EDITORIAL : RFI, FRANCE

 

 

French press review 

 

 

The French press starts off with a look at the bombing in Marrakech, before turning towards politics - an interview with budget minister François Baroin, plus controversy surrounding Nicolas Sarkozy's fiscal reform. The French Football Federation faces racial discrimination allegations, and England's royal wedding takes up the rest of the French news today.

The news is dominated by the terrorist attack in the Moroccan city of Marrakech in which at least 14 people, including French citizens, were killed.
“Deadly strike in the heart of Marrakech,” is the headline in Le Figaro. “Marrakech, centre of terror”, writes Libération.
The carnage is turning into a battle of figures - the left leaning Libération puts the toll at 15 dead including six French tourists. France Soir claims 15 people died while 21 others, including seven French people, were injured in the attack.
Aujourd’hui en France/Le Parisien points out that no one had claimed responsibility, up until Thursday evening, for the blast at the café in Jemmaa-el-Fna square.
But France Soir points to a kamikaze mission, where someone entered the café and blew himself up, killing tourists who were enjoying their vacation on the terrace of the Argana café.
La Tribune offers another dimension to the attack. The paper sees it as a clear affront to the recent Arab revolution, and a direct threat to democratic reforms announced by King Mohamed VI.
Libération agrees, observing that the Arab uprising not only ousted ageing autocratic
Regimes but also forced those still in power to accept far-reaching reforms, while disqualifying terrorist groups and disciples of blind violence that thrive on the policies of dictatorships.
Libération, however, hopes that security forces will not use the Marrakech attack as a pretext to crush the democratic aspirations of their people.
The economic daily, Les Echos, runs an exclusive interview with budget minister François Baroin. He answers questions on wealth tax reform, worker's bonuses and projected changes in economic policy in 2011.
Le Monde welcomes a lull in real estate prices after a year marked by spiralling costs throughout 2010. The news comes despite a 17.5 per cent upsurge of rents in Paris.
L’Humanité published a special issue on Friday, ahead of May Day on Sunday, preparing a number of union leaders to replace its editorial staff.
The communist party daily argues in an editorial that the coming to power of president Nicholas Sarkozy, and his decision to enforce and then scrap the controversial fiscal shield, will not temper his resolve to carry out the wealth tax reform.
According to l’Humanité, the paradoxical nature of the issue is rather bothersome to the French, and the tabloid states that these types of social questions must be at the heart of next year’s presidential election.
The Catholic daily La Croix paints a portrait of the perfect candidate for the upcoming French presidential elections. It lists what it believes are the qualities, conditions and support that must be enlisted by contenders in order to win the race to the Elysée.
L’Equipe investigates allegations of racial discrimination at the French Football Federation.
The respected online publication Médiapart reported on Thursday that the Federation had approved discriminatory measures aimed at restricting the number of young black and Arab players seeking admission into football schools.
Médiapart claims that current French football manager Laurent Blanc is among the top federation officials who backed the plan. These are allegations that he and others have denied.
The sports newspaper wonders if the angry reactions from the football federation aren’t an attempt to cover-up a breaking scandal.
The royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey today continues to receive extensive coverage in Friday’s French papers.
"Prince-me, I am dreaming," swooned Libération. La Croix narrates the ultimate Cinderella story of “once upon a time a prince and a beautiful shepardess..."
The free Métro tabloid runs an all English lead story titled “The Wedding”. William and Kate are ready to say their 'I do's' this morning, which will predict  the capacity of this “modern couple” to “change the image of the British monarchy”.

EDITORIAL : AZZAMAN, IRAQ

$120 million housing project for Baghdad

Work on a new housing project, billed as the largest in Baghdad, has began this week, according to Baghdad Governor Salah Abdulrazzaq.

Abdulrazzaq said the project, which will cost $120 million, will take four years to complete.

“This project includes 690 housing units, 48 10-story buildings, malls and other annexes,” he said.

He said the project, to be constructed by a foreign firm, will employ 1,200 Iraqis.

“It is part of the a larger scheme which calls for the construction of 1 million housing units in the country,” Abdulrazzaq said.

More housing projects are scheduled to start in the near future, according to Abdulrazzaq.

“In the coming days, we are going to lay the foundation stone for four other important housing projects,” he said.

The four projects are part of housing the government wants to build for low-income Iraqis.

“Two of the four projects will have 10,000 housing units each and the other two 2,400 units each,” Abdulrazzaq said.

“The stability of the security situation has directly contributed to implementing such big projects,” he said.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD, NEW ZEALAND

 

 

OECD review bitter medicine before Budget

 

Every economy can do with an inspection from outside, ours particularly.

The latest report on New Zealand from the OECD's review committee largely confirms familiar concerns about high external deficits and debt, an overvalued exchange rate, low savings, poor productivity and a stalled recovery.

But some of the medicine it prescribes will be unwelcome to the Government in the preparation of the Budget.

The OECD finds that after a promising start in 2009, the recovery has stalled as business and households reduce debt and a high dollar discourages investment in exports.

The economy is in limbo, lacking the usual bounce-back in domestic demand but not yet getting a boost from exports.

The first Canterbury earthquake was a setback to the recovery and the second, in February, "makes the outlook highly uncertain".

The Rugby World Cup will provide a temporary boost this year but the now-delayed reconstruction of Christchurch will start next year, when its stimulus for domestic activity will be offset by a necessary fiscal tightening.

Public spending is at levels that could not be sustained once the housing bubble burst and the recession struck in 2008.

The previous Government's introduction or expansion of maternity leave, childcare services and subsidies, interest-free student loans, KiwiSaver subsidies and the like has left a Budget deficit that will not disappear with an export-led recovery and will be a drag on it unless the present Government finds more courage to cut spending.

The OECD is unimpressed with its present ceilings and projected return to surpluses in five years.

It thinks it should raise the pension age, index benefits partially to price increases rather than wages alone, remove KiwiSaver subsidies for the well-paid and make enrolment automatic for all employees, not just the newly hired.

Some of these measures are recommended for their influence on private savings as much as reductions in public expense.

The OECD believes the country's poor savings performance would also be helped by further tax reforms, possibly by aligning the company, capital and top personal income rates at a lower level, and by introducing a capital gains tax on property or giving productive investments a tax advantage over real estate.

The increase in New Zealand house prices in the boom exceeded that of most other OECD countries and despite the "modest adjustment since 2007", says the review committee, "prices remain historically very high relative to incomes and rents".

This country's unusual aversion to capital gains tax leaves too little savings available for other capital investments, increasing the country's demand for foreign capital, which in turn keeps the dollar high, reducing export returns.

Thus the lack of a capital gains tax deals a double blow to the exports the country needs to reduce its external deficits and tackle net foreign liabilities exceeded only by Ireland, Portugal and Hungary on a graph in the OECD report. It also shows our Government debt to be lower than all members except Australia and Luxembourg.

