EDITORIAL : THE OUTLOOK, AFGANISTAN

                

 

Kabul, Targeted Once Again

Yesterday's terror raid in Kabul - again in the uniform of Afghan security forces - can be conceived an attack on the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan and Karzai's government. It also establishes the fact that Taliban is present everywhere and is potent enough to target key government and foreign offices. The police and army check posts present at every few kilometer – a headache for common people - is insufficient and rather incapable to stop Taliban. People living in capital are panicked and terrified. If such condition prevails in capital city of Afghanistan, one can easily judge what goes on in its other 365 districts. Also, knowing that the Afghan security forces fail to give a full proof security to the capital, one can never be optimist regarding the future defense of the whole country that will soon start falling in their hands.

Kabul is targeted from time to time and therefore the government struggles to keep its forces on high alert. A noteworthy number of people in this city is formed by foreign civilians and army, high ranking government officials and VIPs. All of them work and reside by hiding themselves behind thick security walls and their safety is conceived as the foremost reason for the comparatively tighter security in Kabul. Taliban's infiltration of what government considers tight security in capital makes it clear that it is strong, consistent in its operations and government's calls for talks in the last two years or so have left no positive impact on its evil and deadly objectives.

President Karzai, in his speeches, talks confidently about the progress Afghanistan has made under his leadership. But what is the progress in security? Peace is the main demand of Afghan populace and if that could not be brought in their life - despite military assistance from the world and heaps of financial aids - we can say there has been no development at all.
The regular terror attacks and government's failure to counter them make the future of Afghanistan completely vague. If today no corner of this country is safe, it is far difficult to predict a safe tomorrow for it.

The Kuchi Conflict Take Lives

Once again the Kuchi-conflict has erupted violence in Ghazni province. Armed Kuchis have burnt down 26 villages in Nahur District, killing five innocent people of the area, who have fled to neighboring districts, after the sudden ambush on Friday night by about 150 attackers. There had been reports of Kuchi attacks and clash in Nahur and Malistan districts of Ghazni in recent weeks. But Friday's episode is the start of a peak in this conflict, which occurs every year in summer, and dozens of people are killed in this conflict.

The Government has been finding temporary resolution to the conflict each year, with the promise that the bloodshed won't repeat next time. So far, hundreds of people have been victims of this conflict mainly in Ghazni and Maidan Wardak Province, where Kuchis attack orchards and farmlands of local people each year in summer.
According to local people, they had contacted military officials at the PRT in Ghazni, but they didn't respond to the call for help and intervention to avoid the bloodbath and burning of villages by Kuchi attackers. Local people say they regret having volunteered for the process of disarmament, and they are defenseless today in front of a handful of thugs who loot the houses of people and attack on their lives every year in summer.

Now the people of Nahur District have fled to neighboring villages and districts, but its feared that Kuchi attacks will continue and the conflict might get much deadlier. Five people have been killed on Saturday's attack, and about 46 villages are burnt. Strange is that the police and Afghan National Army were not called for deployment in those districts.
We believe the Government must get serious about the Kuchi-Hazara conflict. Every years dozens die in the dispute between the two groups in Behsud district. This year it has started the episode of bloodshed from Nahur District of Ghazni, and it might expand to other districts. Such incidents can provoke ethnic sentiments and the country can get in fire like a forest in seconds. It will break down the basis of this fragile setup.

The Government must send a high delegation to investigate Saturday's incident. Another high delegation should be set up to find durable resolution to the conflict. The Government must make sure that Kuchis do not continue attacks on districts of Ghazni and Miadan Wardak. Unless there is long-term and durable peace, the Kuchi conflict will continue.

Social Capital Deficit

How society is organized hinges on the presence and absence of social capital, which is defined as social values, networks, and institutions that promote trust and cooperation. Social capital is also defined to be "the strength of relations, the willingness to act on trust." The level of cooperation within a community or society depends on the level of social capital or trust present in that given community or society. Afghanistan has been going through years of war ordeal and continues to suffer from the ongoing conflict, which appears to have no immediate end.

While there are many external causes, it should be said that the social capital deficit has greatly contributed to the ills faced by the country. National identity has not been in place to serve as glue to hold the society together against all the external interferences and conspiracies. The authoritarian rulers have preferred not to cultivate democratic and modern culture. Instead, they have tried to play by the tribal culture with all its vicious characteristics and traits. They have even attempted to maintain the social tension in the society. For example, the rulers have never tried to settle the Nomadic Kuchis that continue to be a cause of tension between the people and create problem for the local population in central parts of the country. It happens while modernizing nomadic culture would be helpful for the Kuchis to emerge out of the primitive way of life, disadvantage, deprivation and hardships of the life. The rulers of the country, by settling them, can ensure their rights to education and other social welfare or decent standard of living.

It is to be said that turnaround in official attitudes and policies could unleash the potential for development and social unity and stability, which will serve as an important factor to strengthen the country against foreign interferences and meddling believed to be the main cause of insecurity and instability in the country. By keeping the social tension alive, the rulers reduce the chance of rule by law. Instead of creating and mobilizing social capital to promote rule of law and overcome the security problems, the rulers have often resorted to strategy of diversion, which can offer no permanent solution to the suffering of Afghan people. The rulers have failed to establish an order based on trust relations.

EDITORIAL : THE KOREA HERALD, SOUTH KOREA

Prosecution-police conflict

The prosecution and the police are again clashing over the right to investigate crimes. The old conflict between the two law-enforcement agencies has been reignited as a parliamentary special committee on judicial reform is set to revise the laws defining their relationship.

At the heart of the dispute is a clause in the Criminal Procedure Act requiring police officers to investigate crimes under the instruction of a public prosecutor. Under this clause, police officers are officially not allowed to initiate investigations without approval from a prosecutor.

But the clause does not correspond to reality. In many cases, police officers actually start investigations without the go-ahead from a prosecutor. The parliamentary committee plans to rewrite the clause to reflect this.

The committee says while the change empowers the police to initiate investigations independent of the prosecution, it does not in any way undermine prosecutors’ authority to supervise and direct police officers in the investigation of crimes.

The police welcome this change as they have long demanded that their right to launch investigations be expressly stipulated in the act.

However, prosecutors are opposed to the proposed revision. They do acknowledge that police officers do not need their approval when starting investigations into petty crimes. Nevertheless, they argue that police investigators should not be allowed to launch probes into politically sensitive cases without prior consent from a prosecutor.

The prosecutors make a valid point. So it is reasonable to require the police to investigate sensitive cases, such as election law breaches and National Security Law violations, under the instruction of a prosecutor, while allowing them to start investigations into other crimes on their own.

Another issue raised by the parliamentary committee concerns a clause in the Public Prosecutor’s Office Act requiring police officers to “obey any official order issued by the competent public prosecutor in a criminal investigation.”

The committee plans to abolish this clause as it seeks to rebalance the relationship between the prosecution and the police, taking into account the progress that the police have achieved in modernizing its organization. We find the committee’s move sensible.

As we observe the confrontation between the two powerful agencies, we get the impression that prosecutors are too preoccupied with protecting their existing rights. But insisting on the status quo is refusing to recognize the improvements made in the investigative capabilities of the police. So they are advised to accept the parliamentary committee’s reform measures.

