Robert Kuok says his contact in China was Zhong Pak, who he later learnt was a member of China's National Security Ministry. – YouTube screen capture, November 28, 2017.
Malaysian Insight has reported this excerpt from Robert Kuok's memoirs: "I think it is fair to say that Malaysia regards me as the Malaysian with the best contacts in China. Because of my connections on both sides, I was called upon several times to act as a conduit between the two governments," he wrote in his memoir, a copy of which was obtained by The Malaysian Insight. Kuok said former Special Branch director Abdul Rahim Noor contacted him for help. Kuok said his Chinese contact was Zhong Pak, or Uncle Zhong, who he later learnt was a member of China's National Security Ministry. "The Special Branch contacted me often to say, 'Can you pass this message to China?'," Kuok wrote. Requests included asking the Chinese government to "silence" the MCP radio, which was making broadcasts hostile to the Malaysian government. "I passed the word and the radio was silenced." TO BE READ WITH
The United Front Work Department held an exclusive meeting with "overseas Chinese representatives" in December 2018. Attendees included Chau Chak Wing, Beau Kuok (Kerry Group) and Xu Rongmao (Shimao Group, sometime ALP donor). http://zytzb.gov.cn/sp/300712.jhtml
trade go through the South China Sea every year. Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter criticized China’s actions
in the region in May, asserting that, “The United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law
allows, as we do all around the world.” The United States reinforced that assertion on Monday and angered the Chinese when it sent the Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer, within 12 nautical miles
of the islands, the conventional limit for territorial waters. According to statements from David Shear,
the top Pentagon official in charge of Asia and the Pacific, the last time the United States sent ships or
aircraft that close to the islands was in 2012..
It seemed like a typical day for President Obama. He taped a TV interview on trade, hosted the champion NASCAR team on the South Lawn and met with the defense secretary in the Oval Office.
Not so typical was something that didn’t appear that day on the president’s public schedule: notification to Congress that he intends to renew a nuclear cooperation agreement with China. The deal would allow Beijing to buy more U.S.-designed reactors and pursue a facility or the technology to reprocess plutonium from spent fuel. China would also be able to buy reactor coolant technology that experts say could be adapted to make its submarines quieter and harder to detect.
The formal notice initially didn’t draw any headlines. Its unheralded release on April 21 reflected the administration’s anxiety that it might alarm members of Congress and nonproliferation experts who fear China’s growing naval power — and the possibility of nuclear technology falling into the hands of third parties with nefarious intentions.
Economy & Business Alerts
Breaking news about economic and business issues.
Now, however, Congress is turning its attention to the agreement. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to hear from five Obama officials in a closed-door meeting Monday to weigh the commercial, political and security implications of extending the accord. The private session will permit discussion of a classified addendum from the director of national intelligence analyzing China’s nuclear export control system and what Obama’s notification called its “interactions with other countries of proliferation concern.”
The White House’s willingness to push ahead with the nuclear accord with Beijing illustrates the evolving relationship between the world’s two largest powers, which, while eyeing each other with mutual suspicion and competitiveness, also view each other as vital economic and strategic global partners. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group, argues that the new agreement will clear the way for U.S. companies to sell dozens of nuclear reactors to China, the biggest nuclear power market in the world.
Yet the new version of the nuclear accord — known as a 123 agreement under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 — would give China leeway to buy U.S. nuclear energy technology at a sensitive moment: The Obama administration has been trying to rally support among lawmakers and the public for a deal that would restrict Iran’s nuclear program — a deal negotiated with China’s support.
Administration officials are using arguments similar to those deployed in the debate over Iran. They say the negotiations over the 123 agreement persuaded China to go a “long way” and agree to controls on technology and materials that are tighter than those in the current accord.
Congress can vote to block the agreement, but if it takes no action during a review period, the agreement goes into effect.
If Congress rejects the deal, “that would allow another country with lower levels of proliferation controls to step in and fill that void,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so he could talk more freely. “We go into it with eyes wide open,” he added. “Without it, we would be less able to press the Chinese to do better on this front.”
Although the current nuclear agreement with China does not expire until the end of the year, the administration had to give Congress notice with 90 legislative days left on the clock. Obama also hopes to seal a global climate deal in December featuring China — less than three weeks before the current nuclear accord expires.
Congress isn’t convinced yet.
