EDITORIAL : THE NIGERIAN TRIBUNE, NIGERIA

SPORTSMANSHIP IN POLITICS

THERE are serious indications that sanity is gradually prevailing in partisan politics in Nigeria. One veritable sign of this welcome development is the spirit of sportsmanship that some Nigerian politicians seem to have embraced. It was hitherto virtually unheard of for losers in political contests in the country to congratulate the winners and concede defeat. But that would appear to be changing now. Politicians who lost elections have, uncharacteristically, begun to congratulate their opponents who won in contests in which they were the losers.  The admonition: display gallantry in defeat and magnanimity in victory would appear to be finding concrete expression among Nigerian politicians. It is hoped that this admonition will be observed to the fullest when winners also start to show magnanimity in their dealings and relations with some losers who have shown uncommon courage in this clime by wishing their opponents well after losing elections.

PERHAPS the first politician of note to fire the salvo was Honourable Dimeji Bankole, the outgoing Speaker of the House of Representatives. He was the first to congratulate the House of Representative member-elect; Mr. Segun Williams, his relatively unknown opponent who defeated him to take the slot for the Abeokuta South Federal constituency during the recently concluded National Assembly elections.  His congratulatory message, which surprised many a Nigerian was a welcome elixir in a political space that was suffocated by bitterness and seemingly unending acrimony.  And since then, as if taking a cue from Dimeji, more politicians have joined the fray. The list includes Governor  Gbenga Daniel of Ogun State; the immediate past governor of Osun State, Prince Olagunsoye Oyinlola; Senators Isiaka Adeleke and Iyiola Omisore, Dr Ade Dosumu, Rasheed Ladoja, Governor Adebayo Alao-Akala   and it is lengthening by the day.   All these prominent Nigerians were aspirants in the recently concluded 2011 general elections. They lost the elections, but they have since congratulated their opponents who won.  This is a marked departure from what one would have expected, when losers would be spitting fire, denigrating the integrity of the electoral umpire and digging trenches to commence protracted litigations.  It will be gladdening to see this trend across the nation so that one can begin to say that the politics of bitterness and do-or-die is yielding ground to that driven by reason and service.

THE greatest credit for this similitude of sanity, creeping into the polity by politicians’ concession of defeat, goes to Professor Attahiru Jega, former labour unionist and academic, who currently heads the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).  His unwavering resolve to conduct free, fair and credible elections would appear to have brought post-election bickering and disputations to all time low. The election has been adjudged credible by both local and international observers. The transparency of the elections at the polling booths was equally acknowledged by many voters. The natural implication is that when votes are counted and made to count in an election, there would be little or nothing to bicker about when election result is released, except where politicians chose to be outrightly mischievous.

THE president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Dr. Goodluck Jonathan; also deserves commendation for the salutary turn of event. He promised to accord unfettered freedom to INEC to conduct the elections within the ambits of the extant law and he appeared to have done just that. In his word, action and body language he did not allow for any doubt about his sincerity. Somehow and gladly so, Jonathan was probably the first beneficiary of his display of fairness and statesmanship in superintending over the conduct of 2011 general elections.

PERHAPS, it is safe to conclude that in addition to rubbishing the erroneous belief that Nigeria could not hold a credible election, the Jega -led INEC would appear to have begun to elicit the right attitude from the Nigerian politicians. It may not yet be Uhuru, but the indications are encouraging and give good cause for cheer.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY OUTLOOK, AFGANISTAN

               

 

Naïve Views, Unrealistic Policies

For more than a week, Bin Laden story has topped the world news events, analyses, and politics. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, President Karzai, soon after Obama's announcement, expressed happiness on his death and called upon Taliban fighters to learn their lessons from Osama's death. However, the victorious call didn't last long here. Taliban fighters promptly launched a two-day huge operation in the heart of southern Kandahar targeting governor's office and the intelligence headquarters. The operation put Afghan security officials highly at stake but, as part of their populist justification skills, they said the operation indicated that Taliban were struggling to survive their last stages in the fight against Afghan and international forces.

Kandahar is seen as key to U.S.-led efforts to end the decade-long Taliban insurgency and hand Afghan forces responsibility for national security across the troubled country by 2014. Only few days ago, nearly 500 Taliban prisoners escaped from Kandahar's prison through a huge tunnel. On the same day as their enormous maneuver ended in the restive south, they killed at least six Afghan police in the central Ghazni Province. Taliban have said the attacks were part of their spring offensive called "The Badr Operation" which is aimed at recapturing some of the territories they lost months ago.

Afghan officials have hoped the killing of Bin Laden pave the way for negotiations with the Taliban. Karzai administration thought that death of the terrorist mastermind could help his peace initiative which is frequently offered to Taliban, a placating policy they have bluntly rebuffed.
Years after the process was launched under US leadership in Afghanistan, the Afghan government resorted into peaceful approach towards its armed dissidents. President Karzai has done his best to encourage Taliban to lay down arms and join the peace process.

However, the policy has proved counterproductive. Taliban have got enough chance to use Afghan villages and the tribal connection networks to recruit more mercenaries and spread fear of their return in areas under government control. International forces engaged here are, however, trapped in lack of coordination with the Afghan government, divergent policies of the NATO member countries on Afghanistan and the regional countries' uncooperative mood.

Having gone through the very hard experiences in war against terrorism, Afghan government has got no clear definition of her mission in the fight against terrorism and whom it is fighting with. Al Qaeda-backed Taliban, the stubborn extremist militants, are treated kindly by afghan president and his team. However, the peaceful Afghan nation knows enough of the Taliban essence. Derived from such naively optimistic views, Afghan government has so far practiced a bunch of unrealistic policies that has led only to the current deteriorating security and fading hopes of the nation.

Underestimation of bin Ladenism is a Mistake

Since months ago, everybody engaged in Afghanistan's issue have been talking about growing violence after winter meltdown due to commencement of spring-offensive assaults of militants. And recently such warnings doubled due to assassination of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

In meantime, insurgents also have never come short of power-maneuvering and approved holding deadly attacks on Afghan government and its foreign allies.
After approval of Osama's death by insurgents, they renewed warnings and called for revenge. But revenge seems to be nowhere other than Afghanistan where giant numbers of US armies along with Afghan security forces are carrying out operation to weaken insurgency and provide situation for military withdrawal. During past two days, Saturday and Sunday, Taliban militants clashed in Kandahar Province with Afghan security forces backed by foreign troops has left 25 people dead and 46 injured. The assault was recognized significant as, reportedly, more then 40 insurgents were involved which included recent Kandahar jail escapees. Initially, armed militants started firing on Kandahar's governor office and, later on, targeted police station and traffic police building.

The significant characteristic of the assault was the heavily usage of Al-Qaeda tactics—suicidal attacks. Eight suicidal attacks made during past two days along with several cars loaded with explosive devices, which were destroyed by Afghan forces before hitting targets.
Ostensibly, insurgents are trying to convey the message that however Osama bin Laden is dead but his Al-Qaedic teachings would not be graved. Viewing Osama as a key player behind terror activities and assuming him as the only mastermind behind his entire terror network activities, his death can be assumed as ideological HIV into the body of terrorism that will diminish its strength and eventually end its life. But the problem arises if bin Ladenism is strong enough to regenerate and create "bin Landens". This is something should be noticed by international community in order not to change today's festivity into sorrow and regret of tomorrow.