The police, for their part, should redouble their efforts to narrow the trust deficit they still suffer from. For instance, police officers need to be more committed to respecting the human rights of each suspect. Regarding their relations with prosecutors, police officers should not attempt to undermine prosecutors’ authority to supervise and direct them.

 

 

 

Poll on free lunches

 

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon announced Friday that his metropolitan government has begun to take steps to hold a referendum on free school lunches. The referendum was requested by a coalition of conservative civic groups opposed to the controversial free meal program launched by the city’s education office in March.

The coalition, dubbed the National Anti-Populism Union, submitted Thursday more than 800,000 signatures that it had collected from citizens since February. The vote is likely to be held in late August if signatures from eligible voters exceed 418,000, or 5 percent of the city’s 8.36 million voters as required by law.

The referendum is about a choice between universal welfare and selective welfare. Universal welfare is advocated by the main opposition Democratic Party. In line with the DP’s policy, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, led by a superintendent from the DP, currently offers free lunches to all elementary school students and plans to expand the program next year to cover all middle school students.

In contrast, selective welfare is championed by Mayor Oh. He views the current lunch scheme as populist because it provides lunches free of charge to students whose parents can well afford it. He says subsidizing students from affluent families is unfair because it reduces the funds that could be used for students in need.

Hence the referendum will be framed as a choice between two plans ― the current program versus an alternative that would expand the free lunch benefit gradually by 2014 but limit the scope of beneficiaries to students from the poorest 50 percent of households.

The proposed poll comes amid an ever intensifying debate on welfare. Political parties have been fueling the debate by competitively presenting populist welfare programs in their bid to win the hearts of voters. The outcome of the referendum is expected to influence the direction of the debate.

The vote is also likely to affect the political future of Mayor Oh, one of the presidential hopefuls of the ruling Grand National Party. In January, Oh declared war on the free meal plan, putting his head on the block. He was convinced that if he failed to block it, there would be no way to stop the DP’s push for other populist welfare projects.

On Thursday, when the coalition delivered three truckloads of signatures to him, Oh said that the referendum would give Seoul citizens a chance to put an end to welfare populism in Korea.

While Oh pins his hopes on the poll, the odds are stacked heavily against him. In the first place, for a valid referendum, more than one third of the eligible voters must vote. Since the vote will be held on a weekday, voter turnout could be low. In 10 of the 19 by-elections held since 2000, the turnout rate was below 33 percent. Oh will have to make extra efforts to get people out to vote.

Even if voter turnout exceeds 33 percent, there is no guarantee that more than half of the voters will cast a ballot in favor of Oh’s proposal. To muster support for his plan, Oh desperately needs the backing of the ruling GNP. But he cannot expect his party to be fully behind him because the GNP has become keen to emulate the DP’s welfare policy. Some GNP lawmakers even urged Oh to give up on the referendum.

Thus the mayor will have to stage a lonely struggle to stem the tide of welfare populism. If the scheme does not pan out as planned, he may have to give up on his presidential aspirations. But if he manages to win the poll and thereby helps keep welfare in check, he will make huge political gains. Oh has already crossed the Rubicon. He has no other choice but to go all out to get the job done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Saturday’s headlines

KAYHAN: Syrians hold demo in support of Bashar al-Assad

JAVAN: Iran’s Rasad (observation) satellite blasted into orbit

TEHRAN-E EMROOZ: Three decisions on how to control coin and forex markets

HAMSHAHRI: Tehran’s metro will reach Parand city

HEMAYAT: Iranian, Russian presidents urge continuation of Tehran-5+1 talks

JAME JAM: Larijani says cash subsidies have not been paid to production units yet

QODS: Iranian banks will be divided into 4 groups, Farzin announces

TAFAHOM: 70% of lands in Iran have dried up, FAO representative in Iran says

IRAN: Iran will not allow U.S. to control oil market, Ali-Abadi says

MELLATEMA: The fifth stage of subsidy reform plan will be implemented by the start of the Iranian month of Tir (which begins on June 21)

Leading articles

MELLAT-E MA in a news report quotes MP Gholamreza Mesbahi Moqaddam as saying that all principlists have unanimously decided to act independently from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in their activities in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Ahmadinejad is no longer regarded as a central figure in fostering unity among the principlists in the run-up to the parliamentary elections and will not be involved in the activities of the principlists as a principlist, added Mesbahi Moqaddam, a member of the Association of Combatant Clerics. The report also said that the stories about the resignation of Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi and the merger of the ministries have cast doubts on the president’s central role in promoting unity among the principlists. In addition, MP Mohammad-Reza Bahonar has said that if the coalition of the principlists dissociates itself from the deviant current, it will not pose any threat to unity.

SHARQ newspaper in a news report says Majlis speaker Ali Larijani and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are scheduled to hold a phone conversation on the merger of the ministries. Hossein Sobhaninia, a member of the Majlis presiding board, said that according to the presiding board, the conversation will focus most on cancelling the plan to merge the ministries. In addition, Vice-President Fatemeh Bodaghi said that drawing out the process of merging the ministries is not in the interests of the administration and the Majlis. She said that the government respects the law and obey it, and it is not possible in the Islamic system that a government flouts the law.

EDITORIAL : THE AZZAMAN, IRAQ

Iraqi government adds more than $900 million

to Electricity Ministry’s budget

The government has added $927 million to the Electricity Ministry’s 2011 budget to start new power plants and import equipment, the ministry’s spokesman announced.

Musaib al-Mudaris said the additional sum was made available following a recommendation to the government by the parliament’s energy commission.

“The sum will be used to implement important power projects,” Mudaris said.

Electricity allocations have increased substantially, giving the ministry for the first time since 2003 billions of dollars to invest.

In 2010, electricity allocations for investment far exceeded operational expenses, which average more than $2.5 billion a year.

This year’s allocations to help the ministry complete power plants and start new ones have been the highest in the years since the 2003-U.S. invasion.

The ministry’s 2011 budget has surpassed $7 billion with the new addition.

The surge in allocations has been made possible due to latest hikes in oil prices on international markets.

EDITORIAL : THE BANGKOK POST, THAILAND

 

 

Voters deserve a candidates debate

With only two weeks to go before the general election, many people have their minds made up on who to vote for, and in fact most of them probably decided long ago. Undecided voters who might be inclined to base their decisions more on the issues involved than party loyalties must be thinking that something has been lacking. What is missing is a clear explanation of policy from the major candidates themselves, rather than merely soundbites from the campaign trail. There is no better way to bring this about than a well organised debate between the two major candidates.

Since the fifth century BC when the Council of Five Hundred met in Athens, and a few hundred years later at the Forum in Rome, debates have been synonymous with democracy, and today they are considered a necessary step in political contests in most democratic nations.

Soon after the Pheu Thai Party announced that Yingluck Shinawatra was its choice for prime minister, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and other high-ranking Democrats proposed a debate to help voters make their decisions. The offer was quickly rejected, with most people assuming it was partly because of Mr Abhisit's reputation as an excellent orator and partly because Ms Yingluck needed sheltering, as if she would be likely to fall apart in a debate or at the least be easily flustered. But given her performance these past weeks on the campaign trail _ speaking several times a day to large crowds and the media with perfect composure and a winning personality _ that doesn't appear likely.

The advantage still has to go to Mr Abhisit, not only for his debating experience but also because he should be much more familiar with policy questions after a lifetime in politics and holding the prime minister's post since December 2008.

