Thursday, April 2, 2009

Can China Save the World?

Can China Save the World?
by Brian P. Klein

Posted April 2, 2009

Optimism for near-term China recovery, fueled by the widely reported $587 billion two-year stimulus package, is running high heading into the G-20 summit this week. Many countries are expecting Chinese demand to spur a new round of increased consumption. These hopes are unfortunately misplaced at the moment. The stimulus is neither large enough to stimulate demand lost from plummeting exports and declining investment, nor is it focused on addressing the concerns of the fragile middle class that might help China spend its way out of crisis.

And yet the spate of positive news is impressive compared to the U.S., EU and Japan—retail spending growing at 15%, car sales rising, bank lending expanding, energy use picking up and a 30% gain in the Shanghai composite index this year—all signs the stimulus and “the China Model” of controlled growth is working. Official confidence remains high that recovery is just around the corner and GDP growth of 8% is attainable. China seems most concerned about whether the U.S. will remain solvent enough to repay interest on its Treasury bills.

Taking a closer look at the numbers an 8% growth rate means an additional $360 billion in output, all other inputs to gross domestic product remaining the same. According to recent official Chinese statements only $173 billion of the stimulus is actually new spending. How much will be central government funded remains unclear (local government, banks and enterprises are expected to contribute 70% of the stimulus—though which stimulus, the previously announced $587 billion or just the new spending is equally uncertain.)

Doubts persist as to whether the announced stimulus will be sufficient, or timely and accurately spent. The World Bank now estimates GDP growth of 6.5%, down from 7.5% in November. The OECD and IMF are expecting slightly lower growth. The last time GDP expansion slipped below 7% was 1989-1990.

Additional downward pressures are increasing as well. Many western companies are scaling back or postponing expansion plans. Foreign investment has been dropping for five consecutive months versus the same period last year (down 26% for January-Febuary). Oversupply in the real estate market continues to suppress prices in residential and commercial property. Some apartment prices in Beijing are down as much as 25% this year and vacancy rates in Shanghai are on the rise even as additional office space is slated to come on the market later this year.

Domestic consumption, another driver of growth, does not appear to be expanding as robustly as top-level statistics suggest. Broad price deflation and declining imports indicate that except for some very specific and highly incentivized market segments (like automobiles and rural purchases of housewares), people are not necessarily shopping more than last year.

Over 80% of the stimulus also focuses on infrastructure projects with state-owned enterprises the most likely beneficiaries. And while China certainly needs new transportation, power generation, and grid improvements there are also many half-empty industrial parks and technology centers from the days when the special economic zone model was in vogue. Provinces outside coastal regions built facilities that attracted little investment. The lessons of Japan’s struggle with a flagging economy should not be forgotten—bridges to nowhere and well paved roads to get there have had very limited sustained impact on growth.

Even lending figures are raising concerns. Several Chinese banks have reported a significant drop in profits as a result of non-performing loans and write-offs. Doubts also persist about loan recycling—new borrowing to pay off old debt, and leakage into the stock market. None of this helps build the real economy. A focus on loan quality not just rapid and increasing volume is needed. If economic necessity is overrun by political expediency, China may soon have its own financial bubble to contend with.

The stimulus also leaves two of the biggest concerns facing average Chinese households largely unaddressed—significant financial hardship if they become seriously ill, and saving for their children’s education. Spending on healthcare and education is a meager 4% of the entire stimulus (raised from 1% in an earlier version). It is highly likely this will become an unfunded mandate for local government, many of which are incapable of funding such initiatives. If so, cities and provinces most in need will continue to be the worst off.

For countries hoping that the stimulus will lead to a near-term China recovery and expanding export opportunities, there is little on offer outside of construction and transport equipment, power generation and to a lesser extent manufacturing equipment. Technical upgrading and research and development account for 9% of stimulus—though again it is unclear whether this denotes subsidies for new equipment purchases, tax rebates, or some other incentive).

Chinese companies are becoming increasingly competitive with foreign manufacturers in these market segments and the domestic climate shows signs of a protectionist “buy China” sentiment. Stimulus oriented sales won’t make up for the overall slowdown. Developing countries, heavily dependent on feeding the global supply chain running through China to western consuming nations will have a very slow road to recovery.

Even modest growth these days is better than nothing at all and in the mid- to long-term hopes for potential commercial opportunities in China remain strong. It is increasingly uncertain, however, how long a wait this might be. When new and real stimulus is needed later this year a focus on small and medium-sized enterprises—the most efficient users of capital, health-care and environmental technology will go a long way towards sustainable recovery and growing opportunities for China’s trading partners.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26730.1

MINDEF should conduct a formal inquiry into Dr Allan Ooi’s tragic demise

MINDEF should conduct a formal inquiry into Dr Allan Ooi’s tragic demise

I REFER to the letter by Mr Tan Hau Teck published in the TODAY newspaper on 02 April 2009, entitled “Rather than point the finger …”. (See here.)

Mr Tan is of the opinion that MINDEF should not have anything to do with Dr Allan Ooi’s tragic demise because it was Dr Ooi who chose to sign on the dotted line, even if Dr Ooi’s job turned out to be too stressful for him to manage. He is also of the opinion that it is a waste of taxpayer’s money for MINDEF to set up an inquiry into the incident.

Mr Tan is not only missing the point, he is adopting a mercenery attitude that is utterly beyond my comprehension. Someone has already died. And we are talking about saving money by avoiding a formal inquiry into his death?

I do not know which netizens, in Mr Tan’s own words, are suggesting that “MINDEF is to blame for (Dr Allan Ooi’s) death”. As far as I am concerned, I am blaming nobody as I do not have enough facts to make a complete judgment about the case. However, it is my strong opinion that MINDEF has a lot of accounting to do to the parents of Dr Allan Ooi, especially when the contents of Dr Ooi’s farewell letter, which has been published by both the mainstream press as well as alternative media, and MINDEF’s version of the story are at odds with each other.

In a letter to the Straits Times forum page dated 20 March 2009, MINDEF claimed that on 03 Oct 2008, Dr Ooi’s superior offered him the option of posting to an alternative appointment, but Dr Ooi did not get back to his superior on the offer.

However, in his farewell letter to friends, Dr Allan Ooi wrote about his bond being “unbreakable”, and he suggested that 12 years of bonded service had been arbitrarily extended to possibly 15 or 16 “at will by an administration” (due to his participation in a six-month specialist training stint in Britain).

Dr Ooi’s family claimed that his bond was “subject to policy changes”, and that MINDEF’s condition that it was “breakable only in strong, extenuating circumstances” had not been stated in his contract.

Contrary to mainstream media speculation that Dr Ooi had committed suicide over a failed romantic relationship, Dr Ooi wrote categorically in his farewell letter that his anger and resentment over his career situation was the “main reason” for ending his life (even though it was not the only one).

Mr Tan is correct to say that not all questions can be answered by MINDEF. But many can. Given the discrepencies between Dr Allan Ooi’s and MINDEF’s testimonies, is it not fair and reasonable to ask for a commission on inquiry to be established to look into possible abuse of authority or administrative incompetence at MINDEF?

A young, promising life has been tragically lost. We have to do everything in our power to reduce the chance of such happening again. Our human capital is the only natural resource that we have. For Mr Tan Hau Teck to even suggest that it would be a waste of taxpayer’s money looking into the cause of Dr Ooi’s death is unthinkable and unconsciable.

Mr Tan is correct to say that instead of always pointing the finger, we should look around us and see what we can do for the people near us.

One good way we can help those around us is to hold the authorities accountable and put their feet to the fire.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25735.5

What if he’s your own bright-future son? On Dr. Ooi Death…

What if he’s your own bright-future son? On Dr. Ooi Death…

I just could not believe it, this person “Letter from Tan Hau Teck” - wrote a reply in the publicly listed free newspaper on which everyone should have been reading (specially those who ride public transport kind of people)… “Dr. Allan Ooi’s Death.. Rather Then Point The Finger”.

Unlimited Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

Here is in the reply letter published that “Tan Hau Teck” wrote in that newspaper - the clips is attached in here above:

  • **However, I totally disagree with some of the comments about how Mindef is to blame for his death. Now, it could be that Dr Ooi’s job in the Singapore Armed Forces was a rather stressful one. He probably wasn’t happy, and he didn’t want to be bonded. However, he was the one who signed on the dotted line. He knew what he was getting into when he signed the Local Study Award. And his extension of bond came about because he went for further specialist training — training which he consented to. If he did not want to be bonded, why did he go for further training? Some argue that he was too young to bond his life away like that.

