversaries and competitors. But the ability to form intellectual and personal networks across the world is enough reason to keep American education cosmopolitan, as opposed to barricading the ivory tower and closing American minds. In that way, education is like trade: enriching when it's open, corrosive when it closes. The benefits I'm describing pay out slowly, admittedly, and Trump isn't known for his attention span or long-term planning. But some rewards can be immediate, even if hard to quantify. Bilal Erdogan (Indiana University and Harvard) has surely talked at least some sense about America into his father, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. And as relations between the US and China become ever tenser, it surely helps both countries that Xi Jinping can turn to his daughter Mingze for discreet pointers about the Yanks. She too reportedly went to Harvard, though under an alias. Little else is publicly known, not even whether she paid all her parking tickets. – Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service