Government surpluses have been our saving grace but deficits are contributing to our total debt now. The report warns that "net foreign liabilities have accumulated to levels that make the economy particularly vulnerable to sharp changes in investor sentiment".

Considering the strength of the Chinese and Australian economies - New Zealand's largest markets - the OECD team finds the country's recovery surprisingly weak. The Government needs to curb its borrowing, reduce spending and broaden its tax base.

The goal is to reduce our reliance on foreign credit and boost our confidence to invest in ourselves.

 

EDITORIAL : THE KOREA TIMES, SOUTH KOREA

For-profit hospitals

Economic theory to derail medical system

There is at least one area in which economic policymakers should take a backseat. It is dangerous to see hospitals as an industry where free competition is encouraged. Korea must delay the introduction of for-profit hospitals until patients are ready to shoulder additional costs.
Strategy-Finance Minister Yoon Jeung-hyun rekindled the debate this week. He backs the scheme to attract foreign investment and ignite competition to improve the quality of medical services. He is right in saying that investor-owned hospitals will upgrade the quality of medical services, and create jobs. He misses the crucial point that upgrading quality entails a hike in costs.
The profit-seeking hospitals are necessary unless this leads to an increase in medical expenses.
It is questionable whether Korea badly needs foreign investment to run its hospitals.
Even without foreign capital, existing hospitals are thriving. As is well known, doctors hold one of the most highly-paid and coveted professions here. Even under state control, Korean doctors are ahead of or on par with Western peers in terms of skills. Many foreign patients visit Korea for treatment. The brightest high-school graduates are opting to enroll at medical schools. This illustrates the profession is still attractive.
With for-profit hospitals, doctors will rush to the highest-paying medical centers, widening the polarization of salaries. Many rural hospitals will disappear due to lack of profitability. Chaebol will build ultra-modern hi-tech hospitals, but only in Seoul and other major cities.
Competition will surely raise medical bills for all. Hospitals will increase money-making services and reduce unprofitable functions. This will help the rich enjoy extensive medical services while the poor will see hardships even in gaining access to hospitals in emergencies. This will create a polarization of medical service coverage.
Even under the current system, salaried people have seen a rapid hike in medical bills, which have been rising faster than wages. A lifting of price control will certainly raise bills.
The OECD reported that Korea would see the fastest rise in medical bills as the population has been aging fast. It sees a widening of the deficit in medical insurance funds, even under the current state-administered formula.
Koreans are still lucky to enjoy universal medical coverage regardless of wealth, status or location. Both the rich and the poor can gain equal access to hospitals, thanks to the egalitarian insurance coverage.
Yoon proposed the limitation of for-profit hospitals to Jeju and free economic zones. But once the plan is in place, all hospitals will become profit-seeking entities. This will surely raise medical fees.
A hasty decision might put the national medical system in an uncontrollable crisis.
Now is the time for Korea to balance quality and cost. A blind focus on quality is certain to raise medical charges and drive out the poor. Patients are ready to wait to see a doctor because it is cheap. The government should not deform the current faulty but efficient medical system. 

Stem cell trials

It’s necessary to reactivate biotech research

South Korea has now emerged as the second country in the world to start clinical trials on embryonic stem cell therapies after the United States. On Wednesday, the National Bioethics Committee decided to allow Cha Bio & Diostech, a firm affiliated with the Cha Medical Center, to conduct such treatment with humans for the first time in the nation.
The approval has significant implications as it will reinvigorate stem cell research that has been in doldrums since a manipulation scandal involving disgraced cloning expert Hwang Woo-suk. The move followed the 2009 lifting of a ban on somatic stem cell cloning which had been imposed in 2006 in the wake of Prof. Hwang’s scam.
The Cha biotech firm is waiting for final approval from the Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA). For now, there is little possibility that the regulator may veto the clinical trial plan. The company is seeking to grow stem cells into retinal cells that will be used to treat a rare retina-related disease. One of the major hurdles is that the authorities have so far refused to allow stem cell experiments on humans.
The panel’s interpretation is that cells such as retinal ones grown from embryonic stem cells are not subject to a strict research ban under the bioethics law. It opens the way for researchers to find cures for intractable illnesses and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and spinal cord injuries.
It is necessary to promote research and development in both embryonic and somatic stem cells to beef up the nation’s biotech industry, one of the country’s promising growth engines. The world market for stem cell bioengineering is likely to grow to $40 billion in 2015. The U.S. invests $700 million in stem cell research every year, followed by Japan with $500 million.
However, Korea only sets aside a mere 40 billion won ($37 million) per year to support stem cell research. In addition to this budgetary problem, the nation is faced with the more challenging issue of life ethics. In theory, bioengineers may produce human organs from stem cells in the not-too-distant future. But, this is seen as a mixed blessing as the novel biotechnology could find a solution to incurable diseases, while posing a threat to human dignity and the value of life.
Thus, the authorities, scientists, researchers and businessmen should not neglect their efforts to respect bioethics, while stimulating stem cell experiments. What’s at stake is how to keep a balance between a biotech breakthrough and life ethics. This is easier said than done. But we had better face the brave new world without sacrificing important human values.

 

  

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

Men of medicine

Medicine is not about machines. It is about people. It is about gentleness and courtesy and a bedside manner that comforts rather than cowers.

 What can possibly be more awesome than a doctor providing that span across the fear which courses through relatives when a loved one is seriously ill. If you look up to anyone you look up to a man of medicine.

There is no feeling as helpless as that of waiting in a hospital emergency for news from within, men and women of stature and accomplishment reduced to a cringing dignity by the suspense of the situation and the inability to do anything tangible to tackle it.

The doctor in such circumstances becomes a superman and those of the medical tribe that understand this and are sensitive enough never to get so jaded as not to care are the salt of the earth.

Then they are those who see it as just another job and are bored and officious and graceless and see the anxiety of nervous and tense relatives as something of an irritation, away with you, get these out of my sight, I have loftier goals for my day than mingling with the great unwashed.

If you are unfortunate enough to come into contact with one of these rude examples you feel so much pity that someone so blessed as to practice medicine on this earth and be in a position to give solace to the human race should be so lacking in soul that he or she is incapable of displaying empathy or compassion. Without compassion a doctor is merely a machine.

And medicine is not about machines. It is about people.

It is about caring and much of healing can be achieved just through attitude. One doctor, tired after a whole day’s effort, still carrying on, bringing into a room of gloom a slash of hope, a little sunshine merely by his manner and the fact that he packaged his medical expertise with rapport rather than arrogance.

Of course you can be arrogant and ignore the pitiful friends and relatives waiting for information, you can shoo them away and snub them and they’ll come back for more, you can be autocratic and downright rude because you have the power, you are the doctor and they will still come back and stand in your shadow.

For there, inside the room, on the bed, fragile and in pain, is someone they love and their only hope is the doctor and the nurse and if they see this inspiring privilege as a burden rather than a benediction perhaps they are in the wrong job.

