
Malaysia Resists China’s Investments, Fearing ‘Colonialism’ - ilamont
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/world/asia/china-malaysia.html
======
raheemm
The Chinese government deployed a similar tactic in Sri Lanka, building a sea
part that is unnecessary, with easy loans, which Sri Lanka defaulted on,
leading to China taking ownership. It then deployed a submarine to the port,
alarming both Sri Lanka and India.

Source: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-
lank...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-
port.html)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _leading to China taking ownership. It then deployed a submarine to the
> port, alarming both Sri Lanka and India._

"Bigger pile of money" diplomacy meets "bigger gun" diplomacy. It shoudn't be
surprising. We did the same thing under the Monroe Doctrine. But it's been
long enough that many in the West have forgotten about it.

~~~
iamshs
With China, US taxpayer money is on line too. Take a closer look at Pakistan’s
case. China promised $42B investments, Pakistan’s CAD widened. Pakistan seeks
$15B bailout from IMF, which US has opposed as it will just go to Chinese. So
a very tumultuous future ahead, this colonialism adventure of China will
bring.

Severe pain for India, as Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives, Bangladesh, Nepal and
Myanmar have Chinese presence now, just a matter of time when the boots land.
String of pearls, as it is called.

------
cylim
What Mathatir said is "Fair Trade over Free Trade", instead of fear.

A country as wealthy as China can quickly take over most of the assets in
Malaysia, which is another form of colonialization.

------
everdev
I'm curious if there's a precedent for countries with strong (and balanced)
economic ties going to war.

With sanctions and protectionism, I wonder if the barriers to war are actually
reduced.

~~~
mcguire
That was the argument before WWI.

------
amaccuish
I would argue it's not colonialism, these countries can always say no, it just
depends on political will and strength. That's not really China's fault or
concern.

Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air
force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft
power, and then convert that soft power into harder power.

~~~
EvilEndures
> I would argue it's not colonialism, these countries can always say no, it
> just depends on political will and strength. That's not really China's fault
> or concern.

That is the US's rational for doing the same thing, yes.

It doesn't end well. It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution.
Installing and/or supporting "friendly leaders" who then push deals that are
against the local national interest results in a great deal of hostility in
the long run.

The reason the US is hated isn't that the US is evil. It is the fact the US
meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged
concessions beyond what the native population wanted. China is repeating that
mistake.

> Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air
> force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft
> power, and then convert that soft power into harder power.

Practical? Yes. If you are expecting to go to war.

If no war materializes, you've destroyed any chance of popular support in that
country indefinitely. China is burning bridges with the native populations in
these countries that won't go away in 5 years.

~~~
macspoofing
>It doesn't end well.

Why not?

>It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution.

Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and
prosperity.

>It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should
have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted.

I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get
blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.

~~~
EvilEndures
> Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and
> prosperity.

You are confusing Capitalism with foreign policy.

> Why not?

Where do you think all this anti-US violence comes from?

Empires have never fared well once they fell from power with the exception of
the British who were geographically isolated and had very powerful allies.

Simply because the bloodshed caused by US foreign policy mostly occurs on
foreign soil doesn't mean it will stop just because the US is no longer an
empire.

> I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get
> blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.

The US actively instigated violent revolutions, torture, and abuses in other
countries. Pretending that is "part of maintaining global order" is absurd.

The pillars of what the US is credited for is something half the population
actively rebels against (globalism, free trade) and were achieved in spite of
the popular will domestically.

Simply because I believe a certain technique should be verboten doesn't mean I
ignored credit for the US's successes.

~~~
j1vms
> I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get
> blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.

Being at the top (say, a superpower in today's world) means you enjoy at least
an order of magnitude advantage over any other country in the majority of
interactions you might have with them.