Though the concept of spread of bin Ladenism is currently pushed into marginal issues because of Arabian democratic civil uprising, but states like Pakistan, Afghanistan and some weak states remain prey to global terrorist networks. The world should never forget that Al-Qaeda, according to credential reports, have had only 200 members in 2001, and with two hundred members it was potentially dangerous to threaten the global security. Counter-terror and counterinsurgency struggle should not be laid down and should be continued by any forms.

The Situation Could Spell an Irreversible Chaos

It may be strange for Afghan people to ask the government and international community to restore the security and peace in their country within a specific timeframe but they may have to come to a certain point to decide to ask the government and international forces when they will begin to feel secure in their neighborhood and areas.

It is important that they begin to take the control of their destiny and not let it be played in the hands of irresponsible and ineffective leadership. It is a decade now that Afghan people have been going through fires, explosions and all the other destructive and appallingly terrible cruelties. They have been exposed to a situation to let their blood be shed, their sons and daughters be killed, their wives be left alone and husbands be slaughtered. This situation still continues without any clear prospect for peace, stability and prosperity.

On Monday, May 09, 2011, eight people were killed when a suicide attacker rammed his explosives-packed motorcycle into a gate of a district headquarters building in eastern province of Laghman. According to reports, the dead included two policemen and six civilians, including three students. The incident also led to wounding several people, including some foreigners.

Afghan people must begin to call the leadership of the country to question as everything is becoming embarrassing. It is not affordable to continue to bear the ongoing situation of fear, bombing, fighting and explosions while there are more than 40 nations with their soldiers in action in the country to help the people have security, peace and development. It is not affordable to continue to suffer from violence that is exercised and launched by the "so-called brothers" who have everything but a human heart and human wisdom, and who stubbornly continue to hold onto their hard-line ideology, which recognizes and attaches no value to human as human being. If the current situation is not analyzed well and not reversed immediately, it will begin to spell an irreparable disaster for the country, plunging it into an irreversible chaos.

EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

Checkmate Israel


Contradictory messages from Tel Aviv regarding possible talks with Palestinians following the Fatah-Hamas unity deal denote confusion on the part of Israel’s leadership.

Israeli President Shimon Peres has recently said that talks with Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas are still on the cards despite the deal with estranged militant faction Hamas. While criticising the deal with Hamas, Peres’ resigned comment that peace talks cannot be abandoned come what may signify a slight shift.
On the other hand the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ruled out any talks with the new Palestinian unity government comprising Hamas unless the group abandons its erstwhile position and renounces violence against the state of Israel.  However, Netanyahu’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak has struck a different note by saying that Israel should talk to the Palestinian government if Hamas accepts the principles laid out by the Mideast Quartet. Interestingly, Barak criticised his government’s refusal to negotiate with the new Palestinian government. He had an apt point when he said that  Israel  to date has held that it cannot negotiate with a divided Palestinian government  especially when Abbas did not enjoy full control over the Palestinian territories. Now with the two factions having buried the hatchet, the talks are even more crucial. But for Israel that holds Hamas as a terrorist group it is near impossible to hold talks unless Hamas changes tracks vis-a-vis Israel. The shift in the Israeli camp may also be because of recent statements from Hamas that signify a change in thoughts on a two state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.  This is probably why Peres and Barak may have decided to seize the initiative and show an opening. 
On another front, that of the Palestinian statehood, which the Palestinian Authority had launched some months back and which gained ground among some key Latin American states and now Egypt, there are some interesting developments.  The declaration of a Palestinian state was an initiative born out of frustration over Tel Aviv’s obdurate stand and unwillingness to make a commitment to resolve the issue, especially after the settlements issue.  With the Palestinian Statehood Resolution now to be put up before the General Assembly in the United Nations this September,  the pressure on Israel is building up. Abbas has laid the ball in the Israeli court by offering to forego the move on the condition that Israel ceases all settlement activity and agrees to pull back to the pre-1967 ceasefire lines.
It now remains to be seen how Tel Aviv battles this checkmate. It should look at this as an opportunity and mend fences with the Palestinians lest the dispute meanders on endlessly.


Undoing Sino-US irritants


Beijing and Washington are in session to discuss sizeable disagreements. The meeting of top officials from across the governmental departments from trade to legislation is, indeed, a welcome development.

The discourse under the Strategic and Economic Dialogue umbrella could go a long way in creating a better understanding of each other’s limitations, and working out the minimum consensus on indispensable issues. The very fact that sectional secretaries and representatives are meeting across a single table hints at the scope of interaction, irrespective of how divergent their interests are in realms of world leadership 
and competition.
The groundwork for this marshal marathon, however, was largely done as US President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao met early this year, and agreed to rewrite a new chapter of interaction. Yet, the talks are unlikely to yield results, as their respective bargaining positions are well entrenched and personalised to the core. This is why it is hoped that even if the dialogue succeeds in listing out new options for scaling down the existing flagship differences, it would be a major breakthrough of sorts. The ice, nonetheless, would be difficult to melt as currency policy and protectionism would continue to act as major hurdles. Similarly, the most cumbersome element will be the chipping in of human rights and other political discords during the talks, rendering the forum quite incapable and incompetent to deal with.
At a time when the US is in neck-deep budget deficit, it cannot continue to browbeat its biggest lender on political assumptions. It would be better if the relationship is purely business-centric and is not complicated with qualitative and intangible issues. The world’s two biggest economies won’t find a day when they will be free from intrigues and reservations. China’s indigenous innovation policy — which American business conglomerates believe has hit them below the belt — will be under the spotlight and put pressure. Similarly, the Chinese will try to cut a deal in convincing the Americans that their self-inflicted restrictions on investments under the cloak of national security are proving detrimental for either sides. The dialogue is in need of political supplements. Merely looking over the shoulder will not work.




 

EDITORIAL : THE KOREA HERALD, SOUTH KOREA

Parties in flux

The nation’s political parties are in a state of flux. Party leaderships are in serious disarray and analysts see the possibility of a major regrouping when parliamentary and presidential votes draw near. Popularity ratings fluctuate wildly while President Lee Myung-bak’s approval rate keeps sliding.

The ruling Grand National Party’s by-election loss last month in Bundang, long considered a conservative bastion, led to the early departure of the party chairman and the surprise election of an underdog as the new floor leader. The president’s party now faces the worst factional strife since it clinched power in the December 2007 vote. At least four rival groups are jockeying for party control while the president keeps his distance from each of them.

The main opposition Democratic Party is still in an ecstatic mood after its chairman Sohn Hak-kyu clinched Bundang in the April 27 vote. The leftist party overtook the GNP in popularity for the first time in the latest opinion poll. Yet, Sohn exposed a disappointing lack of leadership over the handling of the Korea-EU free trade agreement bill. Rhyu Si-min of the National Participatory Party, an offshoot from the DP, is mounting an effective challenge to become the opposition torch-bearer.

Suddenly on Monday, Lee Hoi-chang resigned as chairman of the conservative Liberty Forward Party, saying that he would look at national politics beyond the confines of the Chungcheong Province-based party. People in and outside the party took his remarks as indicating a fourth bid for presidency. Now the two conservative parties are run by emergency committees.

