I understad that the land survey records are available for search and download via internet. What is the web address and procedure to view and download the certificate for your land?
What is the procedure to obtain " Land Title" ( or 7/12 document towards the ownership of land) via Internet?
AMENDMENTS, INTERPRETATION AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE CONSTITUTION
Art. 109. The National Assembly may bring up bills for the amendment of the National Constitution.
Bills of this nature shall not take effect unless approved by two- thirds of the members of each House present.
No bill for the amendment of the Constitution shall be introduced unless signed by one-fourth of the members of each House.
Art. 110. The amendment of the National Constitution shall be discussed and decided by the National Constitutional Conference.
Art. 111. No proposal for a change of the form of Government shall be allowed as a subject for amendment.
Art. 112. Should there be any doubt as to the meaning of the text of the Constitution, it shall be interpreted by the National Constitutional Conference.
Art. 113. The National Constitutional Conference shall be composed of the members of the National Assembly.
Unless there be a quorum of two-thirds of the total number of the members of the National Assembly, no Constitutional Conference shall be held, and unless three-fourths of the members present vote in favour, no amendment shall be passed. But with regard to the interpretation of the Constitution, only two-thirds of the members present is required to decide an issue.
Art. ... The National Constitution shall be the Supreme Law of the land and shall be inviolable under any circumstances unless duly amended in accordance with the procedure specified in this Constitution.
[V] A Chapter on Provincial or local organization is to be inserted under Chapter ... providing for certain powers and rights to be given to local governments with the residual power left in the hands of the central government. The exact text is not yet settled.
Note: The Mark (*) indicated that the article has already been formally adopted as a part of the finished Constitution.
The mark (V) indicates that the article has not yet passed through the second reading.
Those without marks have passed through the second reading on May 28th, 1917. Articles bearing no number are additions to the original draft as presented to the Conference by the Drafting Committee.
THE LOCAL SYSTEM
DRAFT SUBMITTED TO PARLIAMENT
The following Regulations on the Local System have been referred to the Parliamentary Committee for consideration:--
Article 1. The Local System shall embrace provinces and hsien districts.
Any change for the existing division of provinces and hsien districts shall be decided by the Senate. As to Mongolia, Tibet, Chinghai and other places where no provinces and hsien districts have been fixed, Parliament shall enforce these regulations there in future.
Art. 2. A province shall have the following duties and rights: (a) To fix local laws. (b) To manage provincial properties, (c) To attend to the affairs in connexion with police organization, sanitation, conservancy, roads, and public works, (d) To develop education and industry in accordance with the order and mandates of the Central Government. (e) To improve its navigation and telegraphic lines, or to undertake such enterprises with the co- operation of other provinces, (f) To organize precautionary troops for the protection of local interests, the method of whose organization, uniforms and arms shall be similar to those of the National Army. With the exception of the matter of declaring war against foreign countries, the President shall have no power to transfer these troops to other provinces: and unless the province is unable to suppress its own internal troubles, it shall not ask the Central Government for the service of the National Army, (g) The province shall defray its own expenses for the administration and the maintenance of precautionary troops; but the provinces which have hitherto received subsidies, shall continue to receive same from the National Treasury with the approval of Parliament. (h) Land, Title Deed, License, Mortgage, Tobacco and Wine, Butchery, Fishery and all other principal and additional taxes shall be considered as local revenues, (i) The province may fix rates for local tax or levy additional tax on the National Taxes. (j) The province shall have a provincial treasury. (k) It may raise provincial public loans. (l) It shall elect a certain number of Senators, (m) It shall fix regulations for the smaller local Self-Governing Bodies.
Art. 3. Besides the above rights and privileges, a province shall bear the following responsibilities:
(a) In case of financial difficulties of the Central Government, it shall share the burden according to the proportion of its revenue, (b) It shall enforce the laws and mandates promulgated by the Central Government, (c) It shall enforce the measures entrusted by the Central Government, but the latter shall bear the expenses. (d) In case the local laws and regulations are in conflict with those of the Central Government the latter may with the approval of Parliament cancel or modify the same. (e) In case of great necessity the provincial telegraph, railway, etc., may be utilized by the Central Government. (f) In case of negligence, or blunder made by the provincial authorities, which injures the interests of the nation, the Central Government, with the approval of Parliament, may reprimand and rectify same, (g) It shall not make laws on the grant of monopoly and of copyrights; neither issue bank notes, manufacture coins, make implements of weights and measures; neither grant the right to local banks to manage the Government Treasury; nor sign contracts with foreigners on the purchase or sale of lands and, mines, or mortgage land tax to them or construct naval harbours or arsenals, (h) All local laws, budgets, and other important matters shall be reported to the President from time to time, (i) The Central Government may transfer to itself the ownership of enterprises or rights which Parliament has decided should become national, (j) In case of a quarrel arising between the Central Government and the province, or between provinces, it shall be decided by Parliament, (k) In case of refusal to obey the orders of the Central Government, the President with the approval of Parliament may change the Shenchang (Governor) or dissolve the Provincial Assembly. (l) The President with the approval of Parliament may suppress by force any province which defies the Central Authorities.