Well, that is a slippery slope argument. If he’s too young to sign a bond, then how old must one be? And perhaps then we should increase the age for young men to serve National Service or to get married, as they are probably too young to hold a rifle or to have a family too, right?

I can’t believe that his family is asking for an inquiry into his death. Who will pay for this inquiry? Why should tax payers shoulder the “blame” for his death? If anything, the family should examine how, if Dr Ooi was as unhappy as they say, no one picked up the signs that he was going absent without official leave (Awol), and subsequently committed suicide. He had written in to HQ Military Corp in July, and he only went Awol in October. What did his family and friends do in that three months? And why didn’t anyone fly over to Australia in the three months he was Awol?

There are many questions to be answered in this case, and unfortunately, not all of them can be answered by Mindef. Instead of always pointing the finger … perhaps it’s time we look around us and see what we can do for the people near us.***

And here is what actually written in yesterday published newspaper column, about the actual letter from Dr. Allan Ooi before his death:

  • **The following is an excerpt of his last email: “My job was terrible — no joy, no satisfaction, 10 to 14 hours a day of nothing. A prison. One of my own forging, perhaps, by signing a contract with the SAF at the

age of 18. Youth was not an excuse, yes, but I refused to accept being deceived into believing things about the nature of my employment that were simply untrue.

“Twelve years of bonded service became potentially 15 or 16, became unbreakable. How can a bond be unbreakable? How can it be extended at will by an administration, simply by passing a paper? “And how can the people subject to this bond not even question it, but instead sit in silent resentment and ultimate dissatisfaction?

“I was angry, so angry, which stemmed ultimately from a sense of waste and imprisonment so profound that I had no choice but to leave it entirely. To the people within this system, please change it to better benefit yourselves and future generations, instead of creating a self-perpetuating cycle of, at best, painful obligation, and at worst, utter despair.

“That was certainly the main cause for my severing of ties.’’ ***

The article:

Unlimited Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire

Will Mr. Tan Hau Teck do what he declare “do NOT blame tax payers to the death of Dr. Ooi”, if this happened to his own bright-future son who might be a doctor, with specialist training in UK (NOT Singapore btw)… will he still be able to do what he said? - Or he’s just doing fishing in a cloudy-water?

Every normal-minded parent will definitely do that legal-action and the same as Dr. Ooi’s family, which I think they’re also a well-known family with a bright-future son…

I was just wondering why Mr. Tan did not think, why Dr. Ooi went to “Australia” the haven for all people from Singapore safest-place… and why Mr. Tan never thinks that such a brilliant person, a doctor, a specialist, a dog “huskies” lover would do such a short-simplest mind and (like newspaper and public declared) do commit suicide?

So is he really commit suicide? - If so, why must be under Sydney Harbour Bridge? - Where I think must be a very crowded place (even I’ve never been there)… and should have been plenty of people saw him before he “commit suicide”, which I believe Australian will never be so ignorant (like in Singapore’s train youth-beaten incident) to see such ‘accident’.

  • **”There are many questions to be answered in this case, and unfortunately, not all of them can be answered by Mindef. Instead of always pointing the finger … perhaps it’s time we look around us and see what we can do for the people near us.*** - Mr. Tan’s last comment is exactly how typical we are in Singapore… with the very best infamous commentary, that we all know for the Mas Selamat escape and never been captured back… “It happened… what can we do? Let’s put that aside. Let’s move on.”

Seems like Mr. Tan is the one who does not have any parent’s passionate love for their children! We pray for your family, Mr. Tan… that you would not have to go through what Dr. Allan Ooi’s family has gone through now.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25735.4

A rebuttal to Tan Hau Teck’s letter to TODAY on Dr Allan Ooi’s death

A rebuttal to Tan Hau Teck’s letter to TODAY on Dr Allan Ooi’s death

I refer to the letter by Mr Tan Teck Hau titled “Dr Allan Ooi’s death: Rather than point the finger” which was published on page 22 of TODAY. (read letter here)

I am absolutely appalled and disappointed that the TODAY editors felt fit to publish such a misleading, insensitive and meaningless letter.

Either Mr Tan does not comprehend simple English or he misunderstood the intention of the Ooi family in their request to MINDEF to set up an independent panel to address the deceased doctor’s concerns about his work.

Nowhere in the letter did the Ooi family point any fingers at MINDEF. All they ask is for MINDEF to answer some questions which has been troubling them. (read the Ooi family’s letter here)

A life has been lost and the only way the grieving family can bring the matter to a proper closure is to find out the mitigating factors behind Dr Allan Ooi’s decision to end his life.

If the same tragedy happens to Mr Tan’s son, brother or friend, will he be so callous to brush the matter aside too? Won’t he demand answers from MINDEF who owes the deceased doctor a moral duty of care as his employer?

Mr Tan’s argument that Dr Allan Ooi is solely responsible for signing on the dotted line of his bond is most disingenuous.

Is it reasonable to expect a 18 year old teenager fresh out of junior college to know what he really wants in life?

The aspirations and expectations of people do change with time. How many of us actually go on to fulfill our childhood dreams when we enter the workforce?

Dr Allan Ooi expressed unhappiness over the nature of his work which did not fully utilize his knowledge and skills as a medical doctor. Apparently, he had informed his superiors of his intention to break the bond which his family can well afford to pay for. However for some strange reasons, he wasn’t allowed to and this was his main grouse against the SAF.

And this is where the family is demanding for answers from SAF. Why was Allan’s bond unbreakable? This was not stated in the contract which Allan signed. Is it reasonable and fair for SAF to stop Allan from breaking his bond when there were no such provisions put in print? Would Allan have signed the bond if he knew that he would not be allowed to break it under any circumstances in the future? Is there a possibility of a misrepresentation here?

May I ask Mr Tan which is more important: life or money? How much does it cost to conduct such an inquiry? Surely it won’t be more than the Apache helicoptors which SAF had bought? Can it be more than the monthly salary of the Defence Minister and all the top MINDEF honchos?

We are talking about a life lost here. No matter how much it costs, MINDEF should pay for the setting up of an independent panel to investigate the matter. Will taxpayers mind paying for a peace of mind to know that MINDEF will be responsible and accountable for their children who is currently serving their national service?

Actually MINDEF does not even need to fork out a single cent for this purpose. All it needs is to agree for the panel to be set up and allowed its officers to be summoned for questioning. Dr Allan Ooi’s family will probably be willing to fund the operation of the panel and the owners of this blog will not mind contributing to see that justice is done.

It is most cruel of Mr Tan to rub salt to the family’s wounds by insinuating that they have neglected Allan and thereby are partly culpable for the tragedy. The Ooi family is a closely knitted family. Allan was close to his siblings especially his younger sister whom he doted on. He had brought up his problems at work to his family and his father had offered to pay for the penalty incurred in the course of breaking the bond.

Somehow Allan must have felt that there is nothing much his family can do to help him since the onus lies with SAF to permit him to break his bond and he did not want to cause them any distress. That’s why he left without a word to be alone by himself. How can Mr Tan expect his family to locate him in Australia when even SAF and the police are unable to do so?

Both Mr Tan and TODAY owe the family and friends of Dr Allan Ooi an apology for hurting their feelings and insulting the dignity of a dead man who is unable to defend himself.

To paraphrase Mr Tan’s own words - “instead of pointing the finger at the Ooi family, perhaps it’s time he look around and see what he can do for fellow Singaporeans”. His grossly inappropriate letter is definitely not a way of offering sympathy or help to a family mourning the premature passing of a loved one.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25735.2

Rather than point the finger ...

Rather than point the finger ...

Thursday • April 2, 2009

Letter from Tan Hau Teck

My sympathies go out to the family of Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi.

However, I totally disagree with some of the comments about how Mindef is to blame for his death.

Now, it could be that Dr Ooi’s job in the Singapore Armed Forces was a rather stressful one. He probably wasn’t happy, and he didn’t want to be bonded. However, he was the one who signed on the dotted line. He knew what he was getting into when he signed the Local Study Award. And his extension of bond came about because he went for further specialist training — training which he consented to.

If he did not want to be bonded, why did he go for further training?

Some argue that he was too young to bond his life away like that. Well, that is a slippery slope argument.

If he’s too young to sign a bond, then how old must one be? And perhaps then we should increase the age for young men to serve National Service or to get married, as they are probably too young to hold a rifle or to have a family too, right?