About 40 young Turks in the GNP joined the Park Geun-hye faction to support Hwang Woo-yea in the election of the floor leader. They are now openly demanding that the emergency committee appointed by the outgoing executive body concede its functions to the new floor leader so that he can prepare the party general convention in the fairest manner. In the meantime, schism in the loyalists for the president deepened as Lee Jae-oh blamed Lee Sang-deuk for abandoning his choice and clandestinely endorsing Hwang.

All these complex developments testify to the immaturity of our political parties for democratic operation despite the passage of two decades following the end of military dictatorships. Yet, a more immediate cause, in the case of the ruling party, is the formidable personal antagonism between President Lee and Park, the top contender in the 2007 presidential nomination.

Park, commanding the highest popularity rate of over 30 percent in the latest poll, is no doubt the strongest candidate for the December 2012 presidential election. The present conflicts in the GNP boil down to a contest between the present and future powers, focused on the right to nominate candidates for the National Assembly elections next spring. The young reformists’ call for a totally bottom-up process to replace the traditional top-down nomination system has strong justification, although it is another cause of the internal trouble.

President Lee is fundamentally responsible for resolving these problems but his ammunition is running out. His has to seek a genuine reconciliation with Park Geun-hye and then stay a fair umpire and arbitrator on the worsening contest between the so-called pro-Lee and pro-Park groups. He may have little to fear about his future particularly with regard to family-related irregularities which had haunted his predecessors, but he should most anxiously try to avoid the misfortune of seeing the governing party break apart while in office.

Hollow proposal

While there is a near zero possibility that Kim Jong-il will accept President Lee’s offer of inviting the North Korean leader to the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul next March, which carries heavy preconditions, the gesture shows the government’s sincerity to bring the rogue regime to the international arena. President Lee also reminded Pyongyang of what it can expect from the international society in exchange for giving up its nuclear programs, which so far have earned it practically nothing.

The president promised “a bright future” for the North on two conditions. One is Pyongyang’s reaching an agreement with the international society “firmly and sincerely” to abandon its nuclear programs, and the other is that it apologize for its sinking of the South Korean patrol craft Cheonan and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island last year, which were the worst military provocations since the Korean War.

The 2nd Nuclear Security Summit is to be held on March 26-27 with 50 heads of states or governments discussing how to deepen international cooperation that helps prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. The summit will also seek to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency with the resources and authorities it needs to meet its responsibilities.

South Korea was approved to host the next summit because the participants of the first summit in Washington in April 2010 recognized the gravity of the North Korean nuclear issue, which was certain to top the agenda of the Seoul summit. The event will be a great demonstration of international solidarity against nuclear proliferation, as it takes place in a country under direct threat from a regime that has conducted nuclear weapons tests twice.

However, with the certain absence of North Korea and Iran, attendees of the summit will share a fair amount of frustration, which we only hope to turn into renewed resolve toward common efforts for denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and across the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD, NEW ZEALAND

Labour energy better directed to the Budget

Last week it was his police protection, this week Premier House. The week before, it was the Prime Minister's use of air force travel, before that, the limousine fleet replacement. Labour seems to think the public begrudges John Key the usual trappings of office.

Not that police protection is one of the trappings. Labour's claim that anyone would enjoy or invite the company of a security squad was silly beyond words. The Prime Minister was right that it did not deserve the dignity of a response, and it would not be receiving attention here now except that yesterday's criticism of some maintenance work on Premier House suggests it is part of a serial the Opposition is running.

Premier House in Wellington, where Prime Ministers can live and entertain, is being repainted and recarpeted at a cost of $275,000. Mr Key says it had not been repainted for 11 years. He says he is happy to accept any scrutiny he is put under but wonders why Labour is raising such trivial issues. He is not alone.

The Budget is just 10 days away and Labour probably expects the Government to preach austerity for the year ahead, and to make one or two savings in social services.

So the Opposition has scoured the accounts of the Prime Minister's office for expenses it might label hypocritical.

Against a Prime Minister whose popularity is on the wane, this sort of pitch might work. But against one as popular as Helen Clark was for six years, and John Key is now, people must wonder why their opponents appeal to envy. It is only likely to rebound on the Opposition, showing it to be miserable, mean-spirited and out of tune with the country's mood.

The public remembers that Labour's last Prime Minister made use of Premier House, that her police protection was accommodated in a house beside her own in Auckland and that she used the air force or chauffeured limousines when it suited her. It is odd that one of her senior Cabinet ministers, Pete Hodgson, should be leading these lame attacks on her successor.

He should be among the last to question, for example, whether a Prime Minister needs security accompanying him inside Parliament buildings sometimes. Helen Clark asked for it when members of the Exclusive Brethren sect used to try to speak to her on her walk to the chamber.

Mr Hodgson has never had much luck digging for dirt on Mr Key. As Labour's strategist at the last election he thought he had struck gold with the so called H-Fee for sham foreign exchange transactions 20 years earlier. The "H-bomb" blew up in Labour's face when it was discovered the party president had taken time out from the campaign to spend days in Melbourne looking for a cheque signature that turned out not to be Mr Key's.

Mr Hodgson, who is retiring this year, was a serious and effective minister and should have lost the taste for the scurrilous tasks of opposition. But last year he took the political scalp of Pansy Wong over her husband's business use of her parliamentary travel perk. Perhaps that has encouraged a revival of his attempts to undermine Mr Key.

Labour's leader should call him off. Most of the public finds this focus on the Prime Minister's office trite and desperate. In the days leading up to a Budget, the Opposition should be promoting its own view of the state of the economy and what it would do about it. If it needs to criticise Mr Key, his risk-aversion gives Labour plenty of grounds. He has ruled out increasing the pension age, a levy for Christchurch and capital gains tax. He needs to do more than he may find palatable if more private investment is to flow into productive ventures.

Normal expenses of state are nickels and dimes beside the decisions the country needs.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY NATIONAL POST, CANADA

A new pariah state

Syria has been a police state for years. But it is only now that the truly brutal, and even murderous, nature of Bashar Assad's regime has been made plain.

Since mid-March, hundreds of innocent protesters have been gunned down in the streets. (The exact number is unknown, because the government has banned all foreign reporters, and blocked local cellphone networks, in an effort to prevent the outside world from learning the extent of the bloodshed.) Tanks are roaming towns in several parts of the country. Government agents are going door to door, rounding up activists and throwing them into jail.

There are reports of dissent in the military: In several instances, soldiers reportedly have been killed by their comrades for refusing to shoot on unarmed demonstrators. And some legislators have quit their posts, rather than be complicit in the crackdown. Still, the Assad regime may survive the current crisis. It might just murder its way to short-term survival.

Even if this happens, however, the protesters' sacrifices will not have been in vain. For decades, Syria has postured as a beacon of Arab "resistance" against Israeli aggression -and has acted as a weapons conduit for the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorist group and militia in neighbouring Lebanon. Now, Syria is becoming a pariah in the Arab world: Even the Iranians -who cheered on the revolutions in North Africa -seem mortified by events in their client state.

If the Syrian regime survives, it will be in massively weakened form. The traditional raison-dêtre of its government -confronting Israel -will become a joke, for Damascus will have shown itself to be more brutal to its own Arab citizens than even the hated "Zionist entity" is accused of behaving toward Palestinians.

