Deadly dilemma


KITTY POON

Mar 24, 2008           
     
  |   

  



The murder of four female prostitutes in Hong Kong recently has brought the safety of sex workers into the spotlight. It has also exposed the community to the controversy surrounding the issue of legalising the sex industry.

Although some advocates believe that sex workers would be better protected if the industry was given legal status, the rights of sex workers must be weighed carefully against prevailing social norms and legal order in the city.

How to maintain a delicate balance between these two sets of values presents a huge test for the community as a whole.

The killings illustrate the downside of one-woman brothels, a prevailing form of prostitution within Hong Kong's legal limits. Due to their relative isolation and invisibility, sex workers in these brothels can - and do - fall prey to violence, robbery and even murder.

Yet, to legalise the sex industry, as it is practised in other countries, still needs to be thoroughly debated. The viability of this model has to be considered within context: Hong Kong is facing an influx of migrant sex workers - most of them from the mainland, on tourist visas.

It has been estimated that more than 10,000 mainland women have been arrested, prosecuted and sentenced in Hong Kong from 2001 to 2006; many of them were involved in criminal and/or immigration offences related to sex work. And it is reckoned that Hong Kong's female prison population has expanded beyond the capacity of the government facilities.

Moreover, these figures do not take into account those who are able to evade detection, or those who arrived in the city legally, with work permits, and who are employed as hostesses in restaurants or entertainers in karaoke bars.

The massive shift in prostitution trends since the 1990s illustrates the impact of the influx of migrant sex workers. The price of going to a prostitute has dipped, from more than HK$400, to an average of HK$200, in one-woman brothels.

Yet, owing to their short stays in Hong Kong and the high cost of a visa - estimated at between 10,000 yuan and 20,000 yuan (HK$11,000-HK$22,000) for a three-month visa - migrant sex workers are willing to work from morning until night while tolerating exploitation and abuse. This results in cutthroat competition and an increased propensity for risk-taking for both local and migrant sex workers.

Thus, legalising the sex industry may not be a viable solution. Legalisation implies that local sex workers would have to pay licensing fees, taxes and for medical examinations.

This added burden for local prostitutes would further increase the lure of underground sex workers. Meanwhile, it could send the wrong signal to owners of restaurants and karaoke bars involved in human trafficking. As their profitability increases, so would the burden on the law-enforcement agencies.

In fact, the increasingly blurred border between Hong Kong and the mainland already makes the preservation of law and order within the special administrative region extremely challenging.

The huge income disparity between Hong Kong residents and those from poor mainland provinces means that more women will take risks for financial gain while they stay here.

Moreover, legalisation may cause jitters among ordinary citizens who are not yet ready to see the sex industry move beyond a very limited scope.

Though tragic, the recent killings have at least raised public awareness of the poor conditions endured by sex workers. The incidents have also prompted sex workers to adopt self-defence measures.

While the public, activists and the government all need to share responsibility to effectively protect sex workers as a marginalised group, the huge leap to a legalised industry can only come after careful deliberation.

Kitty Poon, an assistant professor at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, is author of The Political Future of Hong Kong


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

A clean slate


FRANK CHING

Mar 26, 2008           
     
  |   

  



The landslide victory of Ma Ying-jeou ushers in a new era of hope for Taiwan - hope that the island can develop its economy rather than be bogged down in endless ethnic conflicts, hope for improved relations with the United States but, most of all, hope that cross-strait relations may finally improve after eight years of tension and suspicion.

Beijing should be hugely reassured by the outcome of the election, which shows that Taiwan's people have no desire for confrontation. The defeat of Frank Hsieh Chang-ting, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's candidate, shows there is nothing to fear from most people on the island identifying themselves as Taiwanese. Mr Hsieh was defeated despite this ethnic identity.

The Taiwan electorate wants change from the politicisation of the past eight years, and from former president Chen Shui-bian's constant harping on about national identity, ethnic differences and historical issues. But these could resurface if the Kuomintang fails to show that it, unlike the DPP, can govern efficiently and effectively.

At the same time, Mr Ma will have to show the 23 million people of Taiwan that he is not going to sell them down the river while improving relations with the mainland, both economically and politically. Mr Ma insists that he will not negotiate the future of Taiwan but, rather, wants to end the cross-strait hostility.

The US can help by signalling that it recognises the importance of the sea change that has taken place in Taiwan. It can bolster the new leader's standing by inviting him to visit Washington before his inauguration, knowing that, as serving president, it will not be possible for him to visit. Such an invitation should not be offensive to Beijing; rather, it should send a signal that the US has high hopes for the Ma administration and that, under the new dispensation, the envelope will no longer be pushed in support of de jure independence.

But it is Beijing, by far, that can ensure the success or failure of the new Ma administration. It should realise that the time is not ripe for any talk of unification. Instead, this is a time for restoring trust on both sides.

If Beijing attempts to push unacceptable preconditions on Mr Ma before there can be a dialogue, or sees his presidency as an opportunity to bring Taiwan to heel, then the cross-strait deadlock will probably worsen, and Mr Ma's position will become untenable. In that case, the DPP may well return to power. Beijing clearly welcomes Mr Ma's victory, despite some of his public utterances, including raising the possibility that Taiwan might boycott the Olympics if the crackdown continues in Tibet.

Beijing should be satisfied that Mr Ma has promised not to seek independence, even though he has ruled out the possibility of talks on reunification.

The mainland should understand that this is a window of opportunity for ending the poisonous atmosphere in cross-strait relations. The next four years are a time for it to be flexible and reasonable rather than doctrinaire. This is the time for President Hu Jintao to show that it is possible for a cross-strait dialogue to take place on the basis of equality and not attempt to browbeat Taiwan and hem it in on all sides.

The mainland can show that it does understand Taiwan's need for international space. One obvious move is to end its opposition to Taiwan's bid for observer status in the World Health Assembly, a status that is not limited to sovereign states, while continuing to oppose full membership for the island.

Beijing can show its peaceful intentions by announcing that it will halt its build-up of missiles on the coast opposite Taiwan. Better yet, it can announce a redeployment of these missiles. The move would be largely symbolic since the missiles are mobile and can be put back in position at any time, but the mainland should understand that symbolism is highly important.

This election has gained time for both sides to work out an acceptable accommodation. They have four years in which to make progress. There is no time to waste.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

It's time for Beijing to rethink Tibet policy
LEADER

Mar 21, 2008        
        Email to friend         |         Print a copy

Eleven days after violence broke out in Tibet , two contending versions of what happened have emerged. The central government has put the blame squarely on the Dalai Lama's government-in-exile for starting riots in Lhasa and other parts of the country that have claimed the lives of 13 people. But Tibetan exiles have claimed they merely staged peaceful demonstrations, and that close to 100 protesters died in a crackdown by security forces.

With the international media barred from reporting on the ground, reports in the western media have tended to draw heavily on the Tibetan exiles' accounts. Meanwhile, the mainland's state-controlled media has been dominated by official accounts, which focus on the violence the rioters have inflicted on innocent people. The conflicting reports have left a cloudy picture of what really happened. Far more worrying is their adverse effect of reinforcing the west's image of Beijing as a repressive government, and ordinary Chinese people's view of the west being keen to demonise China.

