查看完整版本: English Articles Everyday

fine

think you very much

Patriot games


REGINA IP

Jul 16, 2007           
     
  |   

  



If the hidden purpose of the controversial mother tongue policy was to promote patriotism and greater "sinicisation" of post-colonial Hong Kong, by all accounts the policy is a dismal failure.
First, it must be recognised that however ubiquitous Cantonese is in Hong Kong, it is but one of the many dialects of China, the mother tongue of no more than 100 million Cantonese speakers within China and in Chinese communities overseas. Cantonese is widely spoken in enclaves of Hong Kong emigrants in such cities as San Francisco, New York, Vancouver, Toronto and Sydney, but Hong Kong Chinese who have lived overseas will know that once outside these communities, Putonghua is the lingua franca which unites Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese, mainlanders and Taiwanese. .

  

In American universities, Chinese classes - be they classics, history or literature - are taught in either English or Putonghua, depending on the origin of the instructor, but never in Cantonese.

Our market-savvy pop stars have long grasped the key to success in the gigantic mainland market - the ability to sing in Putonghua like native speakers.

Thus in terms of convergence with the mainland, instruction in Cantonese serves no useful purpose. On the contrary, fluency in Cantonese at the expense of proficiency in Putonghua could enhance the risks of the marginalisation of Hong Kong -mentally, culturally and linguistically, vis-�-vis the rest of China.

Shrewd Hong Kong parents who are willing to pay a premium for a quality education have opted to place their children in pricey international schools or "private independent schools". In all these establishments, Chinese classes are taught in Putonghua. These parents know proficiency in Putonghua will put their children in a more competitive position in partaking of the unprecedented, unfolding story of China's breathtaking economic renaissance.

Compared to the colonial days, when erudite mainland Chinese teachers steeped in classics and love of Chinese literature were respected and given the opportunity to pass on their scholarly enquiry to Hong Kong kids, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has taken a major step backwards in de-emphasising the study of classical canons and celebrated literary works which constitute the gems of Chinese literature. The narrow, shallow and unabashedly utilitarian focus on practical application of the Chinese language has drastically reduced students' stock of knowledge of Chinese culture, without improving the use of the language.

Even more egregious is the fact that since the turn of the century, Chinese history is no longer available as an independent school subject. It has been incorporated into a new course known as "integrated liberal studies". The amount of Chinese history taught varies from school to school, and the lack of continuity and a big picture militates against contextual understanding of this history. That is why you find many high school leavers ignorant about momentous modern historical events such as the May Fourth Movement of 1919, or the Xian incident of 1936, let alone early Chinese myths and cosmology going back into the mists of time.

This stands in sharp contrast to the practice of most self-respecting countries: Canadian or American history is taught to a high level of detail, analysis and interpretative theory in good high schools in both countries. The diminution of history in our school curriculum is nothing short of an assault on our national identity.

If any campaign has been afoot in the run-up to the change of sovereignty to shape Hong Kong children's sense of identity, the combined effect of the curriculum changes may be more aptly described as an insidious exercise in undermining national identity rather than enhancing patriotism.

In Hong Kong, despite much talk of enhancing locals' sense of national identity, there has been no clearly identifiable effort to integrate national identity enrichment with educational reform and curriculum design.

When it comes to the preservation of Chinese history, colonial Hong Kong beats the Hong Kong SAR hands down.

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee is chairperson of the Savantas Policy Institute


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=637fb34db9ac3110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

MPF reform needed to protect nest eggs


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Jul 17, 2007           
     
  |   

  



The reasoning behind the setting up of the Mandatory Provident Fund almost seven years ago was sound: just one-third of the workforce at the time had retirement protection and with the population rapidly ageing, a social crisis was looming. Implementation of the scheme means that 85 per cent of workers are now saving for their old age. But the inadequacies are apparent and it is time for reform to ensure that we can live as rich a life as possible after ceasing work - and are not an excessive burden on the community.
A Consumer Council study shows that MPF management fees are cutting deep into the payouts people can expect to receive when they reach the retirement age of 65. The council's recommendation that employees should have a say in choosing which scheme they contribute to backed a similar call two months ago by the new head of the MPF authority, Henry Fan Hung-ling.

  

The authority is already investigating the worthiness of such a move. It should be implemented as soon as possible to correct a flaw that is preventing much-needed competition among the 19 MPF trustees offering about 300 funds. Such flexibility was not guaranteed when the MPF regulations were enacted. Employers choose which of the trustees receive the maximum monthly contributions of HK$2,000. Some employers care that their workers' retirement needs are best met by joining funds that are well managed and cost-effective. This is not always the case, however: some companies look for the most efficient route, which often tends to be the funds operated by their banks. As the council's analysis concludes, this is good for the fund managers, but not the employees.

Average annual MPF fees of 2.06 per cent - for management, trustees, accounting and the like - in Hong Kong are high compared with similar schemes elsewhere in the world; they mean that the amount workers will receive when they get their retirement payout is substantially lower than it might be if they were given a chance to choose their own fund. Such fees are also unfairly steep given that MPF funds are, by law, low- or medium-risk investments. Managers generally have a predetermined line of stocks and securities into which they channel funds - a service that requires little work. Similar easily managed portfolios in the commercial sector attract a fee of 0.5 per cent at best.

Given the strains that the rising number of elderly will bring to Hong Kong, such fees are undermining the very reason for having the MPF. The less disposable cash the future elderly have at hand, the more they will have to rely on the government for help. Authorities are unlikely to be in a position to offer a viable safety net. Last year's population survey showed that 12 per cent of Hong Kong people were 65 and over and this is expected to rise to 26 per cent in 2036. With the number of people able to provide support for each elderly person through taxes likely to drop in that period from the present six to two, the aged themselves will have to carry the burden.

The over-60s are several times more likely to need medical treatment than other members of society and health-care reform is now also a government priority. So, too, should be MPF reform in light of the strains being put on retirement funds by excessive fees. Allowing employees to choose their own funds will free up a market that could impinge upon our viability if it continues on its present track. Market forces will create competition that will bring fees down and force fund managers to work harder for their clients.

The MPF scheme was designed to ensure Hong Kong could better cope with the dilemma of an ageing population. With the benefit of now having seen it in action, it is clear the scheme could be functioning better. Reform to create greater competition among fund managers will put us back on the path that was envisaged.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=6390fadc5cfc3110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Logging success at home is not enough


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Jul 18, 2007           
     
  |   

  



The mainland knows well that forests are more valuable when left standing than cut down for timber. Centuries of environmental abuse have led to spreading deserts, destructive floods, falling water quality and dust storms. Learning the lesson the hard way has resulted in aggressive forest-protection and tree-planting programmes in recent years. More land is now being returned to forest on the mainland than anywhere else in the world - an achievement the government has a right to crow about.
But leaders could be even prouder of their record if they extended their concern beyond the nation's borders to the world's rapidly diminishing tropical rain forests. The mainland's demand for timber - some of it cut illegally from these forests - means it is ideally placed to set an example to other governments.

  

Tropical forests are, after all, important to the world's future. That they cover vast areas of land in equatorial countries gives them a crucial role in the battle against climate change: their trees suck up the carbon dioxide that causes temperatures to rise, while rain clouds develop from the water that evaporates from the leaves.

The forests also have the world's richest ecosystems, supporting more than a million species of animals, plants and insects. They balance environmental systems elsewhere in the world and provide medicine and food. But because forests elsewhere have long ago been cut down, their wood is also eagerly sought. Despite protective national laws, there is a thriving international trade in illegally cut tropical forest logs - and the mainland - where construction is booming and which exports more furniture than any other country - is one of the main destinations for this timber.

Authorities yesterday played down the mainland's role in forest-clearing. Instead, they highlighted the success of afforestation at home and pinned the blame for the problem on the demand from the United States, Japan and other countries for Chinese-made furniture. They are, to a degree, right; no nation has enacted a law forbidding the import of illegally obtained tropical wood.

Beijing may have done more than any other government to ban the trade. Agreements have been signed with Indonesia and Myanmar and environmental groups have noticed a measure of success. They stress, however, that what has been achieved is piecemeal and that much more could be done. A ban has been in place along the border with Myanmar for the past year, for example, but truckloads of logs still cross into Yunnan province because of poor enforcement, smuggling, corruption and companies taking advantage of loopholes. In Beijing, the desire is genuine; on the ground, though, as with so many central government policies, it is quite another matter. Yet within its borders, the mainland has shown it is capable of reversing deforestation. The limits imposed on logging in its own forests, and its tree-planting efforts, are reducing deserts by 1,200 sq km a year. Afforestation has meant the nation now has a sustainable paper-milling industry and plans are well advanced to use trees for biofuels.

Stopping illicit logging is labour-intensive and requires skilled inspectors. Patrolling borders, checking shiploads of imported logs and ascertaining the origin of the wood being used on construction sites and in factories is a costly business.

In light of the pace at which tropical forests are disappearing, though, making the effort is essential. The mainland is well placed to take that extra step - and show other governments the way forward.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=eb8268712f4d3110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

A battle for the hearts and minds of Afghans


Raymond Kendall and Norine MacDonald
Jul 19, 2007           
     

Despite considerable effort by the international community in Afghanistan since 2001 to eliminate the Taleban and al-Qaeda, the insurgency in the south of the country has gathered momentum at breakneck speed in recent months. Research shows that we are not winning the campaign for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people - the Taleban is.
Indeed, the international community's methods of fighting the insurgency and eradicating poppy crops have actually helped the insurgents gain power.

The international community has so far pursued policies of destruction, rather than the promised reconstruction. The aggressive United-States-led counter-narcotics policy of crop eradication has failed to win the support of Afghans, because it has triggered a chain reaction of poverty and violence in which poor farmers, with their only livelihood destroyed, are unable to feed their families.

This has been exacerbated by the failure to provide even the most basic aid and development in the country's poorest areas.

The Taleban has exploited the failures of the international community in extremely effective anti-western propaganda that has fuelled significant doubt in the minds of the public concerning the reasons justifying the international presence in Afghanistan. Sadly, our troops are often the first to pay the price - sometimes with their lives.

It is not too late to win back the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. International troops are excelling in an exceptionally hostile environment, but this is not a war that will be won by military means alone.

With public perception a crucial factor in winning the war, and the Taleban poised to launch a large military initiative next spring, failure to adopt a successful strategy could signify the last chance the international community will have to build a secure and stable Afghanistan.

But a successful strategy - one that responds to Afghanistan's extreme poverty crisis - requires that the international community reverse course on crop eradication.

Eradication will never be successful in Afghanistan, because it destroys the single crop that will grow in the south's harsh climate - and thus serves as the main source of income for millions of people. So, a new, long-term, economically sustainable solution is urgently needed.

As a way to address this, the Senlis Council is proposing to run scientific pilot projects to research an opium licensing system for Afghanistan, which would be a core component of the economic reconstruction process.

A system in which the poppy is cultivated for the production of pain-killing medicines, such as morphine and codeine, would allow farmers to pursue their traditional way of life and, more importantly, to feed themselves and their families. There is a global shortage of morphine and codeine, particularly in underdeveloped countries.

We must have the backing of the Afghan people if we are to defeat the Taleban. By endorsing such an initiative, the international community would demonstrate that it is in Afghanistan for the good of the local population, which would help farmers sever ties with the insurgency.

But for such a system to be successful, the extreme poverty in the south of the country must be our top priority. According to the World Food Programme, 70 per cent of the population lacks food security. An immediate injection of emergency food and medical aid is urgently needed to break the vicious circle of suffering and violence.

Only then can a new, long-term development strategy in Afghanistan - one that admits that the international community is not winning the war, and that the status quo is unacceptable - be implemented.

Raymond Kendall is a former secretary-general of Interpol and Norine MacDonald QC is the founding president of the Senlis Council, a security and development think-tank. Copyright: Project Syndicate



[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=4b35904f9d9d3110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Biofuel mania ends the days of cheap food


Gwynne Dyer
Jul 20, 2007           
     

The era of cheap food is over. The price of corn has doubled in a year, and wheat futures are at their highest in a decade.
The food price index in India has risen 11 per cent in one year, and in Mexico in January there were riots after the price of corn flour (used in making the staple food of the poor, tortillas) went up fourfold.

Even in the developed countries, food prices are going up - and they are not going to come down again.

Cheap food lasted for only 50 years. Before the second world war, most families in developed countries spent one-third or more of their income on food (as the poor majority in developing countries still do). But, after the war, a series of radical changes, especially mechanisation, raised agricultural productivity hugely and caused a long, steep fall in the real price of food. For the global middle class, food was taking only a tenth of their income.

It will probably be up to a quarter within a decade - and it may go much higher than that - because we are entering a period when several factors are converging to drive food prices up. The first is simply demand. Not only is the global population continuing to grow but, as Asian economies race ahead, more and more people in those countries are starting to eat significant amounts of meat.

Earlier this month, in its annual assessment of farming trends, the United Nations predicted that, by 2016, people in developing countries will be eating 30 per cent more beef, 50 per cent more pork and 25 per cent more poultry. The animals will need a great deal of grain, and meeting that demand will require shifting huge amounts of grain-growing land from human to animal consumption - so the price of grain and meat will both go up.

The global poor don't care about the price of meat, because they can't afford it even now but, if the price of grain goes up, some of them will starve. And maybe they won't have to wait until 2016, because the mania for biofuels is shifting huge amounts of land out of food production.

The amount of United States farmland devoted to biofuels grew by 48 per cent in the past year alone, and hardly any new land was brought under the plough to replace the lost food production. In other big biofuel producers, such as China and Brazil, it's the same straight switch from food to fuel. In fact, the food market and the energy market are becoming closely linked, which is very bad news for the poor.

As oil prices rise (and the rapid economic growth in Asia guarantees that they will), they pull up the price of biofuels as well, and it gets even more attractive for farmers to switch from food to fuel.

In the early stages of this process, higher food prices will help millions of farmers who have been scraping along on very poor returns for their effort because political power lies in the cities.

But, later, it gets uglier. The price of food relative to average income is heading for levels that have not been seen since the early 19th century, and it will not come down again in our lifetimes.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=ef3285cc31fd3110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

The green giant?
Mega cities are the best way for China to contain damage to the environment without affecting growth, writes Andy Xie

Andy Xie
Jul 23, 2007           
     

The environment is emerging as a bottleneck in China's economic development. The algae booms in Tai Lake in Jiangsu province and Chao Lake in Anhui are symbols of the cumulative effects of water pollution over the past two decades. Air pollution levels are unacceptably high; emissions of sulfur dioxide are at least double the maximum safe levels. Incidences of cancer have been rising more than 30 per cent per annum. Respiratory diseases have become an epidemic. In particular, China's rural population has suffered disproportionately, as these people have benefited least from economic development and don't have the resources to protect themselves.
In the late 1980s, the eminent sinologist John Fairbank predicted great economic success for China, coupled with environmental catastrophe. He saw the potential for the mainland to reach extremes, in any direction, due to the concentration of power and the lack of individual rights within the system. The former allows China to move quickly in one direction; the latter implies a muted social response at such times.

A response comes when a catastrophe occurs and the authorities act dramatically by shifting direction, often taking the opposite path. The combination of an extreme concentration of power and the lack of individual rights mean that China is prone to revolution. But its leaders cannot allow this to happen again. By reforming the structure for incentives and using technology better, China can contain or even reverse the environmental damage, without harming economic development.

The current political system rewards regional leaders for increasing gross domestic product. This gives them incentives to create inefficient and unsustainable growth.

Two by-products of the system do particular damage to the environment. Firstly, regional leaders tolerate small factories that survive by minimising costs at the expense of the environment. Secondly, these same leaders pursue maximum growth in fixed-asset investment. As long as money is available, such investment is the easiest channel for creating GDP. That is why many local governments are like fund-raising specialists. Much fixed-asset investment is related to urbanisation. But, many places are not suitable for such development. Water availability and employment opportunities are binding constraints.

The implementation of fixed-asset investment creates temporary employment and profit. Yet many small cities are then unable to find the revenue for environmental services, such as recycling. Worse still, these inefficient cities try to create economic activity by allowing industries to cut corners on pollution control.

Environmental protection is first about charging the full cost of economic activities. When a business or government project damages the environment, it must be required to meet international standards. Chinese businesses avoid pollution controls and pass the savings on to consumers - mostly foreign - by cutting prices. Appreciation of the yuan has also put pressure on many export industries. Some try to compensate for the rise in costs by cutting other expenditure, including environmental controls. If environmental standards could be vigorously enforced across the nation, all businesses would pay the same costs, and could pass on savings to consumers. This would be the equivalent of a currency appreciation; I believe that enforcing international standards would be equivalent to a over 10 per cent yuan appreciation.

Beijing should also discourage the urbanisation of unviable areas. Indeed, a good urbanisation strategy is at the heart of meeting China's environmental challenges. The best way to protect the environment is to limit human activity. The population is spread out on mostly unfertile land and people try to improve their livelihood by engaging in non-agricultural activities in unsuitable areas.

The correct strategy is to build mega cities. China needs to urbanise quickly but has a low level of wealth to support demand. Thus, urbanisation must be highly efficient to lower the cost of building, working and living. Only scale can achieve such efficiency. Shanghai has become a model of urban efficiency. It is building over 500km of subways and when the system has been completed, the city could easily accommodate more than 30 million people. Its size and density keep logistics and job-creation costs low. China should concentrate its resources to build up to 30 such mega cities in the next 20 years.

The next priority is for the mainland to increase the price of energy, to decrease emission levels and foster a culture of frugal living. Japan has demonstrated the viability of such a policy; its energy consumption per capita is less than half that of the US, because its energy price is more than twice that of the US. China should aim for a 100 per cent energy consumption tax, to be phased in over the next 10 years. Revenue from this could reach 3 trillion yuan per annum and be used for more public transport, low-cost housing and pollution control. Such a policy would be equivalent to a 5 per cent appreciation of the yuan.

If the current trend continues and environmental degradation makes normal life impossible, popular sentiment may turn against development and China may head towards another extreme. But, limiting development will only worsen environmental degradation as more people try to improve their living standard through small-scale production. The mainland must avoid this trap and pre-empt a backlash against development.

Andy Xie is an independent economist



[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=c11d66e8faee3110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Thanks for your effort

If other governments invest, why not Beijing?


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Jul 24, 2007           
     

There is a measure of disquiet in Europe with the announcement that a mainland bank has bought a chunk of Britain's Barclays Bank and that if the world's biggest-ever banking merger goes ahead, it will be a significant shareholder in the resulting firm. Banks, in some eyes, are a national asset, and these are deals that can be perceived as not being in the public interest.

Such a perception ignores the realities of a globalised world and suggests that China cannot be trusted with the family jewels. An American or European government participating in such ventures would not have raised an eyebrow, but the investment by China has prompted some concern.

