The pressure of an expanding war

May 23, 2009

The pressure of an expanding war
By Tom Engelhardt

Yes, Stanley McChrystal is the general from the dark side (and proud of it). So the recent sacking of Afghan commander General David McKiernan after less than a year in the field and McChrystal's appointment as the man to run the Afghan War seems to signal that the Barack Obama administration is going for broke. It's heading straight into what, in the Vietnam era, was known as "the big muddy".

General McChrystal comes from a world where killing by any means is the norm and a blanket of secrecy provides the necessary protection. For five years he commanded the Pentagon's super-secret Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which, among other things, ran what Seymour Hersh has described as an "executive assassination wing" out of vice president Cheney's office. (Cheney just returned the favor by giving the newly appointed general a ringing endorsement: "I think you'd be hard put to find anyone better than Stan McChrystal.")

McChrystal gained a certain renown when president George W Bush outed him as the man responsible for tracking down and eliminating al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The secret force of "manhunters" he commanded had its own secret detention and interrogation center near Baghdad, Camp Nama, where bad things happened regularly, and the unit there, Task Force 6-26, had its own slogan: "If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it." Since some of the task force's men were, in the end, prosecuted, the bleeding evidently wasn't avoided.

In the Bush years, McChrystal was reputedly extremely close to secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. The super-secret force he commanded was, in fact, part of Rumsfeld's effort to seize control of, and Pentagonize, the covert, on-the-ground activities that were once the purview of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Behind McChrystal lies a string of targeted executions that may run into the hundreds, as well as accusations of torture and abuse by troops under his command (and a role in the cover-up of the circumstances surrounding the death of Army Ranger and former National Football League player Pat Tillman). The general has reportedly long thought of Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single battlefield, which means that he was a premature adherent to the idea of an Af-Pak - that is, expanded - war.

While in Afghanistan in 2008, the New York Times reported, he was a "key advocate ... of a plan, ultimately approved by President George W Bush, to use American commandos to strike at Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan". This end-of-term Bush program provoked such anger and blowback in Pakistan that it was reportedly halted after two cross-border raids, one of which killed civilians.

All of this offers more than a hint of the sort of "new thinking and new approaches" - to use Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' words - that the Obama administration expects McChrystal to bring to the devolving Af-Pak battlefield. He is, in a sense, both a legacy figure from the worst days of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld era and the first-born child of Obama-era Washington's growing desperation and hysteria over the wars it inherited.

Hagiography
And here's the good news - We luv the guy. Just luv him to death.
We loved him back in 2006, when Bush first outed him and Newsweek reporters Michael Hirsh and John Barry dubbed him "a rising star" in the army and one of the "Jedi Knights who are fighting in what Cheney calls 'the shadows'."

It's no different today in what's left of the mainstream news analysis business. In that mix of sports lingo, Hollywood-ese, and just plain hyperbole that makes armchair war strategizing just so darn much fun, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, for instance, claimed that US Central Command supremo General David Petraeus, who picked McChrystal as his man in Afghanistan, is "assembling an all-star team" and that McChrystal himself is "a rising superstar who, like Petraeus, has helped reinvent the US Army". Is that all?

When it came to pure, instant hagiography, however, the prize went to Elisabeth Bumiller and Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times, who wrote a front-pager, "A General Steps from the Shadows", that painted a picture of McChrystal as a mutant cross between Superman and a saint.

Among other things, it described the general as "an ascetic who ... usually eats just one meal a day, in the evening, to avoid sluggishness. He is known for operating on a few hours' sleep and for running to and from work while listening to audio books on an iPod ... [He has] an encyclopedic, even obsessive, knowledge about the lives of terrorists ... [He is] a warrior-scholar, comfortable with diplomats, politicians ... " and so on. The quotes Bumiller and Mazzetti dug up from others were no less spectacular: "He's got all the Special Ops attributes, plus an intellect," and "If you asked me the first thing that comes to mind about General McChrystal ... I think of no body fat."

From the gush of good cheer about his appointment, you might almost conclude that the general was not human at all, but an advanced android (a good one, of course) and the "elite" world (of murder and abuse) he emerged from an unbearably sexy one.

Above all, as we're told here and elsewhere, what's so good about the new appointment is that McChrystal is "more aggressive" than his stick-in-the-mud predecessor. He will, as Bumiller and Thom Shanker report in another piece, bring "a more aggressive and innovative approach to a worsening seven-year war". The general, we're assured, likes operations without body fat, but with plenty of punch. And though no one quite says this, given his closeness to Rumsfeld and possibly Cheney, both desperately eager to "take the gloves off" on a planetary scale, his mentality is undoubtedly a global-war-on-terror one, which translates into no respect for boundaries, restraints, or the sovereignty of others.

After all, as journalist Gareth Porter pointed out recently in a thoughtful portrait carried on Asia Times Online of the new Afghan War commander, former Rumsfeld granted the parent of JSOC, the Special Operations Command (SOCOM), "the authority to carry out actions unilaterally anywhere on the globe". (See US choice hardly McChrystal clear, May 14, 2009, Asia Times Online.)

Think of McChrystal's appointment, then, as a decision in Washington to dispatch the bull directly to the china shop with the most meager of hopes that the results won't be smashed Afghans and Pakistanis. The Post's Ignatius even compares McChrystal's boss Petraeus and Obama's special envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, to "two headstrong bulls in a small paddock". He then concludes his paean to all of them with this passage - far more ominous than he means it to be:

Obama knows the immense difficulty of trying to fix a broken Afghanistan and make it a functioning, modern country. But with his two bulls, Petraeus and Holbrooke, he's marching his presidency into the "graveyard of empires" anyway.

McChrystal is evidently the third bull, the one slated to start knocking over the tombstones.

An expanding Af-Pak war
Of course, there are now so many bulls in this particular china shop that smashing is increasingly the name of the game. At this point, the early moves of the Obama administration, when combined with the momentum of the situation it inherited, have resulted in the expansion of the Af-Pak war in at least six areas, which only presage further expansion in the months to come:

1. Expanding troop commitment: In February, President Obama ordered a "surge" of 17,000 extra troops into Afghanistan, increasing US forces there by 50%. (Then-commander McKiernan had called for 30,000 new troops.) In March, another 4,000 American military advisors and trainers were promised. The first of the surge troops, reportedly ill-equipped, are already arriving. In March, it was announced that this troop surge would be accompanied by a "civilian surge" of diplomats, advisors, and the like; in April, it was reported that, because the requisite diplomats and advisors couldn't be found, the civilian surge would actually be made up largely of military personnel.