Art. 4. A Shenchang shall be appointed for each province to represent the Central Government in the supervision of the local administration. The appointment shall be made with the approval of the Senate, the term of office for the Shenchang shall be four years, and his annual salary shall be $24,000, which shall be paid out of the National Treasury.
Art. 5. The administration measures entrusted by the Government to the Shenchang shall be enforced by the administrative organs under his supervision, and he shall be responsible for same.
Art. 6. In the enforcement of the laws and mandates of the Central Government, or of the laws and regulations of his province, he may issue orders.
Art. 7. The province shall establish the following five Departments, namely Interior, Police, Finance, Education and Industry. There shall be one Department Chief for each Department, to be appointed by the Shenchang.
Art. 8. A Provincial Council shall be organized to assist the Shenchang to enforce the administrative measures, and it shall be responsible to the Provincial Assembly for same.
This Council shall be composed of all the Departmental Chiefs, and five members elected out of the Provincial Assembly. It shall discuss the Bills on Budget, on administration, and on the organization, of police forces, submitted by the Shenchang.
Art. 9. If one member of the Council be impeached by the Provincial Assembly, the Shenchang shall replace him, but if the whole body of the Council be impeached, the Shenchang shall either dissolve the Assembly or dismiss all his Departmental Chiefs. In one session the Assembly shall not be dissolved twice, and after two months of the dissolution, it shall be convened again.
Art. 10. The organization and election of the Provincial Assembly shall be fixed by law.
Art. 11. The Provincial Assembly shall have the following duties and powers: (a) It may pass such laws as allowed by the Constitution, (b) It may pass the bills on the provincial Budget and Accounts, (c) It may impeach the members of the Provincial Council. (d) It may address interpellations or give suggestions to the Provincial Council. (e) It may elect Members for the Provincial Council. (f) It may attend to the petitions submitted by the public.
Art. 12. A Magistrate shall be appointed for each hsien district to enforce administrative measures. He shall be appointed directly by the Shenchang, and his term of office shall be three years.
Art. 13. The Central Government shall hold examinations in the provinces for candidates for the Magistracy. In a province half of the total number of magistrates shall be natives of the province and the other half of other provinces; but a native shall hold office of Magistrate 300 li away from his home.
Art. 14. The organization for the legislative organ of the hsien district shall be fixed by law.
TARIFF REVISION IN CHINA
The following is a translation of a memorandum prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce regarding abolition of likin and an increase of the Customs duties:--
THE MEMORANDUM
"Disproportionate taxation on commodities at inland towns and cities tends to cripple the productive power of a country. Acting upon this principle, France in the 17th, England, America, Germany and Austria in the 18th Century abolished such kind of taxation, the Customs tariff remaining, which is a levy on imports at the first port of entry. Its purpose is to increase the cost of production of imported goods and to serve as a protection of native products (sic). Raw materials from abroad are, however, exempt from Customs duty in order to provide cheap material for home manufactures. An altogether different state of affairs, however, exists in this country. Likin stations are found throughout the country, while raw materials are taxed. Take the Hangchow silk for instance. When transported to the Capital for sale, it has to pay a tax on raw material of 18 per cent. Foreign imported goods on the other hand, are only taxed at the rate of five per cent, ad valorem Customs duty at the first port of entry with another 2.5 per cent, transit duty at one of the other ports through which the goods pass. Besides these only landing duty is imposed upon imported goods at the port of destination. Upon timber being shipped from Fengtien and Antung to Peking, it has to pay duties at five different places, the total amount of which aggregates 20 per cent, of its market value, while timber from American is taxed only ten per cent. Timber from Jueichow to Hankow and Shanghai is taxed at six different places, the total amount of duty paid aggregating 17.5 per cent., while timber imported from abroad to these ports is required to pay Customs duty only one-third thereof. The above-mentioned rates on native goods are the minimum. Not every merchant can, however, obtain such special "exemption," without a long negotiation and special arrangements with the authorities. Otherwise, a merchant must pay 25 per cent, of the market value of his goods as duty. For this reason the import of timber into this country has greatly increased within the last few years, the total amount of which being valued at $13,000,000 a year. Is this not a great injustice to native merchants?