Those with knowledge of the banking sector, however, know otherwise; the global economy means that the driving force of international finance - banks - are no longer the domain of nations, but the world. HSBC (SEHK: 0005, announcements, news) may have been founded in Hong Kong, but it is a British bank with its headquarters in London and global interests.

Barclays is a British bank through and through. With branches on virtually every British high street, it appears to be a matter of lost pride for some account-holders that China could help Barclays' bid on ABN Amro, the largest bank in the Netherlands. If that bid succeeds, China could have up to a 7.7 per cent stake.

So for the bank's board, the move is necessary for the next stage in Barclays' evolution, which could make Barclays Europe's second largest bank after HSBC.

Barclays has also just been granted regulatory approval to buy almost 20 per cent of one of the mainland's oldest trust firms. This will invite speculation that it was a case of quid pro quo. Whether or not that is true, it does show that such investments work both ways.

Foreign shareholdings are as true for China as the rest of the world; opening up national banking sectors is a prerequisite of World Trade Organisation membership. The Royal Bank of Scotland is among stakeholders in Bank of China (SEHK: 3988), for one.

But there is a greater impetus for Beijing to buy into foreign banks than WTO rules: investment. With US$1.3 trillion in foreign cash in hand, US securities alone do not provide the returns that a nation with China's social challenges needs. Wise investment in foreign companies, does, though - and banks are generally a safe bet.

This is what the investment company that the central government is setting up with US$200 billion in capital is about. Getting sound returns is the aim, not infringing national interests, as was the claim in 2005 when the US Senate blocked the mainland's state oil firm from buying Unocal, America's ninth largest oil and gas company.

That theory could not be used when China's Lenovo (SEHK: 0992) purchased IBM's personal-computer business. Nor was anything but strong returns on the state investment company's mind in May when it bought a stake of just under 10 per cent in the US private equity group Blackstone; it does not get a say in the running of the firm.

The central government is adding an extra US$1 billion every day to its foreign currency nest egg. Mainland firms are becoming richer as the home market grows, as are joint venture companies making goods for a world clamouring for their output.

As the mainland grows more financially powerful, finding good investments is a matter Americans and Europeans will have to get accustomed to.

Having reservations about China's rise and trying to stop its investments is not only wrong, but will also harm global integration.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=51c36d86693f3110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

In Iran, intellectuals are the new terrorists


Ahmed Rashid
Jul 26, 2007           
     
  |   

  



My friend, the intellectual Kian Tajbakhsh, is in jail in Iran for, well, being an intellectual. He has not had access to a lawyer or any visitors since being jailed for espionage and undermining the state. In short, if you live in Iran nowadays, intellectuals are the new terrorists.
As in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, purveyors of ideas, information and emotions are the enemy in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran, especially if the people espousing such ideas happen to work for a foreign organisation.

  

Tajbakhsh, an internationally respected scholar, social scientist, urban planner, and dual citizen of Iran and the United States, has languished in Tehran's Evin Prison - notorious for its documented cases of torture and detainee abuse - since May 11.

I was shocked last week to see him on Iranian TV, pale and wan, giving the kind of faked confession that would have made Soviet prosecutors blush.

Tajbakhsh was arrested along with other leading Iranian-American intellectuals, including Haleh Esfandiari of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars. Esfandiari is a 67-year-old grandmother - just the right age to set about undermining Iran. Her lawyer, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi, has been denied access to her.

You would think Tajbakhsh's record in Iran would rule out an accusation of treason. He has been a consultant to several Iranian ministries on urban planning, and helped the government in major rebuilding projects after the devastating earthquake that destroyed the ancient city of Bam in 2003. Last year, he completed a three-year study of local government in Iran - hardly the stuff of insurrection and regime change.

But Tajbakhsh was also a consultant to the Soros Foundation, which, according to the government, has worked against Islam. That idea is preposterous. In fact, the foundation's many contributions to the Islamic world include help following catastrophic natural disasters in Pakistan and Indonesia, providing medical supplies to the Palestinians under blockade, and allowing scholars and intellectuals to learn from each other by translating and publishing works from English into local languages and vice versa.

In its Muslim era, Iran has boasted of some of the greatest poets, writers and scientists in the world. None of this would have been possible if Iran's ancient Muslim rulers had not allowed academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas and expression - something that is sorely missing in today's Islamic Republic.

Other autocratic rulers in the Muslim world are learning from Iran's example, cracking down hard on intellectuals, journalists, lawyers, women activists, or just about anyone who has ideas and wants to exchange them with others. And my friend Kian Tajbakhsh - alone in his cell wondering what he has done wrong - is the face of this new form of repression.

Ahmed Rashid is the author of the books Taliban and Jihad. Copyright: Project Syndicate

[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=2147ea5dbcdf3110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Greater integration will benefit our city


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Jul 27, 2007           
     
  |   

  



A proposal to liberalise entry to Hong Kong for the 2 million permanent residents of Shenzhen may seem to many to be ahead of its time. But it tackles the question of how to secure the city's future under the "one country, two systems" concept.
The detail and timing of such a step calls for careful consideration to avoid a huge influx. It is, however, a sensible idea in principle, with more to be gained than just the immediate economic benefits to Hong Kong.

  

Our city has to integrate with the mainland sooner or later. The border with Shenzhen will disappear anyway in 2047. But integration should be incremental in order to safeguard Hong Kong's stability and prosperity. We cannot wait another 40 years and then hope for the best. Nor, for the same reason, can we tear down the border overnight. The barrier to unrestricted movement is there for legitimate reasons, such as wide disparities between the standards of living in Hong Kong and the mainland.

But Hong Kong should be open to increasing the pace of integration, while maintaining a step-by-step approach. It is time to consider a more open-minded approach to immigration issues.

Already, Hong Kong people can visit Shenzhen freely, while Shenzhen residents can visit Hong Kong under the mainland's individual travel scheme, which many do frequently. Thousands of children living in Shenzhen cross the border by bus to attend schools in the New Territories.

A case for a faster pace of integration is to be found in Hong Kong's aspirations to match the world's leading financial centres. In an interview to mark the 10th anniversary of the handover, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen said the city should aim at a population of 10 million, compared with 7 million now, in order to match New York and London. He rightly emphasised that an adequate supply of talent from around the world, particularly from the mainland, is crucial to that aspiration.

But that does not mean we need to think about how to physically squeeze 10 million people into Hong Kong, already one of the most densely populated places in the world. By making the existing rules more flexible, we can effectively expand Hong Kong's working population without having to allow a lot of people to live here. After all, Central is only an hour by public transport from Shenzhen, and the north of the New Territories half that. People on both sides should be able to easily cross the border for leisure, shopping, business or work.

Shenzhen is a logical starting point for integration, with its relatively high standard of living and better educated population. Over the longer term, we should be thinking about widening integration into Guangdong. Again, timing and detail will be crucial to avoid a huge influx. The speed with which such a plan should be implemented depends on how fast the wealth gap between Hong Kong and the mainland narrows.

Many Hong Kong people may not agree that we are ready yet for greater cross-border integration. Concerns include an influx of Shenzhen criminals and chaos on our roads. Security issues must be resolved, but they are a two-way street. Shenzhen officials have every reason to be alert to penetration by Hong Kong triads.

If Hong Kong wants the advantages of greater integration, it must also accept the drawbacks. With foresight and planning they are not insurmountable. The potential benefits far outweigh them.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=faaad15705304110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Our charitable heart needs looking after


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Aug 20, 2007           
     
  
Hong Kong people are generous, as donations to disaster relief on the mainland and tragedies elsewhere such as the Asian tsunami in 2004 ably attest. That willingness to give is a key reason why hundreds of new charitable organisations are being established here each year.
Such fondness for heartfelt giving in a world that has become so materialistic is laudable. Given that there is so little regulation of charities here, however, it could also be said that we are an unthinking or even impulsive society.

It is therefore good that our top judge and secretary for justice have called on the Law Reform Commission to look into the matter and, if necessary, go the route of Britain and other nations in putting regulatory laws in place. We should, after all, be able to open our wallets and purses with confidence each time a cause tugs at our charitable heartstrings.

Charities are being founded for a plethora of reasons that governments do not or cannot cater for. They can be easily set up; the biggest hurdle for organisers is convincing the Inland Revenue Department that they represent a cause worthy of exemption from paying tax.

Not counting the difficult-to-monitor charity boxes on shop counters or the collectors who take small sums or sell handicrafts on city streets, we gave almost HK$5.2 billion in tax-exempt donations to charitable causes last year. That is a tidy sum for a city of 7 million people - yet none of the organisations which so gratefully took our donations are required by law to regularly account for even a cent of that largesse.

In the interests of openness and transparency, some charities detail their activities, showing how much was spent on administrative costs, salaries and, most importantly, what went to the needy. A large number do not make such an effort, however.

Such a loose, almost unregulated, system that takes in a vast amount of money is an anomaly for a financial centre such as Hong Kong. We insist on the high standards of accountability and transparency for which we have gained an international reputation for listed companies, but not when it comes to registered charities that rely on generosity.

Such circumstances leave the door for abuse wide open for the people who have set up charities. As we report today, some stack their boards with family and friends as directors, leaving little room for checks and balances. Unscrupulous people can then direct our generosity to their own benefit.

There is also the matter of people who claim to represent charities collecting in the streets or offering items for sale to raise money that they say will go towards a worthy cause. We do not have the time to check out their claims as we rush by; it is much easier to not ask questions, trust them and let our sense of giving take over.

Legal measures would prevent this from happening. By defining what a charity is, making charities prove that they exist for the public benefit and establishing a commission to monitor and regulate their operations would ensure that we can donate with as much confidence as we invest in shares on the stock market.

We must be careful not to over-regulate. Too many rules and standards that are too high will prevent some people who truly want to help the needy from getting projects off the ground. Nevertheless, it is essential that the authorities look into our charities and ensure that the dollars we so generously give are going where we are told they are.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=03cbc24d1ee74110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Pilot scheme should be seen as long-term boost


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Aug 21, 2007           
     

After a week of stock market turmoil, Hong Kong investors deserved some good news, and it came yesterday courtesy of the mainland's currency regulator. The announcement that mainlanders will be allowed to buy shares here under a pilot scheme naturally improved sentiment and spurred a rise of more than 1,200 points in the Hang Seng Index.
When the trial will begin was not made known, nor was there certainty whether it would become a permanent fixture. Given financial realities, though, what is clear is that, for now, the decision is of great symbolic importance, rather than a guarantee that billions of dollars will soon start pouring into Hong Kong.

The scheme is, after all, akin to the individual travel permit system announced after the Sars outbreak in 2003. At first, there was a trickle of mainland visitors, but as word spread and circumstances improved, numbers grew to 1 million-plus a month at present.

For now, the strength of the yuan compared with the Hong Kong dollar as well as the vibrancy of the mainland stock markets will limit the worth of the scheme, despite the price A shares on the mainland generally being higher than the equivalent H shares in Hong Kong. Many mainland investors will also want to become more familiar with our city's exchange before buying.

Some of these factors will, however, change over time. The move is the latest measure which, sensibly, aims to widen currency outflows in an effort to improve the mainland's international balance of payments and increase returns on individuals' foreign currency holdings. The scheme alone, though, will not end pressure from the US and European governments for revaluation of the yuan.

Mainlanders will, in time, gain more knowledge of the Hong Kong exchange and be more willing to invest. Also, the relative lack of volatility on the mainland markets cannot be guaranteed in the long term.

Just as the number of mainland tourists grew from a trickle to a flood, so, too, will the investment in our stock market. There is a pool of 17 trillion yuan in household savings to tap into. The benefits, though, will not be instant, but long-term.

Such has also been the case with allowing mainland companies to sell yuan-denominated bonds here and our banks to offer yuan services. Hong Kong, as an international financial centre with the region's premier stock market, is ideally suited to be a testing ground for mainland financial innovations.

That the city of Tianjin will be the centre for the new venture and the Bank of China (SEHK: 3988) the sole vehicle for moving the capital between the mainland and Hong Kong need not be of concern. Shanghai does not have to dominate the mainland's financial markets, and there is always scope for enlargement of the scheme through other banks.

Hong Kong's status as the mainland's financial window to the world shows Beijing's faith in our city's capabilities and expertise. The benefits will, in time, help our growth and development. As welcome as the decision is, though, we must bear in mind that it is the next stage of a burgeoning process, not the signal for an instant monetary flood.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=d40ac1ca61484110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

City should be proud of its role in Olympics


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Aug 22, 2007           
     
  |  
An unconvincing performance in a small part can detract from the whole show. When it comes to organising the equestrian competition for next year's Olympic Games, Hong Kong is unlikely to let host city, Beijing, down. Top Olympic and equestrian officials heaped praise on Hong Kong's preparations after the test event earlier this month at the Games venues of Sha Tin and Beas River.
There is more to hosting the Olympics, however, than technical and administrative expertise, even though they pose extraordinary organisational, security and financial challenges for the host nation. The Olympic spirit of fair and friendly competition is what sets the Games apart.

The Beijing Games will mark China's coming of age as an emerging superpower. To be chosen as an Olympic satellite city is therefore a great honour for Hong Kong.

But the Olympic spirit has yet to seize the public imagination as it has in Beijing. That was never going to happen overnight. The city is strongly associated with the better-known equine sport of horse-racing. But equestrian competition is virtually unknown here. One would not expect even the premier event for the world's best dressage, show-jumping and cross-country horses and riders to spark the same spontaneous anticipation as international horse-racing day at Sha Tin in December.

Nor would anyone be expected to get too excited about the organisational task, given that the city hosted a World Trade Organisation conference in 2005 with minimum disruption despite violent protests.

So it is not surprising if Hong Kong's role has not made a big local impact.

But just as Hong Kong can be expected to show signs of Olympic fever and a feeling of national pride in the Games as the opening ceremony approaches, our small but important part in showcasing China through the Games and contributing to Beijing's Olympic legacy will loom large too.

For the sake of its own reputation as well as justifying Beijing's faith, Hong Kong has a responsibility to put its best foot forward as an Olympic city, and not just as an accomplished big-event organiser. The legacy will be enhancement of its profile as host of the 2009 East Asian Games.

It is good news therefore that moves are afoot to mobilise an Olympic civic spirit.

As we report today, a government source has foreshadowed a campaign next year to stimulate public pride in Hong Kong's Olympic role, highlight our commitment to the Olympic spirit and promote the city to a global audience. Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs Carrie Yau Tsang Ka-lai is expected to spearhead a government working group to oversee and organise the campaign. Some activities will bear some similarities to last month's handover celebrations.

There is no question about the city's expertise in staging big sports events nor about Hong Kong people's enthusiasm for watching some sports. But there is room for development of sporting culture, excellence and team spirit that would give an extra, healthy dimension to the city's competitiveness.

The Olympics have proved a springboard for sporting achievement by host nations. Perhaps, even if only in a small way, hosting an Olympic event could inspire Hong Kong too.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=84ab2f2e73984110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Consensus vital on population policy


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Aug 23, 2007           
     

Population policy is crucial to Hong Kong's development. Our population is lagging expected growth, and ageing. The proportion of the working age will become smaller and older and that over 65 greater. This raises economic, quality-of-life and health issues for young and old alike that call for consensus in policy development.
The Council for Sustainable Development seemed to have this in mind when it launched a consultation on population policy. It collected views from 26 public meetings and nearly 1,700 comment cards. Polytechnic University analysed them as a basis for recommendations to the government. The findings included 60 per cent support for encouraging people to retire later to bolster the workforce, and support for civil service paternity leave as an incentive to families to have children and to encourage other employment sectors to follow suit.

Such specific contributions from the public, however, are missing from the council's final report. So is a suggestion from experts who helped draft the consultation document of flexible hours for working women as an incentive to have children. Instead of making specific recommendations, the report generalises about what the government can do to make Hong Kong a more attractive place to live, lift the fertility rate and cater for an ageing population. Examples are promoting family-friendly employment measures, encouraging retired people to work part time, reviewing immigration policies, promoting community health and increasing open space.

Few would disagree with the sentiments, but they lack detail and the context of public opinion. This has surprised some members of a council subcommittee that ran the consultation exercise. Experts on a support group have complained to the council that the report does not fully reflect public opinion.

This situation is disappointing. The council is to be commended for adopting a bottom-up approach to policy consultation that is consistent with Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's pledge to listen to the public.

Few policy areas lend themselves as readily to consultation with the public as population - or people policy. We all have to live with the outcomes. It is a pity, therefore, that the final report did not embrace specific suggestions that appear to enjoy a measure of public support. That does not mean, however, that the government has to ignore them.

The Census and Statistics Department estimates that within 30 years 26 per cent of Hong Kong's population - projected to be 8.57 million on current trends - will be over 65 and only 12 per cent below 15, with a median age of 46.1 compared with 39.6 last year. That will increase the emphasis of health care on chronic and disabling conditions. But at the same time older people are expected to be healthier and wealthier. Ways must be found to keep them active and productive for the benefit of the community.

Mr Tsang has unveiled a vision for Hong Kong as a world financial centre with a population of 10 million. We cannot achieve that without attracting quality young migrants - especially from the mainland - and lifting the fertility rate. That calls for consensus on population policy. We must ensure that our city is an attractive place in which to live, work and do business - and raise children, for those already here as well as newcomers. Consultation must not only start at the bottom but be heard at the top. That would help restore confidence in a consultation process.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=6121ecd725e84110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Unity is key in the fight against disease


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Aug 24, 2007           
     

The rise and spread of increasing numbers of infectious diseases is an inevitable result of globalisation. If the threats are to be contained, eliminated or prevented, the only viable response is, as the World Health Organisation rightly contends in its annual report, a globalised one.
WHO director-general Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun knows this better than most international officials: her first-hand experiences with bird flu and Sars as Hong Kong's director of health put her in the front lines to combat diseases that the world had never before encountered. The response to these, as with any other virus outbreaks, is the same then as now. Success depends on high levels of co-operation.

It is a lesson that mainland authorities ignored when refusing to share H5N1 samples with the WHO for a year. They now recognise the importance of making the samples available and are doing so.

Indonesia is still trying to comprehend this. The argument that the vaccine and treatments that the samples are being used to develop will be too expensive for people living in developing countries simply does not wash in a world that realises its past mistakes and the reality of the threats it faces. Ever-expanding global air links and trade mean that viruses have the potential to spread rapidly. We saw that with Sars, and if the H5N1 strain of bird flu is able to mutate to move easily among people, we will see it again.

H5N1 or any other number of diseases that have emerged could cause the next global pandemic; it is not a question of if, but when. There are threats from global warming, food-borne diseases, biological, chemical, or nuclear accidents or attacks and pollution. As Dr Chan says in the report: "Vulnerability is universal."