Whatever the truth, the central government's policy towards Tibet has clearly failed. After almost half a century of direct rule, Beijing has failed to win over the hearts and minds of its people.

In terms of economic well-being, Tibet has long been the country's poorest region. But the nation's economic growth in recent years has given it the opportunity to pour in billions of dollars to push forward development. Building houses and infrastructure has been a key policy, most visibly with the opening in 2006 of a high-speed rail connection to Lhasa that has finally made fast and economic travel to the isolated region possible.

Yet material benefits have obviously failed to impress the Tibetans, whose culture is based on religion and whose traditional political system is a theocracy. While the Communist Party, which upholds atheism, has ceased being so hostile towards religion, there is no question of it loosening control over the way Buddhism is practised in Tibet. As the influx of Han Chinese to the region increases, the materialism they bring along has upset Tibetans, who feel they are being sidelined. Add to it the pull of the Dalai Lama, and a fertile ground for dissent has been created.

Tibet is officially an autonomous region but its degree of autonomy has been disputed by Tibetans. Last year, 60 per cent of government workers in the region were Tibetans and ethnic minorities, down from 70 per cent in 2005. Han Chinese held virtually all the top Communist Party posts at the county and prefecture levels. No wonder Tibetans do not feel they are masters of their own destiny. The Dalai Lama is ageing. What will happen if he goes ahead with threats to quit his political post in the face of the radicalisation of his cause by young Tibetans is unclear.

For the good of the people of the region and China's international standing, Beijing needs to rethink its policy on Tibet. Ideally, Hong Kong's model of "one country, two systems" might be a solution. But the central government is clearly concerned its application to Tibet might also spark similar demands from Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, which are also regions with ethnic minorities. But real efforts need to be made to let Tibetans truly run Tibet in order to calm sentiments and breed stability in the restive region.

With the country's coming-out party, the Olympic Games, just five months away, such a shift would give Beijing a golden opportunity to markedly alter perceptions that it is a repressive regime that tramples on rights.

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Rude awakening


PETER KAMMERER

Mar 28, 2008           
     
  |   

  



The best place to observe humanity at its worst is on public transport. Whether it is the battle to get on or off at rush hour, guessing which passenger in a packed carriage is likely to be a sexual harasser or trying to get the attention of a seated teenager pretending to sleep so that the pregnant woman can have a rest, etiquette seems to go out of the window when it comes to commuters.

Manners vary between cultures. But there are basic ones that people the world over are taught as children, among them not to push and shove, good sportsmanship, opening doors for others, and respecting the elderly and disabled. To do otherwise is to be rude.

These simple social skills are falling by the wayside the world over, if a quick scan of internet blogs is any guide. From London to New York and Tokyo, people are lamenting that manners, particularly among the young, seem to have gone the way of bygone eras.

Hong Kong is not immune. We have intricate eating and business etiquette, but the basis of politeness clearly does not extend to train carriages or buses and trams.

While the majority of passengers abide by the social rules instilled by parents and schools, there is a sizeable number who were either not taught such rules, did not listen to them or have had a memory lapse.

There is ample backing for this claim in observations I and my colleagues have made of late. Most usually, the lack of regard for others is in the form of people pushing onto a train or into a lift before passengers have got out, and someone speaking overly loud on a mobile phone. But there are any number of other displays of rudeness. There is the woman who slipped off her shoe on the MTR and started cutting her toenails, which cannot fail to illicit disbelief. Or the young man who thought that his commute was an ideal time to tone his arm muscles by doing chin-ups on the bar above his seat without regard for the people sitting on either side. Ignoring those carrying babies and the aged is common, as is the person with an MP3 player blaring so loud through ill-fitting headphones that nearby passengers are also treated to the cacophony.

These instances may sound like the petty whines of middle-aged perpetual complainers, but then, those who have made them are mere residents. What must a tourist or a businessperson think of our city if such indiscretions are frequently witnessed? A burp of appreciation at a banquet or a handshake that is too firm can be readily passed off, but public displays of bad manners give a poor general impression of a society.

Then there is our own view of ourselves. To abandon caring about others is to lose an essential part of a city's fabric. Self-centredness breeds, at the least, disregard and, at worst, contempt.

Transport officials in the Japanese city of Yokohama know this only too well. They have introduced a model which Hong Kong would do well to follow: a team of people well versed in politeness who travel the city's trains issuing gentle warnings to people who are out of line. Wearing easily identifiable bright green uniforms, the 11 mostly 60s-plus men and women officially known as "manner upgraders" are accompanied by bodyguards - just in case a commuter does not like being ticked off.

Just exactly what "good manners" are is a debatable point. A spokesman for Yokohama's transport bureau told the Weekly Yomiuri magazine that authorities would be looking into the matter in considerable detail. In the meantime, though, those aspects of polite society that were being ignored in the rush to get from one place to another would be dealt with by the manners team, he said.

The revelation that Japanese, widely considered to be among the world's politest people, are worried about the state of manners should be a wake-up call to other governments. It should be even more so for Hong Kong, especially as being an international city with global values is so integral to our economic evolution.

Peter Kammerer is the Post's foreign editor

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

Unity needed on cross-border divorce


LEADER

Mar 31, 2008           
     
  |   

  



For all the efforts by authorities to bring cross-border systems more in line, outstanding gaps remain when they come to marriage and divorce between Hong Kong and mainland people. It is time such gaps, which are the source of constant agony for the parties concerned, are plugged.

As we report today, one mainland woman is at wit's end because she is unable to see the child her Hong Kong husband has custody of. The Guangdong court that approved their divorce gave her visiting rights, but her husband has reneged on the agreement and is preventing her from spending time with her daughter. Because of the inflexibility of immigration regulations and the lack of a mechanism to enforce the mainland ruling, she is being denied her legal rights.

Her plight springs from immigration rules that stipulate that a newlywed mainlander has to wait five years before being able to apply to permanently join their partner in Hong Kong. This does not happen when a wedding involves a permanent resident and a spouse-to-be from another country; in such a case, residency can be applied for automatically and it is inevitably granted in short order.

When marriages break down before five years, enforcement of divorce orders by courts on either side can be difficult. Visiting rights are often a bone of contention among divorced and separated couples even when they are living in the same city. So, too, are payments of child support and maintenance, which can easily be stopped. The barriers that exist between Hong Kong and the mainland exacerbate these already trying situations.

As integration between Hong Kong and the mainland deepens, it is inevitable that cross-border unions will continue to rise. There is clearly a need for a government mechanism to help smooth over these issues. Without such provisions on both sides of the border, marriage and divorce will be fraught with frustration and uncertainties. Separation will increase the chances of marriages breaking down, and children born early in such unions will not have both parents caring for them for the majority of their formative years.

Going to court over divorce is never easy. Resolving marital conflicts through mediation is preferable because it reduces the possibility of entrenching attitudes on both sides and creating greater animosity. But sometimes, people are unable to budge and reach an amicable agreement. Ensuring that the couple has every opportunity to resolve differences and, if divorce does take place, recognise and enforce court orders, is essential.

