EDITORIAL : THE DAILY OUTLOOK, AFGANISTAN

              

 

Prime Minister Singh’s Visit

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is coming to Kabul today. He will meet President Karzai and discuss on bilateral issues, terrorism and the so-called end-game situation in Afghanistan. The death of Osama bin Laden and its aftermath would also be discussed.
This trip was announced long ago, but PM Singh had to postpone it due to security concerns, particularly in the wake of Osama's death. At a time when there is the talk of foreign troops' withdrawal, the Indian leader is doing Kabul Yatra to keep New Delhi as stakeholder in the end-game script.
Indian has legitimate concerns regarding terrorism, talks with insurgents and the future of Afghanistan after the mass withdrawal of foreign troops in 2014. Prime Minister Singh is coming to Kabul after 6 years. His last visit was in 2005. During this visit, besides announcing refreshed commitment of support for Afghanistan, he will also discuss the aftermath of Osama's death, the most important development of the war on terror.

India, being a victim of terrorism, has its legitimate concern on the security affairs and transfer of responsibility to Afghan National Security Forces by the US and NATO troops. Our Government must take our strategic ally and neighbor into confidence.

Since his arrival in office in the second term, President Karzai has been making efforts to reach out to militants and persuade them to join the reintegration and peace process. The US and NATO who are on the path of an end game in Afghanistan, and everyone is in hurry, are now more than ever supportive of the talks with insurgents to ensure a political settlement before they start military withdrawal. In such a process, our neighbors are concerned about the uncertainty of the future of Afghanistan.

Our leaders should assure the neighbor that Afghanistan would never again allow to be used for terrorism against other countries, including our neighbors. The rivalry-game between India and Pakistan on the issue of "influence" in Afghanistan is a purposeless phenomenon. Indian support to the rebuilding of Afghanistan should not make others concerned and giving legitimate excuse for making allies with Afghan militant groups to maintain the "strategic depth" in Afghanistan.

Releasing Prisoners for Peace?

21 prisoners have been released from Nimruz jail and 73 got their terms cut short on Tuesday May 10, 2011 under a Presidential decree. This is a process that has been going on since last two years. Hundreds of prisoners, prosecuted and punished on criminal trials, have been released under the confidence building measures of President Karzai to woo Taliban insurgents for peace talks.

But the most concerning part of this loose process of releasing prisoners is that among them hundreds of notorious Taliban were also included. There have been reports that many of those released during the last two years have joined the frontline of insurgency fighting against foreign troops. President Karzai started this process to persuade Taliban for negotiations and in hope that the insurgents will give up militancy and it would create the basis for trust to start the process of reintegration. But the results have been reverse. Many of the notorious militant leaders released have joined back the ranks of insurgency. Those released after the recommendations of Peace Jirga, have all joined back the insurgency.

If prisoners, criminals and militants who are proved having killed innocent civilians are released in such a way, then why our security forces are fighting them?
The other day, prominent opposition leader and member of the High Peace Council, Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq said this process has to stop. He strongly criticized the Council which he is a member of, for releasing notorious prisoners. As it has been reported in media, Mr. Mohaqiq said the release of insurgents from jails can hugely contribute to deterioration of security situation. Mr. Mohaqiq called it against laws and constitution.

The Peace and Reconciliation Commission has released more than 8700 prisoners in last couple of years. A couple of months back, the Governor of Helmand Gulab Mangal had said a huge number of insurgents pardoned by President Karzai and released from Bagram and Pul-e-Charkhi prisons have joined back the insurgency in his province.

The process of releasing prisoners is a blind one without any strict checks by the intelligence, or surety from those released not to join the insurgency.
The Government must stop this process and make a strict check. Such a blind process of efforts to appease the militants won't persuade them to come for negotiations. Otherwise it is injustice to everyone who has committed crimes of murder, robbery and imprisoned for their terms. The process of reconciliation and peace should not sacrifice justice and accountability in this country. But alas President Karzai is ruining the whole concept of crime.

Taliban Challenge Government in Nuristan

Taliban have become stronger. All has to admit this. Taliban have presence almost everywhere in thirty four provinces of Afghanistan. Even in many provincial capitals where the government is believed to have better grip, Taliban rule at nights. The problem is more severe in remote districts. In such districts the control of Afghan security forces are believed to be limited to only a few kilometers around their bases.

Also, people living in districts that are under strong influence of Taliban consult Taliban for solving their societal and legal issues. Taliban's presence in large number of districts of Afghanistan is an open challenge to the government and the international community as it puts the success of transition process in serious doubts and increase concerns of the people.

One of the provinces that have been under doubts of falling back into the hands of Taliban is the remote province of Nuristan. There seems to be no or very little government rule in Nuristan, except in its capital, Parun. Nuristan governor has reported presence of more than 400 Taliban militants who trying to topple the provincial government. In the past too, there have serious clashes between Taliban and Afghan security forces in this province and so far the Taliban seem to have the upper hand. Although the governments reports that soon it will be launching extensive military operations to clean up the province, its previous attempts have completely failed to root out the presence of Taliban in there.

Nuristan is only one example. Same is the case with many other provinces of Afghanistan. In the last years, reportedly, thousands of Taliban members have joined the government or normal life as a result of efforts by government and other political figures but the graph of Taliban's strength has significantly inclined. What Afghans were expected ten years back was a peaceful and developing Afghanistan, what they see, is quite opposite. The international need to step forward with more effective strategies or Afghanistan will turn into more horrific place to live.

EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

GCC’s widening ambit

The Gulf Cooperation Council is all set to extend membership to Jordan and Morocco.

With the inclusion of the strategic states from eastern Arabia and North Africa, the GCC’s regional ambit is expected to widen from the Arabian Peninsula to the MENA region. This is a significant moment for the regional bloc that will turn thirty, end May. The six-member council that comprised the Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain has come a long way from when it first started 
in 1981.
The GCC Secretary General Abdullatif Al Zayani addressing the recently held Consultative Summit in Riyadh welcomed the request of both the Jordan and Moroccan monarchies to join the Cooperation. 

With the political dynamics in a tumultuous state the region is extremely vulnerable to instability. This does pose a critical challenge since the region boasts the world’s largest oil reserves and borders  strategic shipping lines. Not only is the security of these natural resources critical for the regional states it is the world economy that is dependent on it, thus requiring concentrated efforts to ensure security and stability. 
The ongoing unrest in Yemen Libya and Syria are of great concern in the region. The GCC’s political role as a responsible and stabilising organisation has come to the forefront even more prominently in recent months. The decision to send security forces to quell the unrest in Bahrain and its mediation efforts to resolve the deadlock and mounting instability in Yemen are apt examples. In fact, it is the GCC transition plan for Yemen that is under consideration by in Sanaa and the Yemeni opposition groups. The best suited plan to put an immediate end to the protests and consequent violence it offered Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh a way out along with the formation of a comprehensive national government comprising all political factions. Unfortunately the deal is yet to be signed by the government in Yemen.