President Assad's days are numbered, in other words. It's just a question of how many of his own people he kills on the way down.

A proud moment for Parliament

Amid all of the commentary about last week's election results, little attention has been paid to an impressive fact: Seven aboriginals -five Conservatives and two NDP -were elected to Parliament in this election, the highest number ever.

They are (beginning with the Tories): Leona Aglukkaq in Nunavut -who already had the distinction of being the first Canadian of Inuk ancestry in Cabinet; Rob Clarke, who is Cree, in the Saskatchewan riding of Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River; Rod Bruinooge, a Métis entrepreneur and filmmaker with a well-developed political resumé, in Winnipeg South; former policewoman Shelly Glover, who identifies as Métis, in the Manitoba riding of Saint Boniface; Innu leader Peter Penashue in Labrador; Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, a lawyer from the small Quebec Innu village of Uashat-Maliotenam; and Romeo Saganash, founder of the Cree Nation Youth Council, in the Quebec riding of Abitibi-Baie-James-Nunavik-Eeyou (whose Bloc Québécois opponent -wrongly -claimed him to be unelectable because he was aboriginal).

This is a great moment not only for these seven politicians, but for Canada: To our collective disgrace, it was not until 1968 that the first Status Indian was elected to Parliament. (Indeed, they could not even vote until 1960). And it is a welcome sight to see aboriginals assume their rightful place in mainstream politics -including a five-MP contingent within the majority ruling party.

Their presence in the halls of power also makes this an interesting time for aboriginal politics in this country. Till now, the de facto political center of gravity for many aboriginals has been the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). This group now is led by Shawn Atleo, a relatively young, well-educated, progressminded hereditary chief from the Ahousaht First Nation on Vancouver Island. But no matter who leads it, the AFN is limited by its mandate: It is a group that represents the interests of aboriginal band leaders -not the reserve-resident rank-and-file. The seven aboriginal MPs elected last week, on the other hand, must be accountable to their constituents.

We also hope they will help inject fresh ideas into the debate about aboriginal issues. The Liberal approach -symbolized by the failed Kelowna Accord -revolved around money. But aboriginal communities need more than just handouts. They also need more encouragement to join the Canadian economy as active, capitalist partners, a process well underway in some of the more prosperous reserves located on the B.C. coast and near urban centres.

While Parliament's aboriginal MPs were elected to serve all their constituents, not just those who share their ancestry, they could pay this country a special service by bringing their communities' needs to the forefront of Tory policy-making.

EDITORIAL : THE AZZAMAN, IRAQ

Iraqi Central Bank raises individual hard cash transfers to $50,000

Iraqis are now officially allowed to transfer up to $50,000 per transaction in hard cash across the world, the Central Bank says.

The decision follows restrictions on hard cash transfers under which Iraqi banks and exchange offices were obliged to declare to the tax authorities the names of individuals transferring more than $10,000 per transaction.

The decision had slashed transfers in hard cash from nearly $300 million a day to $3 million.

An adviser to the Central Bank, Mudher Mohammed, said the restrictions on transfers had an adverse impact on Iraqi financial markets.

“The monetary and financial balance that guided the markets was lost,” he said.

The decision to curtail transfers was taken 10 days ago. It demanded that banks and exchange houses provide lists of names of individuals transferring more than $10,000 in one transaction.

Yesterday, transfers in hard cash had surged to $80 million following a ruling that scrapped an earlier decision on hard cash transfer restrictions.

Banks are now only obliged to declare the names of individuals transferring more than $50,000 per transaction.

“The volume of transactions is bound to increase and reach its normal levels, restoring financial and monetary equilibrium to Iraqi markets,” Mohammed said.

He said the amount of transfer per transaction was raised for purposes of tourism, study abroad and healthcare.

EDITORIAL : RFI english, FRANCE

French press review

Money, Victor Hugo, bath plugs and fish in the French papers today, with no consensus on the front page story.

It's just 12 months since Europe rushed to give the struggling Greek economy a massive cash transfusion.
If I have correctly understood the main story in today's business daily, Les Echos, the Greeks are still in trouble.
There was talk last week that the coffers in Athens were in such bad shape, the lads were trying to get out of the euro zone. That caused a rush on the money markets, pushing the value of the euro into the floor.

Dossier: Eurozone in crisis

With what passes for wisdom in the bizarre realm of European finances, the authorities in Brussels have decided to loan the Greeks more money, so that they can pay the interest on the money they already owe, and everything will be hunky-dorey.
The main story in Le Figaro details efforts by the American Central Intelligence Agency to analyse the computer files and other information stolen from the house in Pakistan where Osama Bin Laden was killed by US Special Forces just one week ago.
The Americans claim that the Al Qaida leader was controlling the activities of his terrorist organisation from the compound in Abbottabad where met his end.
The French education minister does not know how to count. That's according to leftist Libération.
They say the minister has been pulling the wool over the eyes of students and parents.
Libé gives examples: the minister earlier this month claimed that state expenditure per student had grown by 80 per cent since 1980. Most of that money has gone to improving the salaries of primary school teachers.
The fact remains that France is close to bottom of the class according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, with one of the worst teacher-pupil ratios in primary schools.
9,000 further jobs will be lost in the primary sector over the next school year, with the cutting of 1,500 classes.
And nearly 57,000 education jobs have been lost in government cost-cutting efforts over the past three years.
Catholic La Croix is also looking at education, through the eyes of Richard Descoings, the director of the top French Institute of Political Studies.
He says the French system, which sees one-third of each age group leave school without a qualification, another third relegated to so-called professional colleges, with just 35% passing the baccalaureat examination, can hardly be considered a success.
The real problem, according to Richard Descoings, is that very few students know why they have to go to school.
They don't see the point of learning a poem by Victor Hugo, or how to calculate how long it takes to empty a bath with two holes in it, or why French grammar matters.
And poor Richard doesn't come up with much of an answer, shooting himself in the foot by admitting that the twentieth century social ladder by which the child of a labourer could become a manager thanks to his university degree no longer works, simply because there are now so many graduates, but the number of managerial posts has remained broadly stable.
But let's not be too materalistic. Apparently, those who are better educated are happier, though that may be a chicken and egg situation, with the better educated having other reasons for being happy, and thus for being happier.
Back to Les Echos for a look at the troubled waters of the European fishing industry.
For years, the problem has been to find ways of preventing Europe's horribly efficient fleets of trawlers from simply cleaning out the oceans, leaving not a single sardine in their wake.
Quotas have been imposed, objected to and ignored, with fishermen from outside Europe profiting, since they are not subject to the same limits.
The latest idea from Brussels is the transferable quota, meaning that a captain can sell all or part of his fishing rights to the captain of another vessel.
Fewer boats will thus catch the same number of fish, which is, apparently, a big step forward.
Fishermen in Ireland, Portugal, Holland, Germany and Sweden have all said the idea stinks like a month-old mackrel.

EDITORIAL : THE TEHRAN TIMES, IRAN

Persian Press Review

Tehran Times Political Desk

This column features excerpts from news articles, editorials, commentaries, and interviews of the leading Iranian newspapers and websites.