Hong Kong's rules on cross-border marriages are grounded in trying to prevent weddings of convenience. In light of the economic attractiveness of our city to mainland people, there is still a need for wariness. Nonetheless, with the number of marriages registered in Hong Kong involving mainland spouses rising eight-fold since 1997, the five-year requirement should be relaxed, perhaps to three years, before it is eventually abolished.

An increasing number of marriages inevitably means more divorces. Regulation of matters pertaining to divorce need strengthening. Alimony payments could be made through a publicly administered fund which could disperse the money to the beneficiary. A government body could deal with custody issues to ensure that they are enforced.

Enforcement of civil judgments has always been problematic in Hong Kong. Mechanisms to ensure that agreements are honoured would go a long way to correcting the flaws that exist.


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Politics has no place at the Olympics


LEADER

Apr 01, 2008           
     
  |   

  



The Olympic torch relay is the symbolic start to the world's greatest event. In keeping with China's aim of the Beijing Games being a showcase of the nation's emergent might, what will be the most grandiose such run ever kicked off in Tiananmen Square yesterday amid fanfare and celebration.
Tight security and the acknowledgement by Premier Wen Jiabao that protests could disrupt the relay highlighted another facet of the event. Protests by Tibetan activists that marred the lighting ceremony for the torch in Greece last week were a likely foretaste of what runners could expect along the 137,000km route through 20 countries. Large demonstrations are planned by critics of China's human rights and environmental records along the way.

Concerns about China's social development amid its burgeoning economic growth are justified. But there are well-established mechanisms through which these can be pointed out. The Olympics are not such a place. Never before in the 72-year history of the torch relay has it been targeted in such a manner.

But Beijing should not be surprised that such efforts are being made to hijack its coming out party. Like any big country, China naturally attracts criticism for some of its domestic and foreign policies both at home and overseas. The country needs to learn how to deal with them with confidence, taking suitable measures to address shortcomings and articulate its position with eloquence.

For too long, mainland officials' instinctive response to any attempt to challenge authority was to crack down on those who dared to speak out and to denounce them as having ulterior motives. That is a certain recipe for a public relations disaster. The leadership has to realise that maintaining stability does not mean keeping a lid on those who hold different views or values. A modern society has to learn to live with diversity. This can only come about through respecting the rights of citizens to air their grievances. The media has to be allowed to operate freely so that there can be transparency. For their part, critics need to know that these are changes that cannot take place overnight. They will certainly not come about through protests at the Olympics; such measures are guaranteed to only harden Beijing's resolve to not listen.

Although the Olympic Games are a sporting event, their role in building national pride and projecting an international image can also be perceived as making the occasion a political one. That is why governments and groups opposed to the policies of the host nation have in the past resorted to snubbing the opening ceremony or withdrawing their athletes. Such occurrences were common during the cold war between the former Soviet Union and the United States, most notably for the Olympics in Moscow in 1980 and in Los Angeles four years later.

Times have since changed markedly. The world has become globalised and the tensions that marked the cold war have dissipated. China's economic growth has it marked by some governments as a rival, but they must not use this as a reason to push agendas through events like the Olympic Games. Politicising the Olympics is wrong. The event is a celebration of sporting excellence in which the world's elite athletes in their field of endeavour compete against one another to determine who is the best. Their careers centre on achieving the ultimate goal of an Olympic gold medal; they train long and hard for the opportunity.

But the Games are also about unity. They bring together nations under a common banner of which politics is not a part. Politics is for the United Nations and other international bodies set up to deal with the world's concerns, not the Olympics. As the torch-relay runners make their way around the world towards their target of the August 8 opening of the Games, governments and activists need to keep this firmly in mind.


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

McCain's road to a war without end


Eugene Robinson
Apr 02, 2008           
     
  |   

  



Quite a "defining moment" in Iraq, wasn't it? At this rate, John McCain is going to be proved right: the war will last a century.

That is indeed what Senator McCain said, by the way, no matter how his apologists try to spin it. Those who claim that, by "a hundred years", he was talking about a long-term peacetime deployment, like the US military presence in South Korea, are being disingenuous or obtuse. In and around Seoul, citizens aren't shooting at American soldiers or trying to blow them up with roadside bombs - and US combat forces aren't taking sides in bloody internecine battles over power and wealth.

It was US President George W. Bush who called the fighting in Basra and other Iraqi cities a "defining moment" for the fledgling government. By that standard, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been defined as an impulsive leader and an inept general - and his government as a work barely in progress.

Mr Maliki's decision to send troops into Basra and root out the "criminal gangs" that controlled the city was praised by the White House as a bold move to assert the Iraqi government's sovereignty. In reality, though, it looked more like an attempt to boost Mr Maliki's political standing by dealing a blow to the Mahdi Army and its leader, the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iraqi forces launched their offensive and were immediately met by what Mr Maliki's defence minister called unexpectedly strong resistance. The government might have suffered a humiliating defeat if not for face-saving US and British intervention.

Mr Maliki was forced to sue for peace, Mr Sadr magnanimously accepted, and the fighting ebbed. The Mahdi Army remains entrenched, and armed to the teeth. Mr Maliki's regime looks less like a government than just another faction. All of which illustrates the insanity of the open-ended Iraq war policy that Mr Bush has followed and that Senator McCain vows to perpetuate.

What, exactly, did the US use its military might to accomplish last week? It intervened in a struggle among various Shiite power centres for control of a city where much of Iraq's oil industry - and, thus, much of its potential wealth - is based. It supported a political figure who was trying to weaken another political figure in advance of the coming elections. It boosted the morale and fervour of the most implacable opponents of continued US occupation.

Does any of this have anything to do with America's vital interests? You could argue that Basra is important because of the oil, but the city is no more under Baghdad's control today than it was two weeks ago.

Please note that, throughout this episode, you haven't heard the name al-Qaeda. According to Mr Bush and Senator McCain, isn't Iraq supposed to be the central front in the "war on terrorism"? Wouldn't the only plausible reason for continuing the occupation of Iraq be to fight terrorists - rather than help one Shiite leader against another?

Mr Bush's troop surge was supposed to buy time for Iraq's leaders to achieve reconciliation, and for Iraq's armed forces to improve so they could operate on their own. On both counts, we see the results.

If Democrats need several more months settling on a presidential nominee, they had better find some way to stop giving Senator McCain a free ride on Iraq. He should have to explain why he wants to keep us on Mr Bush's long, winding path to nowhere.

Eugene Robinson is a Washington Post columnist


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Mortgage rescue plan is a house of cards


Robert Samuelson
Apr 03, 2008           
     
  |   

  



In politics, it is imperative to be seen as "doing good". The US housing crisis is a case in point, as Congress now seems increasingly intent on aiding millions of homeowners who may face foreclosure. This sort of rescue looks good, even though it is a bad idea and might perversely delay the housing recovery.

No reasonable person takes pleasure from seeing people lose their homes, and Congress is upset. Estimates of defaults this year go up to 2 million. That would be about 2.7 per cent of the 75 million owner-occupied homes - the highest rate since the second world war, says economist Kenneth Snowden.