“We are just beginning what will be a robust review process,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said in an e-mail. “These agreements can be valuable tools for furthering U.S. interests, but they must support, not undermine, our nation’s critical nonproliferation objectives.”
A quieter submarine?
Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, has been urging lawmakers to insist on requiring advance consent for the reprocessing of spent fuel from U.S.-designed reactors into plutonium suitable for weapons. He also is concerned about the sale of certain nuclear energy technologies, especially coolant pumps with possible naval use.
Charlotte-based Curtiss-Wright developed advanced coolant pumps for the U.S. Navy’s submarines. The same plant produces a scaled-up version for the Westinghouse AP1000 series reactors, each of which uses four big pumps. These pumps reduce noises that would make a submarine easier to detect.
An Obama administration official said the reactor coolant pumps are much too big to fit into a submarine. However, a 2008 paper by two former nuclear submarine officers working on threat reduction said that “the reverse engineering would likely be difficult” but added that “certainly, the Chinese have already reversed engineered very complex imported technology in the aerospace and nuclear fields.”
Sokolski thinks the choice between reactor sales and tighter controls is a clear one. “Since when does employment trump national security?” he asked rhetorically.
The United States has bilateral 123 agreements with 22 countries, plus Taiwan, for the peaceful use of nuclear power. Some countries that do not have such agreements, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Malaysia, have expressed interest in clearing obstacles to building nuclear reactors.
China and the United States reached a nuclear cooperation pact in 1985, before China agreed to safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA safeguards went into force in 1989, but Congress imposed new restrictions after the Chinese government’s June 1989 crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square. The 123 agreement finally went into effect in March 1998; President Bill Clinton waived the 1989 sanctions after China pledged to end assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program and nuclear cooperation with Iran.
In December 2006, Westinghouse Electric — majority-owned by Toshiba — signed an agreement to sell its AP1000 reactors to China. Four are under construction, six more are planned, and the company hopes to sell 30 others, according to an April report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
When it comes to nuclear weapons proliferation, China is in a different category from other 123 agreement nations. It first tested a nuclear weapon in 1964 and now has an arsenal of about 250 nuclear warheads. So U.S. concerns have focused more on whether China has transferred technology to other countries.
“Concerns persist about Chinese willingness as well as ability to detect and prevent illicit transfers,” the CRS report said. “Missile proliferation from Chinese entities is a continuing concern.” The United States wants China to refrain from selling missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, a payload of 1,100 pounds, as far as 190 miles. A State Department compliance report in 2014 said that Chinese entities continued to supply missile programs in “countries of concern.”
Reprocessing plutonium
Reprocessing is another key issue.
China has a pilot plant engaged in reprocessing in Jiu Quan, a remote desert town in Gansu province. Satellite photos show that it is next to a former military reprocessing plant, according to Frank von Hippel, a Princeton University physics professor who specializes in nuclear arms control. There is not even any fencing between the sites, he says.
“That’s been one of the hang-ups of the [reprocessing] deal” that China has been trying to negotiate with France for several years, von Hippel said.
Sokolski said the agreement proposed by Obama lacks a requirement for explicit, case-by-case U.S. permission for a reprocessing project using American technology or material from U.S. reactors. It gives consent in advance. And he fears that over the 30-year life of the new 123 agreement, China might want to compete with Russian and U.S. arsenals and make more bombs, for which plutonium is the optimal material.
Other weapons experts note that China already has enough surplus highly enriched uranium and plutonium to make hundreds of new bombs. China has indicated that it is interested in reprocessing so it can use plutonium as part of the fuel mix in civilian nuclear power plants. And it must offer the IAEA access.
Von Hippel is still concerned. “So if China right now is the great hope for the future of nuclear energy, soon it will be a major reactor exporter to the extent there’s a market,” he said. “So it’s a proliferation concern, and it’s also a nuclear terrorism concern. The more plutonium there is lying around, the more likely it is that someone will steal it.”
But the most politically sensitive issue in Congress might turn out to be dual-use applications of nuclear reactor parts.
The latest appropriations bill issued by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) last month would require an intelligence assessment of whether there was “minimal risk” that civilian nuclear technology would be diverted to any “foreign state’s nuclear naval propulsion program.”
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said that the bill “doesn’t mention China by name, though I can’t think of another country for which it would be more applicable.” He said, “I would be reluctant to approve a 123 agreement unless I knew that the individual contracts would be properly reviewed.”