Most voters will be aware of this and make some allowances for style. What people are really looking at are differences in substance and whether the candidate is able to think on his or her feet.

In rejecting the debate proposal Pheu Thai deputy leader Plodprasop Suraswadi said it was unwarranted because the two rival parties had already outlined their respective policies. This is missing the point. If there is a clear choice between the Democrats and Pheu Thai _ other than on the amnesty issue, which is a must topic for debate _ the leaders of the respective parties should be able to articulate their visions and answer challenges to their positions from the other side in real time.

AGENT ORANGE: DEALING WITH A TOXIC LEGACY

On Friday, Vietnam and the United States began the first phase of a joint operation to clean up the chemical defoliant Agent Orange from a former US military base at Da Nang in central Vietnam. Agent Orange contains chemical dioxin, which has been linked to cancers and birth defects. US planes sprayed tens of millions of litres of Agent Orange over Vietnamese jungles in a futile attempt to deny cover to Viet Cong fighters during the Vietnam War. The Da Nang base was used as a storing and loading point for the chemical. The US$32 million (976.64 million baht) clean-up effort comes far too late, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

A big reason for the delay is fear on the part of the US government and the manufacturer of Agent Orange, Dow Chemical, of being held liable for damages resulting from the use of the defoliant. Although in 1991 Congress enacted legislation authorising compensation and medical treatment for US Vietnam veterans with diseases associated with Agent Orange, for a long time the US argued that more research was needed to show that the chemical is to blame for widespread and serious health problems among Vietnamese. According to the Vietnamese Red Cross, as many as three million Vietnamese are affected. The US disputes that figure, but does acknowledge serious health risks associated with dioxin.

The cleanup is another sign that the once bitter enemies are becoming strong allies, and hopefully it will also serve as warning against the arrogance and futility of trying to subjugate nature.

EDITORIAL : THE INDENDENT, IRELAND

           

 

Now is decision time for the euro

With the Greek financial crisis continuing to worsen, it is becoming increasingly clear that the entire single currency project has reached a crossroads. With the seemingly inevitable Greek debt default confronting the ECB's suicidal determination to prevent write-downs, something must give.

Regardless of what happens at this week's emergency meeting of eurozone finance ministers or at next weekend's EU leaders' summit, it is already obvious things cannot go on like this. Ever since the extent of the Greek financial crisis began to emerge 18 months ago, the eurozone has lurched from one crisis to the next. Instead of either implementing the reforms required to make the euro work or walking away from the single currency project altogether, Europe's leaders have instead opted for a series of ad hoc "solutions", including the May 2010 Greek bailout, the November 2010 Irish bailout, and the May 2011 Portuguese bailout.

Unfortunately, as none of these measures have addressed the underlying issues -- the massive loss of competitiveness suffered by the eurozone periphery versus its core, and the huge overhang of debt in the peripheral eurozone countries -- they haven't worked. Now, just 13 months after its first bailout, Greece is back looking for more.

However, as this week's events in Athens demonstrate, a Greek bailout Mark II won't work. Not alone will the ever more savage austerity measures being demanded by the EU and the IMF plunge the Greek economy even deeper into recession, it should by now be clear that we are rapidly approaching the political limits of austerity. People will only make sacrifices if there is some hope that, by so doing, better days lie ahead.

Greece has already reached that point. Ireland and Portugal have yet to do so but, if events in Greece are any guide, we are closer to it than most of us might think.

What the events of the past 18 months have done is to show up the huge flaws in the architecture of the eurozone. The euro is virtually unique in being a currency without a country. Whereas all of the world's other major currencies are issued by and circulate in just one country, the euro is the official currency of 17 different countries and the de facto currency of an 18th, Montenegro.

That matters. Where a currency is issued by just one country there are inbuilt stabilisers to protect the economically-weaker regions. With a single tax and social security system, these peripheral regions automatically receive transfers from more economically dynamic core regions in the event of a downturn. Economists reckon that these transfers can represent up to 40pc of the value of economic activity lost to the core regions.

Unfortunately, with no common treasury or taxation system, such transfers are not possible within the eurozone. And there's the rub. Can you have a common currency without a common treasury? Economic history suggests not.

So the question facing the eurozone core -- basically Germany -- is this: is it willing to fund the transfers that the peripheral countries need to compensate them for their loss of competitiveness? If the Germans and the other core eurozone countries are unwilling to do so then maybe it's time to call a halt to the single currency project before it does even more damage to relations between Europe's countries and peoples.

Breaking Fine Gael's presidential duck?

Yesterday's announcement by Pat Cox that he will be seeking the Fine Gael nomination for the Presidency sets up the mother of all battles for that party's nomination.

With Fine Gael now by far the largest party in the country, its candidate will be in pole position come October's election.

However, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that Fine Gael will break its presidential election duck.

With all three of its putative candidates being either sitting or former MEPs, the party is extremely vulnerable to an anti-European backlash as a result of popular anger at the bailout.

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Parable for modern Australia

FOR better or worse, Darling Downs stalwart Glen Beutel's battle against the New Hope Mine, which has bought out almost the entire town of Acland where his family has lived for decades, is a parable of our two-speed economy.

Mining is Australia's economic lifeblood, and the development of our coal, iron ore, natural gas and uranium resources will secure our national prosperity. Yet the conflict in Acland, where Mr Beutel has become a hero across the farmlands and towns of the Darling Downs, illustrates the tensions that arise when the demands of the resource industry clash with people who are inconvenienced by the boom and reap few, if any, of its benefits.

Paying attention to the needs of these Australians is an important challenge in the once-in-a-century mining boom, and one that too often is not addressed. State and federal governments, corporations and our wider society will ignore it at our cost. The fact that Mr Beutel, popularly known as the Last Man Standing, has picked up such widespread support so rapidly is a warning sign that Australia could easily experience a repeat of the damaging upheavals that occurred last time large numbers of working people and farmers in rural, regional and outer suburban Australia felt marginalised in the wake of economic reforms.

The free trade drive and competition policy of the 1980s and early 90s positioned Australia well for decades of prosperity and full employment. But they also added to the disaffection of many voters, helping precipitate the rise of One Nation, which won 11 seats from the Nationals and Labor and more than 20 per cent of the vote at the 1998 Queensland election. One Nation was devoid of policy solutions and damaged Australia's standing in the world.

But its rhetoric reflected the disaffection of many with changes that had disrupted their lives, forced local services to close and cost some livelihoods. Tony Abbott's populist instincts have allowed him to retain the support of disaffected conservative and former Labor voters, although Bob Katter is trying to tap into a deep vein of community dissatisfaction with his economically irrational Australian Party. His protectionist policies, like those of One Nation, would harm those he claims to represent.

Mr Beutel's refusal to sell out to a mining company has touched a real nerve because it is about much more than profit or compensation. It is about belonging, about the demise of a close-knit community. It is about a place where koalas feed in eucalypt trees planted by Mr Beutel's parents, where he still mows the gardens that helped Acland win tidy town prizes and where a cherished war memorial honouring local diggers who served their country will be removed. Nor is it surprising that Mr Beutel and many Darling Downs residents lament the potential destruction of prime farmland that has been one of the nation's most important food bowls for generations.