The best-known congressional plan comes from democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. (The Bush administration is reportedly considering a similar plan.) It would authorise the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to guarantee US$300 billion of new loans to strapped homeowners, allowing them to refinance their existing mortgages at lower rates and lower outstanding amounts. Under it, homeowners who borrowed from January 1, 2005, to July 1 last year would be eligible for new loans if their monthly payments exceeded 40 per cent of their income.

Existing lenders would have to take a sizeable writedown to qualify. The FHA would pay no more than 85 per cent of the property's appraised value; it would then charge the homeowner for a loan at 90 per cent of that value. The extra 5 percentage points are a cushion against losses.

Everyone wins, say supporters. Homeowners stay in their houses. Neighbourhoods don't suffer the potential blight of numerous foreclosures. Housing prices don't go into a freefall. Although lenders take a loss, the losses are lower than if homes went into foreclosure.

But, there are two problems: one moral, the other economic. About 50 million homeowners have mortgages. Who wouldn't like the government to cut their monthly payments? But Mr Frank's plan reserves that privilege for an estimated 1 million to 2 million - the most careless borrowers.

The justification is to prevent an uncontrolled collapse of home prices that would inflict more losses on lenders and postpone a revival in home buying and building. This gets the economics backwards. From 2000 to 2006, home prices rose 50 per cent or more. Affordability deteriorated, with buying sustained only by a parallel deterioration of lending standards. With credit standards tightened, home prices should fall, to bring buyers back and reassure lenders that they're not lending on inflated properties.

If saving distressed homeowners delays this process, the aid the government gives some people will be offset by the adverse effects on would-be homebuyers and overall housing construction.

None of this means that lenders and borrowers shouldn't voluntarily agree to loan modifications that serve the interests of both. Although the process is messy, promising to lubricate it with massive federal assistance may retard it, as both wait to see if they can get a better deal from Washington.

Robert Samuelson is a Washington Post columnist


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

感謝分享 thank you

thnak you so much for your work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very gooooooooooooood

Enemy of the state


FRANK CHING

Apr 09, 2008           
     
  |   

  



In recent weeks, Beijing has been telling the whole world that the "Dalai clique" has been guilty of inciting violence in Tibet , resulting in arson and death. However, this does not mean that non-violent protests are acceptable; far from it. The headline on the front page of Friday's International Herald Tribune tells the story: "Dissident in China gets prison for essays." There you have it: 34-year-old Hu Jia was sentenced to 3-1/2 years in prison for nothing more than writing five essays and giving two interviews. And, according to Xinhua, this was a "lenient" sentence.

Maybe it is time to remind Chinese officials and judges of what is in their constitution. Article 35 says: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration."

What kind of protection does the constitution offer if a man can be sent to prison simply for expressing his political views, writing them down, disseminating them on the internet and telling other people what they are? Such actions - non-violent expression of a person's views - are precisely what freedom of speech is all about, but apparently this is not the case in mainland China.

Asked about Hu's case at a press conference before the verdict was announced, Premier Wen Jiabao said that it would be "dealt with according to the law". He added that Beijing was still studying the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and hoped to ratify it "at an early date".

That would be good news for Hu and his family because the covenant, which is accepted by the vast majority of members of the United Nations, makes an individual's freedom of expression crystal clear. Article 19 says: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."

This is precisely what Hu did. He exercised his freedom of expression, which is protected under international law. The problem is that China has not ratified the covenant, even though it signed it a decade ago.

China has been saying for a long time that it will "at an early date" ratify the international treaty. Only last December, at the latest China-European Union summit, Mr Wen also made that promise, and the EU "welcomed China's commitment to ratify as soon as possible".

If China is really planning to ratify the covenant soon, it should be moving to amend existing laws that are inconsistent with the covenant, instead of using them to throw people in prison.

So, how can a man be jailed simply for writing some essays? According to Xinhua, Hu had "libelled the Chinese political and social systems, and instigated subversion of the Chinese state".

Why should a great country like China, with the world's fourth-largest economy, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and a powerful military second to none in the region, be afraid of one individual, even if he was being critical of the government? Is China so weak, so fragile, that the words of a few political dissidents can shake the foundations of the country?

Now consider the things that Mao Zedong used to write and say. On the eve of the Cultural Revolution, he wrote his now famous call to "bombard the headquarters" that unleashed the Red Guards. That was incitement. It was a call to overthrow the leadership. As a result, countless numbers of people were imprisoned, tortured and killed by Red Guards, including the head of state, Liu Shaoqi .

Was Mao ever arrested and charged with incitement? No. He became the Great Helmsman. Today, his embalmed body is enshrined in a mausoleum in Tiananmen Square, his picture hangs atop Tiananmen Gate and thousands of people bow reverently when they silently file past his body every day.

Why send Hu to prison when someone far more guilty was never prosecuted? Is there one law for the powerful and one for everyone else?

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

very very useful

very useful....

Fok puts positive spin on a prickly subject
114 days to go

OLYMPIC COUNTDOWN
Peter Simpson
Apr 13, 2008           
     
  |   

  



Image counts for everything in the instant culture dominated by the electronic media. For example, control-obsessed China has been seen by the world to be floundering in its handling of the Olympic torch relay and - literally - running away with itself.

Your mother might advise: "Don't believe in first impressions." The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is heavily reliant on its image as a major event-maker - an organiser that wishes to bring to the world harmony, unity and peace through fair and open human endurance, otherwise known as sport.

Another image-conscious Olympian is Hong Kong sports supremo Timothy Fok Tsun-ting, who looked very dapper this week dressed as he was in a blue blazer emblazoned with the Hong Kong National Olympic Committee badge, worn proudly on the left breast pocket, white chinos and highly polished shoes.

Indeed, his business card presents an image of a busy man obsessed with helping his community. His various positions include IOC member and president of the Hong Kong Sports Federation and Olympic Committee, to name but a few.

However, observed from the other side of the vast lobby at the China World Hotel in Beijing, where the IOC held crunch 2008 Beijing Olympic meetings all week, Fok gave the image of man preoccupied.

"I'm very nervous," he admitted. As he spoke, he was waiting for the IOC executive board to decide the fate of nine overseas passport-holding athletes hoping for special dispensation to allow them to compete for Hong Kong.

Just two hours later, Fok learnt that only three would be allowed to go for gold on Hong Kong's behalf this summer.

With disappointment looming, Fok was keen to look to the future. He conjured up in his mind's eye a time when his native, beloved Hong Kong would not be known as a hotbed of capitalism, but instead famous as a Mecca for sports fans; a place where state-of-the-art venues and training camps churn out medal-winning athletes.

Back on earth - and before Fok's candid discussion reached the topic of his proposed promised land - another burning issue was on the agenda.

Images of the doused iconic torch and protesters scuffling with security officials was at the forefront of delegates' minds - including Fok's - hours before the crunch IOC decision that crushed the dreams of six Hong Kong hopefuls.

"The Olympics has become a victim of its own success. Now it's become the most important and high-profile sporting event. And it's also become a platform for everybody to vent their personal agenda," concluded Fok as a week of Olympic trouble ended.

"Ever since I joined the IOC, I have remembered the pledges you must take - that any decision I take as a member will not be based on any political or financial considerations.