Besides, the Council has also been deliberating on the creation of a $20 billion development plan to help Bahrain and Oman overcome economic obstacles impeding the development plans in the two states.

There is no doubt that the GCC’s political stature is likely to grow with the inclusion of the new members. Similarly, it’s organisational strength in terms of economic and political weightage and security commitment will also be bolstered by the new member states.

America’s immigration riddle

Addressing the United States immigration conundrum has always been tricky. President Barack Obama who is riding high once again in his popularity thought it appropriate to chip into the lacunas of a system that has kept Americans on the edges.

Illegal immigrants that account for more than 11 million in the United States has been a serious political-cum-social issue, and at times had impacted its security constraints. Perhaps, this is why the president called upon the Congress to reject the usual ‘Washington games’ and enact a comprehensive overhaul. While the influx and settlement of men in the shadows is not restricted or related to any specific part of the US, it warrants a holistic approach from the federal authorities. This is why unilateral efforts from Arizona, Utah and Georgia to check the illegal immigrants’ phenomenon are not considered appropriate enough.

What America needs at the moment is to work on a two-pronged strategy of legalising the existing flock of people around without valid documents, and to enforce stringent measures to check such an influx in future. The main challenge comes in the form of manning porous borders on its south, and taking care of people who widely so scot-free on the assumptions of skin and ethnicity. As pointed out by Obama himself, the moment private and public sector start discouraging illegal employment, the saturation point will set in. The erstwhile policy to net such invalid people and prosecute them accordingly hasn’t worked. A policy to engage them by voluntarily soliciting their resurfacing is the best way out. It has worked in several other developed countries, and could surely work in the US, especially talking into account the change of dynamics 
in the geopolitical and policy orientation realms.

The nation of immigrants’ while chartering a new path should also keep in mind its cherished values of liberalism, equity of justice and secularism. America under Obama has been treading a cautious path in an endeavour to not only extend and retain its reach to the outside world, but also to do away with the stereotypes with which Washington had been suffering while dealing with the rest of the world, especially with many of the Muslim countries. In attaining that objective it cannot simply shut its doors at home. Rather than slipping into isolation or projecting a xenophobic attitude, the US can do well by embracing adversity. That has always been America’s strength.

 

EDITORIAL : THE KOREA HERALD, SOUTH KOREA

Tax cut debate

The divisive debate on tax cuts has resurfaced in the ruling Grand National Party following the election on Friday of Rep. Hwang Woo-yea, a neutral four-term lawmaker, as the party’s new floor leader.

Hwang pledged to scrap the planned tax cuts for the companies and individuals in the highest corporate and personal income tax brackets, saying he would use the money for low-income people who suffer from high university tuition fees, rising child care costs and excessive costs from renting their homes.

Hwang’s plan is a direct challenge to President Lee Myung-bak’s macroeconomic policy, called “MBnomics.” In Lee’s economic strategy, tax cuts are the starting point for a virtuous circle of investment and consumption growth, output expansion, job creation and increased tax revenue.

Under this vision, the government undertook a tax reform in 2008. It lowered the personal income tax rates by 2 percentage points for each income bracket. But the rate adjustment for the top income bracket exceeding 88 million won was delayed twice due to the demands from opposition parties ― first to 2010 and again to 2012.

The tax reform also called for lowering corporate taxes. The government cut the rate applied to small firms with a taxable income of less than 200 million won from 13 percent to 11 percent in 2008 and further to 10 percent in 2010. For bigger firms, the rate was first cut from 25 percent to 22 percent in 2009, but the planned additional cut down to 20 percent was delayed from 2010 to 2012.

The debate on tax cuts started last fall when Rep. Chung Doo-un called for an outright cancellation of the deferred personal and corporate income tax cuts, saying the tax cut scheme led people to paint the GNP as a party for big firms and the rich.

With such a negative image, Chung asserted, the GNP would lose the next general and presidential elections, both slated for 2012. Hence he urged the party leadership to kill, rather than delay, the planned tax cuts for affluent individuals and large companies.

Chung’s argument completely missed the logic behind MBnomics. But it resonated with lawmakers who feared they would lose their parliamentary seats. The debate subsided after Rep. Park Geun-hye, the frontrunner among the party’s presidential hopefuls, proposed a compromise ― retracting the personal income tax cut for the rich but implementing the scheme for big corporations as scheduled.

The compromise, however, was not set in stone. Last week, Chung submitted a bill to divide corporations into three income brackets instead of the present two. His plan called for applying a 22 percent tax rate for firms with a taxable income exceeding 10 billion won, 20 percent for firms in the middle bracket and 10 percent for the lower bracket with an income below 200 million won.

Chung’s campaign to kick the legs out from under President Lee’s tax policy is gaining traction following the election of Hwang as the new floor leader. Many GNP lawmakers who previously banged the drum for Lee’s MBnomics are withdrawing their support, reflecting the power shift in the party.

Any decision regarding taxation is up to lawmakers. If the GNP lawmakers choose to pull the plug on Lee’s tax cut policy, so be it. But they need to remember that tax changes have significant consequences on economic growth.

According Chrisina Romer and David Romer, both professors of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, “tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.” The magnitude of the effects can be surmised from their finding that a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost 3 percent.

The finding should serve as a warning that any attempts to promote tax changes for short-term political gain could undermine long-term economic growth.

 

Ineffectual CEOs

 

Incheon Transit Corporation has invested 85.3 billion won to build a monorail system linking the major sightseeing spots in Incheon. The project, touted as the nation’s first urban sightseeing light rail, was completed last year but is still not open for public use. The main reason is that serious safety problems were found during trial operations. The system is now under scrutiny by an independent investigation team, which could decide to demolish it.

The Incheon monorail is only one example of the many projects promoted by local public corporations without thorough supervision or a clear business plan. One reason for the lack of professionalism marking the projects is that their CEOs are often former politicians or bureaucrats who have close ties with the heads of the local governments that control the corporations.

According to the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, about 75 percent of local public corporations across the nation are currently headed by retired politicians or former bureaucrats who once worked for the local governments that fund their operations. The percentage is more than 90 percent in the case of corporations managing local industrial complexes.

Local public enterprises cannot be expected to function properly when they are led by retired politicians or bureaucrats who have no experience in corporate management. In fact, many of them are in debt over their heads as a result of carrying out projects promoted by local government heads for political reasons. As of June last year, 51 major local public corporations had a combined debt of 46 trillion won, more than double the 22 trillion won in 2006.

The first step toward normalizing local public corporations is to reform the CEO appointment process. Currently, local government heads appoint CEOs based on the advice of candidate recommendation committees. But this process is little more than a formality. In many cases, local government heads handpick candidates close to them. The selection process should be made more open and transparent to eliminate cronyism at local public corporations.