I can’t believe that his family is asking for an inquiry into his death. Who will pay for this inquiry? Why should tax payers shoulder the “blame” for his death?

If anything, the family should examine how, if Dr Ooi was as unhappy as they say, no one picked up the signs that he was going absent without official leave (Awol), and subsequently committed suicide.

He had written in to HQ Military Corp in July, and he only went Awol in October. What did his family and friends do in that three months? And why didn’t anyone fly over to Australia in the three months he was Awol?

There are many questions to be answered in this case, and unfortunately, not all of them can be answered by Mindef.

Instead of always pointing the finger ... perhaps it’s time we look around us and see what we can do for the people near us.


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25735.1

To G20 - Put people first, not corporations

To G20 - Put people first, not corporations

Thursday, 2 April 2009

Donaldson Tan

London – The world is standing on its toes as world leaders congregate in London for the G20 Summit. As many as 35,000 disgruntled people turned up all over London to make their voices heard. Their slogans read “Decent jobs and public services for all”, “End poverty and inequality”, and “Green the Economy”. Despite well-meaning intentions, the protesters were met with police resistance. One protester even questioned the policemen, “Your pay-rise was withheld from you because your Government used your money to bail out Northern Rock. Why are you on their side?”

Protesters taking action

Glen Tarman, Chair of the Put People First’s Co-ordination Team, announced a new alliance has emerged from more than 150 organisations drawn from a huge range of development, union, faith and environmental groups. “All have been united by the clear message that the G20 leaders … cannot go back to business as usual. They must take action for jobs, to stop climate chaos and to fight poverty and inequality throughout the world,” he said.

Yesterday, the G20 Meltdown protestors emerged from four London Underground stations (Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Cannon Street, London Bridge) and converged at the Bank of England. Clashes between the police and the protesters intensified in the afternoon amidst police provocation. The police continued to detain protesters around the Bank of England until late evening although many protesters had already sounded out their intention to disperse peacefully.

Later today, the Stop the War Coalition will be protesting at the official venue of the G20 London Summit in conjunction with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the British Muslim Initiative. “This meeting will be a vital opportunity for the most powerful countries in the world to break from the policies of war and neo-liberalism that have caused such devastation around the world during the Bush years,” said Chris Nineham, founder of the Stop the War Coalition.

Alternative Policy Proposals

Complacent policymakers often discount protesters by saying although protesters complain about existing policies, they do not make alternative recommendations. Such fallacy should never be propagated at all. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC) at the OECD have already listed a range of policy instruments and actions in the Global Unions G20 London Declaration. “If the G20 governments in London are only able to agree on half-measures, they will have failed to meet their responsibilities. As the world’s largest economies, they have the responsibility and the possibility to replace the failed neo-liberalism of the past with a whole new direction for globalisation,” said ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder.

The five-point union plan, which includes detailed policy proposals, sets out the actions needed to tackle the crisis and build a fairer and more sustainable world economy for the future. It calls for:

· Co-ordinated international recovery and sustainable growth plan to create jobs and ensure public investment;

· Nationalisation of insolvent banks and new financial regulations;

· Combat the risk of wage deflation and reverse decades of increasing inequality;

· far-reaching action on climate change;

· New international legal framework to regulate the global economy along with reform of the global financial and economic institutions (IMF, World Bank, OECD, WTO, ILO)

Key sticking points in the negotiations between governments, notably on the need and scope for further stimulus packages, remain to be resolved and the suggestion of a further G20 Summit later this year is likely to feature prominently. “For the first time, global leaders are looking for agreed solutions to a deep global crisis. The governments here have the power to put the world economy back on track, and we urge them to agree on far-reaching measures for recovery and reform,” said Ryder. “Ensuring jobs and avoiding the emerging risk of generalised wage deflation must be at the top of the list. We also believe that this G20 must lay the framework for new global governance with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) taking centre stage alongside reformed and accountable international financial and trade institutions.”


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25733.1

Line between PR/Journalism crossed in The New Paper’s ‘exclusive’ interview with Nepal’s former crown prince?

Line between PR/Journalism crossed in The New Paper’s ‘exclusive’ interview with Nepal’s former crown prince?

Apr 2 update @ 10.20am: At the time of my original post below, i provided three links to the printer-friendly versions of the articles that were still available on TNP’s website. I just discovered they’re not available anymore.They have been removed.

The titles of the 3 articles: Killer trigger: Foiled $23M gun deal; ‘The smell of burnt blood was horrible’; and lastly, ‘Can’t she help his kingdom?’. They were published, in the print versions, from 29 Mar-31 Mar 2009.

The odd thing is that if you do a search on its website, other articles/reports (even those going back 2 years or so) are still available if not in its original form at least as printer-friendly versions.

The following article by Eric Ellis is about an interview by The New Paper (TNP) with Nepal’s former crown prince. It was published as a series over three days beginning Mar 29, 2009. See here, here and here.

The Prince and the PR Man by Eric Ellis
1 April 2009, Asia Sentinel

The British comic troupe Monty Python famously described Aristotle as being ‘a bugger for the bottle’ in their cheeky Philosopher’s Song sketch.

But had the Pythons’ Flying Circus set their skits in Singapore, they might’ve found comic inspiration in the musings of one Clement Mesenas and Nepal’s deposed Crown Prince Paras Bikram Shah, in Singapore’s New Paper these past few days.

There, in all its glory, was an ‘exclusive’ interview by Mesenas with Paras, infamously Nepal’s own ‘bugger for the bottle’ who’s now exiled to Singapore after revolutionary Maoist republicans took control of Nepal.

As long-suffering Nepalis know too well, this one-time would-be ‘living god’ Paras doesn’t mind the hard stuff himself, preferring the transformational Johnnie Walker Black Label. The patrons and owners of various Kathmandu nightclubs know better, to their peril, for the Harley-riding prince and his friends used to let lawlessly loose on the town after a big night on the sauce at the palace. Nepalis have died because of Paras’ carousing.

No longer. The grasping Shahs were removed of their entitlement, their monarchy and Nepal last year by Prachanda and his fellow ascetic travellers. But Paras was and remains one of Nepal’s most reviled figures. Unlike his father, who ‘retired’ quietly as a commoner to a villa outside Kathmandu, Paras felt compelled to seek comfortable refuge in Singapore, where he drives an Audi and a Lamborghini (provided by relatives, he claims) and where one hopes he has developed rather more sober pursuits than the boozing and gun-toting he was notorious for in Kathmandu.

In Mesenas’ interview, which seems designed to re-launch Paras as a political player in the country’s tortuous struggle for power, Paras outlined a web of palace intrigues which culminated in the infamous ‘Blood On the Snows’ regicide of June 2001 at Kathmandu’s Narayanhity Palace by, as goes the official version of the tragic events, Paras’ predecessor as Nepal’s Crown Prince, his cousin Dipendra.

But this wasn’t just a regicide - the act of killing a monarch - in this case Nepal’s popular King Birendra. It seems it was also a patricide (Birendra was Dipendra’s father), a matricide (his mother Aishwarya was wasted), a sororicide (his late sister Princess Shruti), a fratricide (his brother Nirajan too), an avunculicide (his murdered uncle Prince Dhirendra) and whatever the correct ‘cides are for aunts and in-laws and cousins. There were ten royal victims in total, including Dipendra himself, who survived the massacre for 56 hours to become King before succumbing to his wounds. So add another regicide as well and, per that much-disputed official version, Dipendra’s suicide.

In the Mesenas interview at Paras’ Singapore penthouse, Paras says he decided to open up because “the Nepali people need to know the truth.” The New Paper writes that Paras “now wants to clear his name” about “the ugly rumours of his involvement in the incident.”

But what truth? Such is their hatred of Paras, most Nepalis conspiratorially believe he and his deposed father, the ex-King Gyanendra, had a role in engineering the massacre of their relations as part of a power grab to put their part of the family in line in for the throne. But these seemed details too far for Mesenas, in the glossing of Paras’ dubious past.

In the interview, Paras claims his royal relations had been arguing over an arms deal for the Royal Nepali army. Dipendra favoured a German assault rifle, whereas the King fancied an American supplier. Paras seems to suggest his cousin would’ve earned a massive kickback if the army had gone with the German weapons. Mesenas cites Dipendra’s other reasons; that Birendra never consulted Dipendra in 1990 when transforming Nepal from the absolute monarchy Diprendra was set to inherit to a quasi-democratic constitutional monarchy. And then there was Dipendra much-discussed romance with a member from the Shahs’ rival Rana clan, which apparently displeased his parents.