"Now, demonstrations are in fashion. But we must maintain that decree. We are here to look after the sports and the welfare of the athletes."

He added: "We should remind everyone that this torch is part of the Olympic history. It does not belong to Beijing or London, or to anyone country or person. We must remember that in ancient Greece - where the Games were founded - they stopped wars to hold the Olympics."

Of course, it is reasonable for Fok to recall history in order to justify his Olympic aim. He is a passionate believer in the Olympic movement, so all power to him for taking up the fight for Hong Kong's Olympics quests and sporting aspirations.

Amid the calls for calm - echoed all week by both Bocog and the Olympic family - an obviously upset Fok said: "It broke my heart to see somebody snatch the torch out of the wheelchair-bound athlete's hand.

"Beijing, and China, has changed greatly. The capital has gone through a huge transformation."

He winced as another horrible image raced through his mind. Was it images of Falun Gong members or free Tibet protesters grabbing the flame from the hands of another disabled runner on Nathan Road and dousing it in the harbour that so upset him? He inhaled a deep breath... "If somebody in Hong Kong gets ..." he says, unable to describe the rest of the horrors flickering away in his mind's eye.

"We must have adequate protection around the torch," he said.

"Oh, why", you can imagine the IOC leadership and Bocog asking this week, "is it that all the Olympic followers are not like image-conscious Timothy Fok."


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

Why stop at China?
The fury vented at Beijing over Tibet could be harnessed into a global war on wrongdoing

Michael Chugani
Apr 15, 2008           
     
  |   

  



Now that there is such renewed passion over human rights leading up to the Beijing Olympics, why waste all this new-found fury by aiming it at China alone? Why not mount a global war on rogue behaviour by tapping into all this anger over China's heavy-handedness in Tibet?

There must be plenty of other worthy targets if we put our minds to it. Just imagine what we can achieve in the name of human rights by socking nations in the eye through threats, humiliation, street riots and boycotts.

We can do this by harnessing the righteous rage we are now seeing from Londoners, Parisians, San Franciscans, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy , British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, American President George W. Bush, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and others.

The US Congress can get us all started on this crusade, since it considers itself to be the conscience of the world. It has voted 413-1 to condemn China's handling of the Tibet riots. That is indeed a grand display of its fervour for human rights. But why stop there? We need more unanimous votes of this kind if we are to have a global crusade.

So, if the US Congress can take its eyes off China for a moment and cast its conscience elsewhere, as well, it will find there is much work to be done. Take the Palestinians, for example, who must be wondering why no one, not even Mr Sarkozy - who has reportedly laid down conditions for attending the Olympics - has threatened boycotts when Israeli bombs flatten their women and children.

Well, actually there have been quite a number of lopsided votes by the US Congress on the issue. But it seems to have got its conscience all muddled up. Instead of voting to condemn the oppressor, as in the case of China over Tibet, it has voted consistently to condemn the oppressed Palestinians rather than the Israeli occupiers. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that Israel is a US ally. It wouldn't do to be righteous towards a friend.

That may also explain the US friendliness with oil-rich Saudi Arabia, where human rights are non-existent, alleged robbers have their hands chopped off, women aren't allowed to drive, and religious freedom are dirty words.

While Palestinians struggle to survive under a brutal Israeli blockade and Saudi robbers wonder why no one cares about their hands being chopped off, Pakistanis must also be wondering why the Chinese are getting so much flak over Tibet, yet their own president, Pervez Musharraf, is spoken of in glowing terms by Mr Bush. This is despite the fact Mr Musharraf seized dictatorial powers by overthrowing a democratically elected government.

Maybe it's because Mr Musharraf has joined Mr Bush's "war on terror". Those who sign up for this war can throw judges in jail, rig elections, torture terror suspects and still get a free pass on human rights. It's all got to do with the muddling of conscience.

The US Congress is not alone in casting lopsided votes. The European Parliament voted 580-24 on a resolution urging European Union leaders to boycott the Olympics opening ceremony. Not to be outdone, US lawmakers are pushing for a binding vote that actually requires Mr Bush to skip the ceremony. But, again, why stop there? If we are to have a war on human rights abuse, why make only symbolic gestures like targeting the opening ceremony? Let's make this more meaningful. Mr Bush, Mr Sarkozy, Mr Brown, Mr Rudd and Dr Merkel should snub China altogether. No more missions to win trade deals. Let's teach those Chinese a real lesson.

But cash is king even when matched against conscience. So let's not ask silly questions such as why Mr Sarkozy, Dr Merkel, Mr Brown and Mr Bush can make such a big deal about Tibet, yet don't mind visiting Beijing to sell Airbus and Boeing planes. Or why they scramble for lucrative weapons deals with Saudi Arabia where alleged murderers are beheaded in public.

Michael Chugani is a columnist and broadcaster

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... ss=China&s=News

Political games
Given the blatant manipulation of the Olympics, a drastic overhaul is needed to save its reputation

Philip Bowring
Apr 16, 2008           
     
  |   

  



Call me a spoilsport if you will, but the Olympics has become a monster, undermining values for which it is supposed to stand. Thus, Hong Kong's Olympic representative, Timothy Fok Tsun-ting, is a son of a famous father, rather than someone known for active participation in sports - let alone at a high level. Thus, it is hinted by the government that the chief executive, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen - another non-sporting dignitary - may take part in the torch relay for these "non-political" Games.

Thus, large sums are spent on hosting equestrian events, despite the almost non-existent local participation in the sport. To enable Mr Tsang, Mr Fok and other dignitaries to preen themselves as Olympic hosts, Hong Kong's real athletes have their training disrupted, and money that could have gone into improving sporting facilities in schools, or for the general public, funds a brief event in which less than 10 per cent of Olympic teams compete.

Thus, a huge fuss is made of the Olympic torch relay, quietly forgetting that this was not an ancient Greek institution; it was invented for Hitler's Berlin Games of 1936, the apogee of racist nationalism thinly disguised as sport.

The most blatant politicisation was the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics, following the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. That was followed by a Soviet boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Games. But Beijing cannot claim innocence, given its use of the Games to boost China's image abroad and its image at home. It should not be surprised that critics should seek to draw attention to grievances. That is not to say that unruly demonstrations about Tibet , Darfur or other issues will do any good. More likely, they will stir nationalist sentiment in China and lead to even harsher measures against Tibetan and other dissidents. But until politicians everywhere stop trying to be associated with the Olympics, they will attract dissenters.

The bigger the Olympics becomes, the more public money must go into it and, thus, each Games requires top-level political support. In addition to bribery of delegates, political lobbying plays an important role in the awarding of the Games - as Tony Blair showed on London's behalf.

The costs of providing for so many events and so many athletes have become prohibitive for most of the world. The proliferation of medals for often obscure sports, practised by tiny numbers of people, intensifies the nationalist competition for position in the medals table. At each Olympics, the number of events expands.

In principle, it should not be difficult to trim the Games to a more manageable and affordable size, with minimal impact on global public interest. We should:


Cut the grandiose opening ceremony, a costly spectacle and grandstand for politicians more than athletes;

Abolish all team games and revert to the original Olympic ideal of competition between individuals, with a focus on athletics. For most of these sports, the Olympic event is unimportant - who cares about Olympic football compared with the World Cup?