Such circumstances make preparedness essential. Only this way can the right prevention systems be put in place and medications developed. Doing so, though, requires health authorities the world over to talk candidly to one another, share information, know-how and technology and be as transparent as possible.

Joining hands will win the fight that lies ahead. Selfish disregard will put the world at risk.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=2d60fa61a7394110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Hong Kong vs Singapore: vive la différence
OBSERVER
Kent Ewing
Aug 27, 2007        
        Email to friend         |         Print a copy

Perhaps we should all relocate to Singapore. Judging by a number of key indicators - for example, the cost of living, environmental policy and, perhaps most tellingly, investment in research and development - the Lion City has surged ahead of Hong Kong. And now our city seems also to be losing its edge in the area that matters most to many of us: freedom of expression and tolerance of political diversity. Why is it that Hong Kong officials appear to be emulating everything that is wrong with their regional rival, but not enough of what is right?

Hongkongers want air that is as clean as Singapore's and also the kind of forward-looking economic planning for which Singaporean leaders are famous. Singapore long ago implemented a simple electronic road-pricing scheme to reduce traffic during peak hours and thus cut pollution. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, peak-hour traffic remains a maddening, choking entanglement of largely unnecessary vehicles.

Moreover, Singapore has become a world leader in research and development, while Hong Kong's efforts in this field rank alongside those of Poland and Mexico. A city that, not so long ago under former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa, aspired to be the research and technology hub of Asia has settled comfortably into mediocrity.

On at least one score, however, we appear to be catching up with our neighbour. With Chief Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen warning Hongkongers against civil disobedience last week, shortly after Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen denounced the "barbaric acts" of those who dared to protest against his government, there is a chilling message coming from our top officials. That is: be quiet, especially on the divisive topic of a timetable for universal suffrage, and get back to the primary business of making money.

But the presumption that the people put monetary concerns above all else has always been an unfair stereotype. When 1 million people poured into the streets in the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen Square debacle, were they putting Mammon first? The 500,000 people who demonstrated against the proposed national security legislation in 2003 also clearly had higher ideals in mind. More recently, the rising number of protests involving our environment and heritage further shatters the old stereotype.

Indeed, Hong Kong is a practical-minded financial centre. But it is also a city whose people have developed a civic conscience and a lively tradition of dissent. What is alarming is that its leaders do not appear to care about - or even to comprehend - this development.

We all understand how annoying it can be when "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung throws camphor balls of protest your way, an experience to which the chief executive can testify. But that is the price our leaders must pay for maintaining a free society.

It is time to forget the aloof protocol of the colonial past and accept the fact that this type of street theatre is part of the new Hong Kong. Outside elite circles, there are a lot of people who think that Mr Leung has been a boon to the city.

The most important lesson that events of the past 10 years have taught us is that Hong Kong's civil society has developed too far to be turned back. The rising tide supporting heritage preservation, cleaner air and real democracy all serve to illustrate the point.

Sure, just like the self-selected elites who run the heavily censored show in Singapore, Mr Tsang and Mr Tang can tell people to pipe down and get on with their business. Unlike their Singaporean counterparts, however, Hongkongers will not heed that message.

Vive la difference! Singapore's leaders dictate, and the people follow. In Hong Kong, thankfully, it does not work that way. Here, eventually, the government will be compelled to follow the people.

Kent Ewing is a teacher at Hong Kong International School. This is a personal comment.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=2b8d5b65be2a4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD[/url]

HK must be wary of bubble trouble


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Aug 28, 2007           
     
  
If a week is a long time in politics, then two weeks may be an eternity in the stock market. Yesterday, both the Hang Seng and the China Enterprises indexes hit new heights. Analysts believe the surge was mainly the result of Beijing's decision, announced last week, to allow mainlanders to invest in the local stock market in a scheme which had been expected to open yesterday.

Hong Kong investors were naturally euphoric about the dramatic rises yesterday, especially after this month's turmoil in global markets. But the irony is that the local market was getting both behind and ahead of itself.

Investors have had a week to absorb the news of a potential massive influx of capital from the mainland after the State Administration of Foreign Exchange announced on Monday last week that investors with a minimum of 100,000 yuan would be allowed to buy stocks in Hong Kong without a quota or purchase cap. The local market seemed to have taken its time to digest the news, judging by yesterday's surprising surge, although news of the measure did contribute to a rise last week.

Just a fortnight ago, global markets tumbled on concerns about the subprime mortgage crisis in the US and the general credit crunch it has created. They later recovered, following a US Federal Reserve discount rate cut.

H shares, expected to attract the most interest from mainland retail investors because they are sold at a steep discount to their companies' A shares, have gained more than 27 per cent since August 17. Could the fundamentals have changed so quickly to warrant a complete turnaround in market sentiment after seeing so much fear, panic and unprecedented volatility? Investors should be careful.

As for getting ahead of itself? This came about when dozens of would-be mainland investors were disappointed when they travelled to the Tianjin branch of the Bank of China (SEHK: 3988) yesterday on news that the bank would start accepting orders for Hong Kong shares. A bank spokeswoman said while its offices were ready, final authorisation from headquarters had not arrived.

A new report by investment bank Morgan Stanley estimated there could be US$100 billion of mainland capital flowing into Hong Kong under the scheme. But since there were no mainland buy orders yesterday, the surge was driven wholly by euphoric expectations.

The mainland should be applauded for taking steps to loosen capital controls. Opening the door for people from the mainland to invest directly in the Hong Kong market is a move of great symbolic significance. However, there is also a need for some caution. The new scheme will put the local market increasingly under the influence of market conditions on the mainland. Luminaries from former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan to tycoon Li Ka-shing and investment guru Jim Rogers warned months ago of a massive bubble building on the mainland.

Bear in mind mainland markets have been largely immune to the global plunges this month. With the new expected capital inflow, Hong Kong is likely to be caught up in an ever bigger bubble from the motherland.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=976ef776118a4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Home-alone tragedy shames our city


OBSERVER
Michael Chugani
Aug 29, 2007           
     

Before we become outraged over home-alone cases that end in tragedy - like that of the young Tuen Mun couple whose unattended children ended up being seriously burned - we need to ask ourselves why such parents behave the way they do. It is easy to impulsively condemn them, but are they all irresponsible? Or do some have no choice but to lock their toddlers at home while they go out to earn a living?
From what we know so far, the latest such tragedy involved two struggling parents who had to work different shifts at bakeries to support themselves and their two children. One worked nights and the other days, each waiting for the other to come home before setting off for work. They took turns caring for their two-year-old girl and three-year-old boy.

It was a risky schedule prone to disaster, and that's exactly what happened when the mother apparently couldn't wait for the father to come home before rushing off to work. On the face of it, this couple seems different from the duo who locked up their children at home so they could go for a fun weekend on the mainland, some time ago.

Whenever home-alone youngsters get hurt, the natural first instinct is to accuse the parents of callous negligence. I'm not saying the parents in the latest tragedy are blameless, but the case has thrown up larger issues that we have ignored for too long.

We are quick to condemn the parents in such cases, but we need to be equally quick in asking why they left their children alone in the first place.

If both parents have to work to make ends meet, what choice do they have? Hiring a domestic helper is clearly an unaffordable option.

There's the choice of one parent giving up his or her job to look after the children, but that would lower the overall income and presumably put the family on welfare. We would then have the business lobby screaming about Hong Kong being on a slippery slope towards a welfare state.

We live in an age where many couples, even in rich societies, have to work to make ends meet. But other places at least have safety nets like fair pay and a minimum wage, which make day care for their children affordable.

Many US companies now actually provide on-site day care for working parents. Hong Kong is a rich society, too. But we are also a society where super-wealthy tycoons fiercely oppose a minimum wage of a paltry HK$5,000 or so a month. The ongoing metal workers' strike is but one example of property tycoons refusing to share the wealth.

We must no longer buy the argument that helping the most vulnerable in our society will lead to a welfare state. We need to ask ourselves why the wealth gap here is widening faster than in most other societies. It is clearly a failure of government.

There is no passion or urgency within the government to work towards a fairer society. Unelected bureaucrats, who face no risk of being thrown out for mediocre performance, like to boast that Hong Kong's economic recovery has borne fruit for most. They don't like talking about the fact that a large minority has not benefited at all.

The parents of the two toddlers in this case will have sleepless nights. But so should our policymakers. Their failed policies created the circumstances that made this tragedy possible.

Of course, there are couples who neglect the safety of their children, and they should be punished. But there are also many parents who simply don't have a choice but to leave their youngsters home alone.

We are a city reeking with wealth. The government's coffers are full. Why, then, do we still have elderly men and women scavenging for a living, workers toiling for HK$4,000 a month, so few day-care centres, and a government quota on how many children from poor families can receive day care?

Michael Chugani is a columnist and broadcaster. [email]mickchug@gmail.com[/email]


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=3edf9095e3da4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

Arch rivals


Greg Barns
Aug 30, 2007           
     

One wonders what possessed Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to call last week for the creation of an "arc of freedom and prosperity" involving his country, the United States, India and Australia. It appears a needlessly provocative act, given that it is clearly aimed at containing China. And it certainly doesn't help a nation like Australia, which carefully balances its relationships in Asia.

No doubt Mr Abe's brand-new idea will get some airplay, even if informally, at next week's Apec meeting in Sydney, which President Hu Jintao will attend along with US President George W. Bush. So it's an ideal chance for the host of that meeting, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, to use his influence to persuade Mr Abe to drop the concept.

It appears that an opportunity will arise for Mr Howard to do exactly that. Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in an interview on Monday that Australia, Japan and the US are considering holding a separate meeting when the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum gathers on September 8 and 9.

He was asked: "What signal does it send to China if this meeting of three of the leaders goes ahead, particularly considering China's suspicion of an American policy of containment to which Australia could be seen to be a part?"

His reply was enlightening: "Well, the Chinese know we're not part of it, and we don't support containment."

Mr Downer said "a policy of containment is wrong" and "a policy of engagement is right", in his view.

So if anyone is going to kill off Mr Abe's proposal it has to be Australia, because it has the most to lose from being associated with it. India and the US have their own domestic and strategic reasons for wanting to be seen as counterpoints to China, and if Japan wants to provide a vehicle for them to do that, then they might find it difficult to resist. But Australia, a middle-ranking power of some influence in the Asia-Pacific region, has a lot riding on stability and harmony in this part of the world, from both a self-interested, and a broader, regional perspective.

Mr Howard and Mr Downer have cleverly cultivated Beijing over the past few years, while at the same time deepening Australia's commitment to both Japan and the US. And Australia recently proposed a free-trade agreement with India and a bilateral, uranium sales agreement.

So with the leaders of China, Japan and the US all in one room at Apec, Mr Howard and Mr Downer have an ideal chance to get the ball rolling on trying to change the atmospherics in northern Asia.

Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating, who was instrumental in the establishment and early years of Apec almost 20 years ago, said as much last week. Australia, he said, needs to use the Apec meeting to "encourage China to include a future for Japan in its regional view of things, and to oblige Japan to include a point of accommodation with China which goes to Japan's economic future, its declining population and some real recognition of the none-too-laudable parts of its 20th-century history.

"In the first instance, all will resist it," he said. "The Chinese won't like it; the Japanese won't like it; and the Americans would probably regard it as an intrusion into the international game they usually conduct."

But Australia must still try.

And what better way to show leadership than for Mr Howard to kill Mr Abe's idea stone dead by announcing that Australia will have no part of it?

Finally, there are two fairly practical reasons for Australia to kill off Japan's "arc of freedom and prosperity" concept.

Mr Abe's political future, or lack of it, must be considered by Australia. Unlike his predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi, Mr Abe has proved to be a lacklustre performer since he took office last year. His ruling Liberal Democratic Party just got thumped in recent upper house elections, and there is no guarantee that the stridently nationalist Mr Abe will be around in six or 12 months' time.

And then there is the question of Australia's forthcoming election, due to be held sometime over the next two or three months. It would be dangerous in such a climate - and particularly with the likelihood of a change of government now a real possibility, as Mr Howard's popularity sags - for a government to commit Australia to any controversial foreign-policy initiatives.

Greg Barns is a political commentator in Australia and a former Australian government adviser


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=c10a5ad5072b4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

hy containing China makes no sense for India
Prakash Metaparti
Aug 31, 2007        
        Email to friend         |         Print a copy

On his recent visit to India, the Japanese prime minister proposed a scheme for "broader Asia" co-operation that many saw as an attempt to exclude or contain China. Beijing's official reaction to Shinzo Abe's proposal was to welcome "friendly ties of co-operation" among all countries of the region. But the opinion of mainland scholars was markedly negative: they saw the plan as everything from a reflection of Japan's "cold war mentality" to another attempt at creating an Asian version of Nato.

The perception that Japan, the United States, Australia and India are ganging up against China is the result of increased military interaction among these four countries as well as the large-scale naval exercises scheduled in the Bay of Bengal next month.

These exercises, by the above four countries and Singapore, are being called the largest naval manoeuvres in that area in recent times. This has caused concern in Beijing, resulting in a diplomatic demarche to the four countries seeking to know about the purpose of the military exercises.

Further, the recent India-US nuclear co-operation agreement and the move towards an Indo-US strategic partnership has strengthened the impression that India is moving towards being a counterweight against China.

Apart from mutual distrust resulting from a bloody border dispute in 1962, India and China also have a history of moves and countermoves in each other's backyards. From the 1960s to the 1980s they accused each other of supporting rebels in Tibet and in India's northeastern provinces. Although both countries have agreed to resolve border disputes through negotiations, the progress is somewhat marred by new developments.

India sees the Chinese military help for Pakistan, and its listening posts in Myanmar, as inimical to its interests; China feels the same way about India's defence relations with countries including Vietnam and Mongolia.

Despite these differences, the likelihood of India abandoning its independent foreign policy to join a bloc against China is quite low. One strong reason is the trade ties linking China, Japan and India.

Mainland China is Japan's largest trade partner, with trade valued at roughly US$200 billion, while annual India-Japan trade is worth only US$6.5 billion. India has more, and faster-growing, trade with Hong Kong than with Japan.

China-India trade was worth nearly US$18 billion last year, and grew at 30 per cent.

Japan's investment in India is only a fraction of its investment in mainland China, and trails its investments in other Asian countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia. Similarly, Australia's economic links are far stronger with China than with India.

Apart from economic ties, India's government is unlikely to have enough political support to abandon its current independent foreign policy and firmly align itself with the US and Japan in order to contain China.

The last few Indian governments were formed by coalitions, and had only limited room for policy changes. The era of coalition politics in India is unlikely to end soon.

Further, New Delhi has clearly said that its defence interactions with the US and Japan are not aimed at China. On the eve of Mr Abe's visit, the Indian foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon said that China-India-Japan relations were not a zero-sum game.

It must also be remembered that India and China have conducted bilateral military exercises in recent months and have had several high-level defence interactions, as well.

An Asian version of Nato aimed at containing China is no closer to becoming a reality now than when it was first heard of, some five years ago.

Prakash Metaparti is researching maritime security at the Centre of Asian Studies at the University of Hong Kong. He is a former commander of the Indian navy and a master mariner


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=e690c714687b4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

China's rise just needs some understanding


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Sep 03, 2007           
     

Beijing frequently argues that its growing might should not be feared by other nations. Its peaceful intent has been revealed through participation in UN peacekeeping forces, being a key mediator in the nuclear disputes involving North Korea and Iran, and in showing a concerted desire to end its rift with Japan.
Such moves are not sufficient for doubters like the US, those who have been, or continue to be, involved in territorial disputes or those who mistrust communism. For the US, China's rise is a matter of rivalry to its superpower status; the wounds of war and heated rhetoric are not easily healed; and the mainland's mix of capitalism with communism remains confusing to some.

If proof is needed of Beijing's benign intent, though, it will be plainly on show this week during President Hu Jintao's visit to Australia. In meetings with Australian leaders, at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit and in talks with counterparts, China's cards will be on the table for the world to see.

Last week, it became Australia's biggest trading partner. Increasing numbers of Chinese students, government officials among them, are earning degrees from Australian universities.

For the mainland, the attraction is mostly Australia's vast natural resources and, to a lesser degree, diplomatic ties with a nation that strategically straddles the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Australia's surging economic growth of the past decade owes much to the trading ties. But like the rest of the world, the nation has also benefited from the inexpensive products mainland factories turn its raw materials into. Australian companies have found new business on the mainland, just as the reverse is true. A free-trade agreement is nearing conclusion.

The relations are growing ever warmer. Chinese and Australian leaders meet at least once a year, sometimes more.

This is despite contentious issues - Australia's security agreement with the US and Japan, and concern about human rights. After the killings at Tiananmen Square in 1989, Australia gave residency to 40,000 Chinese it considered were being persecuted. Australian Prime Minister John Howard met the Dalai Lama in Sydney in June despite objections from Beijing.

Such issues do not get in the way of the relationship. It is not purely because of greed for wealth or convenience; rather, it is because the nations understand and accept one another's positions. Doing so is mutually beneficial and the consequent respect gives leverage to candidly discuss all matters.

At Apec, Beijing's concern for the environment will be on display. A carbon-trading scheme being floated has in principle won its backing; its signing up would enhance efforts already being made under the Kyoto pact on climate change, which Beijing has agreed to despite not being required to do so as a developing nation.

Mr Hu's meetings on the sidelines of the summit with US President George W. Bush and Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will attempt to iron out differences over tainted food and toys and firming diplomatic ties.

The mainland's economic rise is beneficial to Australia, but also good for the world. There is nothing sinister in Beijing's intent; it is showing, and will continue to prove, it is working for international peace, stability and development.

As the ever-improving relationship with Australia shows, all that is needed is understanding.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=8c916437556c4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

China's legacy: the thoughts of Lao Tzu


James Dorn
Sep 04, 2007           
   

Lao Tzu, thought to have been an older contemporary of Confucius (551-479BC), may have been the first libertarian. In writing the Dao De Jing he argued that if governments followed the principle of wu-wei (non-action), social and economic harmony would naturally emerge and people would prosper.
The essence of this liberal vision is concisely stated in Chapter 57: "The more restrictions and limitations there are, the more impoverished men will be ... The more rules and precepts are enforced, the more bandits and crooks will be produced. Hence, we have the words of the wise [ruler]: Through my non-action, men are spontaneously transformed. Through my quiescence, men spontaneously become tranquil. Through my non-interfering, men spontaneously increase their wealth."

That passage, written more than 2,000 years before Adam Smith's call for a "simple system of natural liberty", is a reminder that China's legacy is not the commands of Mao Zedong Thought but the freedom of Lao Tzu Thought.