That’s all very well, and the articles’ publication have titillated the Nepali intelligentsia, those at least who are able to access the internet during the average four hours a day the monarchy’s Maoist successors turn the power on, in one of the world’s poorest and least technologically-enabled countries.

But what is more interesting about Mesenas’ interview, and revealing so as to place, at the very least, a critical shadow over its credibility, was not so much that Paras was talking about the massacre publicly for the first time, it was that he decided to do so in Singapore. By all accounts not a particularly bright man, the 37 year-old Paras would at least know, or be advised (by Mesenas?), that there are few better places to have an advantageous story published about oneself than in Singapore’s clubby media, where standards and placement can depend on who you know.

The Mesenas interview with Paras was not some ‘world scoop’ exclusive by a respected independent journalist, inasmuch as any exist in Singapore’s hyper-control regime. It was enabled by a well-practiced public relations professional – Mesenas – with a history and connections in the Singapore media extensive enough that he was able to write the piece himself, and get it published. No self-respecting media outlet would publish an article with so many holes in it, and so little context, and particularly sourced from an external contributor working in public relations. But Singapore lacks the media that most of us would recognise as reliable and independent, hence it’s the perfect place to get a snowjob published.

And what better person to effect that that someone like Mesenas, the director - ‘editorial and advisory’ - with the Singapore public relations firm Bang, which promises ‘effective media communications solutions’? (Among Bang’s clients is the Singapore government’s Media Development Authority, which regulates and censors Singapore’s media).

Mesenas’ involvement with Paras raises questions as to whether Paras, or his connections, paid or retained Bang and or Mesenas to act in his editorial interest. Is this self-serving article published in a tame newspaper – the New Paper is not the New York Times – cash for comment? It smells a lot like it. The Paras article is a great many things, and journalism is not any of them.

Asia Sentinel sent the following questions to Mesenas at Bang;

1. Are you or your firm hired or retained by Paras or related parties to him?

2. Why did you, as a PR operative, write the article, and not a journalist at The New Paper?

3. Why was there no contextual discussion in the article of the reasons why Paras now lives in Singapore, not least the charges of criminality/murder directed at him?

Mesenas responded that “he wrote the story as a practising journalist” but that he also works for the PR company Bang. He says he was “introduced to Paras and checked with The New Paper if it would be interested in a story on him. They were and Murali, its associate editor, joined me for the interview with Paras.”

Mesenas claims that Paras did not retain him or Bang. “I am a PR man, new to the business (5 months) and still can’t get away from being a journalist (40 years),” Mesenas says. “So you might say I am an occasional practising journalist.”

The Singapore media that creates operators like Mesenas likes to think itself as probing, as challenging and as independent as the world’s best media, superlatives which few Singapore-watchers outside the city-state share. Critics of the government-controlled Singapore Press Holdings, which owns the New Paper, regard its titles more as government gazettes, as handbooks on how authorities want their subjects to believe and behave, much as Pravda (truth in Russian) and Izvestia (information) operated in the old USSR.

But as Russians used to say, there was little pravda in Izvestia and izvestia in Pravda, and so too Mesenas’ and Paras’ day out for the New Paper. Glaringly absent from the Paras interview for anyone who knows Nepal’s fatal politics, such as the 30 million Nepalis who endure it, was critical story-defining context, of meaningful examination of Paras’ own brushes with crime and its role in the downfall of his family’s Shah dynasty, which inflicted such ongoing misery on Nepal.

Paras is one of Nepal’s most reviled men. Many Nepalis believe it was Paras’ excessive, and untried, criminal behaviour that was one of the primary reasons for the Shahs’ demise, and the turmoil Nepalis now endure at the hands of their dysfunctional government. This is crucial background to the Paras story, and precious little of it was discussed in the Mesenas-led piece, mostly dressed up to the unsuspecting reader as royal titillation barely a step removed from the likes of Hello Magazine.

When in Kathmandu, Crown Prince Paras of Nepal was not a living god to trifle with, especially after he’d had a big session on the bottle. Johnnie Walker Black Label is his preferred tipple and when word used to course around the bars and restaurants of Kathmandu’s fashionable Babar Mahal Revisited that the 37-year-old Paras was drunk again astride his black Harley-Davidson and cruising – often armed - with his thuggish outriders, down would come the shutters on nightspots. Some clubs even employed Paras-watchers to keep an eye on his palace gates and the Babar carpark, lest the royal posse show up drunk and looking to party. Kathmandu’s nightspot owners got a little sick of calling in the interior decorators the day after Paras and friends had been out on the razzle.

Nepalis know that Paras has form but his killing of Nepali folk singer Praveen Gurung is perhaps the most outrageous of the many incidents involving him. In August 2000, witnesess described a drunken Paras manhandling a waitress he wanted outside a Kathmandu casino that his father part-owned. Praveen gallantly came to her aid and, according to many witnesses, Paras was none too pleased. Paras ran Praveen over in his SUV and killed him, before he headed back to the morning-after sobriety in the sanctuary of the palace. A half-hearted police investigation into the hit and run took no action.

Mesenas, who refers to the ousted royal as ‘Prince Paras’ throughout his series, airs a very different take on the incident. “One rainy day, he knocked down one of Nepal’s most popular musicians. The musician was riding a motorbike at the time. According to Prince Paras, the motorbike swayed suddenly in front of him, and though he stepped on the brake, he could not stop in time. He attended to the man and took him to the hospital, but he was pronounced dead on arrival. The contrite prince visited the dead man’s family the next day. “I paid his wife compensation and took care of his two sons, putting them through school,” he says. Mesenas and Murali then write ‘all that is in the past.”

Every Nepali knows that Paras killed Praveen. Some 600,000 people, their outrage uncorked by the Maoists, signed a petition to Paras’ father Gyanendra days after the incident demanding legal action against him. But none was forthcoming, except a request to the errant son to reign in his drinking. A week after Praveen’s death, and two days after Paras’ residence was surrounded by Maoist-organised student protesters, the Nepali Patra newspaper wrote somewhat portentously;

“The murder of well-known singer and musician Praveen Gurung could prove to be costly for the Royal Palace.”

“This is the third time someone, who, as member of the respected Royal Family gets an annual allowance of Rs 300,000 (his wife, Himani, gets Rs 75,000), has killed a commoner. Earlier in 1997, a Pajero driven by Paras hit and killed taxi driver Sanukaji at Putafi Sadak. A year before that, a drunk Paras driving his jeep caused a similar accident in Bharatpur, Chitwan. The people have also not forgotten the other excesses of Paras. In 1996 Paras assaulted a traffic police officer who had gone up to him to inquire about the lights used in his vehicle. About a week later, after hitting a motorcycle near Hattigauda, he went around beating people assembled at the site of the accident. The same year, he drew out a pistol and spread terror at Hotel Soaltee and then drove to the Everest Casino where he fired several rounds in the air. A year later, he drove to the police headquarters and beat up a sentry on duty. Again in 1999 he struck a police officer with the butt of his gun and drove away after threatening him with a machine gun. A month later he went to the Durbar Marg police station and thrashed the policeman standing guard. On election day in May last year he went around driving his car threatening all police officers he came across.”

Paras is not a nice man. Not that his Singapore cipher Clement Mesenas – or the New Paper - seem to want anyone to know that.

Then again, maybe Mesenas is simply being a PR man, looking after his new friend. Or is it his client?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25729.1

Principles & pragmatism – can Singapore afford both?

Principles & pragmatism – can Singapore afford both?

Thursday, 2 April 2009

Khairulanwar Zaini

The naming of an orchid for Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein (left, with George Yeo) sparked widespread revulsion and disgust in the online community; a sentiment that is also shared by this author.

The antipathy towards the unholy alliance between the Singapore government and the Burmese junta is motivated by the latter’s abysmal track record in governance - the countless flagrant abuses of power and inept leadership are legendary - and rightly so, it would seem inconceivable that our leaders should accommodate such personalities culpable of the murder of their own citizens.

However, a deeper look into the issue will force many to confront the very practical realities of politics and economics: the government’s motivation to engage with the Burmese has very little to do with altruism, but more of the economic advantages that can be procured. Burma is a potential source of lucrative economic profit for any investing nation, particularly when most other foreign investors shy away from it.