In preparation for this influx, there has been massive base and outpost building in the southern parts of that country, including the construction of 443-acre Camp Leatherneck in that region's "desert of death". When finished, it will support up to 8,000 US troops, and a raft of helicopters and planes. Its airfield, which is under construction, has been described as the "largest such project in the world in a combat setting".

2. Expanding CIA drone war: The CIA is running an escalating secret drone war in the skies over the Pakistani borderlands with Afghanistan, a "targeted" assassination program of the sort that McChrystal specialized in while in Iraq. Since last September, more than three dozen drone attacks - the Los Angeles Times put the number at 55 - have been launched, as opposed to 10 in 2006-2007. The program has reportedly taken out a number of mid-level al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but also caused significant civilian casualties, destabilized the Pashtun border areas of Pakistan, and fostered support for the Islamic guerrillas in those regions. As Noah Shachtman wrote recently at his Danger Room website:

According to the American press, a pair of missiles from the unmanned aircraft killed "at least 25 militants". In the local media, the dead were simply described as "29 tribesmen present there". That simple difference in description underlies a serious problem in the campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. To Americans, the drones over Pakistan are terrorist-killers. In Pakistan, the robotic planes are wiping out neighbors.

David Kilcullen, a key advisor to Petraeus during the Iraq "surge" months, and counterinsurgency expert Andrew McDonald Exum recently called for a moratorium on these attacks on the New York Times op-ed page. ("Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders. But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2% - hardly 'precision'.") As it happens, however, the Obama administration is deeply committed to its drone war. As CIA Director Leon Panetta put the matter, "Very frankly, it's the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership."

3. Expanding Air Force drone war: The US Air Force now seems to be getting into the act as well. There are conflicting reports about just what it is trying to do, but it has evidently brought its own set of Predator and Reaper drones into play in Pakistani skies, in conjunction, it seems, with a somewhat reluctant Pakistani military. Though the outlines of this program are foggy at best, this nonetheless represents an expansion of the war.

4. Expanding political interference: Quite a different kind of escalation is also underway. Washington is evidently attempting to insert yet another figure from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld era into the Afghan mix. Not so long ago, Zalmay Khalilzad, the neo-con former American viceroy in Kabul and then Baghdad, was considering making a run for the Afghan presidency against Hamid Karzai, the leader the Obama administration is desperate to ditch.

In March, reports - hotly denied by Holbrooke and others - broke in the British press of a US/British plan to "undermine President Karzai of Afghanistan by forcing him to install a powerful chief of staff to run the government". Karzai, so the rumors went, would be reduced to "figurehead" status, while a "chief executive with prime ministerial-style powers" not provided for in the Afghan Constitution would essentially take over the running of the weak and corrupt government.

This week, Helene Cooper reported on the front page of the New York Times that Khalilzad would be that man. He "could assume a powerful, unelected position inside the Afghan government under a plan he is discussing with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, according to senior American and Afghan officials." He would then be "the chief executive officer of Afghanistan".

Cooper's report is filled with official denials that these negotiations involve Washington in any way. Yet if they succeed, an American citizen, a former US ambassador to the UN as well as to Kabul, would end up functionally atop the Karzai government just as the Obama administration is eagerly pursuing a stepped-up war against the Taliban.

Why officials in Washington imagine that Afghans might actually accept such a figure is the mystery of the moment. It's best to think of this plan as the kinder, gentler, soft-power version of the Kennedy administration's 1963 decision to sign off on the coup that led to the assassination of South Vietnamese autocrat Ngo Dinh Diem.

Then, too, top Washington officials were distressed that a puppet who seemed to be losing support was, like Karzai, also acting in an increasingly independent manner when it came to playing his appointed role in an American drama. That assassination, by the way, only increased instability in South Vietnam, leading to a succession of weak military regimes and paving the way for a further unraveling there. This American expansion of the war would likely have similar consequences.

5. Expanding war in Pakistan: Meanwhile, in Pakistan itself, mayhem has ensued, again in significant part thanks to Washington, whose disastrous Afghan war and escalating drone attacks have helped to destabilize the Pashtun regions of the country. Now, the Pakistani military - pushed and threatened by Washington (with the loss of military aid, among other things) - has smashed full force into the districts of Buner and Swat, which had, in recent months, been largely taken over by the Islamic fundamentalist guerrillas we call "the Pakistani Taliban".

It's been a massive show of force by a military configured for smash-mouth war with India, not urban or village warfare with lightly armed guerrillas. The Pakistani military has loosed its jets, helicopter gunships, and artillery on the region (even as the CIA drone strikes continue), killing unknown numbers of civilians and, far more significantly, causing a massive exodus of the local population. In some areas, well more than half the population has fled Taliban depredations and indiscriminate fire from the military. Those that remain in besieged towns and cities, often without electricity, with the dead in the streets, and fast disappearing supplies of food, are clearly in trouble.

With nearly 1.5 million Pakistanis turned into refugees just since the latest offensive began, UN officials are suggesting that this could be the worst refugee crisis since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Talk about the destabilization of a country.

In the long run, this may only increase the anger of Pashtuns in the tribal areas of Pakistan at both the Americans and the Pakistani military and government. The rise of Pashtun nationalism and a fight for an "Islamic Pashtunistan" would prove a dangerous development indeed. This latest offensive is what Washington thought it wanted, but undoubtedly the old saw, "Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true," applies. Already a panicky Washington is planning to rush $110 million in refugee assistance to the country.

6. Expanding civilian death toll and blowback: As Taliban attacks in Afghanistan rise and that loose guerrilla force (more like a coalition of various Islamist, tribal, warlord, and criminal groups) spreads into new areas, the American air war in Afghanistan continues to take a heavy toll on Afghan civilians, while manufacturing ever more enemies as well as deep resentment and protest in that country. The latest such incident, possibly the worst since the Taliban was defeated in 2001, involves the deaths of up to 147 Afghans in the Bala Baluk district of Farah province, according to accounts that have come out of the villages attacked.
Up to 95 of the dead were under 18, one Afghan lawmaker involved in investigating the incident claims, and up to 65 of them women or girls. These deaths came after Americans were called into an escalating fight between the Taliban and Afghan police and military units, and in turn, called in devastating air strikes by two US jets and a B-1 bomber (which, villagers claim, hit them after the Taliban fighters had left).

