Incineration should no longer be a dirty word


Timothy Peirson-Smith
Feb 09, 2010           
     
      

  



Hong Kong, like many cities worldwide, has a troubled historic relationship with incineration as a waste management option. A 1989 white paper published by the government identified the incineration of solid waste as a key contributor to air pollution and decided to cease the practice for good, leading to the closure of the four local incineration plants between 1991 and 1997.

With this legacy and baggage, coupled with viable concerns over air pollution in a high-rise city, the community understandably is hostile to the incineration concept. It was not until 2008 that incineration re-emerged as the preferred approach but, after so many years of stigma, the government faces an uphill struggle to get it accepted.

The situation today is different elsewhere. During an environmental tour to Japan last October, arranged by several industry groups including the Hong Kong Waste Management Association, I was astounded by the quality and extensive use of incineration technology for waste management. Technology has advanced such that modern incineration constitutes a state-of-the-art, hi-tech, clean and sustainable waste management solution, much different from the dirty, smelly, smoke-belching incinerators of the 1990s.

Japanese companies are designing and building plants that incinerate waste at a much higher temperature, with negligible levels of emitted pollutants, including dioxins.

Bearing in mind these dramatic advances, negative perceptions regarding incineration are no longer as pertinent as they once were. In this context, the government is right to recognise incineration as a key strategy in the fight to stave off an impending waste management crisis - as it has with recent proposals for integrated waste management facilities. In terms of environmental sustainability, the concept represents a welcome step away from the expansion of landfills as Hong Kong's sole waste management strategy - one that has begun to display dangerous tendencies. The recently approved expansion of the Southeast New Territories landfill into a section of Clear Water Bay Country Park, for example, is a travesty.

When deciding the details of the integrated facilities, environmental and social sustainability must be key. To be sustainable, incineration should satisfy three conditions. First, any plant built in Hong Kong must be a "waste-to-energy" facility, whereby heat and/or electricity are supplied back to the surrounding community either at a discount or free. Second, the facilities must be a community asset with a recognised civic role. Third, the facilities need not be an industrial eyesore. In Japan, incinerators are often architecturally outstanding contributions to the skyline.

All of Tokyo's non-recyclable waste has been incinerated since 1996. With limited space and a need to protect our country parks, Hong Kong has a lot to learn. We must now further educate the public and nurture their acceptance of incineration as a safe, sustainable and effective solution for non-recyclable waste.

Habits must also be transformed to counteract the very "wet" nature of our waste, which makes the process less efficient. Importantly, the public must be encouraged to recognise that incineration of non-recyclable or residual waste - the fourth "R" - is only part of the solution, and embrace the "three Rs" of "reduce", "reuse" and "recycle".

Some have argued for another "R" to be added: "responsibility". We are part of the problem, and we are part of the solution. Through education, increased awareness and a willingness to follow the high standards of nations such as Japan, the integrated waste management facilities could be just one element of a truly sustainable waste management revolution.

Timothy J. Peirson-Smith is managing director of Executive Counsel Limited, a sustainability-focused public affairs and strategic communication consultancy based in Hong Kong. He is also chairman of the Business Policy Unit, British Chamber of Commerce, Hong Kong


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

Activists seek to elude Iran's internet police


IRAN
Reuters in Tehran
Feb 10, 2010           
     
      

  



With their paths through the internet increasingly blocked by government filters, Nooshin and her fellow Iranian opposition-supporters say their information on planned protests now comes in e-mails. They say they do not know who sends them.

Internet messages have been circulating about possible rallies tomorrow, when Iran marks the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution. But the climate in the Islamic republic is much harder than before last year's post-election protests.

In June last year, social media sites were hailed in the West as promising opposition supporters an anonymous rallying ground - especially when they were accessed through proxy servers that could mask participants' actions and whereabouts.

For determined Iranians now, they are a high-risk tactic in a strategic game with the authorities, amid reports of mounting internet disruption. Almost 32 per cent of Iranians use the internet and nearly 59 per cent have a cellphone subscription, 2008 estimates from the International Telecommunications Union show.

Since the disputed presidential poll that plunged Iran into its deepest internal turmoil since the 1979 revolution, the authorities have slowed internet speeds and shut opposition websites. They also boast of an ability to track online action even from behind the proxies.