THE CHINESE METHOD
"Respecting the improvement of the economic condition of the people, a country can hardly attain this object without developing its foreign commerce. The United States of America, Germany and Japan have one by one abolished their export duty as well as made appropriations for subsidies to encourage the export of certain kinds of commodities. We, on the other hand, impose likin all along the line upon native commodities destined for foreign market in addition to export duty. Goods for foreign market are more heavily taxed than for home consumption. Take the Chekiang silk for instance. Silk for export is more heavily taxed than that for home use. Different rates of taxation are imposed upon tea for foreign and home market. Other kinds of native products for export are also heavily taxed with the result that, within the last two decades, the annual exports of this country are exceeded by imports by over Tls. 640,000,000,000. From the 32nd year of the reign of Kuang Hsu to the 4th year of the Republic, imports exceed exports on the average by Tls. 120,000,000. These figures speak for themselves.
LIKIN
"Likin stations have been established at places where railway communication is available. This has done a good deal of harm to transportation and the railway traffic. Lately a proposal has been made in certain quarters that likin stations along the railways be abolished; and the measure has been adopted by the Peking-Tientsin and Tientsin-Pukow Railways at certain places. When the towns and cities throughout the country are connected by railways, there will be no place for likin stations. With the increase in the number of treaty ports, the "likin zone" will be gradually diminished. Thencefrom the proceeds from likin will be decreased year by year.
"Owing to the collection of likin the development of both home and foreign trade has been arrested and the people are working under great disadvantages. Hence in order to develop foreign and home trade, the Government must do away with likin, which will bring back business prosperity, and in time the same will enable the Government to obtain new sources of revenues.
"From the above-mentioned considerations, the Government can hardly develop and encourage trade without the abolition of likin. By treaty with Great Britain, America and Japan, the Government can increase the rate of Customs tariff to cover losses due to the abolition of likin. The question under consideration is not a new one. But the cause which has prevented the Government from reaching a prompt decision upon this question is the fear that, after the abolition of likin, the proceeds from the increased Customs tariff would not be sufficient to cover the shortage caused by the abolition of likin.
COST OF ABOLITION OF LIKIN
But such a fear should disappear when the Authorities remember the following facts:--
(a) The loss as the result of the abolition of likin: $38,900,000.
(b) The loss as the result of the abolition of a part of duty collected by the native Customs houses: $7,300,000.
(c) Annual proceeds from different kinds of principal and miscellaneous taxes which shall be done away with the abolition of likin $11,800,000.
The above figures are determined by comparing the actual amount of proceeds collected by the Government in the 3rd and 4th years of the Republic with the estimated amount in the Budget of the fifth year. The total amount of loss caused by the abolition of likin will be $58,000,000.
INCREASE OF CUSTOMS TARIFF
The amount of increase in the Customs tariff which the Government expects to collect is as follows:--
(a) The increase in import duties $29,000,000.
(b) The increase in export duties Tls. 6,560,000.
The above figures are determined according to the Customs returns of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years of the Republic. By deducting Tls. 2,200,000 of transit duty, the net increase will be Tls. 33,600,000 taels, which is equal to $48,500,000. For the sake of prudence, allowance of five per cent, of the total amount is made against any incidental shortage. The net revenue thus increased would amount to $46,100,000. Against the loss of $58,000,000, there will be a shortage of some $11,900,000. This, however, will not be difficult to make good by new sources of revenue as the result of a tariff revision:--
(a) Tax on goods at the time of manufacture $800,000.
(b) Tax on goods at the time of sale $8,000,000.
(c) Tax on cattle and slaughtering houses $2,000,000.
(d) Tax on foodstuffs $4,000,000.
"Under (a) and (b) are the taxes to be collected on native made foreign imitation goods and various kinds of luxurious articles. Under (c) and (d) are taxes which are already enforced in the provinces but which can be increased to that much by reorganizing the method of collection. The total sum of the proceeds set forth under above items will amount to $14,800,000. These will be quite sufficient to cover the loss caused by the abolition of likin.
A VITAL INTEREST
"As the abolition of likin concerns the vital interest of the merchants and manufacturers, it should be carried out without delay. The commercial and industrial enterprises of the country can only thrive after likin is abolished and only then can new sources of revenue be obtained. This measure will form the fundamental factor of our industrial and economical development. But one thing to which we should like to call the special attention of the Government is the procedure to be adopted to negotiate with the Foreign countries respecting the adoption of this measure. The first step in this connexion should be the increase of the present Customs tariff to the actual five per cent, ad valorem rate. When this is done, proposal should be made to the Powers having treaty relations with us concerning the abolition of likin and revision of Customs tariff. The transit destination duties on imported goods should at the same time be done away with. This would not entail any disadvantage to the importers of foreign goods and any diplomatic question would not be difficult of solution. Meantime preparatory measures should be devised for reorganizing the method of collecting duties set forth above so that the abolition of likin can take place as soon as the Government obtains the consent of the foreign Powers respecting the increase of Customs tariff."