Despite American pledges to own up to and apologize more quickly for civilian deaths, the post-carnage events followed a predictable stonewalling pattern, including a begrudging step-by-step retreat in the face of independent claims and reports.

The Americans first denied that anything much had happened; then claimed that they had killed mainly Taliban "militants"; then that the Taliban had themselves used grenades to kill most of the civilians (a charge later partially withdrawn as "thinly sourced"); and finally, that the numbers of Afghan dead were "extremely over-exaggerated", and that the urge for payment from the Afghan government might be partially responsible.

An investigation, as always, was launched that never seems to end, while the Americans wait for the story to fade from view. As of this moment, while still awaiting the results of a "very exhaustive" investigation, American spokesmen nonetheless claim that only 20-30 civilians died along with up to 65 Taliban insurgents. In these years, however, the record tells us that, when weighing the stories offered by surviving villagers and those of American officials, believe the villagers. Put more bluntly, in such situations, we lie, they die.

Two things make this "incident" at Bala Baluk more striking. First of all, according to Jerome Starkey of the British Independent, another Rumsfeld creation, the US Marines Corps Special Operations Command (MarSOC), the Marines' version of JSOC, was centrally involved, as it had been in two other major civilian slaughters, one near Jalalabad in 2007 (committed by a MarSOC unit that dubbed itself "Taskforce Violence"), the second in 2008 at the village of Azizabad in Herat Province. McChrystal's appointment, reports Starkey, has "prompted speculation that [similar] commando counterinsurgency missions will increase in the battle to beat the Taliban".

Second, back in Washington, National Security Advisor James Jones and head of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, fretting about civilian casualties in Afghanistan and faced with President Karzai's repeated pleas to cease air attacks on Afghan villages, nonetheless refused to consider the possibility. Both, in fact, used the same image. As Jones told ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Well, I think he understands that ... we have to have the full complement of ... our offensive military power when we need it ... We can't fight with one hand tied behind our back ...".

In a world in which the US is the military equivalent of the multi-armed Hindu god Shiva, this is one of the truly strange, if long-lasting, American images. It was, for instance, used by president George H W Bush on the eve of the first Gulf War. "No hands," he said, "are going to be tied behind backs. This is not a Vietnam."

Forgetting the levels of firepower loosed in Vietnam, the image itself is abidingly odd. After all, in everyday speech, the challenge "I could beat you with one hand tied behind my back" is a bravado offer of voluntary restraint and an implicit admission that fighting any other way would make one a bully. So hidden in the image, both when the elder Bush used it and today, is a most un-American acceptance of the United States as a bully nation, about to be restrained by no one, least of all itself.

Apologize or stonewall, one thing remains certain: the air war will continue and so civilians will continue to die. The idea that the US might actually be better off with one "hand" tied behind its back is now so alien to us as to be beyond serious consideration.

The pressure of an expanding war President Obama has opted for a down-and-dirty war strategy in search of some at least minimalist form of success. For this, McChrystal is the poster boy. Former Afghan commander General McKiernan believed that, "as a NATO commander, my mandate stops at the [Afghan] border. So unless there is a clear case of self-protection to fire across the border, we don't consider any operations across the border in the tribal areas".

That the "responsibilities" of US generals fighting the Afghan War "ended at the border with Pakistan", Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt of the Times report, is now considered part of an "old mind-set". McChrystal represents those "fresh eyes" that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked about in the press conference announcing the general's appointment. As Mazzetti and Schmitt point out, "Among [McChrystal's] last projects as the head of the Joint Special Operations Command was to better coordinate Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency efforts on both sides of the porous border."

For those old enough to remember, we've been here before. Administrations that start down a path of expansion in such a war find themselves strangely locked in - psychically, if nothing else - if things don't work out as expected and the situation continues to deteriorate. In Vietnam, the result was escalation without end. President Obama and his foreign policy team now seem locked into an expanding war. Despite the fact that the application of force has not only failed for years, but actually fed that expansion, they also seem to be locked into a policy of applying ever greater force, with the goal of, as the Post's Ignatius puts it, cracking the "Taliban coalition" and bringing elements of it to the bargaining table.

So keep an eye out for whatever goes wrong, as it most certainly will, and then for the pressures on Washington to respond with further expansions of what is already "Obama's war". With McChrystal in charge in Afghanistan, for instance, it seems reasonable to assume that the urge to sanction new special forces raids into Pakistan will grow. After all, frustration in Washington is already building, for however much the Pakistani military may be taking on the Taliban in Swat or Buner, don't expect its military or civilian leaders to be terribly interested in what happens near the Afghan border.

As Tony Karon of the Rootless Cosmopolitan blog puts the matter: "The current military campaign is designed to enforce a limit on the Taliban's reach within Pakistan, confining it to the movement's heartland." And that heartland is the Afghan border region. For one thing, the Pakistani military (and the country's intelligence services, which essentially brought the Taliban into being long ago) are focused on India. They want a Pashtun ally across the border, Taliban or otherwise, where they fear the Indians are making inroads.

So the frustration of a war in which the enemy has no borders and we do is bound to rise along with the fighting, long predicted to intensify this year. We now have a more aggressive "team" in place. Soon enough, if the fighting in the Afghan south and along the Pakistani border doesn't go as planned, pressure for the president to send in those other 10,000 troops General McKiernan asked for may rise as well, as could pressure to apply more air power, more drone power, more of almost anything. And yet, as former CIA station chief in Kabul, Graham Fuller, wrote recently, in the region "crises have only grown worse under the US military footprint".

And what if, as the war continues its slow arc of expansion, the "Washington coalition" is the one that cracks first? What then?

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29544.1

China picks core new leaders

May 23, 2009

China picks core new leaders
By Willy Lam

While the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) administration seems preoccupied with the twofold task of baoba and baowen - maintaining an 8% growth rate and upholding social stability - it is also giving priority to the rejuvenation of the party's leadership.

Attention is being focused on young turks of the sixth-generation, meaning cadres born in the early to mid-1960s. The identity of prominent fifth-generation cadres, who were born in the early to mid-1950s, was already revealed at the 17th Party Congress in 2007.