"This one is also blocked," sighed Nooshin, a student, as she surfed the Web in a cafe in Tehran. "This is more filternet than internet."

Speaking in a low voice and wearing a blue headscarf, the 22-year-old declined to use her real name due to the sensitivity of opposition activism.

The presidential vote was followed by huge protests led by opposition supporters who say the poll was rigged to secure hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election. The authorities deny that charge.

When their newspapers were shut down after the vote, defeated presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi launched their own websites. The authorities later blocked them, forcing the opposition to set up new ones.

Much of this action and protest was publicised and tracked on the internet, especially through micro-blogging site Twitter. However, concerns are now mounting in Iran that the authorities may be able to track down people who use proxies.

"People are afraid of being identified and are not willing to use them any longer," said Hamid, a shopkeeper in Markaz-e Computre, a popular computer shopping mall in Tehran.

Which is not to say opposition efforts to plan and publicise action have been thwarted. Afshin, a Web developer who supports the opposition, said the authorities would not succeed: "Whatever the government blocks on the Web, the people find another way. It is a cat-and-mouse game the government cannot win."

Arrayed against the Web activists is the fact the government has the latest monitoring technology, enabling it to detect computers making a secure connection, said Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer for Helsinki-based F-Secure Corporation.

Some proxy servers use secure sockets layer (SSL) to secure the connection with a remote server. This security layer helps ensure no other computers can read the traffic.

When people make SSL connections - used in the West for internet shopping - the authorities cannot see the content of material accessed. But they can physically raid sites to check on the computers involved.

National police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam last month warned Iran's opposition against using text messages and e-mails to organise fresh street rallies.

"These people should know where they are sending the SMS and e-mail as these systems are under control. They should not think using proxies will prevent their identification," he said. "If they continue ... those who organise or issue appeals [about opposition protests] have committed a crime worse than those who take to the streets."

Thousands of people were arrested during widespread street unrest after the election. Most have been freed, but more than 80 have been jailed for up to 15 years, including several senior opposition figures. On January 28, Iranian media said two men sentenced to death in trials that followed the election had been executed. Tension rose after eight people were killed in clashes with security forces in December, including Mousavi's nephew.

"The security services can turn technology against the logistics of protest," Evgeny Morozov, a commentator on the political implications of the internet, wrote in the November edition of Prospect magazine, citing experiences in Belarus and elsewhere.

But the authorities are facing determined resistance. Journalists inside Iran have been banned from attending opposition demonstrations, but that has not kept footage of anti-government gatherings from reaching the internet.

"It is extremely important for me to check my e-mail messages in order to be informed about the latest developments in the absence of independent free media in the country," said Nooshin, her computer screen repeatedly flashing up the same message in Farsi: "Access to this page is prohibited by the law."

A young customer in the computer shopping centre in Tehran said: "It is very important to be unidentified while surfing the internet these days ... the most secure way for us is to have a secure e-mail account."


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

The great power game
Portraits of China's rise and America's decline in the region fail to capture the real dynamics at play

Brad Glosserman
Feb 11, 2010           
     
      

  



The hearts of Asia-Pacific strategists are all a flutter. The desire of Japan's new government to "rebalance" its foreign policy between East and West and the tensions between Tokyo and Washington that have followed in its wake are seen as portents of a shift in the regional balance of power. Propelled by a global recession that is widely seen as "made in the USA" and the striking contrast posed by China's resilience and rising confidence, there is a growing sense that we are witnesses to the first stages in a fundamental transition in the way the world works.

This is a compelling portrait - but it is simplistic and the implications that many draw from the changes under way are way overdrawn. This is crude zero-sum thinking, and it doesn't capture the dynamics of contemporary Asia.

The case for change is straightforward. The Obama administration talks about a new commitment to Asia, but it is distracted by wars elsewhere and absorbed by bruising political fights at home. Its capacity for action is limited by rising debt and its dependence on other nations whose interests often differ from those of the US or who prefer to see Washington humbled, if not humiliated, by foreign adversaries. The chief beneficiary of these constraints is China, which is eager to resume its place of prominence in Asia and whose economic dynamism has put itself at the very heart of a more deeply integrated regional order. China's appeal is increasing - and, when seduction doesn't work, Beijing has shown little compunction about playing hardball to get its way.