Like this other doctor who gave time, who explained to the throng what was wrong and what was done.

He did not treat them like they were in the way nor did he keep the patient’s condition secret and act as if he was unapproachable, which is something that some doctors assume, you know this cloak made of ‘stay away from me I am a medicine man’ material.

One is told they get so used to the sad side of the human experience, that the emotions freeze, that they are so busy they do not have the time, they are overworked and harassed and short of sleep and they cannot be standing by answering hundreds of questions and that is why they get misunderstood. It is a good argument but medicine isn’t about machines. It is about people.

And caring about them. Like a touch and a tender word, the right note of confidence, the ability to avoid speaking of the patient in the third person as if the patient was not there. This doctor, he was splendid. He cheered up this patient even as the relatives watched, he chatted with them and patiently answered their questions, told them firmly but kindly what to expect and what was wrong. He didn’t walk away because he could afford to. That sort of doctor makes medicine work. Because that is what it is all about. Not the money, not the power but definitely the glory... The glory of healing. And caring. 

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

 

 

‘Kate and Will’ fever

 

This Friday, many Indonesians, along with much of the rest of the world, will be glued to TV screens watching what has widely been touted as the wedding of the century, between Prince William, the second heir to the British throne, and “commoner” but elegant and attractive Kate Middleton.
Thirty years ago, when William’s father Charles married Lady Diana Spencer, many Indonesian girls born in the days, weeks and months afterward were named Diana. This time, Indonesian parents thinking along the same lines should pay attention to the spelling of Kate, which in Indonesian would be pronounced (kah-teh), which means dwarf. Perhaps they should go with “Kathy” or “Katherine”.
But the infatuation with the affairs of the British monarchy is a global phenomenon, found even in republics that have long got rid of their own royalties. The House of Windsor is unique among the remaining few monarchies in that it does not meddle in politics beyond approving or dissolving parliament. At a time when British interests with their monarchy seem to be ebbing, with Queen Elizabeth II now ruling since 1953, this week’s wedding might just revive them, not so much about the way it rules as the personality, characters and behavior of members of the palace.
The William-Kate wedding has spawned endless stories about their encounter, the list of invitees (anyone from Indonesia?), Kate’s wedding dress, their choice of honeymoon destinations and many others. Beyond this point, they will provide endless fodder for the gossip pages.
And Indonesia, typically, lost a golden opportunity. If our tourism officials had made greater efforts in their sales pitch, Bali would have beaten even the best of the honeymoon resorts around the world. Just think of all the publicity Bali and Indonesia could have enjoyed if the couple was to come here after their wedding.
The royal wedding has also launched a heated debate on the succession to the throne. Most Britons indicate in polls that William is far more favored than Charles to take over. Few people talk about dismantling the monarchy. Other than sapping British taxpayers’ money, the monarchy is not seen as a threat to most Britons, Australians, Canadians and other nations still governed by the Commonwealth. The monarchy is seen as part and parcel of the best of British traditions. And then there’s the multimillion pounds it earns the UK in the form of tourism, especially with this wedding.
Congratulations to Will and Kate. We shall stay tuned, today and beyond.

 

Don’t spoil the games

 

Everything was looking good for Indonesia as it geared up for the 26th Southeast Asian Games in Palembang and Jakarta this November, that is until the recent arrest of Youth and Sports Ministry secretary Wafid Muharam for alleged bribery.
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) investigators caught Wafid, PT Duta Graha Indah construction executive Muhammad El Idrus and middleman Mirdo Rosalina Manulang in the act last week, as they were reportedly sealing an improper deal worth Rp 3.2 billion (US$370,198) related to the development of a four-story athlete’s dormitory in Palembang.
As far as the preparations for the Games are concerned, the graft case seems like a mere sideshow. Youth and Sports Minister Andi Mallarangeng said the detention of his aide will have no impact on Indonesia’s organization of the first SEA Games ever held in two cities.
But the KPK findings, if proven in court, should give us cause for concern, not only because the case has tainted the image of Indonesia as the host of the regional sporting event, but also because it has dealt a crushing blow to the sports community.
Corrupt practices very much go against the spirit of sportsmanship, a term coined decades ago as a reference to the virtues of fairness, respect and striving spirit and it is supposed to characterize athletes across the world.
There is a correlation between sports and morality, and for that reason the classic Latin phrase mens sana in corpore sano or a healthy mind in a healthy body has stood over the centuries.
It may require thorough study, but countries that excel in sports usually score high in the corruption perception index. This looks to ring true in the case of Indonesia, where graft remains rampant and finishing among the top five in the Asian Games, let alone the Olympics, remains elusive for the country despite its abundant talent.
We, too, may easily jump to conclusions that corruption might have contributed to Indonesia’s poor performances in the last few SEA Games, the worst being in 2005 in Manila when the country placed fifth. But certainly the entrenched graft has cost the country opportunities to spend more on sports development.
Corruption in sports, be it embezzlement of sports funds or bribery in fixing matches or to win seats in sporting bodies, is not solely a problem facing Indonesia. But that’s no excuse for us to tolerate corrupt practices both in sports and other fields as they have proven to lead to the collapse of many nations.
Let the KPK deal with the bribery case involving the Youth and Sports Ministry official as we believe the anticorruption body had already collected solid evidence before the raid last week.
The investigation shall not spoil our preparations for the SEA Games and, more importantly, our bid to regain supremacy in the biennial event. There is no more honor than hosting and winning the Games through fair play.

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

 

To tax or not to tax

Noynoy is in a quandary. The budget would be in a perpetually huge deficit if his administration does not take action in matching government expenditures with what is being earned through primarily taxes.

The other side of the equation is that the government needs to spend more as the nation’s need for basic services grows and along with it, higher allocations for the payments of interests and principals on debts when the shortfall in the budget hit record levels since the administration of former President Gloria Arroyo.

Revenues of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs are making modest gains in meeting targets but the efforts will not likely be enough if the deficit in the budget would be drastically reduced from its current astronomical levels of above P300 billion every year which is equated with more borrowings by the government.

And the clincher is that Noynoy had promised during the campaign period that he will not impose new taxes or increase these during his administration.

Lately, the Palace has been issuing confused statements about the campaign pledge of Noynoy which was most remembered by his “read my lips-no new taxes” brag.

One of his spokesmen, Edwin Lacierda, rationalized that the pledge was only for the first year of Noynoy’s administration and that the fiscal situation will dictate the policy for next year. What a lie that is. Noynoy during his campaign days, never said his no new taxes pledge was merely for a year.

What was being broached by the Palace mouthpieces today is that the tax increases would start with the so-called sin products and to be followed by other tax measures.

The raising of the tax on so-called sin products is a precursor of more painful tax hikes as it seems to be regularly used to test the waters on the tolerance of the public for a new round of flagellation through new or increased taxes.

Sin products are cigarettes and liquors that are not necessities for daily survival, relatively for most individuals and an increase in the tax on these are not likely to upset the public, unlike imposing other taxes.