Although Lao Tzu did not have a fully developed theory of the spontaneous market order, he clearly recognised the importance of limited government and voluntary exchange for the creation of wealth.

The corruption that plagues China today stems from too much, not too little, intervention. When people are free to choose within a system of just laws that protect life, liberty and property, then social and economic harmony will occur naturally. Top-down planning cannot impose spontaneous order; that can evolve only from decentralised market processes.

Good government must be in harmony with each person's desire to prosper and expand the range of choice. By emphasising the principle of non-intervention, Lao Tzu also recognised that when government leaves people alone, then "without being ordered to do so, people become harmonious by themselves". He thus understood, at least implicitly, that central planning generates social disorder by destroying economic freedom.

Disorder arises when government oversteps its bounds - when it overtaxes and denies people their natural right to be left alone to pursue their happiness, as long as they do not injure others.

Mao's disregard for private property and human rights still haunts China. Conflicts between developers and farmers over land-use rights are causing social turmoil today. Hong Kong's motto - "small government, big market" - is in tune with Lao Tzu Thought. His advice to China's early rulers is pertinent today: "Governing a large country is like frying a small fish. You spoil it with too much poking".

Freedom requires some boundaries or rules if it is to be socially beneficial and not lead to chaos. Lao Tzu understood the need for rules but, unlike later liberals, did not develop the ideas of private property and freedom of contract that underpin a  market-liberal order.

China's present leaders are calling for a "harmonious society", but this is impossible without widespread freedom and a rule of law that limits the power of government to the protection of people and property. They could learn much from the teachings of Lao Tzu and the legacy of liberty that his precepts embody.

James Dorn is vice-president for academic affairs at the Cato Institute


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=a4578d3f45bc4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Too hot to handle
The disaster in Iraq looms large over this year's 9/11 anniversary and the Bush administration's 'war on terror', writes Hagai Segal

Hagai Segal
Sep 05, 2007           
     

On the 11th of this month, the US public will remember those who fell on that fateful day six years ago. The nation will also be remembering the thousands more who have fallen since, in the name of defeating the perpetrators of September 11. While in past years that "sacrifice" was accepted by a great many Americans, this year's anniversary, particularly, will be observed in the dark shadow of the nightmare that has become Iraq.

The Iraq policy - establishing a stable and viable democracy in that country - emerged as a vital part of the Bush administration's post-September 11 agenda. Four years on from the invasion, however, that policy has created the possibility of al-Qaeda claiming a major victory: US withdrawal from Iraq in circumstances of total failure.

The planning for the 2003 war concentrated on the conflict, not on the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq. It was predicated on the assumption that toppling Saddam Hussein would be a difficult and casualty-intensive endeavour but that, once he was deposed, the situation would quickly revert to normal.

This assumption was based on "dictator logic" - that dictators care only about staying in power, not what will happen once they're gone - and an absurdly simplistic view that, once the dictator fell, all of Iraq would quickly accept the new regime.

Compounding the lack of planning and resource allocation, the US immediately removed all those connected with the previous regime. This not only created a skills vacuum, but also drove many people into the growing insurgency.

When all is said and done, the bill for post-September 11 operations in Iraq and Afghanistan alone will exceed US$1 trillion: yet both states, and especially Iraq, will remain in turmoil, as strongholds for radical Islamist terrorists. When added to the huge and rising US death toll in Iraq - the total stood at 3,739 troops as of Saturday, with a further 298 coalition allies dead - plus the thousands of seriously wounded, Iraq has become an unmitigated disaster.

The record of the "war on terror" is by no means all negative. There have been a number of successes against al-Qaeda: the US-led action in Afghanistan has denied the group an operating base. As a consequence, it must function on a smaller and less adventurous scale, from the shadows.

But Iraq is likely to prove the most enduring legacy of the anti-terror effort. The United States and its allies have failed to achieve a single one of their main post-war objectives, and Iraq is in the stranglehold of civil war. Yet the US will in all likelihood withdraw many or most of its troops during the next presidential term, whether a Democrat or Republican prevails in next November's poll.

The US committed unprecedented resources to the project of establishing a stable, single-constituency democracy in Iraq - with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds living together in a single political entity. But once American forces withdraw, Iraq will be in grave danger of breaking into a set of competing entities.

If it breaks apart on sectarian lines, what will likely emerge is a Kurdish entity in the north, a Shiite one in the south - and a battle-royal between Sunnis in central Iraq and Kurds for control of disputed oil fields bordering the Kurdish-dominated north.

That would immediately result in a set of regional dynamics deeply troubling for Washington. Turkey, a key military ally, remains vociferously opposed to any autonomous Kurdish entity in the region: the Turkish army threatened this year to intervene militarily in Iraqi Kurdistan if need be. Meanwhile, a Shiite state in the south would gravitate towards America's arch-enemy, fellow Shiite Iran.

Iraq has rendered the Bush administration as impotent, domestically and internationally, as any US administration in living memory. This ensures that many tangible and genuine victories against al-Qaeda, and Islamist terrorism in general, have been lost amid the daily diet of death from Iraq.

The No1 challenge for the next president will therefore be how to throw off the political albatross that Iraq has become, in a manner that the extremists cannot claim as an al-Qaeda victory. Only then can the campaign against global Islamist terrorism - and the process of ensuring that a second September 11 never comes to pass - once again can be put back on track. Republican and Democrat presidential candidates are already devising strategies for doing this in the post-Bush era. For now, though, the policy remains stubbornly unchanged - the president fiddles as Baghdad burns.

Hagai Segal, a terrorism and Middle East specialist, lectures at New York University in London


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=1beb660c151d4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

The high cost of our 'free' education


OBSERVER
Alex Lo
Sep 06, 2007           
     


Whenever there is market inefficiency, there is someone ready to exploit it. That's how all capitalist markets work. Our supposedly "free" public education is such a glaring example of inefficiency that it has made many people rich.

So, a new school year, another record profit year for private tutorial schools? Well, I don't know that for sure, but I would bet on it. A Primary Two, high-scoring student I know at my son's so-called elite local Chinese school has three private tutors every day - for English, Chinese and maths. For their services, his parents pay up to HK$6,000 a month. And his case is not all that unusual.

You have probably heard of such tutors, who enjoy pop-star status in the media, with their opulent lifestyles featured, interestingly, in society and investment magazines instead of educational ones. They have inspired legions of publicly employed, de- motivated teachers to follow their example.

But the people who own these schools make even more money. One can imagine that, by the size and scope of their services and the numbers of people employed, private tutorials amount to a sizeable industry that makes a significant contribution to the overall economy.

There are 393,000 primary school students and 467,000 secondary-school pupils who are locals, as opposed to expatriates. For argument's sake, suppose 50 per cent of them take at least one outside-school tutorial class or hire a private tutor for a key academic subject, averaging HK$1,000 a month. (These figures are surely conservative, and we are not including extracurricular sports and music.)

This translates into HK$5.16 billion a year. That is equivalent to more than 19 per cent of the HK$26.7 billion the government spent on primary and secondary education in the past financial year. But ask yourself this: if our schools are working properly, why should parents be paying through the roof for their children to attend private tutorials? A decade of education reforms does not seem to have made any difference to this systemic dysfunction.

In February, the then Education and Manpower Bureau - since restructured as the Education Bureau - released a paper saying there was no conclusive evidence in favour of small classes. Based on the preliminary results of a four-year study at 37 primary schools, it said there was "insufficient evidence to demonstrate that pupils in small classes fared better ... in terms of academic performance and motivation". This conclusion was counterintuitive, and most people simply dismissed it at the time. But, within the narrow focus of the study, it makes perfect sense that small classes do not automatically mean better grades, at least not in the Hong Kong context.

At most of the so-called elite and "better" schools - which are essentially cram schools - class sizes don't matter. The top half will score "As" whether you have 20 or 40 students per class; the parents and their hired tutors will make sure of that. What the teachers teach in class - especially in a large one - is often lost on young pupils, but no matter: the students absorb their lessons and prepare for continuous tests and exams through a massive amount of nighttime homework and outside-school tutorials.

Though home schooling is illegal in Hong Kong, I would argue that our dysfunctional public system is only sustained by what amounts to de facto home schooling, with help from private tutorials at great cost to parents. If tutors are not hired, it is usually because the parents or other relatives serve as full-time tutors themselves.

Just as our high property costs are the indirect, de facto tax we all pay for our supposedly low-tax regime, our public education is not "free". For a middle-class family, the mandatory nine-year "free" public education may cost as much as a private or international school education, and this is not counting the psychological cost.

Alex Lo is a senior writer at the Post


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=db7ac527c76d4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

Global hacking game


PETER KAMMERER

Sep 07, 2007           
      


The extent of internet espionage by the world's powers is a matter of pure guesswork. Whatever the true level, one thing is certain: a heck of a lot is going on. Some security experts contend that China's internet hackers are responsible for up to 60 per cent of cyber-attacks, others say that Russia is behind 50 per cent, and there is a belief by another school of spy-thought that the US carries out at least half. Now, I was never any good at maths at high school, but even I can add up these figures; the total is 160 per cent - and that does not take into account the activities of Britain, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and others eager for state secrets.

That the figures do not gel is largely down to who spouts them. The nature of the internet and the fact that no government in its right mind is going to admit to spying makes for easy speculation. Unsurprisingly, China has vehemently denied the flood of allegations over the past week that it has been hacking into the e-mails and webpages of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and three of her ministries, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the Pentagon, and the British parliament and Foreign Office.

The charges come as the political heat is being turned up on China by the US and Europe over tainted products.

I admit to loving a good conspiracy theory and have, on occasion, started one or two. In keeping with tradition, here goes. The American presidential election is 14 months away, and, with candidates jockeying for the right to represent their respective political parties, there is much to gain by portraying China as a bogeyman.

Or how about this: outcries in the west about dangerous levels of lead in toys and chemicals in food are a reaction to concerns that China has too strong a grip on the global economy. Keep up the pressure by casting the nation in an even worse light so people think twice about goods with the tags "made in China". This is not to deny that computer experts paid by Beijing, the People's Liberation Army, one of the nation's security agencies or some bored student geeks are hacking into sensitive information; given the way of the world, it is highly likely.

Beijing is, after all, skilled at spying. Decades of trying to undermine Taiwan's government has taught it a trick or two. After Microsoft in 2003 complied with a request to hand over its source code for the Windows operating system, there was a marked leap in the level of attacks on Taiwanese websites.

There are, however, two sides to every story in the cyber-crime world. For every claimed Chinese attack, Beijing can counter with a report about one from the US or elsewhere. China's government, not being as media smart or resource backed as that of its western counterparts, invariably loses the propaganda war.

For a final fling at a theory, consider the idiom that where there's smoke, there's fire. In May, the internet-savvy European Union nation Estonia accused its giant neighbour, Russia, of hacking into and disrupting its network. The two have long been at odds, but matters came to a head the previous month when authorities in the capital, Tallinn, removed a Soviet-era war memorial, prompting ethnic riots. The hacking started soon after.

Jim Lewis, director of the technology and public policy programme at the Washington think-tank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, told me that shoring up computer defences was the best way to stem cyber-attacks. In the meantime, governments could hope that a rival would make a diplomatic slip by going a step too far in its hacking activities.

China, he said, seemed to have done that with Dr Merkel's government. Visiting China as the German magazine Der Spiegel made the claims, the leader was so certain of the report's accuracy that she confronted Premier Wen Jiabao . He assured her measures would be taken to "rule out hacking attacks". At a press conference in Beijing on Monday, Dr Merkel, alluding to the allegations, said it was important that "common rules of the game" were observed in a globalised economy.

Outwardly, she seemed to be admonishing her hosts for wanting to look at her e-mails. Reading between the lines, she was telling them not to be so careless next time they play the global hacking game.

Peter Kammerer is the Post's foreign editor


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=dbf770a560bd4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

dia's liberalisation by stealth breeds ignorance
Sunanda Kisor Datta-Ray
Sep 10, 2007        

Email to friend         |         Print a copy

The spate of attacks on indigenous supermarkets in several Indian states suggests that populist objections are as much against modernisation as globalisation. Resistance to the American chain Wal-Mart can be put down to anti-foreigner phobia. But the fire has now been turned on Reliance, one of India's biggest companies. It has an ambitious US$5.6 billion plan to revolutionise shopping with a seamless supply chain infrastructure to "embrace all strata of society" in 1,500 towns and cities, with annual sales of US$22.3 billion by 2011.

While New Delhi allows individual foreign brands to sell in India through their own shops, the general retail trade is restricted to Indian entrepreneurs. Tesco, Carrefour and other supermarket chains have yet to be allowed a foot in the door of a business that is valued at US$350 billion and is reportedly growing at 20 per cent annually. Only 3 per cent of this burgeoning retail trade is run by chain stores. The bulk is in the hands of some 12 million corner stores run by modest families. This is the traditional Indian way.

Opposition parties fishing for support among pavement hawkers and small shopkeepers are blamed for the mobs that recently ransacked Reliance Retail supermarkets. Militant trade unionists, wholesalers' organisations, economic luddites and ultra-nationalists lent them a hand. Rival business houses may also have put their oar in.

However, the real problem is that, in trying to goad the Indian elephant forward, no government has made any effort to carry the people with it. The preference has been for liberalisation by stealth instead of upfront programmes and campaigns to counter the indoctrination of half a century.

While anti-reform groups like the Forward Bloc were picketing and stoning Reliance supermarkets, there was hardly a squeak of support from the parties which form the governments that officially favour the enterprise.

They have been as silent about supermarkets as they were on other logical corollaries of opening to the world, like fast-food chains and special economic zones, which also provoked controversy.

This suggests three explanations: India's political leaders are ashamed of what they believe in; they don't really believe in liberalisation; or they do, but dare not take on voters who are prisoners of the old mindset.

West Bengal Forward Bloc chief Ashok Ghosh hailed Reliance's closure in his state as "a victory for the working class, the toiling peasants and the small traders..."

Large sections of Indians do see entrepreneurs as the modern incarnations of the zamindars (landowners who were also rent collectors), who exploited the peasantry in British times. And they see multinationals as new versions of the East India Company, which came to trade and stayed to rule. That situation leaves the state as the small man's only protector. No one has told people otherwise.

Sunanda Kisor Datta-Ray is a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=d80ae73b11be4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

A young Gandhi shows India the way


Deep Kisor Datta-Ray
Sep 11, 2007           
   


A new generation of politicians is the best guarantee that India's rapidly expanding economic and military networks will be used to improve stability and create prosperity in the region. They are internationalists by birth, education and inclination - and they are held accountable by democracy.

In parliament sit about a dozen young MPs who will become the leaders of the ruling Congress and opposition Bharatiya Janata parties. They understand the aspirations of a young population - the majority of Indians are under 35 - and their vision for India reflects a globalised upbringing which eschews narrow parochialism. Foremost among them is Rahul Gandhi, who entered parliament three years ago, aged 34.

He is heir to the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which has ruled India for 40 of its 60 years. By setting a personal example, he is trying to transform a highly stratified society where professional titles are paraded and a misplaced notion of respect deters criticism, stifles innovation and perpetuates inequality.

That approach is to be expected from a man whose father - former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi - was himself unwilling to be hemmed in by traditional boundaries.

Educated at Cambridge, Harvard and in India, Rahul Gandhi's elite background, foreign-born mother and modern mentality could easily have formed an unbridgeable gulf separating him from India's poor, uneducated masses. It did not. He secured an impressive 66 per cent of the votes cast in his first election.

On the one hand, sceptics insinuate that the victory was a product of Mr Gandhi's pedigree, not his electoral platform. On the other, loyalists enthused by his victory expect him to become prime minister after the next scheduled elections, in 2009.

Mr Gandhi's campaign revealed a new strategy. Intended to provide the means to create economic, social and political freedoms across the traditional divisions of caste and religion, it indicates the possibility of a new politics - one that stops perpetuating millennia-old divides. If indeed his name rather than his politics carried the day, it does not condemn the man. Rather, it is a sorry symptom of a society refusing to abandon its feudal mindset.

As for the prime ministership, Mr Gandhi has repeatedly said he is too young and inexperienced. But he has been endorsed by Oxbridge-educated Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who said: "Rahul Gandhi is your future; he is sweating it out for you." It bodes well that the architect of India's opening to the world supports him.

The new internationalism is not about projecting power. Democracy - no matter how corrupt and inefficient - ensures that it is about learning from the world to better everyday Indian life.

Dr Singh's practical internationalism fostered the Indo-US nuclear deal. It is opposed by left-wing coalition partners simply because it is a link with the United States. Such narrow parochialism is exactly what Mr Gandhi and the next generation are avoiding. Autarchy is not for them.

Deep Kisor Datta-Ray is a London-based historian and commentator on Asian affairs. [email]dattaray@gmail.com[/email]


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=119d742c130f4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Recipe for disaster
Washington's softening stance on nuclear weapons brings the world closer to the risk of a holocaust, Jimmy Carter warns

Jimmy Carter
Sep 12, 2007           
   


By abandoning many of the nuclear arms agreements negotiated in the last 50 years, the United States has been sending mixed signals to North Korea, Iran and other nations with the technical knowledge to create nuclear weapons. Currently proposed agreements with India compound this quagmire and further undermine the global pact for peace represented by the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

At the same time, no significant steps are being taken to reduce the worldwide arsenal of almost 30,000 nuclear weapons now possessed by the United States, Russia, China, France, Israel, Britain, India, Pakistan and perhaps North Korea. A global disaster is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the cold war.

The key restraining commitment among the five original nuclear powers and more than 180 other nations is the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its key objective is "to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology ... and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament". In the last five-year review conference at the United Nations in 2005, only Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea were not participating - the first three have nuclear arsenals that are advanced, and the fourth's is embryonic.

The American government has not set a good example, having already abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, binding limitations on testing nuclear weapons and developing new ones, and a long-standing policy of foregoing threats of "first use" of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. These recent decisions have encouraged China, Russia and other NPT signatories to respond with similar actions.

Knowing since 1974 of India's nuclear ambitions, I and other American presidents imposed a consistent policy: no sales of nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refused to sign the NPT. Today these restraints are in the process of being abandoned.

I have no doubt that India's political leaders are just as responsible in handling their country's arsenal as leaders of the five original nuclear powers. But there is a significant difference: the original five have signed the NPT and have stopped producing fissile material for weapons.

India's leaders should make the same pledges and should also join other nuclear powers in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Instead, they have rejected these steps and insist on unrestricted access to international assistance in producing enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year. If India's demand is acceptable, why should other technologically advanced NPT signatories, such as Brazil, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Japan - to say nothing of less responsible nations - continue to restrain themselves?

Having received at least tentative approval from the US for its policy, India still faces two further obstacles: an acceptable agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a 45-nation body that - until now - has barred nuclear trade with any nation that refuses to accept international nuclear standards.

