EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

D.I.Y. Immigration Reform

Political, business, labor and religious leaders in Utah were widely praised last year for signing the Utah Compact, agreeing to seek practical solutions to the problems of illegal immigration while avoiding the extremist oratory and harsh enforcement schemes that have given its neighbor Arizona such a toxic reputation.

The state has now adopted a series of laws to put those goals into practice. They amount to one state’s effort to enact its own comprehensive immigration reform, given Washington’s continuing failure to do so.

We understand the frustration, but going solo on immigration is not a good idea, even with good intentions.

On the enforcement side, Utah’s new laws have some aspects that are sensible in principle, including stricter procedures for verifying immigrants’ eligibility to work. We are concerned about the effort to draw local police agencies into federal immigration enforcement.

Arizona’s immigration law, which orders its police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being here illegally, is a wide-open invitation to racial profiling and an intrusion onto federal authority. The Obama administration sued to block it, and a federal judge has declared much of it unconstitutional.

Though Utah’s bill seeks to temper Arizona’s approach — it would, for example, require officers to check immigration status only when people are arrested for serious crimes — it is still too open to abuse.

Utah’s planned guest-worker program would issue permits to immigrants, even undocumented ones, allowing them to work in Utah after they pass a background check and pay a fine. This is magnanimous, practical and respectful of federal authority — it would go into effect only after Washington granted a waiver — but even so, it is troubling. Illegal immigrants cannot legally be hired, and it is hard to see how any state could carve out its own exception to that rule — or why the federal government would allow it. It should not.

Another new law allows the governor to enter into a pilot program with the Mexican state of Nuevo León to supply legal workers through existing federal guest-worker programs. Those programs are cumbersome and offer too few protections to workers. We certainly applaud efforts to streamline legal immigration. Utah will need to commit to defending the workers it recruits and to detect and root out employer abuse.

Utah’s legislators deserve credit for trying. But the country cannot have 50 separate immigration systems, 50 separate foreign policies, 50 states following, leading or stumbling around one another.

The states still have a major role to play. They can increase oversight and workplace protections for all low-wage workers, native-born and immigrant. They can push back at the Obama administration’s misguided efforts like Secure Communities, which muddies the line between local policing and federal enforcement — straining local resources and making it much less likely that immigrant communities will cooperate with the police.

They can work harder to integrate immigrants into their communities, increase support for citizenship and English language education, and issue driving privilege cards. And they can keep the pressure on Congress and the president to fix things the right way, in Washington.

Gov. Cuomo’s All-Cuts Budget

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has rightly argued that painful spending cuts will be needed to close New York’s projected $10 billion deficit. The hard truth is that it is impossible to cut spending deeply without cutting the state’s huge outlays for education and health care. That means that New York’s most vulnerable citizens — schoolchildren, the elderly, the poor, the sick — will feel a disproportionate amount of the pain.

Governor Cuomo has vowed to make the tough decisions and not to be swayed by special-interest pleadings. But he is refusing to impose any new taxes or even continue a current surcharge on New York’s wealthiest and least vulnerable citizens.

That makes no fiscal sense. So we have to assume that for Mr. Cuomo, some special interests are more special than others. Just extending the surcharge on New York’s highest earners through 2012 would add an estimated $1.2 billion in revenue to the upcoming budget and $4 billion the following fiscal year.

Without that surcharge and other targeted tax increases, Mr. Cuomo’s proposed cuts in education and other vital services will inevitably be deeper and more painful than necessary, harming both individuals and the foundation for the state’s future economic growth.

•

The governor has proposed his no-new-taxes budget and is now negotiating with state lawmakers. The Legislature is required to approve a final budget by April 1. That means there is only slightly more than a week to decide these critical issues.

The Republican-led State Senate, predictably, supports Mr. Cuomo’s tax stance. The Democratic-led Assembly has proposed a partial extension of the high-earner surcharge that would ease some of the cuts in Mr. Cuomo’s budget, but would still leave a swath of vulnerable New Yorkers exposed to avoidable hardship.

The high-earner surcharge, which is set to expire at the end of this calendar year, currently applies to individuals with taxable income above $200,000 or married couples above $300,000 — the top 2.8 percent of New York taxpayers. (Note that “taxable income” is total income minus exemptions, deductions and other tax breaks, so the gross pay of New Yorkers affected by the surcharge is much higher than the stated threshold.)