If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead,
then not getting credit for anything really doesn't factor into any of the
decision-making calculus.

~~~
macspoofing
>If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead

Except I wouldn't think of it that way. I don't think that's the correct
interpretation. I think maintaining global order means you live in the world
you want to live in. Americans wanted to spread American ideals of Democracy,
free speech and free enterprise. Soviet Union wanted to spread Soviet ideals.
I think that's as simple as that.

------
Leary
The Malaysian PM was quite conciliatory in his remarks.

[https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/asia/china-malaysia-
mahathir-...](https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/asia/china-malaysia-mahathir-
visit-intl/index.html)

~~~
princeb
the missing context is that the previous PM greenlighted projects from China
that were v likely greenlighted because of kickbacks to him and his retinue
rather than because of the merit and profitability to the country. china,
among other things, was simply one of many bogeymen attacked in the election
campaign leading up to BN's defeat. mahathir knows better than to turn down
good investment money, but the general view of the previous adminstration was
that a lot of money was invested in malaysia only to exclusively benefit the
chinese.

------
adventured
This is going on all over the world currently, from the US to Europe to Asia:

"Doors Slam Shut for China Deals Around the World"

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-20/doors-
sla...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-20/doors-slam-shut-
for-china-deals-around-the-world)

------
zenbai
Wow. The most interesting thing I learned is Mahathir is now 93.

------
tepidandroid
Every single day, sometimes multiple times a day, there are posts on HN
pushing one anti-China narrative or another. Every single day there is a
barrage of anti-China armchair experts all too happy to wax poetic about the
evils of communism, the CPC and authoritarianism. I have to say, it's becoming
more and more of an /r/Worldnews-esque, politically polarised echo-chamber in
here and it's a huge turn-off.

I know I'm not the only one who feels this way and I can only imagine the
great expert commenters this board is losing because of this.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
Or maybe China is just really horrible about human rights and there are a lot
of articles about it because that is good journalism? This is a NY Times
article about an important subject published today, why should this not be on
HN?

~~~
colordrops
The US is arguably a worse abuser of human rights, internationally if not
domestically, and yet every story about the US doesn't devolve into a big
discussion about US's human rights abuses. Imagine if every article about the
US talked about our hundreds of military bases, the millions dead in the
middle east due to US war, the current war in Yemen, and all the dictatorships
the US has installed over the years.

~~~
refurb
Did you just argue the US is a worse abuser of human rights than _China_?

~~~
colordrops
Yes. Read my comment again. I include both domestic and foreign abuse. People
seem to irrationally only pay attention to domestic abuse when discussing
human rights violations.

~~~
refurb
I'm not sure the US can compete with this.[1]

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll)

~~~
colordrops
If you count death tolls in the Korean war, Vietnam war, and the middle
eastern excursions in the last 25 years, you are in the same order of
magnitude.

~~~
refurb
Korean War? You mean the one that North Korea started with China’s backing?

How is defending South Korea a human rights violation? All those deaths are on
NK and China.

------
rccrv
Oh great another attempt at the daily China thread on HN.

With both the whatabowtists and the anti-China hawks trying to outplay each
other in the moral outrage game.

There are plenty of subreddits for those who like to astroturf about China
ranging from anti-China hawks to pro-Beijing trolls.

Sorry for the cynicism, but I really dislike astroturfers.

~~~
RandomInteger4
Can you cite specific users making comments which you know or believe to be
coming from large organizations acting as if they're simply individuals?

~~~
rccrv
Why does astroturfing need to come from a large organization? A bunch of like-
minded users could be enough depending on the volume of commenting or voting.
They also don't need to be paid and even have centralized management.

I've seen a couple of userames popping on these threads all the time. And
China related threads have an odd number of new accounts posting comments in
them.

It can be people that have to live anonymously lest they have to deal with
dictatorships or it can also be the same group of people posting the same
opinions all over again.

As for names, there is two users in this thread that are posting in almost
every China-related thread for at least a month or so. I won't particularly
point to them, since I'm not sure it goes well with the guidelines

Though it didn't happen on HN, the unidan case on reddit is a good example.
The guy basically manipulated voting in a large subreddit on his own by using
a number of alternative accounts to upvote his own comments.

Anyway, if that is the direction HN is headed and this is regarded as
acceptable, then I'm leaving.

I don't tolerate propaganda or people spreading it. This is on the guidelines:
"Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle."
A bunch of users forget about that and I won't be around a website that goes
into it.

~~~
stickfigure
_Why does astroturfing need to come from a large organization? A bunch of
like-minded users could be enough_

We have an actual word for this: _grassroots_.