Abolish events such as tennis, where there are better-established venues for global competition;

Reduce the number of medals for swimming/diving, which enables one person to collect multiple medals;

Set more stringent criteria for event inclusion that would eliminate many medals - from shooting to wrestling and synchronised swimming - practised by only a tiny number of people worldwide, and;

Eliminate events requiring very costly facilities such as indoor velodromes available only in a handful of countries.
Drastically cutting the cost of the Olympics would make it less political and possible for many more countries to play host. It would also leave the Games less hostage to commercial interests, sponsorship deals, television rights and the like, which play such an important behind-the-scenes role in the organisation and coverage of the Games. I hope the Beijing Games is a success, not disrupted by either pollution or protest. But it is my hope, too, that the sheer cost of the Beijing investment in the Games, and the level of politicisation it has attracted, will force the Olympic movement into a fundamental rethink.

Judging by the vested interests at work, that is probably a vain hope.

Philip Bowring is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

No sweet medicine for our inflation's ills


OBSERVER
Lau Nai-keung
Apr 18, 2008           
     
  |   

  



The consumer price index has jumped: everybody knows this because it is eating into their wallets. Basically, there are just two factors: food prices and rent. Few have been screaming at landlords and property tycoons - all attention is on rice. There has been panic buying at supermarkets. It's ridiculous.

Most of our rice is imported from Thailand. Hong Kong is a city of just 7 million people, so small a market that Thailand can safely guarantee supply. We don't have to worry about the supply of rice any more than we have to worry about that of spaghetti. But the price is going up.

The Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the US dollar, which is constantly slipping; but we have to pay in yuan for most of our daily necessities, and the yuan is appreciating. This exchange differential alone drives up prices here. Now is not the time to consider de-pegging, and we will have to live, for now, with this uncomfortable situation of being squeezed from both sides.

Those who have had a pay raise may come out even, or ahead. A small price rise is not going to hurt. But there will be some hardship for retirees and fixed-income earners, who are usually not well off in the first place. The government acknowledges that about 1 million people in Hong Kong live below the poverty line. While many of these less-fortunate people do not have much money, they do have a vote. They are easy targets for some politicians who are now scratching their heads for issues to be used in the Legislative Council election in September.

Inflation is definitely going to be a major election issue in the coming months. The government will have to do something, or its popularity ratings will fall. Everybody, politicians in particular, knows that the administration watches its ratings closely, and bends over backwards to keep them high. This is good governance, Hong Kong style. Its pro-establishment allies expect the government to do something, too, knowing that their votes will move in the same direction as the opinion polls.

In fact, few governments in the world can do much about food prices. Our pro-market, small-government island economy is especially ill-placed to do anything to control inflation. It can do nothing about the widening exchange differential between the US dollar and the yuan, and worldwide rising prices of grains and other food, which are the major causes of the current wave of inflation.

Fortunately, our government's very deep pockets are full after last year's HK$120 billion budget surplus. There was a plateful of sweets from the budget, ready to be doled out to calm anxiety over inflation. If needed, more will be forthcoming, and all our vote-hungry lawmakers will say "aye". The more aggressive ones, along with some aspirants, will ask for still more. This is another characteristic of good governance, Hong Kong style: sweets for the asking.

So, some politicians demand, and get, handouts, look good and get elected. The government concedes to these demands, looks good and gets high popularity ratings. People get the handouts, and look favourably on the politicians and government who provide them. This is a classic win-win situation. Everybody wins, everybody is happy, and Hong Kong's style of good governance carries on as usual.

But have we solved any real problems? Not at all. All our social and economic ills remain, and tackling them is just as troublesome. It is easy to just sweep them under the carpet and, hey presto: they're gone.

The first chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, was a known procrastinator. Since 2005, we have had a caretaking government. How long can this continue? Will we see some real action after September?

Lau Nai-keung is a member of the Basic Law Committee of the National People's Congress Standing Committee, and also a member of the Commission on Strategic Development


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

India's advantage in Africa: democracy


N. V. Subramanian
Apr 21, 2008           
     
  |   

  



Contrary to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assertion at the recently concluded India-Africa Forum Summit, India is in competition with China for Africa's oil, precious metals and minerals. But, while China is engaged in unconcealed, neocolonial resource extraction from Africa, which has already produced its backlash, India wishes to be - and has to be - gentler in its engagement with the continent. This is because of its own democracy and historical good relations with the African leadership.

In November 2006, China hosted its Africa summit and paraded more than 40 African leaders, not all of them elected. While the US and the European Union were alarmed, India did not appreciate the full significance of the event until later. In February 2007, President Hu Jintao visited eight African nations, ending with a high-profile stopover in the Seychelles.

That revealed China's growing strategic interest in the Indian Ocean, through where most of its - and the world's oil - passes. This, together with China's "string of pearls strategy" - to project naval power in the Indian Ocean through bases around India - finally awoke New Delhi to Chinese strategic and economic interests in Africa. While the Indian strategic establishment has been awed by the Chinese doctrine of a "peaceful rise", it is unable or unwilling to accept its limitations as state policy for a democracy like India.

For form's sake, nearly everyone in government and in the strategic community avers that India cannot copy Chinese-style resource extraction in Africa. Privately, most admire China's no-holds-barred approach. But it is unsustainable.

India's biggest strength is its democracy, and this is the commodity it must primarily export to Africa. The US has abused that concept, most lately in Iraq, and Europe's colonial exploitation of Africa has destroyed its case to speak for democracy there. India, in comparison, enjoys a far better image in Africa, due to Gandhi's and Nehru's contributions to the continent's anti-colonial struggles, and it is appreciated that Indian communities settled in Kenya and Uganda were wrongly persecuted in the 1960s and 1970s.

But China's and other states' competition for African resources will unavoidably demand a hard-nosed approach from the Indian side. In the past, New Delhi has not been the most ideal mediator in such situations, in part because it is wedded to democracy, and has international commitments to meet and an image to protect. India's trump card is its private sector, now enjoying a glowing international reputation. The market view of Africa is sober.

While China's mammoth presence in Africa for resources has spurred India to follow, its own engagement has to be democratic, equitable and a model for the rest of the world to emulate.

On issues like military, energy and food security, India has to be bold, innovative and determined, but democratic. Africa is a good place to start.

N. V. Subramanian is the editor of NEWSInsight, an Indian public affairs magazine. Copyright: OpinionAsia


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Cultural deficit


LAURENCE BRAHM

Apr 22, 2008           
     
  |   

  



On April 7, the Indian embassy in Beijing hosted an evening of Indian food, dance and music in the old section of the Beijing Hotel. There is nothing unusual about countries promoting cultural exchanges with China. But this event was different. It was filled with juxtaposing ironies: the different paths of social and economic development that India and China have taken.

The performances were held in the banquet room, a magnificent merging of Chinese architectural detail with Soviet proportions, which served as a place for the National People's Congress to host state banquets in the early 1950s, when Mao Zedong and Indian prime minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru were forging an independent path for the developing world, different from Washington's. This venue was chosen as an alternative to the glitzy China World Hotel, which was booked for Olympic-related activities.