If it were extended, the burden would be tolerable. A couple with $350,000 in taxable income would simply continue to pay an extra $3,500; a couple with taxable income of $1.5 million would continue to pay $31,800 more. Those payments would be more than offset by the federal tax breaks those same taxpayers got with the recent renewal of the Bush-era tax cuts.

The surcharge revenue could be used to reduce many of the proposed cuts, or to avert the worst of them. For instance, Mr. Cuomo wants to withhold a $1.2 billion payment due to poor school districts under a 2006 court order. If the Legislature agrees, it will be the second year in a row that the ordered payment is not made. And it will further widen an already unconscionably wide gap between rich and poor school districts.

Extending the surcharge would allow the payment to be made. Even then, K-12 education would still face a crushing 7.3 percent cut from last year’s spending. If it is combined with Mr. Cuomo’s wrongheaded idea for a property tax cap, many schoolchildren will suffer educational setbacks from which they — and the New York economy — may never recover.

If it were not so serious, Mr. Cuomo’s antitax crusade would be silly. His claim that New York has “the worst business tax climate in the nation, period” is based on an index from the Tax Foundation, a research group, which rates South Dakota and Alaska as the best states. New York is clearly not at a competitive disadvantage to those states. And neither is at a disadvantage to its neighbors: what Mr. Cuomo does not say is that New Jersey is ranked 48th on that list and Connecticut 47th.

More important, taxes generally rank behind education, infrastructure and other criteria when businesses decide where to locate and invest. If Mr. Cuomo were really concerned about the needs of business, he would seek to reduce proposed cuts in areas that businesses care about most.

The surcharge is not the only place to look for needed revenues. A penny-per-ounce tax on sugary sodas could raise an estimated $465 million in the first fiscal year. A review of the state’s nearly $29 billion in annual corporate tax credits and other breaks could yield hundreds of millions of dollars in credits that have outlived their usefulness.

Calling for painful spending cuts, it turns out, is the easy part. Calling for relatively painless tax increases requires real political courage, which Mr. Cuomo and state lawmakers have yet to display.

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY MAIL, UK

Sending in the warplanes is the easy part

After a bad beginning, for which it was rightly chided, the Government has got a grip on its Libyan policy.

The Prime Minister may have fumbled at first, but he has successfully pressed for international intervention and skilfully involved several Arab countries. He has neutralised or soothed potential opponents and made a strong case for his strategy to Parliament and the country.

Whether it is by accident or design, the arrangements put Europe, especially France, in the forefront, the US in the background and the UN’s endorsement on top.

This is good Middle Eastern diplomacy in the post-Bush world. Nobody – especially the US – wants a repeat of the Iraq fiasco. France, by contrast, does not want a reputation for always standing back when there is hard work to be done.

But that was the easy part. In all the long history of such actions, it has always been far simpler to order forces into action than it has been to be clear about precisely what we are trying to achieve.

Mr Cameron knows very well that he must be careful not to behave like Tony Blair, whose ever-shifting objectives in Iraq – weapons of mass destruction one day, regime change the next, often depending on his audience – still remain unresolved.

Nor must he echo John Reid, whose unwise musings about British troops leaving Afghanistan without a shot being fired will haunt him for the rest of his days.

A successful military intervention has to have a realistic, clearly defined objective. All efforts can be concentrated on attaining that target. The operation can be ended when it is met.

At present this is not the case. The diplomacy may have been tightly controlled and neatly directed. But the UN resolution is alarmingly open at one end. ‘All necessary measures’ is a very wide licence.

The promise that there will be no occupation force does not rule out the deployment of troops. Notoriously, soldiers are a hundred times harder to extract than they are to insert.

Colonel Gaddafi is nothing if not cunning. There is a risk that our intervention will save Benghazi, but only by creating an unresolved stalemate, similar to the one which bedevilled Iraq for so many years, in which the regime survives, the people suffer and fleets of pitiful refugee boats head north across the Mediterranean.

If our real objective is regime change, which the UN and the Arab League cannot approve, then we are also entering very foggy territory.

It is quite unclear who would take over if Gaddafi is overthrown, or how long they would last without outside support.