The non-nuclear NSG members are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.

The role of these nations and the IAEA is not to prevent India's development of nuclear power or even nuclear weapons, but rather to assure that it proceeds as almost all other responsible nations do, by signing the NPT. Nuclear powers must show leadership, by restraining themselves and by limiting further departures from the NPT's restraints. The choices they make today will create a legacy - deadly or peaceful - for the future.

Jimmy Carter is a former US president and founder of the non-profit Carter Centre in Atlanta

Copyright: Project Syndicate


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=f57fcfe1a55f4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

It's not a game, so let's call a spade a spade


OBSERVER
Greg Torode
Sep 13, 2007           
   


The rise of the Venetian Macao from the dust of the Cotai reclamation is a harbinger of great change. Undoubtedly, as some commentators have noted, the unprecedented scale of its convention facilities, shopping arcades and suites stand to change the face of the tourism industry in the region.

It also threatens to change our language and, with it, our understanding and perceptions of the casino industry. For words as basic as "casino" and "gambling" are fast disappearing under a successful public-relations blitz on the part of the modern casino moguls now dominating Macau.

The casino gambling industry seems to prefer the word "gaming". That is, of course, if it has to refer to its core source of income at all. The Venetian Macao's website outlines in several languages all its facilities and events in great detail, from an upcoming top-drawer tennis match to its restaurants - except one. Its casino, the world's biggest gambling room, is conspicuous only by its absence, as is any reference to its loan facilities for out-of-luck punters.

Rather than casino resorts, we are also seeing increased references to "integrated resorts", an even more brazen euphemism of which Singapore, for one, has grown particularly fond. The Venetian's billionaire owner, Las Vegas Sands chairman Sheldon Adelson, took it one step further. He dubbed his latest US$2.4 billion project a "Disneyland for adults".

This is not meant as implied criticism. It is simply what casino companies do, and some of the Las Vegas operators now in Macau are among the slickest and most astute in the business. Anyone with experience of Las Vegas knows that they are masters of feel-good illusion. Once you are happily ensconced in their resorts, they don't want you leaving for anything as mundane as food or shopping. You won't find, for example, many nagging distractions such as clocks, daylight or even easy exits in their plush gambling halls.

What is more of a worry is the way - through slavishness or ignorance, or both - some pundits now happily skirt the use of such basic and well-used words as "casino" and "gambling" when describing the strength, merits and virtues of an industry built on the staging of games of chance for money - at odds, of course, where the house always wins in the long term.

Like most successful propaganda, it has a germ of truth. Gaming, according to dictionary definitions, can refer to gambling. In theory, neither word is particularly loaded positively or negatively. But gaming can also refer to war gaming or computer gaming, so it's hardly precise in the modern age.

Yet it is also arguably less explicit than "gambling". It is interesting to note that the punters themselves traditionally don't talk about "gaming", at least not in this part of the world. For better or worse, they know exactly what gambling is all about.

No one refers to "gaming" on a horse or a football match or zipping across to Macau for a "game". And if one of their friends succumbs to addiction, they certainly don't refer to him or her as being a "degenerate gamer". Further, it is hard to imagine anyone seeking to describe a vice as well as an industry using "gaming" instead of "gambling". In short, "gambling" is a much better word to describe what goes on in Macau.

Such distinctions are important. What is going on at the Cotai Strip has vast commercial, social and regulatory implications for Hong Kong, too. The casino boom is going to be weighed up, chewed over and commented upon in ever-greater detail.

In Hong Kong, gambling is tightly restricted to the Jockey Club's horse racing, football betting and Mark Six operations, and these remain part of that debate. Anti-gambling activists, for example, are threatening legal challenges against new Jockey Club moves to allow children into daytime Sha Tin meetings. Euphemisms should have no place in this arena.

Greg Torode is the Post's chief Asia correspondent


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=98e7bbf8ef9f4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

More big fish to fry


PETER KAMMERER

Sep 14, 2007           
   

Congratulations to Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, after her predecessor, Joseph Estrada, was sentenced to life imprisonment for corruption. Having made fighting top-level fraud a priority of her presidency, the case serves as the highest-level proof since she took office 5-1/2 years ago that she means business.

There have been other cases, of course; that they generally involve names and faces that people are unfamiliar with has been unfortunate, given the all-pervasive nature of corruption at every level of Philippine society. Now that a big fish has been fried and Mrs Arroyo has chalked up a significant victory in her war on graft, the message of zero tolerance is loud and clear.

Of course, her fight cannot end with Estrada. This is a country where a banknote placed in the hand of the police officer who has just booked you for speeding will erase all memory of a traffic offence; where prisoners vanish from their cells because money has changed hands with the guards; where people often run for public office not out of a sense of civic duty, but because they know they can get rich from bribes.

Such institutionalised practices are obviously not good for the reputation of a nation that could do with foreign investment to kick-start the economy. Mrs Arroyo realises that clean government projects the right image, hence her anti-corruption drive.

Estrada's conviction - assuming it sticks - is welcomed by the Arroyo administration because of the criticism from inside and outside the country that the policy is little more than hot air. Non-governmental corruption watchdog Transparency International has been particularly critical. It said, in a study issued in February, that "although the government advocates zero tolerance for corruption and follows best practice by adopting a three-pronged approach against it through promotion, prevention and enforcement, a lack of compliance and implementation on the side of the public and a lack of prosecutions, convictions and enforcement on the side of the authorities persists". In the organisation's last annual Corruption Perceptions Index, the Philippines was ranked 121 out of 159 countries.

Turning around centuries of such practice will not happen quickly. Former first lady Imelda Marcos has been convicted of only one of the dozens of graft charges she faces and, under Estrada's presidency, was pardoned on the grounds of being too old for prison. She is accused of being an accomplice with her dictator husband, Ferdinand, of embezzling up to US$20 billion from public coffers, yet remains the nation's foremost socialite.

But all is not lost for Mrs Arroyo. She now has a golden opportunity to continue the impetus afforded by the Estrada ruling to constructively deal with the many corruption cases levelled against her family, government and associates. Although several involve considerably more public money than Estrada was accused of stealing, none has been resolved.

The list is too long to reprint; some have been the subject of two failed impeachment motions against the president, but the opposition is planning a third attempt. Among them are a US$25 million election computerisation scheme that has never been rolled out; a US$140 million government fertiliser fund allegedly distributed to Mrs Arroyo's allies during the 2004 presidential election; a 32km rail line that, it is claimed, is being built at a cost of US$16 million per kilometre; the mothballing of Terminal 3 at the main international airport over a payment dispute; and a scandal over purported payments from the game of chance, jueteng - similar to the claims that brought down Estrada.

Philippine governments are judged not by what they have achieved, but how corrupt they were. The graft cases swirling around the Arroyo government clearly put it on track as, potentially, the most corrupt since Marcos fell in 1986. And, unlike Mrs Arroyo, Marcos never claimed to be a graft-buster.

Peter Kammerer is the Post's foreign editor



[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=dcbeebfbe9ff4110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

Japan's pronounced leadership gap


TOM PLATE

Sep 18, 2007           
   


Japan is of gigantic importance to the US and to the rest of the world. The nation of 127 million people has developed into the world's second-largest economy. Its engineering skill has become legendary. Its national literacy level is exemplary. It has had astonishing achievements in the arts, design and electronics. And it holds more US government bonds and other critical official American investments than any country, including China.

But there is one bad thing about Japan: its political system. Japanese talk a lot about the need for a consensus before any major political change or innovation can occur. One reason for all the talk is that, in Japan, true political leadership is often hard to find.

During the past decade or so, the country has seen more prime ministers entering the revolving door of power - and then being hurled back out onto the street - than many people could count. In the high echelons of the Clinton administration, the running joke was: "Hey, we just figured out how to pronounce the name of the new Japanese prime minister - and now he's gone!"

For about five years, though, one giant political figure arrested this distressing development. His name was Junichiro Koizumi, and he was the Houdini of Japanese politics. This master of image-politics held together the long-running, dominant but fatally flawed Liberal Democratic Party by a perverse but amazingly effective tactic: he attacked it, challenged it and at times purged it of its most dinosaur-like elements.

Mr Koizumi could get away with this because his leadership functioned within a very clear public consensus. The consensus was that he probably knew what he was doing. It was a sharply different consensus that triggered the resignation of his successor. The general view on the street was that Shinzo Abe did not know what he was doing.

Now he is out, and those in the cabinet who were closest to Mr Abe, such as Foreign Minister Taro Aso, seem to have lost ground in the race to succeed him. Those who were well removed from the Abe loop, such as  semi-retired old hand Yasuo Fukuda, are suddenly back in the limelight.

The succession issue is important to the world and to the United States. Japanese prime ministers do their friends and allies no favours when they insensitively insult neighbours by denying well-known horrors like the reality of second world war comfort-women atrocities. And when the Japanese economy starts humming along nicely - which happened during the upbeat Koizumi years - this is on the whole healthy not only for Japan but for Asia and the west.

Under Mr Koizumi and then under Mr Abe, Japan had become increasingly important to the Bush administration. Tokyo sent a token contingent of troops to Iraq; it sent a naval presence to the Indian Ocean to add to the supply trail for US troops in the region.

Whoever succeeds Mr Abe is, in immediate relations with the US, less likely to position himself as a Tony Blair-type prime minister (fawning and lapdog-like) than as the current British leader Gordon Brown (friendly enough, but cool and correct).

But it may take a few years for Japan to sort out its political system. Washington may have to learn how to pronounce several new Japanese names before Japan's political system uncovers a stabilising politician like Mr Koizumi.

UCLA professor Tom Plate is a veteran journalist and author, most recently, of Confessions of an American Media Man



[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=c0fa00a8b3415110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

Kevin Sinclair's Hong Kong
A veteran SCMP reporter, Kevin examines the good, bad and ugly sides of life in the city. E-mail him at [email]kevin.sinclair@scmp.com[/email]

KEVIN SINCLAIR'S HK

Sep 19, 2007           
     


Thank God I don't live on Hong Kong Island. If so, I might next December be left in a chilling position; I could face a choice of voting for either Artful Anson or Regina the Rottweiler.

To me, this is like making a pick between Ivan the Terrible and Attila the Hun. If the race for the seat left vacant by the late Ma Lik is restricted to these two candidates, it doesn't seem to give voters a fair range of choice. These two truly formidable women have much in common; as former long-serving and senior ranking officials in the British colonial government, both have exhibited a broad streak of autocracy.

Both are members of the ultraprivileged elite. Over recent months, both have semi-secretly built up powerful think-tanks and support teams; to be fair, Mrs Ip's bid for power has been far more open, honest and transparent than her rival.

Before July 1, 1997, there was totally no hint from either of these powerhouse women that they were democrats-in-hiding. Nobody suspected that they lusted secretly for one-man, one-vote universal suffrage. This secret was well hidden behind their sleekly-cut business suits and government briefcases full of confidential documents.

But when they ceased working for the government of the SAR, each in turbulent circumstances, it dramatically emerged, they had long been admirers of full-blown democracy. Hail to the people! Up the workers! Vote for me! You expected them to break into La Marseillaise. If it wasn't so pathetic and sickening, it would be laughable.

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and Anson Chan Fang On-sang have leanings towards democracy they could share comfortably with Cixi, the Dowager Empress. Tremble, obey and vote for me.

There is one truly odious aspect to the process that appears to result in the two women staging a behemoth slugfest. For years we have been listening to a chorus from the patriotic front about how the grass roots must be represented in government. For just as long we have put up with boring lectures from pan-democrats on the need to groom talent to take the future political helms. Both sides now prove themselves to be hypocrites without conscience. Both have experienced members who over the decades have worked loyally for the political grouping in which they believed. They attended the endless hours of internal meetings building the parties that carried their visions of Hong Kong.

These are the frontline soldiers of any political organisation, the men and women who after years of sacrifice and working their way up through the ranks can expect to be rewarded by a chance of contesting a seat. Yet what have party bosses opted to do? They are ignoring these years of faithful toil to give outsiders the inside running. What must the party faithful think of such underhand action? How do people with proclaimed lofty principles like the sainted Martin Lee Chu-ming, founder of the Democrats, square this action with his conscience?

For months the public has been entranced by the carefully-orchestrated Anson Chan Show. She turns up at mass rallies for democracy: "I'm only here as an individual," she smiles sweetly. She drops hints that she may stand for this position or that post, then withdraws.

She's like a 17-year-old schoolgirl at a dance, whirling around the outskirts. Will she dance? Won't she dance? Suitors press her. Then, suddenly, a secret deal is done behind closed doors, all opposition and barriers are miraculously swept away; Awesome Anson, trademark grimace in place, is a candidate.

Not that she doesn't have other matters to fill her day: she sits on numerous commercial boards.

If she sits on Legco, what will be her stance on accountability for public servants whose colossal mishandling of affairs costs the community dear? It's hard to say. She chaired the committee that oversaw the opening of Chek Lap Kok, a massive debacle. I do not recall her being held to account for that.

As for Mrs Ip, it's truly miraculous that this woman has come back from the political graveyard. As secretary for security she tried to bulldoze the controversial security bill into law. The people hated it. They marched en mass in street protests.

The government blanched at this unexpected outright resistance. Mrs Ip resigned; the public were in the mood to rend her limb from limb. A couple of years at Stanford doesn't seem to have mellowed her combative outlook, but it may have taught her to be slightly more diplomatic.

The clash between these two Tyrannosaurus rex of politics is unfair to many loyal party workers; it will be interesting to see how they vote. But it will be colossal entertainment for the masses, mud-wrestling without the ring, a gladiatorial battle without the Colosseum.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=2c2441d888815110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

Missing ingredient
For West Kowloon to succeed, Hong Kong must realise the value of artistic pursuits, writes Margaret Yang


Sep 20, 2007           
     
  |   

  



The West Kowloon Cultural District project will be, among other things, a great catalyst for the Hong Kong arts scene. It will make the arts part of the city's development plan, which is a brand-new perspective for Hong Kong - putting the arts at the centre of the stage for the next phase of the city's development. For the cultural district to be a success, therefore, our overall perspective of the arts has to be reconciled with the one for West Kowloon.

The most challenging task, especially with regard to the "software" part - that is, the artistic content - hinges on how far these perspectives can be adjusted. That's because practically, without the following changes at the basic level, we will just be going round in circles.

First, talking to arts groups, it is clear that the number of qualified arts practitioners - performers and administrators - has decreased. Some have left for greener pastures outside the arts field, and others are reluctant to even enter the profession. It is therefore becoming more difficult to recruit the right person for the stage, as well as for the office.

The one glaring reason is people's general perspective towards the arts profession in this city. Even today, most Hong Kong families, if given a choice, are happier if their children end up in "proper" commercial office jobs. The term "professional" may apply to doctors, lawyers, accountants and architects, but does not really have the same meaning in phrases like "professional dancer" and "professional musician".

For West Kowloon to be sustainable, there must be an abundance of high-quality artists and administrators. Audiences will come if the artists and administrators are good. To attract people into the field, the status of arts practitioners must be elevated. They must be seen by the general public as working in a respected profession - and hopefully they will also have a career path.

The only way for this to happen in Hong Kong is to elevate the practitioners' worth in the job market to a level at least comparable with that of the commercial world. That way, children will not be discouraged from developing their talents, schools will design their curriculums accordingly and society will be less biased towards finance and commerce.

Second, the government is subventing some major performing arts groups because they have proved that they deserve the sponsorship. The government should, therefore, view them as assets that it has invested in, because the fruit they bear will contribute to the artistic vibrancy and creativity of society.

Arts groups have the ability to support and engage arts practitioners - to combine creative souls and administrative brains. As organisations dedicated to the arts, they attract dedicated experts who want to make a living in the arts. As the government invests in such organisations, it should be creating a special relationship with them built on trust and respect.

There are proposals to build 12 to 15 performing-arts venues in the cultural district. Thus, it would be in the interests of the government and the future West Kowloon authority to join with the subvented professional performing-arts groups on the venues' strategic development. This is a logical progression as well as a financially sensible solution. As with venues in other "world cities", the programmes should be overseen by people involved directly in the arts. A venue without an artistic vision is a venue without a soul and, in the long run, it runs the risk of becoming just a place for random rental.

Third, in the announcements about the West Kowloon district, the information about the hardware seems out of proportion with that on the software. There is even detailed information on which building should be iconic! Perhaps this is because the hardware part is easier to understand and measure.

Without the software, however, the iconic structures will be, at best, mere shells. It is, therefore, important to flesh out blueprints for the government's financial commitment on the artistic content, and the actual timetable for implementing plans to improve this content.

Twenty years ago, my family and friends tried to dissuade me from becoming an arts administrator. Today, the basic values in Hong Kong have not changed: the arts are still seen as not worth the effort. Changing such thinking is the biggest challenge facing the arts district.

Margaret Yang is chief executive officer of the Hong Kong Sinfonietta Limited


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=1535d22046e15110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Too tied to one idea
Hong Kong should diversify its cultural centres rather than focus on West Kowloon, writes Paul Zimmerman


Sep 21, 2007           
   

There is no doubt about it: Hong Kong hasn't enough venue space for arts and cultural events. This was pointed out in a study and report in 1997. Ten years on, the shortfall against demand has increased further. No private venues have emerged in response to this demand because of the high-land-price policy, a focus on land revenue and a lack of appropriate zoning.

Will the West Kowloon Cultural District encourage diversified and balanced development? To build the long list of venues planned there, the government has devised a financing scheme based on selling linked property development rights in West Kowloon. In this way, the "all-in-Kowloon" straitjacket thinking continues at the expense of diversity.

Key questions remain unanswered. Where is the performing talent and the management experience for West Kowloon going to come from? The quality of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department's management of venues and museums has been questioned for at least a decade. Privatisation would improve the operations and groom new people. If we started today and invested a little effort - such as making the old Central Police Station site available for Fringe-Club-type activities - then new skills could be developed before West Kowloon opens.

This would add to the mix of land uses in Central, where hotels, bars, offices and apartments would benefit from the synergy. In North Point, retaining the Sunbeam Theatre to support the development of Cantonese opera would revitalise a tradition, and provide activities for local residents and tourists at the growing list of hotels there.

Refurbishing City Hall and expanding its neighbouring facilities - such as the Planning and Infrastructure Exhibition Gallery - would add to the mix of land uses along the Central and Wan Chai waterfront.

The only real arguments for creating a monopolistic cluster in West Kowloon, other than political convenience, are complaints about the lack of alternative activities accessible on foot around the existing venues. To ensure that places like the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts and the Arts Centre are not cut off from restaurants and bars, we need solutions that benefit the city as a whole.