 

Tax cut debate

 

The divisive debate on tax cuts has resurfaced in the ruling Grand National Party following the election on Friday of Rep. Hwang Woo-yea, a neutral four-term lawmaker, as the party’s new floor leader.

Hwang pledged to scrap the planned tax cuts for the companies and individuals in the highest corporate and personal income tax brackets, saying he would use the money for low-income people who suffer from high university tuition fees, rising child care costs and excessive costs from renting their homes.

Hwang’s plan is a direct challenge to President Lee Myung-bak’s macroeconomic policy, called “MBnomics.” In Lee’s economic strategy, tax cuts are the starting point for a virtuous circle of investment and consumption growth, output expansion, job creation and increased tax revenue.

Under this vision, the government undertook a tax reform in 2008. It lowered the personal income tax rates by 2 percentage points for each income bracket. But the rate adjustment for the top income bracket exceeding 88 million won was delayed twice due to the demands from opposition parties ― first to 2010 and again to 2012.

The tax reform also called for lowering corporate taxes. The government cut the rate applied to small firms with a taxable income of less than 200 million won from 13 percent to 11 percent in 2008 and further to 10 percent in 2010. For bigger firms, the rate was first cut from 25 percent to 22 percent in 2009, but the planned additional cut down to 20 percent was delayed from 2010 to 2012.

The debate on tax cuts started last fall when Rep. Chung Doo-un called for an outright cancellation of the deferred personal and corporate income tax cuts, saying the tax cut scheme led people to paint the GNP as a party for big firms and the rich.

With such a negative image, Chung asserted, the GNP would lose the next general and presidential elections, both slated for 2012. Hence he urged the party leadership to kill, rather than delay, the planned tax cuts for affluent individuals and large companies.

Chung’s argument completely missed the logic behind MBnomics. But it resonated with lawmakers who feared they would lose their parliamentary seats. The debate subsided after Rep. Park Geun-hye, the frontrunner among the party’s presidential hopefuls, proposed a compromise ― retracting the personal income tax cut for the rich but implementing the scheme for big corporations as scheduled.

The compromise, however, was not set in stone. Last week, Chung submitted a bill to divide corporations into three income brackets instead of the present two. His plan called for applying a 22 percent tax rate for firms with a taxable income exceeding 10 billion won, 20 percent for firms in the middle bracket and 10 percent for the lower bracket with an income below 200 million won.

Chung’s campaign to kick the legs out from under President Lee’s tax policy is gaining traction following the election of Hwang as the new floor leader. Many GNP lawmakers who previously banged the drum for Lee’s MBnomics are withdrawing their support, reflecting the power shift in the party.

Any decision regarding taxation is up to lawmakers. If the GNP lawmakers choose to pull the plug on Lee’s tax cut policy, so be it. But they need to remember that tax changes have significant consequences on economic growth.

According Chrisina Romer and David Romer, both professors of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, “tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.” The magnitude of the effects can be surmised from their finding that a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost 3 percent.

The finding should serve as a warning that any attempts to promote tax changes for short-term political gain could undermine long-term economic growth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD, NEW ZEALAND

Get tough and make super compulsory

The clear message coming from the Beehive is that New Zealand is living way beyond its means and some stringent austerity measures can be expected in the Budget to put the brakes on borrowing and spending. Yet changes to KiwiSaver foreshadowed by the Prime Minister yesterday do not match the dire warnings.

By Mr Key's own reckoning, the scheme takes more than $1 billion a year from the Government in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. Unfortunately this money is raised through borrowing.

As the Government has indicated that reining in the country's rapidly expanding debt is its key objective, it is not surprising that the focus has been on KiwiSaver as one area in which significant savings might be made.

And yet the reductions mentioned by Mr Key do not appear to be drastic, more a light bruising than a deep cut. The $1000 grant to kick-start new members is to remain. What happens to the tax credit, generally reckoned at costing about $20 a week or just over $1000 a year for each member, which accounts for the bulk of the Government's annual outlay is not so clear.

It seems that it, too, will be reduced gradually but not eliminated. Hardly a spending cut likely to impress the likes of Standard and Poor's. The Government's aim seems to be to have employees and their employers pick up some of the slack to keep the fund going.

Opposition parties will predictably criticise the move as being hard on the people who can least afford it. But the real test will be whether the cuts go far enough and make a significant contribution to the stated aim of reducing spending so borrowing, which is running at more than $300 million a week, can also be reduced. The Government has made it plain that the scheme as it stands is unaffordable. While it might look good on paper, with $8 billion in savings, to a great extent this is illusory because nearly half the amount is borrowed. In other words, as Mr Key pointed out, it is like taking a loan from one bank, putting it in your savings account at another and kidding yourself that you have a good savings record.

Mr Key has stressed that any changes are aimed at prolonging KiwiSaver's life by making it affordable. If that can be believed, it is a commendable objective. New Zealand has a lamentable history when it comes to encouraging savings, and KiwiSaver is an important element in rectifying past failures.

But the present economic difficulties have exposed a serious fault with the scheme. The cost of the carrot to encourage people to invest might be acceptable in good times, but it threatens its sustainability when times are tough. What is needed is a scheme for all seasons.

To achieve that, it would be far better to use a stick rather than a carrot. For some reason, politicians have never been able to make the idea of compulsory superannuation fly in New Zealand. The compelling reason to do it can be seen in Australia which has had compulsory super for more than 20 years.

There is no doubt that such a fund can win popular acceptance. Only last year Australians supported an increase in contributions from 9 to 12 per cent.

And no wonder; their fund was then worth about $1.4 trillion and was credited with helping to reduce Australia's dependency on raising money overseas.

Given the dire state of the New Zealand economy as outlined by the Government, now would be a good time to abolish KiwiSaver incentives and move to a compulsory scheme. Not only would this make a significant contribution to addressing the short-term problem of excessive borrowing but it would ensure the fund could be sustained well into the future.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY NATIONAL POST, CANADA

If only America were more like Canada

The role reversal is hard to miss, filled with the kind of irony journalists and political activists love to pounce on. A Wall Street Journal editorial last week hailed Canada as a monument to good governance and fiscal soundness. The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes portrays Canada as a bastion of upright conservative values and home to "the most powerful conservative leader in the Americas."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's new-found stature, and Canada's sudden rise as a paragon of economic virtue, no doubt will help bolster Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's international clout as well. In Washington, he mildly lectured the rest of the world on the merits of fiscal discipline and balanced budgets. "It is important for all of us ... that we have a plan in place to make sure that markets are comfortable and have confidence in the fiscal plan of our governments."

Canada's image as a disciplined economic state was enhanced by U.S. editorial writers who see in Canada what they do not see in the United States.