The economic opportunity

And therein lies the opportunity for Singapore - and this parleying to the Burmese junta is nothing new, but an attempt to play catchup with Thailand and regional giants India and China, nations who have entered into close economic partnerships with Burma, and are clearly reaping the benefits of being the leading investors in a resource-rich nation that is shunned by others.

Nevertheless, it may seem downright atrocious that our pursuit of economic growth is at the expense of the innocent citizens of Burma. Given the bloody crackdowns in the dying days of the Saffron Revolution and wilful deprivation imposed on the Burmese population, it is legitimate to argue that doing business with the junta is a tacit acceptance of its ruthless and bloody policies, and that we are somehow culpable for prolonging the suffering of ordinary Burmese people.

And this primacy that our government has accorded to economics and material wealth, overriding considerations of human rights and a sense of common decency, has earned the contempt of many an idealist, this author among them. The bilateral trade is indeed lucrative, estimated to amount to US$1.58 billion, of which US$795 million was accounted by our exports in the 2008 fiscal year. A trivial amount in terms of the total trade - but the lingering question remains: are we able to sustain our economy while declining trade money from despotic regimes - which not only includes Burma, but China?

The morality of economics

It will be ideal for us to be able to say unequivocally and resolutely that there are more important and vital interests to uphold beyond the currency of economic progress. Such idealism will come at a price: we can choose to sever ties with the junta until they have sufficiently reformed themselves in a manner acceptable to our notions of decency, but at the price of losing our first-mover advantage into Burma.

It is not easy to “disentangle economics from politics”, as Milton Friedman discovered, and we are faced with a similar quandary. It is easy to vilify Burma, the persona non grata of this globalized world, given that almost every nation reserves a vituperative contempt for its leaders. But if Singapore were truly to walk that moral high ground, are we prepared to adhere rigidly to that principle? Do we then turn askance and refuse to transact financially with any regime that blatantly disregards human rights?

Take China, for example. Singapore cannot ignore China - no single nation could, not even the hegemonic United States. China’s human rights record continues to be appalling, however. The litany of abuses ranges from its obdurate refusal to ruminate, much less apologize, for the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, the ceaseless subjugation of Tibet, the arrest and removal of critics and its onerous censorship policies.

And if we pursue that moral principle of human rights over economics vis-à-vis Burma, are we able to do likewise with China? The loss of Chinese economic trade would have severe ramifications on the Singapore economy. China has survived and escaped the denigration that plagues Burma because of its actual and potential economic clout. But are we to be remain principled, and risk losing the trade of a Communist regime that has trampled unapologetically upon human rights?

Standing for moral principles – how far?

We aspire to certain ideals - but we have to be tempered by the realities of the ground. We castigate the naming of the orchid, but it is nothing more than diplomatic protocol, a sop to every foreign dignitary that visits Singapore – and a nod to our vibrant orchid hybrid industry. Tasteless as it seems to induct Thein Sein into the time-honoured tradition that includes luminaries such as Nelson Mandela, the naming of an orchid is nothing more than a symbolic gesture of welcome for a foreign dignitary. To deprive Thein Sein of this gesture, and risk alienating a valuable economic ally, is easy to advocate, but the repercussions will be costly to bear. And if we walk the moral high ground in this instance, do we then deprive the flower-naming ceremony for the next visiting Chinese head of state or Arab emir?

We may wish for a more principled government, imbued with aspirations of human rights, but if we sever or limit economic ties with every nation that has a dismal or doubtful human rights record, Singapore will find itself failing to stand for itself. The realities of our city-state are daunting: we are vulnerable to extraneous economic conditions, our very nature of a city-state makes no model except the current export-oriented one viable. Singapore is not lavished with the natural resources or population size that will allow us the prerogative of self-sufficiency - our only hope and opportunity for sustained survival is to be accommodating of every nation willing to trade, notwithstanding the moral scruples involved. Our nation could not afford to alienate any nation on the basis of human rights: if that is so, we will lose a swathe of our trading partners - China and the Middle Eastern states, for one.

Idealistic citizens, pragmatic government

The engagement with Burma, and the outrage it has triggered, is symptomatic of the asymmetry between what citizens hope for, and what the nation could realistically deliver. That’s the government’s job: to temper populist expectations and undertake hard decisions that may be morally repugnant, but provide benefits for their citizens. Despicable, compromised, ugly, reprehensible as it may seem, pragmatism has to trump principles in governing a city-state like Singapore.

It is not that Singapore has not exerted effort in getting the Burmese junta to mend its ways. When it hosted the ASEAN summit in November 2007, Singapore proposed that the UN Special Envoy to Myanmar Ibrahim Gambari brief the member-states on Burma just a few weeks after the brutal crackdowns of the Saffron Revolution; the proposal, though shot down by Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, showed a willingness to engage in the Burmese question and a nuanced diplomatic policy of amiably prodding Burma into the right direction without provoking severe antagonism.

ASEAN: That glimmer of reprieve

Indeed ASEAN affords a forum for Singapore and other ASEAN members to influence Burma for the better. The ASEAN Human Rights Commission, an agency introduced by the ASEAN Charter, also provides an opportunity for Singapore to push forth a pro-democracy agenda in Burma without stepping on too many toes. Despite the formidable challenges that will encumber the human rights body given that no country in ASEAN is a paragon of virtue in terms of democratic sensibility and integrity, the Commission may still shake off its paper tiger tag, particularly if it is endowed with an effective enforcement mechanism.

Many activists hope that the a proactive human rights agency could spell the expulsion of Burma from ASEAN. However, a Burma excluded from ASEAN would mean even less influence for the latter over the former – losing leverage when there is already little to go around. The economic benefits that ASEAN and Singapore currently enjoy from Burma can easily be diverted to neighbouring India and China, both countries having shown no signs of having qualms about continued engagement with Burma. The sobering truth is that Burma, if it ever does so, will have to be brought into the folds of democracy through engagement with Singapore and the other member-states of ASEAN.

Idealism mugged by reality

While our commitment in Burma may not pan out as our leaders may hope, there is little to criticize them for trying to secure our economic interests, even with suspect and dubious regimes such as Burma. Foreign relations, and economic trade, are complicated enough that it has to transcend merely having a resolute stance on human rights, as idealistic and romantic as that would be for activists everywhere. That is the true tragedy in the entire affair: of being Singapore and being vulnerable to the pressures of economy and trade that ideals and principles that we should stand for have to be forsaken.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25725.1

HDB resale flat prices fall

April 2, 2009
HDB resale flat prices fall
First-quarter dip is first since 2006 and points to end of record run
By Jessica Cheam
Larger units bore the brunt of the price drop in HDB flats, and property agencies expect a decline of between 2 per cent and 10 per cent in the resale market for the full year. -- ST FILE PHOTO
PRICES of HDB resale flats fell in the first quarter of this year - the first decline since 2006 and a sign that the two-year run of record-breaking gains has ended.

Flash estimates yesterday showed that prices dropped by 0.6 per cent for the first three months, compared with the fourth quarter of last year.

RELATED LINKS
Prices in the fourth quarter had increased by 1.4 per cent over the previous period and helped drive resale flat prices up by a hefty 31.2 per cent over the past two years.

The latest numbers caught industry experts by surprise and underline how the worsening recession has hit the Housing Board (HDB) market sooner than expected.

Many analysts had predicted further increases in resale prices with a decline becoming apparent only later in the year.

Agency chiefs from both PropNex and ERA Asia Pacific had recently forecast that HDB resale prices could rise by a further 3 per cent to 5 per cent this year.

But yesterday's numbers have altered expectations overnight, with analysts now predicting a decline of anything from 2 per cent to 10 per cent this year.

Tell-tale signs in the market signalled that prices have started heading southwards, in tandem with private property prices, which plunged 13.8 per cent for the first quarter of this year, said Prop- Nex chief executive Mohamed Ismail.

'The gloomy outlook for the past few months, coupled with more retrenchments, have hit home, and even the HDB market is feeling it,' said Mr Ismail.

PropNex and ERA have reported buyer resistance to flats above $500,000, with five-room and executive flats feeling the brunt of the price slide.


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25721.1

G-20 acts on hedge funds

April 2, 2009
G-20 acts on hedge funds
Keen to secure a confidence-boosting message for voters and frazzled financial markets as the world succumbs to recession, US President Barack Obama said there were no substantive differences with Europe, despite the hardball stances taken by the French and German leaders. --PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
LONDON - WORLD leaders are set to declare an end to unfettered capitalism at a G20 summit on Thursday after France and Germany demanded they act fast on promises to prevent a repeat of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.