The canary in this coalmine is Tokyo. New Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has said that he seeks to "rebalance" relations with its ally and forge a new relationship with Asia as a whole and China in particular. The "meaning" of this shift is reputedly evident in rising tensions with Washington triggered by delays in the planned move of the marine air base at Futenma to northern Okinawa, which is seen as part of a more general devaluing of the alliance as a whole. The visit of Democratic Party of Japan kingpin Ichiro Ozawa to Beijing with several hundred businessmen and politicians in tow and Ozawa's push to get visiting Vice-President (and heir apparent) Xi Jinping a meeting with the emperor in Tokyo at short notice - a violation of protocol - are the pointed counterpoints to growing antagonism with Washington. Hatoyama's call for an East Asian community that excludes the US is the final piece of evidence in the case for a shift in the global balance of power - advantage Beijing!

Not exactly. Yes, the world is changing. Asia is assuming a more prominent role in the global economy. Thus far, its political influence has lagged and the desire to fix that is driving many - but not all - policy decisions in regional capitals. The creation of an East Asia Community is one expression of that desire. Yes, China is playing, and will play, a key role in that process and in any resulting community. And, yes, Japan is debating its place in the region and the world, and that debate has taken on new intensity in the wake of changes since the end of the cold war.

But once again, that isn't the whole story. China is rising, but there are real limits to its influence, strength and allure. Economic growth is creating unprecedented strains in society and it isn't clear how the political system will cope - much less deliver on expectations of rising prosperity (SEHK: 0803, announcements, news) . China is a big presence in the region, but Asian governments have little faith or confidence in Beijing. Beijing is a stalwart defender of the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs, but it has shown little inclination to provide the international public goods - security and stability - that have made Asian prosperity possible. Japan is debating national identity - but that discussion has been going on since the Meiji Restoration. Governments in Tokyo have always been tugged between East and West and compromises have been made, modified and discarded since the country discarded the isolationism of the shogun era. That is exactly what any country should do as internal and external circumstances change.

And while rapprochement between Tokyo and Beijing is a good thing - the region's two leading powers should be on good terms and no regional community is possible without some form of reconciliation - there are fundamental conflicts of interest, values and perspective that limit those countries' room for diplomatic manoeuvre. It is telling that, despite the "new look" in Tokyo, the two countries had one of their periodic spats over disputed territory in the East China Sea earlier this year.

Similarly, Japan's call for respect and equality in the US-Japan relationship is not new. Every Tokyo government has chaffed at being the "junior partner" - what ally doesn't? Significantly, public support in Japan for the alliance is at historically high levels.

And this DPJ administration, like other governments in the region, looks to the US to provide regional security and stability. Washington's power may be diminished, but it remains an integral part of the Asian order. It provides international public goods to the Asia-Pacific region. It is the trusted "great power". Washington remains a key partner as Asia - and the world - undergoes a transformative period. We must prepare for those transitions, but we shouldn't be scared of them.

Brad Glosserman is executive director of Pacific Forum CSIS. Distributed by Pacific Forum CSIS


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

Smear campaign
Western media is painting a grossly misleading picture of Chinese investment in Africa

Barry Sautman and Yan Hairong
Feb 12, 2010           
     
      

  



International media have reported up a storm on the recent surge in China-Africa links. They invoke a theme familiar from the past two centuries of colonialism and cold war: Africa is beset by poverty and ignorance, caused by ruthless and corrupt rulers. Westerners are trying to bring them to book and instil order on the continent, but other forces, in this case Chinese interlopers, are making that difficult. The facts on the ground show China's engagement in Africa has been more positive than this discourse claims. The Chinese are getting bad press in the West because they are from a country that is not liberal, democratic or white, yet are effectively competing with those who are - to the point that some Africans see Chinese development activities as providing a model.

The Chinese, it is said, are in Africa only for natural resources, to feed China's industry and huge population. To exploit the continent, they provide loans and aid to rogue regimes. They worsen the plight of Africans by dumping cheap, shoddy products in their markets and ruin local industry. Chinese investors pay Africans a pittance, in contrast to more ethical Western firms. China can only be an obstacle to Africa's development.