The sin tax is also considered to be a way to force individuals to improve their health.

In the past, an increase in the sin tax was followed by the raising of the value added tax (VAT) or the sales tax that covered almost all products under the sun.

Incidentally, there is already a proposal to increase the 12 percent VAT to 15 percent as a way to manage the huge budget deficit.

Later, another spokesman, Sonny Coloma, went on air saying that Noynoy’s priority remains focused on improving the efficiency of tax collections and not on imposing new taxes.

He was strangely silent, however, about possible tax increases.

Noynoy appears to be getting by on the budget thus far as a result of the series of increases in fuel prices but the windfall from high prices is not expected to last long since keeping prices too high would light the fuse of discontent.

In the first three months, the budget deficit was limited to P26 billion as a result of higher tax collections mainly on fuel products and major spending cuts.

Various multilateral institutions have warned about limiting public spending since it is expected to result in a slowdown in the economy.

Also, the massive underspending went against an earlier Palace statement that limiting the budget deficit is not the priority of Noynoy but assuring that of public finances being well spent.

The key question posed to the Aquino administration is its ability to manage the budget and balance the need to spend and assuring that the needs of Filipinos, primarily the poor, are met.

The current effort to cut corners is making the budget picture more favorable at the expense of crucial services where biggest corners seem to have been lopped off.

Amid the sliding survey ratings on Noynoy, it seems that the goal now is to push down the fiscal shortfall by whatever means.

There goes Noy’s straight path in exchange for the fiscal short cut.

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT, IRELAND

 

 

And now for the hard part on health

 

Health Minister James Reilly's decision to force the resignation of the HSE directors is unlikely to do him much, if any, political damage.

After just six years in existence, the HSE has managed to become massively unpopular. "Requesting" the resignation of its directors, as the minister did yesterday, will play well with public opinion.

It's not difficult to see why. This year the HSE will require almost €14bn of public money. The government's health budget has risen almost five-fold over the past 15 years. Yet despite this massive increase in health spending, improvements in health care have been painfully slow in coming. Every winter we are treated to the sight of hundreds of hospital patients on trolleys, more than 50,000 people are on hospital waiting lists, and all too often access to much-needed treatment depends on the patient's ability to pay rather than their medical condition.

The departing directors will be replaced by an interim board made up of HSE executives and senior officials from the Department of Health. According to the minister, the interim board will remain in place until he introduces new legislation to abolish the HSE later this year. It will then be replaced by a new structure directly accountable to Dr Reilly. This is being portrayed by the minister as the removal of an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.

In practice, former Health Minister Micheal Martin's decision to hive off the operation of the health service to the HSE is being reversed. While we will have to wait to see the precise details, it is already clear that Dr Reilly intends to be far more hands-on than his predecessor Mary Harney.

All of which begs the question: If the HSE and its existing board was going to be scrapped in a few months' time, why go to the trouble of getting rid of the directors now? Behind all of the minister's fine talk of greater accountability, it's not difficult to detect more than a hint of grandstanding in yesterday's events.

That was the easy part. Now that he has very firmly placed himself in the driving seat, Dr Reilly will find himself being held directly accountable for the many failings of the health service. Without the buffer of the HSE he will be blamed every time something goes wrong.

If the minister is to deliver on his promises of reform he will have to face down a formidable array of lobby groups, including hospital consultants, nurses, GPs, pharmacists, and local pressure groups seemingly determined to retain hospital facilities in every town and village in the country. It's when he tackles these groups that Dr Reilly's mettle will be tested.

The removal of the HSE directors went remarkably smoothly. All of the directors went without any fuss or bother. Normally ministers find it virtually impossible to remove the directors of state bodies, even those who have been appointed by their own party. This should make Dr Reilly very worried. Could it possibly be that, mindful of the problems which lie ahead, the HSE directors were only too glad to hand over this particular political hot potato to the eager new minister?

A pricey talking shop

 

The revelation that former Fianna Fail Senator Donie Cassidy stands to receive a huge pay-off package following the loss of his Senate seat this week merely reinforces the case for scrapping this expensive talking shop.
Ever since independence, the second chamber of the Irish parliament has struggled to find a role. The original 1922 Senate, which was supposed to provide a voice for Southern Unionists, was scrapped by Eamon de Valera and replaced by a new Senate in the 1937 Constitution.
The Senate Mark II was no more successful than its predecessor, with its only discernible function being to provide a proving ground for young politicians on the way up and a rest home for old warhorses on the way out.
While much self-interested guff has been spouted about reforming the Senate, the reality is that if after almost 90 years it has failed to carve out a meaningful role for itself, then the odds are that it never will. The sooner we scrap the Senate, which costs the taxpayer €25m a year, the better.

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

 

Macklin must move forward 

 

THE Northern Territory needs a second intervention.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin talks the talk on improving the lot of Aborigines trapped in dysfunctional bush communities. She knows government assistance must be matched by individuals committed to improving their circumstances. And she has walked the walk, continuing the Howard government's Northern Territory intervention, which committed resources to improving health and cracked down on sexual violence, substance abuse and child neglect. Ms Macklin's policy of quarantining welfare payments, to ensure recipients feed their children, not their addictions, addresses a problem too long ignored by the welfare lobby.

But it is time for Ms Macklin to pick up the pace. Certainly the intervention has had some successes. Some 1700 welfare recipients whose payments were quarantined have turned their lives around and now properly provide for their children. School attendance rates are close to 100 per cent in targeted communities. But the intervention has not transformed the Territory. Alcohol abuse and the violence that accompanies it is still endemic in some indigenous communities, especially around Alice Springs. It will take a generation before children growing up in communities where welfare is a way of life learn this need not be the norm. Above all, as Cape York leader Noel Pearson points out, public servants make too many decisions, rather than local leaders with the moral authority to push through change. Last October this newspaper revealed the intervention had led to a doubling in the number of public servants working on indigenous assistance in the Northern Territory.

Ms Macklin's task is to address such issues in a second intervention. Securing support for it should not be difficult. Last night Opposition Leader Tony Abbott called for a renewed effort. In contrast, indigenous opposition seems strongest among urban Aborigines in the universities and public service, men and women so removed from remote communities they focus on the intervention as a breach of UN agreements. As the minister responsible for the most disadvantaged Australians, Ms Macklin is obliged to ignore these critics. She should take Mr Abbott at his word, consult with indigenous leaders on the ground and get moving. The need for the Northern Territory intervention is nowhere near over.

Babies are an economic bonus

 

ANGLICAN Church should not resist a significant Australia.

Strange it is that on a day the head of the Church of England is overseeing her grandson's wedding and probably hoping for progeny to extend the line, the Anglican Church of Australia has been forced to defend its faith in procreation. A submission to government by the general synod's public affairs commission suggests the axing of the baby bonus and "any policy that provides an incentive specifically and primarily to increase Australia's population". It also wants immigration cut and repudiates economic growth via population growth.