Mr Beutel is unlikely to save his beloved Acland, and the mining company has offered to relocate him. But, in making a stand, with the help of broadcaster Alan Jones, who grew up on a farm outside the town, Mr Beutel has drawn attention to a downside of the mining boom that has to be addressed. Individuals and communities matter. In these situations, compromises are not always possible any more than when local protesters want major dams or freeways stopped. Disenfranchised citizens, however, deserve to be heard.

Political trust is earned slowly and spent quickly

VOTERS tend to respect political leaders who are trustworthy, authentic and committed.

Just as they do in their daily lives, voters prefer people who are reliable. They expect politicians to stand for something, otherwise they can be there only to indulge their personal ambitions. Even when they don't agree with them, voters can have a grudging admiration for people as diverse as Paul Keating, John Howard and Bob Brown, because they have consistently stood up for certain values. If Keating became a monarchist, Howard joined a trade union and Brown bought a coalmine, their reputations would be ruined -- not for what these decisions would say about the issues, but for what they would say about the men making them.

It comes down to a matter of trust. The public knows that politics is full of the sort of negotiation and compromise that will sometimes see policies change and undertakings abandoned. So voters joke about politicians bending the truth. But they do expect their representatives to be true to their basic values, to stand up for what they believe in, and to show durable commitment to their cause.

In the coming week there will be much examination of what has gone wrong for Labor federally. There will be extensive debate about personalities and policies, about vendettas and recriminations, and about polling and leadership options. The Weekend Australian will conscientiously contribute to this detailed discussion. However, we should also consider what is at the core of this debate; just why a popular government lost its way so hopelessly, not just once, but under two prime ministers.

Fundamentally, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and their advisers have fatally under-estimated their compact of trust with the electorate. Mr Rudd should have known that by abandoning his CPRS he was telling the public he was no longer facing up to the "greatest moral challenge of our time". But he was given no opportunity to recognise his error, learn from his mistake and rebuild that trust. When Labor acted expeditiously to replace him, it further weakened its trust with the electorate because it removed the prime minister elected by the voters, who seemed to have more respect for the office than did the MPs themselves.

Ms Gillard has followed a similar path in reverse, first ruling out a carbon tax and then proceeding with the opposite approach. All of this has told the electorate very little about the future of the planet, but a great deal about the lack of core beliefs at the highest levels of the government.

One of the underlying problems is the way the ALP has outsourced itself to a class of young and inexperienced political practitioners, who approach politics as a complex marketing exercise rather than a manifestation of human relationships and an exchange of trust. When spin doctors think they can fudge the truth or pollsters recommend giving the people what they really want, or parties switch to a more popular leader, they tend to be either forgetting the voters or underestimating their intelligence. Either way, the result is politically disastrous.

Politicians such as Lindsay Tanner, Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard have driven themselves into the ground seeking to fill the demands of what they like to call the 24-hour news cycle. But the voters don't demand this, and nor does the media. The MPs themselves must make the decision to focus on substantial policy and enact it with conviction, instead of chasing headlines.

Most voters don't follow the day-to-day minutia of national political debate. Rather, they form their views based on a broad sweep of impressions. Governments that constantly change position on an issue like climate change -- from emissions trading scheme to people's forum, from ruling out a tax to imposing one -- will only succeed in demonstrating that they don't know what they stand for. But, worse, they insult the voters. If one argument is right, the other must be wrong. And, if Labor has sought to convince people of the merits of both, it must think the people are gullible.

The Weekend Australian believes Australians, on the whole, are not so easily manipulated. They know governments will come across some tough dilemmas and difficult times, but they expect their leaders to forge a way through. Keating and Howard are the prime recent examples of leaders who endured serious difficulties and emerged with reputations enhanced.

By ditching its CPRS, then its leader, Labor and its young activist apparatchiks suggested they had the wherewithal to muster the public like so many sheep. The public's current, palpable dissatisfaction with the political process reflects a dearth of grown-up political leadership among a sea of pollsters, spin merchants and schemers. It is reasonable to expect some plain-talking leadership that can hold a policy position from one week to the next might be well received. As Labor endures another week of soul-searching, it needs to understand that no advertising campaign, social media gimmick or clever line will fix its malaise. And it need look no further than NSW to see that rotating the leadership is also pointless.

If Labor is to have any hope, its leaders need to switch off their televisions and iPhones, send the pollsters and twentysomething spin doctors out of the room, and decide exactly what it is the party stands for. Oh, and then stick with it for a while. It is called leadership.

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

 

 

The week in review: Different punishments

Firebrand Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba’asyir and Surabaya-based housewife Siami share a similarity: both received “punishment”, but for different reasons.

Ba’asyir was sentenced to 15 years in prison by the South Jakarta District Court on Thursday after he was found guilty of involvement in planning, setting up and masterminding a terrorist training camp in Jantho, Aceh, which was raided by the police in early 2010.

The verdict was much lower than the prosecutor’s demand of a life sentence. The 72-year-old Ba’asyir, disappointed upon hearing the verdict, immediately appealed, saying he had been “mistreated”. He rejected the verdict, saying it was not based on Islamic law, but, added, rather on laws made by infidels. Ba’asyir also accused the government of fabricating his charges “to please the United States”.

Thursday’s verdict was highly anticipated not only by Indonesians, but also the international community. Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd praised the sentence, saying Ba’asyir’s arrest and prosecution “were the result of effective work by Indonesian authorities”.

The National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT), however, responded by stressing it would shift its focus to the prison system in a bid to limit Ba’asyir’s ability to recruit inmates as his followers and worse, to contact his network outside. The lack of law enforcement inside prisons, as well as the absence of deradicalization programs for convicted terrorists, have partly been blamed for making prisons breeding grounds for terrorism.

It was the third attempt to try Ba’asyir. In the first two trials, Ba’asyir was given lenient sentences for immigration offenses.

Meanwhile, Siami was “punished” by her neighbors and fellow parents for telling the truth. Siami, whose son had been pressured by his elementary school teachers to help schoolmates pass the final exam, was forced to leave her house following strong opposition from the parents and neighbors who considered her action a disgrace to the school.

It was unfortunate that National Education Minister Muhammad Nuh denied the allegations, saying there was no evidence of mass cheating on the national exams. He even urged the public not to overreact to the issue.

Siami eventually got an offer from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who is currently on a state visit to Japan, to visit the presidential palace soon to discuss the issue. She was also invited to a meeting with Corruption Eradication Commission chairman Busyro Muqoddas and the Regional Representatives Council (DPD).

The case is an illustration of the country’s ironic education system. A national-standardized exam that serves as the final test for students to graduate from school turns into a collective cheating arena. It was not the first case, but many have turned a blind eye to it because should many students fail to pass, a school’s reputation, along with its principal’s and teachers’, is at stake.

The case also shows that education stakeholders in the country seem to forget the importance of teaching our children moral values rather than giving them good grades dishonestly earned. Such a mentality will, in the end, result in our future generation getting used to cheating, which may ultimately lead them to corruption.

***

In the fight against corruption, the Corruption Court handed down verdicts on several politicians in the past week.

On Thursday, the court handed verdicts to Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) politicians found guilty of receiving bribes in the 2004 election of a central bank senior deputy governor.

Former PDI-P lawmaker and whistle-blower Agus Condro was sentenced to 15 months in jail, while Max Moein and Rusman Lumbantoruan were each sentenced to 20 months in jail and Willem Max Tutuarima received 18 months.

The key figure in the case, Nunun Nurbaeti, the wife of former National Police deputy chief Adang Daradjatun, however, remains on the run. She is suspected of distributing bribes in the form of travelers’ checks to dozens of former and current lawmakers for their support of Miranda S. Goeltom in the 2004 election.

In a related development, President Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party is under public scrutiny after its ousted treasurer Muhammad Nazaruddin failed to show up after being summonsed by the KPK.

Nazaruddin, allegedly involved in corruption related to the construction of a SEA Games athletes’ village in Palembang, South Sumatra, is also linked to other corruption and bribery cases. He is believed to be in Singapore.

***

As Jakarta will be 484 years old on June 22, many festivities have been staged to mark the anniversary. The annual Jakarta Fair and Jakarta Great Sale are among events to be held by the city administration.

It is sad to see that as an old city and the country’s capital, Jakarta still fails to deal with basic problems, particularly traffic jams. In the absence of a comfortable massive transportation system, Jakartans still rely on private cars to travel.

Governor Fauzi Bowo, whose tenure will end next year, has said that his administration would expand the busway network to neighboring towns, including Bekasi and Tangerang. Apart from the busway, Jakarta will also work with related parties, including state firm PT Kereta Api, to revitalize the railway network as the backbone of the mass transportation system.

It is high time that Jakarta had a better mass transportation system. Hopefully, whoever wins next year’s gubernatorial election will not win due to campaign promises that do not result in real action.

EDITORIAL : THE TRIPOLI POST, LIBYA

Is Massive Rape a Tool of Al Qathafi - or of War Propagandists?

ARTICLE SUMMARY: After all the other fake stories used to whip up public support for wars, you'd think we had learned something. Apparently not, judging from the media's unquestioning spreading of claims that Al Qathafi ordered Viagra-furled rapes - claims that, according to businessinsider.com look dubious under even a little scrutiny. Is Muammar Al Qathafi trying to save his government - and his life - by encouraging mass rape? Does that make sense? Personally speaking, if I had the world already against me, and was hoping to retain whatever support I could among my own people, that would not be my preferred course of action, the website's opinion writer said. He says it seems too crazy. Nevertheless, that's the infamy of the day against Al Qathafi. After analysing what, in his opinion, are the true purposes behind the NATO bombing campaign, efforts to rally world opinion behind removing Al Qathafi from power, now, things are being ratcheted up, with the claim that it's not just one woman but hundreds have been raped - and that Al Qathafi is personally behind this. Following is the rest of the article in which the writer expresses his personal views. If true, (the accusation of massive rape) this would of course make Al Qathafi out to be even more of a monster than he is already perceived to be. It would likely play a tremendous role in persuading otherwise opposed members of the international public to support the NATO bombing campaign. And maybe even an overt expansion into what it actually is - a thinly disguised invasion/coup. So, what are the particulars on the latest claims? Here's the Washington Post's blog: In March, a Libyan woman named Eman Al-Obeidi burst into a Tripoli hotel to tell journalists she had been raped at the hands of the militia of Libyan leader Muammar Al Qathafi At that time, Blogpost reported that Libyan doctors who treated female rape survivors said they had found Viagra and condoms in the pockets of dead pro-Al Qathafi fighters. Quick question: why are “doctors” who are treating rape survivors going through the pockets of fighters? Who are these doctors? Are the dead soldiers processed by the same doctors who see rape victims? Let's continue with the Washington Post: Amnesty International released a statement that said Libyan authorities must “immediately launch an independent and impartial investigation.” Libyan officials did little to investigate, but the International Criminal Court did, and investigators now say they have evidence that Al Qathafi ordered mass rapes and bought containers of sex drugs to encourage troops to attack women, pan-Arab news site Al-Arabiya reported. By the way, how readily available are large quantities of Viagra in Libya? Has anyone looked into this - or bulk purchases? Back to the Post: Chief ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said he may ask for a new charge of mass rape to be made against Al Qathafi, his intelligence chief, and one of his sons following the new evidence. … “Now we are getting some information that Al Qathafi himself decided to rape, and this is new,” Moreno-Ocampo told reporters. Moreno-Ocampo said hundreds of women had been raped and confirmed the doctor's statements about Viagra-type medicines. “The rape is a new aspect of the repression,”the prosecutor said. “It was very bad - beyond the limits, I would say.” Based on this, I went to look up the original Al Arabiya report, which as you can see was actually not an Al Arabiya report but from the following wire service: By Agence-France-Presse - United Nations Investigators have evidence that Libyan leader Muammar Al Qathafi ordered mass rapes and bought containers of sex drugs to encourage troops to attack women, the chief ICC prosecutor said. Luis Moreno-Ocampo said he may ask for a new charge of mass rape to be made against the Libyan strongman following the new evidence. The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor is expecting a decision from judges within days on his request for charges of crimes against humanity to be laid against the Libyan leader, one of his sons and his intelligence chief. “Now we are getting some information that Al Qathafi himself decided to rape and this is new,” Mr. Moreno-Ocampo told reporters. He said there were reports of hundreds of women attacked in some areas of Libya, which is in the grip of a months-long internal rebellion. There was evidence the Libyan authorities bought “Viagra-type” medicines and gave them to troops as part of the official rape policy, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo said. “They were buying containers to enhance the possibility to rape women,” he said. “It was never the pattern he used to control the population. The rape is a new aspect of the repression. That is why we had doubts at the beginning, but now we are more convinced that he decided to punish using rape,” the prosecutor said. “It was very bad - beyond the limits, I would say.” Mr. Al Qathafi's regime had not previously been known for using rape as a weapon against political opponents and Mr. Moreno-Ocampo said he had to find evidence that the Libyan leader had given the order. In March, a Libyan woman made international headlines when she entered a Tripoli hotel and said she had been raped by Al Qathafi troops. Eman al-Obeidi was detained but managed to escape from Libya. She ended up in Qatar but was deported back from there to rebel-held Libya. She is now resting at a refugee centre in Romania. Mr. Moreno-Ocampo issued arrest warrants last month against Mr. Al Qathafi, his son Seif al-Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi. ICC judges are to announce in days whether they agree to the charges. The Libyan government does not recognise the international court's jurisdiction. (end of AFP report) Ok,so it's not, as the Washington Post made it seem to its readers, an original report from an Arabic language publication. It's simply them carrying a report from the European wire service Agence France-Press (France being one of the leading members of the coalition seeking to drive Al Qathafi out), which in turn was just dutifully reporting what Moreno-Ocampo said at his press conference at the UN. No indication that anyone expressed any healthy skepticism. But look. Here's the very same news service Agence France-Press, as published in the Australian paper the Herald-Sun, the next day: A UN human rights investigator has cast doubts over claims by the chief ICC prosecutor of evidence that Libyan leader Muammar Al Qathafi had ordered mass rapes. The International Criminal Court's Luis Moreno-Ocampo had said today that there was evidence the Libyan authorities bought “Viagra-type” medicines and gave them to troops as part of the official rape policy. But Cherif Bassiouni, who is leading a UN rights inquiry into the situation in Libya, suggested that the claim was part of a “massive hysteria”. Mr Bassiouni told journalists that he had heard those claims when he visited rebel-held eastern Libya. But when he went to Tripoli, “the same story comes up”. “This time it's the government people telling us, 'you know what? The opponents have a policy of rape, we have discovered that they are giving out contraceptives and Viagra pills',” he recounted. …The investigator also cited the case of a woman who claimed to have sent out 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse. However, when the investigators asked for these questionnaires, they never received them. “But she's going around the world telling everybody about it … so now she got that information to Ocampo and Ocampo is convinced that here we have a potential 259 women who have responded to the fact that they have been sexually abused,” Mr Bassiouni said. He also pointed out that it did not appear to be credible that the woman was able to send out 70,000 questionnaires in March when the postal service was not functioning. Nevertheless, the investigator said his team will examine the claims. “We're going to go back and we're going to look at it,” he said. For the moment, the team has only heard of three cases. …”For the moment the numbers are very limited, but they've had a tremendous socio-psychological impact on society. Everybody's talking about it. That's where we're at,” said the investigator. (end of report on Herald Tribune) The original allegation got a lot of play. Not the doubts. Even though they came via the exact same news organisation. How 'bout that! Control of information, including psychological operations and propaganda, has always been a central tool in war. The perennial failures of the Western media to do proper checking before spreading such stories (or after, even) helps explain why the public remains forever in the dark.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW STRAITS TIMES, MALAYSIA

 

 

Happy Fathers Day

TODAY, good fathers around the world will be feted by their families for their contribution to good parenting and a happy family life. Some of them are married, some are divorced, some are single, some are actually grandfathers; some are biologically related to their families and some are not. But what they will all most likely have in common with all the men who will be celebrating Fathers Day today is that they are loved. They will be feted with hugs and kisses (or perhaps respectful bows in conservative cultures), with humble yet lovingly home-cooked meals, or lavish restaurant spreads, or picnics, and special attempts by the whole family to get together for this special day.

But, although in paternalistic societies fathers are seen as the leader of the household, mostly, fathers don't get nearly as much accolades for parenting as do mothers. Even in this 21st century, gender stereotypes still exist. If one were to mention the adage "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" (originally from the poem by William Ross Wallace), the hand that would immediately come to mind is that of the mother. And, in the old days, like when Wallace wrote the poem, that was true. In the old days, when fathers were the only ones who worked, it was excusable for them to be absent from the home, relegating the responsibility of bringing up the children to the mother. But these days, with mothers working as many hours as fathers and pitching in with the income, it no longer becomes tenable for fathers not to pitch in with the housework and child-rearing.

Fathers are very important to the family, in taking the lead in setting the example of a good family life that will be referenced by their children in the future. Fathers have to set a good example for their sons to be good, faithful husbands; and for their daughters to know that there are good men in the world so that little girls don't have to grow up thinking that they have to be prostitutes to have a happy married life.

And if one were to compare the sacrifices that some single fathers have had to make in order to bring up their children well, it would be obvious to all that there is very little difference between that and what single mothers have had to do. And that is why some men and women are feted on Fathers Day and Mothers Day, and some aren't. Fathers, like mothers, are "parents" because they care for their children. Otherwise, they're just "people".

Fathers Day presents have to be earned. To all good fathers out there, Happy Fathers Day. With love.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

Where is transparency here?

Transparency was Noynoy’s litany when he was seeking the public’s vote for the presidency; a promise which now appears to be an ordeal as he, through his Palace mouthpieces, have rejected proposals in the House to probe those who are classified within the so-called KKKs (Kaibigan, Kaklase and Kabarilan), or presidential cronies, classmates and shooting range buddies.

The Palace’s rejection of course reverberated among the House of Representatives’ allies of Noynoy and the proposed probe, by all indications, will not likely prosper.

But why is his ally, Deputy Speaker Erin Tañada, already concluding that the President is the focus of the probe, when the probe has not even started. And why, if there is nothing to fear about their claimed “honest” and “transparent” President who they claim rules without fear and favor, are these Noynoy allies fearing such a probe, to the point of already covering up for him and his aides?

Noynoy, however, is making the same mistake that made the past administration one of the most unpopular ever.

That was almost the similar problem that led to the build-up of public discontent in the past administration, which was by way of throwing roadblocks into investigations on improprieties which convinced more people that the allegations of corruption and other irregularities against it were indeed true.

Noynoy’s House allies also gave the same reason cited in the past to reject inquiries into former President Arroyo and her minions, that these functions of Congress would have been exploited for political grandstanding.

The Palace has recycled such reasoning into a cruder form accusing the House minority outright that it plans to use the proceeding for political mudslinging.

Noynoy’s House allies, likewise, argued that key Cabinet personalities who would have been subjected to the probe have already hurdled the confirmation proceedings at the Commission on Appointments and thus the investigations into allegations of improprieties would have been mooted.

The point, however, is that certain questions on Noynoy’s allies needed resolving and a thorough inquiry into allegations that Noynoy had turned the Palace into an Old Boys’ Club need answering.

If only the bring home the point, the allegation in the past administration was the nurturing of the crony system in the government, primarily in the bidding out of contracts.

The circle from which Noynoy is picking out to fill government positions is much smaller than the group shared between Gloria and her spouse Big Mike in the past administration, putting into question the capability of those being posted in government.

On those already seated, allegations about Noynoy giving them absolute protection fly thick and fast.

It was Noynoy and his subalterns who relied heavily on public opinion to help in pressuring so-called remnants of the crooked past, as opposed to his claimed straight path, to vacate their posts.

Up to now, the same tactic of employing drummed up and unproven allegations that Gloria’s appointees are all prone to corruption or are in place to protect her are being used against mainly members of the judiciary.

A presidential spokesman even referred to the Supreme Court as being Arroyo’s court, reflecting efforts to ease out the Chief Justice and all those perceived not friendly to Noynoy. Fortunately there is such a thing as separation of powers among co-equal branches of government that prevents the executive from enforcing its will on the judiciary and vice versa. Although the same cannot be said of the House.

Also the justices are provided fixed terms under the Constitution.

Now the build-up of public opinion is stacking up against his so-called KKKs and suddenly Noynoy and his allies are crying character assassination.

Whatever Noynoy calls it, the House investigation only complies with his call for transparency.

Transparency can’t be selective.

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, ENGLAND

          

 

Public sector pensions: Talking not shouting

There are two obvious reasons why public sector pensions have suddenly erupted to the top of the government agenda

There are two obvious overarching reasons why public sector pensions have suddenly erupted to the top of the government agenda, culminating in yesterday's speech by the Treasury chief secretary, Danny Alexander. The first is that this is such an inherently major social policy issue, an epochal challenge not just for the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat government, but also for the last Labour government, which agonised long and often about pensions, and moreover for any future government too. Nor are pensions purely an issue for this country or for the public sector alone; all advanced societies have to work out how to provide decent affordable pensions for people who are living longer in greater numbers than ever before, whether they are employed in the public or the private sectors. The issue is live, resonant and divisive across the whole of Europe. These would be – and already were – large and difficult issues irrespective of the financial crisis or the recession, though these hard times have obviously dramatised the current context.

The second reason is that the politics of British public sector pension reform are beginning to get more difficult to manage, with government and unions each beginning to accuse one another of bad faith as a series of public sector strikes loom at the end of the month. Both sides must bear some of the blame for this. It is true that some unions are trying to jump the gun and increase the pressure by striking against the government while talks are still continuing and the final package of changes remains under discussion. Yet it is also true that the coalition has taken its eye off the ball since the former Labour cabinet minister Lord Hutton published the generally sensible report in March on which much of the government's approach is based. Given the importance of the pensions question, David Cameron and George Osborne should have taken more public responsibility for the political handling of what was always bound to be a difficult issue over the spring months. That carelessness has now come back to bite them. That is why Mr Alexander's speech was not so much the declaration of war that some on both the right and the left pretend; it was an attempt to reassert some lost political grip.

It would not be without precedent if some in the coalition, preferring to embarrass Labour than to govern in the national interest, fancied a run-in with the public sector unions, and especially some of their leaders. But it would be quite the wrong course. Mr Alexander's speech was well pitched in this regard. It was rooted in the frank and fair approach of Lord Hutton. It insisted, in defiance of some of the morning reporting, that the government was still in the negotiating business. It was a speech of consensus not confrontation. And, as was evident from Mr Alexander's later comments to Brian Strutton of the GMB – one of the unions which, like the TUC itself, has approached the talks constructively – there is plenty of substance still to discuss, including transitional arrangements and the local government implications.

No one should pretend, though, that these are not difficult issues. But Britain cannot stand aside from the historic need to recast the transition between work and retirement. The holy grail is to avoid, or at least to mitigate as much as possible, the triple whammy of asking workers to pay more, work longer and get less. There is no cost-free answer, but there are better and worse ways of producing a balanced package. In the long term, working a bit longer is crucial, as Lord Hutton and the government both believe. But so is protecting the lowest-paid, as Mr Alexander rightly stressed yesterday. And so is the need to avoid dumping the costs on the next generation. Raging against these conflicting imperatives is understandable but pointless. As so often, this is an argument in which jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Both sides need to remain at the table, avoid a shouting match, and accept their responsibilities.

Travel writing: Lost art in search of a lost world

Few authors have been able to equal Patrick Leigh Fermor's ability to dissolve into the places described in his books

"I hate the French cookery, and abominate garlick," Tobias Smollett told his readers 245 years ago, with a snooty disregard for foreigners that runs through too much travel writing today. Describing distant places fairly, curiously and entertainingly has never been easy. Few authors, in any century, have been able to equal Patrick Leigh Fermor's liquid ability to dissolve into the places described in his books, so that he seemed to be less reporting on than living in them. His death this month, at 96, with the third of his great trilogy of prewar European exploration still unpublished, is a moment to ask what travel writing can still achieve.

Leigh Fermor was lucky, in that he walked through an archaic and aristocratic eastern Europe soon to be obliterated by the second world war. His two greatest books, A Time of Gifts and Between the Woods and the Water, take readers into a time and place that can never exist again, and that, as much as his pitch-perfect writing, is why they are among those few books worth reading many times.

Few of today's writers have this advantage. They must describe a world in which it is easier to communicate, and travel, than ever before. No teenager setting off from Tower Bridge now would find themselves amid ballgowns, hunting parties and lonely mountaintop shepherds. Facebook and text messaging have brought Bucharest and Birmingham closer. Describing difference has been made harder.

Leigh Fermor was one of the last of the great travel writers whose experience spanned the previous century. A varied assortment, mostly men, wrote books that still stand as classics today: among them Eric Newby, Norman Lewis and Wilfred Thesiger. Jan Morris, still writing, deserves to be among them. Two decades ago, a fresh crop of authors revived the art but then fell victim to their own celebrity, Bruce Chatwin and Paul Theroux included.

Where does travel writing stand now? There are fewer famous authors and fewer sales. Some of the best books involve almost no travel at all: Roger Deakin's account of wild swimming in Britain, Waterlog, or Neil Ansell's lovely Deep Country, about the birds and landscape of mid-Wales. William Dalrymple remains an explorer in the classical sense: in From the Holy Mountain he shows Byzantium is not quite destroyed. William Blacker's Along the Enchanted Way, about eight years living in rural Romania, is the closest modern writing has come to Leigh-Fermor, and not only because the Gypsy and Saxon life he shares is almost gone.

Always, the attraction is the slow pace. There is no need for hurry, no requirement for horror, just immersion in a place and time that is different, even when it is not far from our own.

Unthinkable? No second serve

Imagine if the neophobes at the Lawn Tennis Association were to pioneer a ban on second serves

Wimbledon starts on Monday. For the miserablists who dismiss tennis as a tiresome game for the privileged middle class, it is a fortnight of shrieks and grunts and the uninhibited rearrangement of underwear. But for the rest of us, it is a series of titanic struggles, starring feats of unimaginable athleticism salted with a mix of personal antagonism. Not counting south London's unpredictable weather, there is only one gloomy thought ahead, and that is the relentless procession of high-velocity serves that, if they are in, are effectively unreturnable. They dominate the early rounds and, while big servers can be tiresome on other surfaces, on grass they can hammer the excitement out of the game. And nowadays, 130mph is more or less standard. The record for the fastest serve, 156mph, is held by the Croatian Ivo Karlovic, a 32-year-old currently ranked somewhere outside the top 100. Pitting him against the 20-year-old, up-and-coming Canadian-Montenegrin Milos Raonic – currently top of the ATP's list of ace-hitters and in the top three (like Karlovic) of winners of first serves – would be a recipe for the dullest match in top-class tennis. They would just take it in turns to blast the ball at each other and the winner would be the one who was most accurate. But imagine if the neophobes at the Lawn Tennis Association were to pioneer a ban on second serves. It would transform the first week of the championship. Versatility and strategy would replace brute velocity. We spectators would be the winners.

                                                                            Dated-18/06/2011

EDITORIAL : THE GLOBAL TIMES, CHINA

 

 

Adopting a clear-cut stance against rumors

 

The robust and sprawling development of China's microblogs is becoming a double-edged sword nowadays. Some malicious rumors in the virtual world have triggered violent riots in the real one.

In a recent case, a microblogger who fabricated an online post of the death of a street vendor turned a minor dispute into a full-scale brawl in suburban Guangzhou. Though the rumormonger, surnamed Chen, was arrested by local police, how to handle Web gossip remains a thorny problem in many places.

Some Internet scholars even went a step further, expressing their sympathy with Chen by accusing the authorities of violating his right to "freedom of speech." Meanwhile, other legal experts interviewed by the Global Times rejected the accusation, noting that spreading rumors have nothing to do with freedom of speech. The responsibilities of rumormongers, if their online remarks have resulted in severe consequences, must be pursued.

A clear-cut stance should be adopted in the fight against online rumors, which usually fit with the interests of some special groups. In China's history, rumors have been resorted to as a political weapon, but it is high time to say farewell to this method.

First, rumormongers must be liable for the damages they cause and be punished instantly according to the law. At the same time, the degree of the penalty meted out to them should not be made wantonly.

The spread of rumors is insidious. Rumors are usually the fuse that set off massive riots, and not their deeper causes. As a result, some local governments have overestimated the damage done by online rumors. Such a mode of thinking is unilateral and harmful. The more important issue is to root out the fundamental causes that incubate rumors.

For quite a long time, the spread of rumors has focused on controversial issues, such as demolitions, urban management and corrupt officials. Local governments should pay great attention to these issues, seek the disclosure of information and not hide important facts from the people. The public's lawful demand for more information must be satisfied, otherwise rumors will always find fertile soil to grow in.

Secondly, rumors are always destructive, requiring local governments to adopt an open attitude and enhance their credibility when facing criticism. Self-criticism is needed for a grassroots government, which should not only stress the achievements they have made. They should tolerate distrust from the public. In a word, the fight against rumors cannot be won in a day. Governments should seek transparency of information, punish rumormongers and adopt a decisive attitude toward the spread of rumors.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

Backward at the F.B.I.

The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.

Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.

Attorney General John Ashcroft began weakening rights protections after 9/11. Three years ago, his successor, Michael Mukasey, issued rules changes that permit agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use highly intrusive methods — including lengthy physical surveillance and covert infiltration of lawful groups — even when there is no firm basis for suspecting any wrongdoing.

The Mukasey guidelines let the bureau go after people identified in part by race or religion, which only raises the danger of government spying on law-abiding Americans based on their political activity or ethnic background.

Incredibly, the Obama administration thinks Mr. Mukasey did not go far enough. Charlie Savage reported in The Times last week that the F.B.I plans to issue a new edition of its operational manual that will give agents significant new powers to search law enforcement and private databases, go through household trash or deploy surveillance teams, with even fewer checks against abuse.

Take, for example, the lowest category of investigations, called an “assessment.” The category was created as part of Mr. Mukasey’s revisions to allow agents to look into people and groups “proactively” where there is no evidence tying them to possible criminal or terrorist activity. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search databases without making a record about it. Once an assessment has started, agents will be permitted to conduct lie detector tests and search people’s trash as part of evaluating a potential informant. No factual basis for suspecting them of wrongdoing will be necessary.

The F.B.I. general counsel, Valerie Caproni, said agents want to be able to use the information found in a subject’s trash to pressure that person to assist in a government investigation. Um, well, yes, that is the problem. It only heightens concern about privacy, improper squeezing of individuals, and the adequacy of supervision.

Currently, surveillance squads, which are trained to surreptitiously follow targets, may be used only once during an assessment. The new rules will allow repeated use.

They also expand the special rules covering “undisclosed participation” in an organization by an F.B.I. agent or informant. The current rules are not public, and, as things stand they still won’t be. But we do know the changes allow an agent or informant to surreptitiously attend up to five meetings of a group before the rules for undisclosed participation — whatever they are — kick in.

The changes also remove the requirement of extra supervision when public officials, members of the news media or academic scholars are investigated for activities unrelated to their positions, like drug cases. That may sound like a reasonable distinction, but it ignores an inflated potential for politically motivated decision-making.

The F.B.I.’s recent history includes the abuse of national security letters to gather information about law-abiding citizens without court orders, and inappropriate investigations of antiwar and environmental activists. That is hardly a foundation for further loosening the rules for conducting investigations or watering down internal record-keeping and oversight.

Everyone wants to keep America safe. But under President Bush and now under President Obama, these changes have occurred without any real discussion about whether the supposed added security is worth the harm to civil liberties. The White House cares so little about providing meaningful oversight that Mr. Obama has yet to nominate a successor for Glenn Fine, the diligent Justice Department inspector general who left in January.

Finally, Congress is showing some small sign of interest. Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, has written to Robert Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, asking that the new policies be scuttled. On Friday afternoon, Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Charles Grassley of Iowa, the chairman and the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, called on Mr. Mueller to provide an opportunity to review the changes before they are carried out, and to release a public version of the final manual on the F.B.I.’s Web site. Mr. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. need to listen.

Signs of Life Spotted in the Senate

Sitting in a defensive crouch for months at a time can get a little uncomfortable, and several Senate Democrats are finally starting to rouse themselves. In the last weeks, there have been some tiny but tantalizing hints that at least a few senators want to offer an alternative to the Republican cost-cutting frenzy and talk about ways to cut sensibly and help put people back to work.

Last week, 41 Senate Democrats wrote letters to President Obama urging him to resist the Republican effort to sharply cut and transform Medicaid, the joint federal and state health program that primarily benefits poor children and pregnant women, disabled adults, and nursing home residents. Several senators have also broken through the wall of fear in Washington that prohibits discussion of stimulus spending.

These actions might seem unremarkable by Democrats in an ordinary year, but those in the Senate have largely been invisible in the current Congress, cowed by a noisy Republican majority in the House and afraid of losing their three-vote edge in the 2012 elections. Senate Democrats will not even put their priorities on the record by producing a budget, leaving it to the White House to negotiate with the House on matters like the debt ceiling.

The Republicans are desperate to show Tea Party voters that they can land a blow on an entitlement program. Medicare cuts are a political loser, but Medicaid — serving a far less powerful clientele than the middle class — has become highly vulnerable to their ax. Paul Ryan, the House budget chairman, has proposed turning Medicaid into a block grant program, giving states lump sums that could not possibly keep pace with rising costs, and allowing states the flexibility to drop coverage for millions.

With the White House eager to cut a deal, 37 senators, led by John Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, wrote President Obama last week urging him to stand firm against these Republican proposals, saying they would not let the government “walk away from Medicaid’s 68 million beneficiaries, the providers that serve them, and the urban and rural communities in which they live.” Similar letters were sent by four other senators.

At the same time, Mr. Rockefeller, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and a few other Democratic senators are urging the administration to stimulate hiring by spending billions to improve infrastructure. Speaking on the Senate floor last week, Mr. Harkin said the Republican focus on spending cuts would kill millions of jobs, and called for new spending to prevent a double-dip recession. Though Republicans will immediately ridicule the idea by repeating their mantra that the 2009 stimulus “failed,” Mr. Harkin and others have found their voice enough to respond that it actually saved or created at least four million jobs and probably many more.

These signs of a stirring in the Senate should inspire the rest of the caucus — and a reluctant White House — to their feet again. What’s the point of having a majority if you don’t use it?

The Court Disses Fathers

Children born outside the country to an unmarried American parent are considered American citizens at birth if the parent lived in the United States before the child was born. For a mother, the required period of residence is one year. For a father, it is 10 years, five of them after he turns 14. Fathers must also prove parenthood and pledge to support the child.

In a decision based on an outmoded stereotype that fathers are less committed parents, the Supreme Court let this obvious discrimination stand last week when it affirmed a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Flores-Villar v. the United States.

Ruben Flores-Villar was born in Mexico to a Mexican mother and an American father who were not married. His mother remained in Mexico, and Ruben was raised by his father in San Diego. His father could not pass on his citizenship because he was 16 at Ruben’s birth so could not have lived for five years in the United States after he turned 14.

The Ninth Circuit denied Ruben’s bid for citizenship, saying that it is constitutional to make it harder for an unmarried father to pass along citizenship because a father’s relationship to the child “is not so easily established” and a mother’s is “verifiable from the birth itself.”

Congress has already jettisoned such outmoded principles when it comes to married couples. From 1790 to 1934, married American fathers — as “heads” of their family — could pass along citizenship to their foreign-born children, not mothers. A law ended that discrimination.

For the last 30 years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down laws treating men and women differently. The court’s decision in this case was by a 4-to-4 vote, with Justice Elena Kagan recused. The one-sentence ruling does not say how the justices divided, but it is likely that if Justice Kagan had taken part, the court would have outlawed this form of discrimination. That would have been the right choice. The days when fathers were assumed to be minor players in parenting are long over.