It's an exciting tale but, alas, the media has it all wrong. It's not mainly China that impairs Africa's development, but a world system of neo-liberal capitalism, based on privatisation, trade liberalisation and reduced social spending, into which China is now partly integrated. As part of the same world system, China and the West have many activities in common in Africa, but there are also some distinctly Chinese trade and investment practices, and these are often more appealing to Africans.

China-Africa trade was US$3 billion in 1995, but US$107 billion in 2008. That's still only 4 per cent of China's world trade. Yet, it makes China Africa's second-largest trading partner and trade is balanced in Africa's favour. On imports from Africa, the China-in-Africa media discourse focuses overwhelmingly on oil. It's often alleged that Chinese demand perpetuates Africa's reliance on petroleum exports, at the expense of growth in more labour-intensive industries, such as agribusiness and manufacturing.

Most of what China buys from Africa is indeed oil (62 per cent) and ores and metals (17 per cent) but, in 2008, oil was 88 per cent of US imports from Africa and minerals made up most of the rest. China's investment in oil production in Africa equals only 8 per cent of that of Western multinationals and 3 per cent of all investment in African oil. China received 9 per cent of Africa's oil exports, but Europe and the US each took 33 per cent. China also couples oil acquisition with low- or no-interest loans to build the infrastructure Africa needs. For 2006-2013, China lent or will lend US$28 billion to Africa for infrastructure and as trade credit. There is also less scope for corruption with China's loans for infrastructure projects - often built by Chinese firms paid directly by Beijing - than with the all-purpose aid Western sources provide African governments.

The focus of the China-in-Africa discourse on China's exports is almost wholly on basic consumer items and their alleged negative consequences. Chinese goods are held responsible for the decline in Africa's textile and clothing industry. But when Chinese goods first came en masse, in about 2000, Africa's textile and clothing industry was already decimated by the international financial institutions' forced trade liberalisation of the 1980s and 1990s, which opened the market to second-hand and new clothing from developed countries. The fact is that Chinese goods are much cheaper than imports from other countries, as well as locally produced goods that are made costly by poor infrastructure, pricey utilities and corruption. A British government study found that Chinese exports to Africa mainly displace developed country exports.

China's stock of investments in Africa rose from US$49 million in 1990 to US$7.8 billion in 2008. Total foreign direct investment in Africa in 2007 was US$36 billion, with most of it from the European Union, US and South Africa. There are about 1,000 significant Chinese enterprises in Africa, but the media reports focus only on investment in extractive industries, particularly on one investment, the Chambishi copper mine in Zambia.

Conditions at the Chambishi mine, with its 2,200 employees, have indeed been deplorable. But, Chambishi is not the only mine where conditions are highly oppressive, as the many strikes at Western and white South African mines show. Both Chinese and Western firms in Africa have oppressive conditions, but Western firms are more profitable. In contrast to Western investments, many Chinese enterprises share profits with Africans.

China is presented as "indifferent to Africa's authoritarian despots, as it courts the continent for energy and minerals", as a leading British journalist put it. But the US and France support most despots in Africa, providing them with military assistance and legitimacy. The West is also implicated in the trade in money and trade in people. Some 40 per cent of Africa's private wealth has been sent overseas. London and Zurich, not Beijing, receive these fruits of capital flight and tax evasion.

The China-in-Africa discourse lacks a comparative approach and reflects Western elites' perception of their national interests and moral superiority. It fails to question Western government rhetoric about "aiding African development" and "promoting African democracy". At the same time, they seize on any example of supposed exploitation by Chinese in Africa.

Many Africans - and some Westerners - question the binary view of a new Western "civilising mission" versus the actions of "amoral" Chinese. They are increasingly rejecting a discourse that draws attention away from Africa's systemic problems of exploitation and human rights and towards blaming Chinese, not for what they actually do in Africa, but for being the newly perceived strategic competitor of the West.

Barry Sautman is a political scientist and lawyer at the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology. Yan Hairong is an anthropologist at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Reprinted with permission from YaleGlobal Online.