Monday’s headlines

KAYHAN: President chairs cabinet meeting with participation of (Intelligence Minister) Moslehi

HAMSHAHRI: Unemployment would be eradicated in Tehran next year, Tehran governor promises

JAME JAM: President says government regards defending velayat-e faqih (rule of the supreme jurisprudent) as a duty

HEMAYAT: Intelligence minister says bin Laden died a few years ago

TAFAHOM: 2 million houses will be constructed during the current and next years, housing minister announces

JAVAN: One-month ultimatum to name new president of Azad University

IRAN: Iran exports 3.5m liters of gasoline per day

SHARQ: Mohammad-Reza Bahonar says president should not say “I decide about (makeup of) the Majlis”

QODS: Responding to people’s ambiguities about cash subsidies

Leading articles

JAVAN quotes Grand Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani as saying that the enemies of the Islamic establishment have always been trying to undermine the status of velayat-e faqih (rule of the supreme jurisprudent) but the nation have foiled their plots by showing full commitment to the principle of velayat-e faqih and obeying the Leader’s orders. The ayatollah also urged the nation to strengthen their unity and show commitment to velayat-e faqih more than before. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a senior member of the Assembly of Experts, also warned that if any group stands against velayat-e faqih, the people will rise against it. In an indirect reference to the seditious movement that followed the 2009 presidential election, Khatami said there is no difference between “old fitna” and “new fitna” and warned that the “deviant current” which he called new seditionists are too weak to resist against the principle of velayat-e faqih. Khatami, also said the new seditionists must know as the nation gave a crushing response to the seditionists in 2009 it will give a much more crushing response to new ones.

In an article on first page TEHRAN-E EMROOZ says a number of reformists have dismissed the possibility of formation of a coalition between reformists and the government loyalists in the run-up to the upcoming parliamentary election, saying there is no common ground between reformists and the government loyalists. The story began when a cleric close to the presidential chief of staff, who was later arrested by police, told a reformist publication, “We do not see principlists as (real) principlists and believe that principlism like the rightist faction has turned traditional and lost its efficiency,” and emphasized that the government supporters will definitely compete with principlists in the parliamentary election which will be held in late winter. He said his group will introduce young and new faces and even there is the possibility that some reformist figures, who have no problem with the system, will be included in their list. However, he said those who “want to remain as people’s custodians under the slogan of principlism until the end of their life definitely will not be in our list.” According to Tehran-e Emrooz, a number of reformists did not respond to the suggestion of this person. However, some other reformists, in separate interviews with Tehran-e Emrooz, ruled out the possibility of formation of such a coalition. Ahmad Hakimipour, the secretary general of the Nation Resolve party, said, “there is no common ground between reformists and government supporters which can enable them to present a joint list” for the parliamentary election. Hakimipour also said if reformists want to compete in the election, they need no one’s support. In addition, reformist MP Dariyoush Qanbari stated that reformists as a political group see no need to form a coalition with others. Tehran-e Emrooz also said that “unofficial reports” indicate that moderate reformists are determined to gain more seats in the next parliament

EDITORIAL : THE BANGKOK POST, THAILAND

 

 

What are they doing in Libya?

The war against the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya is almost two months old. When it began, US President Barack Obama promised it would last "days, not weeks" and European leaders assured the world the Gadhafi government was on its last legs and tottering.

During the weekend and yesterday, Libyan forces continued to do what Nato claimed they would stop - incessantly, intensively shelling rebel-held cities in eastern Libya, especially civilian targets. Meanwhile, Nato warplanes from half a dozen countries have not only failed to instill any notion of surrender into Col Gadhafi and his supporters. Their bombs have missed the old dictator and killed his grandchildren.

What has the United Nations wrought with its poorly conceived, terribly executed attacks on Libya? The world body and Nato - the US-centric, Europe-based military coalition - have done what the high-priced public relations firms and highly paid Western academics failed to do. They have actually caused many people around the world to feel sorry for one of the top terrorist enablers of our time. The world agreed with President Barack Obama that justice finally caught up with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The same world wonders why warplanes are killing children instead of Libyan combatants, including the man at the top of the regime.

When Mr Obama assured the UN and the world that the "kinetic military action" would quickly subdue Libyan military forces, he forgot an axiom of war. It is easy for a national leader to start one; but once started, it is impossible to stop.

Since March 17, when the UN Security Council voted to authorise military action, the Nato airstrikes have fostered a war, which has turned into an inconclusive trudge through the swamp. Not only is there no light at the end of the tunnel, there appears to be no tunnel. The initial optimism of Mr Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy is mostly embarrassed silence. Their assurance of the end of Col Gadhafi and his odious 40 years of dangerous rule is heard no longer.

Around the world, meanwhile, even supporters of military action have turned into sceptics, certain that Europe is making a naked grab for oil.

Early this month, British and Italian warplanes attacked a compound in Tripoli. The military commanders insist they were not targetting people - only militarily useful buildings and equipment. By a huge coincidence, some of the core family of Col Gadhafi were there, including the dictator himself. The bombs destroyed the large concrete structure, killing Col Gadhafi's second-youngest and seldom seen son, Saif al-Arab Gadhafi - and three young grandchildren. The strikes, which authorities continue to insist were no assassination attempt, missed Col Gadhafi and his wife.

In what appeared to be a response, the Gadhafi forces opened up with major artillery barrages on the city of Misrata. It is described as "rebel-held" but in fact has become largely a hell of sorts for non-combatants. What has taken place at Misrata, and what is taking place now, is almost exactly what the UN Security Council resolution was designed to stop: the slaughter of civilians.

The UN failed to authorise attacks to overthrow the Gadhafi regime, although that is clearly what is needed. Nato has failed to impose strong military attacks against Gadhafi forces, although they clearly are needed. It is unconscionable that the man who exhorted terrorism worldwide is making a fool of the world coalition against him, but that is what is happening.

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT, IRELAND

It's time to decide on role of president

MICHEAL Martin quietly settled two questions yesterday, both related to the presidential election which will take place in the autumn. He quashed any speculation about Bertie Ahern's candidature, and he gave Fianna Fail deputies leave to join, if they so wish, in nominating Senator David Norris for the office.

One must doubt whether the first issue ever needed to be taken seriously.

Mr Ahern's arm's-length relationship with the English language notwithstanding, his position has always been fairly clear. He was not seeking the Fianna Fail nomination, but neither would he rule it out. Now Mr Martin has ruled it out for him.

No Fianna Fail leader could have done otherwise, and least of all could the present leader have supported the former Taoiseach while still trying to draw together the tattered strands of his once-great party.

Once upon a time, Mr Ahern was the most popular politician in the land.

No longer.

The part he played in the economic crash is the subject of satire; his performances at the Mahon Tribunal hearings the subject of hilarity. His hand-picked candidates have been rejected in his own former Dail constituency, Dublin Central. Fianna Fail's inner circles are giving serious thought to the proposition that they should not contest the presidential election at all for fear of another drubbing at the voters' hands.

Whether with this possibility in mind or for other reasons, Mr Martin yesterday announced the freeing of his Oireachtas members to nominate Mr Norris.

This piece of liberalism is welcome in itself. But it also raises the issue of the oddity of the nomination process, and suggests that the time is ripe to discuss the process and the presidency itself.

An aspirant candidate needs the support of 20 Oireachtas members or four county councils. Senator Norris appears confident of reaching one or other target.

Should he fail, it would mean the exclusion from the race of one of the most prominent public figures in the country. That would be absurd.