MEMORANDUM
THE LEADING OUTSTANDING CASES BETWEEN CHINA AND THE FOREIGN POWERS
(Author's note. The following memorandum was drawn up by Dr. C. C. Wu, Councillor at the Chinese Foreign Office and son of Dr. Wu Ting-fang, the Foreign Minister, and is a most competent and precise statement. It is a noteworthy fact that not only is Dr. C. C. Wu a British barrister but he distinguished himself above all his fellows in the year he was called to the Bar. It is also noteworthy that the Lao Hsi-kai case does not figure in this summary, China taking the view that French action throughout was ultra vires, and beyond discussion.)
BY DR. C. C. WU
Republican China inherited from imperial China the vast and rich territory of China Proper and its Dependencies, but the inheritance was by no means free from incumbrances as in the case of Outer Mongolia, Tibet and Manchuria, and other impediments in the form of unfavourable treaty obligations and a long list of outstanding foreign cases affecting sovereign and territorial rights.
I have been asked by the Editor of the North-China Daily News to contribute an article on some of the outstanding questions between China and foreign powers, instancing Tibet, Manchuria, Mongolia, and to give the Chinese point of view on these questions. Although the subject is a delicate one to handle, particularly in the press, being as it is one in which international susceptibilities are apt to be aroused, I have yet accepted the invitation in the belief that a calm and temperate statement of the Chinese case will hurt no one whose case will bear public discussion but will perhaps do some good by bringing about a clear understanding of the points at issue between China and the foreign Powers concerned, and thus facilitating an early settlement which is so earnestly desired by China. I may say that I have appreciated the British sense of justice and fairplay displayed by the "North- China Daily News" in inviting a statement of the Chinese case in its own columns on questions one of which concerns British interests in no small degree, and the discussion cannot be conducted under a better spirit than that expressed in the motto of the senior British journal in the Far East: "Impartial not Neutral."
1 DEGREE MANCHURIA
The treaty between China and Japan of 1915 respecting South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia giving that power special rights and privileges in those regions has given rise to many knotty problems for the diplomatists of the two countries to solve. Two of such problems are mentioned here.
JAPANESE POLICE BOXES IN MANCHURIA AND MONGOLIA
Since the last days of the Tsings, the Japanese have been establishing police boxes in different parts of South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia always under protest of the local and Peking authorities. Since the treaty of 1915, a new reason has become available in the right of mixed residence given to Japanese in these regions. It is said that for the protection and control of their subjects, and indeed for the interest of the Chinese themselves, it is best that this measure should be taken. It is further contended that the stationing of police officers is but a corollary to the right of exterritoriality, and that it is in no way a derogation of Chinese sovereignty.
It is pointed out by the Chinese Government that in the treaty of 1915, express provision is made for Japanese in South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia to submit to the police laws and ordinances and taxation of China (Article 5). This leaves the matter in no doubt. If the Japanese wish to facilitate the Chinese police in their duty of protection and control of the Japanese, they have many means at their command for so doing. It is unnecessary to point out that the establishment of foreign police on Chinese soil (except in foreign settlements and concessions where it is by the permission of the Chinese Government) is, to our thinking, at any rate, a very grave derogation to China's sovereign rights. Furthermore, from actual experience, we know that the activities of these foreign police will not be confined to their countrymen; in a dispute between a Chinese and a Japanese both will be taken to the Japanese station by the Japanese policeman. This existence of an imperium in imperio, so far from accomplishing its avowed object of "improving the relations of the countries and bringing about the development of economic interests to no small degree," will, it is feared, be the cause of continual friction between the officials and people of the two countries.
As to the legal contention that the right of police control is a natural corollary to the right of exterritoriality, it must be said that ever since the grant of consular jurisdiction to foreigners by China in her first treaties, this is the first time that such a claim has been seriously put forward. We can only say that if this interpretation of exterritoriality is correct the other nations enjoying exteriorality in China have been very neglectful in the assertion of their just rights.
In the Chengchiatun case, the claim of establishing police boxes wherever the Japanese think necessary was made one of the demands. The Chinese Government in its final reply which settled the case took the stand as above outlined.