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

Time for real science to set the record straight


Thomas Friedman
Feb 18, 2010           
     
      

  



Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake US politics, surely the silliest is the argument that, because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter, it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.

The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces - from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies sceptical of climate change, to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations. So, climate experts can't leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or not responding to legitimate questions.

Although a mountain of research from multiple institutions supports the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What's real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it "What We Know", summarising everything in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.

At the same time, they should add a summary of all the errors and wild exaggerations made by the climate sceptics - and where they get their funding.

Here are the points I'd like to stress. First, avoid the term "global warming". I'd say "global weirding", because that is what really happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.

Second, historically, we know that the climate has warmed and cooled slowly. What the current debate is about is whether humans are rapidly exacerbating nature's natural warming cycles in ways that lead to dangerous disruptions.

Third, those who favour taking action are saying: "Because the warming humans are doing is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, let's buy insurance by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit." This insurance will also make us richer and more secure - the US will import less oil, invent and export more clean-tech products, spend fewer dollars buying oil and, most importantly, diminish the dollars that are sustaining petro-dictators who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.

Fourth, even if climate change proves less catastrophic than some fear, in a world that is forecast to grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion people by 2050, demand for renewable energy and clean water will soar. Obviously it will be the next great global industry.

China, of course, understands that, which is why it is investing heavily in clean-tech, efficiency and high-speed rail. I suspect China is quietly laughing at the US right now. And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the Opec gang are high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans confused about climate change and, so, less inclined to move towards clean-tech - and more certain to remain addicted to oil.

Thomas L. Friedman is a New York Times columnist


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

I read this essay everyday

Age is no barrier
Forcing early retirement on able and experienced workers leaves Hong Kong society worse off

Mike Rowse
Feb 22, 2010           
     
      

  



It's a good job Sir Alex Ferguson is not manager of the Hong Kong government's football team, or he would have been forced to retire nine years ago when he reached his 60th birthday. Instead, he has been free during the last decade to help Manchester United go on winning trophies, including the Champions League and three consecutive premiership titles, with his team fighting hard this season for what would be an unprecedented fourth.

Why does our society insist on consigning fit and well performers at the top of their game to the scrap heap?

And should we continue to do so when the evidence all around us is that this is unnecessary and indeed socially and economically counterproductive?

The argument for raising the retirement age to 65, or even scrapping it altogether, is overwhelming. So why are we stuck in our present situation?

The answer is a combination of history and inertia.

Not so long ago, the standard retirement age for civil servants was 55, applications to retire early at 50 were readily granted and even retirement at 45 was possible if there were special circumstances. These numbers came from an era when terms and conditions were largely geared to serving the interests of expatriates who dominated the senior ranks of the civil service. Before air conditioning became widespread, and while shorts and long socks (or safari suits) were standard dress, it was felt life in the tropics was especially energy-sapping and hence worthy of generous retirement arrangements.

Even the increase of the retirement age to 60, when it came, needs to be compared to average life expectancy which now stands at about 79 for men and well over 80 for women. So our society is planning for the average person to spend 20 or more years being economically inactive.

From the perspective of the individual, the consequences of spending decades without income can be devastating. Gradually, savings accumulated over a working career of 40 years or so disappear, which could leave the retiree in poverty or as a serious burden on his family (or the community at large, of which more later). While the financial implications are serious enough, the effect on the morale of the person can be even grimmer. For most people, their job is an integral part of who they are. It helps define them, gives them a sense of purpose. The prospect of an enforced early retirement with inactivity stretching over the horizon often results in a collapse of their spirit and can even result in early death (the so-called "gold watch" syndrome).

Of course, some of the effects of this can be softened by courses preparing people for retirement and, at some point, everyone does have to stop working. So in a sense, raising the retirement age only postpones the problem rather than removes it altogether. But it is surely easier to slip into graceful retirement - preferably with an interim stage involving part-time work - when one's mind and body are sending unmistakable signals that enough is enough.

