In Iran, intellectuals are the new terrorists


Ahmed Rashid
Jul 26, 2007           
     
  |   

  



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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greater integration will benefit our city


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Jul 27, 2007           
     
  |   

  



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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Our charitable heart needs looking after


EDITORIAL/LEADER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Pilot scheme should be seen as long-term boost


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Aug 21, 2007           
     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

City should be proud of its role in Olympics


EDITORIAL/LEADER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Consensus vital on population policy


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Aug 23, 2007           
     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Unity is key in the fight against disease


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Aug 24, 2007           
     

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/ ... M100000360a0a0aRCRD

HK must be wary of bubble trouble


EDITORIAL/LEADER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Home-alone tragedy shames our city


OBSERVER
Michael Chugani
Aug 29, 2007           
     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Chugani is a columnist and broadcaster. [email protected]


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

Arch rivals


Greg Barns
Aug 30, 2007           
     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Australia must still try.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

China's rise just needs some understanding


EDITORIAL/LEADER

Sep 03, 2007           
     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

China's legacy: the thoughts of Lao Tzu


James Dorn
Sep 04, 2007           
   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Hagai Segal
Sep 05, 2007           
     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The high cost of our 'free' education


OBSERVER
Alex Lo
Sep 06, 2007           
     


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alex Lo is a senior writer at the Post


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

Global hacking game


PETER KAMMERER

Sep 07, 2007           
      


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Kammerer is the Post's foreign editor


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

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

Email to friend         |         Print a copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

A young Gandhi shows India the way


Deep Kisor Datta-Ray
Sep 11, 2007           
   


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deep Kisor Datta-Ray is a London-based historian and commentator on Asian affairs. [email protected]


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

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

Jimmy Carter
Sep 12, 2007           
   


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright: Project Syndicate


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

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


OBSERVER
Greg Torode
Sep 13, 2007           
   


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Torode is the Post's chief Asia correspondent


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

More big fish to fry


PETER KAMMERER

Sep 14, 2007           
   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Kammerer is the Post's foreign editor



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

Japan's pronounced leadership gap


TOM PLATE

Sep 18, 2007           
   


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

KEVIN SINCLAIR'S HK

Sep 19, 2007           
     


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Sep 20, 2007           
     
  |   

  



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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