This is symptomatic of the short-sighted "small Australia" mindset that both major parties pandered to at last year's election. The suggestion that our vast, richly resourced and innovative nation is somehow nearing capacity is as foolish as it is selfish. Clearly we have the space and resources to expand our population, and a charitable, even Christian, interpretation of our global responsibilities might suggest we have a duty to share our prosperity with as many people, native-born and immigrant, as possible.

The Australian supports a big Australia and, while we need to sensibly manage our population growth and infrastructure provision within economic and environmental constraints, we are a long way from capacity. Population growth is vital for our economic development and the baby bonus has won bipartisan support as a practical way of supporting and encouraging families. And families, we are unashamedly old-fashioned enough to point out, are the best form of social welfare anyone can rely upon.

Independent MP Tony Windsor is a longstanding baby bonus critic and has welcomed the latest call, which will no doubt win support from fringe green groups who have a "small" vision for Australia. The church realises the anti-baby bonus and anti-immigration submission to the government's population strategy will offend some of its flock and so is quick to point out these views were not endorsed by the general synod but merely proffered by a "special think tank". It is too easy for politicians and others to prey on people's social, economic and environmental anxieties and suggest all will be better if we can just keep more of this land for ourselves. The truth is our prosperity, influence and ability to develop and manage our environment all depend upon a dynamic population.

Prince's long walk lifts spirits around the world

 

REPUBLICANS and royals can unite over a happy occasion.

Pomp and circumstance aside, at the heart of today's royal wedding is the joy and optimism of two young people pledging to devote their lives to each other. Perplexing as it might seem, even to the couple themselves, millions of people around the world happen to share in their hopes and happiness. Taken in the appropriate spirit, this can only be a good thing.

The last time a royal ceremony attracted this much attention was almost 14 years ago for the funeral of Prince William's mother Diana, Princess of Wales. On that sad occasion the sympathy of the world rested on the shoulders of the 15-year-old prince and his brother Harry walking behind the coffin. So the goodwill, and even proud thoughts, of millions of strangers will accompany this young man as he walks down the aisle of Westminster Abbey on an altogether happier occasion.

On one side of the metaphorical aisle the cynics will scowl, disappointed only that the ABC was blocked from broadcasting a mockery of the whole event, and on the other side no doubt many addicted to celebrity will over-indulge in gossip and hype. Somewhere between will be most Australians, wishing the young couple a contented future, enjoying some of the glamour and pageantry, marvelling at the enduring nature of the British monarchy, and admiring the fact that Prince William seems to have inherited much of his grandmother's dignity and all of his mother's charm. Many gathered around televisions tonight will look at his elegant and sensible bride, Kate Middleton, and simply say, he has chosen well. Good on them.

While the ultimately sad story of Lady Diana Spencer has often seen Prince Charles and the royal family derided as cold and calculating, this same family must take some credit for the apparently fine young man William has become. Aside from all the hoopla and the public's voracious enthusiasm, it is after all a significant family day for the royals, the Middletons and, of course, the Spencers. For Kate's sake, let us hope lessons have been learned.

Here in the antipodes it is only natural that this occasion, involving in leading roles our current head of state and at least our next two, should prompt some discussion of the push for an Australian republic. As our Newspoll showed this week, the mood for change is not strong and has, in fact, been on the wane. Some of this can be attributed to respect for the royals but much also to a benign lack of interest.

The Australian continues to support a non-hereditary and Australian head of state for our nation but we recognise also that the current constitutional arrangements have served us well. Given the great challenges confronting us, not least the indigenous disadvantage discussed below, it is understandable that Australians are in no hurry. The republic is simply not a first-order issue and may not be again for some time.

So today represents more than a fairy tale. Many Australians will look to the royals with a strong fealty, grateful for their stability and mindful of the duty they and their antecedents have shown in times of trouble, epitomised by Prince William's late great-grandmother in London during World War II. Those of us who don't share those loyalties would do best not to mock but just to switch over and watch the footy.

 

EDITORIAL : THE NATIONAL POST, CANADA

 

 

More populism at the pumps

 

The 18th-century lexicographer and wit-about-town Samuel Johnson claimed that patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel. For populist politicians, the last resort is manufactured outrage over gas prices. Thank heavens there isn't time for this to become more of an election issue in Canada. Americans may not be so lucky.

In the past week, both Canadian opposition parties and President Barack Obama have claimed that we should ignore obvious reasons for gas price increases and instead look -yawn -for Big Oil conspiracy. Mr. Obama also cited the impact of ever-handy "speculators." (A 2008 study by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission suggested that oil traders tend to keep prices down, but who wants to hear that?)

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff promised to unleash Dangerous Dan McTeague on the oil industry if, by any slimmer-than-slim chance, the Liberals should win. As an editorial in Tuesday's Post succinctly put it, this is "as good a reason as any not to vote for the Liberals."

Since then, Mr. Ignatieff has responded to questions about gas prices by suggesting that (a) perhaps higher corporate taxes might bring them down, and (b) why don't we think about his environmental renovation tax credit instead?

Since oil company demonization is a permanent feature of what passes for NDP thought, Jack Layton has promised that when he rules the world, not only will every day be the first day of spring, but that he will appoint an ombudsman who would have "some real power to take on some of these unfair increases and toughen up the resources and abilities of our Competition Bureau to go after these companies when they collude together to raise prices." This despite the fact that the Competition Bureau has carried out numerous studies and found no such grand collusion.

Last week, the Obama administration launched a "major investigation" into both alleged gas price manipulation and oil market speculation. Attorney-General Eric Holder declared that consumers deserved to know whether soaring pump prices were the result of collusion or market manipulation. Are there no other alternatives? Funnily, he didn't mention government policy as a target for investigation.

Although there's not much that the U.S. administration can do to bring down world oil prices, government policies have for decades held back the construction of new refining capacity. Meanwhile, if energy independence is a genuine concern, then the United States would have to acknowledge the impact of sanitizing large areas of the United States, on and offshore, from exploration. Overreaction to the BP Gulf oil spill and kowtowing to green activism over the Keystone XL pipeline to ship oil sands crude to the Gulf coast haven't helped Project Independence much, either. And then there's the impact of U.S. monetary policy.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, at his press conference on Wednesday, was keen to suggest that gas prices would moderate and even fall, but he wasn't primarily interested in being the voice of reason or educating the public on market realities. Indeed, just the opposite. He was, as my colleague Terence Corcoran pointed out Thursday, primarily seeking to avoid blame for the inflationary bubble that his market-manipulating policies have created. In the wake of his denial of responsibility, U.S. gasoline futures hit a new 33-month high.

Apart from the undeniable, although difficult to quantify, impact of loose monetary policy on dollar-denominated commodity prices, crude prices have risen due to a still-shaky U.S. economic recovery, continued strong demand from the fast-growing Asian economies, in particular China, and all those rebellions in North Africa and the Middle East.