For example, Vice President Xi Jinping, 56 and first Vice-Premier Li Keqiang, 54, were inducted into the Politburo Standing Committee, China's highest ruling council, at that pivotal conclave. It is all but certain that Xi and Li will take over from respectively President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao at or soon after the 18th Party Congress in late 2012.

Since Xi and Li are deemed "safe choices" who will not deviate from the political line laid down by patriarch Deng Xiaoping, ex-president Jiang Zemin and President Hu, Beijing's political observers are most curious about the sixth-generation team, the great majority of whose members are unfamiliar figures even to their compatriots.

Some of the mystery surrounding these rising stars was lifted when a current issue of the official journal Global Personalities singled out five sixth-generation politicians with colossal potentials: Governors Zhou Qiang, Hu Chunhua and Nur Bekri, respectively of Hunan province, Hebei province and the Xinjiang Autonomous Region; Agriculture Minister Sun Zhengcai; and first party secretary of the Communist Youth League (CYL) Lu Hao.

Apart from Lu, Zhou and Hu (no relations to President Hu) are former honchos of the league; and Nur Bekri had served in its Xinjiang branch in his younger days. It is thus obvious that President Hu, a one-time CYL boss who heads the CCP's powerful tuanpai (CYL faction), has played a pivotal role in the elevation of these 40-something neophytes. Tuanpai cadres are generally considered to be politically correct and knowledgeable about the requirements of the central authorities.

Moreover, fifth-generation stalwart Li Yuanchao, a politburo member who is in charge of high-level personnel matters, is a tuanpai affiliate and crony of the president. Owing to factors including density of media coverage - and their prominence in the CCP's dominant faction - Zhou, 49 and Hu, 45, seem to have pulled ahead of their sixth-generation confreres in leadership sweepstakes.

Zhou, a native of Hubei province, began his career as a specialist in youth and ideological work. He gained ministerial ranking at the tender age of 38, when he was appointed CYL first secretary. Zhou, a protege of President Hu, was transferred to Hunan province in 2006 to widen his exposure to regional issues; he became governor of the central province a year later.

The Chinese media have praised Zhou for helping to lift the economy of one of China's six land-locked internal provinces. Despite the global financial crisis, Hunan's GDP grew by a stunning 10.3% in the first quarter of this year, which was 4% higher than the national average.

A few years ago, Zhou won the United Nation's “Champion of the Earth” award for motivating young men and women to show concern for the environment.

The rise of Hu Chunhua, 45, also a Hubei native, has been even more meteoric. Apart from having served as CYL chief, Hu shares something important with President Hu, his key mentor: long experience in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). Immediately on graduation from the prestigious Peking University in 1983, Hu went to Tibet and worked there on and off for nearly 20 years - rising to TAR first vice-party secretary in 2006.

After serving as CYL party secretary for less than two years, he became Hebei's acting governor in 2008 and governor early this year. A fluent Tibetan speaker, Hu was credited with reviving the Tibet economy, thwarting separatist tendencies among Tibetans, as well as moving more Han Chinese into the restive region.

It was perhaps due to his special relationship with the president that Hu did not need to take responsibility for the tainted milk scandal that first erupted in Hebei last year. As things stand, it is highly likely that both Zhou and Hu will be inducted into the Politburo at the 18th CCP Congress.

There are important reasons why President Hu, 67, would want to confirm and consolidate the “core” of the sixth-generation leadership three years before his scheduled retirement from the post of party general secretary at the 18th Party Congress.

In the run-up to the 17th Party Congress in 2007, Hu was prevented by a powerful coalition of party elders including ex-president Jiang from naming his own successor. While Vice President Xi enjoys a reasonably good relationship with Hu, the “princeling” son of party elder Xi Zhongxun does not come from the CYL faction, and Hu's original intention was to elevate first Vice Premier Li, a former CYL boss who is deemed the president's doppelganger, to the very top.

Xi, who will most probably become party chief and state president at and soon after the 18th Party Congress, will have a 10-year term. By ensuring the political future of Zhou and Hu, President Hu will in fact be picking Xi's successor. This somewhat Byzantine practice of gedai, or “cross-generational” designation of leaders is not without precedent.

At the 14th Party Congress in 1992, patriarch Deng Xiaoping surprised ex-president Jiang by effectively appointing the latter's successor. At Deng's insistence, Hu, then a 49-year-old ex-Tibet party secretary, was promoted a member of the Politburo Standing Committee - and made the “core” of the fourth-generation leadership.

This latest development in internal CCP politics has posed a number of questions. Firstly, will President Hu get his way? As things stand, it seems apparent that Xi, who may feel unhappy about the practice of gedai designation, is going along with the machinations of his boss.

In recent speeches on the grooming of cadres, Xi has toed the president's conservative line that young officials worthy of promotion “must have both de (moral and political rectitude) and cai (professional competence), with priority being given to de.

The vice president pointed out at a conference on personnel issues that senior staff in organization and personnel departments must “raise [younger cadres'] level in Marxist theories and consolidate the foundations of their ideals and beliefs”. Given that most members of the CYL clique are long-standing party functionaries - and that they have ready access to supremo Hu.

Much more significant for the future of the country, however, is whether CYL affiliates can acquit themselves of the task of tackling the increasingly complex challenges facing 21st century China.

While the likes of Zhou and Hu may have impeccable credentials as the cream of the party faithful, their expertise in global business and high technology - two areas where China has to excel in order to maintain its competitiveness - clearly lag behind members of the so-called haiguipai (Returnees Faction), or officials with advanced degrees from Western universities.

In terms of their upbringing, education and working experience, both Zhou and Hu have very little exposure to Western culture and institutions. It is ironic that the director of the CCP Organization Department, Li Yuanchao, has repeatedly called for the large-scale elevation of talented cadres with overseas training. Li introduced in the spring a so-called “A Thousand People Program” to lure highly qualified “returnees” to work in party and government departments.

“We must speed up the process of attracting high-caliber returnees so as to combat the global financial crisis and to push ahead scientific development,” Li said at a seminar on personnel administration. Since the mid-1990s, more than 200,000 Chinese with foreign academic degrees have returned to work in China, and a dozen-odd members of the haiguipai have attained ministerial-level positions in the central government.