The Wall Street Journal Conservative policy -low taxes and a willingness to allow the exploitation of rich oil and mineral deposits -has been a lifesaver for a small economy heavily integrated with the U.S.... Mr. Harper did engage in stimulus spending, but he was also mindful of the risks. Canada's stimulus did not add to the country's entitlement rolls.... he has avoided the debt explosion afflicting the U.S. and much of Europe. He has also promised to balance the budget by fiscal 2014-15 without raising taxes, which was a clear dividing line in the recent campaign.

The headline on The Wall Street Journal editorial was What Canadians Want. The bottom-line message in the editorial, however, was less about Canada and more about what The Wall Street Journal wants for America and for Republicans. "The lesson of Mr. Harper's victory is that well-implemented conservative economic policies can attract and keep a political majority. America's Republicans might want to send a visiting delegation and study up."

The tendency to portray Canada as a place where old-line American-style economic policy has emerged triumphant seems to dominate the commentaries. The underlying theme or question is: Why can't America be more like Canada, which is more like America used to be? More important, perhaps, is the implication that Mr. Harper is more American than President Barack Obama.

Investor's Business Daily Harper, who comes from the conservative and energy-rich Western province of Alberta, campaigned on making Canada an "energy superpower." He wasn't talking about wind turbines and solar panels, but about Alberta's oil-rich tar sands. According to Bloomberg, Canada "sits on the largest pool of oil reserves outside the Middle East." The Obama administration, by contrast, has imposed a seven-year moratorium on most offshore drilling, placed Alaska off-limits and locked up immense reserves of shale oil and gas in the continental U.S. Harper won in part by saying to Canadians, "Drill, baby, drill."

Well, that's some tribute to the Harper Tories, although it looks a little less like the real Harper Tories that we saw through the election campaign or in any policy agenda. Mr. Harper has in the past talked enthusiastically about turning Canada into an energy superpower. But there is no way the Tory policy on energy could be paraphrased as drill, baby, drill. As for wind turbines and solar panels, the Harper Tories have never suggested they did not think highly of greening the electricity sector.

Still another salvo in the editorial campaign to convert a fanciful version of Canadian economic policy into fodder for a Republican agenda came from a small-c conservative online newspaper.

The World Tribune It used to be that American conservatives would regularly mock our neighbors to the north as "socialists" -"The Socialist Republic of Canuckistan," they would sneer. That was back in the day when America espoused limited government and Canadians elected leaders to enlarge the state. Yet, since the later years of the Bush administration, Americans are interventionist and Canadians allow the free market to propel the economy to great heights. And the results are unmistakable: The Canadian economy is thriving while the American one barely has a pulse. Grace Vuoto is the executive director of the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal.

Oddly, just as a conservative Canada is emerging as a model for American policy, some Canadians are taking to advising the United States to adopt some of the policies that Canada is trying to escape from. Thomas Courchene, in a new paper this week for the Institute for Research on Policy, offers a variety of prescriptions for Rekindling the American Dream: A Northern Perspective. One of his solutions to U.S. economic problems is to raise taxes to fill what he calls America's "revenue deficit."

Mr. Courchene's idea is that the United States has room to raise taxes up to levels that are comparable to Canadian tax rates. He suggests, for example, a GST for the United States. Somehow, raising taxes doesn't look like the kind of Canadian policy U.S. editorial writers and the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal have in mind.

Troubled waters

'In a way, it's a victory," says Winnipeg Councillor and privatization foe Jenny Gerbasi of a sewage agreement signed last month between Winnipeg and Veolia Water. "We view it with guarded optimism," says CUPE's Wally Skomoroh. "There's no parade yet, but we're pleased that the city still drives the bus." Even the Council of Canadians grudgingly calls the agreement "a less objectionable deal than was previously contrived," adding that it "is far superior to the 'water privatization' that many of us saw on the horizon."

When usually vociferous critics cautiously praise a city's agreement with a private water and sewage company, it's a good bet that ratepayers and taxpayers are being hosed. And they are. Veolia's 30-year agreement merely provides for "expert advice" on the design, construction and operation of Winnipeg's sewage-treatment facilities. It brings no private investment, limits incentives and opportunities for savings, and blurs lines of accountability regarding costs and performance. Yet Veolia and other industry leaders tout the deal as the wave of the future.

Veolia boasts that the agreement "is creating a lot of excitement in the industry." It calls it "a game changer" -one that "represents a new model for cities around the world." According to Public Works Financing, an industry journal, the company believes that the model will finally open the urban utility market in both Canada and the United States.

The agreement serves as a bad model for several reasons. First, it guarantees no private investment. This is problematic enough in Winnipeg, which plans to spend $751-million on its sewage system in the next few years. It could be a disaster in other cities across Canada, where infrastructure deficits loom large. Toronto, for example, already faces a backlog of $1.7-billion in water and sewage repairs and upgrades, and expects to spend $8.7-billion between 2011 and 2020. A number of studies suggest that Canadian municipalities need to invest $90-billion or more in their water and waste water infrastructure.

Private financing can help meet this need while transferring financial risks from taxpayers and ratepayers to the private sector. Private financing can also reduce overall costs. A private consortium that builds and finances a facility risks its own money and will invest prudently. If it is not paid until the completion of a project, it will have strong incentives to complete construction on budget and on time. If it is also responsible for long-term operations, it will try to minimize costs over the entire life of the contract.

Private investors would welcome the opportunity to put their money into water and sewage infrastructure -still the exception to the rule in Canada. Canadian pension plans, infrastructure funds and utilities are investing abroad rather than at home. The day before Winnipeg and Veolia signed their agreement, Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. announced agreements to buy three more water utilities in the United States. The Oakville, Ont.-based company already owns 19 water and waste water utilities south of the border.

Winnipeg's agreement with Veolia falls short in other ways, as well. A good operating contract gives a private firm both the incentives and the means to achieve considerable savings. While savings can result from economies of scale and myriad efficiencies, they are often found in reductions in staffing levels -generally through attrition or voluntary early retirement, in order to protect individual workers. Some private operators have been able to cut staff by between 40% and 60% while improving performance.

Not so in Winnipeg. The contract gives the city sole discretion in decisions about employing waste water treatment managers and staff, all of whom will continue to work for the city. Although Veolia's profit will depend in part on how much money the city saves, unilateral decisions by the city about staff will not penalize the company. It is easy to imagine scenarios under which Veolia might actually benefit from bloated staffing levels.

The collaborative agreement also lacks the clear accountability mechan-isms found in well-crafted financing and operating contracts. When a private consortium is fully responsible for the design, finance, construction, and operation of a system, it is clear where the responsibility lies if things go wrong. In fully public systems, in contrast, accountability for errors is almost impossible to assign. This helps explain why municipal projects are notorious for cost overruns -why, for example, in Winnipeg, recent upgrades to one treatment plant cost 80% more than expected -and why so many municipal utilities, Winnipeg among them, perform poorly.