And if we believe that rulers who kill their own people are unfit to govern – as seems to be the policy – then our inaction over the state-sponsored massacres in Yemen and Bahrain is inexplicable and embarrassing.

Now is the time to be very careful indeed, and much more specific about what we want to do.

Mr Cameron has enough sense to resist the seductive call of war leadership. He will need it.

The thrill of being obeyed by seasoned, grizzled generals and the joy of poring over war maps in secret bunkers are as exhilarating as champagne. But there is always a hangover afterwards.

How bad it is will depend on just how wise and restrained the Prime Minister is now.

EDITORIAL : THE SUN, UK

Gaddafi blitzed from air and sea

BLAZING tanks and military vehicles littered roads in Libya as the world finally lost patience with Colonel Gaddafi.

UK forces joined the US and French military in unleashing a deadly barrage of missiles last night to take out troops loyal to the scheming tyrant.

Stormshadow "fire and forget" missiles were launched from Tornado GR4 fast jets, which flew 3,000 miles from RAF Marham in Norfolk and back.

US and French fighter jets took to the skies over the crisis-torn country to enforce a no-fly zone.

A Royal Navy Trafalgar-class submarine based in the Mediterranean was among vessels that fired missiles at Tripoli and the under-attack city of Misurata.

The submarine joined forces from the US, France, Italy and Canada in the attack - under US operational command.

A barrage of 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles - some of them British - was fired last night to knock out the dictator's air defence systems at more than 20 coastal locations.

The blitz came after a Libyan ceasefire was broken when a fighter jet was blown out of the skies above the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

David Cameron said: "Gaddafi has made this happen." He was speaking at the end of an emergency summit in Paris.

A Royal Navy Trafalgar-class submarine stationed in the Mediterranean took part in the co-ordinated assault, which also involved forces from the US, France, Italy and Canada.

The PM added: "What is absolutely clear is that Gaddafi has broken his word, he has broken confidence and continues to slaughter his own civilians.

"This has to stop, we have to make him stop and make him face the consequences."

Meanwhile French President Nicolas Sarkozy said military jets would prevent forces loyal to Gaddafi from attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

Around 20 French fighter jets are patrolling the skies above Libya and a military official confirmed a plane had fired on a Libyan military vehicle.

Gaddafi appeared to openly flaunt the threat of a no-fly zone resolution as a fighter jet was shot down over the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

Libya's ceasefire lay in tatters amid reports that pro-Government forces were storming the city.

PM David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a host of other world leaders met yesterday to discuss a course of action over Libya.

Rebels say they have suffered heavy shelling from Gaddafi's forces while reports say tanks have been seen rolling into Benghazi.

Video footage emerged yesterday showing the downed jet circling over the city before flames burst out of its engine and it slammed to the ground.

The pilot managed to eject before the plane hit the ground.

But Libyan authorities insisted there had been "no attack whatsoever" on rebel forces in the city.

They insisted that their forces were holding to a ceasefire announced on Friday and repeated an invitation for international observers to enter the country today to monitor it.

Earlier a Libyan spokesman read from a letter sent from Gaddafi to PM David Cameron and UN secretary Ban Ki-Moon declaring: "Libya is not yours. Libya is for the Libyans. The Security Council resolution is invalid.

He continued: "You will regret it if you dare to intervene in our country."

As RAF Tornados were readied for action Gaddafi quickly declared the ceasefire and promised to halt his war on the rebel uprising.

But at the same time his troops carried on shelling rebels in Misrata. Ambulances were blown up and 25 were killed, including two young girls.

Gaddafi's forces are continuing to advance towards the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Clashes erupted 30 miles from the rebel "capital".

Rebels dismissed the ceasefire declaration as a ruse.

"He is lying. His troops are advancing. We don't believe Gaddafi," said Mohammed Ishmael al-Tajouri from the rebel coalition in Benghazi. "When he comes to Benghazi he will be fighting. There is no negotiating with Gaddafi."

Mr Cameron warned Gaddafi the world would not be conned. The PM said: "We will judge him by his actions, not his words."

The PM joined US president Barack Obama and French leader Nicolas Sarkozy to lay down FIVE conditions the 67-year-old dictator must meet to avoid military intervention in strife-torn Libya.