A communique drafted for release at a G20 summit in London, obtained by Reuters, signalled that leaders would submit large hedge funds to supervision for the first time and enhance regulation through a new agency and a beefed-up International Monetary Fund.

It included a pledge to deliver 'the scale of sustained effort necessary to restore growth' without making any commitments beyond the trillions being spent to stabilise banks, shore up demand and limit job losses.

Keen to secure a confidence-boosting message for voters and frazzled financial markets as the world succumbs to recession, US President Barack Obama said there were no substantive differences with Europe, despite the hardball stances taken by the French and German leaders.

Washington wanted tougher regulation too, he told a news conference on Wednesday with Britain's Gordon Brown, summit host, saying he was at the summit not just to lecture but to listen and to help lead the way out of trouble.

It was not clear whether the flashpoint, which appeared to focus primarily on Mr Sarkozy's demands for blacklisting of tax havens, would be enough to derail a message of unity from the meeting.

The draft communique said tax havens would be identified and sanctions could be deployed.

'The era of banking secrecy is over,' it declared. -- REUTERS

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25717.1

Badawi formally resigns

April 2, 2009
Badawi formally resigns
Mr Abdullah, who took office in October 2003, was pressured to step down after the ruling National Front coalition suffered its worst results ever in general elections a year ago. --PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
KUALA LUMPUR - THE Malaysian King on Thursday accepted Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's resignation, senior officials said, paving the way for his deputy Najib Razak to take over.

'PM Abdullah offered his resignation to the King. The King is understood to have accepted it,' a senior official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

Abdullah arrived in a black sedan escorted by police outriders at 0200 GMT, according to a senior government official who witnessed the event.

Officials said the government will issue an official statement later on the transfer of power.

Incoming prime minister Najib Razak, who said on Wednesday he will be sworn in on Friday as the country's sixth premier, was also expected at the palace.

Mr Abdullah, 66, who was criticised as weak and ineffective during his six years in power, last week handed Mr Najib the leadership of Malaysia's dominant political party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO).

Mr Abdullah announced his retirement plan last October after being criticised for an election debacle last year when the opposition claimed a third of seats in parliament and control of four states.

UMNO leads the National Front coalition that has ruled Malaysia since independence from Britain in 1957. -- AFP


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25715.1


Family of dead SAF doctor seeks answers

Family of dead SAF doctor seeks answers

WE WRITE in response to the March 23 letter by the Ministry of Defence, 'SAF offered doctor alternative posting', regarding Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi Seng Teik, who ended his life on March 3.

Allan was proud of his Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) study award and pursued his studies and housemanship enthusiastically. He, and we, understood that his 12-year bond included two specialisation courses, and that it could be terminated, subject to liquidated damages.

When Allan signed on at 18, he had looked forward to serving out his bond as a true doctor, treating patients rather than being deployed to perform unrelated administrative tasks almost all the time.

Within his last e-mail to us, timed for release after his death, he spoke of his job as being 'terrible, no joy, no satisfaction'.

We seek answers to the following:

# What were Allan's discussions with his superior? What are the specifics of the other posting offered as mentioned by Mindef and were these documented?

# Why would a bond be breakable only in 'strong, extenuating circumstances' as stated by Mindef when this was not stated in his contract? What are these circumstances?

# We now know Allan wrote a letter to the Manpower Branch, Headquarters Medical Corps in July last year with the intention of breaking his bond. What was the outcome?

# How can a contract be subject to policy changes, including prolonging his 12-year bond by another three years for one six-month specialist course?

We feel Allan's concerns can be addressed effectively only via an inquiry by an independent panel with oversight powers. We hope to help bring possible deficiencies to light in order to avert a similar tragedy and pain to other families.

Family of the late Cpt (Dr) Allan Ooi

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25703.1

G-20 Backs Regulation Crackdown, $1.1 Trillion Aid

G-20 Backs Regulation Crackdown, $1.1 Trillion Aid (Update3)

By Simon Kennedy and Kitty Donaldson

April 2 (Bloomberg) -- World leaders agreed on a regulatory blueprint for reining in the excesses that fed the worst financial crisis in six decades and pledged more than $1 trillion in emergency aid to cushion the economic fallout.

The Group of 20 policy makers, meeting in London, called for stricter limits on hedge funds, executive pay, credit-rating firms and risk-taking by banks. They tripled the firepower of the International Monetary Fund and offered cash to revive trade to help governments weather the turmoil resulting from the surge in unemployment. They avoided the divisive question of whether to deliver more fiscal stimulus to their own economies.

The G-20 statement amounts to an effort to rewrite the rules of capitalism to address an integrated world economy that has outgrown the ability of individual governments to keep it in check. The aim was to prevent a repeat of the market turbulence which has roiled the world for almost two years.

“We have reached a new consensus that we take global actions together to deal with the problems we face,” U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown told reporters after hosting the talks. “There was substantial agreement on the need for us to do whatever is necessary to return to growth.”

The leaders will meet again in New York in September, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.

While countries will maintain control of their own markets and companies, the G-20 sought “greater consistency and systematic cooperation.” It will establish a new Financial Stability Board to bring together regulators and work with the IMF to provide early warnings of potential threats.

Regulating Hedge Funds

National regulatory systems will be revamped to better monitor threats to the global system, the leaders said. Once recovery is in place, work will begin on new rules aimed at avoiding excessive leverage and forcing banks to put more money aside during good times.

Hedge funds that are “systemically important” will be subjected to greater regulation and oversight as will all key financial instruments, markets and instruments, the G-20 said. That signals a setback for German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Sarkozy, who wanted all of the investment funds to brought under the spotlight.

Principles will also be introduced on pay and bonuses to create “sustainable compensation schemes.” Accounting-standard setters were told to improve valuation methods, while credit- rating companies will be forced to meet a code of good practice.

Tax Compromise

Having proved a sticking point at the talks, the G-20 said it will impose sanctions on tax havens that do not provide enough information. Officials split over the OECD publishing a list of such nations, agreeing in the end not to block it.

The G-20’s pact marks a narrowing of differences after Merkel and Sarkozy entered the talks demanding Brown and President Barack Obama endorse a more detailed response to the crisis than that initially planned.

“We never thought we would find an agreement this large,” Sarkozy said today. Merkel called the agreement a “victory for common sense.”

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University, said in an interview while the “devil is in the details” of how new rules will be implemented, the G-20 had made a “major step forward” in saying markets should be subjected to greater state control.

Stocks Rise

As the leaders talked, stocks rose and U.S. Treasuries fell on speculation that the deepest global recession in six decades may be abating. Data today showed orders placed with U.S. factories rose in February for the first time in seven months, U.K. house prices unexpectedly gained in March and Chinese manufacturing increased.

Bad news may regain the focus of investors as companies from French automaker Renault SA to computer-services provider International Business Machines Corp. ax jobs. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development this week predicted the world economy will contract 2.7 percent this year, trade will plunge 13 percent and joblessness in the Group of Seven nations will reach 36 million in late 2010.

That represents the economic pain of a financial crisis that began in August 2007 and has since cost banks almost $1.3 trillion in writedowns and losses, forcing them to seek support from governments and to choke off credit to consumers and businesses.

With banks still bogged down by toxic assets, the G-20 promised “to take all necessary actions” to restore the availability of credit and protect key institutions.

Budgets, Inflation

Having committed $2 trillion in fiscal packages to save their economies, the leaders today said they would “deliver the scale of sustained fiscal effort necessary to restore growth,” while ensuring sustainable budgets and price stability in the long-term.

Obama and Brown have pushed for more spending only to run into resistance from Merkel and Sarkozy, who argued they’ve done enough. The IMF will oversee the actions taken which should accelerate the recovery of the global economy to its long-term trend, the group said.

As it becomes inundated with requests for loans from troubled economies including Pakistan and Hungary, the IMF was told its war chest will be boosted by $500 billion and it will receive another $250 billion in special drawing rights, the agency’s synthetic currency.

Multilateral development banks including the World Bank will be enabled to lend at least $100 billion more.

‘Historic’

“It’s historic,” said Colin Bradford, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

In return for their contributions, emerging markets such as China and Brazil will receive more of a say in the fund, the G- 20 said. The IMF will also use revenue from sales of its gold reserves to aid the world’s poorest countries and its next leader will no longer automatically be a European.