From society's point of view, early retirement is an extraordinary waste of expertise. People educated at great expense and sharpened by years of hard-won experience are shoved aside when they still have much to offer. Moreover, with the deterioration of family values that seems to be an inevitable part of the switch from rural to urban living, the community now has a tendency to look to the government to provide support for the elderly. Where once it was common for three or even four generations to live under one roof, now this is exceptional and the nuclear family has become the norm.

Governments everywhere are struggling to cope with the financial consequences of people hammering on the door for old-age pensions set high enough to support independent living. At this point, it is worth pointing out that when old-age pensions were first introduced with 65 set as the qualifying age in Britain, the average life expectancy was considerably lower than this - somewhere in the mid-50s.

It has just been reported that Shanghai is on the verge of raising the retirement age. An increase is an inevitable part of any package to rescue the American social security system.

In addition to the direct consequences, there are also indirect ones. Already there are concessionary fares on public transport for those aged 65 (or 60 on Citybus). How long before there is pressure to lower the qualifying limit?

In other words, by setting the benchmark at 60 for retirement, we lend subtle support to the idea of dependency and subsidies. We should instead be encouraging self-sufficiency for as long as possible. There are many other aspects of this subject that there is no room to cover here. But, suffice to say, the conclusion is clear: the Hong Kong government should take the lead and announce immediately that in principle it has decided to move the normal retirement age to 65 and will be making arrangements for early implementation.

Does it have the courage to do so, or is this another one for the overflowing "too difficult" basket?

Mike Rowse is a retired civil servant and an adjunct professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... ong+Kong&s=News

Kissel's 'milkshake murder' conviction overturned
(02-11 11:03)
Hong Kong's top court today overturned the murder conviction of American woman Nancy Kissel and ordered a retrial in the gruesome killing of her investment banker husband, one of the city's most sensational crime cases.

"The court unanimously allows the appeal, quashes the conviction and orders a re-trial,'' Chief Justice Andrew Li said.

Kissel was sentenced to life in prison in 2005 after being convicted of drugging her high-flying banker husband with a sedatives-laced strawberry milkshake and then bludgeoning him to death in 2003.

The 45-year-old had been dubbed the "milkshake murderer'' following her conviction after a three-month trial featuring a heady mix of adultery, violence, spying, greed and enormous wealth, gripping the former British colony and inspiring books and films.

Grisly details emerged in the trial, including evidence that Kissel rolled up her husband Robert's body in a carpet and left it in the bedroom of their luxurious apartment for days before hiring workmen to carry it to a storeroom.

"Mrs Kissel killed Mr Kissel. That much is not in dispute. But was the killing certainly murder or might it have been in self defence,'' the court said in its judgment.

"There is acute controversy over what really went on between Mr and Mrs Kissel over the years and right up to the time of the fatal incident.''

The judge ordered Kissel remanded in custody pending a bail hearing.

Prosecutors had claimed the Michigan-born Kissel stood to gain up to US$18 million (HK$140.4 million) in insurance payouts from the death of her husband, a senior investment banker at Merrill Lynch.

The prosecution also argued that Kissel, a mother-of-three, wanted to take her husband's money and run away with a TV repairman with whom she admitted having an affair in the United States.

Kissel admitted from the witness box that she killed her husband but claimed she was acting in self-defence after he attacked her with a baseball bat on the night of the murder.

She also painted herself as a loving but long-suffering wife who had been subjected to regular violent attacks by a husband who abused cocaine and alcohol.

Kissel's last appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2008. In the latest appeal heard before the highest court in January this year, her defence team argued that prosecutors had produced inadmissible evidence during the trial.

Robert Kissel's family suffered a further tragedy in 2006, when his brother Andrew was found murdered in his house in Connecticut, bound and with multiple stab wounds. He was reportedly about to plead guilty to bank fraud charges.