In a demand backed by Arab states, the three leaders told the Libyan Mad Dog to:

HALT all attacks on civilians.

STOP the assault on Benghazi.

PULL his troops back from onslaughts on rebels in Adjadbiya, Misrata and Zawiyah.

RESTORE water, electricity and gas to all areas, and ALLOW in humanitarian assistance for the people of Libya.

In a joint statement, the trio told Gaddafi the terms were "not negotiable".

And they said if he did not comply, Thursday night's UN Security Council resolution to prevent a mass slaughter of rebels would be "enforced through military action".

It was also made clear to Gaddafi that he could not stay in power. Mr Cameron declared: "Gaddafi must go. He has no legitimacy. I don't think Libya has any future with Gaddafi in charge."

President Obama warned: "Now, once more, Muammar Gaddafi has a choice. If he does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences."

An RAF Sentinel spy plane touched down at the British base in Akrotiri, Cyprus, on Friday to begin mapping out Libyan targets for air strikes.

A dozen senior officers also arrived to command a mission codenamed Operation Ellamy.

RAF Typhoon fighters and Tornado bombers followed. Defence chiefs across Nato assembled the broadest airborne force seen since the 1991 Gulf War.

Nine nations have offered military assets so far. They include Canada, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Poland and Spain, with at least two Arab nations considering joining in. While no invasion plans have been drawn up, Downing Street made it clear ground troops had not been ruled out. Only a long-term occupation of Libya has been vetoed.

Mr Cameron insisted the action was not about regime change in Libya.

He declared: "The UN resolution is about protecting lives and stopping slaughter. It's up to the Libyan people to choose their government. Is this going to be another Iraq? No."

The PM said Britain was taking a leading role in the mission because of "our ideals as well as our interests". He added: "As well as stopping the slaughter, it is crucial not to allow Libya to sink back into a pariah state."

Mr Obama said America would not lead the operation. But after a fortnight of US dithering, tensions began to surface.

Mrs Clinton said she would not serve under Mr Obama for a second term. A source close to her said: "She is not happy dealing with a president who can't decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday."

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY YOMIURI, JAPAN

Timely G-7 move stems yen's rise

The Group of Seven advanced economies abruptly staged a joint yen-selling intervention in currency markets Friday to stop excessive appreciation of the yen against the U.S. dollar.

This lowered the yen exchange rate to the 81-82 yen range from 76.25 yen on Thursday in Sydney, the highest level since the end of World War II.

A sense of security also spread at the Tokyo Stock Exchange and stock prices rose sharply.

The concerted intervention symbolized the solidarity between Japan and the six other members of the G-7--Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the United States--supporting the country after it suffered enormous damage from the massive earthquake March 11. We greatly appreciate it.

Before the latest intervention, finance ministers and central bank governors of Japan and the six other countries held a teleconference and compiled a joint statement.

"Excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates have adverse implications for economic and financial stability," the statement said. It also stated that the coordinated action by the G-7 was made at Japan's request.

It is extremely rare for the G-7 to reveal that a certain action is taken at the request of an individual country.

===

1st such move in decade

It was also the first concerted intervention by the G-7 in 10-1/2 years. The last was carried out in September 2000 to curb depreciation of the euro.

Japan also intervened in currency markets by selling yen and buying dollars in September 2010. At that time, however, Japan acted alone; the United States and European countries did not participate.

However, these countries decided to join the latest intervention apparently because their concerns had grown about the current state of the Japanese economy.

There are fears regarding the adverse effects of the earthquake and the subsequent accidents at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. If the sharp appreciation of the yen continues for a prolonged period, the business performance of Japan's automobile and other export-based industries could deteriorate, dealing yet another blow to the economy.

Stagnation of the Japanese economy might disrupt currency and stock markets around the world and hinder the global economy just as it is beginning a full-fledged recovery.

The G-7 apparently concluded it was extremely important for the world economy to avert such a scenario and help Japan recover from the earthquake and restore its economy.

===

Speculators pushed up yen

The yen's sharp appreciation was triggered by hedge funds and other speculators buying the Japanese currency on the assumption that its value would rise after the earthquake.

Also behind the joint intervention was the fact that the G-7 has been considering tightening regulations on hedge funds after the global financial crisis and could not overlook their speculative buying of the yen.