Like most members of the CYL clique, Zhou and Hu have steered clear of the controversial issue of political reform. It is noteworthy, however, that President Hu seems to have violated the oft-cited principle of “intra-party democracy” - which would at least in theory allow cadres a bigger say in choosing their leaders - by letting two favorite underlings take the proverbial “helicopter ride” to the top. This is given the fact that a large number of CYL heavyweights have proven to be lackluster cadres who owe their rise to patronage rather than performance.

Examples include the party secretaries of Tibet, Xinjiang, Sichuan and Shanxi, respectively Zhang Qingli, Wang Lequan, Liu Qibao and Zhang Baoshun. Zhang and Wang have been criticized for suppressing the religious and cultural heritage of ethnic minorities within their jurisdiction.

Liu, together with his predecessor Du Qinglin, yet another CYL alumnus, has been faulted for the large number of shoddily constructed buildings that collapsed during the Sichuan earthquake last year. And Zhang has been widely blamed for failing to cut down on the large number of deadly accidents in the coal mines of his resource-rich province.

The onus is now on Zhou and Hu to prove to other cadres - and 1.3 billion Chinese - that they have what it takes to, in patriarch Deng's memorable words, "prop up the sky" at times of monumental challenges.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29536.1

Email from Mr Siew Kum Hong

Email from Mr Siew Kum Hong

To: REACH

18 May 2009

Dear Sirs/Madams,

My name is Siew Kum Hong. I am currently a Nominated Member of Parliament.

Your website is currently hosting various comments that are highly defamatory of me and that are in breach of your Terms of Use, in particular, the comments suggesting or insinuating that I have received or am receiving foreign funding (including but not limited to the comments posted by "Right versus Wrong" on 16 May 09 at 12:45 PM, "Margret wong" on 16 May 09 at 15:50 PM, "James Lim" on 16 May 09 at 17:53 PM, "pinkdot" on 16 May 09 at 18:39 PM, "piss off" on 17 May 09 at 12:52 PM, and "GET THE FACT RIGHT" on 17 May 09 at 17:46 PM) at the URL http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/TalkAbuzz/SnapshotsofHotIssues/tabid/233/ctl/Details/mid/917/ItemID/82/Default.aspx Please note that I have made a police report about this matter.



I hereby request that:

(a) you immediately remove either the entire thread, or at least the offending comments and all associated comments at the above URL, and provide e-mail confirmation of the same immediately upon removal;

(b) you produce all particulars in your possession, custody or control pertaining to the users listed above, including all registration particulars and IP addresses (and corresponding dates and times) associated with these users and/or their comments, as soon as possible and in any event not later than close of business on Wednesday 20 May 2009; and

(c) you immediately preserve all information in your possession, custody or control relating to this matter (including the particulars referred to in paragraph (b)), in view of potential criminal investigations and civil proceedings that may require the production of this information.

Please feel free to contact me at my email should you have any queries or require any clarifications. Please send the confirmation requested for in paragraph (a) above, and the information requested for in paragraph (b) above to, to this e-mail address.

Thank you for your attention.

Siew Kum Hong

Response from REACH

Mr Siew Kum Hong has written to REACH to request the removal of postings which made specific allegations against him that he felt were defamatory. Mr Siew has disputed the allegations and informed us that he has filed a police report.

Mr Siew has also asked REACH to furnish him with the IP addresses and particulars of the netizens who made the alleged postings on the REACH website. As his request will breach our website's privacy policy, we are unable to accede to it.

As the administrator of the REACH website, we have the right to remove any postings, including those which we consider to be in breach of the Terms of Use of the website, or otherwise objectionable. We have exercised this right and removed some postings.

REACH offers an open platform for Singaporeans to engage the Government on issues as well as to engage one another freely with their views and ideas. We encourage responsible online discourse, and we would expect netizens to act with decorum, observe acceptable norms of cyber etiquette, and avoid making irresponsible comments. For meaningful and constructive engagement, netizens have to be accountable and responsible for the comments they make.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28866.72

Widjaja: Wails, blood, death fall

May 23, 2009

DAY 3 OF THE INQUIRY

Wails, blood, death fall

Witnesses describe events at NTU campus

By Sujin Thomas & Kimberly Spykerman

View more photos

TRAINEE engineer Pattarin Kusopalin was in the corridor when she heard 'thunderous wails' for help. The Thai national froze, wondering where the 'terrifying noise' was coming from.

Iranian student saw Widjaja on roof An Iranian PhD student, Ms Lobna Kamyab, next saw Mr Widjaja while she was on her way to a laboratory along a common corridor one floor below. He was ahead of her, climbing onto a parapet ledge. His clothes were soaked and he was dripping blood from an 'awful wound' on his right wrist, she told the court. The autopsy showed that it was a deep cut 7.5cm long. ... more

A door opened at the other end of the corridor in the Nanyang Technological University's School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and she saw a former teacher, Associate Professor Cheah Chien Chern, striding out.

He too had heard the cries for help.

Ms Kusopalin recalled that the door to another office then opened and she saw Associate Professor Chan Kap Luk, 45, backing out, his shirt heavily soaked with blood. Prof Chan staggered toward Prof Cheah, who saw that he was gripping a broken knife blade in his right hand. Frightened by the blood, Ms Kusopalin turned and ran.

Ms Kusopalin was one of seven witnesses who took the stand on Friday on the third day of the coroner's inquiry into the death of Indonesian undergraduate David Hartanto Widjaja, 21.

Their separate accounts pieced together the events of March 2, when Mr Widjaja allegedly attacked Prof Chan before falling to his death minutes later from four storeys.

Prof Chan told the courtroom that he asked Prof Cheah to call the police and an ambulance. When Mr Widjaja stepped out of his office moments later, he pointed at the young man and shouted: 'Can someone get the student?'

Mr Widjaja pointed at the injured professor and hurled some words after him. Prof Chan told the half-filled courtroom: 'I cannot recall his exact words but he said something that sounded like he was blaming me - that I was the one who started this.'

The hearing continues on Monday.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29375.7

Singapore to get access to JI head

May 23, 2009
Mas Selamat's capture
S'pore to get access to JI head
By Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent

MALAYSIA will give Singapore access to recaptured terrorist kingpin Mas Selamat Kastari and share all information gathered from him, Prime Minister Najib Razak said on Friday.