To bolster trade the group said it will spend at least $250 billion over two years on easing trade finance and said it remained committed to completing the stalled Doha round.

After the World Bank said 17 of the G-20 nations had reneged on a November promise not to resort to protectionism, leaders vowed not to introduce any restrictive trade practices through 2010 or to pursue financial policies which hurt other nations. The World Trade Organization will report quarterly on any violations.

The G-20 members are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union. Officials from Spain and the Netherlands were also present.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25782.3

G20 summit – leaders' statement

G20 summit – leaders' statement

Full text of the communique

  • guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 April 2009 16.59 BST
1. We, the leaders of the Group of Twenty, met in London on 2 April 2009.

2. We face the greatest challenge to the world economy in modern times; a crisis which has deepened since we last met, which affects the lives of women, men, and children in every country, and which all countries must join together to resolve. A global crisis requires a global solution.

3. We start from the belief that prosperity is indivisible; that growth, to be sustained, has to be shared; and that our global plan for recovery must have at its heart the needs and jobs of hard-working families, not just in developed countries but in emerging markets and the poorest countries of the world too; and must reflect the interests, not just of today's population, but of future generations too. We believe that the only sure foundation for sustainable globalisation and rising prosperity for all is an open world economy based on market principles, effective regulation, and strong global institutions.

4. We have today therefore pledged to do whatever is necessary to: restore confidence, growth, and jobs; repair the financial system to restore lending; strengthen financial regulation to rebuild trust; fund and reform our international financial institutions to overcome this crisis and prevent future ones; promote global trade and investment and reject protectionism, to underpin prosperity; and build an inclusive, green, and sustainable recovery.
By acting together to fulfil these pledges we will bring the world economy out of recession and prevent a crisis like this from recurring in the future.

5. The agreements we have reached today, to treble resources available to the IMF to $750bn, to support a new SDR allocation of $250bn, to support at least $100bn of additional lending by the MDBs, to ensure $250bn of support for trade finance, and to use the additional resources from agreed IMF gold sales for concessional finance for the poorest countries, constitute an additional $1.1 trillion programme of support to restore credit, growth and jobs in the world economy. Together with the measures we have each taken nationally, this constitutes a global plan for recovery on an unprecedented scale, restoring growth and jobs

6. We are undertaking an unprecedented and concerted fiscal expansion, which will save or create millions of jobs which would otherwise have been destroyed, and that will, by the end of next year, amount to $5tn, raise output by 4%, and accelerate the transition to a green economy. We are committed to deliver the scale of sustained fiscal effort necessary to restore growth.

7. Our central banks have also taken exceptional action. Interest rates have been cut aggressively in most countries, and our central banks have pledged to maintain expansionary policies for as long as needed and to use the full range of monetary policy instruments, including unconventional instruments, consistent with price stability.

8. Our actions to restore growth cannot be effective until we restore domestic lending and international capital flows. We have provided significant and comprehensive support to our banking systems to provide liquidity, recapitalise financial institutions, and address decisively the problem of impaired assets. We are committed to take all necessary actions to restore the normal flow of credit through the financial system and ensure the soundness of systemically important institutions, implementing our policies in line with the agreed G20 framework for restoring lending and repairing the financial sector.

9. Taken together, these actions will constitute the largest fiscal and monetary stimulus and the most comprehensive support programme for the financial sector in modern times. Acting together strengthens the impact and the exceptional policy actions announced so far must be implemented without delay. Today, we have further agreed over $1tn of additional resources for the world economy through our international financial institutions and trade finance.

10. Last month the IMF estimated that world growth in real terms would resume and rise to over 2% by the end of 2010. We are confident that the actions we have agreed today, and our unshakeable commitment to work together to restore growth and jobs, while preserving long-term fiscal sustainability, will accelerate the return to trend growth. We commit today to taking whatever action is necessary to secure that outcome, and we call on the IMF to assess regularly the actions taken and the global actions required.

11. We are resolved to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability and price stability and will put in place credible exit strategies from the measures that need to be taken now to support the financial sector and restore global demand. We are convinced that by implementing our agreed policies we will limit the longer-term costs to our economies, thereby reducing the scale of the fiscal consolidation necessary over the longer term.

12. We will conduct all our economic policies cooperatively and responsibly with regard to the impact on other countries and will refrain from competitive devaluation of our currencies and promote a stable and well-functioning international monetary system. We will support, now and in the future, to candid, even-handed, and independent IMF surveillance of our economies and financial sectors, of the impact of our policies on others, and of risks facing the global economy, strengthening financial supervision and regulation

13. Major failures in the financial sector and in financial regulation and supervision were fundamental causes of the crisis. Confidence will not be restored until we rebuild trust in our financial system. We will take action to build a stronger, more globally consistent, supervisory and regulatory framework for the future financial sector, which will support sustainable global growth and serve the needs of business and citizens.

14. We each agree to ensure our domestic regulatory systems are strong. But we also agree to establish the much greater consistency and systematic cooperation between countries, and the framework of internationally agreed high standards, that a global financial system requires. Strengthened regulation and supervision must promote propriety, integrity and transparency; guard against risk across the financial system; dampen rather than amplify the financial and economic cycle; reduce reliance on inappropriately risky sources of financing; and discourage excessive risk-taking. Regulators and supervisors must protect consumers and investors, support market discipline, avoid adverse impacts on other countries, reduce the scope for regulatory arbitrage, support competition and dynamism, and keep pace with innovation in the marketplace.

15. To this end we are implementing the Action Plan agreed at our last meeting, as set out in the attached progress report. We have today also issued a Declaration, Strengthening the Financial System. In particular we agree: to establish a new Financial Stability Board (FSB) with a strengthened mandate, as a successor to the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), including all G20 countries, FSF members, Spain, and the European Commission; that the FSB should collaborate with the IMF to provide early warning of macroeconomic and financial risks and the actions needed to address them; to reshape our regulatory systems so that our authorities are able to identify and take account of macro-prudential risks; to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets.

This will include, for the first time, systemically important hedge funds; to endorse and implement the FSF's tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms; to take action, once recovery is assured, to improve the quality, quantity, and international consistency of capital in the banking system. In future, regulation must prevent excessive leverage and require buffers of resources to be built up in good times; to take action against non-cooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens. We stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems.

The era of banking secrecy is over. We note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the Global Forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information; to call on the accounting standard setters to work urgently with supervisors and regulators to improve standards on valuation and provisioning and achieve a single set of high-quality global accounting standards; and to extend regulatory oversight and registration to Credit Rating Agencies to ensure they meet the international code of good practice, particularly to prevent unacceptable conflicts of interest.

16. We instruct our Finance Ministers to complete the implementation of these decisions in line with the timetable set out in the Action Plan. We have asked the FSB and the IMF to monitor progress, working with the Financial Action Taskforce and other relevant bodies, and to provide a report to the next meeting of our Finance Ministers in Scotland in November.
Strengthening our global financial institutions 17.Emerging markets and developing countries, which have been the engine of recent world growth, are also now facing challenges which are adding to the current downturn in the global economy. It is imperative for global confidence and economic recovery that capital continues to flow to them. This will require a substantial strengthening of the international financial institutions, particularly the IMF. We have therefore agreed today to make available an additional $850 billion of resources through the global financial institutions to support growth in emerging market and developing countries by helping to finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalisation, infrastructure, trade finance, balance of payments support, debt rollover, and social support. To this end: we have agreed to increase the resources available to the IMF through immediate financing from members of $250 billion, subsequently incorporated into an expanded and more flexible New Arrangements to Borrow, increased by up to $500 billion, and to consider market borrowing if necessary; and we support a substantial increase in lending of at least $100 billion by the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), including to low income countries, and ensure that all MDBs, including have the appropriate capital.

18. It is essential that these resources can be used effectively and flexibly to support growth. We welcome in this respect the progress made by the IMF with its new Flexible Credit Line (FCL) and its reformed lending and conditionality framework which will enable the IMF to ensure that its facilities address effectively the underlying causes of countries' balance of payments financing needs, particularly the withdrawal of external capital flows to the banking and corporate sectors. We support Mexico's decision to seek an FCL arrangement.

19. We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250 billion into the world economy and increase global liquidity, and urgent ratification of the Fourth Amendment.