A Senate Armed Services Committee aide, who was not authorized to speak on behalf of the committee members and commented on the condition of anonymity, said the Senate would also focus on military applications of reactor technology for submarines, given rising concern about China’s aggressive posture in the South China Sea.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the committee, would not comment for this article, but he has recently questioned continuing engagement with China while it maintains an aggressive approach to regional issues. Last year, he opposed a proposed visit by a U.S. aircraft carrier to a Chinese port; later, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said it would not take place. McCain also said it was a mistake to invite China to the 2016 international maritime military exercise in the Pacific known as RIMPAC.
The senior Obama administration official warned that “if we were not to complete an agreement or if restrictions were so onerous, then a lot of the work we’ve done to bring China into the mainstream and understand the programs they’re pursuing would be lost, and meanwhile our commercial interests would also be hurt.”
But the Armed Services Committee aide said: “This is not simply renewing a past agreement. The senators are going to address it in new strategic circumstances.”
Steven Mufson covers energy and other financial matters. Since joining The Post, he has covered the White House, China, economic policy and diplomacy. Follow @StevenMufson
Robert Kuok's memoirs continue to provide more data on Malaysian Chinese business practises.His rather candid views can now be compared against what has been written elsewhere, and the results can be intriguing.
An example is this account of how the Brits viewed Robert Kuok: In 1969, Rober tKuok was made chairman of MSA,....the remaining British interests in the company became frustrated with his management style.The UK's High Commissioner, Sir Michael Walker, learned that although Kuok had practically no experience of airline business, he interfered in operational matter which were 'no concern of his'. An example was Kuok's decision, without any consultation, to change MSA's insurance arrangements.. This proved 'entirely unsuitable' and had to be reversed at a cost of M$500,000 (nearly£68,000). (Source: Nicholas J.White,British Business in Post-Colonial Malaysia, 1957-70: Neo-colonialism or Disengagement?)
When I was chairman (of MSA), the managing director and CEO was David Craig, who came from British Airways. I had acrimonious exchanges with him. He tried very hard to ingratiate himself into the good books of the Malaysian directors, since the Singapore directors were very rigid and severe managers.
Whenever David wasn’t performing, they were severe, and so he ran to the Malaysian side for protection. He found the Malaysian directors by and large convenient pillars behind which he could hide. I tried to haul him out from hiding, and our relationship soured. One day, I was in the MSA office on Robinson Road in Singapore, which was a much grander office space than my own humble sugartrading cubbyhole. David spoke to me about engaging expensive European expatriates for the airline. I asked what was wrong with engaging pilots from Burma, which at that time, under the military regime of Ne Win, was training pilots and sending some of them to aeronautical schools in England. He retorted, “Oh, no, no. Only British pilots are safe.” I pointed out that some of our commanders here were Chinese from the Malay Peninsula. He responded that there were too few. Then I suggested he try Indonesia, since Garuda was a relatively seasoned airline. He responded, “Ah, these guys land their planes in the ocean and in jungles and kill all their passengers.” I rounded on him: “Aren’t you being racist?” I noted that a Qantas or British Airways plane piloted by whites had crashed in Singapore’s Kallang Basin Airport. We had a very rough exchange. He had his agenda. When I took the job, I had no agenda whatsoever. I just wanted harmony between Malaysia and Singapore.
The Brits were obviously less in awe of Kuok's abilities than many Malaysians are, but regardless of who one wants to believe, the matter of "Kuok's decision, without any consultation, to change MSA's insurance arrangements (which ) proved 'entirely unsuitable' and had to be reversed at a cost of M$500,000 (nearly£68,000)" raises questions about the circumstances surrounding the conviction of Gerald Fernandez. As recounted recently on this blog, Fernandez was jailed for 21 months and fined S$5,000 9in 1971) for corruptly receiving S$5,000 in order to show favour to insurance brokers Edward Lumley in connection with MSA affairs (between 1968 and 1970,when Kuok was chairman).
The tension between the Brits and Kuok, and his interference in operational matters (clearly not the business of the chairman of the board) raises questions about the evidence against Fernandez,and whether he was scapegoated with regards Kuok's MSA insurance arrangements.
Dr Goh Keng Swee, Singapore’s deputy prime minister, asked if I would serve as chairman of Malaysia-Singapore Airlines (MSA). The Malaysian Government had proposed Dr Lim Swee Aun, the former Minister of Commerce and Industry, who had failed to get re-elected in the elections of May 1969. “We do not like him,” said Keng Swee. “But he’s not a bad fellow,” I replied. “Oh, never!” thundered Keng Swee. I said, “No, no. I’m overworked and underpaid by my own company.”