Winnipeg's agreement with Veolia could exacerbate this problem. In sharing responsibility for many matters while reserving some of the most difficult decisions for the city, the contract will provide opportunities for finger pointing and buck-passing if costs rise or performance is unsatisfactory.

Veolia Water president and chief executive Laurent Auguste concedes in Public Works Financing that a partnership that included private operations would likely provide greater benefits to ratepayers: "You probably can deliver more performance faster." But, he adds, the current arrangement is "more realistic." That kind of realism brought our water systems to their current state of disrepair. True realism would recognize that industry accountability, not political expediency, should rule.

Publicly operated water and sewage systems are not serving Canadians well. More than 1,000 drinking water systems violate provincial requirements or are subject to boil-water advisories. Still more sewage systems pollute local waters. Few municipalities have the resources -professional or financial -to address these problems. Most would benefit from private expertise and private capital. They would also benefit from the efficiencies that arise from competitive tendering and from the accountability mechanisms found in enforceable, performance-based contracts.

Private water companies, large and small, are lining up for municipal business. So far, they are meeting with success mainly in smaller communities. Given vocal opposition from unions and other opponents, it's not easy for municipalities to choose private financing and operations. Nonetheless, those who have the courage to seek the expertise and efficiencies that private alternatives offer will greatly benefit the public purse, public health and the environment. Anything less will leave the public high and dry.

Raymond Lavigne's attitude problem

Former Canadian senator Raymond Lavigne has spent four years fruitlessly trying to convince people he didn't systematically fleece taxpayers while cheating the government on expense claims.

It didn't work. He was found guilty, and now hopes to avoid spending time in jail for his offences. His lawyer, Dominique St. Laurent, asked a judge for either a suspended or conditional sentence, and said Lavigne "should not set any toe whatsoever in prison." Instead, he suggested the former senator be allowed to do "public service" or serve his sentence in the community.

"Public service"? Isn't that what Lavigne was paid $132,000 a year to do as a senator?

Since the charges against him were laid in 2007, he has collected $315,000 in salary and travel expenses, while rarely turning up for work. Rather than resign, he dragged out the case as long as possible, quitting the Senate only when it became evident he was about to be kicked out.

He'll still be collecting two pensions from taxpayers -as a former MP and a former senator -and hasn't shown an iota of remorse for his actions. "I don't deserve this," he told reporters Tuesday after the sentence hearing.

Lavigne, 65, has had a long and profitable ride on the public purse. And it is galling to hear him ask for light treatment without even bothering to apologize -or even acknowledge -his reprehensible conduct.

EDITORIAL : RFI english, FRANCE

 

 

French press review

 

 

Greece, Cannes and the Socialist Party are the front-page items this morning.

A sandwich of financial and political disaster, with a filling of entertainment. But even the filling turns out to be a bit hard to chew, with leftist Libération suggesting that this year's event could be the end of the Cannes Film Festival.

Cannes Film Festival 2011

They're exaggerating, of course, but there is a problem, according to Libé. The challenge is both cultural and technological.
Cannes has to lose its closed, elitist image, letting the fans closer to their idols; and the festival has to wake up to the fact that cinema, if not yet dead, is in the throes of fundamental changes which threaten its continued existence.
Like Mark Twain, cinema is likely to survive its own obituary notice.

Dossier: Eurozone in crisis

The survival of Greece is another question. The Greeks have been going down the financial tubes for some time now, having famously needed a European bailout to keep the state from going bankrupt.
But it didn't work. They're still going bankrupt, only faster than before the loan, since they now have to find the interest to pay on that loan, at a very uncool rate of 22.6% interest.
Athens needs 66 billion euros next year to pay civil servants, pensioners and service the European debt.
But the national austerity plan will yield only 24 billion. Which leaves a very deep hole worth precisely 42 billion euros.
The unemployment rate is currently 22 per cent. Those who have jobs are staying at home today, protesting at Europe's unreasonable refusal to give them more money, so that they can pay back the last loan.
Bernard Madoff, the pyramid trader, is currently serving 150 years in a US jail for trying something similar.
Catholic La Croix also looks to Cannes, saying that the film festival shows an extraordinary level of reaction to current events in the Arab world.

Dossier: Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution

Egypt is this year's invited country, there's a Tunisian documentary, shot during the recent overthrow of the Ben Ali regime, and two Iranian films, whose producers the mollahs would like to meet for tea, have been added to the official selection.
A story inside Le Monde looks at green energy, in other words, sources of power which don't pollute the atmosphere or poison the neighbours. Apparently, the globe could be getting nearly 80 per cent of its energy from ecologically acceptable sources by the year 2050, but only if a massive investment campaign is started now.
The elctricity sector alone would need to see 5,100 billion dollars invested over the next decade if that most optimistic vision of 80 per cent of clean energy is to have any chance of becoming a reality. If it did, greenhouse gas emissions would be cut by one third over the next 40 years. And pigs might fly.
The front page of Le Figaro reports that human happiness may depend on the length of your genes. That's "genes", not "jeans". I'll explain.
A researcher at the London School of Economics has been studying a group of 2,500 American teenagers, asking them to rate their lives as "very happy", "happy", "OK", or "miserable".
At the same time, an army of genetic scientists has been analysing the teenagers' DNA, paying particular attention to the gene called 5-HTT, which is involved in the transport of serotonin.
Serotonin plays a big part in keeping us in good humour, and is defficient in most cases of clinical depression. So, you inherit one version of 5-HTT from each of your parents, and the gene comes in long and short forms.
It was found that 70 per cent of students in the London study with two long ones said they were "very happy"; whereas four in five with two short serotonin transporting genes said they were miserable.
So now you know why you're unhappy, and also that you can do absolutely nothing about it. That's enough to make you clinically depressed.

                                                                                                    Date : 11 May 2011

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.

Wednesday’s headlines

JAVAN: Iran will resume negotiation with 5+1 group while a new Mideast is taking shape

HEMAYAT: Differences boil over the way ministries are merged

JAME JAM: Larijani says merger of ministries needs parliament’s approval

TEHRAN-E EMROOZ: Tehran insists on its conditions for nuclear talks

KAYHAN: Iran has made new advances in aerospace industry

QODS: We have no plan for a change in cash subsidy, economy minister announces

HAMSHAHRI: Ahmad Tavakoli says we will not approve government’s decisions without question

TAFAHOM: The new prices of household gas approved

IRAN: A new round of bomb attacks on Libyan capital

MELLATMA: Country is governed based on law and accountability, Majlis speaker warns (in reaction to merger of eight ministries without Majlis approval)

DONYA EGHTESAD: The price of dollar and gold coin on the rise

SHARQ: Majlis harsh reaction to merger of ministries

Leading articles
JAVAN newspaper quotes the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS) director Abolhasan Faqih as saying that the body under his leadership is not well-prepared to manage the situation lonely if an earthquake happens in Tehran. The IRCS director also said rescue workers were able to set the record of dispatching rescue team to the scene of incident at 10 minutes in the last year. However, he said based on global standards rescue workers must reach the scene of incident in 8 minutes. He said the IRCS is only 80 percent ready in case of earthquake in cities other than Tehran. Faqih also added if a building falls down in Tehran, it will take several days to clear the rubble.