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE   


The Standard
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=17610&icid=3&d_str=20100303

[ 本帖最後由 柔道姐姐 於 2010-3-3 02:55 編輯 ]

Home prices boosted by record low completions

Derek Yiu

Friday, March 05, 2010

A record low number of homes completed last year - just 7,160 - helped boost prices in the fourth quarter by 23 percent. The completion of homes smaller than 1,000 square feet fell 38 percent to the low-water mark of 4,740, said Deputy Commissioner of Rating and Valuation Tang Ping-kwong. "Thanks to low property completions and people's fear of not being able to buy homes, there were fluctuations in property prices." Midland Realty (1200) chief analyst Buggle Lau Ka-fai shared Tang's view that the completion of some homes was deferred to the beginning of this year, but he said low interest rates and abundant liquidity were the main reasons prices surged last year. Eddie Hui Chi-man, an associate professor at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, blamed the economic recovery for the sharp rise, but said speculators, spotting a low at the start of 2009, stepped up their investments. "In the next two to five years, there'll be at least 53,000 homes available," Tang said. About 14,260 units - double last year's number - will be completed this year and 10,960 next year. Most will be in the New Territories, with Yuen Long delivering 27 percent of total homes. Tseung Kwan O - the main area for new homes in recent years - will contribute 22 percent. Hui said a higher supply will stabilize the market, but he does not think the number of homes to be finished this year is high. Lau agreed, noting that many of the homes - including flats at Le Prestige built by Cheung Kong (0001) - had already been sold as uncompleted units last year. He said selling more land will not help to moderate prices in the near term. Lau expects prices to rise between 10 and 15 percent this year. As vacancies fell surprisingly to 4.3 percent - and that of homes smaller than 1,000 square feet to 3.8 percent - rentals will find strong support and rise by up to 20 percent, Lau said. The rental index in the fourth quarter crept up 2 percent from a year ago, according to the Rating and Valuation Department. Following good market response for the remaining sandwich-class homes in Tseung Kwan O, the Housing Authority is prepared to discuss with the government the sale of the 4,000 Home Ownership Scheme homes. The authority will accept applications in July and August at the earliest. There are 1,293 such HOS homes in Tin Shui Wai and 1,110 in Yau Tong. Hui said it is reasonable to relaunch these homes to meet the housing needs of the less well-off. He believes HOS homes may help stabilize private property prices. He also favors an increase in land supply to build more homes under the scheme.  http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=95400&sid=27295703&con_type=1&d_str=20100305&fc=8

pls keep it up.. your effort is appreciated!!

MTR fares up 15 cents

Scarlett Chiang

Friday, March 26, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

An estimated four million passengers will have to pay an average of 15 cents a trip more from June 1. MTR marketing and station business general manager Jeny Yeung Mei-chun said the 2.05 percent hike - forecast by The Standard yesterday - is the result of the fare adjustment mechanism, as agreed with the government. "The mechanism is legally binding," Yeung said. "It is linked to the consumer price index and transport wage index so the result is objective, fair and transparent." She said it will be the first increase in MTR fares for 13 years. As the average fare is HK$7.20 per trip, the increase will be around 15 cents a journey. But Yeung added the rise will only be implemented after a third party audits the result of the mechanism. The Census and Statistics Department announced yesterday the nominal wage change in the transport sector in the fourth quarter of last year was 1.4 percent - a figure that was used to calculate the new fare. According to the latest wage index, bus companies may also apply for a fare increase of 1.25 percent but KMB, Citybus and First Bus said they have no plans to do so. Democratic Party legislator Andrew Cheng Kar-foo said the public must not accept a fare rise - no matter how small - when the company is making a huge profit. He also suggested the government set up a fund from MTRC share dividends to stabilize fares. A spokeswoman for the Transport and Housing Bureau said the adjustment mechanism has taken into consideration how much the public can afford. "We will continue to encourage every public transport operator, including the rail company, to provide concessions to the public," she said. University of Science and Technology economics professor Francis Lui Ting-ming said it is reasonable for the MTRC to increase fares. "You cannot say only accept a fall and not a rise," he said. "There is no free lunch in this world." But Cheng, vice chairman of the Legislative Council's transport panel, criticized MTR Corp for making the move even though it has turned in a profit of HK$77.2 billion over the past 10 years and HK$9.6 billion last year. Coalition to Monitor Public Transport and Utilities spokesman Richard Tsoi Yiu-cheong said the formula ignores important factors such as MTRC profits and changes in wages among the general public. "If you consider the wages of the general public you cannot agree with a fare increase," Tsoi said. "If you dig deeper into the MTRC profits, you will never agree with it."

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=96320&sid=27536367&con_type=1