It may be mentioned in passing that in Amoy the Japanese have also endeavoured to establish similar police rights. The people of that city and province, and indeed of the whole country, as evidenced by the protests received from all over China, have been very much exercised over the matter. It is sincerely hoped that with the undoubted improvement of relations between the two countries within the last several months, the matter will be smoothly and equitably settled.
LEGAL STATUS OF KOREANS IN CHIENTAO
The region which goes by the name of Chientao, a Japanese denomination, comprises several districts in the Yenchi Circuit of Kirin Province north of the Tumen Kiang (or the Tiumen River) which here forms the boundary between China and Korea. For over thirty years Koreans have been allowed here to cultivate the waste lands and acquire ownership therein, a privilege which has not been permitted to any other foreigners in China and which has been granted to these Koreans on account of the peculiar local conditions. According to reliable sources, the Korean population now amounts to over 200,000 which is more than the Chinese population itself. In 1909 an Agreement, known as the Tumen Kiang Boundary Agreement, was arrived at between China and Japan, who was then the acknowledged suzerain of Korea, dealing, inter alia, with the status of these Koreans. It was provided that while Koreans were to continue to enjoy protection of their landed property, they were to be subject to Chinese laws and to the jurisdiction of Chinese courts. The subsequent annexation of Korea did not affect this agreement in point of international law, and as a matter of practice Japan has adhered to it until September, 1915. Then the Japanese Consul suddenly interfered in the administration of justice by the local authorities over the Koreans and claimed that he should have jurisdiction.
The Japanese claim is based on the Treaty Respecting South Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia signed in May, 1915, article 5 of which provides that civil and criminal cases in which the defendants are Japanese shall be tried and adjudicated by the Japanese consul.
The Chinese view is that this article is inapplicable to Koreans in this region and that the Tumen Kiang Agreement continues in force. This view is based on a saving clause in article 8 of the Treaty of 1915 which says that "all existing treaties between China and Japan relating to Manchuria shall, except where otherwise provided for by treaty, remain in force."
In the first place, the origin of the Tumen Kiang Agreement supports this view. When the Japanese assumed suzerainty over Korea they raised certain questions as to the boundary between China and Korea. There were also outstanding several questions regarding railways and mines between China and Japan. Japan insisted that the boundary question and the railway and mining questions be settled at the same time. As a result, two agreements were concluded in 1909 one respecting the boundary question, the Tumen Kiang Agreement, and the other respecting railways and mines whereby Japan obtained many new and valuable privileges and concessions, such as the extension of the Kirin-Changchun Railway to the Korean frontier, the option on the Hsinminfu-Fakumen line, and the working of the Fushun and Yentai mines, while in return China obtained a bare recognition of existing rights, namely the boundary between China and Korea and the jurisdiction over the Koreans in the Yenchi region. The two settlements were in the nature of quid pro quo though it is clear that the Japanese side of the scale heavily outweighed that of the Chinese. Now Japan endeavours to repudiate, for no apparent reason so far as we can see, the agreement which formed the consideration whereby she obtained so many valuable concessions.
Secondly, while Koreans are now Japanese subjects, it is contended by the Chinese that the particular Koreans inhabiting the Yenchi region are, as regards China, in a different position from Japanese subjects elsewhere. These Koreans enjoy the rights of free residence and of cultivating and owning land in the interior of China, rights denied to other foreigners, including Japanese who, even by the new treaty, may only lease land in South Manchuria. For this exceptional privilege, they are subject to the jurisdiction of Chinese laws and Chinese courts, a duty not imposed on other foreigners. It would be "blowing hot and cold at the same time" in the language of English lawyers if it is sought to enjoy the special privileges without performing the duties.
Thirdly, Japanese under the Treaty of 1915 are required to register their passports with the local authorities. On the other hand, Koreans in Yenchi have never been nor are they now required to procure passports. This would seem to be conclusive proof that Koreans in that region are not within the provisions of the treaty of 1915 but are still governed by the Tumen Kiang Agreement.
The question is something more than one of academic or even merely judicial importance. As has been stated, the Koreans in Yenchi outnumber the Chinese and the only thing that has kept the region Chinese territory in fact as well as in name is the possession by the Chinese of jurisdiction over every inhabitant, whether Chinese or Korean. Were China to surrender that jurisdiction over a majority of those inhabitants, it would be tantamount to a cession of territory.
