'We're not free in our own seas'- Even China friendly Chinese of Miri, Sarawak complain that China is denying them entry and enjoyment of their own seas, but PM Anwar Ibrahim still insists he has no problem wtih China

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

 




Malaysia has a long standing problem with Chinese intrusion into its waters

The Chinese of Miri, Sarawak are probably among the most China friendly and China leaning people that one can find in Malaysia. That is evident in the streets where a Chinese in China is viewed with less suspicion than a non-Chinese Malaysian (possibly because they are viewed as interlopers from the peninsula).

Now however even the Chinese of Miri are beginning to complain about China Coast Guard harassment in  Malaysian waters. Malaysiakini reports:

“We are not free even though it is our territory,” laments the Miri Fishing Club secretary Vincent Lo, regarding the presence of China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels in the South China Sea.

This is especially the case around Luconia Shoals (known locally as Beting Patinggi Ali), which Malaysia deems to be part of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the coast of Sarawak but is regularly patrolled by the CCG.

Lo said this situation makes it difficult for them to go fishing...

 

The reference to Luconia Shoals is telling. As this writer has noted, Malaysia has an ongoing problem with China's illegal interference with activities on and around the Shoals, even if Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim insists that he has no problem with China.

END

Albanese said nothing about Xi's intrusion further into the Luconia Shoals in the South China Sea and ever closer to Australia and Australian oil supplies - Xi now further emboldened ,while Albanese continues to seek cooperation on climate change

by Ganesh Sahathevan



Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, left, meets Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, Nov. 15, 2022.

 

VOA reported:

Speaking to reporters after his meeting with China's President Xi, Australia's Prime Minister Albanese said talks had been positive.

“It was a very positive and constructive discussion, and I was pleased that it was held,” Albanese said. “We know that China is Australia’s largest trading partner. They are worth more than Japan, the U.S. and the Republic of Korea together, combined. So, it is an important relationship for Australia.”

However, despite the concern with trade, Albanese seems to have said nothing about China's increasingly agressive intrusion into the Luconia Shoals, in the South China Sea, which brings China ever closer the shipping routes in and out of Singapore that supply Australia's fuel. 

Albanese seemed more concerned about China's cooperation in "tackling climate change", as appears to be the case from this exchange during the press conference after his meeting with Xi: 

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, should we read anything into the fact that the meeting was 32 minutes long? And did you raise issues of climate change, cybersecurity, foreign interference, and any actions on any of those matters?

PRIME MINISTER: I certainly raised climate change and the need for us to work together in tackling climate change. I referred to the floods that are occurring in New South Wales. That climate change is a global issue, and it requires a global response. And China has an important role to play. On Taiwan, I certainly raised that issue. I put Australia's position, which is support for the status quo, which I put forward in the meeting, and that we didn't wish to see any change to that status quo.

Nothing seems to have been said about China's aggression in the South China Sea, which now goes as far down as the Luconia Shoals:

Why China's particular interest in asserting sovereignty over Malaysia 's Luconia Shoals (South China Sea) should concern all Australians

Malaysia has been fighting a losing battle against China in defending its interests around the Shoals, and one would expect that Australia, being a FPDA partner, would do what it can to assist, especially in this instance where Australia's fuel supplies are at risk. As reported, China seems to be manoeuvring itself into a position where it would have effective control over the oil and gas installations, as well as shipping lines.

Xi's meeting with Albanese is likely to embolden Xi in his expansion further down the South China Sea. 

END 

Not in FPDA partners' interest for China to acquire Shell's oil and gas business in Sarawak, Sabah

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

 As previously reported here China's Luconia Shoals adventures may add to Petronas production sharing contractors' costs .  Given China's growing aggression in the South China Sea, it may well be that the Chinese intend to drive up costs and escalate tensions to a point where Shell Plc might be persuaded to sell its interests in the area (see map above) to a Chinese government concern.  Such an acquisition will give China access to a vast network of pipelines, platforms, and other infrastructure which can then be used to further its surveillance and control of the South China Sea.

That, if it occurs, will not be in the interest of any the of Five Power Defence Agreement partners who need free access to the South China Sea in order to secure trade routes which include trade in oil and gas. Australia in particular relies on South East Asian supplies of refined oil and gas to keep the country running. 