He did not say when the Jemaah Islamiah leader would be returned to Singapore.

That was a matter for further discussion between security agencies on both sides, he said at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Datuk Seri Najib said he could not reveal details of the attacks that Mas Selamat was said to have been planning against Singapore while in hiding in Johor, but added that Malaysia had shared this information with Singapore.

Mr Lee agreed that it was 'not a good practice to share publicly a lot of details about intelligence operations'.

Expressing confidence in the competence and professionalism of the Malaysian authorities, he said: 'They have been generous in sharing with us what they have discovered from their debrief of Mas Selamat Kastari and we leave it in their hands, and I'm sure that the matter will be resolved in good time.'

The 48-year-old terrorist leader escaped from detention in Singapore in February last year and was recaptured by Malaysian intelligence officers last month in Skudai, Johor.

Mr Najib and Mr Lee held up his recapture as an example of successful cooperation between the two countries' security agencies, and stressed the need to continue cooperating in the fight against terrorism.

Mr Lee said he had again expressed thanks and congratulations to Mr Najib over Mas Selamat's arrest.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28568.195

2 'weak links' in sex ed

May 23, 2009

2 'weak links' in sex ed

Parents and teachers 'not fully equipped' to provide right info, values

By Amelia Tan , Theresa Tan and Yeo Sam Jo
		Most parents, they said, are simply not comfortable discussing the birds and the bees with their children. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND WEE

PSYCHOLOGISTS, counsellors and other experts on Friday welcomed tighter checks by the Education Ministry on sexuality education programmes in schools, but said more attention should be paid to two weak links in the system: parents and teachers.

Most parents clueless about sexuality programme AS SEXUALITY education comes under scrutiny in schools, parents say what they welcome most is the fact that they are now getting more information about such programmes. Many of the 20 parents interviewed by The Straits Times on Friday said they had no idea what went on during sexuality education classes in school. ... more

In interviews with The Straits Times, several experts said these two groups are not fully equipped to pass on the right information and values to children.

Most parents, they said, are simply not comfortable discussing the birds and the bees with their children. What is worse is that many simply abdicate responsibility, and tell their children to get answers from teachers instead.

They added that teachers need more training to overcome the awkwardness many feel about discussing sex in class.

Said Madam Evelyn Khong, a manager and family life educator at Fei Yue Community Services, a group that holds sexuality education classes for students: 'Parents are uncomfortable talking about sex because they were taught by their parents not to talk about it. They don't understand sex fully, and think it's only about making babies.

'But sex is much more than that; it's an emotional, physical and psychological thing.'

Singapore Planned Parenthood Association president Edward Ong agreed, calling it a 'generational problem'.

Several parents interviewed admitted as much. Housewife Pricillia Ting, 44, who has two daughters aged 11 and 13, said: 'They are so young, they may not understand what sex is and may even get the wrong idea.'

Experts noted that this leads to the very situation Education Minister Ng Eng Hen said on Thursday should be avoided: Curious children turning to sources like the Internet and their friends for answers, and sometimes ending up with wrong solutions.

Meanwhile, teachers interviewed - all did not want to be named - said they would welcome more training.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.200

Irked by ping-pong controversy

Saturday May 23, 2009
Irked by ping-pong controversy
INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE

As recession spreads hardship, more MPs are on the receiving end of public wrath.

SINGAPOREANS who want to see a quicker reduction of government influence in society now have another reason to do so in the wake of the ping-pong controversy.

It was sparked off by the way the Table Tennis Association (STTA) had acted over a dispute that led to the loss of its talented Chinese trainer.

One of the most successful sports trainers here, Liu Guodong, had helped Singapore to win its first Olympic medal in 48 years. He had shaped the women’s paddlers to rank among the world’s best, as well as win the silver medal in last year’s Beijing Olympics, losing to China in the final.

Instead of receiving state accolade, Liu left for Beijing in a huff on Sunday after his second run-in with Lee Bee Wah, the STTA President, who is also MP in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s group constituency.

To Singaporeans, that connection spells political backing. Liu’s exit followed an accusation from the free-talking politician that the Chinese coach lacked “professionalism and integrity”, without giving any clarification.

Her organisation had earlier refused to nominate the popular Liu for the National Coach of the Year award as widely expected and supported by the National Sports Council.

This infuriated the Chinese trainer, the brother of China’s national table tennis coach. Liu felt humiliated, saying that it had impugned his integrity.

He asked her to justify the charge or apologise, failing which he may return to seek legal recourse to clear his name.

The way that Lee, a Malaysian-born politician, had handled — or mishandled — a talented table tennis coach caused resentment among Singaporeans and some mainland Chinese netizens.

It has led to Singapore being accused — rather unfairly — of ungratefulness, implying that his importance was downgraded after the Olympics feat. Some Singaporeans questioned the need to have a government person manage a sports body — as well as numerous others — instead of people with long relevant experience.

Lee is the latest of a number of MPs who have been on the receiving end of public wrath.

As the recession spreads hardship, the number of people who seek help from their MPs has sharply increased, some of them desperately.

Threats against MPs have been on the rise. In a recent case a woman MP was threatened by a rag-and-bone man.

Then an angry youth slammed a chair on a glass door when he felt another MP had talked down to his mother.

The worst case happened in January when MP Seng Han Tong was set on fire by an attacker, sending him to hospital with severe burns. He has just resumed duty.

Although this violence has raised public concern, one blogger said, “I am not sure whether the constituents are solely to be blamed.”

Many of the MPs hail from rich homes with little understanding of how the deprived class suffers, he added. “Until they join politics, some have never stepped into a public flat in their lives.”

The ping-pong flap has highlighted a growing unhappiness with the ruling party’s extensive role — and influence — in matters that have nothing to do with government.

“The government should just stick to running the country and keep its nose away from private business, running the media or sports,” said a returning graduate from Australia.

“Why is a PAP MP managing the game of ping-pong when there are more experienced people around?” he asked.

Scholars: how effective?

One of the pillars of this generally well-run city is its scholar system.

Over the decades, thousands of the brightest students have been given university scholarships and slotted back into society to run the country. This was expanded to include bright foreigners.

This was believed to have been adopted by Lee Kuan Yew from 1,300 years of Chinese Imperial exams, from which the emperors picked out the best to help them run China.