However, future exchange markets warrant no optimism. Speculators are expected to act as if they are testing currency authorities' determination to battle the yen's excessive appreciation. The government and the Bank of Japan should establish deeper cooperation with the United States and European countries, and should continue intervening in currency markets if necessary.

Although the other members of the G-7 decided this time to intervene in currency markets with Japan, which wants to lower the yen's value drastically, it is still unknown to what level the United States and European countries would allow the yen to fall. We must keep our attention on exchange markets.

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY STAR, BANGLADESH

Repatriation hampered

Let our govt do more to help

The appeal by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and UNHCR for international assistance in repatriating thousands of foreigners fleeing Libya is the biggest sign of what governments can yet do to help captive citizens. The situation is particularly difficult for the thousands of Bangladeshis who remain stranded on the frontier between Libya and Tunisia, a condition that looks likely to continue now that the IOM has run out of funds. While one expects the international community to come forward, and quickly with emergency funds, one also believes that governments such as Bangladesh's should be doing a whole lot more to help their own people out of the crisis.

Meanwhile, we express our gratitude to the Tunisian people who, despite their own difficulties, have come forth spontaneously to help the foreigners including Bangladeshis streaming into their country from Libya. Their noble deeds will resonate with us forever.

The unfortunate reality, though, is that while the Bangladesh government has loudly voiced its concerns and its determination to bring back all Bangladeshis home, it has simply not backed up its resolve with enough concrete measures. The proof of such indifference comes from the IOM itself. Officials of the organisation are plainly exasperated that despite reports of Biman aircraft flying in to fly out the stranded Bangladeshis, there has been no sign yet that that is truly happening. We are now constrained to ask why the Bangladesh government, which recently despatched the foreign minister and the foreign secretary as well as other officials to oversee the repatriation of Bangladeshis, has failed to meet public expectations. Our officials have reportedly not contacted the IOM or UNHCR people working on the ground. If they have not, what exactly have they been engaged in doing? It is not a pretty sight when the government of a country cannot come to the aid of its people in distress abroad. It disappoints citizens and it leaves them red-faced before the rest of the world.

Let the government get its act together and strive more energetically to orchestrate the repatriation exercise so that none of our citizens feel abandoned.

Biman's loss of customers

Avoid half- baked approach

The state that the national carrier is in at present it can do well without any poorly planned step. This has become only too evident from the quandary Biman finds itself in due to the enhancement of fares, which, apparently, was effected without proper homework.

The result of the hike in fare on the international routes has been loss of customers, in some cases as much as 50 percent. Even reduction by 60 percent in the new rates has not been able to recoup the loss.

We find it difficult to agree with Biman Chairman that the tariff committee had taken the decision after considering all the factors. It is very obvious that the decision to raise passenger fares has not been backed up by a thorough market study, as evidenced by the quick change of decision to cut the raise.

The poor state of the national carrier has been a matter of serious concern. It is a classic example of how a prospective and promising enterprise can be wasted due to sheer mismanagement, corruption and abysmal lack of commitment by those that are entrusted to run the airline. We fail to understand how other airlines operating in and out of Bangladesh have flourished while Biman has suffered. Can we expect an explanation by the Biman authorities as to how the number of Biman passengers has dwindled while some airlines have increased the number of flights to meet the increased demand on them?

Biman needs a thorough overhaul starting with having a management that is well versed in running an aviation industry, and no political consideration must come in in this regard; and a long term plan needs to be put in place to lift it up from the morass that Biman is in.

EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

Strained ties

IT has been a challenging week in the life of the US-Pakistan relationship. In protest against a drone strike that killed about 45 people attending a jirga in North Waziristan, Pakistan has pulled out of trilateral talks with the US and Afghanistan scheduled later this week. Relations are tense, with official condemnations delivered both publicly by Pakistan`s army chief and in private to the US State Department. But as rough as this patch seems, it is not inconsistent with the history of US-Pakistan relations. Lack of trust in America has almost always been a part of the political discourse in the country. Most Pakistanis do not approve of American policies in the region, and have for decades believed that the US has either betrayed Pakistan in times of need or used their country to achieve regional policy goals only to abandon it once those objectives have been met. With the developments of the last few days, this trust deficit seems to have widened once again.