Some legitimately ask why gasoline prices are at or above 2008 levels when crude is 25% cheaper. The answer is that there are additional factors that influence gasoline markets, such as refining capacity, shifts in demand for refined crude products, and even accidents. Currently tight gasoline markets represent a double whammy for the consumer.

Consumers seem not to understand much about the workings of markets, and politicians have no interest in educating them, since it is alleged market imperfections that keep them in business.

One might also note that while political scoundrels Obama, Ignatieff and Layton all imply gouging, none can bemoan high gas prices per se because all want higher prices as part of their espousal of draconian climate policies.

One of the multiple perversities of such policies appeared last week, when the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the U.S. industry's main trade group, pointed out that the President's proposed new stricter, Soviet-style fleet mileage standards would put them out of business unless gas prices were higher. Naturally, they don't want higher gas prices, but they know that without them nobody will want to buy the smaller cars that Mr. Obama is forcing them to make. He's bailing them out with one hand and threatening to put them out of business with the other.

Mr. Harper, by contrast, doesn't believe in man-made climate catastrophe, but has to keep his "denial" as part of his secret agenda. Certainly, he too has played the populist anti-oil company gouging card in the past, including in the 2008 election. Indeed, there aren't many economically challenged notions to which Mr. Harper hasn't subscribed in his desire to win votes. Still, at least he gets it. Neither his opponents, nor Mr. Obama, appear to. And that's a better reason than most to vote for Mr. Harper.

The Liberals' anti-American disease

 

On Wednesday, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff gave an interview to the Toronto Star that was so odd that not even the traditionally pro-Liberal Star could sugar-coat it. Most memorably, he declared that Stephen Harper and his Conservatives could "go to hell."
Mr. Ignatieff also seemed to play the anti-American card. Speaking of dealings with U.S. intelligence officials, the Liberal leader warned: "You don't believe what the American tells you. You go into a room with the Americans, they have their sources of information and you had better be damn sure you have your own. You better be darn sure you don't let yourself be persuaded by bad evidence."
On the face of it, this seems like sound advice (apart from the tough-guy language, which seems slightly ridiculous coming from a bookish man such as Mr. Ignatieff ). The National Post has long argued that Canada needs to strengthen its foreign-intelligence-gathering capabilities precisely so that our politicians, generals and diplomats are do not have to depend on the sources and interpretations of other governments.
But this is the first time the largely pro-American Liberal leader has hinted at American untrustworthiness. And for it to come now, in the final days of a failing campaign, and for it to be so seemingly rueful in tone, makes it look like a last-straw grasp by an embattled man.
It seems obvious Mr. Ignatieff was referring to America's incorrect intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. Yet in his former role as a foreign-relations academic, Mr. Ignatieff sensibly explained away the failure as a Western one, and not just an American one. After all, the intelligence agencies of every major Western country -and even Saddam Hussein's own generals -had been persuaded the Iraqi dictator possessed WMDs.
Clearly the pressures and insults that accompany a national campaign are beginning to wear on Mr. Ignatieff. But he should be careful not to respond to these pressures by resurrecting Uncle Sam as a Liberal bogeyman.

America's Birther disease

 

It has become a cliché of Canadian media culture to decry how "partisan," "shrill" and "divisive" our politics have become. Yet a comparison of our election campaign to events south of the border shows how relatively moderate and civilized things are in this country.
On Wednesday, Americans observed the extraordinary spectacle of their President making public his original birth certificate, which demonstrated that -shocker! -he was born, as every reasonable person always knew, in a Honolulu hospital on Aug. 4, 1961. The spectacle was extraordinary not because the document contained any bombshell information, but because the President felt compelled to release this confidential health record in the first place. Thanks to the prevalence of "Birther" conspiracy theories, one recent poll found that 62% of Americans suspect or believe the myth that Mr. Obama was born outside the United States (which, if true, would constitutionally prohibit him from becoming president). One hopeful for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump, has made the issue the centrepiece of his populist campaign.
Here in Canada, our leaders sling plenty of mud at each other. The Conservatives even have attacked Michael Ignatieff for the many years he has spent abroad. But the basis for these attacks at least is grounded in fact. No Tory leader has suggested that Mr. Ignatieff isn't really a Canadian citizen, or that he is some kind of secret communist or Islamist (two claims that Birthers often make about Barack Obama). Our politics may be slathered in spin and spite, but they at least are conducted in the realm of reality, not out-and-out conspiratorial fantasy.
The United States is a resilient country, and it will bounce back from this low point. But in the meantime, its Birther disgrace is a cautionary tale for Canada; the same insidious politics could take root here if we are not careful.
For this reason, radical leftist attacks that brand Stephen Harper a "Fascist" or even a "Nazi," or right-wing critiques that brand Jack Layton a "communist" or "Stalinist" cannot be dismissed as harmless bluster. As the example of the United States shows, even the most advanced democracy can become captive to toxic delusions.

 

EDITORIAL : THE NEW STRAITS TIMES, MALAYSIA

 

 

Widening the net

 

WHILE elections form governments and grab all the headlines, the functioning of governments is more humdrum and fundamentally revolves around two things: taxing and spending. To work well, they must have enough resources to effect policy and, indeed, define and build their nations. Governments raise money through taxation, hence the political maxim of democracies: "No taxation without representation". A popular government is, therefore, mandated to raise taxes to make for good governance. Naturally, when taxpayers avoid paying taxes, or when internal revenue departments fail to collect enough, government itself is hobbled and the nation as a whole suffers. Strange then that given this equation, taxpayers the world over -- even in mature democracies -- are generally not happy to be taxed. This fact is borne out by the existence of tax consultants who, for a hefty fee, will advise their wealthy clients on how to not fork out too much in taxes.

There is a difference, however, between tax evasion and tax avoidance. The former is downright illegal, while the latter tries to scrimp within the letter of the law. Democracies have a built-in mechanism to ensure that all taxes are ultimately progressive, in that it does not burden taxpayers unfairly, as an electorate unfairly taxed is not about to return an unjust government. This is also why taxation is viewed as a wealth redistribution mechanism, which makes a good government a bit of a Robin Hood. However, in a world where wealth accumulation driven by capitalism steers the economy, it is no surprise that the rich sometimes resent their comparatively heavier tax load. Politicians juggle with this paradox as a matter of course and a government's annual budget is very much a political instrument trying to please as many people as possible.

How then can social justice be achieved in a way that will not drag down business and debilitate investment, but still fill the coffers of the national treasury? Indirect taxation as, for example, the goods and services tax (GST) has long been discussed and will be implemented sooner or later. Most importantly, individual choice is the hallmark of this type of taxation, which puts the emphasis on consumption rather than income. It is not suggested that corporate tax, import duties and other such levies are to be done away with. Rather, the argument is that there is scope to democratise taxation itself. The GST, too, is not bereft of collection problems. But developed countries already have it, and others are on their way to imposing one. They should not be taking their time about it.