I was joking, though it was true that I hardly had a moment’s rest in those days. I told him I couldn’t take the job, because I didn’t have the time to do it justice and didn’t know the airline business. I don’t think anybody had talked to Singapore Government leaders like that. They were already known to be very fierce. As I walked towards the door, Keng Swee said, “Well, you know there are hardly any links left between Malaysia and Singapore. If you don’t want to serve, then this link will also go.” It was just like a scene in a Hollywood film. Two steps from the door, I wheeled around and asked, “Are you telling me that if I take the job, that link will be preserved?” “Yes.” Again, I felt I had no choice. “If I agree to take the job, what do I need to do?” “Simple things. First, go to see Tunku Abdul Rahman and [Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Razak Hussein] and tell them we gave you an indication that you’re acceptable to us.” “You mean I have to sell myself to my own leaders?” When he replied in the affirmative, I said, “Give me time to think about it. This is getting very sticky.”
(Tunku) didn’t sound too enthusiastic about my taking on this role. He made some remarks about the problems he was having with Singapore. I kept quiet, since it was not for me to say anything. Then I prodded him a bit. “Sir, do you mind if we come back to the subject?” In the end, he said, “OK, Kuok. If you want the job, take it. It doesn’t matter to me.” So I accepted the position of Chairman of MSA.
Meanwhile, the Singapore Government, which was very good with its abacus, was analysing the economics of the airline industry. They began to realise that the Malaysian domestic routes were profitmaking, but looking into the future, they could not see such air travel as big-scale business. The international airport in Singapore, and the international traffic, was really the jewel in the crown of the airline industry in the Malaysia/Singapore region. So the Singapore Government felt it would be useful to break Malaysia-Singapore Airlines into two and let each country go its own way. The Board meetings grew increasingly acrimonious.
I made an appointment to see Goh Keng Swee to appeal to him to hold back his aggressive Singapore directors. I hinted that the game was getting very one-sided. I was acting as referee, but I was seeing the poor Malaysian directors slaughtered at every meeting because the Singapore directors had minds as sharp as razors. In fairness, I must say the contribution to running the airline properly and efficiently came almost entirely from the Singapore side. The Malaysian side was too subjective and often allowed their feelings to influence their comments.
Shortly before I was due to leave the service, a Geoffrey Fernandez, the secretary and legal adviser to the Malaysian Singapore Airlines (MSA), a two-nation air carrier, whose head office and main operating station were based in Singapore, was brought back to Singapore, after lengthy extradition proceedings in England, charged with the offence of criminal breach of trust of a paltry sum of $5,000. His more heinous offence, which was carefully muted, was that he had translated national airline company politics into a dangerous game of international politics by pitting the two governments against one another. Banking heavily on his presumed friendship with Tungku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj, the prime minister of Malaysia, Malaysian cabinet ministers, and other high Malaysian dignitaries, he had waged an indiscreet campaign of malignity against the prime minister (Lee Kuan Yew) himself and impugned the integrity of his bosom friend, the MSA’s chairman and now Chief Justice of Singapore, Yong Pung How. J.B. Jeyaretnam, now in private law practice, was retained as his legal counsel and saw me regarding bail for his client. My immediate reaction was that it was an impudent request. For, when he was released in Malaysia on a personal cognisance as a member of the Malaysian bar, he had jumped bail, skipped out of the country using his brother’s passport to boot, and fled to Ireland. While on an ill advised sojourn to England, he was arrested. The offence was ordinarily bailable, but, for the antecedents and the prime minister’s personal interest in the matter, it would take more than a manful judge to grant him bail. In all the circumstances, it was difficult to accede to such a request for bail unless there were compelling grounds.I perused the investigation papers, and noted that the case against him was not as strong as I had thought. It turned on a single witness whose evidence, if successfully impugned, would leave the prosecution without a leg to stand on. He was jailed for 21 months and fined S$5,000 for corruptly receiving S$5,000 in order to show favour to insurance brokers Edward Lumley in connection with MSA affairs. Readers can decide for themselves who acted in Malaysia's interest. END See also Surat Fernandez kpd Tengku pengarohi keputusan Mahkamah: MarshallBerita Harian, 12 February 1972, Page 10