Privatisation is the solution for the venues and museums planned for West Kowloon. The new owners would immediately add harbour-facing bars, restaurants and retail outlets to their properties. They would allow busking and street performances - all at little or no cost to the community

How about making use of the former airport land at Kai Tak? There are proposals for a large, multipurpose sports centre near the Kai Tak station on the future Sha Tin-Central rail link, but its viability is being questioned. So, surely, there would be benefit in combining various mega performance venues in Kai Tak?

Consider a "common wealth" sort of development, accessible and affordable to locals. Is that idea reflected in a large, integrated structure that seeks to maximise its appeal to tourists? Will another large, intensive property development answer the local community's needs in Kowloon?

To build a vibrant district linked to nearby areas, West Kowloon needs smaller-scale developments and open, public spaces at the ground level.

Under the new financing model, income from retail, entertainment and dining business will pay for programming expenses. Does that fulfil the government's policy objective of creating an environment that is conducive to free artistic expression?

With no alternative on the table, the arts and culture community is asking few questions - afraid to cause any further delay in this long-awaited injection of resources.

It's telling that the arts and culture community has so easily accepted the reduction in investment from the original HK$30 billion to HK$19 billion, and its less secure source of programme funding. Has cultural and artistic integrity been traded for expediency?

The confusion over this issue can be seen in the push to give the cultural district's authority a greater say over cultural policy matters than the public and the cultural community.

Hong Kong needs a cultural commission with statutory oversight of all cultural development and arts-education-related matters. And we need more, not fewer, organisations managing arts and cultural venues.

In point of fact, we already have the integrated arts and cultural hub we want: it's called Hong Kong, specifically the core areas around the harbour. This "Hong Kong Cultural District" has grown organically over many years.

Now it needs to be nurtured and cared for by strengthening the infrastructure and software needed by the cultural and creative industries. Hong Kong would benefit greatly from a more diversified and comprehensive plan for our cultural and arts development.

Paul Zimmerman is convenor of Designing Hong Kong Harbour District


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=c162d473ed225110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

pls keep it up.. your effort is appreciated

At the sharp end
Medical errors are widespread, but blaming doctors alone won't make hospitals safer, writes Darren Mann


Sep 24, 2007           



Primum non nocere ("First, do no harm") is a key precept in medicine. In reality, harm is done every day in health care, and on a scale probably unimagined by the lay public. Medical accidents are epidemic, but go largely unnoticed because they affect one patient at a time and witnesses are few; frequently there is no investigation.

Contrast that with the loss of life that occurs in commercial aviation disasters, with their media attention and accident inquiries. In terms of risk defined as the rate of lethal events per person exposure, air travel is in fact many times safer than medical care.

There are three main areas of risk in health care: the disease itself; medical decision-making in diagnosis and treatment; and the carrying out of therapy. Studies consistently show that adverse events causing harm to patients occur in about 10 per cent of hospital admissions.

Health-care accidents exact a huge toll: for example, in the United States, medical error has been implicated in up to 100,000 unnecessary deaths and 1 million excess injuries annually.

The operating theatre is the single most hazardous environment in hospitals: about half of all inpatient mistakes are related to surgery. Complications from diagnostic mistakes, medication errors and therapeutic or investigational procedure mishaps comprise most of the non-operative events. Inexperience, fatigue and work overload are notable contributing factors.

Emergency and intensive-care settings are particularly error-prone; clinicians working in these environments make one to two errors per patient per day.

Medical (indeed human) error is inevitable. Doctors work at the "sharp end" of a complex health-care delivery system, in direct contact with patients. Behind them lies the "blunt end" of the health-care system, the organisational and managerial components. The system's safety obligations are met through a framework of safety barriers, whose effectiveness is largely determined by resource constraints.

Doctors are frequently identified as the cause of medical errors, but to attribute fault entirely to them would be to isolate the person from the system. Mishaps tend to crop up in recurring patterns, with the same set of circumstances provoking similar errors - regardless of the person involved at the point of delivery of care. So medical errors should more properly be considered a problem of systems flaws rather than character flaws.

The traditional response to medical error is to impugn the doctor. This is emotionally satisfying and legally convenient, but in so doing we are actually hindering the process of improving safety for the system as a whole. A doctor who makes a genuine mistake is not necessarily a wholly incompetent professional. When marginalised and stigmatised, he or she arguably becomes the second victim.

A more valid response to error would be directed at uncovering and correcting the latent failures and error pathways in the system of safety barriers. These gaps can best be identified through comprehensive reporting programmes, which rely in large measure on the co-operation of medical staff.

That can only realistically be expected in an environment perceived to be fair and non-punitive.

Increasing social intolerance has recently caused some medical mistakes to be criminalised. In the 1990s, there was a policy shift at Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, resonating with a sense that the courts had historically been overly deferential to doctors. This has resulted in some 40 or so doctors being charged with gross negligence manslaughter in the past 15 years in Britain, with a conviction rate of around 30 per cent.

It is time for society to debate the issues surrounding medical error. Those injured by medical mistakes surely deserve our compassion, and compensation for their loss.

But what is the utility of punishing the doctor? Should an unwitting slip that could befall anyone not be more rigorously distinguished from deliberate acts of harm, brutal lack of skill, intoxication and dishonest conduct?

As for bodily harm resulting from medical error, why should criminal prosecution necessarily be limited to deaths? In some surveys, 45 per cent of doctors admitted to errors causing harm, of which one-third were thought to have contributed to a patient's death.

When every doctor who commits a mistake that results in serious or fatal injury has been put in prison, where will society look to find medical care? Certainly not to the criminal justice system.

And what of the organisational context in which errors occur? Why should hospitals, their managers and supervising government officials be immune from accountability simply because they are one step back from the firing line?

The problem of hospital errors will not go away. Inculcating a safety culture in medicine will require a partnership between the stakeholders - doctors, hospitals, government and society. Establishing an independent, patient-safety foundation would be a good place to start.

We cannot change the human condition, but for safety's sake we can change the conditions in which humans work.

Darren Mann is a clinical associate professor (honorary) at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and examiner in surgery of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=d8a0915dc9235110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

The inflation dragon


LAURENCE BRAHM

Sep 25, 2007  



Next month's Communist Party Congress will consolidate the authority of President Hu Jintao and stack the leadership with his coterie. But will it give him the strength he needs to rule China effectively? Deng Xiaoping ruled with centralised planning to assure his absolutism; former president Jiang Zemin used a macro-control system to steer local governments. Mr Hu should be concerned about whether the central government has unravelled too much - giving local authorities excessive powers - to govern effectively during a potential commodity price crisis.

Mao Zedong once said that "grain is the key link". That might sound anachronistic in the run-up to Beijing's hosting of the 2008 Olympics. But it might also be wise advice to heed. The consumer price index, a key measure of inflation, increased 6.5 per cent last month from August last year - an almost 11-year high. Food prices took the lead, shooting up 18.2 per cent. Grain - once considered the key link to maintaining rural social stability - rose 6.4 per cent. This alarmed central government think-tanks monitoring the national economy.

The logical response of China's production-consumer chain will be to produce increasingly substandard foodstuffs. If this happens, public discontent will spread. Although the media shuns consumer-protection reporting, never underestimate the power of text messaging on the mainland.

In 1992, inflation hit 21 per cent, threatening to unravel reforms that were gained on the back of hypergrowth. In response, vice-premier Zhu Rongji adopted 16 principles of macrocontrol policy to pull inflation down - eventually to 3 per cent. The measures included a range of state-planning and market initiatives, such as a reduction in construction projects.

Such measures would be ineffective today, because the government bodies that were able to implement controls at the local level have been disbanded. Local governments could hardly care less what policies Beijing announces, if they fail to support the local construction industry and bank branches that feed the nation's current corruption frenzy. Regional government officials, who depend on property-related corruption to maintain their debauched lifestyles, might consider such measures laughable.

The central government is already alarmed by the prospect of inflation-driven social unrest under the media glare of an Olympic year. One of Mr Zhu's tools that still exists is cutting the money supply, so we may expect this in coming months.

Many mainlanders judge a person's worth by the amount of money he or she can spend conspicuously on brand-name goods. At the other extreme, rural migrant workers' savings often fail to keep pace with their social expectations. If Beijing cannot control prices in the year ahead, the pinch will make some people scream. In March, rioting occurred in rural Hunan province over a bus fare rise from seven to nine yuan. Riot police clashed with thousands of farmers, leaving one dead.

If macrocontrols do not work this time round, Beijing authorities will certainly bludgeon any such political outbursts into submission - especially before and during the Olympics. However, it is exactly such knee-jerk reactions that attract foreign journalists like flies. There will be 30,000 of them in China next year, many with little interest in sports.

Mao said that "a single spark can start a prairie fire". In much of China's modern history, price rises have sparked major social unrest. Inflation struck a final blow to the Kuomintang regime, breaking its grip in major cities in 1949. It brought pragmatic workers out in mass support for the idealistic students demonstrating in the spring of 1989. In the coming Olympic year, China's newest generation of communist leaders may be well-advised to remember the words of their former sage, and to do something to control prices.

Laurence Brahm is a political economist, author, filmmaker and founder of Shambhala Foundation


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=fe77af0276735110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

Cost of development finally to be counted


LEADER

Sep 27, 2007           
   

There is no better sign of the mainland's realisation that its "development at all costs" attitude has to change than acknowledgement by senior officials that the Three Gorges Dam could cause an environmental catastrophe. Just as the project symbolises the nation's economic and technological development, efforts to repair the damage caused by its construction highlight the need for a more sustainable approach to growth.

No one could doubt that the dam across China's mightiest river, the Yangtze, is an engineering marvel. The hydroelectricity it is producing and the floods and droughts that it prevents arguably justify the US$25 billion cost. But there have been other prices to pay for building the world's biggest dam. More than 1.3 million people have been moved, thousands of years of history and culture submerged and one of the river's most scenic stretches has disappeared.

As a forum in Beijing has been told, there are also a number of worrying environmental threats: erosion and landslides on steep hills around the dam, conflicts over land shortages and "ecological deterioration caused by irrational development". Then, there are the uncertainties of what the damming of the Yangtze could mean long-term for people living along its banks. Such concerns were expressed by environmentalists during the planning and construction of the dam, but shunned by authorities in the name of politics and progress. On the completion of the dam's wall in 1997, then president Jiang Zemin hailed the event as "a remarkable feat in the history of mankind to reshape and exploit natural resources".

Such comments are in stark contrast to those of the director of the administrative office in charge of building the dam, Wang Xiaofeng , who said on Tuesday that China "cannot win passing economic prosperity at the cost of the environment". Communist Party leaders agree: they will consolidate policies giving more attention to the environment at their congress next month.

The meeting will be an opportunity to make a stand on environmental matters. Holding up the Three Gorges Dam as evidence of the danger of putting unfettered growth ahead of all else will help to ensure that a more balanced approach can be developed.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=57d3de5032245110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Sputnik's children


PETER KAMMERER

Sep 28, 2007           
     


A 585mm-wide silver ball weighing 83.6kg seems an innocent enough invention. That it changed the way the world saw itself when the Soviet Union launched it into space, 50 years ago next Thursday, gives us pause for thought given the rise of China. Sputnik, the world's first artificial satellite, started the space race. As soon as the rival United States caught wind of it, an intense battle began to conquer space. But while the instrument ultimately put animals and people into orbit, men on the moon, craft hurtling beyond our solar system, and piqued interest in a manned mission to Mars, it also had a major earthly impact.

As Sputnik soared high, sending bleeps back to scientists and ham radio operators, the planet was swept by the realisation that a new era of discovery and creativity had begun. Science, education and even global politics moved to the fore. Americans were the most deeply affected. Sputnik was a wake-up call that sent the nation scurrying to make up for lost ground. Round one went to the Soviets, as did round two - putting a dog and then a man into orbit. But the US had well and truly caught up by 1969, putting the first men on the moon.

Space travel expanded the bounds of science. Soon there were computers, medical breakthroughs and technological wonders.

But the fact that the Soviets were the first to conquer space also sparked a scramble on Earth for unclaimed portions of territory such as Antarctica and the continental shelves. Sputnik gave us the Antarctic Treaty in 1959 and, from there, a succession of international agreements dictating the use and ownership of the environment from the deepest seas to the highest mountains. There has been no more creative period in global rule-making.

I was born five years after Sputnik, in the year that John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth - 10 months after Soviet Yuri Gagarin entered history as the first person to achieve the feat. These events sparked currents that were felt at the individual level, if indirectly, even by small boys. At primary school in Australia in the late 1960s, my aspirations and those of my peers were for jobs that went far beyond the ordinary: we wanted to be astronauts or scientists. At secondary school, the emphasis was on maths and science subjects. Those who performed poorly at these and excelled in languages and history were made to feel like second-class students. All that seems a long way off, in time and focus. The enthusiasm for treaty-making continued through the 1970s and 1980s, and there are now safeguards and organisations dedicated to most facets of human existence. Yet implementation remains patchy. The US, for one, refuses to join several treaties - on global warming, the International Criminal Court and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, among others - and seems intent on breaking the rules of the World Trade Organisation.

The tussle for natural resources beneath, and shipping routes across, the melting Arctic ice cap shows that not all eventualities have been considered; no international treaty covers the region. That nations such as North Korea, Iran and Israel can get around the rules on nuclear weapons reveals the weaknesses of what is in place.

All that will change in the coming years, though - and China holds the key. When Yang Liwei blasted into orbit on October 15, 2003, making the nation the third to put a person into space, it quite literally lit a rocket under the US - much as Sputnik did on October 4, 1957.

China plans unmanned missions to the moon from 2012, and will start on a manned one in 2017. The US now also wants to return there, and is working towards putting people on Mars. But it is China's emergence as an economic, political and space power that will propel the world towards an era of strengthening the international laws that are in place and creating new ones.

Sputnik was the dawn of the first era of the world reassessing where it was and where it wanted to be. China's space programme is hurtling us towards a new age of innovation and creativity.

Peter Kammerer is the Post's foreign editor


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=534ed0da44745110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

Back to the front
The heroic contribution made by Chinese labourers in the first world war has been largely forgotten, writes Mark O'Neill

BEHIND THE NEWS

Oct 08, 2007           
      


A bronze plaque on the wall of a Paris railway building and a modest monument in a small park are the only reminders of a remarkable but forgotten story of the first world war - 150,000 Chinese volunteers who cleared mines, removed the dead and made munitions, and became the first wave of Chinese to settle in Europe.

"In memory of Chinese workers and fighters who died for France in the Great War", reads the inscription on the park monument, in Chinese and French. It pays tribute to up to 10,000 workers killed by German bombing raids, disease, accidents and mine explosions.

Each year, on Ching Ming festival, the Chinese community in Paris leaves wreathes at the monument and the plaque, and at cemeteries in northern France where the men are buried.

The park is in the centre of the 13th district of Paris, the Chinatown that was born when several thousands of the workers decided to remain in France after the Great War, forming the first Chinese community in Europe. The community today numbers more than 500,000, according to official figures, and may be double that if illegals are included.

The bustling district is home to thousands of Chinese-owned factories, trading companies, shops and restaurants, whose number swelled with the arrival of the thousands of Chinese refugees from Indochina after the communist conquest of Vietnam in 1975. Among the biggest businesses is a giant supermarket owned by the Tang brothers, who arrived from Thailand in the 1970s and whose president, Chen Ke-guang, is an advocate of official recognition of the workers. Mr Chen is the secretary-general of the Association for the Advancement of Chinese in France.

"The history of the workers had been forgotten," said an official of the association. "The community pushed for recognition but nothing happened until 1988. I don't know the reason for the change, from the city or central governments. They put up the plaque [in 1988] and gave awards to two of the workers who were still alive."

Many Chinese residents, especially recent arrivals, are unaware of the history of their wartime compatriots.

Philippe Liang, 83, is a native of Xiamen who later moved to Vietnam and then France, and works in an association for the Chinese from Indochina. "When I arrived in France in the 1940s, there was racism against Chinese but not now, when it is directed against blacks and Arabs. The status of Chinese is rising. Some have very substantial businesses," he said.

While the early arrivals kept a low profile and emphasised their Frenchness, the Chinese of today have a confidence and self-belief that comes from economic success and integration into mainstream society and the growth and prosperity of their homeland.

It was a different reality in 1916, when the British and French governments conceived the idea of recruiting Chinese workers. The death in battle of their men on a scale no-one had ever imagined had left them seriously short of labour.

The two governments conducted discreet negotiations with China, then neutral in the war. Beijing favoured the plan because it believed the workers would learn skills useful for the country's modernisation and would give it a stronger hand at the negotiating table at the end of the war.

Those under British command would join the Chinese Labour Corps (CLC) and be subject to British military rule. Non-combatant, they would build and repair docks, roads, airfields, railways, man ports and railheads, stores and ammunition depots, dig trenches, remove the dead, clear mines and work in factories.

Once agreement was reached, the governments used public notices and missionaries to spread the news of the CLC, offering a five-year contract, a level of pay much higher than at home, and free food, clothing and housing.

They would receive one franc (at that time equivalent to US$19.30) for a 10-hour day, half that of a British private, while their families would receive 10 Mexican dollars (US$5.40) per month.

The first French-bound contingent, of 1,700, arrived in France on August 1916 and the first British-bound contingent, of 1,000, arrived in Plymouth in April 1917, before being sent to France. They were accompanied by missionaries and Chinese-speaking officers.

In total, 100,000 Chinese went to work for the British, 35,000 for the French, and 10,000 for the Americans. The majority were farmers and city workers from Shandong and Hebei provinces. The CLC formed the largest contingent of foreign workers employed by the Allies during the war, outnumbering the Indians, black South Africans, Egyptians and West Indians.

They were sent to camps near the front. One of the largest was in the northern French town of Noyelles-sur-Mer, close to a military base.

The biggest risk came not from carrying the dead and wounded from the front, because both sides observed a truce while this was being done, but German air raids. Others died because of long-range bombardments, accidents involving unstable shells and explosives, and disease.

The French housed their volunteers in camps across the country, putting them to work in munitions, metallurgy and chemical factories and on construction sites. Chinese labour built the ferry ports of Calais and Boulogne and a sea defence wall at Orford Ness in Suffolk, England.

Manico Gull, the British commander of the second group of CLC workers, said in 1918: "Their emigration from the shores of Shandong will take its place certainly as one of the most important aspects of the Great European War."

According to the Allies, 3,000 Chinese died. Chinese figures put the toll at 9,000 to 10,000. They are buried in cemeteries in northern France, the largest in Noyelles with 842 graves, maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Some tombstones have the name, number, date of death and native province of the victim, but others have no name.

With the end of the war in 1918, France still needed thousands of labourers and the Chinese stayed on to work in factories, hospitals and building sites.