20. In order for our financial institutions to help manage the crisis and prevent future crises we must strengthen their longer term relevance, effectiveness and legitimacy. So alongside the significant increase in resources agreed today we are determined to reform and modernise the international financial institutions to ensure they can assist members and shareholders effectively in the new challenges they face. We will reform their mandates, scope and governance to reflect changes in the world economy and the new challenges of globalisation, and that emerging and developing economies, including the poorest, must have greater voice and representation. This must be accompanied by action to increase the credibility and accountability of the institutions through better strategic oversight and decision making.

To this end: we commit to implementing the package of IMF quota and voice reforms agreed in April 2008 and call on the IMF to complete the next review of quotas by January 2011; we agree that, alongside this, consideration should be given to greater involvement of the Fund's Governors in providing strategic direction to the IMF and increasing its accountability; we commit to implementing the World Bank reforms agreed in October 2008. We look forward to further recommendations, at the next meetings, on voice and representation reforms on an accelerated timescale, to be agreed by the 2010 Spring Meetings; we agree that the heads and senior leadership of the international financial institutions should be appointed through an open, transparent, and merit-based selection process; and building on the current reviews of the IMF and World Bank we asked the Chairman, working with the G20 Finance Ministers, to consult widely in an inclusive process and report back to the next meeting with proposals for further reforms to improve the responsiveness and adaptability of the IFIs.

21. In addition to reforming our international financial institutions for the new challenges of globalisation we agreed on the desirability of a new global consensus on the key values and principles that will promote sustainable economic activity. We support discussion on such a charter for sustainable economic activity with a view to further discussion at our next meeting. We take note of the work started in other fora in this regard and look forward to further discussion of this charter for sustainable economic activity.
Resisting protectionism and promoting global trade and investment 22.World trade growth has underpinned rising prosperity for half a century. But it is now falling for the first time in 25 years. Falling demand is exacerbated by growing protectionist pressures and a withdrawal of trade credit. Reinvigorating world trade and investment is essential for restoring global growth. We will not repeat the historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras.

To this end: we reaffirm the commitment made in Washington: to refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organisation (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports. In addition we will rectify promptly any such measures. We extend this pledge to the end of 2010; we will minimise any negative impact on trade and investment of our domestic policy actions including fiscal policy and action in support of the financial sector.

We will not retreat into financial protectionism, particularly measures that constrain worldwide capital flows, especially to developing countries; we will notify promptly the WTO of any such measures and we call on the WTO, together with other international bodies, within their respective mandates, to monitor and report publicly on our adherence to these undertakings on a quarterly basis; we will take, at the same time, whatever steps we can to promote and facilitate trade and investment; and we will ensure availability of at least $250 billion over the next two years to support trade finance through our export credit and investment agencies and through the MDBs. We also ask our regulators to make use of available flexibility in capital requirements for trade finance.

23. We remain committed to reaching an ambitious and balanced conclusion to the Doha Development Round, which is urgently needed. This could boost the global economy by at least $150 billion per annum. To achieve this we are committed to building on the progress already made, including with regard to modalities.

24. We will give renewed focus and political attention to this critical issue in the coming period and will use our continuing work and all international meetings that are relevant to drive progress.
Ensuring a fair and sustainable recovery for all

25. We are determined not only to restore growth but to lay the foundation for a fair and sustainable world economy. We recognise that the current crisis has a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable in the poorest countries and recognise our collective responsibility to mitigate the social impact of the crisis to minimise long-lasting damage to global potential. To this end: we reaffirm our historic commitment to meeting the Millennium Development Goals and to achieving our respective ODA pledges, including commitments on Aid for Trade, debt relief, and the Gleneagles commitments, especially to sub-Saharan Africa; the actions and decisions we have taken today will provide $50 billion to support social protection, boost trade and safeguard development in low income countries, as part of the significant increase in crisis support for these and other developing countries and emerging markets; we are making available resources for social protection for the poorest countries, including through investing in long-term food security and through voluntary bilateral contributions to the World Bank's Vulnerability Framework, including the Infrastructure Crisis Facility, and the Rapid Social Response Fund; we have committed, consistent with the new income model, that additional resources from agreed sales of IMF gold will be used, together with surplus income, to provide $6 billion additional concessional and flexible finance for the poorest countries over the next 2 to 3 years. We call on the IMF to come forward with concrete proposals at the Spring Meetings; we have agreed to review the flexibility of the Debt Sustainability Framework and call on the IMF and World Bank to report to the IMFC and Development Committee at the Annual Meetings; and we call on the UN, working with other global institutions, to establish an effective mechanism to monitor the impact of the crisis on the poorest and most vulnerable.

26. We recognise the human dimension to the crisis. We commit to support those affected by the crisis by creating employment opportunities and through income support measures. We will build a fair and family-friendly labour market for both women and men. We therefore welcome the reports of the London Jobs Conference and the Rome Social Summit and the key principles they proposed. We will support employment by stimulating growth, investing in education and training, and through active labour market policies, focusing on the most vulnerable. We call upon the ILO, working with other relevant organisations, to assess the actions taken and those required for the future.

27. We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure. We encourage the MDBs to contribute fully to the achievement of this objective. We will identify and work together on further measures to build sustainable economies.

28. We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Delivering our commitments 29.We have committed ourselves to work together with urgency and determination to translate these words into action. We agreed to meet again before the end of this year to review progress on our commitments.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25782.2

Singapore's PM Lee world's highest paid leader

Singapore's PM Lee world's highest paid leader

Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is the world’s highest paid leader, paid four times more than anyone else, according to The Times. He is also paid more per head of population than any other leader in the world, according to the Australian.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – the tenth highest paid leader – gets only a tenth as much and President Barack Obama – the third highest paid – less than a quarter of PM Lee’s salary. Even the second highest paid, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen, gets only about a quarter as much.

If PM Lee’s 3.76 million Singapore dollar ($2.47 million) annual salary is divided by Singapore’s population, he is paid 54 cents per head, reports the Australian. President Obama gets only 0.4 cent – less than a cent. Donald Tsang gets 7 cents. He is third on that list. The second placed Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen gets 9 cents. Kevin Rudd gets one cent. Everyone else gets less than a cent.

Both The Times and the Australian are Rupert Murdoch publications. He also owns the Wall Street Journal, which was recently fined by a court in Singapore for “scandalizing the judiciary” with unwarranted remarks about the legal system.

But The Times says it wanted to find out how Gordon Brown was doing paywise compared with other leaders. It turns out he is the seventh highest paid. The Times says:

With the G20 leaders in the country we thought it was worth getting a snapshot of how much the highest paid presidents and prime ministers around the world earn.

Let’s look at the lists.

The Times list of highest paid leaders

1. Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore

Salary in dollars - $2.47 million

Salary in local currency - S$3.76 million

2. Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen - Hong Kong

Salary in dollars - $516,000

Salary in local currency - HK$4 million

3. Barack Obama - United States

Salary in dollars - $400,000

4. Brian Cowen - Ireland

Salary in dollars - $341,000

Salary in local currency - €257,000

5. Nicolas Sarkozy - France

Salary in dollars - $318,000

Salary in local currency - €240,000

6. Angela Merkel - Germany

Salary in dollars - $303,000

Salary in local currency - €228,000

7. Gordon Brown - UK

Salary in dollars - $279,000

Salary in local currency - £194,250

8. Stephen Harper - Canada

Salary in dollars - $246,000

Salary in local currency - C$311,000

9. Taro Aso - Japan

Salary in dollars - $243,000

Salary in local currency - Y24 million

10. Kevin Rudd - Australia

Salary in dollars - $229,000

Salary in local currency - A$330,000

The pecking order changes somewhat if the leaders’ pay is divided by the total population.

But Singapore’s PM also tops that list compiled by the Australian.

The Australian list of highest paid leaders per head of population

1. Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore
Salary: $2.47 million
Per head of population: 54c

2. Brian Cowen - Ireland
Salary: $341,000
Per head of population: 9c

3. Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen - Hong Kong
Salary: $516,000
Per head of population: 7c

4. Kevin Rudd - Australia
Salary: $229,000
Per head of population: 1c

5. Stephen Harper - Canada
Salary: $246,000
Per head of population: 0.7c

6. Nicolas Sarkozy - France
Salary: $318,000
Per head of population: 0.5c

7. Gordon Brown - UK
Salary: $279,000
Per head of population: 0.5c

8. Angela Merkel - Germany
Salary: $303,000
Per head of population: 0.4c

9. Taro Aso - Japan
Salary: $243,000
Per head of population: 0.2c

10. Barack Obama - United States
Salary: $400,000
Per head of population: 0.1c

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25776.1