In an opinion column TEHRAN-E EMROOZ says the Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi’s trips to Arab kingdoms of Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar in recent days marked a far-sighted diplomatic maneuver by Tehran at this sensitive juncture. In his trips Salehi once again reiterated Iran’s respect to Bahrain’s territorial integrity and its unequivocal position that foreign interference will only aggravate the crisis in Bahrain. The writer says trips also show that while Iran disapproves of certain policies by regional countries it still seeks negotiation with them. The visits also send the message that Tehran will not sacrifice its ties with Qatar, the UAE, and Oman for competition with Saudi Arabia. Moreover, they send a message to Riyadh that dialogue can be more influential than sulking. At the end the writer says Salehi’s trips to the Persian Gulf states must prepare the ground for trips to other regional countries with the aim to strengthen diplomatic contacts to prevent possible misunderstandings

 

EDITORIAL : THE AZZAMAN, IRAQ

Senior Defense Ministry officer killed by silence gun

A senior officer working at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense was killed by unidentified gunners, a security source said.

The source, who did not wish his name be revealed for security reasons, said the officer, with the rank of major, was the latest victim of silencer guns in Baghdad.

Unidentified groups with silencer guns have been targeting senior government, army and security officials in Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities for more than a year.

Silencer guns have turned into the country’s most lethal weapon in the hands of groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Iraqi analysts say the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda has scaled down its bomb attacks, resorting to silencer-gun attacks which mainly target senior police, army and government officials.

The group, the analysts, say finds the new tactic more destructive to a government which still does not have sufficient trained officers to administer its armed forces.

There are no exact figures on the number of officers silenced so far, but privately officials say hundreds of senior army and security officers have been killed in the past few months.

EDITORIAL : THE BANGKOK POST, THAILAND

 

A surge in lese majeste cases

Unless there is yet another postponement, the Criminal Court is due to rule today on whether or not bail granted to 9 co-leaders of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship should be revoked, as requested by the Department of Special Investigation through the public prosecutor.

The DSI has accused the 9 red shirt co-leaders - among them Jatuporn Promphan, Natthawut Saikua, Weng Tojirakarn, Veerakarn Musikhapong and Kwanchai Praipana - of making remarks deemed insulting to the monarchy during the April 10 rally staged in Bangkok by the UDD. The alleged lese majeste offences were said to be in violation of bail conditions.

The decision will depend on the discretion of the sitting judges and the credibility of the evidence presented by the two opposing parties - the DSI and the 9 UDD co-leaders. The UDD leaders are already facing charges of lese majeste and sedition in connection with their role in the bloody protests in March-May last year.

But since the timing of the ruling - if it is actually delivered - coincides with the onset of election fever after the dissolution of the House and the fact that several of the accused are to contest the election under the banner of the Pheu Thai Party, the court may have to exercise extraordinary caution in making a judgement, which must be seen as unbiased and just by the two parties concerned, the public in general and especially the red-shirt followers. If that is the case - as indeed it should be - the ruling must be accepted and respected.

By chance, another lese majeste case has re-emerged in the public spotlight. Thammasat University's history professor Somsak Jeamteerasakul reported himself to Nang Loeng police yesterday morning to hear details of a lese majeste charge lodged against him by the army, in connection with remarks made by the prominent professor during a panel discussion at Thammasat University on Dec 10 last year.

The army has accused Mr Somsak of advocating the replacement of the monarchical institution - an accusation steadfastly denied by the professor.

Mr Somsak, however, admitted that he honestly believed that the revered institution should be "adjusted", which he believes would be of benefit to the institution itself. He also said that he would not run away and would fight the case in court. His supporters ask why the army has only now decided to take legal action against the professor, when he has been openly advocating his constructive opinions about the monarchy in his speeches and writings within the framework of academic freedom for quite some time?

By chance or by design, the two separate lese majeste cases - one pending in court and the other still being processed by the police - do not bode well for the current political atmosphere as the country gears up for a general election set for July 3. It will also paint the country in a bad light.

Besides these two prominent lese majeste cases, there are many more similar cases still pending with the court, the public prosecution or the police. The surge in lese majeste cases in recent years has caused alarm among local and international human rights groups and free expression advocacy groups, who fear the offence has been misused as a tool by some elements to silence or intimidate their political rivals. These are clear violations of the people's rights to freedom of expression. With an election around the corner, it becomes even more important for the free flow of information and for critical voices to be heard.

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT, IRELAND

A new day of shame for troubled church

FEW institutions have taken as severe a battering as the Catholic Church. A series of reports has highlighted horrific litanies of abuse, a culture of secrecy and, most damning of all, an institution more preoccupied with preserving its own interests than the protection of children.

This is the context that makes yesterday's revelations published in the annual report of the National Board for Safeguarding Children so depressing. According to its chief executive Ian Elliott its work had been frustrated until March of this year by its own sponsoring bodies which include the bishops, Conference of Religious of Ireland and the Irish Missionary Union.

Given the black cloud that has hung over the church in Ireland since the abuse scandal first broke, this seems astonishing. The watchdog revealed that just 53 new allegations had been reported to it by church authorities until a recent 'final pro-forma check' revealed that a total of 272 new allegations had been received during the year. This is inexcusable. It calls into question the spirit of compassion that the church promised to foster to guarantee that putting victims first would be paramount.

Mr Elliott said that the church had received legal advice that they should not co-operate due to possible breaches of data protection legislation.

The board's chairman John Morgan said it was "insufficiently appreciated that the inculturation required to overcome the difficulties which have been made manifest in the church through the inadequate safeguarding of children will, regrettably, take a considerable time". One has to ask, how much more time is necessary for the church to learn the lessons of the past?

Maeve Lewis of the One in Four survivors group was less circumspect. She spoke for many in saying: "They -- the board -- are clearly being impeded by forces within the church in their monitoring role. This must be frustrating in the extreme, and may also endanger children."

Abuse victim Andrew Madden also voiced dismay that the board could not move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic bishops.

It has been observed that truth is the best vindication against slander. If the church is to regain its standing and repair the breach of trust that has rocked it to its foundations it must stop behaving like a corporate institution and put victims, and not its reputation first.

Protests show need for action

THE seemingly magisterial and languid approach adopted by Brussels in handling the EU debt crisis and the corresponding austerity measures were shattered yesterday by events on the streets of Athens. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made it abundantly clear that she is not for turning on the bailout terms.