For Singapore, this had largely worked well in producing efficient civil servants and managers at a time when the world was a lot less complex.

Going forward, however, they face two problems.

The first is that while they are good at implementing policies, few actually shine at anticipating problems and creativity.

Visionary abilities often come from ordinary people, even drop-outs — not just scholars.

Secondly, too many “scholar” politicians lack the human touch or a social skill to connect with the masses. Today, Singaporeans want to see leaders and MPs who can relate with them.

Online writer, Robert Teh said the Singapore system that is based on assembling of a few scholars to come up with ideas, schemes and policies for the whole country would no longer work.

The conceptual assumptions about leadership and talents have failed to work for modern Singapore since 1970s and should be revised, he said, noting that “A leader is chosen because, among other reasons, he or she has shared certain common objectives with the people.”

When Singapore does well, the scholars were given the bulk of the credits, but when things go so badly as now, the big blame, too, goes to them.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29453.1

MM Lee: Asia can't bank on its own

May 23, 2009

NIKKEI CONFERENCE

Asia can't bank on its own

Recovery only when Americans start spending, says MM

By Kwan Weng Kin, Japan Correspondent
		Mr Lee said it was fortunate that Singapore has accumulated huge reserves that should see it through this recession, even if it were to last five years. -- PHOTO: AFP

TOKYO - MOST Asian economies are unlikely to see a consumer-led recovery as it will take a long time for Asians to raise their level of consumption, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew told an international conference here on Friday.

ON HIS BEING STILL ACTIVE IN HIS 80s AND THEREFORE AN INSPIRATION TO JAPAN'S ELDERLY 'My contemporaries, many of them no longer are in this world. Some of them who are, are in wheelchairs or are not ambulant. So please do not take me as the norm.' ... more

He was speaking during a dialogue with Japan Foundation president Kazuo Ogoura on the final day of the two-day Future Of Asia conference organised by the influential Nikkei business daily.

For Asian economies to switch from low consumption, high savings and high investments to become a high consumption society like the United States 'will be a long process of decades', said Mr Lee.

Speaking at a dinner for conference participants on Thursday night, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso had called on Asian states, which were dependent on exports for growth, to change to economies led by domestic demand in order to overcome the current economic crisis.

But the Minister Mentor said: 'I do not believe that in the short term there can be any change in a consumer-led recovery of these Asian economies.'

Even if Asians were to increase their consumption in the long term, as they become more confident of the future, they are unlikely to ever equal the US, whose gross domestic product is 70 per cent dependent on consumption, he added.

'The Americans believe tomorrow will always be a sunny day. The Chinese always believe tomorrow there may be an earthquake. So do the Japanese. So let's put something by.'

Because the world is already globalised, most countries, including Japan and Germany, will depend on an American economic recovery for their own economies to pick up, he said.

'When the American economy goes up by 1 per cent, I think the wheels will start turning again,' he added.

But he pointed out that two countries - China and India - could grow even though the US economy was down.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29451.1

Teach sex education in context of meaningful relationships

Teach sex education in context of meaningful relationships

I READ with interest the reports on how sex education is needed to counter worrying trends and the approaches to be taken.

There is one important factor missing in all the discussions and that is the context in which sex happens - in a relationship.

Sex education is not just about teaching how sex takes place or when sexuality is aroused. Nor is it about accepting the barrage of emotions involved in exploring alternative lifestyles. These make up only one component of sex education.

The reason there's such a mess is because the programme should be entitled "Relationships", with sex, sexuality and so on as sub-topics. If sex education is taught in isolation, our children will never see the importance of abstinence or why precautions are to be taken when engaging in sex.

Relationships should be the anchor to sex and sex education should be taught in the context of a relationship and all its intricacies, such as self-esteem, values and beliefs.

First, a complete and wholesome view of what a balanced relationship should be must be shared so that children from various backgrounds understand the goal and aim of having a relationship. The choices of abstinence and the consequences of indulging in premarital sex should be shared and revealed.

Share what happens when abstinence is not practised and when relationships are not honoured. Provide our children with a reference point for a good and wise choice.

Whatever the choice is, it is ultimately their choice and they should enter these scenarios with their eyes wide open.

Don't advocate options like wearing a condom as a choice for premarital sex. Instead, educate them on what is premarital sex in the context of a relationship so that our children know why it is not encouraged.

If they do eventually engage in it, it is their personal choice but one where they are made fully aware of the consequences. They need to be ready to deal with the situation after that.

So, it's really not sex education that needs to be taught. It's the importance of being in a responsible adult relationship that needs to be shared.

We, as a society, need to be brave to stand up for what's right, to communicate clearly what's right and allow our children to make the choices themselves and subsequently handle the various consequences of their choices.

Karen Chew (Mrs)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.195

China and catharsis in the words of Zhao

May 22, 2009

China and catharsis in the words of Zhao
By Verna Yu

HONG KONG - Last week's publication of the memoir of former Chinese Communist Party chief Zhao Ziyang, who was ousted for supporting the Tiananmen pro-democracy movement in 1989, has no doubt sent shock waves through the top echelons of the party ahead of the June 4 anniversary of the crackdown.

Zhao, who was kept under house arrest for nearly 16 years after the events until his death in 2005, was someone the Chinese government wanted the world to forget about. When he died, state television and newspapers only carried a terse one-line obituary for "Comrade Zhao", without mentioning his former titles.

But four years after his death, and 20 years after the military crackdown on Tiananmen Square, the man the authorities thought they had silenced forever is speaking from the grave.

"On the night of June 3, while sitting in the courtyard with my family, I heard intense gunfire," Zhao says on one recording. "A tragedy to shock the world had not been averted, and was happening after all."

The memoirs, which were secretly recorded during his house arrest, have been published abroad and are certain to be banned in mainland China. In them Zhao condemns the killings of protestors as a "tragedy" and rejects the official verdict that they were "anti-revolutionary rioters". He also confirmed the widely held view that paramount leader Deng Xiaoping ordered the crackdown and said China must adopt democracy if it wanted to be a true modern society with the rule of law.

In the 30 hours of recordings, he also detailed the political tussles behind the Tiananmen crackdown, his battles with the conservative faction, how he and Deng differed in their principles - the conflict which eventually led to his downfall - as well as his views on market reform and democracy.