 

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

 

 

Fatah and Hamas: Tectonic plates start to shift

A future environment composed of free Egyptians, Jordanians and even possibly Syrians could well fashion Israel's borders

The Arab spring has finally had an impact on the core issue of the region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It came in the form of a draft agreement between Fatah and Hamas which took everyone by surprise. There are three chief reasons why, after four years of bitter and violent conflict between the rivals, Fatah acceded to all of Hamas's political conditions to form a national unity government.

The first was the publication of the Palestine papers, the secret record of the last fruitless round of talks with Israel. The extent to which Palestinian negotiators were prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate Israel surprised even hardened cynics. The Palestinian Authority found itself haemorrhaging what little authority it had left. The second was the loss to the Palestinian president, Abu Mazen, of his closest allies in Hosni Mubarak and his henchman Omar Suleiman. While they were still around, Gaza's back door was locked. But the third reason had little to do with either of the above: Abu Mazen's faith in Barack Obama finally snapped. For a man who dedicated his career to the creation of a Palestinian state through negotiation, the turning point came when the US vetoed a UN resolution condemning Israel's settlement-building. In doing so, the US vetoed its own policy. To make the point, the resolution was drafted out of the actual words Hillary Clinton used to condemn construction. Fatah's frustration with all this has now taken political form.

Israel's politicians reacted darkly to the news of reconciliation. From right to left, they shared an assumption which is out of date. It is that they retain the ability – and the right – to dictate what sort of state Palestinians will build on their borders. Having spent years fashioning the environment, the penny has yet to drop that a future environment composed of free Egyptians, Jordanians and even possibly Syrians could well fashion Israel's borders. Even after Mubarak fell, the consensus was that Cairo was so preoccupied with internal problems that it lacked the energy to make foreign policy.

Not so. Yesterday foreign minister Nabil al-Arabi announced that Egypt would shortly be lifting the siege of Gaza. These events pose a direct challenge to the status quo that Israel, the US and the EU have fashioned. Do they now subvert the will of the Egyptians they claim to champion? Does the US do what it did the last time Fatah and Hamas reconciled at Mecca, and pull the plug on the unity government? Do the Quartet threaten to withdraw the PA's funds, because, as is very likely, Salam Fayyad will no longer be there to disburse them? The US could twist Fatah's arm, but Fatah might just sign on the dotted line all the same.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

 

President Assad’s Crackdown 

 

When Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father, Hafez, as Syria’s president in 2000, the United States and many others hoped that Syria might finally stop persecuting its people and become a more responsible regional power.

That didn’t happen. Now Mr. Assad appears determined to join his father in the ranks of history’s blood-stained dictators, sending his troops and thugs to murder anyone who has the courage to demand political freedom.
More than 400 people have died since demonstrations began two months ago. On Monday, the Syrian Army stormed the city of Dara’a, the center of the popular opposition. Phone, water and electricity lines have been cut and journalists barred from reporting firsthand what is really happening there.
Mr. Assad finally outlined a reform agenda last week, abolishing emergency laws that for nearly 50 years gave the government a free hand to arrest people without cause. But his bloody crackdown belied the concession, and he is fast losing all legitimacy.
President Obama came into office determined to engage Syria and nudge it away from Iran and toward political reform. Even after the violence began, Mr. Obama and his aides kept quietly nudging in hopes that Mr. Assad would make the right choice.
In retrospect, that looks naïve. Still, we have sympathy for Mr. Obama’s attempts. Years of threats from the George W. Bush administration only pushed Syria further into the arms of Iran — and did nothing to halt the repression or Syria’s support for Hezbollah.
The president’s patience has apparently run out. Last Friday — the bloodiest day of the uprising — he issued a statement condemning the violence and accusing Mr. Assad of seeking Iranian assistance in brutalizing his people. That is a start, but it is not nearly enough.
Let’s be clear: Another war would be a disaster. Syria has one of the more capable armies in the region. And while there is no love for Mr. Assad, he is no Qaddafi, and the backlash in the Arab world would be enormous.
What the United States and its allies can do (British, French and Italian leaders have also been critical) is rally international condemnation and tough sanctions. They can start with their own unilateral punishments — asset freezes and travel bans for Mr. Assad and his top supporters and a complete arms embargo.
Washington and its allies need to press the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council to take strong stands. Muammar el-Qaddafi had no friends, so the league had little trouble supporting action against Libya. Syria is far more powerful, and Mr. Assad’s autocracy uncomfortably familiar to many Arab leaders.
So far, all the Arab League has been willing to do is issue a statement declaring that pro-democracy protesters “deserve support, not bullets” — conspicuously without mentioning Syria. If the Arab League and its leaders want to be taken seriously, including in their own countries, they are going to have to do better.
The Security Council hasn’t even been able to muster a press statement. Russia and China, as ever, are determined to protect autocrats. That cannot be the last word.
The International Criminal Court should investigate the government’s abuses. And we welcome the Obama administration’s push to have the United Nations Human Rights Council spotlight Syria’s abuses in a session on Friday. Ultimately, Syrians will determine their country’s fate. Mr. Assad commands a powerful security establishment, but he cannot stifle the longing for freedom forever.

 

Saving the Doha Round

 

After a decade of frustratingly little progress, it is easy to conclude that the negotiations to reduce global trade barriers have failed. But letting the so-called Doha round of world trade talks collapse could spur a protectionist backlash and deal a huge blow to international cooperation on even bigger challenges, including global warming and financial reform.

When ambassadors from around the world meet in Geneva on Friday, they will likely have to settle for lesser gains, such as streamlining customs procedures and other rules that would at least reduce the costs of trade.

The Doha negotiations, opened shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were sold as a way to boost economic development in the poorest countries by slashing barriers on their exports to richer markets.

While a tentative agreement was reached to grant preferential access to most of the exports of the least developed countries, it has been held hostage by a lack of agreement in broader negotiations between rich countries and big developing countries.

The developing countries argued that they had already made too many concessions in a previous trade round. The rich nations then insisted that they would give nothing without getting something in return.

These positions have only hardened as the big developing countries have become some of the world’s biggest traders. The latest snag is over tariffs on industrial goods like chemicals and machinery. There’s little chance of a breakthrough.

It is time for all of the players to rethink their responsibilities. As their power grows, big developing countries, in particular, must be willing to make concessions for the sake of preserving a stable global trading system.

As for these negotiations, it is still possible for all players to keep their promise of duty- and quota-free access to most exports from the poorest countries. Negotiators could also reform the dispute settlement mechanism and ease customs procedures and handling fees.

This may sound small next to Doha’s original ambitions, but it would be a lot better than a complete breakdown, which would punish the poorest nations while undermining the credibility of the World Trade Organization and poisoning the well for other international agreements.

Going forward, the big question for world leaders is not how to agree on some tariff cuts. It is how to create a common agenda to steer the world economy, supported by rich countries and the developing nations.