Much more absurd is that an intense (if mainly invisible and undeclared) contest is in progress for the highest office in the land, while most citizens have no idea what they want from a President. Do we want a mere figurehead, or something more?

If we want something more, what should be its nature and how can we ensure that it conforms to the Constitution? We should decide on these questions before deciding on the individual to hold the office.

End text book rip-off

THIS autumn, parents will be paying up to €400 for textbooks for a son or daughter starting first or fifth year in secondary school, and €100 in the case of a child starting primary school. For some, at a time of such distress and pressure for families, the bill will seem the last straw. And with the last straw could come what middle-class families would regard as the last resort.

Audry Deane of the St Vincent de Paul Society says that increasing numbers of parents cannot afford to buy the textbooks. They have to seek the society's help.

Why must they spend so much money -- money they can ill afford -- on this item?

In the first place, textbooks are expensive, and no wonder, considering the high standards of production. But secondly, there are far too many of them. New editions constantly appear, ostensibly for the sake of necessary updating but very often with only tiny changes which add little or nothing to a reader's knowledge.

And what amounts to a necessary update?

It might be argued, for example, that a geography book should reflect changes in population, production or income.

But this could be achieved by inserting a single slip of paper. And there are other means of easing the parents' burden without harming learning. In most countries, school books are free to pupils. Must we accept that our battered society cannot afford even that?

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Time to make Australia and its budget self-reliant

An illustration by Peter Nicholson. Source: The Australian

WHEN Wayne Swan rises to his feet in parliament tonight, he must avoid making any more excuses.

In what will be his fourth budget and the Gillard government's first, it must be close to the last chance for Labor to outline a clear strategy to gain control of its own economic destiny. We have lots of alibis for failure from the Treasurer beyond the one serious mitigating factor he has had to deal with, the global financial crisis. It is time to stop blaming the Howard government, the unique characteristics of mining boom Mark II and the natural disasters here and overseas. Rather, Mr Swan should demonstrate discipline in the one aspect of the economy over which he has almost unfettered control -- government spending.

Such is the way of politics, it would be too much to expect the Treasurer to admit he overreacted to the GFC, wasted too much money and plunged Australia further into deficit than was necessary. But this judgment must at least inform his thinking as he frames a path back to a structural surplus. With unemployment low, commodity prices high, export demand strong and the dollar above parity, now is the time to significantly rein in spending, easing upward pressure on interest rates and allowing private sector investment to fuel economic growth. 

Unfortunately Mr Swan and Julia Gillard have handicapped themselves by locking in to extensive government spending through the $36 billion NBN project, not to mention hundreds of millions of dollars of stimulus money still being spent on the school halls program. These are part of a political promise to every school in the nation, so perhaps none of that spend can be curtailed. But the NBN was never subject to a cost-benefit analysis, has failed to award construction tenders at the initial price and is designed to roll out over a decade. Now must be an appropriate time to reassess the government largesse in the project and consider whether it is better to allow private investors to provide more broadband infrastructure by upgrading a range of technologies.

The government recognises skills shortages and increased labour costs are pressure points in the economy, so it is the wrong time for massive public infrastructure projects to compete in the marketplace for those same resources, adding to the inflationary pressure. We also need to see a heavy emphasis on training and welfare to work reforms that, as well as providing incentives, are sufficiently hard-headed to nudge people into the workforce.

Apart from announcing substantial spending cuts, Mr Swan must explain why they are needed. Part of his rationale must reflect the need to ease inflationary pressures. He also should declare that it is time for the government to retreat from people's lives. Labor has used the excuse of the GFC to insinuate government into too many aspects of our lives: sending us cheques to get us spending, running optical fibre to our door for broadband, building a hall at every school, knocking on our door to offer insulation, giving us funding to switch to solar and, now we learn, even popping in to deliver and install a digital set-top box for our televisions.

Enough, Treasurer. If you cut your spending to make the budget self-sustaining, Australians can get on with ensuring they are self-reliant.

Sound of one hand tweeting

FOR all its imperfections and transgressions, the fourth estate is crucial in facilitating the public discourse, enabling the contest of ideas and delivering the transparency and accountability that underpin our democracy.

Serious media accept these responsibilities, providing reportage and commentary on all issues of relevance, unpalatable or not. Journalists must avoid applying a moral handbrake on issues that run counter to their world view. Readers expect quality media to keep them abreast of any current events worthy of debate so they can assess not only what has happened but also what might be unfolding.

We have noted before that readers of the Fairfax press all too often must be taken completely by surprise. For instance, while the knifing of then prime minister Kevin Rudd climaxed at a dramatic pace last year, the readers of those papers wouldn't have known about the building internal desperation that preceded the coup. Similarly, the demotion of environment minister Peter Garrett must have mystified readers who had not read about the ongoing disaster of the home insulation scandal. The insulation shambles and the school halls wastage did not fit the narrative of Fairfax journalists, so the stories were ignored.

So it was last weekend, with The Sydney Morning Herald devoting a full page to a significant story it had ignored for almost a month (save for a single comment piece). Our readers will be familiar with the furore sparked by indigenous activist and academic Larissa Behrendt tweeting a nasty put-down about Aboriginal woman Bess Price, who was supporting the indigenous intervention on ABC TV's Q&A program. The controversy threw a spotlight on a schism between the pragmatic and ideological views of the intervention. Fairfax papers self-censored the story and the ongoing debate but on the weekend the Herald spoke at length with Behrendt in a self-serving piece, ignoring the key issues and consigning the episode to history. This strange approach matters little to us as it serves only to highlight the benefits our readers enjoy. But it hardly seems fair to Herald readers or the broader public, who might be interested in this crucial discussion. The intervention's future and decisions about who speaks for indigenous communities remain highly contentious issues in Central Australia, and are important for our nation.

Our first indigenous superstar

LIONEL Rose faced world bantamweight champion Masahiko Harada as a 19-year-old underdog in a bout few pundits believed he could win but which all Australians hoped he would.

That supercharged victory over 15 dogged rounds in Tokyo in 1968, which stemmed from Rose's raw talent and sheer guts, changed Australian sporting history.

In a referendum less than a year earlier, 90 per cent of Australians had voted to empower the federal government to implement policies to benefit Aborigines. Rose's victory gave his people their first indigenous superstar and a big confidence boost. With 42 wins, including 12 knockouts, from 53 fights, Rose paved the way for other indigenous sporting stars, including Evonne Cawley, Cathy Freeman, Nova Peris-Kneebone, Tony Mundine, Arthur Beetson, Jonathan Thurston and Wendell Sailor.

Rose, who died on Sunday aged 62, richly deserved the accolades bestowed upon him. More than 100,000 people greeted him in Melbourne when he returned from Tokyo and he was Australian of the Year in 1968, the first Aborigine to receive the honour. Rose had the world at his feet that year, a time when the referendum had created new optimism and expectations among Aborigines. Subsequent decades, however, proved difficult both for Rose and for many of his people. A talented singer, Rose scored two hits with I Thank You and Remember Me but a stroke in 2007 left him partially paralysed. Sadly, the ill health that plagued him and his death at a relatively young age is a fate shared by many of his people, whose social and economic wellbeing have been hampered by decades of ineffective policies.