2 DEGREES MACAO
The dispute between China and Portugal over the Macao question has been one of long standing. The first treaty of commerce signed between them on August 13,1862, at Tientsin, was not ratified in consequence of a dispute respecting the Sovereignty of Macao. By a Protocol signed at Lisbon on March 26, 1887, China formally recognized the perpetual occupation and government of Macao and its dependencies by Portugal, as any other Portuguese possession; and in December of the same year, when the formal treaty was signed, provision was made for the appointment of a Commission to delimit the boundaries of Macao; "but as long as the delimitation of the boundaries is not concluded, everything in respect to them shall continue as at present without addition, diminution, or alteration by either of the Parties."
In the beginning of 1908, a Japanese steamer, the Tatsu Maru, engaged in gun-running was captured by a Chinese customs cruiser near the Kau-chau archipelago (Nove Ilhas). The Portuguese authorities demanded her release on the ground that she was seized in Portuguese territorial waters thus raising the question of the status of the waters surrounding Macao.
In the same year the Portuguese authorities of Macao attempted the imposition of land tax in Maliaoho, and proposed to dredge the waterways in the vicinity of Macao. The Chinese Government thereupon instructed its Minister in France, who was also accredited to Portugal, to make personal representations to the Portuguese Foreign Office in regard to the unwarrantable action of the local Portuguese authorities. The Portuguese Government requested the withdrawal of Chinese troops on the Island of Lappa as a quid pro quo for the appointment of a new Demarcation Commissioner, reserving to itself the right to refer to the Hague Tribunal any dispute that may arise between the Commissioners appointed by the respective Governments.
After protracted negotiations it was agreed between the Chinese Minister and the Portuguese Government by an exchange of notes that the respective Governments should each appoint a Demarcation Commissioner to delimit the boundaries of Macao and its dependencies in pursuance of the Lisbon Protocol and Article 2 of the Sino-Portuguese Treaty of 1887, subject to the decision of their respective Governments.
THE PORTUGUESE CLAIM
In February, 1909, Portugal appointed General Jaoquim Machado and China Mr. Kao Erh-chien as their respective Commissioners and they met at Hongkong in June of the same year.
The Portuguese claim consisted of the whole of the Peninsula of Macao as far north as Portas do Cerco, the Island of Lappa, Green Island (Ilha Yerde), Ilhas de Taipa, Ilha de Coloane, Ilha Macarira, Ilha da Tai-Vong-Cam, other small islands, and the waters of Porto Interior. The Portuguese Commissioner also demanded that the portion of Chinese territory between Portas do Cerco and Peishanling be neutralized.
In the absence of evidence, documentary or otherwise, China could not admit Portugal's title to half the territory claimed, but was prepared to concede all that part of the Peninsula of Macao south of Portas do Cerco which was already beyond the limits of the original Portuguese Possession of Macao, and also to grant the developed parts of Ilhas de Coloane as Portuguese settlements. The ownership of territorial waters was to remain vested in China.
The negotiations having proved fruitless were transferred to Lisbon but on the outbreak of the Revolution in Portugal they were suspended. No material progress has been made since.
3 DEGREES TIBET
In November, 1911, the Chinese garrison in Lhassa, in sympathy with the revolutionary cause in China, mutinied against Amban Lien-yu, a Chinese Bannerman, and a few months later the Tibetans, by order of the Dalai Lama, revolted and besieged the Chinese forces in Lhassa till they were starved out and eventually evacuated Tibet. Chinese troops in Kham were also ejected. An expedition was sent from Szechuan and Yunnan to Tibet, but Great Britain protested and caused its withdrawal.
In August, 1912, the British Minister in Peking presented a Memorandum to the Chinese Government outlining the attitude of Great Britain towards the Tibetan question. China was asked to refrain from dispatching a military expedition into Tibet, as the re-establishment of Chinese authority would, it is stated, constitute a violation of the Anglo-Chinese Treaty of 1906. Chinese suzerainty in regard to Tibet was recognized. But Great Britain could not consent to the assertion of Chinese sovereignty over a State enjoying independent treaty relations with her. In conclusion, China was invited to come to an agreement regarding Tibet on the lines indicated in the Memorandum, such agreement to be antecedent to Great Britain's recognition of the Republic. Great Britain also imposed an embargo on the communications between China and Tibet via India.
In deference to the wishes of the British Government, China at once issued orders that the expeditionary force should not proceed beyond Giamda. In her reply she declared that the Chinese Government had no intention of converting Tibet into another province of China and that the preservation of the traditional system of Tibetan government was as much the desire of China as of Great Britain. The dispatch of troops into Tibet was, however, necessary for the fulfilment of the responsibilities attaching to China's treaty obligations with Great Britain, which required her to preserve peace and order throughout that vast territory, but she did not contemplate the idea of stationing an unlimited number of soldiers in Tibet. China considered that the existing treaties defined the status of Tibet with sufficient clearness, and therefore there was no need to negotiate a new treaty. She expressed the regret that the Indian Government had placed an embargo on the communications between China and Tibet via India, as China was at peace with Great Britain and regretted that Great Britain should threaten to withhold recognition of the Republic, such recognition being of mutual advantage to both countries. Finally, the Chinese Government hoped that the British Government would reconsider its attitude.