 

A Stronger and Clearer Clean Water Act

 

The Obama administration’s new guidelines for the Clean Water Act are an important first step in restoring vital legal safeguards to wetlands and streams threatened by development and pollution.

The guidelines are opposed by the usual suspects — real estate interests, homebuilders, farmers, the oil companies. They were welcomed, rightly so, by conservationists and others who have watched in despair as enforcement actions dropped and water pollution levels went up.

For nearly three decades, the 1972 act was broadly interpreted by the courts and federal regulators as shielding virtually all the waters of the United States from pollution and unregulated development — seasonal streams and small, remote wetlands, as well as lakes and large navigable waters. The basic idea was that small waters have some hydrological connection to larger watersheds and should be protected against pollution that would inevitably find its way downstream.

Then came two Supreme Court decisions that left uncertain which waterways were protected by the law. A 2001 decision suggested that the law applied only to large navigable waterways, while a 2006 ruling suggested that only waters with a “significant nexus” to navigable waterways could be protected. Those decisions — plus subsequent guidance from the George W. Bush administration — confused regulators and exposed millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams to development.

The new guidelines now restore protections to small streams and wetlands that have a “physical, chemical or biological connection” to larger bodies of water downstream. That is good news with the clear caveat that they are administrative guidance, with no force in law, and subject to fairly easy reversal by another administration.

Legislation reaffirming the original scope of the law would be the best solution. But since that is not in the cards in this Congress, we urge the Environmental Protection Agency to turn the guidance into a formal rule that would, at least, be harder to undo.

 

 

 

In the Wake of Wednesday’s Tornadoes

 

The violent storms that struck the South on Wednesday may break one of nature’s grimmer records. On April 3, 1974, 148 tornadoes touched down on a single day and left behind a trail of wreckage nearly 2,500 miles long. As many as 135 tornadoes were reported on Wednesday, wrecking homes, towns and lives.
As of this writing, nearly 300 people have been killed by the storms, 195 of them in Alabama. According to some estimates, the power outages could affect as many people as Hurricane Katrina did.
The wonder is that the death toll was not higher — thanks, largely, to the accuracy of warnings from the National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center and the wisdom of officials who shut down businesses, schools and government offices for much of the day.
The number and intensity of these storms, which have marched from East Texas to Virginia in the past few days, has surprised even veteran forecasters, who watched as fierce, tight clusters of flame-colored cells gathered on their radar screens. The actual horror Alabamans witnessed was different from the typical sinuous, conical twisters. These tornadoes that looked more like bulky thunderheads, spiraling across the earth’s surface in a cloud of debris, including the milewide one that crushed much of Tuscaloosa.
We cannot imagine the force those storms carried or the grief and destruction they left behind. We hope, as everyone must, that there will be clear weather following, giving Southerners a chance to mourn the lives that were lost and start the rebuilding.

   

 

EDITORIAL : THE GLOBAL TIMES, CHINA

 

 

Population growth can solve aging issue

 

The latest population census indicates that the numbers of both Chinese senior citizens above 60 and of the floating population rank top in the world.

In the past decade, Guangdong Province became the most populated place in China, and Henan dropped from being top to the third most-populated province. No country except China has seen such significant changes in population distribution.

China's population balance system has partially failed. The western development strategy cannot reverse the trend of increasing population in the eastern regions. As to the expansion of large cities, there is no sign of this trend changing. Society seems to accept it, and life in large cities is organized around the process. Our society also seems to be giving up on avoiding resource limits in large cities.

In the past, public opinion paid most attention to the aging problem in China as it is also being faced in Europe and Japan. Their examples could be used by China to handle the issue.  Because China has a large population base and the aging problem is more serious in the eastern region, such problem has a good chance of being diluted.

The census results again show that the huge size of the population is an overwhelming for China. The combination of the world's largest population and fastest-growing economy has thrown up new problems for both economists and politicians. The overall rapid urbanization rate in general is a good thing, but the market pressure brought housing demands for hundreds of millions of people and the benefit disputes due to relocation may be politicized at any moment.

We have too many problems to solve. The huge size of the country is at the root of the problems. However, a balance can be established between different ones. For example, aging can ease employment pressure and reduce the "rebellious" impulses in many young people.

The population base and super-diversity thus caused should be the starting point of various research projects. China has adopted a market economy, but the Western market economic theory and related social theory cannot be fully applied in China. Some successful cases such as the contract responsibility system and "one country, two systems" are incredible to foreigners.

China should make more efforts to make its population of 1.339 billion become the first factor considered Westerners. As a socialist country with rapid rise and a "threatening" military force, it is truly difficult for China to manage a country with a population twice of the total of the United States, Russia, Japan, Britain and France combined. They should understand this.

Critical spirit of media should not be abused

 

In an era when mass media dictate the global perception of many, each outlet competes to tell a different kind of story to attract readers. Chinese media is no exception. A handy weapon that Chinese media resorts to, either reluctantly or voluntarily, is cast doubts on or criticize celebrities.

The latest victim of media spats is Chen Guangbiao, the former No.1 philanthropist in China, who is noted for his high-profile charity activities. In recent years, both flamboyant fame and sharp criticism have loomed as Chen's footsteps took him from the mainland to Taiwan, and from home to Japan.

Earlier this week, the China Business newspaper challenged Chen's honesty and suspected him of having fabricated donations and of gaining personal profit from his philanthropic work.

To appease these suspicions, Chen then released his donation receipts and some charity organizations have supported him. The media then quickly piled in.

This is progress for China's media, which is often described as a mouthpiece of the government, when it can express different opinions on current affairs.

However, impartiality is a prerequisite for the media as is following basic journalism ethics when doing investigative reports. Any hasty conclusion drawn without enough proof will be dangerous, threatening to hurt credibility.

Without asking the opinion of Chen himself, the aforementioned report had adopted a preoccupied position, triggering mountains of criticism on the Internet.

As a result, the report not only overshadowed Chen's follow-up argument but also sowed seeds of distrust among the public toward Chinese philanthropists and charity organizations. Many Internet users have now concluded that charity work does not lead to good karma.

Fortunately, some commentators have sensed that the diatribe against Chen will be detrimental to China's charity causes in the long run. In a country that lacks a philanthropic tradition, the benefit of the doubt should be given to entrepreneurs like Chen, who may turn good works into publicity but it is undeniable that people are helped by their efforts anyway. The world is not black and white, and people like Chen are neither villains nor saints. They should be encouraged to continue their charity work no matter what the public believe to be their "real purpose."

Being an entrepreneur-cum-philanthropist, it is Chen's choice to choose a high- or low-profile method of donation. Neither the public nor the media can ask a philanthropist to be a role model of morality. Netizens' comments have reflected public opinions in this regard.

From a media perspective, it is unprofessional either to give extravagant accounts of the good deeds of philanthropists, or to cast aspersions on the manner of their donations.