So, on the night in question, this grand arena, now all but forgotten and discarded, came alive again with the power and pulse of Indian dance and music. South Asian ethnicity filled the room, making the Chinese present ask themselves about their own culture, where ethnicity is now reduced to a superficial, Disneyesque imitation of its past.

Today, in Beijing, there is only one dream - the Olympics - which is in danger of quickly becoming a nightmare. Ironically, China's own cultural roots continue to be uprooted, in a self-perpetuating cycle. It is becoming a western clone. Embracing, wholeheartedly, George W. Bush-style neoconservative politics and economic policy, China has displaced its culture with the globalisation of Las Vegas.

The message that night was that India had not forgotten its own cultural roots as it seeks its own path of development. Several years ago, Shyam Saran, India's then ambassador to China, and a former foreign secretary, told me that "China's hyper economic growth is admirable, but probably not sustainable. We are taking a more careful approach to development that will be sustainable."

Why has China's own culture become eclipsed? Is it that creative thinking threatens a state with a single ideology, while consumer passion does not? Or does the problem lie in an economic and legal system that does not reward or even protect creative works? Or is it corruption? One problem is that China invests in hardware: big airports, lots of roads and factories that help produce steel and cement while polluting the environment. This "output" factor, which has come to be known as "GDP growth economics", is the central focus of China's blind pursuit of economic and social policies that fail to consider the human costs and benefits. Ethnic diversity and expressions of culture are buried under the quest for more cement and steel. The propaganda and rigid media controls leave artists and composers with little choice except conformity to survive.

This lack of respect for creativity is showcased in preparations for the Olympics. Beijing has spent lavishly on costumes, props, lighting and the physical infrastructure for its grand opening ceremony while calling on the nation's leading composers and choreographers to produce the music and performances for free. Aside from a gratuity to director Zhang Yimou , all the others remain unpaid; they were told it was their duty to serve the motherland.

China's leaders spend money on tangible things like buildings and infrastructure. This feeds corruption; government spending involves kickbacks. In such an environment, how can anyone respect an artist's or composer's creativity? So creativity becomes something to be copied; just steal it, then produce a million, all exactly the same.

As one Beijing-born Chinese lamented at the conclusion of the Indian evening: "I am ashamed to be Chinese. We have lost our culture. We have destroyed every aspect of our own culture. But they [in India] still have theirs."


Laurence Brahm is a political economist, author, film maker and founder of Shambhala


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

A dream or a nightmare? It's up to Beijing


OBSERVER
Chris Yeung
Apr 23, 2008           
     
  |   

  



Hopes were high among the Chinese government and people that the Olympic Games would showcase their commitment to turn the event's slogan - "One World, One Dream" - into reality, as part of the nation's peaceful rise. But events that have unfolded since the Tibetan riots last month raise fears that the Olympic dream could become a nightmare.

Last weekend saw the French supermarket chain Carrefour targeted by protesters in major Chinese cities as they vented their anger at the disruption to the Olympic torch relay in Paris. They were also infuriated at French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lama as a de facto precondition for Mr  Sarkozy to attend the opening ceremony.

Meanwhile, overseas Chinese protested outside the Austrian Parliament against what they called biased reporting about the Tibetan unrest. In Los Angeles, thousands of Chinese rallied outside CNN's Hollywood office to demand that commentator Jack Cafferty be fired for calling Chinese goods "junk" and its leaders "goons and thugs". At present, there seems no sign of an end to the political tussles between Beijing and western countries over such issues as human rights and Tibet, ahead of the Games. Indeed, there are amber warning signals that the outburst of nationalist feelings among Chinese people towards what they deem the "China-bashing mood" in the west could spoil the sporting event.

Scenes of Chinese people making Carrefour a scapegoat are likely to add to the bad press against China in France and other western nations. Pressure on Mr Sarkozy from human rights activists and his people to shun the opening ceremony will grow, thus limiting the room for compromise through quiet diplomacy.

A boycott of the opening ceremony by Mr Sarkozy would raise the political temperature in China. Nationalistic feelings could turn xenophobic as more Chinese become convinced that western countries are bent on impeding their nation's progress  towards prosperity and stability.

An air of unease might permeate the Games, creating a vicious cycle of tension between Chinese and western societies. If this happens, it would play into the hands of those in the west who talk of a "China threat" and subscribers to the theory of "western encroachment".

In view of the differences between Chinese and western societies, and the increasingly complex and volatile international politics, it is unrealistic to expect the Beijing Olympics to be free from controversy.

The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader might be a convenient target for the Chinese leadership to blame for the outbreak of the Tibetan riots. With hindsight, however, the seeds of unrest have been sown both inside and outside Tibet over the past decades.

The Olympic Games provides an opportunity for activists supporting Tibetan independence, and an overall improvement in human rights in China, to further their cause.

A range of hiccups in the handling of the Tibetan riots, including the expulsion of foreign and Hong Kong journalists from Lhasa and the high-profile reprimand of  CNN by the foreign ministry, has damaged Beijing's public relations battle.

Leaders in Beijing are confronted by a western media with a deep-rooted bias and governments constrained by their own political agendas. Yet, they also face an increasingly sophisticated populace, many of whom are highly sceptical and critical of foreign governments' political manoeuvrings on China's human rights.

Recent events have shown that the price of playing hardball with foreign governments on human rights is a backlash of extreme nationalism. Cool-headed crisis management must prevail in Beijing to ensure the Games succeeds as a sporting event, and the political fallout is contained.

Chris Yeung is the Post's editor-at-large

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... lumns&s=Opinion

Beijing's tough choices amid market slump


Steven Sitao Xu
Apr 24, 2008           
     
  |   

  



Once-sizzling mainland stocks are suddenly under massive selling pressure. After hitting a peak of 6,092 on October 16, the Shanghai Composite Index has fallen by more than 40 per cent. The sharp correction of A-shares underscores the fact that mainland China's stock market is not immune from the negative sentiment in global financial markets.

The Year of the Rat has seen two clear trends emerge in the mainland's financial markets - an increasingly bearish stock market outlook and an accelerated pace of the yuan's appreciation against the US dollar.

On the surface, this seems odd. The conventional wisdom has been that expectations of a more substantial currency revaluation would fuel the inflow of more hot money, in turn keeping the market buoyant.

But, in the end, share prices are reflecting discounted future cash flows of listed companies. By this measure, things look bad indeed for financial assets. High commodity prices, rising food prices and falling US demand for Chinese goods imply lower economic growth and higher inflation.

The rapid decline of share prices has left almost 100 million retail investors resentful of the government, which has been raising interest rates to combat inflation. And Chinese policymakers cannot afford to ignore so many discontented citizens. The State Council has frozen red-chip listings on the Shanghai stock exchange and the China Securities Regulatory Commission plans to restrict the sale of previously non-tradable shares, to avoid a flooding of the market, further driving down prices.

Still, as long as headline inflation remains high, policymakers cannot significantly loosen their tight monetary stance. The People's Bank of China will continue to raise commercial banks' reserve-requirement ratio and allow a faster pace of yuan appreciation to drain excess liquidity.