Malaysia also will be disadvantaged for China would then have control of both a significant portion of Malaysian government revenue as well as much of its maritime territory.As reported , Malaysia's leaders may well have reason to hand over its oil and gas installations to China, but it does not follow that such a move would be in Malaysia's national interest. 

TO BE READ WITH

Sunday, January 3, 2016

Paying China: Petronas oilfields, installations in the South China Sea could go to China as Malaysia flounders trying to pay its chief financier

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Malaysia's growing reliance on the Chinese Government for capital may see China seeking compensation in the form of Malaysia's oil and gas fields and related infrastructure in the South Chin Sea.While ExxonMobil ,Shell and a host of other smaller foreign companies operate those fields pursuant to production sharing contracts , Petronas remains the ultimate  owner of the fields,and the infrastructure.

The resumption of Petronas infrastructure in the South China Sea can

provide China an alternative to its recent island building campaign that has attracted international criticism, in addition of course to whatever oil and gas there may be left in the relevant areas.
As illustrated in these maps, China could dominate the South China Sea very quickly by simply assuming control of a few strategically located fields.

 

So many intrusions by the PLA, but Malaysia still refuses to fly the flag on Luconia Shoals

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Two weeks ago Malaysia , or rather the Royal Malaysian Airforce (RMAF/TUDM) complained that 16 PLA planes flew over or near Luconia Shoals:

This week Malaysia complains that the PLA-N hasin truded into Malaysian waters near Luconia Shoals 

Meanwhile, Malaysia still refuses to re-assert authority over  the Shoals.

TO BE READ WITH 

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Hishamuddin's claim that there have been no Chinese ships in Malaysian waters for 100 days shown to be false: China continues to assert control over Luconia Shoals

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Saturday, October 5, 2019

Why China's particular interest in asserting sovereignty over Malaysia 's Luconia Shoals (South China Sea) should concern all Australians

From a tweet by Gregory B. Poling Senior Fellow for Southeast Asia and Director, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative

Greg Poling

@GregPoling

Malaysia's FM says there have been no Chinese ships in Malaysian waters for 100 days. But there have been. Every. Single. Day. CCG 5203 patrolled Luconia Shoals from Apr 2; replaced by 5204 on May 22; replaced by 5202 on July 7. Here it is today. https://malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/07/15/chinese-coast-guard-navy-vessels-no-longer-encroaching-on-malaysian-waters/1884769…

3:56 AM · Jul 16, 2020·Twitter Web App

197

Retweets and comments

SEE ALSO

Thursday, September 26, 2019

China is particularly interested in asserting
sovereignty over Luconia Shoals ,
Chinese Coast Guard in strategy to bully
Malaysia into submitting to at least de facto control

by Ganesh Sahathevan

“There don’t appear to be any other contested areas where CCG [China Coast Guard] presence is so persistent, and where China clearly wants regional counterparts to know they are present,” the report said.

“Beijing has evidently taken a special interest in Luconia, Second Thomas and Scarborough shoals. It seems to be wagering that if it can maintain a semi-permanent CCG presence for long enough, regional states will eventually accede to its de facto control of those areas.

The SCMP has reported:

Some Chinese coastguard vessels deployed in the South China Sea have deliberately made themselves visible to rival claimants of the 

 contested waters

   by turning on tracking signals – a move analysts described as an attempt to assert sovereignty.

A report released by the Washington-based Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative said it had identified 14 Chinese coastguard vessels broadcasting automatic identification system (AIS) signals while patrolling the Luconia Shoals, Second Thomas Shoal and the Scarborough Shoal over the past year.

.(AMTI said that)

  many Chinese coastguard vessels patrolling in other parts of the South China Sea broadcast the signals only when entering and leaving port.

But the vessels patrolling the three shoals appeared to have made efforts to be seen. One at Luconia had broadcast AIS signals on 258 of the past 365 days.

“There don’t appear to be any other contested areas where CCG [China Coast Guard] presence is so persistent, and where China clearly wants regional counterparts to know they are present,” the report said.

“Beijing has evidently taken a special interest in Luconia, Second Thomas and Scarborough shoals. It seems to be wagering that if it can maintain a semi-permanent CCG presence for long enough, regional states will eventually accede to its de facto control of those areas.