Whether or not Pakistani perceptions are true, the fact remains that at such a tense juncture, missteps must be avoided to prevent tensions from snowballing. The real state of the alliance is shrouded in secrecy — neither administration is particularly honest with the public about the terms of engagement — and it remains unclear whether recent developments mark a hiccup along the way or permanent damage. But the slightest mishandling of the current situation could result in the speedy deterioration of relations. Gen Petraeus`s call for military action in North Waziristan the day after the drone attack, for example, displayed continuing insensitivity to Pakistan`s domestic compulsions. At the same time, Pakistan must think carefully about what it hopes to achieve by shunning the trilateral talks. Signals are an important tool in diplomacy, but at a time like this each move should be thought through with sensitivity and with an eye to the long-term health of the partnership.
As recent events have once again proved, the sooner the US realises the need to change both its tactics and strategy in dealing with Pakistan, the better the outcome will be for both countries and for the struggle against extremism and militancy in the region. Both parties are aware that they depend on each other: America for achieving its goals in Afghanistan and Fata, and Pakistan for economic assistance. Putting arrogance and inflexibility aside, the two sides must have an honest discussion about their respective strategic interests and how these can be achieved through a joint effort. A focus on narrow self-interest is not the approach this relationship needs.

Nuclear energy

A WEEK after the double disaster that triggered the explosions and radiation leaks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor, Japan raised the accident level at the facility from four to five on a seven-point international danger scale for atomic accidents. This put the Fukushima situation in the category of an “accident with wider consequences”. On the same scale, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster — the worst nuclear accident the world has ever experienced — is rated at the maximum level of seven.

Japan is fire-fighting to the best of its ability. Given the context of its 1945 atomic tragedy, it can be safely said that Japan would have ensured that safety measures at its nuclear installations were as stringent as possible. Perhaps that is why many countries are heeding lessons from the tragedy, realising that the seemingly win-win option of nuclear energy must be revisited. In recent years several people, including environmental activists, have accepted the idea of nuclear power plants as clean and efficient sources of energy generation. Nuclear plants have been hailed as power generators of the future, helping countries meet their carbon emission- reduction targets. Yet the fact is that nuclear technology is dangerous technology, and as the predicament faced by Japan illustrates, man can guard against any force save that of nature.

Hence the scramble to review safety levels of nuclear units and to focus, in particular, on contingency plans in case of a natural disaster. Many countries are facing renewed protests by the anti-nuclear lobby. US President Barack Obama has ordered a comprehensive review of the country`s nuclear plants. Germany, too, has put in place a moratorium on extending the operation of existing plants in order to review safety standards — even though this is likely to lead to an increase in carbon emissions. What is needed now is a global debate on the viability of nuclear energy as a sustainable option. People`s faith in nuclear energy has been shaken, and their governments must be sensitive to their sentiments. Further, it is time the world started looking for alternative yet viable and sustainable solutions to its energy requirements.

Plague of plagiarism

RECENT years have seen a number of allegations that the research papers submitted or published by some faculty members of universities and other institutions of higher learning contain content plagiarised from the work of other scholars. In a case that came to light the other day, the accusatory finger has now been pointed at none other than the vice-chancellor of the University of Peshawar. It is claimed by a teacher at the same university that passages in a book authored by the VC bear a striking resemblance to the works of two other writers. For his part, the vice-chancellor denies any wrongdoing and the Higher Education Commission is said to be looking into the matter. The HEC’s probe must be conducted with due diligence, for two key reasons. A half-hearted effort will not only leave a cloud of suspicion hanging over the accused irrespective of his guilt or innocence, it may also embolden potential plagiarists and send a signal that they can cheat on their research and get away with it. In-house investigations into purported plagiarism carried out by university syndicates have not always been satisfactory and the same lack of zeal must not be the hallmark of this most recent case.
A key part of the problem here is that many writers, be they scholars, journalists or development sector experts, are not fully aware of what constitutes plagiarism. There is even less of a grasp on the gravity of the crime. Wittingly or otherwise, the perpetrators are not merely cheating — they are robbing others of their intellectual property and perhaps even some part of their soul. Ideas lie at the core of what makes us human and it is originality of thought that moves societies forward. Little real intellectual advancement can be expected if stealing the thoughts of others is all we can do.