Most returned home in 1919 and 1920 but 3,000 from Qingtian, outside Wenzhou , Zhejiang province , stayed behind. They formed the basis of the Chinese community in France.

One who stayed was Ye Qingyuan, a native of Qingtian who volunteered at the end of 1917. "My home village was a poor mountain village, a disaster for heaven and man alike, where you could not make a living," he wrote in his diary. "When Germany surrendered in November 1918, the government gave us a bonus. With my cousin, I opened a restaurant near the Gare de Lyons. The French were very curious and wanted to sample Chinese food. Within six months, we were run off our feet."

By the end of 1920, he had enough money to return home, marry a local girl and return to Paris with three brothers. They opened restaurants and shops that sold groceries and carved stone from Qingtian. In 1985, he retired and returned, finally, to live in his ancestral village.

In the Versailles Peace Treaty after the war, the Allies did not reward Beijing for providing the workers and left it with terms so bad the Chinese delegation refused to sign the document.

Lionel Vairon, a business consultant who travels often to China, said that, after the first world war, the Chinese who stayed on concentrated on becoming French and did not speak of the war. "They wanted to de-emphasise their Chineseness and wanted to integrate. So, the history of the workers is little known."


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=aa821f3385a75110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Climate crossroads


LAURENCE BRAHM

Oct 09, 2007           
     



"One world, one dream," is Beijing's motto for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. But it means different things to different people and, in most cases, what the world dreams about is very different from what Beijing's leaders dream. If the capital's self-congratulating municipal leaders ever awake from their haze of cognac and rich banquets, they will find themselves in one of the most polluted environments in human history. For mainland China's citizens, its cities are miserable places to live. For the rest of the world, they are part of the threat to humanity's very existence.

Next year the mainland will become the world's single-largest polluter and emitter of greenhouse gases. Its recent achievements can be measured in clogged highways, overbuilt infrastructure and an excessive construction boom linked to the Olympics. The mainland's many golf courses reflect the nouveau-riche vulgarity of its values, when clean water is so scarce. Mainland officials should ask themselves: we can give our children money and cars, but can we offer them water to drink?

Those officials would be well advised to visit Bangladesh rather than Las Vegas to understand the future we are rushing towards. Global warming causes continual flooding in that poverty-stricken nation's lowlands. In a recent interview there, economist Muhammad Yunus, winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, analysed the dilemma our world faces. "Global warming is now at a serious stage, and greenhouse gas emissions are" increasing, he said. "Europe is concerned, but the USA does nothing and refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol. All [China's] power is based on dirty fuel, and China's emissions will become worse and worse. Next to follow is India. So, now three nations have joined the club."

Both China and India refuse to cut carbon emissions unless wealthy countries such as the United States take the lead. It's a logical argument, since those three nations must join forces if any realistic programme of emissions cuts is to be achieved. Former US president Bill Clinton recently supported the China-India position, telling the Financial Times: "I think unless we take the lead in the United States, we'll never get the Indians and Chinese to do it."

Dr Yunus offered a deeper explanation. "The real problem is lifestyle," he said. "We can agree about having `non-smoking' areas in public places because one's smoking may destroy another's health. What about wastefulness of lifestyle? How can some nations retain lifestyles that destroy other peoples?"

For example, he said, buying gas-guzzling vehicles is not consistent with the planet's survival. "How can you enjoy life on this planet if your lifestyle destroys this planet?" he said. "It is like partying on a boat while lighting a bonfire on that same boat." And now China is aping America's wasteful lifestyle, he noted.

According to Dr Yunus, there are obvious, pragmatic steps that must be taken. The Kyoto Protocol, he notes, is not binding on nations that fail to ratify it; the world now needs a climate change deal that is mandatory for all nations. "It must be done through the United Nations, and done now," he said. "There is not enough time left before 2012 [when Kyoto expires]. By the year 2050, we must reduce our greenhouse gases by 50 per cent. But the US [has not ratified] the protocol. So we must get it to join."

The US, China and India, three major polluters, must adhere to clear commitments to reduce greenhouse gases - leading the rest of the world to follow suit. The recalcitrant Bush administration will be voted out next year. China and India are in a position to lead, putting economic and diplomatic pressure on Washington. But those nations' leaders must stand up rather than being sycophants, and they must cut greenhouse emissions at home.

Nobody cares about a narcissistic Olympics building spree. If the world has one dream in common, it is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a question of humanity's very survival.

Laurence Brahm is a political economist, author, filmmaker and founder of Shambhala Foundation



[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=4b68ed597ff75110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

Pitfalls on the road to a Korean peace treaty


Donald Kirk
Oct 10, 2007           
     
  |   

  



The North-South Korean summit has opened a new phase in the great debate over the future of the Korean Peninsula by calling for a treaty to replace the armistice that ended the Korean war. But, although no one in South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's entourage dares to say so, talk of a peace treaty, more than 54 years after the guns fell silent, presents complications and pitfalls that are sure to become clear all too soon.

The most obvious problem is that Mr Roh and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il evidently could not agree on how many parties should sit at the table for the talks. Their final joint statement said either three or four parties would attend the negotiations. If it's three, then one of the four major participants in the war will not be there. Might it be China, whose troops were "volunteers" - theoretically not under the command of the communist rulers who had completed their takeover of the mainland on October 1, 1949?

That was less than nine months before North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung ordered the invasion of South Korea. Or how about excluding the United States, which waged what it called a "police action" under the cover of the United Nations Command.

Incredibly, another candidate for exclusion may be South Korea. That's because its president at the time, Rhee Syng-man, refused to authorise a truce that would legitimise the more or less permanent division of the Korean Peninsula.

His refusal to sign the truce gives Pyongyang an excuse to reject Seoul as an equal participant in peace talks. North Korea has often given the impression that the South hardly counts when it comes to negotiating issues like the North's nuclear weapons programme.

The North would like nothing better than to sign a peace treaty with the US and China, relegating the South to subsidiary status. That would befit Pyongyang's view that only one government should rule all Korea: a government led by Mr Kim and his inner circle. The North Korean concept of a peace treaty, moreover, is not just a document saying that the war is long over, and now let's declare permanent peace. No, the reason Pyongyang wants this treaty is to dismantle the entire structure behind which South Korea has risen as a great economic power from the ashes of a war that left the South among the world's poorest countries - poorer even than the North.

With the treaty would come provisions disbanding the UN Command while reducing US military strength to a marginal, advisory role at best. We may assume the treaty would not include provisions for a vast reduction in North Korea's 1.1-million-man military establishment, much less pull most of them away from  positions close to the demilitarised zone.

Actually, no one, certainly no foreign observer, could object to a simple peace treaty between South and North Korea. A foreigner would have to say that the two Koreas had every right to sign a treaty free from foreign interference.

That kind of treaty, however, would be too easy. The North is not interested in a peace treaty with the South. The whole point is to strengthen the North's hand by drawing the US and China into the process of establishing a "peace regime" - under which North Korea stands to receive enormous quantities of aid while giving very little in return.

The US may be falling for North Korea's stratagem. President George W. Bush has held out the possibility of a treaty after the North "verifies" that it has dismantled its nuclear programme.

Those interested in a peace treaty, though, should see it as a gimmick that runs the risk of undoing the prolonged peace under which South Korea thrives while North Korea - for all its weapons of mass destruction - remains mired by its own policies of massive self-destruction.

Donald Kirk is the author of two books and numerous articles on Korea for newspapers, magazines and journals


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=c41a9185d1585110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

China - the lesser of two evils for Africa?


OBSERVER
Alex Lo
Oct 11, 2007           
     
  |   

That the west, especially the United States, thinks it is in any position to criticise China's expanding investment and diplomacy in Africa - on moral and human rights grounds, of all things - is truly mind-boggling. It is beyond hypocrisy.

China's activities are, in many ways, problematic. But the west, through its history of state-sponsored terrorism, failed economic policies and aid programmes, and sheer arrogance, has forfeited any right or moral grounds on which it can lecture  others.

During the 1950s and 1960s - when one African state after another gained independence - the US could have opened Africa to much brighter prospects than the dreadful state much of the continent has been mired in for the past half century.

US president Lyndon Johnson briefly considered a kind of Marshall Plan for Africa in the 1960s. However, the CIA and the National Security Council recommended not taking it up. To what extent this was due to racism can be determined only by historians. Instead, many newly independent African states ended up on the receiving end of the "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" US foreign policy during the cold war - and that is the case even today.

It was not the Marshall Plan that became the foreign policy model. Rather, it was the CIA-assisted coup and assassination of newly independent Congo's first elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba - in a conspiracy with the Belgium government.

Lumumba's murder was followed by the violent overthrow of Ghana's president Kwame Nkrumah, which again implicated the CIA. But even benign western and US economic and food aid did not help recipient African states much.

A study last year on China's links with Africa by Barry Sautman of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology provides some instructive figures. Of US$530 billion in aid and loans granted to Africa between 1970 and 2002, the recipients had repaid US$540 billion, with interest. The debts of only 14 African states were cancelled while the continent's debts stood at US$300 billion last year. "Much [aid] is subject to conditions benefiting the donor economically and politically [including its security interests]," Dr Sautman wrote.

Most of the grants and contracts have to be used to buy goods and services from companies and non-governmental organisations from the donor country - even though they could be bought more cheaply elsewhere in the global market. Meanwhile, while under western tutelage and aid, Africa's share of world trade declined from 5 per cent in the 1970s to 1.5 per cent in 2005. In the 1980s, the continent received 30 per cent of the world's foreign investments, but this dropped to 7 per cent in 2003, according to figures cited by Dr Sautman.

China has been accused of being interested only in African oil and minerals. But currently, 75 per cent of US investment is in oil, while 64 per cent of China's was in manufacturing and 28 per cent in resources, up to 2000. However, the percentage of investment in resources has probably shot up during the current commodities boom.

As for China spreading corruption and propping up corrupt regimes, consider this: in 2005, China sold weapons to, or had military missions in, seven African countries; the US gave military aid and had arms sales with 47 of Africa's 53 states. Again, I cite Dr Sautman.

Last month, Beijing pledged US$5 billion to the Democratic Republic of Congo to build 3,200km of railways and the same length of roads, 31 hospitals, 145 health centres, two universities and 5,000 housing units, all in 36 months. As Howard French of The New York Times observes, if delivered, this will be more than the west has done for the country in its 47 years of independence.

So, which is worse, the ugly American or the ugly Chinaman? Africans may have to make that choice this century.

Alex Lo is a senior writer at the Post


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=bba615e475a85110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

When communists warm to democracy


OBSERVER
Lau Nai-keung
Oct 12, 2007           
     
  |   

In the past few years, mainland Chinese leaders have begun to talk about democratic development. Most mainlanders do not think of democracy as their inalienable right but, rather, a means to good governance. Nor do they feel that democracy should be developed at the expense of social stability. This is perhaps why the pace of democratic development is so slow on the mainland, where quality is valued over speed.

In October last year, Beijing issued its first white paper on the development of democratic politics. Its contents show that Beijing takes a holistic view of democracy, going well beyond universal suffrage alone.

Democracy is the No1 element in President Hu Jintao's concept of a harmonious society. It starts with democracy in the ruling Chinese Communist Party - and the showcase for that will be the upcoming 17th Party Congress. In a speech on June 25, Mr Hu said for the first time that democracy within the party was one of the top four priorities for party reform.

Friends who attended regional party congresses this year told me the atmosphere there was a lot more democratic than before: all participants felt they could speak their minds freely. To ensure more effective internal supervision, the heads of provincial disciplinary committees have begun to be appointed from the central party. We expect more concrete structural reforms to emerge from the upcoming congress.

One suggestion is to set up a standing committee to supervise the party's general secretary and Politburo, which have unchecked powers. Perhaps they will both be elected through competitive elections rather than a vote of confidence - a democratic practice unthinkable in the past.

The mainstream thinking is that the emphasis should be on promoting democracy within the Communist Party. At the same time, reforms in the National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference should move those two institutions towards becoming more like parliaments. Direct elections will be popularised through the use of grass-roots polls up to the township level. They will form the foundation for more democratic,  indirect elections.

As part of this momentum for reform, three non-party members have been appointed ministers in the government over the past two months, a move unseen since the early 1950s.

This is an indication that the Communist Party is willing to share more power with other political parties and non-affiliated individuals. To that end, the ruling party will exercise political leadership over the executive, the legislature and the judiciary rather than the current model of direct micro-management.

There is constant criticism of the party for centralising too much power in its own hands, without enough checks and balances. In the Chinese tradition of elitism and meritocracy, the ruling party is supposed to take good care of the people without their having to worry or participate.

On the whole, the party is still sceptical of involving the media and non-governmental organisations in political participation, viewing them as troublemakers rather than important adjuncts of good governance. Nevertheless, the media is courageously doing its part in exposing scandals.

In an increasingly pluralistic society, there are many problems that, for various reasons, go unnoticed by the government - or are covered up by the officials involved. In other cases, official priorities may be different from those of the people, and certain minority needs may not be adequately addressed. The government is not omnipotent, nor is any ruling party.

A vibrant media and active NGOs are part and parcel of a good modern democratic system and good governance. Without their participation, a harmonious society is far, far away.

Lau Nai-keung is a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=57b033c7b7f85110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

Call of the clerics
Jailed insurgents are being freed after undergoing religious counselling to end their radicalism, writes Simon Montlake

BEHIND THE NEWS

Oct 15, 2007           
     
  |   

  



When Singapore began busting local cells of regional terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah in 2001, it had a useful counter-terrorism tool at its disposal: the Internal Security Act. A legacy of British colonial rule in former Malaya, the ISA allows for indefinite detention without trial.

More arrests followed as details emerged of plots to hit Singaporean and western targets in the city state, including cutting off the crucial water supply from neighbouring Malaysia. In all, about 70 Singaporean members of JI were detained under the ISA. But there was no appetite to put anyone on trial for what amounted to detention aimed at stopping attacks on Singaporean soil and preventing Muslim extremists from regrouping in other countries.

In recent years, Singapore has begun releasing terrorist detainees who are no longer deemed a security threat. Over one-third of JI suspects have been freed from jail or released from house detention. At the same time, authorities continue to closely watch the Muslim community and arrest suspects linked to foreign terrorist organisations.

Behind the release of the suspects is a religious counselling programme that uses Muslim clerics to rebut extremist views and instil moderate Islamic teachings. The theological programme, staffed on a volunteer basis by Singaporean Muslims, is part of a broader effort to rehabilitate JI members and enable their release. Clerics also reach out to families of detainees and the wider Muslim community to counter extremist propaganda.

Proponents say the success of Singapore's approach offers lessons to allies in the US-led war against Muslim extremism and an alternative to indefinite detention without trial of extremists in Guantanamo Bay and other prisons. In recent years, other countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia have also promoted religious rehabilitation in jails bulging with terror suspects, with varying results.

Faced with swelling detention centres after a surge in troop deployments to trouble spots, US military commanders in Iraq have begun to take note. With an estimated 25,000 Iraqis in US custody, the US has in recent months introduced religious education programmes that are modelled, in part, on Singapore's scheme, and on a much larger programme in Saudi Arabia.

Marine Major-General Douglas Stone, who oversees US detention facilities in Iraq, told bloggers last month that religious courses at Camp Cropper had helped to "bring some of the edge off" detainees who often had only a limited grasp of Islamic jurisprudence. General Stone, who spoke Arabic, said "a few hundred" insurgents had been through the programme.

His goal was to release prisoners who were judged unlikely to return to insurgency activities, General Stone said. He said his approach was persuasive because "it's how you win this war, not only the one in Iraq, but the one on a greater basis", according to a transcript of the interview provided by the Pentagon.

Rohan Gunaratna, a terrorism expert at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University and a consultant on the Singaporean programme, said an effective counter-terrorism strategy must combat religious indoctrination in society and, crucially, in jails. He said a "war of ideas" could be won by releasing suspects into the Muslim community armed with Islamic teachings that debunked the do-or-die rhetoric of al-Qaeda and its offshoots.

"Deprogramming is not 100 per cent successful ... some will go back [to militancy]. But it's the only intelligent thing to do," said Professor Gunaratna, author of Inside al-Qaeda. "We've planted a seed ... Iraq was the beginning. I believe America can take this idea to Guantanamo, Afghanistan and other areas."

Not everyone is convinced by this approach. Analysts said Yemen shelved a similar cleric-run programme in 2005 after former prisoners returned to extremism, usually by joining insurgent cells in Iraq. Of 400 militants freed after counselling, about half have since been put back behind bars. In contrast, only one Singaporean has been rearrested for allegedly contacting foreign militants.

Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Ho Peng Kee told parliament earlier this year that the programme had worked well on some detainees, but not all, as it took time to turn around those who were deeply indoctrinated. "We will continue to try to rehabilitate the others. But it is worth highlighting that a number are adamantly holding on to their radical and violent beliefs," he said.

Mohammed bin Ali, one of the clerics working in the group secretariat, said that Singapore's Religious Rehabilitation Group had 21 volunteer clerics who led weekly one-on-one counselling sessions with detainees to "correct their misinterpretations" of Islam . In the four-year-old scheme, counsellors systematically expose the distortions of JI doctrine, emphasising Muslims can live devoutly in multi-faith Singapore, where they make up about 15 per cent of its 4.2 million people. The government-funded group also hosts public forums and runs a website (rrg.sg).

"We believe in rehabilitation. No one is born a terrorist. No one wakes up one morning and says I'm going to be a terrorist. It's indoctrination ... and we're trying to bring them back to normalcy," said Mr Mohammed, who had briefed US military officials in Iraq on Singapore's programme.

Counselling continues after suspects are released, while a parallel programme focuses on coaching the wives of detainees and ensuring they get financial support from the government. Mr Mohammed said moderate Muslims had a duty to counter extremist views in the community. "The terrorist network [in Singapore] is crippled, but unless the ideology of extremism is countered, the threat will persist," he said.

Malaysia and Indonesia have also sought to rehabilitate JI detainees using moderate Muslim teachings. In Indonesia, where JI bombed two Bali nightclubs in 2002, Nasir bin Abas, a disillusioned ex-JI cell leader, helped authorities to convince former colleagues to abandon their violent struggle for an Islamic state. In 2005 he published a book that exposed the group and its methods.

Other Indonesian militants have helped police behind the scenes in return for reduced jail terms and other privileges. In Singapore, a handful of detainees have played a similar role. But while Malaysia and Singapore have used colonial-era ISAs to detain terror suspects indefinitely, Indonesia has opted for public trials. Three of the Bali bombers are on death row, and more than 30 others were jailed.

Malaysia's prisoner release programme seemed to depend as much on coercion - the threat of harsher punishment for re-offenders - as theological re-education, said Zachary Abuza, a professor at Simmons College in Boston and an expert on JI.