THE SIMLA CONFERENCE
In May, 1913, the British Minister renewed his suggestion of the previous year that China should come to an agreement on the Tibetan question, and ultimately a Tripartite Conference was opened on October 13, at Simla with Mr. Ivan Chen, Sir Henry McMahon, and Lonchen Shatra as plemipotentiaries representing China, Great Britain, and Tibet, respectively.
The following is the substance of the Tibetan proposals:--
1. Tibet shall be an independent State, repudiating the Anglo- Chinese Convention of 1906.
2. The boundary of Tibet in regard to China includes that portion of Sinkiang south of Kuenlun Range and Altyn Tagh, the whole territory of Chinghai, the western portion of Kansuh and Szechuan, including Tachienlu, and the northwestern portion of Yunnan, including Atuntzu.
3. Great Britain and Tibet to negotiate, independent of China, new trade regulations.
4. No Chinese officials and troops to be stationed in Tibet.
5. China to recognize Dalai Lama as the head of the Buddhist Religion and institutions in Mongolia and China.
6. China to compensate Tibet for forcible exactions of money or property taken from the Tibetan Government.
The Chinese Plenipotentiary made the following counter-proposals:--
1. Tibet forms an integral part of Chinese territory and Chinese rights of every description which have existed in consequence of this integrity shall be respected by Tibet and recognized by Great Britan. China engages not to convert Tibet into a province and Great Britain not to annex Tibet or any portion of it.
2. China to appoint a Resident at Lhassa with an escort of 3,600 soldiers.
3. Tibet undertakes to be guided by China in her foreign and military affairs and not to enter into negotiations with any foreign Power except through the intermediary of China but this engagement does not exclude direct relations between British Trade Agents and Tibetan authorities as provided in the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906.
4. Tibet to grant amnesty to those Tibetans known for their pro- Chinese inclinations and to restore to them their property.
5. Clause 5 of Tibetan claims can be discussed.
6. Revision of Trade Regulations of 1893 and 1908, if found necessary, must be made by all the parties concerned.
7. In regard to the limits of Tibet China claims Giamda and all the places east of it.
THE BOUNDARY DEADLOCK
The British plenipotentiary sustained in the main the Tibetan view concerning the limits of Tibet. He suggested the creation of Inner and Outer Tibet by a line drawn along the Kuenlun Range to the 9eth longitude, turning south reaching a point south of the 34th latitude, then in south-easterly direction to Niarong, passing Hokow, Litang, Batang in a western and then southern and southwestern direction to Rima, thus involving the inclusion of Chiamdo in Outer Tibet and the withdrawal of the Chinese garrison stationed there. He proposed that recognition should be accorded to the autonomy of Outer Tibet whilst admitting the right of the Chinese to re-establish such a measure of control in Inner Tibet as would restore and safeguard their historic position there, without in any way infringing the integrity of Tibet as a geographical and political entity. Sir Henry McMahon also submitted to the Conference a draft proposal of the Convention to the plenipotentiaries. After some modification this draft was initialled by the British and Tibetan delegates but the Chinese delegate did not consider himself authorized to do so. Thereupon the British member after making slight concessions in regard to representation in the Chinese Parliament and the boundary in the neighbourhood of Lake Kokonor threatened, in the event of his persisting in his refusal, to eliminate the clause recognizing the suzerainty of China, and ipso facto the privileges appertaining thereto from the draft Convention already initialled by the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries. In order to save the situation, the Chinese delegate initialled the documents, but on the clear understanding that to initial and to sign were two different things and that to sign he must obtain instructions from his Government.
China, dissatisfied with the suggested division into an Inner and Outer Tibet the boundaries of which would involve the evacuation of those districts actually in Chinese effective occupation and under its administration, though otherwise in accord with the general principles of the draft Convention, declared that the initialled draft was in no way binding upon her and took up the matter with the British Government in London and with its representative in Peking. Protracted negotiations took place thereafter, but, in spite of repeated concessions from the Chinese side in regard to the Chinese side in regard to the boundary question, the British Government would not negotiate on any basis other than the initialled convention. On July 3 an Agreement based on the terms of the draft Convention but providing special safeguards for the interests of Great Britain and Tibet in the event of China continuing to withhold her adherence, was signed between Great Britain and Tibet, not, however, before Mr. Ivan Chen had declared that the Chinese Government would recognize any treaty or similar document that might then or thereafter be signed between Great Britain and Tibet.