A deeply principled man, Rose took pride in refusing a lucrative offer to fight in apartheid-riven South Africa in 1970, where he would have been classed as an honorary "white". In 1996, he generously gave his world-title belt to six-year-old Tjandamurra O'Shane, the victim of a racially charged attack in Cairns in the hope it would hasten the child's recovery.

Despite dirt floors and practising in a ring surrounded with chicken wire, Lionel Rose had "fond, incredible memories" of his "black tea and damper days" growing up in Jackson's Track, Gippsland. He was an Australian hero who remained true to his roots.  

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

United against illegal logging

Indonesia and the European Union (EU) joined hands last week in stepping up their campaign against illegal logging by addressing the problem from both the supply and demand sides.

Their cooperation will be implemented through the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) on Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (Flegt). Starting in 2013, all timber products from Indonesia — one of the world’s largest suppliers — exported to Europe — one of the world’s largest consumers — should be certified as having been logged in processes that prioritize sustainability.

So far, only about 50 percent of Indonesian timber and wood-based exports to Europe, worth annually about US$1.2 billion, have been certified as legal and harvested in a sustainable manner.

The agreement will implement both the EU Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Policy on timber and timber products and the Indonesian Timber Legality Assurance System. The pact ensures that all Indonesian timber products that have the Flegt license will have unlimited access to EU member states.

But in addition to efforts to slow global deforestation, implementing the agreement will also help Indonesia’s timber products compete in the United States and other consumer nations that have adopted policies to ensure the legality of such imports.

Most developed countries have now imposed stricter regulations on imports of timber and other forest-based products, such as pulp and paper, due to concerns over the dangers of climate change and because of strong pressure from consumer and environmental organizations that have asked for the certification of all forest products.

Indonesia was the first country in Asia to sign the voluntary partnership agreement with the EU and will be the largest timber exporter among those that have already signed it.

The biggest challenge for Indonesia is to ensure the credibility and integrity of its Timber Legality Verification System (SVLK), which is scheduled to be fully implemented in early 2012. The system should ensure that only timber with a certificate of legality will be allowed to be traded domestically or internationally.

A wood audit for forest certification aims at verifying that a particular species of wood is derived from legally managed forests. This process requires companies across the entire wood supply chain hold chain-of-custody certificates so that the label or bar-code can follow the wood from the forests to the finished product.

The chain of custody itself is the process of harvesting wood, primary and secondary processing, manufacturing, distribution and sales.

The wood audit inspects each of these processing steps to ensure that the timber or wood originated from forests are being managed in accordance with the social, environmental and economic aspects of sustainable forest management.

The wood and timber inspections currently carried out by the Forestry Ministry are not only ineffective and vulnerable to corruption and abuse, but the process only inspects documents from forestry offices, which can easily be forged or falsified.

Even though premium prices gained by certified timber in other major importing countries, such as China, do not seem to offset the certification costs, neither the government nor companies can wait much longer. Consumer organizations in developed countries have increasingly pressured importers to only buy legal and sustainable certified forest products.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

 

Of course he’s not

 

President Noynoy Aquino found himself again on the line of fire for his supposed laid-back working style which is really laziness, a more brutally frank word.

Noynoy is repeatedly being rumored as engaging himself in some form of worthless pursuit or another or rising up late in the day since he assumed office in June last year which many saw as signs of an ineffective presidency.

Recently, in a speech before an assembly of members of the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (Ecop), Noynoy lashed back at newspaper columnists who blamed his laid back attitude for the steep drops in his ratings on recent performance surveys.

Noynoy defended himself, saying that his working style as president may be different but it cannot be classified as laid back.

Not only columnists, but many Filipinos, several of whom voted him to power, have noticed his carefree style as opposed to his usual speeches about leading the country into a straight path, making many conclude that the straight path he frequently mentions is leading toward a deadend, mainly because he really doesn’t walk the talk.

Noynoy was particularly irritated at two columnists who had described him as either a “do-nothing Chief Executive” or that he was “not working hard enough to solve the country’s problems.”

To make his point, he said during his Ecop speech that on that day he woke up at 5:30 in the morning and boarded a plane by 6:30 a.m. to go to wakes in Cebu and in Samar. Big deal. That’s hardly presidential work. These are social activities that have nothing to do with governance, or even the so-called straight path slogan of his.

But his “hard-working spiel” does indicate his cluelessness over what constitutes real presidential work and what constitutes social activities.

He also mentioned two more appointments after the Ecop conference which was a staff meeting at 2:30 p.m. and a courtesy call by the Singapore Technologies Telemedia and ABS-CBN and Skycable at the Yellow Room in Malacañang. Big deal still.

One of his many spokesmen also defended Noynoy’s presidential style, saying that among his schedules in a usual busy day was to “take great pains” in studying papers on his desk.

One can indeed imagine the pain for a president reading documents while sipping a cup of coffee.

Noynoy’s style is being compared largely with his predecessor Gloria Arroyo, who, despite all the accusations of abuse of power was not labeled a lazy bone and was instead admired for her seeming endless energy throughout a day’s busy work schedule.

His House critics, for instance, have kept pounding on Noynoy to put substance on his oft-repeated discourse about “good governance and less corruption.”

Noy’s critics also blamed his inability to translate his fighting words into action on his lack of leadership capability that in turn was the result of his hang easy style.

Edcel Lagman, a chief critic, had noted the main thrust of Noynoy’s administration is churning out press releases to cover up his shortcoming which was the purpose of the Palace-proposed “good news Web site.”

Spokesman Edwin Lacierda had said the Internet page will seek “to reverse the President’s dwindling performance ratings will either be an empty page for the dearth of heart-warming stories.”

The Palace strategists of Noynoy are missing the point, however, on the criticisms on his failure to perform at the level of public expectations on him.

Even if the benefit of the doubt is given Noynoy in his claim of a different style of work that should not be mistaken for laziness, still the fact remains that his style had not been producing the expected results.

The conclusion then would be he is not plain lazy but a natural subpar.

That would be worse since such shortcoming leaves the guy without any more room for improvement.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW STRAITS TIMES, MALAYSIA

Different and equal

HELEN Keller, the American author and political activist, lived a long, active, full and fulfilling life. Keller went to university and graduated, travelled the world, fought for the cause of people with disabilities, and wrote a dozen books. Yet she was blind and deaf since infancy. And she was born in 1880. That any woman, let alone a blind and deaf one, could achieve what Keller did, in that time in history, was owed partly to luck. Keller was born in the United States; into an educated and well-off family that recognised she needed special education. Luckily, there were already very good schools for the blind at that time, to which Keller went and got her education. Then, luck having set the foundations, the rest followed through on sheer determination.

Many persons with disabilities (PWDs) have a lot of determination to live a full and normal life -- their disabilities notwithstanding. But even in this 21st century, access to the basic foundations that Keller enjoyed in the late 19th century still depends largely on luck. It was important that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak came out exhorting parents of disabled children to not be ashamed of them, and for PWD experts to advise parents to not "hide away" their special children. For certainly, everyone has a right to exist, and to recognition of existence. But it is possible to hide a person not just by commission, but also by omission. For instance, when public infrastructure such as pavements, roads, transportation, schools, universities, offices, restaurants, playgrounds, and other recreational venues are not designed to be equally accessible to people of different abilities, this creates a situation in which society, by omission, "hides away" the disabled.