It appears that the incident involving the Malaysian flag reported on this blog in 2016 was a first step in what can now be seen to be a larger strategy to assert sovereignty over the South China Sea.

END 

SEE ALSO 

uesday, August 9, 2016

Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh decision suggests Malaysia has surrendered right to Luconia- removing own flag from Luconia Shoals in stark contrast with past practise

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These submissions by the  Government Of Singapore to the International Court Of Justice in the Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh matter were part of Singapore's ultimately successful defence against Malaysia's claim:

6.53 It should be noted that Malaysia has demonstrated her awareness of the significance of flying national emblems over territory for purposes of evidencing sovereignty. Malaysia demanded (and obtained) the lowering of the Singapore Ensign flown until 3 September 1968 over another lighthouse facility maintained by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, a territory over which Singapore does not exercise or claim sovereignty.

7.11 In the present case, neither Johor nor Malaysia ever protested against the regular flying of the British and Singapore emblems over Pedra Branca, even though this was done as a clear display of State authority and without seeking consent from Malaysia or Johor, and Malaysian officials were fully aware of this.

7.12 Moreover, Malaysia’s long silence regarding this clear and public manifestation of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca since 1847 is in sharp contrast to Malaysia’s response to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on the lighthouse administered by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, an island which belongs to Malaysia. In 1968, Malaysia objected to the flying of the Singapore flag over Pulau Pisang Lighthouse320. Following Malaysia’s objection, Singapore ceased flying her flag on the Lighthouse. In contrast, at no time had Malaysia ever protested against Singapore’s flying of her flag over Pedra Branca. 7.13 If Malaysia had any belief that she had a claim to sovereignty over Pedra Branca, one would have expected Malaysia to have exercised or attempted to exercise her sovereign authority over the island in the same way that she had done with respect to Pulau Pisang, if only to put on record that, notwithstanding Singapore’s presence on Pedra Branca, Malaysia had sovereign authority over the island. This omission on Malaysia’s part is especially significant as it occurred shortly after Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965, when the governments of both countries treated each other with the utmost caution on bilateral issues.

7.14 Singapore contends that, given these facts, Malaysia had consciously (and correctly) decided that, in contrast with Pulau Pisang, any protest was not appropriate with respect to the flying of the Singapore flag on Pedra Branca. 

Given that these arguments led to the decision against Malaysia, one would expect that the Government Of Malaysia would exercise and strenuously defend its right to fly the flag on all its possessions, but this was obviously not the case with Luconia Shoals.  It is hard to see that by removing its own flag, Malaysia has not surrendered its right to the Shoals.

In fact, it does seem as if China has already assumed control of the shoals:

(Hans Berekoven, an Australian  marine archaeologist) chose Malaysia's independence day, August 31 last year, to protest against the situation by raising the Malaysian flag on the tiny island.

It is the first time the video of the incident has been released.

"I took the curator of the museum that we're working with, and a couple of other Malaysian friends, and a journalist from the Borneo Post," he said.

They mounted a stainless steel flagpole into a cement footing and raised the Malaysian flag, as the China Coast Guard vessel watched from about 500m offshore.

"They must have got on the blower to Beijing and Beijing must have got on the blower to Kuala Lumpur, because suddenly there was a big kerfuffle in KL," Mr Berekoven said.

The next morning, a Malaysian aircraft flew low over Mr Berekoven's boat and the island.

"A Malaysian coast guard vessel was despatched. Went out there and unbolted the flag," he said.

"It's absolutely absurd. It's 88 miles, well within the 200 mile economic exclusion zone, and they've forced the Malaysians to take the flag down — their flag, asserting their authority, their sovereignty."

END 

Reference

ABC Australia reports that Malaysia surrendered special rights to Luconia Shoals to China : Rights to adjoining EEZ may be lost

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Time to retake Luconia Shoals,Ananda Krishnan's Pexco should lead the way

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Self explanatory ,given the change in government ,and the urgent need to dismantle Najib Razak's China-South China Sea deals.

realpolitikasia

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Najib's Luconia Shoals surrender puts Ananda and Pexco's Sarawak concessions in the middle of the proverbial......