CHINA'S STANDPOINT
With the same spirit of compromise and a readiness to meet the wishes of the British Government and even to the extent of making considerable sacrifices in so far as they were compatible with her dignity, China has more than once offered to renew negotiations with the British Government but the latter has up to the present declined to do so. China wants nothing more than the re- establishment of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, with recognition of the autonomy of the territory immediately under the control of the Lhassa Government; she is agreeable to the British idea of forming an effective buffer territory in so far as it is consistent with equity and justice; she is anxious that her trade interest should be looked after by her trade agents as do the British, a point which is agreeable even to the Tibetans though apparently not to the British; in other words, she expects that Great Britain would at least make with her an arrangement regarding Tibet which should not be any less disadvantageous to her than that made with Russia respecting Outer Mongolia.
Considering that China has claimed and exercised sovereign rights over Tibet, commanded the Tibetan army, supervised Tibetan internal administration, and confirmed the appointments of Tibetan officials, high and low, secular and even ecclesiastical, such expectations are modest enough, surely. At the present moment, with communication via India closed, with no official representative or agent present, with relations unsettled and unregulated, the position of China vis-a-vis Tibet is far from satisfactory and altogether anomalous, while as between China and Great Britain there is always this important question outstanding. An early settlement in a reciprocal spirit of give and take and giving reasonable satisfaction to the legitimate aspirations and claims of all parties is extremely desirable.
4 DEGREES OUTER MONGOLIA
The world is more or less acquainted with the events in Urga in December, 1911, and the proclamation of independence of Outer Mongolia with Jetsun Dampa Hutukhtu as its ruler. By the Russo- Chinese Declaration of November 5, 1913, and the Tripartite Convention of Kiakhta of 1914 China has re-established her suzerainty over Outer Mongolia and obtained the acknowledgement that it forms a part of the Chinese territory. There remains the demarcation of boundary between Inner and Outer Mongolia which will take place shortly, and the outstanding question of the status of Tannu Uriankhai where Russia is lately reported to be subjecting the inhabitants to Russian jurisdiction and expelling Chinese traders.
The Tannu Uriankhai lands, according to the Imperial Institutes of the Tsing Dynasty, were under the control of the Tartar General of Uliasutai, the Sain Noin Aimak, the Jasaktu Khan Aimak and the Jetsun Dampa Hutkhta, and divided into forty-eight somons (tsoling). Geographically, according to the same authority, Tannu Uriankhai is bounded on the north by Russia, east by Tushetu Khan Aimak, west by the various aimks of Kobdo, and south by Jasaktu Khan Aimak. By a Joint Demarcation Commission in 1868 the Russo Chinese boundary in respect to Uriankhai was denmited and eight wooden boundary posts were erected to mark their respective frontiers.
In 1910, however, a Russian officer removed and burnt the boundary post at Chapuchi Yalodapa. The matter was taken up by the then Waiwupu with the Russian Minister. He replied to the effect that the limits of Uriankhai were an unsettled question and the Russian Government would not entertain the Chinese idea of taking independent steps to remark the boundary or to replace the post and expressed dissatisfaction with the work of the Joint Demarcation Commission of 1868, a dissatisfaction which would seem to be somewhat tardily expressed, to say the least. The case was temporarily dropped on account of the secession of Uliasutai from China in the following year.
While Uriankhai forms part of Autonomous Outer Mongolia, yet since Outer Mongolia is under China's suzerainty, and its territory is expressly recognized to form part of that of China, China cannot look on with indifference to any possible cession of territory by Outer Mongolia to Russia. Article 3 of the Kiakhta Agreement, 1915, prohibiting Outer Mongolia from concluding treaties with foreign powers respecting political and territorial question acknowledges China's right to negotiate and make such treaties. It is the firm intention of the Chinese Government to maintain its territorial integrity basing its case on historical records, on treaty rights and finally on the principle of nationality. It is notorious that the Mongols will be extremely unwilling to see Uriankhai incorporated into the Russian Empire. While Russia is spending countless lives and incalculable treasure in fighting for the sacred principle of nationality in Europe, we cannot believe
Reply:This will be in paper only in india . in now state goernment office , particularly in south inida expect perhaps in kerala it would be possible to get anything done without paying a personal visit and bribing the officials . No exception please. Do not dream of getting any thing done particularly while the mother of curruption DMK is in power, in Tamil nadu. Forget all procedures published in papers . people do not come to power for serving you . They have come to do business.And business means money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment