|
Why education is at the heart of Thailand's problems
31 May 2011 Reuters
The 14-year-old pupil is known simply as "Number 26" because,
with 52 children in the class at his suburban Bangkok school, the teacher
can't remember his name.
Overcrowding in classrooms is just one of the problems dogging Thailand's
education system, where an inward-looking curriculum emphasizes
rote-learning and basic literacy.
Critics say that without an overhaul to bring the system into the 21st
century, Thailand will lose out in the race with Asian rivals for foreign
investment.
While Taiwan, Singapore, China and India have poured billions of dollars
into developing world-class university education, English-language
instruction and high-value skills, Thailand has moved little beyond a
decades-old system that aims mostly to preserve national identity.
British-born, Oxford-educated Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva wants to
change that with a 371.5 billion baht ($12 billion) six-year education
reform plan that was approved by his cabinet this month, part of a trove of
policies intended to pull in votes in a tight July 3 election.
But experts say money is not the problem.
"The mindset is from the nation-building and Cold War period to produce
obedient and nationalistic citizens, which does not fit the 21st-century
needs," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn
University. "It is hierarchical, top-down, with a systematic lack of
critical thinking."
The issue resonates well beyond the classroom, as Thailand, Southeast Asia's
second-biggest economy, vies for foreign direct investment in areas beyond
basic manufacturing, and as Asian rivals such as Tawain and Singapore
develop a generation of innovative global companies.
"It's easier to find young, versatile, highly skilled and English-speaking
workers in Singapore, Taiwan and China," said a U.S. chief executive at a
major Bangkok-based company who declined to identified.
"Thailand's labor isn't as cheap as it used to be so basic manufacturing
jobs are going to start moving away, too."
Thailand is a manufacturing base for automakers such as General Motors Co (GM.N)
and a major petrochemical hub, but costs are rising. The average monthly
factory wage in 2010 was $263, below China's $303 but above the Philippines
at $212, Indonesia at $182, Vietnam at $107 and Cambodia at $101, according
to a survey by the Japan External Trade Organization.
It is unclear if Abhisit's education plan will boost him at the polls, but
the issue cuts to the heart of Thailand's polarizing and sometimes-violent
five-year political crisis.
A shoddy education reinforces complaints voiced by poor, rural Thais of
political, social and economic injustice -- frustrations that erupted last
year into deadly street protests.
Schools in Bangkok are generally more modern than in the rural north and
northeast, bastions of the opposition Puea Thai Party led by Yingluck
Shinawatra, sister of fugitive former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Rural leaders also complain that a Bangkok-designed curriculum glosses over
Thailand's unique rural heritage, adding to simmering feelings of
disenfranchisement.
Decha Premruedeelert, an adviser to the mayor of Khon Kaen, a city about 500
km (300 miles) northeast of Bangkok, is experimenting with an alternative:
keep the curriculum, but supplement it with workshops attuned to local
needs.
But the opposition's record is also patchy. Governments led by Thaksin in
2001-2006 promised public schools more autonomy, but that ran into
resistance from the Ministry of Education.
Puea Thai leaders say they will increase spending on school resources,
technology and scholarships, but critics say this misses the fundamental
issue of how teachers are trained and what is taught.
Thailand is already among the world's top education spenders relative to its
size, allocating roughly 20 percent of its annual budget to education,
according to the central bank.
The country spent the equivalent of 4 percent of GDP on education in 2009,
above Singapore's 3.1 percent, according to the Swiss-based Institute of
Management Development (IMD), but Singapore ranks 13th in education
performance and Thailand 47th.
Literacy has been consistently high since the 1970s and was 94 percent in
2010.
But while about 71 percent of students go on to secondary school in the
country of 67 million people, just 18 percent finish college, according to
Direk Patmasiriwat, a researcher at Thailand Development Research Institute,
a think tank.
And a Thai college degree is no easy ticket to success. In 2010 rankings of
world universities by Quacquarelli Symonds, a provider of guides to higher
education, Thailand's top school, Chulalongkorn University, was ranked 180.
Compare that to the University of Hong Kong's ranking of 23 or National
University of Singapore's 31.
One result: Thailand produces a workforce with some of the world's weakest
English-language skills. The IMD ranks Thailand 54th of 56 countries
globally for English proficiency, the second-lowest in Asia. Singapore was
third and Malaysia 28th.
Analysts attribute the inability to overhaul education to bureaucratic
inertia, a deficit of ideas on how to improve the curriculum and poor
teacher recruitment and training.
When an education reform committee proposed English as Thailand's second
official language last July to boost its economy and foster a more global
outlook, the Education Ministry rejected the idea, saying it could create
"misunderstandings" that Thailand had been colonized.
"If you look at history textbooks, it's littered with myths about ancient
warriors and old-time enmities with neighboring countries. It's still driven
by nationalism without a global perspective on how Thailand fits into the
world," said Charnvit Kasetsiri, a historian who has campaigned to improve
the social science curriculum.
Back at the Bangkok school, when the bell rang for recess, the 14-year-old
boy was told to stay back and read from a text on Prince Damrong Rajanubhab,
an historian who died in 1943 and is revered as the father of Thailand's
education system. The teacher asked the boy to re-read a passage in which
the prince explains how Thai people originated from southern China between
Sichuan and Yunnan provinces. Looking up from the text, he asked: "How did
he find out where our ancestors came from? Did he go there and talk to
people in Yunnan and Sichuan?" The teacher brushed it aside, instead telling
him to continue reading to improve his speed.
The school declined to allow Reuters to name the pupil.
An incentive system for teachers is also regarded as a problem, placing a
greater premium on administrative duties than student performance, and
giving little reason -- or training -- to move beyond basic rote-learning
teaching methods.
Nearly half of Abhisit's six-year education plan would be spent on
developing "a new breed of teachers." But the ministry hasn't explained what
they would do differently.
"Those who want to stretch their students' imagination have limited skills,
so they stick to how their predecessors taught for generations," Education
Minister Chinnavorn Boonyakiat told Reuters. "Teaching innovation requires a
different mindset."
Inoirb Regel, a World Bank education specialist, said Thai universities
offer narrow fields of study, making it difficult for students to adapt to
the global economy.
"The country's GDP has risen disproportionately to wage growth. It is one
major cause of discontent," said Somkiat Tangkitvanich, an economist at
Thailand Development Research Institute. "That's partly because educational
training available does not match skill sets needed to succeed in the more
dynamic labor market today."
From Dubai exile, Thaksin waits for Thai political
winds to change
30 May 2011
Canada Globe and Mail
Tugging a red U.S. Open ball cap low on his forehead to fend
off the blistering desert sun, the world’s most famous political exile lofts
a golf ball toward the mirage of the Dubai skyline, a drive that draws
murmurs of approval from his fellow players at the $10,000-a-year club.
Thaksin Shinawatra smiles graciously at the applause and launches into tales
of those he golfed with when he was prime minister of Thailand, before he
was deposed in a 2006 military coup.
After a few dozen more swings, he invites his guests to what he calls “the
best Thai restaurant in Dubai” – the multimillion-dollar home that has been
his comfortable base for the past 2½ years while his homeland has been
consumed with debate and deadly violence over the question of whether the
country’s most controversial son should be allowed to come back.
He is the hero of his country’s poor and he believes the “Red Shirt”
protests should be seen in the same light as the pro-democracy uprisings
across the Middle East. The military-backed Thai government calls him a
“terrorist” and a fugitive from justice. The mention of Mr. Thaksin’s name
can divide a dinner table in Bangkok into two angry camps.
But Mr. Thaksin hardly lives the life of a man on the run.
Instead, the 61-year-old splits his time between circling the globe on a
private jet and his two-storey villa in the posh Emirates Hills development
on the outskirts of Dubai. He runs his Red Shirt political organization – as
well as a resurgent business empire – through six mobile phones that he
keeps in a zipped leather handbag, each with a different ring tone that
tells him the nature of the caller: business, politics, friends, family,
others.
In an exclusive interview with The Globe and Mail and The Independent
newspaper of Britain, during which he gave unprecedented access to his
private life in exile, Mr. Thaksin said he is confident that his Pheu Thai
party will win a July 3 general election, perhaps opening the door for an
amnesty that would allow him to return to Thailand.
He says that the party – now headed by his younger sister, Yingluck
Shinawatra – will prioritize national reconciliation, even as he strongly
hints that his nemesis, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, belongs in jail
for ordering a bloody crackdown on Red Shirt protests in the centre of
Bangkok last year that left 91 people dead.
The coming election offers yet another chance for Mr. Thaksin to prove wrong
those who declared his political career dead in the wake of the 2006 coup,
his 2008 conviction (in absentia) on corruption charges and again following
the violence of last year.
The Pheu Thai party is just the latest incarnation of the political machine
he built from scratch in 1998. An improbable alliance between some of
Thailand’s wealthiest businessmen and rural villagers angered by the
country’s widening wealth gap, it has under different names won the last
three general elections, including unprecedented back-to-back landslides in
2001 and 2005 while Mr. Thaksin was top of the ticket.
Mr. Thaksin says he’s heard “rumours” that his allies will again be kept
from power if they win the July 3 vote. And he warned that while the
military took power bloodlessly in 2006, another coup might be met with
resistance.
“I don’t think there will be another peaceful coup,” he said. “The people
are fed up.”
For that reason, Mr. Thaksin believes it’s unlikely there will again be
tanks on the streets of Bangkok. More likely though, he said, is a “silent
coup” whereby Pheu Thai might be kept from power through rulings of the
Election Commission of Thailand or the courts, the latter of which forced a
government headed by his brother-in-law from power after a pro-Thaksin party
won the country’s last election, in 2007.
“If we do not respect the decision of the people, why do you call for a
general election? A general election, the rules are understandable
everywhere in the world: whatever the decision of the people [that] comes,
you respect it. That’s the way you do it. But the [coup] rumours come
because they had bad experiences in the past.”
Mr. Thaksin said that if Pheu Thai, which is running under the platform
“Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai does,” wins the election, they will “offer
reconciliation.” He defended running his sister as a candidate for prime
minister, saying it was the easiest way to communicate to his supporters
that a vote for Pheu Thai is a vote for him. Early opinion polls show Ms.
Yingluck holding a substantive lead over Mr. Abhisit and his Democrat party.
“Thaksin has decided that all he has going for him is himself and his name,
so he’s putting up his sister,” said Chris Baker, a respected analyst of
Thai politics and the author of a biography of Mr. Thaksin. Mr. Baker said
he was worried that the highly charged election campaign – which is very
much about Mr. Thaksin himself and whether he should be allowed to return to
Thailand – would create further polarization and instability.
Mr. Thaksin acknowledged regrets from his tumultuous time in office, during
which he was criticized for restricting media freedom and overseeing a
controversial “war on drugs” in the south of Thailand that human rights
groups say included extrajudicial killings. “I would say that I should have
been more patient and tolerate[d] critics. Furthermore, I should have used
more of velvet glove than iron fist in handl[ing] political and security
issues,” he said.
He says he was brought down and forced into exile by unnamed enemies that
were jealous of his popularity. He claims his opponents concocted rumours
that he planned to remove King Bhumibol Adulyadej as head of state, and
transform Thailand into a republic with himself as president, something he
insists isn’t true.
While he waits and hopes for the chance to return triumphant to Thailand,
Mr. Thaksin travels the world on his Bombardier Global Express XRS private
jet that he says has flown 750 hours in the 10 months since he bought it. He
has four cars in the driveway, including sleek black Jaguar and Lexus
sedans.
Recently, the one-time telecommunications tycoon has spent much of his time
in Africa, investing in gold mines in Uganda and Tanzania, coal in South
Africa and a platinum mine in Zimbabwe. He said he has plans to eventually
take his new mining company public, and was exploring the possibility of
listing it on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
He says he has two passports, not six as has been reported in Thai and other
media. He took Montenegrin citizenship last year after buying an island
there, and has since 2009 been a special ambassador for Nicaragua. Thailand
revoked his passport earlier that year.
Home for now is Dubai, where he said he has a residence visa. Despite
repeated protests from the Thai government, which has urged the United Arab
Emirates to arrest or expel him, Mr. Thaksin has been living in the villa
(which real estate websites suggest is worth several million dollars) on
Corniche Street in the gated Emirates Hills development.
It’s a lifestyle very much removed from that of the poor in Thailand, who
hold him up as their hero because of the rural development and cheap health
care programs Mr. Thaksin introduced while in office. Mr. Thaksin says he
has a personal staff of nine working for him in Dubai – four drivers, four
domestic staff and one security guard – all of them Thais who followed him
into exile. He says he remains a billionaire despite a move by the Thai
courts to freeze $1.4-billion (U.S.) of his assets last year.
The divorced father of three lives alone in the villa, which has an elevator
and a small pool in the back and says he asks his children not to visit all
at once so that he doesn’t get too depressed when they leave. During two
lengthy interviews, he alternated between pining for a return to Thailand
and claiming that he is happy with the nomadic life he has now.
“I will go home [to Thailand] only in the case that things are settled down.
I will not add any more problems to the country … In the beginning, I was
upset. Now I’m quite settled abroad,” he said, leaning forward a sofa in his
living room in front of a carefully arranged display of photographs of
himself meeting with world leaders who have received him during his exile.
It’s an eclectic gallery: Mr. Thaksin smiling alongside the likes of
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen (who briefly employed him as an economic
adviser), Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Congolese President Laurent
Kabila and others.
In person, Mr. Thaksin comes across as genial and anxious to please. The
charisma of a natural politician is watered down slightly by a sense of
desperation, even loneliness., that likely comes from his long battle with
the Thai establishment, and perhaps a sense that much of the international
community doesn’t view him as the champion of democracy that he tries to
portray himself as being.
He believes last year’s crackdown by the Thai military on the Red Shirt
protests should be considered on par with those that spurred international
action against Libya and Syria. His lawyer, Canadian Robert Amsterdam,
recently filed a petition at the International Criminal Court in The Hague,
charging that the Thai government – and Mr. Abhisit in particular – were
criminally liable in last year’s violence.
In the end, Mr. Thaksin knows that even another electoral triumph won’t mean
his fight is over. Mr. Thaksin’s popularity, and his policies have put him
at odds with the real powers-that-be in Thailand - the military and the
monarchy. No matter what the ballot box results are, no one can rule
Thailand without the consent of those two institutions, and Mr. Thaksin
seemingly has few friends in either.
But he doesn’t sound like a man about to give up a fight that at times has
threatened to split Thailand in two. “The more bullying they do, the more
they press me, I say ‘thanks’,” he says. “The more bad things they do, it
helps my campaign.”
THE NOMAD
Thaksin’s Shinawatra’s life in exile
Place of residence: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Passports: Nicaraguan, Montenegrin
Known countries he’s visited since he was deposed in 2006 coup: Cambodia
China Hong Kong Japan Australia Russia France Mongolia Sweden Switzerland
Fiji Tonga Britain Brunei
Uganda Liberia Tanzania Zimbabwe South Africa Singapore Nicaragua Montenegro
Swaziland Democratic Republic of Congo Ghana Sierra Leone
Countries where he is now persona non grata: Britain Germany
Japan Thailand
Thaksin Shinawatra: Exiled in Dubai – but still he dreams
of Thailand
The Monday Interview: Ousted in a bloodless coup in 2006, the former PM is
desperate to regain power – for his sister. Andrew Buncombe met him
30 May 2011
The Independent
Would you you like some durian?" A smile flashes across the face of Thaksin
Shinawatra as he thinks of the notorious Asian fruit, famed for both its
sweet taste and wrenchingly rotten smell. The former Thai prime minister has
already served steamed pork balls, coconut noodles with green onion and a
prawn and minced-pork curry, but he is adamant the meal will not be complete
without this addition. He calls for one – thankfully it is not too ripe –
and he appears content. "I always say the best Thai restaurant in Dubai is
my home," he chuckles.
The business tycoon and former owner of Manchester City football club is
perhaps the world's most famous political exile. Since being ousted from
office in a bloodless coup in 2006, he has lived a peripatetic lifestyle,
travelling the globe in his Bombardier Global Express jet in search of safe
havens to continue his business operations and rally his supporters in
Thailand. He has spent periods in Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Brunei, the
UK (where he complained he could not find a decent barber), Nicaragua,
Montenegro and Cambodia.
Two-and-half years ago he decided to base himself in Dubai, where he lives
in a comfortable villa, set on a private compound looking out to a lake and
a golf course. Two luxury cars sit in his driveway, a Lexus LS 600h L and a
gleaming black Jaguar, and he says he has flown 750 hours in the last 10
months. He admits he remains a billionaire.
Now, the 61-year-old is to once again be thrust centre stage in Thailand's
bitter political turmoil as the party he controls from overseas, Pheu Thai
(PT), launches an election campaign before a vote on 3 July. Thaksin has
appointed an inexperienced but photogenic younger sister, Yingluck, as the
party's prime ministerial candidate. A number of polls give PT an edge as it
battles to beat the incumbent, Abhisit Vejjajiva, and his Democrat Party,
but most observers say the outcome remains uncertain. The behaviour of the
army, which has seized power on 18 occasions since the 1930s, will be
crucial
"I think it looks very good. The popularity of the party and Yingluck is
getting more and more," says Thaksin, as he voices concern that his
opponents may try and undermine any PT victory by other means. "Even though
we are the opposition, we still have the highest number of MPs in
parliament. That's why they're scared, [why] they might use the same tricks.
But if [our opponents] were to do it again, it would mean that they don't
care [about] the world. They don't care [about] democracy in Thailand."
Thaksin remains a deeply divisive figure. He has widespread support among
the rural and urban poor, especially in Thailand's north and north-east, who
benefited from a series of populist measures he introduced between
2001-2006. Last year, his Red Shirts supporters filled the streets of
Bangkok for many weeks as they demanded parliament be dissolved. But among
the urban middle-classes and the political and business elite, he is often
despised. Having been convicted in absentia of corruption in 2009 over a
series of measures he took while in office which the country's highest court
said benefited his extended family, £900m of his assets were seized and his
passport was revoked, forcing him to obtain alternatives from Nicaragua and
Montenegro. Many consider him nothing less than a fugitive from justice.
During his time as premier, the telecommunications tycoon also faced
criticism from human rights campaigners, particularly for military
operations in the "war on drugs", in which hundreds of civilian and
dissidents were said to have been summarily executed, and for shutting down
of critical journalists. In one incident at Tak Bai in October 2004, 78 men
were suffocated and crushed to death after being loaded into the back of
army trucks.
In the summer of 2007, when Thaksin bought Manchester City, a team whose
fortunes he says he still follows, Human Rights Watch described him as a
"human rights abuser of the worst kind".
Thaksin insists he is seeking reconciliation. Even though his supporters
earlier this year filed an application at the International Criminal Court
in The Hague seeking to have Mr Abhisit charged with crimes against
humanity, he says the PT is ready to reach out to its opponents. "PT offers
reconciliation. Even though we are the victims of this bullying, we offer
this... if we win, we offer reconciliation. We don't want revenge," he says,
sitting in a drawing room containing photographs of himself and various
world leaders. "We don't want the country to be back down any more. We want
the people to be back to normal life, we want the economy to progress. We
want the country to move forward."
At the same time, particularly after the example of the protesters involved
in the Arab spring, he doubts his supporters would sit back quietly if a
fairly elected PT government was not allowed to take office. (After he was
ousted, two subsequent allies who became PM were forced from office by the
courts, over what supporters say were politically motivated allegations.) He
believes the wider world would also not tolerate more violence. He has
called for international observers to participate in the polls.
"There has to be a reason. They cannot just say we don't want you to become
the government," he tells The Independent and another international
newspaper. "If [our opponents] were to do something unethical, unlawful,
it's not good for them, not good for the country, not good for the people...
I really urge them to let things go according to what we call... democracy."
He adds, laughing: "I said that if you were to make an analysis between
democracy and a man who is dressed with a suit and tie, we are now wearing a
suit and tie but with slippers. If you don't look at the feet you don't know
we are [not a] democracy. You thought we were a democracy because up here we
are wearing a suit and tie perfectly. But we forgot to wear the shoes and
the socks."
Thaksin was born in July 1949 in Chiang Mai. As a young man, he studied in
the US before returning to Thailand where he served as a commander with the
police force. He then started a series of business ventures, selling mobile
phones and pagers, in a rapidly expanding market. It was this that gave him
the wealth that helped launch his political career.
Despite comments made by PT that it hopes to enact an amnesty that would
allow Thaksin to return to Thailand, he claims that having served six years
as premier he harbours no ambitions to return to the office and would rather
his sister took charge. "I will go home just in the case that things are
settled down. I will not add any more problems for the country. If things
have settled down and if I can be any [benefit] to the country then I will
go. Otherwise I am quite settled abroad now. In the beginning I may feel
upset but now I am settled."
One wonders whether the man protests too much. For all his claims about
feeling settled in Dubai where the summer temperatures soar to 50C, he says
he asks his children to visit at separate times so that his house does not
feel so empty when they leave. He says he has now divorced from his wife,
Pojaman, and that he may be unable to attend the wedding of his eldest
daughter later this year. This may, of course, be part of a tactic to evoke
sympathy; the former premier has previously been accused of trying to spin
his image when, in 2007, he was said to have been behind a project carried
out by a Thai television reporter who wrote a book, Thaksin, Where Are You,
which portrayed him positively.
What appears certain is that Thaksin remains very much at the centre of
Thailand's political opposition. When we visit a nearby golf course where he
hits long drives – he says his handicap varies between 14 and 24 – an aide
carries a small case of faux leather that contains six different cell
phones, including a BlackBerry, a Nokia and an iPhone. He has a different
number for business contacts, political supporters and members of his family
and each phone has a separate ringing tune so he can immediately identify
who is calling.
The phones are essential for his hands-on running of his business projects,
which in recent years have seen him investing in mining operations across
Africa. The projects he is currently involved in include gold-mining in
Uganda, coal-mining in South Africa and platinum-mining in Zimbabwe. He is
looking at other mines in Sierra Leona, Democratic Republic of the Congo and
Ghana.
Yet it is obvious politics remains his passion and he relishes the contest
ahead with his opponents, as much as the food prepared by his Thai cook.
"The more bullying they do, the more they press me, I say 'thanks'," he
says. "The more bad things they do, it helps my campaign."
Thaksin Shinawatra
1949 Thaksin is born in the city of Chiang Mai. After studying in the US he
works as a police officer.
1998 After a successful career as a telecommunications entrepreneur, Thaksin
forms the Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais) party.
2001 Thaksin is elected as Prime Minister for the first time, with Thai Rak
Thai part of the governing coalition.
2003 He announces a 'war' on drug use. More than 2,000 people die during the
crackdown.
2005 Thaksin is re-elected, with Thai Rak Thai forming Thailand's first
single party government since the Second World War.
2006 A backlash against the Thaksin government's perceived corruption
gathers momentum, including 'yellow shirt' street protests led by an army of
Buddhist monks. A military coup eventually forces Thaksin into exile.
2007 Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party is banned. Thaksin, in exile, buys
Manchester City football club.
2008 Potjaman Shinawatra, Thaksin's wife, is found guilty of fraud. Thaksin
returns to Thailand, but departs again to avoid a corruption trial. Pro-Thaksin
protests gather momentum.
2010 Pro-Thaksin 'red shirt' rallies bring the country to a halt. Thousands
of his supporters pour containers of their own blood into the street in a
show of loyalty.
Driven to drink by Hangover 2
29 May 2011
The trouble with Hangover 2 is that it will drive you
to drink.
It is a movie that you want to like but cannot. Compared to
the Vegas based film this has lost it's fun, innocence, and heart. It is
simply more mean spirited. And it suffers because of that.
From being innocent and joyful the characters have become
mean lead by Alan's malicious intent; an unpleasant father in law and a boy
chopping off his finger - there really is nothing funny in that. It is even
harder to imagine how and why these people are friends. Even harder to
fathom why women fall for them.
Now Stu is meant to be getting married in Thailand - Krabi.
They might have found him a Thai bride instead of Chinese American (born in
SFO) Jamie Chung. You cannot take a powerboat from BKK to Krabi. At least
not in a matter of a couple of hours. Ladyboys in Tilac. Never.
Many in Thailand worry that the country's image will be
damaged by the movie; but anyone who knows Thailand will not be surprised by
any of it. In fact some of the city shots are quite flattering especially
the panoramas; the shots at the Lebua; Chinatown showed character; the klong
longboat. And Krabi looked magnificent.
And not a cockroach or a rat in site - and after walking down
Saladaeng tonight they are out in their dozens!
There was a chain smoking monkey. That as weird. An exploding
big carcass was gross.
The teenage boy chopping off his finger was senseless. A boy
that is supposed to be a surgeon or a famous cellist. Yet his parents say
nothing. Don't try that at home folks. Senseless.
The film is partially censored in Thailand - pixellated
mainly although there may be some small cuts to the film as well.
Sadly it really is not that funny.
Congress to Palestinians: Drop dead
Netanyahu's address to Congress demonstrated that he has no intention of
making peace with the Palestinians.
26 May 2011 - MJ Rosenberg for Al Jazeera
If anyone had any doubt about whether the Palestinians would declare a state
in September, they can't have them now.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to Congress
that essentially was a series of insults to Palestinians and every insult
was met by applause and standing ovations.
In fact, Netanyahu's appearance itself was an insult.
In the entire history of the United States, only four foreign leaders have
addressed joint sessions of Congress more than once.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill, America's great ally, addressed Congress
three times during World War II. President Nelson Mandela was honored for
destroying apartheid and freeing South Africa. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
was recognised for opening negotiations with the Palestinian people.
And now Netanyahu. For what?
In his entire term in office he has done nothing but reject every request by
the United States that he take some action (like freezing settlements) to
promote Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In the history of Israel, there
has been no prime minister as hardline on Palestinian rights and as
indifferent to the wishes of the United States as Netanyahu.
So why was he invited to address a rare joint session?
He was invited because the new Republican leadership of the House of
Representatives wanted to demonstrate, loudly and clearly, that Congress
will not support President Barak Obama in the event that he tries to achieve
an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
And that is exactly what the Netanyahu appearance today did demonstrate. The
prime minister unambiguously stated that he had no intention of making peace
with the Palestinians.
He began by saying that, in point of fact, there is no occupation, stating,
that "in Judea and Samaria [the term Israeli right-wingers use for the West
Bank], Israelis are not foreign occupiers" but the native inhabitants. (He
cited Abraham and Isaiah from the Bible!)
He said he might consider giving up some of that land but not an inch of
Jerusalem. Additionally, he said that Israel would retain most settlements
and insist on a military presence in the Jordan Valley (thereby ensuring the
any State of Palestine would be locked in on both sides by Israel).
He said that Israel would never negotiate with a Palestinian government that
included Hamas, whether democratically elected or not. He declared that not
a single Palestinian would be allowed to return to Israel; not even a
symbolic return would be acceptable to him.
There is little reason to elaborate. Netanyahu today essentially returned to
the policies that Israel pursued before Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat
agreed on mutual recognition and the joint pursuit of peace.
And the worst part is not the appalling things Netanyahu said, but how
Congress received them. Even Netanyahu's declaration that there is no
Israeli occupation was met with thunderous applause with the Democrats
joining the Republicans in ecstatic support. Every Netanyahu statement, no
matter how extreme, was met with cheers.
Netanyahu was also applauded wildly when he invoked Palestinian terrorism
over and over again, even seeming to lump his former "partner," President
Mahmoud Abbas with people who "educate their children to hate, [who]
continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all continue
to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the
descendants of Palestinian refugees."
His bottom line, which Congress fully bought, was that all Palestinians are
terrorists who haven't earned a state. And probably never will.
Congress cheered and cheered and when Netanyahu was finished, they climbed
over each other to touch the hem of his garment.
It was as if Congress thought that no Palestinians or other Arabs (or
Muslims) would be watching. It was as if it believes that it can shout its
lungs out for Netanyahu (and thereby secure those campaign contributions
from AIPAC), without any consequences to US policy and national interests in
the Arab world.
But Congress is wrong. The message it sent to the Middle East today, to the
whole world, in fact, was that Palestinians cannot count on the United
States to ever play the role of "honest broker" between Israel and the
Palestinians. Even if President Obama was inclined to, Congress would stop
him. And AIPAC, using the leverage its campaign contributions gives it,
would hold Obama's feet to the fire too. As far as Congress is concerned,
Palestinians do not exist. They have no rights, to a state least of all.
And that is why Palestinians have no choice but to unilaterally declare a
state in the fall. They cannot count on America. As David Ben Gurion
understood when he went to the General Assembly to achieve recognition of
Israel, a small, powerless people must take its destiny into its own hands.
The good news is that, although Congress is in Netanyahu's pocket, the Obama
administration isn't. Netanyahu insulted the President at the White House
last Thursday and then again in the halls of Congress by eliciting support
for policies Obama rejects. And the administration is furious.
That means that although Palestinians can and should ignore Congress, the
White House and State Department are still in play. Yes, they will both go
along with Netanyahu, but, probably, without much enthusiasm.
And they can send a signal to our allies that although the United States
cannot openly oppose Bibi's policies because of Congress - and AIPAC's
control of it - the allies can. The Palestinians should not give up on Obama
or on Secretary of State Clinton either who cannot abide Netanyahu and made
sure she was out of the country to escape being present for his speech.
And so we can look forward to a unilateral declaration of statehood in
September. The Israelis who refuse to negotiate with stateless Palestinians
will have no choice but to negotiate with the state whose land it is
occupying. And those negotiations, state to state, may produce peace and the
"two states for two peoples" that most Palestinians and Israelis aspire to.
In any case, it's the only hope.
Palestinians should thank Prime Minister Netanyahu and, even more, the
United states Congress for making their choice so much easier. Together they
helped create the Palestinian state today. And that is a very good thing.
As for Americans, we should be deeply ashamed of our Congress. It has been
sold to the highest bidder.
MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action
Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part
of the Media Matters Action Network.
SIA to form long-haul low-cost subsidiary
25 May 2011
Singapore Airlines (SIA) has announced plans to establish a
no-frills, low-cost subsidiary airline for medium and long-haul routes,
which will begin operations within a year.
According to SIA, the new airline, yet to be named, will enable the carrier
“to serve a largely untapped new market and cater to the growing demand
among consumers for low-fare travel.” The carrier will be operated and
managed separately although it will be wholly owned by SIA.
Just who is the "largely untapped new market."
Goh Choon Phong, chief executive of Singapore Airlines, said: “As we have
observed on short-haul routes within Asia, low-fare airlines help stimulate
demand for travel, and we expect this will also prove true for longer
flights.”
Details of the new airline’s network and services will be revealed in due
course and it is unclear at this stage just how 'no frills' the low-cost
subsidiary will be.
Kuala Lumpur-based AirAsia X, in which Malaysian low-cost carrier AirAsia
has a 16% stake, pioneered the long-haul low-cost model in Southeast Asia
and has gradually grown since it began operations in November 2007. Its
network now includes London, Paris, Tehran, Gold Coast, Melbourne,
Christchurch, New Delhi, Mumbai, Chengdu, Tianjin, Hangzhou, Taipei, Seoul,
Tokyo and Perth.
From Singapore, Qantas associate Jetstar Asia flies Airbus A330s long-haul
to Melbourne and Auckland. It also plans to offer services to Japan and
points in Europe in the near term.
Aircraft will initially be sourced from the parent carrier, which has 20
Boeing 787-9s and 20 Airbus A350-900s on order. SIA's spokesman said that
subsequently, "all options are open on aircraft sourcing".
SIA said that there could be routes on which both the parent airline and the
new subsidiary could operate on, although this will be decided by the
management team.
SIA's regional airline SilkAir will retain its business model, he said. "SilkAir
is a network carrier while this subsidiary will have a point-to-point
model," he added. Singapore-based low-cost short-haul carrier Tiger Airways,
in which SIA has a 33% stake, will also not be affected. "We have no
interest in increasing our stake in Tiger beyond that, and it serves a
different market."
An African-American-Irish President
24 May 2011
This web site it an unashamed Obama fan.
And it all started in 1850 when Falmouth Kearney, aged just
19, made the difficult journey across the Atlantic to lay claim to land.
Looking for a better life in the U.S., he left behind a
country devastated by a famine that left a million people dead and forced
another million to emigrate.
Kearney married and became a farmer in Indiana, raising seven
children — including daughter Mary Anne, the great-grandmother of Obama's
mother Stanley Dunham.
Many former U.S. presidents have laid claim to Irish roots,
including John F. Kennedy and Ronald Regan, and of course Bill Clinton. But
Obama's Irish connections make him unique as the "first
African-American-Irish president."
I do not know who his speech writers are. Or how much is his
own work. But his words so often fit the moment so well.
"Hello Dublin, hello Ireland. My name is Barack Obama, of the
Moneygall Obama's. I've come home to find the apostrophe that we've lost
along the way," says Obama, enjoying himself.
A wag shouts from the crowd: "I've got it here!". "Is that where it is?"
says Obama, off the cuff.
Brilliant.
And later is his speech he continued:
"Earlier today Michelle and I visited Moneygall where we saw
my ancestral home and dropped by the local pub. And we received a very warm
welcome from all the people there, including my long-lost eighth cousin,
Henry. Henry now is affectionately known as Henry VIII. And it was
remarkable to see the small town where a young shoemaker named Falmouth
Kearney, my great-great-great grandfather, my grandfather's grandfather,
lived his early life. And I was the shown the records from the parish
recording his birth. And we saw the home where he lived.
And he left during the Great Hunger, as so many Irish did, to seek a new
life in the New World. He traveled by ship to New York, where he entered
himself into the records as a laborer. He married an American girl from
Ohio. They settled in the Midwest. They started a family.
It's a familiar story because it's one lived and cherished by Americans of
all backgrounds. It's integral to our national identity. It's who we are, a
nation of immigrants from all around the world.
But standing there in Moneygall, I couldn't help but think how heartbreaking
it must have been for that great-great-great grandfather of mine, and so
many others, to part. To watch Donegal coasts and Dingle cliffs recede. To
leave behind all they knew in hopes that something better lay over the
horizon.
When people like Falmouth boarded those ships, they often did so with no
family, no friends, no money, nothing to sustain their journey but faith:
faith in the Almighty; faith in the idea of America; faith that it was a
place where you could be prosperous, you could be free, you could think and
talk and worship as you pleased, a place where you could make it if you
tried.
And as they worked and struggled and sacrificed and sometimes experienced
great discrimination, to build that better life for the next generation,
they passed on that faith to their children and to their children's children
– an inheritance that their great-great-great grandchildren like me still
carry with them. We call it the America Dream.
It's the dream that Falmouth Kearney was attracted to when he went to
America. It's the dream that drew my own father to America from a small
village in Africa. It's a dream that we've carried forward, sometimes
through stormy waters, sometimes at great cost, for more than two centuries.
And for my own sake, I'm grateful they made those journeys because if they
hadn't you'd be listening to somebody else speak right now.
And for America's sake, we're grateful so many others from this land took
that chance, as well. After all, never has a nation so small inspired so
much in another.
Irish signatures are on our founding documents. Irish blood was spilled on
our battlefields. Irish sweat built our great cities. Our spirit is
eternally refreshed by Irish story and Irish song; our public life by the
humor and heart and dedication of servants with names like Kennedy and
Reagan, O'Neill and Moynihan. So you could say there's always been a little
green behind the red, white and blue.
When the father of our country, George Washington, needed an army, it was
the fierce fighting of your sons that caused the British official to lament,
"We have lost America through the Irish." And as George Washington said
himself, "When our friendless standards were first unfurled, who were the
strangers who first mustered around our staff? And when it reeled in the
light, who more brilliantly sustained it than Erin's generous sons?"
When we strove to blot out the stain of slavery and advance the rights of
man, we found common cause with your struggles against oppression. Frederick
Douglass, an escaped slave and our great abolitionist, forged an unlikely
friendship right here in Dublin with your great liberator, Daniel O'Connell.
His time here, Frederick Douglass said, defined him not as a color but as a
man. And it strengthened the non-violent campaign he would return home to
wage.
Recently, some of their descendents met here in Dublin to commemorate and
continue that friendship between Douglass and O'Connell.
When Abraham Lincoln struggled to preserve our young union, more than
100,000 Irish and Irish Americans joined the cause, with units like the
Irish Brigade charging into battle – green flags with gold harp waving
alongside our star-spangled banner.
When depression gripped America, Ireland sent tens of thousands of packages
of shamrocks to cheer up its countrymen, saying, "May the message of Erin
shamrocks bring joy to those away."
And when an Iron Curtain fell across this continent and our way of life was
challenged, it was our first Irish President, our first Catholic President,
John F Kennedy, who made us believe 50 years ago this week that mankind
could do something big and bold and ambitious as walk on the moon. He made
us dream again.
That is the story of America and Ireland. That's the tale of our brawn and
our blood, side by side, in making and remaking a nation, pulling it
westward, pulling it skyward, moving it forward again and again and again.
And that is our task again today.
Obama concluded his speech with: "Is féidir linn," being his
2008 campaign slogan "Yes we can" in Irish.
Tweetdecked
24 May 2011
Twitter has now closed the deal acquiring TweetDeck for over
$40 million in cash and stock.
The purchase has been rumoured for some time. TweetDeck is a Twitter client
that brings more advanced management to the web service than the native
client offers, and this purchase fuels speculation that Twitter is looking
to improve its offerings for power users.
Confession - I use and like Tweetdeck.
The company was founded by Iain Dodsworth in 2008 and is based in London,
Great Britain. TweetDeck has taken a total of $3.8m in funding over the last
three years, with investors like The Accelerator Group and Betaworks.
UberMedia, one of the major players in the Twitter third-party services
industry, reportedly tried to purchase TweetDeck early this year, but the
talks fell apart. Since Ev Williams left Twitter and Jack Dorsey took over
as the company’s CEO — both of them co-founders — the company has focused on
building the feature set that the majority of users have found lacking in
the company’s own web client, which lead to the mass adoption of a range of
third-party clients. TweetDeck was the most popular of them all.
EK adds Germany flights
23 May 2011
Emirates will introduce a new daily Frankfurt flight from 1
January 2012 making the city a triple daily service.
In addition from January 1, 2012 the airline's morning service to Munich
will be upgraded to an A380 departing Dubai at 0910hrs and arriving into
Munich at 1245hrs, one of two daily flights.
Emirates will be the first foreign airline to return the A380 to its home in
Germany and the first carrier to operate an A380 to Munich.
"A third daily flight to Frankfurt and the German-built A380 serving Munich
is another positive step in what is now a multi-billion US dollar
relationship between Emirates and Germany, supporting thousands of German
jobs," said Salem Obaidalla, Emirates' senior vice president, Commercial
Operations, Europe & Russian Federation.
"Meeting clear demand is of direct benefit to consumers, who want more
choice, and to the German economy. We know international air services are a
key driver of economic growth - facilitating the flow of business and cargo
and opening up new markets to German exporters and importers," Obaidalla
added.
“Frankfurt welcomes the third daily service by Emirates. This will
strengthen Frankfurt’s position as one of the leading hubs of international
aviation,” said Petra Roth, Lord Mayor of Frankfurt.
Emirates is currently the biggest buyer of the Airbus superjumbo and one of
the largest customers for the Airbus A350 aircraft. The A380 programme alone
is estimated to provide at least 40,000 direct and indirect German jobs.
Christian Ude, Lord Mayor of Munich, said: "Munich is looking forward to the
Emirates' A380. Good connections to the Middle East are an essential
catalyst for tourism from the region. And as Lord Mayor of Munich, I would
like to point out that key components of the extremely quiet A380 engine
have been developed and produced in Munich at MTU.”
But Emirates still has not been granted access to either
Berlin or Stuttgart.
Dubai pins hopes on aerotropolis vision but project on go-slow
23 May 2011 Source
Arabian Money
Gulf hub city Dubai is pinning its hopes on a bright future
as an aerotropolis by building the world’s largest airport at the recently
inaugurated Maktoum International Airport linked by a 10-kilometre corridor
to the Jebel Ali Free Zone, an economics workshop at the Dubai International
Financial Centre heard today.
Chief operating officer at Dubai World Central, the free zone surrounding
the new airport, Rashed Buqara’a said: ‘Maktoum International is already
needed right now to meet air cargo capacity requirements for Dubai and will
open for passengers in 2012.
‘Ultimately the new airport will be the biggest in the world handling 120
million passengers a year and 12 million tonnes of cargo. That compares with
47.2 million in 2010 (handled at the existing airport) and 2.27 million
tonnes of cargo.’
The author of ‘Aerotropolis: The Way We’ll Live Next’ Greg Linsay
appropriately spent 32 hours flying to get to Dubai to address the
conference, and commented: ‘Dubai already is an aerotropolis, it is not a
question of becoming one.’
An aerotropolis is a city built around an airport, though as one attendee
pointed out an ‘aerotroport’ might be more accurate for Dubai which also has
huge port facilities. However, the second airport Maktoum International
clearly adds to this dynamic.
One day the growth dynamic will run out, and Dubai aviation will grow inline
with global GDP, or by a factor of times-1.5 like global passenger demand.
But for the moment 15 per cent compound growth rates stretch long into the
planning horizons in the sector, whether for passengers, cargoes or aircraft
orders for the Dubai airline Emirates.
Emirates Airline continues to span the global with Rio de Janerio and Buenos
Aires on the schedules for next year for the first time. There are also
plans to put more planes on existing routes and to massive cities in China
whose names are very unfamilar.
The 15 A380s operated by Emirates are already very popular and flying nearly
full but the fleet will number 90 when existing orders are delivered. To go
beyond that the airline must have a new home at the $33 billion new airport
complex.
Dubai is surely the one city in the world that can make this aerotropolis
vision a reality. But the roll-out will be slower if global growth slows
again or if there is another financial crisis.
Infrastructure deals tumbled from $10 billion in 2009 to $4 billion last
year in the region owing to the global financial crisis, said IFC manager
Adil Marghub, and the Arab Uprisings will hit orders again this year.
That’s a shame because the DIFC firms would love this business. The
principle complaint by local bankers these days is boredom. And they will
not have been pleased to hear from Mr Buqara’a that Dubai Government intends
to fund the DWC project from its own resources for the time being
Recording Indicates Pilot Wasn't In Cockpit During
Critical Phase
23 May 2011
DER SPIEGEL
What happened on board the Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic en
route from Rio to Paris? According to information obtained by SPIEGEL from
the analysis of flight recorder data, pilot Marc Dubois appears not to have
been in the cockpit at the time the deadly accident started to unfold.
The fate of Air France Flight 447 was sealed in just four minutes. That
short time span began with the first warning message on one of the Airbus
A330 aircraft's monitors and ended with the plane crashing into the Atlantic
between Brazil and Africa, killing all 228 people on board.
Since last week, investigators from France's BEA civil aviation safety
bureau have been analyzing the flight data and voice recordings extracted
from the cockpit of the Air France flight that crashed on June 1, 2009 while
traveling from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. What they have learned from the
recordings seems to suggest both technical and human failure.
Sources close to the investigative team have revealed that the recordings
indicate that Marc Dubois, the aircraft's 58-year-old pilot, was not in the
cockpit at the time the trouble began. It is reportedly audible that Dubois
rushed back into the cockpit. "He called instructions to the two co-pilots
on how to save the aircraft," the source with inside knowledge of the
investigation told SPIEGEL.
But their attempts to save the plane were ultimately in vain.
At the beginning of May, underwater robots were able to retrieve the flight
recorders from the wreckage almost four kilometers (2.5 miles) below the
surface of the Sargasso Sea. Two weekends ago, investigators succeeded in
extracting data from the black boxes. Within 24 hours, reports were
circulating suggesting that the crash seemed more likely the result of pilot
error than a manufacturing flaw by Airbus.
However, even if the captain's absence from the cockpit may support the
pilot-error theory, the data includes clues indicating that the aircraft
itself might have behaved in an odd manner. Under these circumstances,
investigators are facing a complicated case that might still have surprises
in store.
Until now, it appeared that the crew of Flight AF 447 had steered the plane
directly into a severe storm that eventually caused the speed sensors to ice
over.
But the flight path recorded by the black box reportedly shows that the crew
had been trying to find the safest possible path through the storm front.
They initially appear to have succeeded as the flight data doesn't contain
any evidence of more severe turbulence.
But the storms in the so-called Intertropical Convergence Zone are
treacherous. As if in a vast chimney, massive amounts of water are sucked up
to great heights, where they are then transformed into ice crystals which
are hard to detect on weather radars. It is precisely this type of ice trap
that the Air France plane probably flew into.
Whatever the case might be, the frozen speed sensors put the pilots in a
precarious situation: At this altitude, they would have had to maintain a
very precise speed to prevent the plane from stalling.
Pilots have dubbed this dangerous flight condition "deep stall." "If the
plane can't make a recovery, it plummets at breakneck speed," explains Jean
François Huzen, an Air France captain and union representative for pilots.
At this point, there is hardly anyone who doubts that the plane experienced
a fatal deep stall. Evidence for this can already be found in the location
of the plane's wreckage, roughly 10 kilometers from the last position the
plane transmitted via satellite.
The big question is: What triggered the stall in the first place? One
possibility is that the pilots reacted incorrectly to the speed sensors'
failure. But even if this was the case, it still wouldn't be enough to free
the plane's manufacturer or operator from all responsibility. The fact is
that, at the time of the catastrophe, the Air France pilots had been poorly
briefed about the growing number of speed-sensor failures -- and, more
importantly, about the right way to respond to them.
Even more serious are the indications that the plane itself might have
responded wrongly to the stall. "The data recorder indicates that the plane
pulled steeply upwards shortly after the speed sensors failed," says an
expert with ties to the investigative team, adding that this could have
caused the plane to stall.
Of course, it's possible that the pilot misestimated his plane's speed and
increased the engine thrust, thereby pulling up the nose. But it's also
possible that onboard flight computers were responsible for the maneuver.
The computers are designed to take control whenever the plane's computer
deems it is in a threatening situation. A team of aerospace researchers
observed similar behavior in a flight simulator a few months ago.
While investigations are still ongoing, Airbus refuses to comment on the
plane's flight characteristics. But, last Monday, just moments after the
last bits of data were downloaded from the flight recorder, the company sent
out an "accident information telex" to all the airlines whose fleets include
some of the nearly 800 A330s currently in service.
The announcement's reassuring message was that investigators had still not
been able to pinpoint any clues pointing toward a technical failure. What's
more, that same evening, a report appeared on the website of the French
daily Le Figaro claiming that investigators did not believe Airbus was to
blame for the crash.
But at this early stage in investigations, no one was in a position to make
such far-reaching statements, sparking suspicions that they were part of a
targeted information leak designed to boost faith in the manufacturer.
Certainly both Airbus and Air France have a pressing interest in deflecting
responsibility for the accident away from themselves. French prosecutors are
investigating whether to charge both companies with negligent manslaughter.
Meanwhile, the size of compensation payouts for the families left behind by
the victims will ultimately be determined by the extent of blame attributed
to each party.
In the meantime, the two companies have completely different views about
when the investigation's final report should be made public. Airbus would
prefer to see the unpleasant matter resolved as soon as possible. In fact,
the best thing for it would be to have it appear before the Paris Air Show
2011 opens on June 20 in Le Bourget. The show is expected to see many
purchasing contracts signed. As William Voss, president of the
Virginia-based Flight Safety Foundation, says: "No company wants to have
this kind of unexplained crash on its books."
Meanwhile, it will soon be decided whether Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, the CEO of
Air France-KLM, will have his contract extended. When the company held a
press conference to announce its annual report in Paris last week, Gourgeon
was asked whether he thought the investigators' report might complicate his
reappointment.
The trained fighter pilot sidestepped the sensitive matter saying: "I don't
really like the word 'responsibility' so much."
Translated from the German by Josh Ward
17 reds summoned to hear charges
23 May 2011
This is all too predictable in the run up to the Thai
elections. The use of lese majeste charges by the authorities will backfire.
It does not deter the opposition; it simply creates a greater sense of
injustice.
What is especially worrying is that lese majeste accusations
are not made by the person who is alleged to have been offended. They are
made by people who think that the person who is alleged to have been
offended has in fact been offended. Very bizarre.
Now the Department of Special Investigation has sent summonses to 17 core
members of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) to
appear to hear lese majeste charges against them on June 2, DSI chief Tharit
Pengdit said on Monday.
The election is on 3 July.
Altogether 19 core UDD members are accused of lese majeste in their speeches
at a UDD rally on April 10 at the Democracy Monument in violation of
Articles 83, 86, 112 and 116 of the Criminal Code.
They are Jatuporn Prompan, Weng Tojirakarn, Natthawut Saikua, Korkaew
Pikulthong, Thida Thavornseth, Karun Hosakul, Yossawaris Chuklom or Jeng
Dokchik, Wiphuthalaeng Pattanaphumthai, Veerakarn Musikhapong, Chinawat
Haboonphat, Wichian Khaokham, Suporn Atthawong, Kwanchai Sarakham, Nisit
Sinthuprai, Prasit Chaisrisa, Worawut Wichaidit, Ladawal Wongsriwong,
Somchai or Pipatchai Paiboon, and Payap Panket.
Of the 19, Mr Jatuporn and Mr Nisit are currently detained in the Bangkok
Remand Prison on terrorism charges after their bail was revoked.
Mr Tharit said DSI investigators would go to the prison and inform Mr
Jatuporn and Mr Nisit of the lese majeste charges.
As for the other 17, the DSI had sent the summonses to their residences by
mail and through their lawyers.
Just out of curiosity; how are the charges against the yellow
shirted PAD protestors who closed Bangkok's airports for 8 days in 2008
progressing. Oh yes, not quickly!
One rule for some; and another rule for others?
Flydubai's Indian expansion
20 May 2011
Flydubai, Dubai’s state-owned low cost airline, has announced
its second destination in India, Hyderabad.
Flights to Hyderabad will operate three times per week and will start on
June 11, opening up a route to Southern India in time for the Summer holiday
season.
With just three flights a week this wont put much of a dent
in Emirates numbers.
Flydubai CEO, Ghaith Al Ghaith, said: “We are delighted to announce
Hyderabad as our latest destination. There is a huge Indian community in the
UAE and one of the reasons flydubai was established was to provide low cost,
quality links to places the expat community in the UAE wish to travel to.
“Hyderabad is an important new route for flydubai and goes a long way in our
efforts to fulfil that commitment. While our Lucknow route provides a
gateway to North and Central India, our Hyderabad route will be a low-cost
connection to South India, benefiting not only the Indian expat population
in the UAE but also bringing increased tourism and business opportunities to
this historic city.”
A one-way fare to Hyderabad from Dubai starts at AED 585, and includes one
piece of hand luggage weighing up to 7kg and one small laptop bag or hand
bag.
Fares from Hyderabad to Dubai are priced from AED 760.
Checked baggage starts at AED 50 for 20kg. A seat with extra legroom costs
AED100.
Poor, confused Thai Airways
20 May 2011
Thailand's national flag carrier Thai Airways International
has said that it will launch its own low-cost airline in April next year,
according to THAI board of director's chairman Ampon Kittiampon.
Now this must really annoy Tiger Airways with who Thai has
already announced a Thailand joint venture to serve domestic and regional
routes using A320s and the Tiger Airways business model and resources.
Thai Airways already holds 37% (I think) of Nok Airways which
it set up as its own LCC some years ago contributing aircraft and crew.
Yet the board of Thai Airways still intend to set up a new
regional budget airline to serve domestic and regional routes. I suspect
that Thai Tiger may never fly. Thai has been struggling for months to obtain
approval from the Ministry of Transport for its plan to invest 99.8 million
baht ($3.3 million) in the ThaiTiger joint venture.
Thai Airways said that the new airline will be set up as a new business unit
under Thai Airways adding that they could proceed right away without any
need to seek approval from the Ministry of Transport. I suspect this is not
true - they still need an operator's license.
The budget airline, which will operate on routes with a flying radius of two
to three hours, is expected to commence operation around March or April next
year.
The planned budget carrier is expected to start with seven aircraft, five of
which will be leased from Thai Airways' existing (rather old) Boeing 737s
that currently serve domestic routes, while the other two will be leased
from external sources. The fleet of the new unit is targeted to expand to 11
narrow-body planes within three years, he said.
What this means is that there will be five less Thai Airways
planes flying domestic routes. So this will mean handing over existing
services to the new airline with lower operating costs. It does not mean new
capacity and is unlikely to benefit Thai consumers.
In a bid to keep operating costs at competitive level, staff
at the new unit, including pilots and cabin crews, will be outsourced while
management will also be separated from Thai Airways.
Air tickets of the new unit will be offered solely online while all seats
will be economy class. However the airline may include a marginal portion of
special seats for clients who are willing to pay more, he said.
The chairman of Thai Airways said that the new carrier is projected to
generate profit within the first year of operations, assuming it achieves
70%-80% cabin factor. This will presumably be helped by Thai withdrawing
flights from domestic routes.
Separately, the board also agreed to extend by two months the agreement with
Tiger Airways to set up the joint venture Thai Tiger that is due to expire
at the end of this month.
The new airline has not yet been given a name. "Thai Silk", "Thai Wings" and
"Thai Fly" were initially offered for selection by the public and THAI
staff.
A year has gone by without any answers
20 May 2011 The Bangkok Post
Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the May 19, 2010
crackdown on the red-shirted protesters by the military.
Thailand on fire: On learning of the military crackdown on the UDD rally at
Ratchaprasong in Bangkok, red shirt demonstrators in northeast Ubon
Ratchathani province broke into the compound of the provincial hall and
burned the building on May 20, 2010.
Yesterday also was the first day for submissions of the party list
candidates, kicking off the campaigning for the July 3 general election.
It's quite sad if one remembers that all the red shirts were asking for last
year was for the dissolution of the lower house and a call for new
elections.
Now, after 91 dead and thousands injured, and a year later, the questions
which remain unanswered are: why did those people need to die or get hurt,
and who should take responsibility for the deaths and injuries?
Some may say let bygones be bygones, for the sake of national unity, let's
forgive and forget. For the sake of economic progress, political conflict
must be minimised _ and after all, the election will determine the people's
wishes. Let us now bring Thailand back on track, rebuild and repaint the
buildings and we all go merrily shopping again!
But if we Thais do that, then what values are we upholding? Do we not have a
conscience at all?
At the very least, as human beings and as Thais, 91 deaths in the middle of
the capital right around the commercial shopping district must mean
something. Or is the saying rao pen kon Thai muenkan (we are all Thais) just
empty words? And I do not agree with those who bow to the notion that "this
is the way it is" or "this is karma" or "this is what the powers-that-be
want and thus we are helpless". I believe we all have the right to know the
truth no matter how painful. And only with the truth as the base for
reconciliation and rebuilding, will the future of this country be more
secure for everyone _ rich, poor, the nobles and commoners, amataya or prai.
It is a shame that the present government did not put any real effort into
finding the truth. Words have been cheap with no action to follow. The
government-appointed Truth for Reconciliation Commission had no real powers.
The commissioners spent time talking to a lot of people on all sides but not
a single report was written up, let alone publicised.
The only substantial study had to come from the New York-based Human Rights
Watch, with a 156-page report titled "Descent into Chaos, Thailand's 2010
Red Shirts Protests and the Government Crackdown". Both sides remain
accountable, the report concludes:
"Based on investigations conducted in Bangkok and in Thailand's central and
northeastern regions from June 2010 to April 2011, this report provides the
first full account of the violence and the reasons behind it. The high death
toll and injuries resulted from excessive and unnecessary lethal force on
the part of security forces, including firing of live ammunition at
protesters, sometimes by snipers. Soldiers fatally shot at least four
people, including a medic treating the wounded, in or near a temple in
Bangkok, on May 19, despite army claims to the contrary.
"The extensive casualties also resulted from deliberate attacks by militant
armed elements of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, whose
leaders contributed to the violence with inflammatory speeches to
demonstrators, including urging their supporters to carry out rioting, arson
attacks and looting. The heavily armed "black shirt" militants, apparently
connected to the UDD and operating in tandem with it, were responsible for
deadly attacks on soldiers, police and civilians."
A while back the Department of Special Investigation, under pressure to
produce some results on the investigations, held a press conference where it
came up with the lame conclusion that about 11-12 deaths were caused by the
red shirts and another 11-12 died as a result of government officers'
actions. That was it. Nothing else.
Nothing was reported on the causes of the deaths of Col Romklao Thuwatham
(who ran government military operations and was killed on April 10) and Maj
Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol, the red shirts' head of security who was shot dead
by a sniper while he was being interviewed by foreign journalists on May 13,
2010.
Fabio Polenghi, an Italian freelance journalist, also died without cause
and, despite tremendous pressure from the Japanese government for an answer,
Reuters reporter Hiro Muramoto's death also has not been properly explained.
Why are there no official investigative reports? What are the steps in the
judicial process to bring justice to the wrongdoers, whatever the colour of
the shirts they wear?
The public has a right to know. First and most important, the loved ones of
the dead and injured are entitled to an answer. The families and friends of
the 91 dead, the 12 soldiers included, should not be left in the pain of not
knowing what happened and why; and to live in agony that justice has not
been served.
Second, as a society we cannot let the feeling of animosity hang over our
heads. Our conscience must be cleared to enable reconciliation and the
rebuilding of trust in order to live together in a society and to move ahead
as one nation. Truth is the bitter medicine that cures the woes.
Third, it is essential that such truth be based upon proven facts and not
generalities. It is easy to say "the red shirts burnt down the city" or "the
soldiers shot people in the crowds". But such broad perceptions usually turn
into political rhetoric that fuels confrontation and conflict.
Therefore, each cause of death must be explained with proper forensics and
witnesses through an impartial investigation. Of course, not everything
would be cleared to the last detail, but an all-out effort must be made to
do so.
Fourth, the law must be enforced. Excessive and unnecessary force, either
ordered or used, by the politicians, military and police commanders in
charge, must be held accountable. Mistakes on the field, friendly fire, or
abuses by troops must be punished. Amnesty for government officers provided
by the Emergency Decree must be waived. Any illegal paramilitary force must
be caught and disbanded. Red-shirt rioters and those involved in arson,
robbery and theft must be sent to jail. But all must go through a fair and
transparent judicial process.
Lastly, once the rule of law is upheld, mechanisms must be put in place to
prevent future abuses and to provide avenues for conflict resolution.
Democracy will be strengthened through institution building that enhances
freedom, fairness and equality. Mob rule and the use of military force to
resolve political conflicts cause damage and wounds that are hard to heal.
The election of July 3 will move the country forward. But it could turn us
back to another vicious cycle of conflict if lessons of the past are not
learnt and the truth is not told.
A year on, mystery shrouds Thailand's deadly unrest
20 May 2011 Reuters Bangkok
"A 30-metre (98-ft) corrugated iron wall masks the remnants
of a mysterious arson attack a year ago on Southeast Asia's second-biggest
shopping mall, a reminder of Thailand's struggle to tame a crisis many fear
could turn violent again during elections.
Despite an official investigation, it remains unclear who started the
massive fire on May 19, 2010, a day when the military used force to break up
an encampment next to the shopping plaza where tens of thousands of
red-shirted protesters had called for fresh elections.
It is one of many unanswered questions following clashes between protesters
and troops from April 10 to May 19 last year that killed 91 people, wounded
more than 1,800 and reduced one of Asia's most dynamic cities to scenes of
chaotic street fighting, smouldering fires and 9 p.m. night curfews.
Around 7,000 red shirts rallied on Thursday near the site of the crackdown,
waving flags and holding placards calling for justice for those killed.
The burning of Thailand's busiest shopping plaza was seen by Bangkok's
middle classes as a desperate act of sabotage by an unruly mob hired by an
exiled former premier seeking to wrestle back power.
While the government blames the red shirts for the attack on Central World,
the sophistication of the destruction and photographs showing armed men in
the building before the fire have raised questions of whether the
military-backed government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva had a hand in
the arson.
"If the red shirts set the fire, it would have been much smaller, since they
didn't have the tools or the expertise," Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted
former prime minister and red shirts' figurehead, told the Post Today
newspaper this week.
His sister, Yingluck, leads the opposition in an election scheduled for July
3.
As Thailand braces for elections, investigations into the fire and the 91
deaths have made little headway, offering political ammunition to the
opposition Puea Thai Party whose support appears to be gathering momentum.
With rivalry fierce between Thailand's political camps, many fear the
election results will be contested, or powerful forces might seek to
manipulate the formation of a new government, which is widely expected to be
a coalition.
The biggest risk, analysts say, is that perceived injustices could ignite
another round of instability in Southeast Asia's second-biggest economy, one
of the region's most attractive destinations for foreign tourists and
investors.
Police probes and a state investigation into the violence are largely
inconclusive and tainted by allegations of political interference, while
fact-finding panels have failed to unearth what exactly happened.
The shopping plaza, one of 39 buildings set on fire on May 19, 2010 after
the military clashed with protesters, was a perfect target for
disenfranchised red shirts disdainful of Thailand's moneyed, politically
powerful elite.
After the fire that gutted the mall's 'Zen' department store, blame
immediately fell on the red shirts. But conspiracy theories abound over the
motives and identity of the arsonists.
Authorities said calls by protest leaders to "burn" Bangkok prove their
guilt, and the black outfits worn by the arsonists caught on camera were
consistent with shadowy gunmen allied with the red shirts.
But the opposition and its red shirt allies say the arson was planned by the
military and its establishment allies to discredit protesters and win
support in Bangkok.
Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer for Thaksin, submitted a petition on January 31
to the International Criminal Court in the Hague accusing the Thai
government and military of crimes against humanity during the April-May 2010
suppression of the protests.
A document produced by Amsterdam & Peroff LLP as part of the petition quotes
an "Anonymous Witness No. 22" -- a statement compiled from what the law firm
says is the testimony of several military officers -- as saying "a team of
arsonists contracted by the army" planted "incendiary devices inside Central
World."
"The operation was planned by the army leadership, with the consent and
approval of the government leadership, several weeks in advance of May 19,"
it said.
The Thai government denied the allegation.
Internet web boards have also posted images showing the saboteurs'
military-issue boots and their use of walkie-talkies similar to those used
by the army. The fact that the mall was set on fire long after the military
had seized control of the protest site has not been explained.
A study published this month by New York-based Human Rights Watch blames
both sides for last year's violence, criticising the military for "excessive
and unnecessary lethal force" and the red shirts for calls to riot and
harbouring black-clad militants who fought the army.
"There's some legal movement against demonstrators but no honest self
examination or holding to account by the authorities and officials
involved," said Benjamin Zawacki, a researcher at London-based Amnesty
International. "So far, none of the root causes have been addressed."
An estimated 800 demonstrators were detained under emergency laws and more
than 130 are still held, unable to afford bail averaging 500,000 baht. To
date, 22 have been convicted of offences while no state officials have faced
charges, according to the Truth and Reconciliation Committee investigating
the unrest.
Goodluck Yingluck - she will need it
20 May 2011
Nigeria has a President called Goodluck Jonathan. Will
Thailand have a Prime Minister called Yingluck. If only she was not a
Shinawatra.
Pheua Thai’s nomination of Yingluck Shinawatra as their
candidate for Prime Minister gives Thailand the electoral contest it had to
have. It’s not quite Abhisit versus Thaksin, but it’s as close as Thailand
can get to a historical confrontation that has been ten years in the making.
She has the looks, the right education, the right family
name. And a certain brother. Does she have her own mind? Will she make her
own decisions?
Last week her brother described her as a clone. That did not help her at
all.
Ms Yingluck needs to be her own woman; for the good of all the women in
Thailand. She really does not need and should not want to be simply
Thaksin's surrogate. Just maybe she can help evolve Thailand from its
deeply patriarchal society.
As for Abhisit versus the Shinawatras -the big difference is that Abhisit
has never won an election. So far he has been beaten three times by Thaksin
or Thaksin backed parties.
Thaksin Shinawatra has dominated Thai politics for a decade. Electorally he
is the most popular politician Thailand has produced. Given all that has
passed since, it is easy to forget the central reality of recent Thai
politics: Thaksin was a thrice-elected Prime Minister who was forcibly
deposed by an illegal military coup. For a great many in Thailand his
electoral legitimacy remains intact.
The Democrats are terrified of another contest with Thaksin. Together with
their allies in the army, the judiciary and the palace, they have done
everything they can to neuter his power. The coup was just the beginning. It
was followed by the dissolution of two opposition parties, the banning of
scores of Thaksin’s political colleagues, the imposition of a new
constitution that can be used to sabotage electoral decisions, the
conviction of Thaksin for one of his more trivial infractions, and the
seizure of Thaksin’s assets as punishment for his success in contributing to
a buoyant stock market.
Yet it is still an uphill battle for the Democrats, despite
the backing they have received from the military and the establisment. Even
in the 2007 election, a year after the coup, the Democrats under Abhisit
fared well in the party list vote, but were soundly beaten in the
constituencies.
In political terms, Yingluck is Thaksin in a frock. We know
so little else about her. She is married; one child. She has CEO experience
but of a family business.
If Abhisit cannot win now then he never will. The odds have all been stacked
in his favour. It is not a level playing field.
If Yingluck wins, we’re back to 2005, except with political divisions
hardened and a symbolic power vacuum opening up as Thailand contemplates the
not-too-distant coronation of an unpopular king.
A Shinawatra victory would set the scene for very interesting
times indeed.
Will the Thai election change anything
20 May 2011
Some notes from South East Asia's regional media: and most of
it is pretty negative:
Jakarta Globe founding editor A. Lin Neumann in an op-ed for
the Jakarta Globe entitled “Thailand’s Elections Won’t Solve Crisis”.
"But ask nearly anyone in Thailand if they expect the elections to go well
and the scenarios that come back are almost universally bad.
“Things in Thailand are such a mess that it is now finally as bad as the
Philippines,” said a foreign businessman friend of mine who has been in
Thailand for more than 40 years. “It can only end badly unless the Democrats
win a majority — and even that is bad because this government is so
ineffective.”
The well-connected businessman shares a common view that Abhisit owes his
tenuous hold on power to the military and the royalist elite and that those
factions are unlikely to allow a victory by the opposition Pheu Thai party,
the latest vehicle for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s ambition
of returning from exile on the back of the Red Shirts to reclaim the seat
that was taken from him by a coup in 2006.
“If the military calls off the election because they think Thaksin will win,
it will be chaos,” the man said. “If Pheu Thai win and they are denied the
right to form a government, it will be chaos. If there is a shaky coalition
government, it will be a mess.”
Reuters:
“Results will be hard to predict this time,” said Siripan Noksuan, a
political scientist at Chulalongkorn University.
“Most surveys are predicting close polls and the lack of a clear decisive
win is making everybody uneasy. The end of the crisis is difficult to
foresee.“
Reuters:
“It’s a zero-sum game and this election will only heighten the level of
confrontation and polarisation,” said Somjai Phagaphasvivat, a professor of
politics and economics at Bangkok’s Thammasat University.
“Thaksin has promised he will return and his enemies are afraid he will want
revenge. They will try to stop him and although the situation will be
contained for now, after the election, another face-off is inevitable.”
VOA:
Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and
International Studies at Bangkok’s Chulalongkorn University, says Thaksin’s
opponents have shown they are willing to go to great lengths to prevent his
supporters from again holding power.
“The anti-Thaksin side, the establishment, they have tried to do all kinds
of things to prevent this outcome, including a military coup, writing a new
constitution, dissolving Thaksin’s parties, banning the politicians of those
parties, brokering the Abhisit government in the barracks,” he said. “And,
Abhisit government after two years in power still cannot win the hearts and
minds.”
AFP:
A year later, as Thailand gears up for national polls on July 3, the country
of 65 million people remains deeply divided by the bloodshed.
“It is clear that both sides still have very raw feelings about what
happened last year… The campaign period is going to exacerbate this
problem,” said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch (HRW),
earlier this month.
Christian Science Monitor:
Gothom Arya, a former election commissioner who helped draw up the code of
conduct, said that tensions could rise after the campaign is over. “We have
a possibility, perhaps in the post-election period, of a renewal of
confrontation in the streets, as we’ve seen off and on for the past five
years,” he says.
The Bangkok Post:
Thailand is likely to face further political turmoil from ”outside
parliament” movements no matter which party _ the Democrats or Pheu Thai _
forms the next government, Thammasat University rector Somkid Lertpaitoon
warned yesterday.
Mr Somkid said that despite the promises they are now making to woo voters
in what he believed would be a heated election, no party would be able to
put a permanent end to the long-running political conflict, even with a full
mandate after the vote.
Notes from Hong Kong
17 May 2011
Visitors to Macau stay on average for just 1.5 days. This
does not stop new hotels from opening there all the time.
The HKG education bureau has announced that it will introduce
compulsory patriotism classes in primary schools. The plan is to enhance
national harmony, identity and unity. Oh dear !
The minimum taxi fare has shot up to HK$20. Tram fares are
also due to rise for the first time in 13 years - increasing to HKG$2.30
from HK$2.
Hong Kong' HK magazine says that KFC egg tarts are the best
in town - five stars - just ahead of Lord Stow's bakery and the Macau
restaurant chain.
Ah - those sensitive Singaporeans:
There is a letter in Saturday's SCMP from the Singapore
consult general to HKG - he complains about an article that "highlights
Singapore's ranking in Reporter's without Borders Press Freedom Index
(whose) poll is based purely on the personal opinions of a random sample of
respondents in each country, with no logical basis for comparisons of
scores....the organisation's survey methodology us clearly questionable."
Yeah, yeah - of course. See that's what you get after you have brain-washed
people.
The US aircraft carrier that buried bin Laden should be in
HKG harbour today - moored in the Lamma channel.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn - head of the IMF - and as of
yesterday disgraced with 7 charges including rape and assault - of a maid in
his New York hotel. He denies all charges and has hired a NYC heavy hitting
lawyer.
And just what was a French socialist doing in a US$3,000 a
night room.
Thailand's most wanted
15 May 2011
In one of the stranger Thai election stories the Royal
Thai Police yesterday issued the list of gunmen they believe are most likely
to cause trouble ahead of the July 3 election.
The 112 include 43 hitmen whose names are new to the list, as well as those
from previous years who have yet to be caught. The list was issued as part
of measures to curb political violence ahead of the election.
But why issue the list just before the election.
Or does the list suddenly change from "for hire" to "wanted"
now an election has been called?
The list has been distributed across the country to crack down on the gunmen
and ensure influential people do not support or protect them.
Police have blacklisted 112 professional hitmen across the country.
They also have details of another 126 new hitmen who have just joined the
criminal underworld.
Police have also blacklisted people suspected of supporting these hitmen,
Pol Gen Panupong said.
The lists have been distributed to police across the country. The lists of
the wanted hitmen can be seen at gunman.police.go.th.
Why no outcry over these torturing tyrants?
Saturday, 14 May 2011
The Independent - Robert Fisk
Christopher Hill, a former US secretary of state for east Asia who was
ambassador to Iraq – and usually a very obedient and un-eloquent American
diplomat – wrote the other day that "the notion that a dictator can claim
the sovereign right to abuse his people has become unacceptable".
Unless, of course – and Mr Hill did not mention this – you happen to live in
Bahrain. On this tiny island, a Sunni monarchy, the al-Khalifas, rule a
majority Shia population and have responded to democratic protests with
death sentences, mass arrests, the imprisonment of doctors for letting
patients die after protests and an "invitation" to Saudi forces to enter the
country. They have also destroyed dozens of Shia mosques with all the
thoroughness of a 9/11 pilot. But then, let's remember that most of the 9/11
killers were indeed Saudis.
And what do we get for it? Silence. Silence in the US media, largely silence
in the European press, silence from our own beloved CamerClegg and of course
from the White House. And – shame of shame – silence from the Arabs who know
where their bread is buttered. That means, of course, also silence from al-Jazeera.
I often appear on their otherwise excellent Arabic and English editions, but
their failure to mention Bahrain is shameful, a dollop of shit in the
dignity that they have brought to reporting in the Middle East. The Emir of
Qatar – I know him and like him very much – does not need to belittle his
television empire in this way.
CamerClegg is silent, of course, because Bahrain is one of our "friends" in
the Gulf, an eager arms buyer, home to thousands of Brit expatriates who –
during the mini-revolution by Bahrain's Shia – spent their time writing
vicious letters to the local pro-Khalifa press denouncing Western
journalists. And as for the demonstrators, I recall a young Shia woman
telling me that if only the Crown Prince would come to the Pearl Roundabout
and talk with the protesters, they would carry him on their shoulders around
the square. I believed her. But he didn't come. Instead, he destroyed their
mosques and claimed the protests were an Iranian plot – which was never the
case – and destroyed the statue of the pearl at the roundabout, thus
deforming the very history of his own country.
Obama, needless to say, has his own reasons for silence. Bahrain hosts the
US Fifth Fleet and the Americans don't want to be shoved out of their happy
little port (albeit that they could up-sticks and move to the UAE or Qatar
anytime they wish) and want to defend Bahrain from mythical Iranian
aggression. So you won't find La Clinton, so keen to abuse the Assad family,
saying anything bad about the al-Khalifas. Why on earth not? Are we all in
debt to the Gulf Arabs? They are honourable people and understand when
criticism is said with good faith. But no, we are silent. Even when Bahraini
students in Britain are deprived of their grants because they protested
outside their London embassy, we are silent. CamerClegg, shame on you.
Bahrain has never had a reputation as a "friend" of the West, albeit that is
how it likes to be portrayed. More than 20 years ago, anyone protesting the
royal family's dominance risked being tortured in the security police
headquarters. The head of it was a former British police Special Branch
officer whose senior torturer was a pernicious major in the Jordanian army.
When I published their names, I was rewarded with a cartoon in the
government newspaper Al-Khaleej which pictured me as a rabid dog. Rabid
dogs, of course, have to be exterminated. It was not a joke. It was a
threat.
The al-Khalifas have no problems with the opposition newspaper, Al-Wasat,
however. They arrested one of its founders, Karim Fakhrawi, on 5 April. He
died in police custody a week later. Ten days later, they arrested the
paper's columnist, Haidar Mohamed al-Naimi. He has not been seen since.
Again, silence from CamerClegg, Obama, La Clinton and the rest. The arrest
and charging of Shia Muslim doctors for letting their patients die – the
patients having been shot by the "security forces", of course – is even more
vile. I was in the hospital when these patients were brought in. The
doctors' reaction was horror mixed with fear – they had simply never seen
such close-range gunshot wounds before. Now they have been arrested, doctors
and patients taken from their hospital beds. If this was happening in
Damascus, Homs or Hama or Aleppo, the voices of CamerClegg, and Obama and La
Clinton would be ringing in our ears. But no. Silence. Four men have been
sentenced to death for killing two Bahraini policemen. It was a closed
military court. Their "confessions" were aired on television, Soviet-style.
No word from CamerClegg or Obama or La Clinton.
What is this nonsense? Well, I will tell you. It has nothing to do with the
Bahrainis or the al-Khalifas. It is all about our fear of Saudi Arabia.
Which also means it is about oil. It is about our absolute refusal to
remember that 9/11 was committed largely by Saudis. It is about our refusal
to remember that Saudi Arabia supported the Taliban, that Bin Laden was a
Saudi, that the most cruel version of Islam comes from Saudi Arabia, the
land of head-choppers and hand-cutters. It is about a conversation I had
with a Bahraini official – a good and decent and honest man – in which I
asked him why the Bahraini prime minister could not be elected by a majority
Shia population. "The Saudis would never permit it," he said. Yes, our other
friends. The Saudis.
More fiction from Dubai Properties
13 May 2011
Sadly I will not believe anything that I hear or read about
Dubai Properties but the local media is happily telling us that the section
of Business Bay facing the Sheikh Zayed Road (SZR), will get a facelift by
the year-end.
Apparently Dubai Properties Group, the master developer of the multi-billion
dollar central business district, has agreed with the government of Dubai to
inject “hundreds of millions” of dirhams to clean up the area, complete the
roads, and beautify the portion in the first phase, company CEO has
revealed.
“Massive construction is going on the portion facing the Sheikh Zayed Road
side. We have already agreed with the government to invest and develop that
area first - the stretch that begins from DIFC. The problem of entrance,
service road, etc will be fixed. This part will be completely different by
year end,” Khalid Al Malik, CEO, DPG, told Emirates 24|7.
“And then we go on the other side if BB… we are already in
progress with regards to the sub stations and cleaning up of the area,” he
added.
Al Malik admitted they were getting tougher with developers, not adhering to
the rules and regulations of the master developer, who would face stiff
penalties if they left their work sites uncleaned.
How about Dubai Properties actually finishing the development
before demanding that owners take possession. How about finishing apartments
to a standard that is suitable to live in.
“A lot of projects have stopped… lot of contractor sites are completely in
disorder and this is unacceptable. It is their responsibility as developer
or contractors assigned by these developers to clean up their sites. Of
course, then I am obliged to put tough rules to clean up their mess.”
It might help if Dubai Properties paid its contractors on a
timely basis in the first place. Dubai Properties owns the facility manager
for Executive Towers, Dubai Asst Management, and also the only maintenance
contractor allowed onsite - Idama. Just a small conflict of interest.
Thinking the unthinkable on Europe's debt crisis
12 May 2011 - Reuters analysis
There is a solution to Europe's debt crisis. It's called
proper fiscal and political union. The only problem is Germany, France,
Austria, Finland, the Netherlands and quite a few others would never accept
it.
For well over a year, Europe's leaders have been coming up with bold,
multi-billion-euro measures to try to put a stop to the debt rot eating away
at Greece, Ireland and Portugal, and which could soon affect other member
states such as Spain.
The net result, especially when looked at through the eyes of the financial
markets, is no improvement. Greece and the others are no closer to resolving
their problems, and the likelihood of a debt default or restructuring has
only risen.
For their next move, euro zone leaders are expected to decide to extend the
maturities on 110 billion euros of loans already granted to Greece, could
lower the interest rate, and may come up with a further package of support.
The terms of Ireland's bailout could also soon be altered, and if Portugal
finds itself unable to make progress on fiscal reforms, its package could be
tinkered with in time too.
From the markets' point of view, the situation is unsustainable. The debts
of Greece, Ireland and Portugal just keep rising as a proportion of GDP, and
there is little prospect of them financing themselves in the markets for
years to come.
As a result, the euro zone will have to keep providing them with emergency
loans to tide them over -- effectively lending them more money to try to
overcome their bad debts -- or the debts will have to be restructured, with
potentially deep repercussions for Europe's banking system and wider
economy.
"There's no one silver bullet. There's no one optimal solution," said Janis
Emmanouilidis, a senior policy analyst at the European Policy Center who
studies the crisis.
"Policymakers are having to decide between multiple, unpleasant, sub-optimal
solutions."
The likelihood, given the immense political constraints on taking more
radical, far-reaching solutions, is that the euro zone will stick to its
current course of action and do whatever it can to avoid the prospect of a
debt restructuring or default.
But one potential solution -- and something economic historians say the euro
zone will have to move toward in the decades to come if it is to be a strong
and enduring single currency union -- is fuller political and fiscal
integration.
The alternative could be countries dropping out of the euro zone, as reports
last week suggested Greece was considering.
From the start, since the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community
in 1958, the body which ultimately morphed into the European Union, the
European project has been about avoiding conflict, sharing risk and moving
toward closer cooperation.
When the euro was introduced for 11 EU countries in 2002, it was a logical
next step in a now more than 50-year process of economic integration. With
17 of the EU's 27 states now in the euro, the single currency is one of the
region's greatest achievements.
But despite its successes, the euro has not brought with it the depth of
macroeconomic and fiscal coordination that some of its early architects
envisaged.
Greece's economy is hardly comparable to Germany's; Portugal's bears little
resemblance to Finland's. In those differences, and the debt and deficit
imbalances they have wrought, lies the seat of the sovereign debt crisis.
If there were tighter political and fiscal integration, with the euro zone
one unified economy, the argument goes, it would be in a much better
position to weather its current distress.
Average euro zone debt as a proportion of GDP is just over 80 percent, a
much more manageable level than Greece's, at near 150 percent or Ireland's,
which is above 120 percent.
If the euro zone issued bonds collectively -- an idea that has been
proposed, dismissed out of hand by Germany and others, but which has not
entirely gone away -- then markets would still be buying the debt, not
driving yields higher, traders say.
In an analysis last month, comparing the euro zone crisis to similar
problems in the U.S. banking system in the 19th century, Adalbert Winkler, a
professor of finance at Franfurt's School of Finance and Management,
concluded:
"A substantially more comprehensive economic union might be needed to
stabilize the euro area... Already in 1990 the Bundesbank argued that a
political union might be a prerequisite for the smooth functioning of
European monetary union."
The problem -- as economists, EU policymakers and market participants know
-- is that it is politically near-impossible.
Not only would it mean surrendering sovereignty -- few issues are more
sovereign than collecting taxes and running and financing a budget -- but it
would be the bailout to end all bailouts: wealthy central and northern
European countries such as Germany and the Netherlands quite literally
assume the collective debts and risks of the likes of Portugal and Greece.
"It would mean denouncing your own country and there is way too much
nationalism at this point for that idea to get anywhere close to reality,"
said Mark Grant, managing director of structured debt at Southwest
Securities in Florida.
"To provide aid on a case-by-case basis is one thing. To turn your
sovereignty over to Brussels is quite another."
It would also mean that those countries "rescued" in the euro zone safety
net would face no incentive to overhaul their economies to make themselves
more competitive and grow. They would be more likely to go on as they have
done, knowing they are protected under the euro zone banner.
That is the very reason Germany, Finland and others are adamant that strong
"conditionality" is attached to the bailout loans to Greece, Ireland and
Portugal.
Yet even if the whole idea of deeper fiscal and political union is
unthinkable for a decade or more, the long-term trend for the euro zone
points in that direction. As Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates said
this week:
"The European project faces a challenge, and this challenge has to be
answered by deepening the European project...The common currency is defended
by deepening economic integration. It's best if we all work together."
Fixing an election?
12 May 2011
With the Thai election due on 3 July the odds are heavily
stacked against the Puea Thai opposition. Yet remarkably the party is still
seen as a threat to the current army backed democrat led coalition.
Puea Thai desperatly lacks leadership. Indeed it is so
lacking in leadership that it is still led and financed by deposed and self
exiled ex prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Now the courts have revoked bail for two more red shirt
leaders. If they lock up enough of the opposition, maybe the government can
actually win comfortably.
Red Shirt leaders Jatuporn Promphan and Nisit Sinthuprai are
now in prison after their bail was revoked on the basis of speeches made by
the two incumbent members of parliament during the commemoration of the
April 10 massacre.
Earlier this week the campaign also saw its first real
violence with an apparent assassination attempt against Puea Thai member of
parliament, Pracha Prasopdee, who narrowly survived a drive-by shooting.
The historian Somsak Jeamteerasakul has been absurdly charged
with LM, this time with the complaint originating from the Army – which is
quite unprecedented.
Mr Abhisit meanwhile has said all parties running in the race
should play by the rules to ensure free and fair elections.
Seven other UDD leaders are charged with sedition in
connection with the violent protests of the red shirts in April-May last
year.
In locking up Jatuporn and Nisit the criminal court said
their April 10 speeches could lead to chaos in the country and were in
breach of the bail conditions. The court the withdrawal of the bail for them
both. The petition against the seven others was dropped and their bail
continues.
Even as the campaign is beginning the army has made it clear
to the public how they would like them to vote, by publicly denouncing key
red shirt leaders linked to Puea Thai and filing lese majeste complaints
against them.
How this equates to Abhisit's call for free and fair
elections is a bit of a mystery.
Meanwhile the
Council for Foreign Relations has noted that "the trend of summons and
arrests has grown from concerning to outright catastrophic for Thailand’s
open discourse, which is one reason why the country has plummeted on global
rankings of press and Internet freedom."
Just a short historical reminder; Thaksin was removed in 2006 by a military
coup; in May 2007 Thailand's Thai Rak Thai party was dissolved and its
leaders, including ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, banned from
politics after a tribunal found them guilty of electoral fraud.
Yet in the 2007 elections the People Power Party claimed 68
seats more than the Democrats and formed two governments, under Samak
Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat. Samak was removed because he hosted a
popular cooking show. Court rulings wiped out these two Thaksin Shinawatra
backed governments.
Many
of Puea Thai's most skilled politicians remain banned from politics.
Now factor in more than a year of sweeping Internet and radio censorship.
Really Puea Thai should not be in with a chance in this
election.
A terminal four at DXB?
11 May 2011
Gulf News reports that Dubai Airports is planning to launch a Concourse 4 at
Dubai International Airport as part of its masterplan.
Now I really do not think that there has ever been a
masterplan. This is a make it up as you go along plan. The new Jebel Ali
airport is delayed; perhaps indefinately; so this is about making the best
use of available space at Dubai's existing airport.
Paul Griffiths the CEO of Dubai Airports insists that there
will be a masterplan later this year. "We are working on it at the
moment. It's a very involved process. It could take several months. We are
hoping it would be out this year," he told Gulf News.
Griffiths said the masterplan would help the group reach its
goal of 90 million passengers by 2018. Dubai International currently has two
concourses, with a third due to open in late 2012.
It is a bit more complex than that. Terminal 1 supports
Concourse 1. Terminal 3 supports concourse 2 and the extension being built
as concourse 3. Terminal 2 is the other side of the airfield and the subject
of its own extension plans.
There is not date yet set for the fourth concourse - which is
likely to be built down by the existing flower/cargo area at the north
western end of the airport. Griffiths said "once that happens, Emirates will
then take over Concourses 1, 2 and 3 at Dubai International. That's the
plan." Therefore airlines now using terminal 1/concourse 1 would move to the
new concourse and Emirates would occupy the three connected concourses.
In terms of Dubai International's capacity, which currently is 60 million
passengers, it is expected to increase to 75 million passengers by the end
of 2012 with the opening of Concourse 3.
Dubai is currently it is the fourth busiest airport in the world in terms of
international passenger traffic and fourth in international cargo, offering
connections to more than 220 destinations by more than 150 airlines.
The GCC's strange expansion
11 May 2011
Just weird. The Middle east has been in turmoil all year. The
reaction of the GCC nations appears to be that they should form a union of
Arabic monarchies. Think of it like circling the wagons in the old westerns
as a defensive measure against Indian attack; a tactic that was almost
always doomed to failure.
The six Gulf monarchies responded yesterday to Arab uprisings
by agreeing to expand their regional grouping to include pro-Western Jordan
and Morocco and urged a quick political deal in Yemen. No one seems to have
consulted with Morocco who today expressed surprise at being invited to
join.
Which is strange as the The Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, suggested that
they welcomed bids by the two Arab kingdoms to join the six-nation grouping
of Gulf monarchies.
So did they ask or were they invited. The difference is quite
significant.
The original six members are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait,
Oman, Bahrain and Qatar.
An expansion is odd. The name GCC can hardly apply if North
African Morocco is included. And Jordan has borders with Palestine,
Syria and most precariously, Israel.
Here's what would happen if Morocco and Jordan join the GCC; their citizens
of Jordan and Morocco will be able to visit, reside and work in the current
GCC states without a need for a visa. Citizens from the two new states will
be able to own property, shares and other assets in their fellow bloc
states.
The new GCC would expand from 2.5 million square km to 3.3 million square km
and its population would almost double from 39 million to 77 million.
What this is really about is the remaining eight Arab
monarchies joining to collaborate both on the internal and external levels.
They have identified the GCC as the ideal body for them to make an immediate
and exponential leap in political, military and economic relations.
Yet this also means that the Arab world is potentially split
into the monarchical and the republican regimes.
It is far from clear what this means. But given the way the
GCC nations have rallied around Bahrain is suggests that any change from the
status quo is unlikely.
There is more coverage in Foreign Policy magazine here as it
discusses the
What Co-operation Council.
And an unusually considered article from the
Gulf News.
Analysis - Reforms sidelined along with Bahrain's crown
prince
11 May 2011 By Frederik Richter Reuters
(Richter has been told to leave Bahrain by the authorities - presumably in
response to this analysis - which suggests that it is a pretty good piece of
reporting - the main point being the extent of Saudi control over Bahrain
and the secondary issue the demise of Bahrain as a business hub.)
"Along with its business friendly reputation, another casualty of Bahrain's
crackdown on anti-government protesters could be its crown prince, seen as
more reform-minded than others in the ruling family.
The fading influence of Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa puts at
stake efforts to liberalise Bahrain's economy and attract global businesses.
"There is no doubt that the hardliners are in control and that there has
been a shift in the internal balance within the regime," said Shadi Hamid,
analyst at the Brookings Doha Centre.
The crown prince had advocated dialogue with Sunni-led Bahrain's Shi'ite
majority in February to try to defuse tension with mostly Shi'ite protesters
who demanded a bigger say in the country's political and economic affairs.
But the dialogue failed to take off and the government decided to impose
martial law and clear out protesters, aided by troops from Saudi Arabia and
other Gulf allies.
Since then, Sheikh Salman has virtually disappeared from public view and
Bahrain's Sunni ruling family appears to be putting his younger brother
Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad al-Khalifa more in the spotlight.
"It looks as if the hardliners would like to groom Sheikh Nasser," a
Gulf-based diplomat who declined to be named said. "He's on state media
almost every day now."
A graduate of Sandhurst military academy, Nasser, 23, has so far kept out of
the spotlight and is known for participating in endurance equestrian events.
He wed the daughter of Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum in
2009.
At stake are reforms Sheikh Salman initiated to open up the economy to
international and local investors, which in turn were aimed at diversifying
the economy away from oil income and enable the private sector to create
jobs for Bahrain's youth.
"Bahrain does not have the luxury to be hesitant on reform," said John
Sfakianakis, chief economist at Banque Saudi Fransi.
"It now competes with business-friendly financial centres in Qatar, Abu
Dhabi, and of course Dubai. If businesses leave they will be received
elsewhere," he said.
With government finances in a precarious position, Bahrain, a small oil
producer, cannot afford to plough more funds into ailing state companies
such as national carrier Gulf Air GULF.UL, which Sheikh Salman wanted to
privatise in the long-term.
The crown prince had slowly wrestled control over business regulations from
the hands of Bahrain's government bureaucracy headed by his long-time rival,
Prime Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, an uncle of the king
who has governed the Gulf island kingdom since its independence four decades
ago.
One example of the rivalry between the two is Bahrain's airport that was
effectively run by the ministry of transportation, previously headed by a
son of Sheikh Khalifa. It was transferred to private sector management in
2010 after years of resistance by the government administration.
Transportation was a cornerstone of the crown prince's strategy to turn
Bahrain into a business hub hosting the regional headquarters of
multinationals.
After hardliners said that Iran and Shi'ite movement Hezbollah sponsored the
unrest, they forced Gulf Air to suspend its flights to destinations in Iran,
Lebanon and Iraq.
"International investors will take note of these things, (Sheikh Salman) was
seen as an economic reformer. Now they will ask what is happening to the
forces who pushed for privatisation and economic reforms," said Sfakianakis.
Sheikh Nasser now appears in favour, and in recent weeks he has represented
the royal family at social occasions and led a campaign for loyalists to
demonstrate their allegiance to the royal family.
"It is definitely noticeable that Sheikh Nasser has become more prominent,"
said Jane Kinninmont, an analyst at British thinktank Chatham House. "This
puts him up there with the senior people, which has not been seen before."
Also gaining influence is Sheikh Khalifa bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, the head of
Bahrain's defence forces, who is thought to be driving the crackdown on the
Shi'ite opposition, and his brother, who heads the royal court.
These factions are thought to have more favour with Bahrain's Saudi backers,
who are wary of Shi'ite political activity as a channel for Iranian
influence, and keen to insulate the Gulf from mass protests that toppled
regimes in Egypt and Tunisia."
Open - sort of
10 May 2011
Open is the theme of the Emirates 2010/2011 annual report.
Part of the text of their report says that "many airline want
a closed playing field. We prefer a level one."
Much as I love Emirates - it is not a level playing field.
Emirates enjoys advantages operating from Dubai that foreign companies would
not receive in Dubai and that airlines are unable to replicate in their home
countries. There are issues of tax; unions; 24 hour access; labour laws;
regulatory environment.
And there is a world of bi-lateral agreements between
governments determining air access. Emirate remember is not flying Emiratis
to and from Dubai. It is trying to fly consumers from anywhere to anywhere
all via Dubai.
Even so the airline plans to fly to more places and to order
more planes, ignoring claims of unfair competition from rivals, the
airline's chairman said on Tuesday.
The airline's aggressive expansion has been criticised by European carriers
who say the Dubai-based company and other Gulf carriers are effectively
subsidised, provoking fears that Gulf-based superjumbos will draw traffic
from their hubs.
Emirates talks happily of a level playing field. But it is
not. The Gulf carriers are institutionally linked with their governments and
regulatory bodies, their airports and service providers. There are no
meaningful competition rules, no consumer-protection rules. Foreign airlines
have no choice of ground handler, or catering supplier, business is
conducted solely through an appointed sales agent, and foreign airlines are
largely unable to recruit from the local airlines?
Emirates, which is state-owned, will soon fly to "several hundred
destinations" from 111 locations now, Emirates' Chairman Sheikh Ahmed bin
Saeed al-Maktoum said after the airline reported a 52-percent jump in 2010
profits.
Several hundred is hyperbole when the airline is adding 6 to
8 routes a year at present.
"I'm sure this will make a lot of people unhappy but the market is there to
grow. Airlines in Europe don't want to see us there because we are giving
them competition. But we get good market share because of the product," he
said.
"We have big plans. We will operate more to North and South America and also
Asia," he added.
Speculation time - I understand the opportunities in the
Americas. Growth in Asia is less obvious.
Sheikh Ahmed indicated that Emirates would announce new aircraft orders at
the Dubai Airshow in November. More speculation; 787s ?
"If Emirates continue to execute as they have done they will force a
restructuring of the industry simply by deploying the 90 or so A380s they
have on order or in service," Sudeep Ghai, a partner at London-based Athena
Aviation, said.
"Expect other markets to start making even more protectionist noises than
they have been in defence of their local carriers."
Or is it time for Emirates to start investing in foreign
carriers to build a true world airline.
Emirates announces record profits
10 May 2011
Dubai’s Emirates Airline said net profit grew 52 per cent to $1.5bn in the
year to the end of March. Given that the airline reported a profit of $925
million in the first six months the reduction in profitability in the second
half of the year may be a cause of concern. The airline said that the
reduction in its net profit margin reflected high oil prices in the fourth
quarter.
But the second half year is traditionally stronger for
Emirates so the results suggest that some additional provisions may have
been made.
Passengers carried rose 14.5 per cent to 31.4m in the 2010-2011 financial
year, which ends March 31. Cargo revenues grew 27.6 per cent to $2.4bn.
“This past year was full of challenges, but we have weathered the storm
well,” Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum, Emirates chairman, told reporters
in Dubai.
Sheikh Ahmed brushed aside European concerns that the airline’s growth is
based on unfair competition, such as export-credit guarantees on purchases
of aircraft.
“We see that airlines in Europe don’t want competition, they see us as
competition – they have to look at the product we provide and our
investment,” he said.
Emirates will continue to lobby for further landing rights in Europe,
notably in Berlin and Stuttgart, but the airline is also looking further
afield.
“We still have a big plan – we have to operate more to North and South
America, as well as more to Asia,” he said.
After launching six new routes last year, the airline has already announced
plans to open four more – Geneva, Copenhagen, Rio de Janeiro and Buenos
Aires – in this financial year.
Emirates, which has a fleet of 148 aeroplanes and 193 more on order,
received eight new aircraft in 2010-11, including seven Airbus A380s. It
raised its order book with an additional 32 Airbus A380s and 30 Boeing
777-300ERs, valued together at $13.4bn.
Any new order announcements will likely come at the Dubai air show in
November. Some Boeing 787s would be an interesting fleet addition.
Sheikh Ahmed, who also plays a leading role in guiding debt-laden Dubai out
of recession, said the government would not consider selling shares in the
profitable airline “this year or next”.
The airline paid a dividend of Dh2bn ($500m) to the government this year.
The amount set aside for the staff bonus was Dh770 million.
The airline’s cash balance grew 28 per cent to $4.4bn, which Sheikh Ahmed
suggested would be used as a cushion in case oil prices rise again.
The cost of fuel, which rose 41 per cent over the past financial year,
accounted for a third of the airline’s operating costs, close to the record
highs of 2008-09.
You have been Skyped
10 May 2011
This could become a new way of saying that you paid way to
much to buy something and that you are not sure what you will do with it
when you have bought it.
Microsoft announced today that it has acquired the VoIP giant
Skype for $8.5 billion in cash. Skype has never made a profit.
This is the largest sum of money Microsoft has ever paid for
a company. Despite last year's revenue totalling $860 million and operating
profits of $264 million, the company lost $6.9 million overall. And the
company carries $686 million in debt.
Rumour has it that Google was only willing to pay
US$4million.
A bit of history. In 2005 EBay bought Skype for US$2.5
billion. ebay never managed any real iintegration with Skype and took a
significant write down on the investment. Silver Lake acquired Skype from
eBay in a 2009 deal valued roughly at $2.75 billion. The transaction left
eBay with a roughly 30% equity investment in Skype.
Microsoft will seek to use Skype to enhance the real-time
communications capabilities of other Microsoft properties such as Outlook,
Hotmail and XBox Live. But Microsoft has no great record of integrating its
acquisitions. And Skype quality is already in many cases very average
indeed.
The other problem with Skype is that the majority of its
users want the free service rather than to pay for Skype out. Only about 12%
of users pay for the service.
Skype Chief Executive Tony Bates will assume the title of president of a
Microsoft Skype division and report directly to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.
Speaking on behalf of the investor group that sold Skype to Microsoft, Egon
Durban, managing director of Silver Lake, said: “We are thrilled with
Skype’s transformation during the period of our ownership and grateful for
the extraordinary commitment of its management team and employees. We are
excited about Skype’s long-term future with Microsoft, as it is poised to
become one of the world’s most dynamic and comprehensive communications
platforms.”
I assume he is far more excited with the sizeable gain on
disposal.
Thai historian to be charged for monarchy comments
10 May 2011
Thai police have summoned a prominent historian to face a
charge of insulting the monarchy after he made public calls for the
institution to be reformed.
Sadly with national elections scheduled in less than two months, there
appears no letup in the Thai army’s crackdown on freedom of expression
through use of the country’s laws that protect King Bhumibol Adulyadej and
other members of the royal family from alleged insults.
But is a historian's call for reform an insult or a
suggestion that the nation needs to discuss the role of the monarchy in Thai
society.
It was only yesterday that PM Abhisit called for the election
to be about ideas; to be about the future of Thailand.
Somsak Jeamteerasakul is a Thammasat University professor. He has been been
summoned to a Bangkok police station tomorrow to hear lèse-majesté charges
filed against him, apparently at the direction of Army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha.
Somsak was a student leader during the horrific massacre of students in
Bangkok in 1976 and was jailed as a political prisoner for two years at that
time. There is little evidence that Somsak has actually criticized the royal
family. However, Prayuth in early April called Somsak a "mentally ill
academic" who is "intent on overthrowing the institutions of the monarchy."
Somsak confirmed late Monday he received the summons "but they didn't give
any details about what I have done or when I violated the law," he told AFP.
Late last month, the academic insisted his eight-point proposal for
reforming the monarchy -- the framework for a controversial lecture he gave
in December -- did not call for the institution's overthrow.
"Each and every one of my public statement(s) and written work is premised
on the assumption of the continuation of the monarchy," he said in a
statement published by independent news website Prachatai.
About 500 academics, diplomats, activists and foreign media attended a press
conference Somsak gave at Thammasat last month, where he spoke about threats
he had received as a result of his comments, the Bangkok Post daily
reported.
Thailand has drawn flak from rights groups for suppressing freedom of speech
using lese majeste legislation, which bans criticism of the royal family and
the institution.
The NGO Freedom House last week said that Thailand's media
had "declined from Partly Free to Not Free" due to the use of restrictive
legislation such as the Computer Crimes Act and the continued increase in
the investigation and prosecution of lèse-majesté cases. The government and
the military, according to the Freedom House report, have greatly expanded
their efforts to rein in the electronic media, from satellite television to
community radio and internet-based platforms in general.
Inept ASEAN is the sum of its parts
9 May 2011
Asian Correspondent
A quick look at the heads of state that descended on Jakarta over the
weekend and one soon realises why most of the world rightly takes ASEAN with
a large pinch of salt. Of the 10 members, eight are a rabble of supreme
monarchs, oligarchs, disrobed dictators and coup merchants, while only the
Philippines and Indonesia come close to pulling off their veneer of
democracy (although both governments still operate on very shaky ground).
Unsurprisingly then, the bloc as a whole has failed to make significant
ground on the four goals on which it was founded – economic growth, social
progress, cultural development and regional stability. More than four
decades after ASEAN’s birth, Southeast Asia remains a patchwork quilt of
crumbling economies and pariah states – there are economic success stories
(Singapore and Thailand, for example) but in both cases the strides made in
that department are countered by intractable political unrest and
iron-fisted governance.
It is in this context that ASEAN becomes a predictable host for the
controversy now erupting around it. Burma could well take the revolving
chair in 2014, despite the likes of Human Rights Watch warning that it would
be an embarrassment to a region of which it is the perennial thorn in the
side (but one that its neighbours seemingly refuse to blunt).
It’s a preposterous prospect – Burma is one of the world’s most maligned
human rights abusers whose rulers have orchestrated the near ruin of what
was once a flourishing economy. But, according to ASEAN leaders, these same
people have a “firm commitment and dedication to [implementing] the ASEAN
community building as well as to ASEAN solidarity”, as well as assisting
with the four aforementioned goals of the bloc.
How this prospect came about needs some explanation: at the cornerstone of
ASEAN is the premium that Asian leaders have long placed on protecting
sovereignty, meaning that what goes on in Burma (or any other member) is
solely a matter for the government and its people – that is a key policy of
the bloc, but one that has meant the sham November elections in Burma, or
Thailand’s obsession with coups, or the slaying of political opposition in
Philippines, remains pretty much off the agenda at these summits, where the
focus is predominantly on trade. It also entails a certain relativist
‘respect’ for a government’s own style of rule, which would be slighted if
ASEAN were to block a bid for the chair based on the applicant’s domestic
record.
At the same time, Southeast Asia is an emerging economy, and its leaders are
hungrily eyeing areas that can contribute to their growth. Burma is rich in
energy resources, and it is perhaps no coincidence that Indonesia may
announce the successful bid this week after the two countries agreed to
strengthen trade. The way in which Burma’s neighbours have won economic
favours from the regime by steadfastly refusing to condemn it is a good
example of the myopia that permeates ASEAN policy.
The other key issue is the so-called progress made in Burma since November
last year. “Myanmar [Burma] feels they have completed their democratisation
process with the election, and with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi they
want to claim their right as possible chair,” according to an ASEAN
official. The release of Suu Kyi is one of the regime’s most exquisitely
executed ruses, and has won it plaudits from across the ASEAN community
right to the EU, which is now salivating over the thought of more of its top
companies heading to Burma.
A closer look at how ASEAN works shows then that Burma’s chairmanship may
not be altogether that surprising – what ASEAN leaders will be worrying
about rather is the effect it has on the image of the bloc as it eyes Free
Trade Agreements with the likes of the EU. It has in the past quietly mooted
the idea of expelling Burma, but apparently couldn’t find the adequate
grounds on which to do it – a telling sign of the attitude of the grouping.
What will Qatar announce at the Paris Air Show?
8 May 2011
Les Echos newspaper in France says that
Qatar Airways is in advanced negotiations to place a huge
order for 60 planes built by the European firm Airbus .
The paper said the order, which would be announced at the Le Bourget air
show in June, would be for 50 A320 NEO aircraft, the re-engined version of
the medium-range A320, and for 10 to 20 A380 superjumbo jets.
The airline would also place an additional 50 options to buy A320 NEO
aircraft and options to buy an additional 10-20 A380 planes, the report
added.
Last week, Qatar Airways, the Gulf state’s flag carrier, said it was in
talks with Airbus with a view to buying more A380 superjumbos.
CEO Akbar Al Baker also said the carrier has received specific dates for the
delivery of its much-delayed Boeing 787 order and is on track to receive the
Dreamliner ahead of schedule.
The new order will be to support demand over the next decade
with the football world cup cup coming to Qatar in 2022 and the new airport
under development.
The questions are just how big can the Middle east airlines
become and can all three of the big carriers, Qatar, Emirates and Etihad,
survive. Already there are increasing signs of European, Indian and North
American protectionism.
Five more years of PAP
7 May 2011
No surprise at all - five more years of PAP in Singapore.
Yet there was a record turnout of voters. And Singapore Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s People’s Action Party retained power with the
smallest margin of popular votes since independence.
The number of opposition members in parliament tripled. But
is still neglible. From two to six.
The party that has ruled Singapore for more than five decades won 81 out of
87 parliamentary seats and 60.1 percent of the popular vote in yesterday’s
polls, according to the Elections Department. A record 2 million ballots
were counted.
Politicians competed in single-seat wards or multiple-seat districts called
Group Representation Constituencies, or GRCs. The party that gets the most
number of votes in a district sends all its members to parliament. The PAP
lost a GRC for the first time in this election. A record 82 parliament seats
were contested by six opposition parties.
The Workers’ Party won the five-seat district of Aljunied and the
single-seat Hougang constituency, the only wins by opposition parties.
Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang and Chairman Sylvia Lim, who called for a
stronger voice in parliament and more affordable public housing, led the
Aljunied effort, while Yaw Shin Leong won in Hougang.
“Your votes tell the world that you want Singapore to mature as a democracy,
and you want to tell the government that you want a more responsible,
inclusive, transparent, accountable government,” said Low, who has been in
parliament since 1991.
The only uncontested constituency was that of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew,
87 who led the island from British rule and was its first premier. He’s also
the father of the current prime minister.
The PAP has ruled Singapore for more than five decades and delivered a
41-fold jump in gross domestic product, combining a focus on education,
homeownership, business friendliness and strict laws to boost the wealth of
citizens. Lee’s more recent efforts to spur the economy include the opening
of two casino resorts, bringing Formula One races to the island and
attracting foreign workers. GDP grew a record 14.5 percent last year.
But, what has happened is the wealth gap has grown and the government
apologised for failing to build enough public housing and expand transport
links. The
world’s highest share of dollar-millionaire households has contributed to
higher property and consumer prices, leaving some citizens behind.
Foreign Minister George Yeo actually who lost his seat in Aljunied. He was
one of two cabinet ministers who lost power in the election, the other one
being Lim Hwee Hua.
The growth and widening income gap has also been fueled by an influx of
foreign workers to expand industries such as construction, shipbuilding,
hospitality and banking. Foreigners make up more than a third of the
population, with only 3.2 million citizens out of 5.1 million inhabitants.
Honestly; it is safe to expect more of the same; a five year
term is assured. The PAP will introduce some new ministers and new ideas.
And the opposition's 15 minutes of fame will quickly end.
DXB plans Terminal 2 expansion
7 May 2011
Dubai authorities are pushing through an expansion of Dubai
International Airport's Terminal 2 to cater for the growth of the budget
carrier flydubai and the emirate's 2011 growing travel and tourism sector.
The investment plan includes constructing a new check-in hall and departure
area, and possibly extending the terminal building.
The plan is part of a renewed focus on the emirate's long-standing main
airport in Deira as the development of Al Maktoum International Airport in
Jebel Ali has been delayed.
"The project consists of constructing a new building located adjacent to the
existing Terminal 2 at Dubai International Airport," the Dubai Department of
Civil Aviation said yesterday in an advertisement in a local newspaper
inviting construction companies to pre-qualify for tenders. This will
presumably be where the old Emirates crew briefing centre used to be.
The main hall will be 205 metres long and 90 metres wide, and house a
check-in area, an immigration section and management offices, and a
departure facility.
The agency said it was also considering a 70-metre-long extension to the
existing terminal building.
Terminal 2 was significantly refurbished before the June 2009 launch of
flydubai, the emirate's first locally based budget carrier.
Just two years on flydubai now has 17 airplanes and plies to 36 cities with
at least another four destinations planned for this year.
The new al Maktoum airport was originally expected to open
this year for low cost passenger operations. This has now slipped to an
unknown date in 2012.
The forecast increase is greater than the 5.3 per cent annualised growth
that the aircraft maker Boeing has forecast for air travel in the Middle
East over the next two decades.
In reality flydubai must have little interest in moving to
the new airfield. Although flydubai operates mainly for point to point
traffic there is flyduabi does also act as a feeder into the Emirates
network and single check in is available to assist transit passengers
through Dubai.
As election nears, Thailand's military starts shooting
7 May 2011 -
The Vancouver Sun
(this was published on 27 April)
For watchers of Thailand's politics, knowing the characters and ambitions of
the country's army generals is just as important as having a finger on the
pulse of party leaders.
Despite efforts to reduce the political power of the military in recent
years, the senior officer corps continues to play an active and often
definitive role in Thai public life.
In the past 40 years, the military has launched 10 successful or attempted
coups, the last one in 2006.
The Democratic Party government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva is the
product of that last coup.
Which is why, with new elections in the offing in June or July, nothing that
the military does is taken at face value.
It's every action is seen as having a political motive. That is especially
true with Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha as head of the army.
Prayuth, appointed chief last September, is a staunch royalist, a
conservative and a nationalist.
He played a central role in the 2006 coup that ousted the elected government
of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. And Prayuth remains aligned with the
inappropriately named People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), the so-called
"yellow shirts" whose anti-Thaksin demonstrations provided an excuse for the
coup and who have become almost equally dismissive of Prime Minister Abhisit.
Thaksin is in self-imposed exile to avoid a two-year prison sentence for
abuse of power, but he continues to loom large in Thai politics. Polls show
the opposition Puea Thai party of his supporters has a very good chance of
forming the government after the upcoming elections.
Although Prayuth and the military top brass say they will support the
election and abide by its outcome, few believe they will welcome an outcome
giving Thaksin an opportunity for revenge.
The question is whether the military can resist the temptation to try to
influence the election result to its liking or even, according to some
speculation in Thailand, create a situation forcing the cancellation of the
ballot.
Which brings us to the fighting in the past few days between Thai and
Cambodian troops along their disputed border in which at least 13 soldiers
have been killed and up to 50,000 people on both sides of the line have fled
the conflict.
Pundits and analysts in Bangkok are frothing with speculation that this
latest fighting in a series of skirmishes that started in 2008 is a move by
Prayuth and the military to have the election called off or influence its
outcome by arousing Thai nationalism.
The Cambodian government maintains that the Thai military started this
latest round of fighting on Friday around two ancient temples, Ta Moan and
Ta Krabey, on the disputed border in the Dangrek Mountains about 320
kilometres east of Bangkok.
Then, on Tuesday, there was a flare-up of fighting, 160 kilometres to the
southeast, at the site of another temple, Preah Vihear.
The disputed ownership of this 900-year-old temple has been aggravating Thai
politics for nearly three years. Nearly 50 years ago, an international court
awarded ownership of Preah Vihear to Cambodia.
In July 2008, the temple was named a world heritage site by the United
Nations cultural organization, UNESCO. This outraged the ultranationalist
PAD "yellow shirt" allies of the military commanders and very soon there was
skirmishing on the border.
Prime Minister Abhisit worked for a diplomatic solution, to the chagrin of
PAD.
In December, a group of PAD supporters illegally crossed the border into
Cambodia to mount a demonstration. And in February, there were more
exchanges of fire between Thai and Cambodian soldiers in which 11 people
were killed.
In the past few days, the Indonesian government, which this year holds the
chair of the regional club, the Association of South East Asian Nations, has
been offering to mediate the dispute.
But while the political leaders in both Thailand and Cambodia are amenable
to this, the Thai military is not and has, in effect, overridden the Abhisit
government.
Some observers in Bangkok say that in the last few days Gen. Prayuth has
appeared on television pronouncing policy more frequently than Prime
Minister Abhisit.
On Tuesday, Abhisit insisted the elections will go ahead, but a lot can
happen in the month between now and the end of May when he plans to dissolve
parliament.
Mr. Clegg, the tribe has spoken
6 May 2011
The price of Nick Clegg's misguided alliance with the
governing Tory party became painfully obvious today as the Lib Dem vote
evaporated in the local elections and no vote will take the AV referendum by
a comfortable 70:30 vote setting back the cause of electoral reform for
decades; the AV turnout was about 42%.
The whole vote over the last 24 hours has become a referendum
on the Liberal Democrats in general and Nick Clegg in particular.
Nick Clegg's 15 minutes of fame are over. He should resign
the party leadership. The Lib Dems should withdraw from the coalition and
force another election to be held.
You have no mandate to be the deputy prime minister of the
country.
The Lib Dems have done nothing progressive domestically. They
have enabled a set of savage attacks on the NHS, on school budgets, on the
poor - in short they are helping the Tories to dismantle all that is
progressive in Britain. The party has comprised all that it stands for to
prop up an unelected right wing Tory adminstration in return for a few
ministerial cars.
Mr. Clegg - the tribe has spoken. Please leave the island.
Shirt v shirt
Thailand’s forthcoming polls will be dominated by a man from Dubai, his
sister and an old Etonian
5 May 2011 The Economist
"The last cabinet meeting of Abhisit Vejjajiva’s administration on May 3rd
was also its longest. Ministers arrived at 8am and burned the midnight oil.
And rather as Gladstone, the grand old man of 19th-century British politics,
dubbed his own last cabinet meeting in March 1894 “the blubbering cabinet”
(because ministers wept at his departure), so Mr Abhisit’s last might be
called “the spendthrift cabinet”. Ministers approved 102 spending proposals,
totalling billions of dollars. Plainly, an election is in the offing.
Having promised to go to the polls in the first half of the year, Mr Abhisit
is now expected to dissolve parliament as soon as he can and call an
election for June 26th, or soon after. In Thailand’s polarised political
environment, the contest will be bitter. Many reckon the country will be
lucky to escape further violence. And whatever the result, some will not
accept it.
At the centre of the show is the man who has dominated and divided Thai
politics for over a decade, the former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.
Deposed in a coup in 2006 and banned from politics in Thailand, he is now in
exile in Dubai. But his devoted followers, the red shirts, have kept the
flame glowing, often in the face of extreme government hostility. Scores of
their number were gunned down during a prolonged protest in central Bangkok
a year ago. They see this election as possibly their last chance to right
the wrong of that coup. Mr Thaksin’s supporters form the Pheu Thai party. It
constitutes the main challenge to Mr Abhisit’s ruling Democrat Party. Polls
suggest it could win the most parliamentary seats, although not an outright
majority.
Many non-partisan Thais had hoped that Pheu Thai would evolve into an
issues-based party rather than remain a Thaksin fan-club. Fat chance. As the
election nears, the opposite is happening. Mr Thaksin himself has been
addressing supporters for hours by videolink and it is likely that the
person who will lead the party into the election will be his own younger
sister, Yingluck Shinawatra. A 43-year-old businesswoman, she has almost no
experience of politics.
The Thaksinisation of Pheu Thai is not universally popular in the party.
Some think Ms Yingluck will re-invigorate the base, but others retort that
she is untested and may put off voters tired of the relentless focus on the
fortunes of one man—and now one family.
Yet the party does not have a lot of choice, because of government
crackdowns. Chaturon Chaisang, a former deputy prime minister, points out
that in 2007 the government banned 111 leading members of Mr Thaksin’s party
from politics for five years. More were banned later. Mr Chaisang cannot
even vote. With so many leaders sidelined, Pheu Thai’s remaining talent pool
is shallow.
Pheu Thai’s weakness is Mr Abhisit’s opportunity. He was installed by the
military and, after three shaky years in power following the coups and
turmoil of 2006-08, the British-born old Etonian will probably never have a
better chance to win his own mandate. Even here though, Mr Thaksin
influences the agenda.
The Democrat Party’s main appeal lies in its successful stewardship of the
economy since the economic crisis of 2008-09, which Thailand survived
remarkably well. But the party also hopes to eat into Mr Thaksin’s support
by copying the populist economic policies that enabled him to build it up in
the first place. So there has been an expansion of a social-security scheme
to cover millions of workers in the informal economy; low-interest loans for
taxi-drivers; free electricity for some households; cash transfers to
farmers; and more money for the elderly.
The question is whether the campaign will be a proper contest of people and
ideas—or another round in the near-civil war that has riven politics for
over a decade. Two recent reports, one by the New York-based Human Rights
Watch, the other by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, both
chronicle how virtually nothing has come of the government’s policy of
reconciliation with the opposition. On the day of the cabinet meeting,
Freedom House, a Washington-based think-tank that rates degrees of political
repression, downgraded the Thai media from “partly free” to “not free”—the
same as neighbouring Cambodia.
In this atmosphere some red shirts argue that it will be almost impossible
to hold a free and fair election. Equally dangerous, militant anti-Thaksinites,
the yellow shirts, are boycotting the vote altogether. They want the army to
take over and appoint a prime minister (again). They would never accept
another Thaksinite premiership. If Pheu Thai wins outright, they may well
resort to violence.
The yellow shirts have been stoking nationalist feeling with heated rhetoric
about border clashes with Cambodia, adding another unstable element to an
already volatile mix. Behind them lurks the powerful military establishment,
another bit of the Thai body politic unlikely to welcome back a new
Thaksinite government. And as if that were not complicated enough, everybody
is watching the declining health of the 83-year-old king, who has been in
hospital since 2009 and who had a lumbar puncture this week. It’s going to
be a difficult few months for South-East Asia’s second-biggest economy."
Was Bin Laden armed - who cares?
5 May 2011
Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi a non-resident fellow at Dubai School
of Government wrote the following in
Arabian Business today on the death of Osama bin Laden "For all the men
he blinded, the children he orphaned, the wives he widowed and the homes he
wrecked – he had it coming."
In one of the best articles written from the Arab world on
the death of bin Laden he continues; "Osama preyed on the weak-minded, the
ignorant, and the hopeless while the Arab Spring radiated with the
intelligent, the righteous and the brave. Millions of Arabs took to the
streets chanting “silmiya, silmiya” (peacefully, peacefully) indicating the
form of change they want. And yet not one of those millions of Arabs called
upon his name, carried his picture or tweeted a sympathetic word for Osama."
He concludes : "We Arabs are just as smart, just as
ambitious, and just as forward-thinking as any other people. We have the
power to change the world for the better: in fact, we’ve already started
to."
In the USA their is so much soul searching about whether bin
Laden was armed, how many people were with him, did they defend themselves,
why wasn't he taken prisoner. Frankly no one wants bin Laden as a prisoner.
In a chaotic 40 minute mission, in the black of night, with
one of four helicopters not functioning and seeking to complete the mission
before a firefight with Pakistani troops, the 79 navy seals (and apparently
one sniffer dog) needed to achieve their primary objective; the death of bin
Laden and get out. There was no time for hesitation or debate.
The White House probably tried to give out too much
information too quickly. One argument is that the story of the events of
that night have been refined over the last three days. The great thing about
the US media and the democratic process is that the truth will come out; it
always does. But there is no need for soul-searching here. And no point in
second guessing the marines.
But the White House could have managed its own PR far more
effectively. Officials argue they have made mistakes because they attempted
to get facts quickly into the public domain from what was, no doubt, a
confused "fog of war". That's a good reason for the mess. But it is no
excuse for it.
Simple solution; and this applies in any crisis at a government or corporate
level. If you don't know the full facts, then don't release any of them.
Would it have been so simply say "We are building up a full picture of what
happened. When we have a verified version of events in the next 48 hours, we
will release it in full." And then do exactly that.
It appears that Obama's press department buckled when
bombarded with phone calls from a fact-starved global media.
There has also been the debate over releasing pictures of a
dead bin Laden. Do
we need to see pictures of a dead bin Laden. No thank you. I was upset
enough by the pictures of other
deaths in the mansion published today by the Guardian. I have linked to
them but you view them at your peril. Forget the pictures; Osama bin Laden
is free to step up and prove he's alive – and we know that won't happen.
The message for the White House is to make a firm decision
and stick to it. The shifting story about what actually happened feeds the
conspiracy theorists.
In finding and killing Bin Laden, the Obama White House has achieved what
President George W Bush and his neocon friends desperately wanted but
utterly failed to do.
The White House simply needs to agree its message and stick
to it.
No one wanted and no one wants bin Laden alive. The world is
truly a better place without him. He showed no hesitation in killing 3,000
people 10 years ago in the 9/11 attack on the USA. No mercy was needed or
expected in return.
Dubai Airports growth projections
5 May 2011
Dubai Airports has announced its ten year traffic forecast
for Dubai International (DXB) and Dubai World Central-Al Maktoum
International (DWC) that project international passenger and cargo traffic
increasing at an average annual growth rate of 7.2% and 6.7% respectively.
By 2020 passenger numbers will reach 98.5 million and cargo volumes will top
4.1 million tonnes.
Since 2005 passenger traffic has almost doubled from 24.8 million to 47.2
million last year.
Dubai's growth is based upon its geographic position eight
hours from two-thirds of the world’s population and its access to India and
China.
Airfreight volumes are expected to double from the 2.27 million tonnes
recorded in 2010 to 4.1 million tonnes in 2020 based on a 6.7% annual growth
rate. Whilst much of the growth is driven by additional belly capacity in
the passenger fleets flying into Dubai, the forecast also suggests a
significant increase in freighter capacity.
Dubai International is ranked 4th globally in terms of international freight
volumes and 4th for international passengers according to Airport Council
International’s (ACI) 2010 figures.
“Based on the current pace of growth we are seeing in other large
international airports, Dubai International should become the busiest
airport in the world for international passenger traffic as early as 2015
when passenger numbers are projected to exceed 75 million,” said Paul
Griffiths, CEO of Dubai Airports.
To help accommodate the growth, Concourse 3, which will be the world’s first
dedicated A380 facility, is set to open at the end of 2012. Dubai World
Central-Al Maktoum International, which opened for cargo operations in 2010,
is still expected to commence passenger services during 2012; then
again....there have been a number of delays already.
If this is a US victory, does that mean its forces should
go home now?
Iran spoke for many Arabs when it said Bin Laden's death took
away the West's reason to have troops in the region
4 May 2011 Robert Fisk in
The Independent
So why are we in Afghanistan? Didn't the Americans and the British go there
in 2001 to fight Osama bin Laden? Wasn't he killed on Monday? There was
painful symbolism in the Nato airstrike yesterday – scarcely 24 hours after
Bin Laden's death – that killed yet more Afghan security guards. For the
truth is that we long ago lost the plot in the graveyard of empires, turning
a hunt for a now largely irrelevant inventor of global jihad into a war
against tens of thousands of Taliban insurgents who have little interest in
al-Qa'ida, but much enthusiasm to drive Western armies out of their country.
The gentle hopes of Hamid Karzai and Hillary Clinton – that the Taliban will
be so cowed by the killing of Bin Laden that they will want to become
pleasant democrats and humbly join the Western-supported and utterly corrupt
leadership of Afghanistan – shows just how out of touch they are with the
blood-soaked reality of the country. Some of the Taliban admired Bin Laden,
but they did not love him and he had been no part of their campaign against
Nato. Mullah Omar is more dangerous to the West in Afghanistan than Bin
Laden. And we haven't killed Omar.
Iran, for once, spoke for millions of Arabs in its response to Bin Laden's
death. "An excuse for alien countries to deploy troops in this region under
the pretext of fighting terrorism has been eliminated," its foreign ministry
spokesman has said. "We hope this development will end war, conflict, unrest
and the death of innocent people, and help to establish peace and
tranquility in the region."
Newspapers across the Arab world said the same thing. If this is such a
great victory for the United States, it's time to go home; which, of course,
the US has no intention of doing just now.
That many Americans think the same thing is not going to change the
topsy-turvy world in which US policy is framed. For there is one home truth
which the world still has not grasped: that the revolutions in Tunisia and
Egypt – and, more pressing, the bloodbaths in Libya and Syria and the
dangers to Lebanon – are of infinitely graver importance than blowing away a
bearded man who has been elevated in the West's immature imagination into
Hitlerian proportions.
Turkish prime minister Erdogan's brilliant address in Istanbul yesterday –
calling for the Syrians to stop killing their people and for Gaddafi to
leave Libya – was more eloquent, more powerful and more historic than the
petty, boastful, Hollywood speeches of Obama and Clinton on Monday. We are
now wasting our time speculating who will "take over" al-Qa'ida – Zawahiri
or Saif al-Adel – when the movement has no "leadership" as such, Bin Laden
being the founder rather than the boss.
But, a day being a long time in the killing fields of the Middle East, just
24 hours after Osama Bin Laden died, other questions were growing thicker
yesterday. If, for example, Barack Obama really thinks the world is "a safer
place" after Bin Laden's death, how come the US has increased its threat
alert and embassies around the world are being told to take extra
precautions against attack?
And just what did happen in that tatty compound – no longer, it seems, a
million-dollar "mansion" – when Bin Laden's sulphurous life was brought to
an end? Human Rights Watch is unlikely to be the only institution to demand
a "thorough, transparent investigation" into the killing.
There was an initial story from Pentagon "sources" which had two of Bin
Laden's wives killed and a woman held as a "human shield" dying too. Within
hours, the wives were alive and in some accounts, the third woman simply
disappeared.
And then of course, there's Pakistan, eagerly telling the world that it
participated in the attack on Bin Laden, only to have President Zardari
retract the entire story yesterday. Two hours later, we had an American
official describing the attack on Bin Laden as a "shared achievement".
And there's Bin Laden's secret burial in the Arabian Sea. Was this planned
before the attack on Bin Laden, with the clear plan to kill rather than
capture him? And if it was carried out "according to Islamic rights" – the
dead man's body washed and placed in a white shroud – it must have taken a
long time for the officer on the USS Carl Vinson to devise a 50-minute
religious ceremony and arrange for an Arabic-speaking sailor to translate
it.
So now for a reality check. The world is not safer for Bin Laden's killing.
It is safer because of the winds of freedom blowing through the Middle East.
If the West treats the people of this region with justice rather than
military firepower, then al-Qa'ida becomes even more irrelevant than it has
been since the Arab revolutions.
Of course, there is one positive side for the Arab world. With Bin Laden
killed, the Gaddafis and the Salehs and the Assads will find it all the more
difficult to claim that a man who is now dead is behind the popular
revolutions trying to overthrow them.
Was he betrayed? Of course. Pakistan knew Bin
Laden's hiding place all along
4 May 2011 - Robert Fisk in The Independent
"A middle-aged nonentity, a political failure outstripped by history – by
the millions of Arabs demanding freedom and democracy in the Middle East –
died in Pakistan yesterday. And then the world went mad.
Fresh from providing us with a copy of his birth certificate, the American
President turned up in the middle of the night to provide us with a
live-time death certificate for Osama bin Laden, killed in a town named
after a major in the army of the old British Empire. A single shot to the
head, we were told. But the body's secret flight to Afghanistan, an equally
secret burial at sea? The weird and creepy disposal of the body – no
shrines, please – was almost as creepy as the man and his vicious
organisation.
The Americans were drunk with joy. David Cameron thought it "a massive step
forward". India described it as a "victorious milestone". "A resounding
triumph," Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu boasted. But after 3,000 American
dead on 9/11, countless more in the Middle East, up to half a million
Muslims dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and 10 years trying to find Bin Laden,
pray let us have no more "resounding triumphs". Revenge attacks? Perhaps
they will come, by the little groupuscules in the West, who have no direct
contact with al-Qa'ida. Be sure, someone is already dreaming up a "Brigade
of the Martyr Osama bin Laden". Maybe in Afghanistan, among the Taliban.
But the mass revolutions in the Arab world over the past four months mean
that al-Qa'ida was already politically dead. Bin Laden told the world –
indeed, he told me personally – that he wanted to destroy the pro-Western
regimes in the Arab world, the dictatorships of the Mubaraks and the Ben
Alis. He wanted to create a new Islamic Caliphate. But these past few
months, millions of Arab Muslims rose up and were prepared for their own
martyrdom – not for Islam but for freedom and liberty and democracy. Bin
Laden didn't get rid of the tyrants. The people did. And they didn't want a
caliph.
I met the man three times and have only one question left unasked: what did
he think as he watched those revolutions unfold this year – under the flags
of nations rather than Islam, Christians and Muslims together, the kind of
people his own al-Qa'ida men were happy to butcher?
In his own eyes, his achievement was the creation of al-Qa'ida, the
institution which had no card-carrying membership. You just woke up in the
morning, wanted to be in al-Qa'ida – and you were. He was the founder. But
he was never a hands-on warrior. There was no computer in his cave, no phone
calls to set bombs off. While the Arab dictators ruled uncontested with our
support, they largely avoided condemning American policy; only Bin Laden
said these things. Arabs never wanted to fly planes into tall buildings, but
they did admire a man who said what they wanted to say. But now,
increasingly, they can say these things. They don't need Bin Laden. He had
become a nonentity.
But talking of caves, Bin Laden's demise does bring Pakistan into grim
focus. For months, President Ali Zardari has been telling us that Bin Laden
was living in a cave in Afghanistan. Now it turns out he was living in a
mansion in Pakistan. Betrayed? Of course he was. By the Pakistan military or
the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence? Quite possibly both. Pakistan knew
where he was.
Not only was Abbottabad the home of the country's military college – the
town was founded by Major James Abbott of the British Army in 1853 – but it
is headquarters of Pakistan's Northern Army Corps' 2nd Division. Scarcely a
year ago, I sought an interview with another "most wanted man" – the leader
of the group believed responsible for the Mumbai massacres. I found him in
the Pakistani city of Lahore – guarded by uniformed Pakistani policemen
holding machine guns.
Of course, there is one more obvious question unanswered: couldn't they have
captured Bin Laden? Didn't the CIA or the Navy Seals or the US Special
Forces or whatever American outfit killed him have the means to throw a net
over the tiger? "Justice," Barack Obama called his death. In the old days,
of course, "justice" meant due process, a court, a hearing, a defence, a
trial. Like the sons of Saddam, Bin Laden was gunned down. Sure, he never
wanted to be taken alive – and there were buckets of blood in the room in
which he died.
But a court would have worried more people than Bin Laden. After all, he
might have talked about his contacts with the CIA during the Soviet
occupation of Afghanistan, or about his cosy meetings in Islamabad with
Prince Turki, Saudi Arabia's head of intelligence. Just as Saddam – who was
tried for the murder of a mere 153 people rather than thousands of gassed
Kurds – was hanged before he had the chance to tell us about the gas
components that came from America, his friendship with Donald Rumsfeld, the
US military assistance he received when he invaded Iran in 1980.
Oddly, he was not the "most wanted man" for the international crimes against
humanity of 11 September 2001. He gained his Wild West status by al-Qa'ida's
earlier attacks on the US embassies in Africa and the attack on the US
barracks in Dhahran. He was always waiting for Cruise missiles – so was I
when I met him. He had waited for death before, in the caves of Tora Bora in
2001 when his bodyguards refused to let him stand and fight and forced him
to walk over the mountains to Pakistan. Some of his time he would spend in
Karachi – he was obsessed with Karachi; he even, weirdly, gave me
photographs of pro-Bin Laden graffiti on the walls of the former Pakistani
capital and praised the city's imams.
His relations with other Muslims were mysterious; when I met him in
Afghanistan, he initially feared the Taliban, refusing to let me travel to
Jalalabad at night from his training camp – he handed me over to his al-Qa'ida
lieutenants to protect me on the journey next day. His followers hated all
Shia Muslims as heretics and all dictators as infidels – though he was
prepared to cooperate with Iraq's ex-Baathists against the country's
American occupiers, and said so in an audiotape which the CIA typically
ignored. He never praised Hamas and was scarcely worthy of their "holy
warrior" definition yesterday which played – as usual – straight into
Israel's hands.
In the years after 2001, I maintained a faint indirect communication with
Bin Laden, once meeting one of his trusted al-Qa'ida associates at a secret
location in Pakistan. I wrote out a list of 12 questions, the first of which
was obvious: what kind of victory could he claim when his actions resulted
in the US occupation of two Muslim countries? There was no reply for weeks.
Then one weekend, waiting to give a lecture in Saint Louis in the US, I was
told that Al Jazeera had produced a new audiotape from Bin Laden. And one by
one – without mentioning me – he answered my 12 questions. And yes, he
wanted the Americans to come to the Muslim world – so he could destroy them.
When Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped, I wrote a long
article in The Independent, pleading with Bin Laden to try to save his life.
Pearl and his wife had looked after me when I was beaten on the Afghan
border in 2001; he even gave me the contents of his contacts book. Much
later, I was told that Bin Laden had read my report with sadness. But Pearl
had already been murdered. Or so he said.
Yet Bin Laden's own obsessions blighted even his family. One wife left him,
two more appeared to have been killed in Sunday's American attack. I met one
of his sons, Omar, in Afghanistan with his father in 1994. He was a handsome
little boy and I asked him if he was happy. He said "yes" in English. But
last year, he published a book called Living Bin Laden and – recalling how
his father killed his beloved dogs in a chemical warfare experiment –
described him as an "evil man". In his book, he too remembered our meeting;
and concluded that he should have told me that no, he was not a happy child.
By midday yesterday, I had three phone calls from Arabs, all certain that it
was Bin Laden's double who was killed by the Americans – just as I know many
Iraqis who still believe that Saddam's sons were not killed in 2003, nor
Saddam really hanged. In due course, al-Qa'ida will tell us. Of course, if
we are all wrong and it was a double, we're going to be treated to yet
another videotape from the real Bin Laden – and President Barack Obama will
lose the next election."
Descent into Chaos - Thailand’s 2010 Red Shirt Protests and the Government
Crackdown
3 May 2011
This new report from Human Rights Watch provides the most detailed
account yet of violence and human rights abuses by both sides during and
after massive protests in Bangkok and other parts of Thailand in 2010.
The following is the press release from Human Rights
Watch:
"No government official has been charged with a crime related
to the political violence that wracked Thailand in April and May 2010, Human
Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The government should
undertake an impartial and transparent investigation and hold those among
government security forces and protesters accountable for criminal offenses,
Human Rights Watch said.
"In plain view government forces shot protesters and armed militants shot
soldiers, but no one has been held responsible," said Brad Adams, Asia
director at Human Rights Watch. "Those who were killed and wounded deserve
better than this. The government should ensure that all those who committed
violence and abuses, on both sides, are investigated and prosecuted."
The 139-page report, "Descent into Chaos: Thailand's 2010 Red Shirt Protests
and the Government Crackdown," provides the most detailed account yet of
violence and human rights abuses by both sides during and after massive
protests in Bangkok and other parts of Thailand in 2010.
The report is based on 94 interviews with victims, witnesses,
protesters, academics, journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders,
parliament members, government officials, security personnel, police, and
those who directly took part in various stages of the violence from both the
government and the protester sides. It documents deadly attacks by
government security forces on protesters in key incidents. It also details
abuses by armed elements, known as "Black Shirts," who are associated with
the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), known as the "Red
Shirts." The report also explains the background to the political crisis
that led to the protests and continues to the present.
The high death toll and injuries resulted in part from excessive and
unnecessary lethal force on the part of security forces, Human Rights Watch
said. At Phan Fa Bridge, some soldiers with M16 and TAR21 assault rifles
fired live ammunition at protesters; others fired rubber bullets from
shotguns directly at protesters, causing serious injury. To disperse the
main protest at Ratchaprasong, the army deployed snipers to shoot those who
breached "no-go" zones between the UDD protesters and army barricades or who
threw rocks and other objects toward soldiers. At times, soldiers also shot
into crowds of protesters.
"Soldiers shot wildly at anyone that moved," one protester who was shot told
Human Rights Watch. "I saw another two men shot by soldiers as they tried to
come out from their hiding places and run for safety. I believed many people
died because medics and ambulances were not allowed to enter Wat Pathum
until almost midnight."
While Thai authorities have not released comprehensive forensic analyses of
the wounds sustained by those killed between May 14 and May 19, incidents
reviewed by Human Rights Watch indicated that several unarmed protesters,
medical volunteers, and bystanders were killed with single shots to the
head, suggesting the use of snipers and high-powered scopes. On the evening
of May 13, Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdipol, a Red Shirt supporter who claimed
to be acting on behalf of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, was
fatally shot in the head during an interview with journalists.
On May 19, the Thai government mobilized troops from regular and Special
Forces units, with support from armored personnel carriers, to break down
the UDD barricades around the Ratchaprasong camp. Some soldiers fired live
ammunition at unarmed protesters, medic volunteers, and journalists behind
the barricades. Human Rights Watch found that soldiers fatally shot at least
four people, including a medic volunteer treating the wounded, in or near
Bangkok's Pathum Wanaram temple, where thousands of protesters sought refuge
after their leaders surrendered to the authorities.
Several protest leaders and many UDD rank-and-file members have been charged
with serious criminal offenses and are awaiting prosecution, but government
security forces implicated in abuses continue to enjoy impunity. The failure
to hold powerful individuals across the political spectrum accountable for
abuses has yet to be addressed in any meaningful way, sending the message to
those with grievances that government forces are above the law, Human Rights
Watch said.
"UDD leaders have been charged with crimes, but despite promises by the
government to also hold security forces accountable, no one in the army or
police has been charged," Adams said. "This has fed the understandable
belief among many Thais that the scales of justice are imbalanced."
Armed elements supporting the UDD also staged deadly attacks on police
officers and soldiers. On April 10, the army attempted to move in on the UDD
camp at Phan Fa Bridge and were confronted by well-armed and organized
groups of Black Shirts militants affiliated with the UDD, who fired M16 and
AK-47 assault rifles at soldiers and used M79 grenade launchers and M67 hand
grenades. Among the first to be killed was a Thai commander, Col. Romklao
Thuwatham, apparently in a targeted grenade attack.
Between May 14 and May 19, protesters fought openly with security forces
surrounding the Ratchaprasong camp, using flaming tires, petrol bombs,
slingshot-fired projectiles, and powerful homemade explosives. On numerous
occasions, the protesters were joined by better-armed and fast-moving Black
Shirts militants.
Between April 23 and 29, groups of armed UDD security guards searched
Chulalongkorn Hospital every night, claiming hospital officials had
sheltered soldiers and pro-government groups. The hospital relocated
patients and temporarily shut down most services. Some UDD leaders and
protesters reacted aggressively toward the media, which they accused of
criticizing the protests or siding with the government.
UDD leaders also contributed to the violence with inflammatory speeches to
demonstrators, urging supporters to carry out riots, arson attacks, and
looting. For months, UDD leaders had urged followers to turn Bangkok into "a
sea of fire" if the army tried to disperse the protest camps.
Apparently following such directives, pro-UDD elements
targeted buildings, banks, stores, and small businesses linked to the
government or anti-Thaksin associates, including the Thai Stock Exchange,
Central World shopping complex, and the Maleenont Tower Complex housing
Channel 3 Television, on May 19. Also on that day, in response to events in
Bangkok, UDD supporters in Khon Kaen, Ubon Ratchathani, Udorn Thani, and
Mukdahan provinces rioted and burned government buildings. The attacks
caused billions of dollars in damage.
"Regardless of their stated grievances and the conduct of the government,
UDD members responsible for crimes should also be brought to justice," Adams
said. "The UDD leadership should understand that when they use violence they
cannot claim to be a peaceful movement."
Since an Emergency Decree on Public Administration in a State of Emergency
was imposed on April 7, 2010, the government has used emergency powers to
detain hundreds of suspects without charge for up to 30 days in unofficial
detention facilities, where there are inadequate safeguards against possible
abuses in custody. The government has also summoned hundreds of politicians,
former officials, businessmen, activists, academics, and radio operators for
interrogation, frozen individual and corporate bank accounts, and detained
some people in military-controlled facilities. UDD detainees reported to
Human Rights Watch that they had experienced torture and forcible
interrogations, arbitrary arrest and detention, and overcrowded detention
facilities.
The report documents government censorship and use of criminal charges to
undermine media freedom and freedom of expression. Using sweeping powers of
the emergency decree, the government shut down more than 1,000 websites, a
satellite television station, online television channels, publications, and
more than 40 community radio stations, most of which were considered to be
closely aligned with the protesters. Even after the state of emergency was
lifted in December, the government has continued to use the Computer Crimes
Act and the charge of lese majeste (insulting the monarchy) to enforce
online censorship and persecute dissidents connected with the UDD.
"The government undermines its claims to be rights-respecting when it
engages in such widespread censorship of political views," Adams said. "The
rolling restrictions on free expression seriously obstruct prospects for the
restoration of human rights and democracy in Thailand."
Excerpts of testimony from "Descent into Chaos:"
"We found that the areas in front and on the side of the
Parliament were packed with the protesters, but there was no sign of
violence.... But the situation changed around 1 p.m. when
Arisman[Pongruangrong] arrived at the scene. It took less than 10 minutes
for Arisman to incite the protesters and order them to push through the
front gate to "hunt down" [Deputy Prime Minister] Suthep [Thaugsuban].
- Observer from Nonviolence Network, a nongovernmental peace advocate group,
recalling UDD raids on the Parliament on April 7, 2010.
"Then the military fired teargas at the Red Shirts..... The protesters
started begging the soldiers not to attack the camp.... I heard many
gunshots.... The soldiers and the Red Shirts were fighting again for about
30 minutes or so. The soldiers were firing rubber bullets at the protesters,
and their M16s mostly up in the air. ... soldiers were also aiming their
M16s at the crowd... and suddenly I was shot in the leg."
- Vinai Dithajon, a Thai photojournalist, who was shot at the scene of the
clash on April 10, 2010.
"The Red Shirts were pushing.... The army had used teargas but the wind made
it go back against them.... Then the soldiers started to shoot in the air,
and then they got hit by a grenade. They fell back and had injured with
them, so to give cover to their wounded they returned fire. The Black Shirts
were ahead of them, attacking.... The commander [Col. Romklao] was in the
front when he was killed.... they had at least 30 wounded soldiers.
- Olivier Sarbil, a French photojournalist who witnessed the deadly clashes
on April 10, 2010.
"They were all ex-military, and some of them were still on active duty. Some
of them were paratroopers, and at least one was from the Navy. They had
AR15s, TAR-21s, M16s, AK-47s.... They told me that their job was to protect
the Red Shirt protesters, but their real job was to terrorize the
soldiers.... They operated mostly at night, but sometimes also during the
day."
- A foreign journalist who described his experience with the Black Shirts.
"I first was filming with the army on Wireless Road.... Then I ran across to
the Red Shirt side.... As I ran across the street, I was shot in my wrist. I
kept running and ended up beside another person who was shot and he was
waving a white towel. As I got down, I was shot again in the leg.... All the
shots were coming from the army, as far as I know. A Red Shirt security
guard ran across the street and grabbed me by the arm, he later told me I
was shot again in the side as he was dragging me."
- Nelson Rand, a Canadian journalist, described how he was shot on May 14,
2010 after the army enforced "live fire" zones in parts of Bangkok.
"The whole operation was staggering in its incompetence. You had scared
young conscripts blazing away at the tents in Lumphini Park without any fire
control. There wasn't the command and control that you would expect during
such an operation.... When I was with the troops in the park along the
fence, they were opening fire at people in the park.... The park was used
essentially as a free-fire zone, the soldiers moved and took shots along
Wireless and Rama IV Road."
- A foreign military analyst, who accompanied the soldiers during the
dispersal operations on May 19, 2010.
"Many of us came to hide inside Wat Pathum [temple]. Our leaders told us
that temple was a safe zone.... Around 6 p.m. I heard gunshots coming from
in front of the temple and I saw people running toward me...Before I could
do anything, I was shot in my left leg and in my chest. The bullet went
through my leg. Soldiers shot wildly at anyone that moved. I saw another two
men shot by soldiers as they tried to come out from their hiding places and
run for safety. I believed many people died because medics and ambulances
were not allowed to enter Wat Pathum until almost midnight. I saw a young
man suffer from gunshot wounds for about 45 minutes before he died. Some of
us tried to crawl out from our hiding places to help the wounded and
retrieve dead bodies, but we were shot at by soldiers."
- Narongsak Singmae, a UDD protester who was shot and wounded inside Pathum
Wanaram temple on May 19, 2010.
"About 50 protesters and Black Shirt militants smashed their way inside
through the glass windows, and some of them went into the underground car
park. They looted the shops, looted the cars in the car park. Then they set
fire with petrol bombs. Some of them tried to blow up cooking gas tanks....
when we realized that we were outnumbered and those looters and Black Shirt
militants were armed, we decided to evacuate.... Some of my men at the
underground car park tried to fight back. But they were attacked with
grenades and rifles."
- Praiwan Roonnok, a security guard at the Central World, recalled when the
shopping complex was looted and burned on May 19, 2010.
You can
read the full report here.
In Canada Tories win with majority
3 May 2011
Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his coveted
majority government in elections Monday that also marked a shattering defeat
for the opposition Liberals.
Harper, who took office in 2006, has won two elections but until now had
never held a majority of Parliament's 308 seats, forcing him to rely on a
coalition to pass legislation.
While Harper's hold on the 308-member Parliament has been tenuous during his
five-year tenure, he has managed to nudge an instinctively center-left
country to the right. He has gradually lowered sales and corporate taxes,
avoided climate change legislation, promoted Arctic sovereignty, upped
military spending and extended Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.
Elections Canada reported preliminary results on its website, giving the
Conservatives 167 seats, which will give Harper four years of uninterrupted
government.
The projected results are:
Conservatives
167
NDP
102
Liberals
33 previously 77.
Bloq Quebecois 4
previously 47.
Green
1
There are some big changes:the rise of the left wing NDP and
the fall of the Liberals and the separatist Bloc Quebecois.
Quebec is a left leaning province which has been for the last
20 years largely represented by the Bloc with the separatist agenda.
Separatism will never die out in this French dominated province but it is
encouraging that Quebecers are seemingly more ready to reengage with Federal
politics.
The fall of the Liberal Party under Michael Ignatieff is a
shattering moment for a party which has seen itself as the party of
government and given Canada some its better Prime Ministers: Pearson and
Trudeau. One outcome of this election is that Canada is more divided between
Conservatives on the right and the NDP on the left. It is a stunning setback
for the Liberals who have always been either in power or leading the
opposition.
The New Democrats' gains are being attributed to Layton's strong performance
in the debates, a folksy, upbeat message, and a desire by the
French-speakers in Quebec, the second most populous province, for a new face
and a federalist option. Voters indicated they had grown weary with the
separatist Bloc Quebecois, which had a shocking drop to four seats from 47
in the last Parliament.
The NDP's gains marked a remarkable shift in a campaign that started out
weeks ago looking like a straight battle between Harper and Ignatieff, with
the 60-year-old Layton recovering from prostate cancer and a broken hip.
The Conservatives have built support in rural areas and with the "Tim
Horton's crowd" — a reference to a chain of doughnut shops popular with
working class Canadians. They also have blitzed the country with TV attack
ads, running them even during telecasts of the Academy Awards and the Super
Bowl.
Lawrence Martin, a political columnist for The Globe and Mail newspaper and
author of "Harperland: The Politics of Control," calls Harper "the most
autocratic and partisan prime minister Canada has ever had."
But to remain in office through the longest period of minority government in
Canadian history, Harper has had to engage in a constant balancing act. He
has deliberately avoided sweeping policy changes that could derail his
government, but now has an opportunity to pass any legislation he wants with
his new majority.
Plymouth Airport to close
2 May 2011
My Mum will be saddened by this. Plymouth City Airport is to
close in December 2011, its owner has announced. Sutton Harbour Group blamed
the economic downturn and "challenges for the UK regional aviation market".
It said the airport, which employs 56 people, had suffered "significant
losses in recent years" and was facing a £1m loss over the next year.
Air SouthWest, previously also owned by Sutton Harbour Group, axed its
service to London Gatwick in February, saying that fewer than 100 people
were flying out of Plymouth every day.
Sutton Harbour Group, which owns the airport leasehold, said it had worked
with freeholders Plymouth City Council, but "no viable solution has been
found".
Nigel Godefroy, chief executive of the Sutton Harbour Group, said: "Plymouth
City Airport, like many regional airports in the current environment, is
unviable as a commercial enterprise. This has been an incredibly difficult
decision given the efforts by so many, including our own staff, to give the
airport a future."
He said that the site could be developed with housing, although that was not
the company's "specific intention". No one believes him and fully expect a
housing development to rise quickly.
Some of the land at the airport is already earmarked for housing, with a
£38m project in the planning system for homes on what was the airport's
disused second runway.
The Sutton Harbour Group took over operation of the airport in 2000 and went
on to launch Air Southwest in 2003.
New destinations were added including London City Airport, Leeds,
Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cork and Grenoble. But Air Southwest was
sold to Eastern International Airways in November 2010 and loss-making
routes, including London Gatwick, were axed.
Air Southwest said said it would continue to operate flights from Plymouth
until it closed and after that it would operate from Newquay and Bristol.
FlyBe has a big operational base at Exeter.
A council spokeswoman said: "Under the terms of the lease we have until late
December to explore all options for the airport and have been working
closely with Sutton Harbour to try and secure a sustainable future for the
airport.
"This has included talking to different potential airport operators, 16
commercial airlines as well as the Civil Aviation Authority to examine all
possible models for the future running of the airport."
According to insiders when Sutton Harbour took over the 150
year lease of the airport they insisted on having an 'Armageddon' clause in
the contract. This dictated that if the airport became 'unviable' they had
the right (even through just owning the lease) to close it and redevelop the
land. Over the past few years they have made being unprofitable their
intention to achieve this and activate the clause, which has been
frustrating to say the least for people who do use the airport frequently,
especially businesses.
There is at least one
scheduled operator that was reportedly denied landing rights.
Landing rights were also prohibitive. It costs four times as
much to park an aircraft at Plymouth than at Exeter.
Further without a runway extension there was always a limit
on the airplanes that could operate into Plymouth. Sutton Harbour Group is a
property developer not an airline or airport operator. Many will feel that
their original plan for the airfield will now be realised.
Commander-in-chief keeps cool head
2 May 2011 The Financial Times
"It was one of the most stinging political attacks that then-senator Barack
Obama was dealt on his road to the Oval Office.
In the midst of the 2008 fight for the Democratic presidential nomination,
Hillary Clinton’s campaign aired the now infamous “3am” commercial,
featuring an image of a phone ringing in the White House with news of a
crisis.
“Who do you want answering the phone?” the ad concluded in a not-so-subtle
jab at Mr Obama’s inexperience on national security issues.
Since entering the White House, Mr Obama has seen his share of crises, from
turmoil on Wall Street to the recession, and upheaval in the Middle East to
war in Libya.
But none is likely to have a more profound impact on his standing with
American voters than his decision as commander-in-chief to authorise a
covert operation to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.
The killing of bin Laden in Pakistan by US special forces handed Mr Obama a
historic victory that eluded his predecessor, George W. Bush, and – barring
any possible future attack on US soil – will make it more difficult for his
political opponents to criticise the president’s national security
credentials.
For a president who has come under fire from Republicans and Democrats alike
for “leading from behind” in difficult times, most recently in the weeks
before Nato attacked Libya, Mr Obama received rare praise on Sunday for
“gutsy” decision-making by political pundits. Indeed, the achievement will
make it more difficult for the handful of Republican candidates who have
signalled their intention to challenge Mr Obama to openly criticise his
leadership skills, at least for now.
“There are so many ways this operation could have gone wrong,” Republican
congressman Peter King, a frequent critic of Mr Obama, told CNN on Sunday
night. “This is why the president was right in doing this . . . he was the
one who was on the line making the decision.”
The development comes at a trying political time for the president. After
seeing an initial boost in his approval ratings early this year, Mr Obama’s
poll numbers have sagged in recent weeks due to his perceived poor handling
of the economy. The White House has acknowledged that high petrol prices,
unemployment and slow growth in the economy are taking its toll on the
president’s popularity among voters.
Mr Obama is preparing to go to battle with Republicans this summer over
competing plans to reduce the deficit and is expected to face deep
resistance in a forthcoming vote to increase the debt ceiling, which the
administration has said must be passed in order for the US to avoid a
default on its debt.
Just hours after the announcement about bin Laden, it was far from clear how
the development would alter the complicated domestic scene – if at all.
After the euphoria of the death of the 9/11 mastermind fades, Mr Obama will
still be faced with unemployment figures that for now are too high to ensure
that the Democratic president will win re-election easily.
Mr Obama needs to look no further than the fate of George H. W. Bush, the
president who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the Cold
War but lost his re-election bid due to the weak US economy. But in a good
sign for Mr Obama, the comparison some political pundits were drawing late
on Sunday was not to Mr Bush but to another one-term president, Jimmy
Carter. The successful US mission in Pakistan could not have been done more
differently than the botched attempted rescue of hostages by Mr Carter in
Iran, an ill-fated mission that sealed his fate in presidential history.
On Sunday night, politics was largely absent from Mr Obama’s message to the
nation. He did, however, call for Americans to remember the 9/11 attack and
celebrate the demise of bin Laden with the sense of unity that defined the
nation nearly 10 years ago, when the country was in shock and mourning in
the immediate aftermath of the events in New York, Virginia and
Pennsylvania.
It was the same call for one America that helped Mr Obama win the presidency
in 2008.
Bin Laden dead
2 May 2011
The Americans are claiming that the mastermind of the worst
terrorist attack on American soil is dead. US President Barack Obama
announced the news late Sunday night, almost 10 years after the attacks on
11 September that killed almost 3,000 people.
Osama bin Laden, the longtime leader of al Qaeda, was killed by U.S. forces
in a mansion outside the Pakistani capital of Islamabad along with other
family members, a senior U.S. official told CNN.
In an address to the nation late Sunday night, Obama called bin Laden's
death "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to
defeat al Qaeda."
There are already denials of his death from al Qaeda; which will require the
US to provide certain proof of his death to avoid creating a legend.
There are scenes of jubilation across the USA. Tasteless. But
understandable even after 10 years.
Hundreds of people arrived at the White House late Sunday
night and chanted, "USA! USA!" They then chanted, "Hey, hey, goodbye!" in
reference to the demise of bin Laden and then spontaneously sang the
national anthem.
The news has brought some relief to the grieving family members of those
killed on 9/11.
"This is important news for us, and for the world. It cannot ease our pain,
or bring back our loved ones," Gordon Felt, president of Families of Flight
93, said in a statement. "It does bring a measure of comfort that the
mastermind of the September 11th tragedy and the face of global terror can
no longer spread his evil."
In his speech, Obama reiterated that the United States is not at war with
Islam. And that is an important message; the
damage bin Laden had caused Islam is beyond appalling and a collective
shame.
But no one should claim that the "war on terror" is now over.
This will not be the end of "terrorism." And significantly the USA has
issued travel warnings and put diplomatic facilities on high alert.
Osama Bin Laden is dead does not mean that al-Qaeda is dead.
Western interventions in the Arab uprisings will create more new Bin Ladens.
Inevitable.
al Qaeda is both an idea and a real organisation; arguably
after nearly a decade of war, al Qaeda is stronger today than when it
carried out the 9/11 attacks. Before 2001, its history was checkered with
mostly failed attempts to fulfill its most enduring goal: the unification of
other militant Islamist groups under its strategic leadership. However,
since fleeing Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas in late 2001, al Qaeda
has founded a regional branch in the Arabian Peninsula and acquired
franchises in Iraq and the Maghreb. Today, it has more members, greater
geographic reach, and a level of ideological sophistication and influence it
lacked ten years ago.
Most accounts of the progress of the war against al Qaeda contend that the
organization is on the decline. But such accounts treat the central al Qaeda
organization separately from its subsidiaries. These groups should not be
ignored. All have attacked Western interests in their regions of operation.
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was responsible for the foiled plot to
bomb cargo planes in October 2010. al Qaeda in Iraq was reportedly involved
in the June 2007 London and Glasgow bomb plots.
Justice for Bin Laden would've been a court and a prison cell. Same as for
anyone who murders civilians wholesale. But the Americans are saying that he
was asked to surrender and died in a firefight.
But with BinLaden dead a chapter is closed and maybe at last
there will be a brighter portrayal of moderate Islam in the West and beyond.
One immediate problem; under Islam the body has to be buried
within 24 hours. Wherever the body is buried there is the potential to
create a martyr's shrine. The Saudis will not want him buried in a public
place in their country. Burial at sea appears to be an option.
Finally al-Qaeda leaders may be in possession of a
pre-recorded videotaped message from Osama bin Laden meant for release
following his capture, death or murder. We may not have heard the last of
him.
Questionable allies
2 May 2011
He was not found in a cave. He was not in hiding. Osama Bin
Laden was in a mansion just 62 miles north of the Pakistani capital and
within yards of a military academy.
A
senior Pakistani intelligence official said that members
of Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, were on site in Abbottabad
during the operation. This is being flatly denied by the US authorities who
say that Pakistan officials were only told after the event.
The mansion was huge. It must have drawn attention. People must have known
who was living there. The compound in Abbotabad was roughly eight times
larger than the other homes in the area. It was built in 2005 on the
outskirts of town with 12 to 16 foot walls, walled areas, restricted access
by two security gates. The town has subsequently grown and surrounded the
mansion. Abbottabad is a city now of some 1 million people.
Abbottabab is a military town; it has a military college.
Many retired military live there in a genteel environment with golf clubs
and greenery.
Abbottabad is home to the prestigious Kakul Pakistan military academy whose
graduates include General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, the chief of army staff, and
Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, head of inter-services intelligence (ISI).
Many of the operations in the border region with Afghanistan are planned
from the city.
This home, U.S. intelligence analysts concluded, was "custom
built to hide someone of significance."
Indian officials have long been telling their U.S. counterparts that
Pakistan can’t be trusted as an ally, that elements of its spy agency are in
league with terrorists – or at least aren’t giving it their all to pursue,
capture and kill them.
India’s Minister of External Affairs S.M. Krishna congratulated the United
States in a statement, calling the killing of Mr. bin Laden “historic.” “It
is a historic development and victorious milestone in the global war against
the forces of terrorism,” said the foreign minister’s statement. But it went
on to hint, obliquely, at the role that groups in Pakistan play in fostering
terrorism.
“The world must not let down its united effort to overcome terrorism and
eliminate the safe havens and sanctuaries that have been provided to
terrorists in our own neighborhood,” said the statement. “The struggle must
continue unabated.”
It does appear that the Pakistanis will have a lot of explaining to do for
being in denial of having any knowledge of his whereabouts, whereas he was
living openly and close to the capital.
Bin Laden died in house close to military academy
2 May 2011 AP
"Osama bin Laden was holed up in a two-storey house about 100 metres from a
Pakistani military academy when four helicopters carrying US anti-terror
forces swooped in the early morning hours of Monday and killed him.
Flames rose Monday from the building that was the apparent target of the
raid as it was confirmed that the world's most wanted fugitive died not in a
cave, but in a town best known as a garrison for the Pakistani military. A
US official said one of bin Laden's sons was also killed in the raid alone
with three others, but the official did not name the son or the others
killed.
Pakistani officials and a witness said bin Laden's guards opened fire from
the roof of the building, and one of the choppers crashed. The sound of at
least two explosions rocked the small northwestern town of Abbottabad where
the al Qa'eda chief made his last stand. The US said no Americans were
harmed in the raid.
Abbottabad is home to at least one regiment of the Pakistani army, is dotted
with military buildings and home to thousands of army personnel. Surrounded
by hills and with mountains in the distance, it is less than half a day's
drive from the border region with Afghanistan, where most intelligence
assessments believed bin Laden was holed up.
The news he was killed in an army town in Pakistan will raise more pointed
questions of how he managed to evade capture and whether Pakistan's military
and intelligence leadership knew of his whereabouts and sheltered him.
Critics have long accused elements of Pakistan's security establishment of
protecting bin Laden, though Islamabad has always denied this.
Abbotabad resident Mohammad Haroon Rasheed said the raid happened about
1:15am local time.
"I heard a thundering sound, followed by heavy firing. Then firing suddenly
stopped. Then more thundering, then a big blast," he said. "In the morning
when we went out to see what happened, some helicopter wreckage was lying in
an open field."
He said the house was 100 metres (yards) away from the gate of the academy.
A Pakistani official in the town said fighters on the roof opened fire on
the choppers as they came close to the building with rocket propelled
grenades. Another official said four helicopters took off from the Ghazi air
base in northwest Pakistan.
Last summer, the US army was based in Ghazi to help out in the aftermath of
the floods.
Women and children were taken into custody during the raid, he said.
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of
the information."
Yes to AV - just
1 May 2011
On 5 May the British electorate will hold a referendum on
alternative voting, AV as it is known.
On the same day there are also local council elections which
means a confused campaign and a confused and disinterested electorate,
So what is AV:
The Alternative Vote (AV) is an extension of the existing
First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system. Like FPTP, it is used to elect
representatives for single-member constituencies, except that rather than
simply marking one solitary 'X' on the ballot paper, the voter has the
chance to rank the candidates on offer.
The voter thus puts a '1' by their first-preference
candidate, and can continue, if they wish, to put a '2' by their
second-preference, and so on, until they don't care anymore or they run out
of names. In some AV elections, such as most Australian elections, electors
are required to rank all candidates.
If a candidate receives a majority (50% plus 1) of
first-preference votes (more people put them as number one than all the rest
combined), then they are elected. If no candidate gains a majority on first
preferences, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished
last on the first count are redistributed. This process is repeated until
someone gets over 50 per cent.
Honestly I am not sure if this works; redistributing the
votes of the candidate for the Monster Raving Loony Party does not give me
great confidence in the electoral system. But it is better than what we have
now with too many safe seats held by candidates winning less than a simple
majority.
In practice AV is used for Leadership elections for Labour
and Liberal Democrats, Elections for the Academy Award for Best Picture (The
Oscars), Australian House of Representatives, Irish Presidential election
etc. It works.
The No Campaign will argue that the "current tried and tested
voting system gives everyone one vote and delivers clear outcomes. The
Alternative Vote is a complicated, expensive and unfair system that gives
some people more votes than others."
The No Campaign wants to leave things as they are. But AV is
not complicated. It just requires the electorate to get a little more
involved in who governs their country and how it is governed than they do
now. And with widespread cynicism of politics and politicians that is a hard
sell.
Most sane people are bored to tears with the AV and anti-AV
campaigns. The coalition is a shambles - the Tories are rabidly anti AV; the
Lib Dems (at least the few that are left) are pro AV. The Labour party do
not seem to know what they want.
The biggest trouble with AV is that Nick Clegg wants it. I
regard him a a sell out who put personal power before political principal.
But....it forming the coalition he did get a commitment to this referendum.
The British voter needs to take advantage of it.
The Economist says vote No because it wants a more radical
change to some form of proportional representation. I agree. But to get to
some form of PR I think we will need to accept that AV is a step down that
path. Without AV, PR in any form will never happen.
Yes or No
1 May 2011 - The Economist
"“Our political system is broken.” That blunt verdict on
British democracy is not taken from a protest banner. It is the position of
David Cameron’s coalition, set out in the programme for government drawn up
after the 2010 general election. To that bleak diagnosis, the programme adds
a prescription: fundamental political reform, starting with a referendum on
May 5th on whether to change the voting system used for elections to the
House of Commons (see article).
This newspaper agrees that British democracy is in need of repair work.
Public suspicion of politicians—though hardly unique to the British Isles—is
high. Flaws in the current voting system of first-past-the-post (FPTP) have
contributed to a dangerous sense that British voters have too little sway
over those who govern them. We would, therefore, support a change to a
better voting system. Unfortunately, the one on offer isn’t.
The current system has virtues, as well as flaws. One is simplicity: voters
place a cross next to one name on the ballot, the candidate who secures the
most crosses wins. It allows for ideological clarity, and thus
accountability. Historically, FPTP has favoured the election of majority
governments, able to defend a clear programme or face ejection at the next
election. In much of Europe, where coalitions are the norm, political
compromise is seen as a virtue. The very word has an unhappy ring in
Britain: just now, lots of Lib Dem voters feel compromised by coalition with
the Tories, and not in a good way.
Yet more than half the current MPs hold seats deemed “very safe” or “ultra
safe”, leaving millions of citizens feeling that their votes change nothing.
And, with support for the Conservatives and Labour falling, the number of
MPs elected by a minority of votes cast in their seat has risen. Above all,
FPTP is not very representative, disproportionately rewarding parties whose
support is geographically concentrated. That makes Britain look more divided
than it really is. Today’s rules punish Conservative supporters in the
north, Labour voters in the south, and Lib Dems everywhere. At the general
election Britain’s third party picked up nearly a quarter of all votes but
fewer than one in ten seats: small wonder that the Lib Dems loathe FPTP, and
made a referendum on ditching it a key demand before joining the Tories in a
coalition.
What Lib Dems really want is a system that would give them seats in
proportion to their votes. That would leave them with a good chance of
playing kingmaker in an endless series of left-leaning or right-leaning
coalition governments. But because Conservatives fear that they would not
win an outright majority in a proportional representation (PR) system, the
Lib Dems could secure only a more modest prize: a referendum on keeping FPTP
or adopting the alternative vote (AV).
Under AV voters would be invited to rank candidates on the ballot in order
of preference. If after a first round no candidate had more than 50% of the
votes cast, the votes of the least popular candidate would be redistributed,
following the second preferences indicated by supporters of that eliminated
candidate. Rounds of redistribution continue, using third, fourth or lower
preferences if needed, until someone crosses the 50% line. Along with the
Lib Dems, the Labour leader Ed Miliband and affable celebrities such as
Colin Firth want AV; the Conservatives and many Labour MPs oppose it.
The experience in Australia, which has used AV since 1918, suggests that it
would not be a disaster. The system is not widely disliked; indeed, it is
not an issue. But Yes campaigners make greater claims for AV than that. They
say it would force “lazy” politicians to “work harder” by reducing the
number of safe seats. Because politicians would need to seek more than 50%
of votes to win, they would become less tribal.
They are right that AV would probably favour consensus-seeking, centrist
candidates. A University of Essex study estimates that the Lib Dems would
have scooped 32 more seats if AV rules had applied at the general election.
But there would still be lots of safe seats under AV. It is not a PR system
(the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, used to call it a “miserable little
compromise”). Indeed, in a landslide, AV can exaggerate the swing to the
winning party. Many MPs would still be elected by a minority of votes cast,
because the version on offer allows voters to give their favourite a “1” and
stop there, turning AV into a messy version of FPTP. What’s more, if there
is a run-off, a carefully considered first preference carries the same
weight as more tepid second or even third choices. And it encourages voters
to flirt with extremists, knowing they can make centrist parties their
second preference. AV is not an improvement.
Our first preference
Some Yes campaigners admit that AV has flaws but argue that changing the
system once will make future changes easier. Perhaps, but not certainly so.
It might exhaust the national appetite for reform. And so large a change
should be undertaken only for a system that can be defended on its own
merits.
For this newspaper, that system would have to be genuinely more proportional
than the current one. We would not support undiluted PR, which often means
party barons choose who forms a government, and (as in Israel and Germany)
hands too much power to small parties. But a dose of PR, to elect, say, a
fifth of MPs, would go a long way towards correcting the current system’s
unfairness—especially if the top-up MPs were selected on a regional basis.
In Scotland, where over 40% of the seats are chosen this way, there has been
a string of minority or coalition governments. We would stick with FPTP for
all but 20% of the seats to increase the likelihood of strong, accountable
governments. Call the combination “FPTP Plus”.
For supporters of constitutional reform, such as this newspaper, these are
good times. The previous government introduced a freedom of information act.
An overhaul of the House of Lords is under way. But this referendum is a
disappointment. AV would not be a disaster, but it would not be an
improvement either; and although we are reformers by instinct, we do not
believe in change for change’s sake. The Economist would therefore vote No."
Canada votes again, and again and again
1 May 2011
So Canada votes tomorrow in yet another federal election;
with another minority government the likely result.
This is Canada's fourth federal election in seven years; the
last turnout was less than 60%. Sadly tomorrow's voting numbers do not look
like being any better.
Polls are now showing a surge in support for the customary
third placed NDP across Canada to the point the party has passed the
Liberals and closed in on the Conservatives.
The Liberals are now calling for tactical voting; anything to
avoid a conservative majority by voting for the strongest NDP or Liberal
candidate in each constituency.
The Liberal party has died; Even their best friend, the
Toronto Star, has decided Jack Layton is its new bestest pal and has offered
him its endorsement.
It is likely to get very messy. In a minority parliament with the
Conservatives first and the NDP second, the Liberals can't support an NDP
minority government because that would be the end of the Liberals, and the
Bloc can't support an NDP minority government because that would be the end
of the Bloc.
One poll has Conservatives 139, NDP 98, Liberals 56, BQ 14 ..
in seat standings. This would be a wipe out of the BQ.
The 2008 results were (seats and percent of vote)
Conservatives 143/38%, Liberals 77/26%, BQ 49/10%, NDP 37/18%, Green 0/8%.
Polls are sometimes wrong. Voters sometimes — often, actually
— change their minds during the final weekend of a campaign.
But what would this mean:
1) An expanded Conservative government, falling short of a
majority;
2) An NDP opposition, bizarrely based in Quebec rather than its traditional
Ontario base;
3) A deflated Bloc Quebecois
4) And a Liberal party consigned to third place in the House of Commons.
So why is the NDP surging in Quebec; it has campaigned on a
promise of regional redistribution: higher taxes on energy in order to
finance more social welfare and more subsidies to favored industries. No
surprise that promise appeals to Quebec!
If you want to credit anything, credit a mega-trend in the Canadian economy.
Canada used to be a big Michigan: a manufacturing economy with some resource
industries attached. Suddenly Canada finds itself a big Norway: an energy
economy with some services and manufacturing attached.
The Canadian dollar has surged, bestowing a higher standard of living on
Canadians who can benefit from the energy sector. However, that high dollar
also has carved a big question mark over the future of manufacturing Canada
— not only the auto belt of southern Ontario, but also the aviation and
pharmaceutical industries of Quebec.
How does Bombardier now compete with Embraer? How long can Pfizer and
Bristol-Myers and Squibb refrain from moving their pill production to India?
This change in the Canadian economy is shaking Canadian politics. Those
regions that feel they are losing ground want more help from government than
the Liberals will give. Those regions that are gaining ground want less
government intervention than the Liberals can accept.
The old Liberal game — campaign left, govern right — no longer works. Canada
is developing a real left and right and the Liberal centre ground is no
longer comfortable.
The Liberals are unlikely to lose as badly in 2011 as the old Progressive
Conservatives lost in 1993. But they may be facing the same kind of identity
crisis. They will have to find a new leader, a new strategy and a new
message. Discovering those new formulas will take time.
The Liberal back bench will have to prefer a Conservative government
supported by Liberal votes to a subordinated Liberal role in an NDP
government. Especially since that Liberal-NDP government will also need the
consent of the Bloc: again suicide for the Liberal brand and the Liberal
future.
So this NDP surge may actually succeed in producing a third Conservative
minority, but one that is actually even stronger and more stable than the
Conservative minority of 2008-2011.
Incidentally so lacking are the parties in any form of policy
initiative that the day before the vote the biggest story (Toronto Sun
should be ashamed) is that NDP leader Jack Layton may have been to a massage
parlour 15 years ago in 1996. Now you know why I have never run for politics
!
And another afternote - Bob Rae, once NDP Premier of Ontario
(when I lived in Canada), must be feeling especially dopey - after a
lifetime in the NDP the guy quits the party to join the Liberals, just as
the Liberal dynasty collapses and the NDP takes its place.
This voice from another side
By Pravit Rojanaphruk - The Nation on Sunday
1 May 2011
Accused by some of being mentally unsound, academic Somsak Jiamteerasakul
continues his calls for reforms
Thammasat University historian Somsak Jiamteerasakul is probably the most
under-reported public intellectual in Thailand. That's not because he
doesn't have anything to say; quite the contrary in fact. A vocal critic of
the Thai monarchy and the country's lese-majeste law, Somsak has long been
treated by most mainstream mass media as persona non grata.
These media disapprove of Somsak's fierce and critical stance towards the
institution of the monarchy, which they often portray as the "revered
institution" or "the highest" institution. Or perhaps these media feel that
the draconian and controversial lese-majeste law should remain in place.
However, in cyber space, on alternative media, and amongst left-leaning
students, intellectuals and the red shirts, the 52-year-old Somsak has
become something of an intellectual cult figure.
Last Sunday, when Somsak and his colleagues held a press conference at
Thammasat University to talk about his claimed harassment by the Thai Army,
the large lecture room at the Law Faculty was packed with some 500
supporters and admirers.
Unsurprisingly, no major television channel sent reporters to cover the
event and only a handful of quality print media reporters turned up. There
were many less-professional looking video camera men and women, however.
Alternative media like Prachatai.com were there and a young female Internet
activist tweeted whatever Somsak said several times a minute, while
unbeknown to her, a Western accomplice, instantaneously translated her
Thai-language tweets into English to Somsak's non-Thai followers.
Somsak, who received his PhD from Australia's Monash University and wrote a
dissertation on the communist novement in Thailand, has 5,000 Facebook
friends too.
The stark contrast between the deep interest amongst a growing section of
the Thai population and the disdain or even denial of Somsak's existence by
the majority of the Thai mainstream mass media is becoming more acute and
reflects the fact that there's something very wrong with the current
political forum in Thailand.
In a genuinely open and democratic society, the mass media would discuss and
debate what Somsak proposed last year - an eight-point reform plan for the
Thai monarchy. This includes the abolition of lese majeste law, the
abolition of one-sided information and education about the monarchy and the
abolition of the Privy Council.
It is not too far-fetched to say that if any mainstream mass media were to
conduct a proper interview with Somsak, who is known for his straightforward
remarks and ultra-rationalistic arguments on the monarchy institution, some
80 per cent, perhaps more, of the academic's comments, would likely be
censored and left unreported.
Thailand, Somsak said last Sunday, needs to normalise talk about the
monarchy institution. The historian, who was a student leader back in 1976
and was detained for nearly two years after the right-wing coup and the
lynching and killings of October 6, 1976, insists we need to be able to
discuss the issue of the monarchy institution in an honest manner.
Somsak argues that it's "abnormal" for all Thais to have to publicly hold
the same, positive-only view about the monarchy.
"If you don't agree with this then let us have a debate," Somsak told his
appreciative audience.
"I love this country, as a home. But as citizens, we want a nicer home,
where freedom as human beings [is respected]," he told the audience. He
added that he has underestimated the level of irrational thinking in
Thailand. "The side that doesn't use logic is more than I initially
reckoned," said Somsak, who is regarded as anti-monarchist and an enemy of
the ultra-royalist yellow shirts.
The grey-haired Somsak has always maintained that he's not calling for the
abolition of the monarchy institution. It is his hope that after reform, the
Thai monarchy will be "modernised" like those in the West.
Challenges to the current status quo are not for the faint hearted. One
female writer, popularly known as Kam Paka, spoke strongly about the need to
have the light flooding into the dark recesses of the house where we all
live, so we can see things and say things. But watching Kam Paka speak, it
was all too obvious that her hands were shaking.
Somsak did not show any visible sign of fear, though he claims to have
received threatening phone calls and alleges at least one soldier on a
motorcycle has visited his home. He feels that the recent remark by Army
Chief Prayuth Chan-ocha about a psychotic academic who causes problems"
probably refers to him.
For a man who was irrevocably touched by the lynching of his friends back in
1976, in the name of defeating the "communist" students, it is
understandable why the issue of the monarchy institution has become an
obsession.
And with leaders like Ji Ungpakorn and Jakraphob Penkae fleeing abroad, it
is easy to see why Somsak has become for some red shirts, a surrogate voice
of conscience and intellectual leader.
|