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Malaysia's virtual surrender of Luconia Shoals will have implications for oil concessions in the surrounding area, now only nominally granted by Petronas. The largest of these (their words, not mine) is the acerage granted Ananda Krishnan's Pexco. At least one of Pexco's concessions, labelled Block 3 in a Marine Sarawak document, lies just 68.25 nautical miles south west of the North Shoals.

China may or may not be within its rights to declare anything, including the Pexco concessions,within its Luconina Shoals EEZ, but that is not the point when considering the actions of a country that has shown it is happy to ignore international laws, norms and customs.

Poor Ananda, all this even after contributing RM 2 billion to the 1 MDB resuce..........

END 

Reference 

Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh decision suggests Malaysia has surrendered right to Luconia-removing own flag from Luconia Shoals in stark contrast with past practise

by Ganesh Sahathevan

These submissions by the  Government Of Singapore to the International Court Of Justice in the Pedra Branca/Batu Puteh matter were part of Singapore's ultimately successful defence against Malaysia's claim:

6.53 It should be noted that Malaysia has demonstrated her awareness of the significance of flying national emblems over territory for purposes of evidencing sovereignty. Malaysia demanded (and obtained) the lowering of the Singapore Ensign flown until 3 September 1968 over another lighthouse facility maintained by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, a territory over which Singapore does not exercise or claim sovereignty.

7.11 In the present case, neither Johor nor Malaysia ever protested against the regular flying of the British and Singapore emblems over Pedra Branca, even though this was done as a clear display of State authority and without seeking consent from Malaysia or Johor, and Malaysian officials were fully aware of this. 

7.12 Moreover, Malaysia’s long silence regarding this clear and public manifestation of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca since 1847 is in sharp contrast to Malaysia’s response to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on the lighthouse administered by Singapore at Pulau Pisang, an island which belongs to Malaysia. In 1968, Malaysia objected to the flying of the Singapore flag over Pulau Pisang Lighthouse320. Following Malaysia’s objection, Singapore ceased flying her flag on the Lighthouse. In contrast, at no time had Malaysia ever protested against Singapore’s flying of her flag over Pedra Branca. 7.13 If Malaysia had any belief that she had a claim to sovereignty over Pedra Branca, one would have expected Malaysia to have exercised or attempted to exercise her sovereign authority over the island in the same way that she had done with respect to Pulau Pisang, if only to put on record that, notwithstanding Singapore’s presence on Pedra Branca, Malaysia had sovereign authority over the island. This omission on Malaysia’s part is especially significant as it occurred shortly after Singapore left the Federation of Malaysia in August 1965, when the governments of both countries treated each other with the utmost caution on bilateral issues. 

7.14 Singapore contends that, given these facts, Malaysia had consciously (and correctly) decided that, in contrast with Pulau Pisang, any protest was not appropriate with respect to the flying of the Singapore flag on Pedra Branca. 

Given that these arguments led to the decision against Malaysia, one would expect that the Government Of Malaysia would exercise and strenuously defend its right to fly the flag on all its possessions, but this was obviously not the case with Luconia Shoals.  It is hard to see that by removing its own flag, Malaysia has not surrendered its right to the Shoals.

In fact, it does seem as if China has already assumed control of the shoals:

(Hans Berekoven, an Australian  marine archaeologist) chose Malaysia's independence day, August 31 last year, to protest against the situation by raising the Malaysian flag on the tiny island.

It is the first time the video of the incident has been released.

"I took the curator of the museum that we're working with, and a couple of other Malaysian friends, and a journalist from the Borneo Post," he said.

They mounted a stainless steel flagpole into a cement footing and raised the Malaysian flag, as the China Coast Guard vessel watched from about 500m offshore.

"They must have got on the blower to Beijing and Beijing must have got on the blower to Kuala Lumpur, because suddenly there was a big kerfuffle in KL," Mr Berekoven said.

The next morning, a Malaysian aircraft flew low over Mr Berekoven's boat and the island.

"A Malaysian coast guard vessel was despatched. Went out there and unbolted the flag," he said.

"It's absolutely absurd. It's 88 miles, well within the 200 mile economic exclusion zone, and they've forced the Malaysians to take the flag down — their flag, asserting their authority, their sovereignty."

END 

Reference

ABC Australia reports that Malaysia surrendered special rights to Luconia Shoals to China : Rights to adjoining EEZ may be lost