But as 20,000 marched in demonstrations on the streets of the Greek capital and police fired tear gas and led baton charges, the question was being asked about whether the EU could afford to delay dealing with the debt crisis indefinitely. The Greek government has not helped its case. Promised reforms have not yet been implemented. "Before we can talk about further aid, Greece has to make sure that all reform measures are duly implemented," Michael Meister, a deputy caucus leader of Ms Merkel's conservative party, said.

"I would like to have a signal that this is finally happening," he said. One fears he got his signal in the protests on the streets yesterday. The point will not be lost on the EU and IMF officials in Athens for key talks.

Greek unions insist that austerity, amid a two-year recession and unemployment of 15pc, is too much to take.

Closer to home, Minister for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton conceded yesterday that it was "unlikely" that Ireland would get agreement on a reduction on its interest rate next week.

The French, it would seem, are insisting that we change the corporation tax and Ms Creighton was not slow to make the connection between events in Athens and our own fate citing the fact that the crisis over the size of the Greek debt had complicated the issue of Ireland's interest rate. Next week there is a crunch meeting at which the bailouts are to be discussed. Former Finance Minister Brian Lenihan had in the past been accused of bringing a knife to a gun fight. The debt crisis needs to be urgently addressed by the EU at a macro level. The domestic agendas of Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy can not be allowed drive the agenda for the union as a whole.

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Government doesn't need to be centre of everything

LABOR sees the problems but only its half of solutions.

The good news from Tuesday's budget is that the Gillard government recognises the challenges it faces. The bad news is that it only goes halfway to meeting them. Wayne Swan knows returning the budget to surplus is imperative, and his rhetoric about a tough budget and spending restraint shows that he knows that curtailing government expenditure must be part of the solution. Yet his budget savings are almost matched by new spending and he continues with the expensive and expansive NBN project. Instead of delivering real cuts, the Treasurer takes the easy but risky option of banking on a revenue bonanza.

Mr Swan's budget centrepiece of "jobs, jobs, jobs" suggests he is well aware of the labour market pressures building in the economy. He explicitly outlines how mounting investment and falling unemployment will "inevitably see capacity and price pressures in our economy". Filling the demand for skilled workers to fuel our economic growth without creating a wages break-out is central to the budget strategy. And the government has unveiled a range of commendable initiatives that fall into two broad categories: skills programs that provide additional training and apprenticeships, largely in partnership with industry; and participation initiatives to encourage and nudge more people into the workforce, such as tighter assessments for the disability pension and incentives to employ the long-term jobless. This is a sensible policy agenda bolstered by increasing the number of skilled migrants recruited into regional areas.

But once again the government dodges the more difficult half of the equation -- the need to make the labour market more flexible. It demonstrates that the Gillard government favours bureaucratic, process-driven solutions requiring public sector intervention. It fails to understand that the best response is often the opposite: withdrawing the dead hand of government. Increased workplace flexibility would help workers negotiate suitable employment arrangements, allowing for more jobs and increased productivity without adding to cost pressures. This is particularly important given the government is already forecasting wages growth to outstrip inflation in coming years. As Dennis Shanahan reveals in our pages today, the government's reregulation of the labour market under the Fair Work Act is already reducing productivity and increasing costs in the economy. This represents a significant risk to the budget over time.

Unfair dismissal laws should also be revisited because for relevant companies (any firm employing 15 people or more) they discourage job offers to people who have been unemployed for long periods. The long-term unemployed are just the people we need companies to take a chance on but the unfair dismissal laws can make the risk unacceptable for employers.

Political expedience suggests Julia Gillard will be unwilling to risk a barney with the union movement over workplace reform. This is disappointing and worrying because the political inactivity will increase the economic risk. For these reasons, the opposition should show some policy character and lead this debate. Tony Abbott has already promised a new industrial relations policy before the next election so he should not waste any more time. There could be no better time for the economy, or for the Opposition Leader's prime ministerial aspirations, to show some policy courage. He should open the batting in tonight's budget reply.

Mr Swan gets full marks, however, for starting to scale back middle-class welfare, a cause The Australian has been fighting since the 1980s. It is a measure of the prosperity we now enjoy that some newspapers yesterday portrayed families on incomes of $150,000 a year as the new poor mired in "mortgage poverty" in Sydney's western suburbs. While cost of living pressures are real, and are felt disproportionately in the outer suburbs, there is no justification for doling out welfare to those on this level of income. Even in Sydney, this is an income most families only aspire towards. If the government wishes to support families, it should do so by lowering taxes. It is far preferable for income taxes to be kept low and for thresholds to be regularly adjusted upwards so that individuals can keep more of their own wages and make their own decisions about how to spend their hard-earned money.

Once again, however, Mr Swan stops half way. He has curtailed access to payments such as the Family Tax Benefits A and B, the baby bonus and paid parental leave to 40,000 families with household incomes above $150,000, but there are no commensurate tax adjustments to entrench incentive and self-reliance in the system. In fact, the opposite is the case, with the Treasurer relying on his tax thresholds being left rigid so that as family incomes increase over time, they will be pushed into higher tax brackets and pay a higher percentage of income tax. The tax take is increased and the churn continues.

For too long, governments on both sides of politics have encouraged the entitlement mentality and discouraged people from looking after themselves. The lost benefits should be offset with lower, flatter tax rates that provide added incentive for taxpayers to increase their personal wealth by becoming more productive. Much greater administrative savings and a higher efficiency dividend would come from eventually eliminating family payments altogether, keeping marginal tax rates low and compensating low-income earners through the tax system rather than the welfare system.

Rather than leaving more money in Australians' pockets as an incentive for people to work harder, be more enterprising and grow the economy, goals that Paul Keating and Peter Costello consistently strove to achieve, much of Mr Swan's fourth budget was an exercise in top-down distribution. It paid little heed to the efficiency of market mechanisms and was riddled with "central government knows best" paternalism.

The Treasurer talks up the limited growth in spending over the next three years but conveniently ignores the extremely high starting point after 22 per cent growth in Labor's spending over its first three years. The evidence suggests the most successful aspect of the Rudd government's stimulus to ward off the global financial crisis was the $900 cheques that allowed families to determine their own spending or saving priorities. Unfortunately, Mr Swan's budget showed little inclination to respect individuals' and families' market choices.

After the pink batts debacle, it is almost incomprehensible that the Treasurer has allowed government to encroach into people's living rooms with the unwelcome decision to hand out free set-top boxes to eligible pensioners. Busybody social workers might applaud, but however many photo opportunities are created in independent MP Rob Oakeshott's Lyne electorate on the NSW north coast, the decision is government stupidity writ large. It remains to be seen whether opposition estimates of $400 to supply and install the boxes, which can cost as little as $30 each, prove accurate, but with brand new mid-sized flat screen televisions available for $399, with an optional $60 to $90 delivery fee, it's a dud deal. The limited take-up rate in Victoria, where the program has been rolled out, suggests that pensioners know it. If something must be done for the digital switchover, and we doubt that, vouchers would work better.