"In Indonesia, unless you have a death or life sentence, there is light at the end of the tunnel without recanting. People enter into rehab programmes there because they want to," said Dr Abuza.

In Saudi Arabia, authorities have created a religious counselling programme for about 2,000 prisoners accused of belonging to al-Qaeda. Some 700 had been released since 2004, of which 10 were later rearrested, said Christopher Boucek, a post-doctoral researcher at Princeton University, who is tracking the Saudi scheme.

Saudi Arabia uses family support networks to bring poorly educated al-Qaeda recruits into the programme and show how they have been tricked by corrupted Islamic teachings. Detainees who have participated in violent attacks are not eligible. As in Singapore, authorities have found that hundreds of other hardened militants refuse to join.

Despite the programme's success in forcing militants to recant, some Saudi government officials said public executions would send a tougher message to wrongdoers, said Dr Boucek. The counter argument, though, is that releasing detainees is a more effective rebuttal of militant propaganda. "The state is fighting a war of ideas ... as part of this process, what they're doing with these guys is showing that if you co-operate with the state, bad things don't happen," he said.

Applying the lessons of Singapore and Saudi Arabia to counter-insurgency in Iraq could be a stretch, according to terrorist experts with experience there.

Unlike in prisons where terrorist suspects are held separately, US military officials have warehoused thousands of insurgents in giant holding pens that extremists reportedly use as recruiting centres. Edward O'Connell, a senior analyst at Rand Corp who is studying Iraqi detainee motivations for the Pentagon, said the US now faced the uphill task of trying to weed out religious and sectarian insurgents from hired gunmen and criminals.

He warned that religious education in camps could backfire, and General Stone's belief in theological debate to rebut extremism, while laudable, was untested in the maelstrom of a violent insurgency. "You've got to be careful with re-education and rehabilitation," said Mr O'Connell. "You don't want to enhance the union of religion and criminality and nationalism in a troubled state."


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=b21d82db56e95110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

Harmony or chaos?


LAURENCE BRAHM

Oct 16, 2007           
     
  |   

  



The 17th Party Congress will espouse lots of "Chinese characteristics", which can be interpreted as alternative paths to economic and political development. Most mainlanders smirk at the term, as its popular misinterpretation is an open wink at corruption, cronyism and local rule by economic warlords.

We can expect to hear this congress regurgitate Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Deng Theory and the Theory of the Three Represents. These will be cited as foundations for President Hu Jintao's new theory of a "harmonious society" - or as proof that capitalism was right all along. (Marx, Lenin, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping must have said this somewhere, so it's acceptable to repeat it as long as you cite their names.) "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", then, means hard-core capitalism in a one-party state.

That may disappoint many lesser-developed countries looking at China's development as a potential economic model. Or a social and political model. They shouldn't count on it, or on Beijing's leadership for poor nations: the current administration will do nothing for poor countries unless they receive a quid pro quo in energy supplies or market opening. This is blatant capitalism with Chinese socialist characteristics.

Mr Hu's own political ideology - the "harmonious society" - merges four pillars of thought: a "democratic legal system"; a "fair struggle for righteousness"; a "sincere and honest love for each other"; and "stability and order". These are called the "basic starting points of Chinese society".

But are they? These wonderful ideals cannot be found anywhere in China today, so how can they be starting points? Mainland society is arguably the most unharmonious of any nation in the world today not being torn apart by war. "Harmonious society is a policy for the people and the rich," the Central Party School recently explained. That raised the question of whether the concept is intended to fill an ideological or spiritual void among people, or is just another stimulus to encourage mainlanders to get rich.

In June, Mr Hu gave a speech at the Central Party School in which he elevated the notion of "social construction" onto the same plane as economic, political and cultural "constructions". By way of explanation, a Central Party School scholar said this established a "bottom line for China's people's social development" - in short, every individual has ample space for their own free development.

But don't think they are talking about individual freedoms along the lines of America's founding fathers. They mean everyone is free to use whatever means he or she likes to make money and get the material things they want. The Pandora's box of Dickensian capitalism has been opened.

Such statements are dangerous for a nation that has witnessed the reappearance of slavery in rural areas of Shanxi and Henan provinces. In such places, making money any way you can - and at any cost to other people - has become mainstream thinking. Does this mean economic anarchy?

When Deng announced Beijing's adoption of a market economy in 1992, many did not understand what that meant. They stretched its definition, taking the new market model to mean carte blanche to engage in smuggling and counterfeiting. Illegal stock markets opened all over the country, and property projects were developed without approval. That led to chaos and the 24 per cent inflation that had to be reigned in by then vice-premier Zhu Rongji .

Is there a danger, following these latest pronouncements, that capitalism will once again be taken to extremes?

In the run-up to the 17th Party Congress, the mainland media quoted an editorial in Britain's Guardian newspaper which said that during the 19th century, Britain taught the world manufacturing; during the 20th century, America taught the world consumption; and, for China to find its rightful place as leader of the 21st century, it should teach the world sustainable development. But can it? Mr Hu may be asking the same question.

Laurence Brahm is a political economist, author, filmmaker and founder of Shambhala Foundation

[email]laurence@shambhala-ngo.org[/email]


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=30ace56e9f3a5110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Columns&s=Opinion[/url]

the more you read, the less grammatical error you make.

The battle for truth
A former Okinawa governor is fighting to ensure wartime atrocities are not erased from textbooks, writes Julian Ryall

BEHIND THE NEWS
Julian Ryall
Oct 17, 2007           
     
  |   

  



Wearing only rags, and bandaged or hobbling, the old men, women and terrified children left the sanctuary of the cave in the limestone cliffs at the very southern tip of Okinawa. Standing out to sea were the warships of the US Navy, from where came calls relayed over loudspeakers for the survivors to surrender. Blinking in the bright sunshine of May 1945, the villagers began to cautiously make their way towards the American soldiers' lines.

Masahide Ota would often see the little groups start out on their journey into the no-man's land that divided the US Marines from what remained of the Imperial Japanese Army's forces in the Mabuni district of the disputed island. Most of the time, they were shot before they had gone more than a couple of hundred metres. They were not killed by the Americans, to whom they posed little threat, but shot in the back by their own soldiers.

"I saw it happen every day," said Mr Ota. "The local people wanted to surrender but the Japanese soldiers would not allow them to go and they killed them when they tried to escape. And they didn't just kill the civilians; there was no food and the only well had been contaminated by the bodies of the dead, so soldiers were killing each other for food or the contents of their water bottles," he said. "I saw Japanese soldiers throwing grenades at each other so they could drink.

"I had been conscripted into the army myself at that time, but I never thought I would see the day when friendly soldiers would be killing each other. The terrible things I witnessed every day changed my ideas completely."

What Mr Ota, now 82, witnessed in the final days of the conventional fighting on the island changed his life. He went on to study in Tokyo and live in the US before winning election as the governor of Okinawa in 1990, a post he held until 1998. He then became a member of the Social Democratic Party in the Upper House of the Japanese Diet for six years up until July.

Throughout his private and public life, Mr Ota has dedicated himself to ensuring that what happened on Okinawa is never forgotten. Such a stance has made him highly critical of right-wing historians' reinterpretations of events in Okinawa in 1945, and he vehemently opposes plans announced by the Japanese government to rewrite history textbooks that are to be issued to students at the start of the new school year next April.

In March, then prime minister Shinzo Abe ordered that school-book references to the involvement of the Imperial Japanese Army in the suicides of Okinawan civilians be deleted.

Nationalist historians claim that suicide pacts were voluntary and not the result of orders. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology responded by decreeing that as there was disagreement among historians as to what happened in Okinawa, it would be unfair to state that the civilians had killed themselves as a direct order from the military. In response, a draft textbook prepared by publishing house Shimizu Shoin altered a passage that read some people "were forced by Japanese troops to commit group suicide" to "there were people who were driven into group suicides". Other publishers similarly watered down Japan's official view of history.

The new government of Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda has made some conciliatory moves, with new Education Minister Kisaburo Tokai telling reporters: "The ministry will deal with any applications for further revisions in a serious manner. A panel will be convened to make a fair judgment on the issue if necessary."

Mr Ota remains incensed at official efforts to beautify history. Public outrage led an estimated 115,000 Okinawans to protest on September 29 in the city of Ginowan, marking the largest public protest since the prefecture reverted to Japanese control in 1972.

"It is truly a terrible thing to try to rewrite historical truth," said Mr Ota. "The people of Okinawa will absolutely not allow this to happen. Tens of thousands turned out to demonstrate against the plans and, in a very rare case of all the municipal assemblies joining together, 41 local authorities also protested."

According to Mr Ota, who founded the Ota Peace Research Institute in Okinawa's largest city, Naha, the government is increasingly falling under the thrall of the right, and aims to win sufficient political support to rewrite a constitution drawn up after the war that renounces the use of military force.

"The main reason that they want to change the constitution is because they would like to drop the `Self-Defence Forces' title and simply have a real and regular military," said Mr Ota. "They want Japan to be recognised as having military units that can go and fight wherever the government wants."

But with the actions and excesses of the Imperial Japanese Forces in the 1930s and 40s still remembered by some and documented in textbooks, the right is having trouble winning over the majority of the public.

Mr Ota said their approach was three-pronged. Firstly, the nationalists are rewriting the events known as the Nanking Massacre, claiming that maybe a few hundred citizens of the city died in disturbances, a far cry from the 300,000 deaths China blames on the Japanese army. Their second target is the women who were forced into sexual slavery as "comfort women" for Japanese troops during the years of expansion throughout Asia and the Pacific, with the right claiming they were mere prostitutes who volunteered to serve in frontline brothels and were paid for their labours. The third target is reversing the myth perpetrated by Okinawans that the military murdered civilians and forced others to commit suicide.

After his wartime experiences, Mr Ota knows that he is fortunate to still be alive. As the Allied invasion approached, the Japanese military headquartered beneath Naha's Shuri Castle conscripted all the students from the city's 12 boys' schools and 10 girls' schools. The boys were given a gun, 20 rounds of ammunition and two grenades, with the instruction that one grenade was to be thrown at the Americans; the other one was for themselves. The girls were given rudimentary first aid training and served as nurses.

Of the 460 students from Mr Ota's school, 305 were killed; of the 120 pupils in his grade, just 37 survived.

Known as Tetsu no ame (the "rain of steel"), the US forces landed on the main island on April 1, 1945, in the largest Pacific theatre amphibious assault of the war. The Japanese defence was tenacious and made the most of the terrain and extensive fortifications. Nearly 80 Allied warships were destroyed or had to be scrapped due to enemy action - a good number of them victims of kamikaze attacks. The Allies lost 12,513 lives; the Japanese military lost an estimated 66,000. Well over double that number of civilians also died.

"In the very last days of the fighting, I was told to infiltrate behind the enemy's lines and to persuade local people to rise up against the US," Mr Ota said. Indoctrinated not to surrender, he managed to evade the Americans and made his way with other stragglers to the rugged northern jungles of Okinawa. In small bands, they lived rough and scrounged from the Americans' dumps to survive.

On one occasion, he was among a group that chose to run instead of surrendering and was chased into the sea. After losing consciousness, he was washed ashore and found himself surrounded by the corpses of his colleagues.

Teaming up with another soldier one day, they came across a US magazine that proclaimed the war was over, yet it was not until a former officer in the Okinawa General Headquarters made his way to their hideout with a manuscript signed by the emperor that they decided to surrender.

"When I read that the war was over, I was not disappointed that Japan had lost," said Mr Ota. "I was more sad that I was so ignorant I could not read the magazine because English was the language of the enemy."

It was at this point that he decided to educate himself to help the people of his native island. Okinawa was once the independent Ryukyu kingdom and still has many cultural differences with the country that effectively annexed it in the early 1600s. The Japanese military regarded islanders with suspicion and hostility, while local people hated being ordered to revere the emperor and to sacrifice themselves for the homeland.

In the years since the end of the conflict, research has indicated that between 800 and 1,000 Okinawan civilians were killed by the Japanese military during the campaign, although the chaos that enveloped the islands in the summer of 1945 makes it almost impossible to prove the vast majority of the cases. In cases that have gone to court demanding recognition of the atrocities that were committed, most have failed to provide the identities of those killed, the identities of the killers and witnesses. This same problem has given more ammunition to nationalists, who say there is no proof that the Japanese military was to blame for forced suicides or murders.

"Those who are trying to change the descriptions in textbooks that are to educate the next generation of Japanese say the local people misunderstood what was happening and that the Japanese military was there to protect their lives," said Mr Ota. "But that's not true."


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=1beb1f7b029a5110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]

The talent crunch
Companies across Southeast Asia could be feeling the impact of a skills shortage for decades, writes Rosheen Rodwell

BEHIND THE NEWS

Oct 18, 2007           
     
  |   

  



Serena Ma Hong-yee is a Hong Kong headhunter's dream come true. She is confident, well-presented, speaks English, Cantonese and some Putonghua, and is a graduate in international relations with a few years of work experience.

These qualifications sound common for a Hong Kong resident, but the high demand for her skills suggests otherwise. Ms Ma started looking for a job in August and, before the end of the month, she had four firm offers on the table, two of them significantly better than she had expected.

The scenario is becoming common as companies scramble to employ the few good candidates that briefly enter the employment market amid the accelerating economy. New figures out this week show that Hong Kong's jobless rate last month improved slightly to 4.1 per cent, the lowest level in almost a decade. The figure is down from 4.2 per cent in August. As skilled workers become harder to find, employers are now warning that the skills shortage will have an impact on corporate profits.

"Historically, it is as bad as it has ever been," said Gina McLellan, Hong Kong manager of recruitment company Hudson. "It is dire. Some companies will not be able to deliver on their growth targets. They have got the facilities, they've got the materials and they've got the manufacturing capabilities - they just don't have anyone to do the jobs."

A recent survey of 250 firms by financial and business advisory firm Grant Thornton found that nearly half wanted to increase their workforce next year and a third were worried that a lack of available staff would constrain their growth. "Clients from different industries have been complaining," said Daniel Lin Ching-yee, an accountant and spokesman for Grant Thornton.

The problem is most acute in the engineering sector, as huge property developments in southern China have drawn experienced engineers away from Hong Kong. The service industry has also been badly hit, with Macau's casino and hotel boom enticing good staff from the Hong Kong hotel industry.

"All you have to do is go out to a hotel and have a cup of tea to notice that the service is really bad compared to what we are used to," said Mr Lin.

Other professional fields are low on talent. Susanna Chiu Lai-kuen, of the Hong Kong Institute for Certified Public Accountants, said firms in Hong Kong were "chewing up accountants". She said part of the problem was caused by demand from multinationals on the mainland.

Even investment banks are feeling the pinch. Global investment bank UBS recently opened a wealth management training office in Singapore in response to the lack of talent in the region. The office will provide training for existing and would-be wealth managers in the Asia-Pacific region.

The talent shortage in Hong Kong is reflected throughout the region. An Economist Intelligence Unit survey this year of 600 chief executives in Asia found that the shortage of staff ranked as their biggest concern.

"Everyone [in the rest of the world] just thinks Asia is going to continue to boom," said Ms McLellan. "If you talk to most companies and you ask them, 'What does your US head office think you are going to generate next year?' they will say, 'We've got 50 per cent growth targets', or `We've got 110 per cent growth targets'. We tell them it is not achievable, but no one [outside Asia] understands that."

Mr Lin warns that many companies in Hong Kong have yet to understand the long-term implications of the skilled staff shortage. "They really have to face the issue," he said. "Most Hong Kong companies are SMEs [small to medium sized enterprises] and they tend not to have any plans; they just deal with issues in firefighting mode and so this has been hitting them quite hard. They think that this is just a cyclical problem and it will go away, but it is going to be affecting businesses for decades."

There are several reasons for the skills shortage. Mr Lin cites the declining birth rate in Hong Kong as a contributor, as well as the shortage of management-level candidates on the mainland which is drawing managers from Hong Kong.

Ms McLellan said another theory was that the ageing baby boomer generation was sapping the workforce as children opted to look after their parents.

Some firms have commented on the reluctance of the "spoilt" younger generation to do jobs considered to be unglamorous. The director of careers at Hong Kong University, Herman Chan Ping-kong, said students favoured sectors such as finance over engineering.

But by far the biggest reason for the shortage is the extraordinary growth of the economy. Companies appear to be flocking to Hong Kong to take advantage of the buoyant local economy and gain a regional foothold near the booming Asian economies of the mainland and India. As Hong Kong becomes a regional base for these companies, some firms are increasing their headcount here, as well as taking people out of Hong Kong to work in other offices in Asia.

Complicating the issue is the strong demand for staff who can smooth the business process for western companies operating in East Asia; those with an understanding of Chinese and western cultures and languages. Employment agencies also say employees need to be able to think outside the box, and some firms complain that the local education system does not encourage this kind of creative thinking.

This is why people such as Ms Ma, who appears to have a common skill set, is the ideal candidate for many firms. She speaks Cantonese with her family and understands the Chinese culture, but she grew up in Canada and is familiar with the culture of westerners.

To attract this calibre of staff, firms have been raising salaries significantly. In the banking sector, candidates changing jobs this year have been receiving salary increases of up to 20 per cent, according to Guy Day, head of the recruitment company Ambition. As a result, some people are leaving their jobs to chase higher salaries. Recruitment specialists say turnover in some sectors has gone through the roof, and in some cases candidates keep their options open even after they have committed to a new job.

"They will keep interviewing if they think there might be more money in it," said Ms McLellan.

Companies are unhappy about employing people who demonstrate a tendency to "job hop", but their options are limited.

Some firms are employing people who a few years ago would not have got past the first interview, and they are promoting staff to management before they have the proper experience.

One option that firms have in a fished-out talent pool is to widen the net, and Hong Kong firms are being encouraged to embrace diversity policies that have long been established in firms in western countries due to concerns over fairness and possible litigation risks. Ms McLellan said banks, in particular, with large staff levels, now recognised the need to consider staff from more diverse racial backgrounds and with disabilities.

The other option available to companies struggling to employ the right people is to strive for the all-important "employer of choice" label, to create a company that everyone wants to work for and no one wants to leave.

Mr Day said that, apart from salary rises, strategies becoming more popular were share options, bonuses, training and career development, and opportunities to work abroad. Other initiatives include so-called "soft" issues, such as a better work/life balance.

Sometimes, simply changing a person's title can convince them to stay. A "supervisor" who becomes an "assistant manager" may not have more responsibility, but will feel more inclined to show off his business card and less inclined to leave.

Mr Day said that, in the final analysis, most staff made a decision to change jobs based on salary. They only see about five to 10 of their candidates retained or "bought back" by their original company.


[url]http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=afcb3dc625ea5110VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Insight&s=Opinion[/url]