As citizens with equal rights, PWDs have a right to lead independent lives. To do this, PWDs, like anyone else, have to earn a living. But to get to that, they each must have access to free education that can cater to their respective levels of disability, and the infrastructure that can support this. As a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Malaysia has translated this commitment through the People With Disabilities Act 2008. But none of the requirements in the act are legally enforceable. So, even though PWDs have a right to access public facilities and services, providers (which include the government) only have to "give appropriate consideration and take necessary measures" to ensure this is possible. Many more things need to be done to respect a PWD's rights. But let's at least start with the basics.

 

                                                                          Date : 09/05/2011

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

        

 

Ian Tomlinson death: Thoroughly disappointing

The failure to act promptly on the three officers' evidence prompts serious questions for the City force and the IPCC

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) yesterday published three reports. One was into the death of Ian Tomlinson, in April 2009, a second looked at the police media handling of the case, while the third was a particularly critical one on the police evidence to pathologists. The reports are detailed. The main one is a thorough piece of work, running to 98 pages. But it is not thorough enough.

Here's why. The Guardian reported yesterday that, two days after Mr Tomlinson's death, three Metropolitan police officers reported to their superiors that they had seen a colleague push Mr Tomlinson to the ground. The Met police passed the officers' information to the City of London force, which polices the Square Mile where Mr Tomlinson died and which was responsible for the initial 2009 investigation.

Yet the City police do not appear to have told the IPCC, or the pathologist who was due to examine Mr Tomlinson, or the coroner or, not least, Mr Tomlinson's family any of this. All this happened four days before the Guardian released video footage of the officer striking Mr Tomlinson. It was only then that the Tomlinson investigation went up a gear, setting in train a sequence of events that produced last week's unlawful killing inquest verdict, a new referral to the director of public prosecutions and, yesterday, the release of the IPCC report.

It is, of course, possible that justice will eventually be done to Mr Tomlinson in spite of the initial failures of response. Yet the failure to act promptly on the three officers' evidence prompts serious questions for the City force and the IPCC. The death of any citizen during a police public order operation is a matter of the highest seriousness. Yet the response was slow and not proportionate to the potential and, as it later turned out, the actual importance of the case. Why did the City force not raise its game as soon as the three Met officers' reports were known? Why did the IPCC not start its investigation immediately as it learned of Mr Tomlinson's death on 1 April, or on 3 April when it learned that members of the public saw the pushing incident, or on 5 April when the Observer published the first photographs of the police assault? Why, if the IPCC now knew about the three police witnesses when it finally took over the investigation on 8 April, has it released a report more than two years later which fails to acknowledge their evidence at all?

The IPCC's job is to provide a professional, independent and accountable check on police actions. It does its best with limited resources. But it did not respond effectively enough when the Tomlinson case occurred. Now, two years on, it still seems unable to see the wood for the trees or to get to the heart of this crucial case.

In praise of … dandelions

Irrepressible and raffish, this weed is a rebel, an outsider and saboteur of neat lawns and raked beds

In human terms it would be the child you would rather yours didn't play with, raggedy-muffin, snot-nosed and with a worryingly independent gleam in the eyes. How much more reassuring to go round for the afternoon to the nice, dependable Cowslips, or have tea with that pretty Bluebell girl. But if they can get away with it, children will seek out the Dandelion type every time. Who can blame them, even when cursing your way round the garden with a taproot claw or chasing windblown clocks and trying to stuff them in the bin before the seeds escape? There is something brave about this irrepressible weed, as well as raffish. A rebel, an outsider and saboteur of neat lawns and raked beds, but with seed dispersal arrangements that place it high up Charles Darwin's survival league. With an estimated 97,000,000 seeds per hectare floating from its fluffy mop, the dandelion will be here long after we have gone. But while we share the planet, those same clocks, with a puff for each hour, can help a family through the boredom of an afternoon walk with grown-ups, without cranky arguments. En masse, the flowers set a roadside verge ablaze with gold as efficiently as any daffodil-planting local council, and more naturally. Dandelions are useful in the kitchen, too, the medicine cupboard and for biodiversity as the food plant of many animal species. How better, in short, to celebrate a good, if pointless, day's dandelion-digging during the spring break than with dandelion tea afterwards, or dandelion wine?

Health service: the concession that counts

Unfortunately for Andrew Lansley, the more the small print is studied, the more it is disliked

Coming to the Commons as the face of a bill which is currently being rewritten by other people, the health secretary Andrew Lansley had a horrendous task yesterday. He tackled it by suggesting his masterplan was less about what he wanted than empowering medical staff. A pity, then, that a few hours before the chair of the Royal College of GPs, the very medics he would put in the driving seat, had said the English NHS was skidding towards a crash. The proclaimed "natural break", imposed midway through the law-making process, is in fact quite unprecedented, and it has provoked a degree of scrutiny of the devilish detail that few bills get, though many might benefit from. Unfortunately for Mr Lansley, however, the more the small print is studied, the more it is disliked.

Bismarck likened laws to sausages, saying you would do well not to watch either being made, and in the slow-motion passage of the health and social care bill, everyone can sniff out one ingredient or another than makes them queasy. For top managers the breakneck timetable is the most acute worry, and for many Liberal Democrats it is the abject lack of democratic oversight in the proposed new structures. Meanwhile, Nick Clegg – talking tough after his mauling last week – has now signalled he thinks it folly to foist purse strings on those family doctors who are unwilling or unable to take them. Each of these objections is important, and each must be addressed. But amid the great mass of concessions now on the table, it is essential to keep focused on the one which is, by far, the most important of the lot.

Even before the general election, these columns warned on the basis of documents buried away on the Conservative website that, for all the soft soap in their manifesto, the Tories would unleash a destructive gale through the service by recasting the regulator so that it actively promoted competition, as opposed to merely policing it. This is not to dispute that challenging state monopolies can sometimes improve things. And there is no doubt some public hospitals need improving, if you doubt it think Mid Staffordshire. But the experience of Royal Mail, which underwent a similar regime change some years ago, provides a chilling precedent of what aggressive regulators can do, and also of the snare that European competition laws potentially lay for public services when they are transformed into players in a market.

In medicine, of course, the complexities are infinitely greater than in mail. The patient is not sovereign as other customers might be, but is instead beholden to expert advice. Then there is the need to see to adequate training, the geographical spread and the proper integration of care, all of which requires planning. None will be properly attended to if the invisible hand is left to regulate between rival hospitals bidding for discrete procedures. Mr Lansley can point to all sorts of safeguards in his bill, but the risks can never be decisively banished until the order for competition to set off on a march with no specified end is qualified.

It is true that the Labour party that now presses this case once rigged the NHS rules in favour of private providers, and also that Mr Clegg, who is now charged with seeing to it that it prevails, has said disobliging things about the health service in the past. He also foolishly signed off on the original Lansley plan with excess haste. But none of this detracts from the urgency of what the deputy prime minister now needs to do. His instinctive tendency to regard markets as a medicine for public services is less important than it would be for a Conservative or New Labour leader, since the Lib Dems really are democrats in nature as well as name, and his party has given him explicit instruction. With the wind of public and medical opinion blowing their way, the Lib Dems now have a chance not simply to adjust the timetable and the implementation, but also redirect the marketising thrust of the plans. They must seize it.