Mr Swan, whose interest in redistributing wealth underpinned his 2005 book Postcode: the splintering of a nation, underestimates the ability of people to generate their own wealth. Many people, especially in small business, just want the government to stay out of the way as they seek to achieve better lives for themselves.

Unfortunately, Ms Gillard's first budget as Prime Minister provides conclusive evidence her government is showing the same weaknesses and making many of the same mistakes as the Rudd government. Both have seemed hopelessly addicted to big-government solutions to every dilemma they confront. This means their aims are often correct but their methods for achieving them are mistaken. Faster broadband becomes an expensive government monopoly, the response to climate change is a comprehensive new tax, health reform leads to an additional layer of bureaucracy, and yes, even upgrading our televisions becomes a matter for state intervention. It is all of a piece with Mr Swan's jobs plan providing major government training programs but ignoring the need to free up the private sector. The Prime Minister and Treasurer need to understand that sometimes government is the problem, not the solution. 

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

Bribe-busters in Bali

The two-day international conference on combating graft in international business transactions, which concluded in Bali on Wednesday, has heightened the momentum in the fight against all forms of graft.

For Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), as the co-organizer of the event, the gathering was the right forum to learn best practices in combating business graft because the other co-organizer, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), has made many notable achievements through the enforcement of its own Anti-Bribery Convention.

It was also a useful forum for the 400-plus delegates from 55 countries who took part in the event — to review international and national legal frameworks for fighting foreign graft; to share experiences and best practices in the fight against foreign bribery and corruption; and to foster cooperation in foreign bribery cases.

More governments and businesses around the world have begun to realize that bribery — whether committed by foreign or domestic businesses — has serious consequences because it distorts markets and undermines sustainable development and good governance.

The 1997-1998 economic crisis in Indonesia jolted many businesspeople into realizing that corruption and bribery create an environment of uncertainty in business operations. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that after one bribe is paid, a demand for another will usually follow. Also, if a customer doesn’t get what they bribe for they are in no position to complain since they have also broken the law. This vicious circle rolls on as bribing businesspeople are vulnerable to blackmail and threats from groups who profit from them.

The 1997 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which has so far been enforced by 38 countries, has been quite an effective weapon in making the fight against foreign bribery gain global momentum.

A few years ago, writing off bribes against tax was still allowed in several developed countries, but not any more.

OECD members and six other partner countries have made it a criminal offense for their companies to bribe foreign officials in commercial transactions anywhere in the world. But bribery in international business deals remains rampant outside OECD countries.

However, attacking the supply side of bribery is still a major boon.

In November the Group of 20 (G20) major economies, of which Indonesia is also a member, joined the global fight against bribery by adopting an anticorruption action plan that calls on all of its member states to adopt and enforce laws and other measures against international corruption, such as the criminalization of the bribery of foreign public officials.

G20 countries also are required to begin in 2012 a more active engagement within the OECD Working Group on Bribery and to eventually ratify the Convention.

The Bali conference provided an impetus for making foreign bribery truly at the forefront of the global agenda on combating corruption, in efforts to help to ensure the full participation of relevant stakeholders.

The results of Indonesia’s domestic anticorruption campaign are still far below expectations because the problems here have become so complex that corruption has long been perceived as endemic, systemic and deeply institutionalized, involving the entire system of government, and notably the judiciary and police.

Indonesia nevertheless deserved to host such an international gathering because fighting graft was one of the top priorities of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration and the achievements it has made so far, though seen by many as poor, should be commended.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

 

Accommodation king

 

Liberal Party also rans topbilled by defeated runningmate of Noynoy, Mar Roxas, appeared to have been guaranteed Cabinet slots, with Roxas already assured of a Cabinet post free from the scrutiny of the powerful Commission on Appointments (CA).

The Palace indicated that an administrative order is ready to revive the Office of the Presidential Chief of Staff and the mere fact that the office was being resurrected after Noynoy himself abolished it earlier showed that it was tailor-fit for Roxas.

Noy’s penchant to conjure up offices and positions for political accommodation is legendary. Three Cabinet posts were given to heads of the communications group, all of whom have obvious overlapping functions in Malacañang.

Despite their different titles, the main function of the three — Ricky Carandang, Edwin Lacierda and Sonny Coloma — was to alternate as Aquino’s spokesmen.

In turn, the three usually end up contradicting each other and what media usually get is each of the three rebutting the other.

Despite the three, Aquino is blaming the lack of the Palace to effectively communicate his achievements on his sliding survey ratings.

Now Aquino is doing a reprise of the three-headed mutant in giving Roxas the chief of staff post that many believe would likely conflict with the post of Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa.

Roxas heads the Balay faction while Ochoa, who really is a stand alone Noynoy appointee, is nevertheless considered as the titular head of the rival Samar faction in the immediate circle of Noynoy.

Critics of Noynoy see the appointment of Roxas marginalizing the functions of Ochoa thus making both ineffective, similar to what had happened to the cancelling out within the communications group among its three heads.

Aside from Roxas, Cabinet positions are being readied for five losing LP bets, former congressmen Neric Acosta, Rufino Biazon, Manuel Mamba, former Isabela Gov. Grace Padaca and senatorial drop out Alex Lacson in time for the end of the one-year constitutional ban on the appointment of those who failed being elected in the May 2010 elections in June.

Roxas had been given unofficial positions that allow him to stay on the side of Noynoy, lending credence to earlier talk about an unholy deal between Noynoy and Mar for an 80-20 share of the presidency in favor of Mar.

Mar, as can be recalled, moved down to the vice presidency when pre-elections surveys showed him having a poor chance of landing the presidency, giving way to Noynoy who was then benefiting from a euphoria after the death of his mother, former President Cory Aquino.

He eventually lost the vice presidency to former Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, whom all considered a dark horse in the race for the second top post and the running mate of former President Joseph Estrada.

Right from the start, Roxas was too visibly insistent in having a key role in the Aquino administration and rumors started that he was after the post of Ochoa.

Roxas holds Aquino by his imaginary braid as he was guaranteed a powerful Cabinet post come hell or high water.

The total accommodation being shown by Noynoy only further reflects his weak character as a leader, in standing up against those who seek to benefit from his presidency.

Even Roxas’ position as chief of staff is considered as preparatory for a more juicy position which some naughty speculators say would be the post of Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima raising suspicion on the source of the current assault on Purisima and his band that include Customs Commissioner Angelito Alvarez and Finance Undersecretary Guillermo Parayno.

Roxas would certainly be an asset when he eventually officially lands a Cabinet post.

An asset, that is, in efforts to bring down Noynoy.