Meanwhile, the pick-up in inflation is deterring the government from pursuing price reforms for water, electricity and petrol. It may seem like a worthy cause for the government to try to shield low-income earners and others who are more vulnerable to inflation, such as retirees, with price controls on basic items. But the government seems determined to stabilise prices, whatever the cost. Price controls mean shortages and profit squeezes - bad news for affected companies' share prices.

If share prices keep diving, Beijing is likely to follow the lead of its regional neighbours. Most Asian central banks have slowed the pace of their currency appreciation. It is conceivable that the People's Bank, too, may decide to slow the pace of yuan appreciation, especially in the second half of this year, since it has allowed the currency to strengthen at a 17 per cent annualised rate in the first quarter. The government may also ease its lending quotas imposed on banks at the end of last year. The only option out of the question is cutting interest rates, given the spike in inflation.

However, any reversal of the current macroeconomic policy to rein in growth will rule out holding inflation under the announced target of 4.8 per cent for the year.

Even so, it is unlikely that China will witness another period of runaway inflation, as in the months preceding the 1989 demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. Today, it is food prices that are responsible for most of the jump in headline inflation. Unlike in 1989, China does not suffer from rapidly increasing "core" inflation, which strips out the highly cyclical food (and energy) prices.

If Beijing finds itself caught between high inflation and low economic growth (therefore, low share prices), it is likely to exhibit the same bias as many foreign governments in favour of the latter. The good news is that it has ample fiscal resources to protect the poor from the ravages of high inflation. The bad news is that, instead of revamping its social welfare policy, the government has so far opted for the easiest way out - by dragging its feet on price reforms.

Steven Sitao Xu is the Economist Intelligence Unit Corporate Network's director of advisory services in China


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Pirates in deep water as shipping nations urge new curbs


BEHIND THE NEWS
Elizabeth Kennedy
Apr 25, 2008           
     
  |   

  



The spoils of a career as a pirate off Somalia's high seas were simply too good for Abdi Muse to pass up. He bought two Land Cruisers and a new home, then married two women in one passionate week.

"I was giving away money to everyone I met," said Muse, 38, who said he made US$90,000 hijacking ships. "After two months, I had no money left."

For years, Somali pirates like Muse have found lucrative work stalking the country's lawless coast, seizing boats and negotiating ransoms. But these brazen assailants could soon face stern opposition as the US and France are drafting a UN resolution that would allow countries to chase and arrest pirates after a spate of recent attacks.

These include a Spanish tuna boat hijacked this week by pirates firing rocket-propelled grenades and a Dubai-flagged cargo ship seized while carrying food to the desperately poor country.

The cargo ship was rescued on Tuesday by Somali forces, who arrested seven pirates, but the Spanish boat and its crew remain in the hands of hijackers.

The US has been leading international patrols to combat piracy along Somalia's unruly 3,000km coast - the longest in Africa and near key shipping routes. And French officials say they are  pushing for a resolution that would make it easier for armies to swoop into other countries' waters and nab pirates.

The push comes after French commandos freed hostages on a French tourist yacht seized earlier this month off the coast of Somalia, and then chased the pirates on land and arrested them.

"The international community must respond and set up a rotating mechanism to control and keep watch with our naval forces so as to guarantee the security and protection of all those who fish or sail through that zone," Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said as his country awaited word on its hijacked tuna boat.

Many Somali pirates are trained fighters linked to politically  powerful clans that have carved the country into armed fiefdoms; others are young thugs enlisted to do the dirty work for older, more powerful criminals, who turn a profit by taking a cut of the ransom money and selling the ship's cargo.

Pirates often dress in military fatigues, using speedboats equipped with satellite phones and global positioning system equipment.  They are typically armed with automatic weapons, anti-tank rocket launchers and grenades, according to the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia.

Somalia's already overstretched government welcomed the initiative to involve international forces in patrolling its pirate-infested coastal waters.

Racked by more than a decade of violence and anarchy, Somalia does not have a navy, and the transitional government formed in 2004 with UN help has struggled to contain a deadly insurgency.

"These forces could come inside the country if it is needed," said government spokesman Abdi Hagi Gobdon.

To some pirates, however, the prospect of international force is not particularly daunting. "We are not scared of the US troops or any other troops stationed off our waters.

"Why should we be scared?" said Siyad, a Somali pirate who asked that his full name not be used for fear of reprisals.

"They have weapons, but so do we. And we are the ones with the human shields," he said, noting that troops are loath to use force because it risks harming hostages.

The International Maritime Bureau said piracy worldwide was on the rise, with seafarers suffering 49 attacks between January and March - up 20 per cent from the same period last year.

Nigeria ranked as the No 1 trouble spot. India and the Gulf of Aden off Somalia's northern coast tied for second, with each reporting five incidents.

Somalia had 31 attacks involving pirates last year alone, according to the bureau.

Noel Choong, head of the agency's piracy reporting centre in Kuala Lumpur, said simple economics could explain much of Somalia's burgeoning piracy.

"At the end of the day, you hijack a ship, you get paid ransom," Mr Choong said.

"These pirates aren't frightened because the returns are so big."  The pirates frequently travel in  open skiffs with outboard  motors, often working with larger mother ships that tow them far out to sea.

With an intimate knowledge of local waters, they clamber aboard commercial vessels with ladders and grappling hooks.

The attackers generally treat their hostages well in anticipation of a big payday. Shipping companies and foreign governments rarely acknowledge paying ransom, but recent demands have soared into the millions of dollars.

"Our motivation is money, so it is not our plan to harm the hostages we take," Siyad said.

"We never agree to release the hostages or the ship before the ransom is paid in cash."

Andrew Mwangura of the Kenya-based Seafarers Assistance Programme estimates that Somali pirates have received more than US$3 million in ransom this year alone, an astronomical sum even considering it would be split among dozens or even hundreds of criminals.

International terrorism, always a concern in the volatile Horn of Africa, and particularly in lawless Somalia, does not appear to have a role in the country's piracy, according to observers.

"I don't know that there has been a tie. We're not necessarily looking for one," said Commander Lydia Robertson, a US Navy spokeswoman.

Siyad said his decision to become a pirate was a matter of survival. Impoverished and with no job prospects, he saw two options: risk his life by fleeing Somalia in a leaky boat to the more prosperous countries across the Gulf of Aden, or join up with pirates who were flush with cash.

Now, US$35,000 richer after hijacking two vessels - including a Japanese tanker seized in December - Siyad said the best, most profitable choice was clear. He plans to use his spoils to try to escape the poverty and instability of Somalia.

"I [plan]to go abroad using a safe route, using my money," he said.

But Muse had second thoughts a few years ago, blaming the easy money for the loss of his wives and other personal misfortunes.

"I had to sell the house and the cars," Muse said. "I divorced my wives. I stopped this job after thinking about how it affects our Islamic religion and our Somali culture."

"Now I work at a private company, I am no longer a pirate," he said. "I am happy to get a small monthly salary."

Associated Press


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... sight&s=Opinion

Try reading english news websites:
UK http://www.bbc.co.uk
AUSTRALIA http://www.news.com.au
USA http://www.cnn.com

thank you so much!!!