Zhao had made notes of his recollection of events in 1993, and urged by a few close friends, started to record his memoir in 2000, said Bao Pu, translator and editor of the details that have been put together into the book, Prisoner of the State: The Secret Journal of Zhao Ziyang.

"We can say for sure that he wanted his version of history to survive," said Bao, the son of Zhao's top aide Bao Tong, in a phone interview.

Zhao secretly recorded his words over music cassettes of children's songs and the Peking Opera without informing his family. He passed them onto a few trusted friends who kept them for him and the tapes were eventually taken out of the country. Zhao is said to have hidden his plan from his family to protect them.

Zhao's daughter, Wang Yannan, said her father clearly wanted to leave behind his version of history so people could learn the truth.

"He was [under house arrest] for more than a decade, he had reflected a lot about the past but he had no platform to speak out. I think he wanted to restore a truthful version of history and to put across his views for the record."

"I think he felt people had the right to know the truth ... and he had the responsibility to tell them," she said in a phone interview.

Although many of the facts from the Tiananmen crackdown in Zhao's memoir are now known to the outside world, analysts say the memoir nonetheless helped clarify some historical mysteries. It was also the first time that a Chinese official of his stature had spoken so candidly about his own political life and the struggles within the top echelons of the Chinese Communist Party.

"I think the most important thing about this memoir is that it is the first time that Zhao has given in his own words an account of important meetings and course of discussions ... some of which had been subjects of speculation," said Chris Yeung, a political columnist at the South China Morning Post.

"It's the first time we've seen Zhao's version, so it's obviously authoritative."

Contrary to most reports, which suggest that the decision to dispatch troops was the result of a vote of three to two by the powerful Politburo Standing Committee, Zhao revealed in his memoir that there was no such vote and that Deng was influenced by hardliners such as then-premier Li Peng, and was ultimately responsible for the crackdown.

"It sheds light on the decision-making process of the Politburo Standing Committee at the time ... amid the crisis situation, it was Deng Xiaoping who made the important decision at the end of the day," Yeung said.

Zhao also highlights that Deng and himself had very different ideas on political reform. What Deng had in mind was more of an administrative reform aimed at shoring up one-party rule rather than democratization. This division perhaps explained why Deng later decided to drop his plan to have Zhao as his successor, said Yeung.

Zhao also contested the widely held view that Deng was the architect behind the market reforms which transformed China into an economic power house.

Roderick MacFarquhar, a professor of Chinese history at Harvard University, wrote in the foreword to the book that Zhao rather than Deng should be credited as the originator of the reforms, as it was he who did much of the ground work.

For instance, it was Zhao who realized that the country's commitment to rural collectivization was outdated and embraced a national household responsibility system as the way to develop agriculture and raise farm incomes, MacFarquhar wrote. "Reading Zhao's unadorned and un-boastful account of his stewardship, it becomes apparent that it was he rather than Deng who was the actual architect of reform," MacFarquhar wrote.

But Zhao's central role in China's economic reforms could never be given any credit. When China celebrated its 30th anniversary last year, Zhao's name and images were banned from all state TV and publications. It is obvious the authorities were determined to airbrush him from their version of history.

To many China watchers, what was perhaps one of the most surprising and interesting revelations from the former Communist Party chief was his support for Western-style parliamentary democracy.

"If a country wishes to modernize, not only should it implement a market economy, it must also adopt a parliamentary democracy as its political system," Zhao says.

Otherwise, Zhao said, China would not be able to have a healthy and modern market economy but would see "commercialization of power, rampant corruption, a society polarized between rich and poor". As it turns out, his prediction proved to be sadly accurate.

Bao Pu believed this was one message that Zhao most wanted to put across.

"He acknowledged that whatever fault you can find with the Western-style [democratic] parliamentary system, there is no better system, that message came out quite clearly," Bao said.

Bao's father Bao Tong, who was Zhao's top aide, said current Chinese leaders should learn a lesson from Zhao's memoirs.

"[They should reflect] on many questions: how they should look at June 4 [Tiananmen crackdown], what policy should be implemented to avoid getting [further] into the current situation of a rich-poor gap and rampant corruption," said the senior Bao, who spent seven years in prison after the crackdown and still lives under tight surveillance.

"I think they can get the answer from this book."

But his message may fall on deaf ears. Responding to journalists' questions on Zhao's memoir, the Chinese Foreign Ministry this week reiterated the official position that China's economic success in the decades after the Tiananmen crackdown justified the act.

And Zhao's advice from the grave might not have come at the best time.

Ching Cheong, a veteran journalist who covered the pro-democracy movement in 1989, said since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and more recently the US financial crisis, China has been feeling increasingly justified about its so-called China model, which allows economic freedom but suppresses political freedom.

"Their opinion is that the Western way is not suitable for China," Ching said. "There is quite a gap between the conclusion of Zhao Ziyang and public opinion in China today."

"The chaos [in other countries] has been used to prove that the crackdown was necessary and that this system is good."

But Bao Tong, who was director of the Political Reform Bureau of the powerful Communist Party's Central Committee at the time of Zhao's leadership, warned that the failure to reflect on China's own mistakes would end in disaster.

"If we want to avoid another Cultural Revolution [1], we must learn from the West," Bao said. "To reject outright the Western political system is to say we want to keep alive the spirit of the Cultural Revolution, and this kind of thing will reoccur."

"If they did things Zhao Ziyang's way, solving problems through negotiations on a basis of democracy and rule of law, not only would the tragedy have been avoided ... it would have pushed China's political system to a new phase."

Note
1. The Cultural Revolution was a period of widespread social and political upheaval; nation-wide chaos and economic disarray engulfed much of Chinese society between 1966 and 1976. It was launched by Mao Zedong, the chairman of the Communist Party of China, on May 16, 1966, who alleged that liberal bourgeoisie elements were dominating the party and insisted that they needed to be removed through post-revolutionary class struggle by mobilizing the thoughts and actions of China’s youth, who formed Red Guards groups around the country. - Wikipedia

Verna Yu is a Hong Kong-based journalist.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29545.1

Recession 'shape' points down

May 22, 2009

Recession 'shape' points down
By W Joseph Stroupe

We've heard a lot of talk about the shape of this "recession", especially for the United States. The optimists think it will be V-shaped and that we are even now seeing the bounce upward toward growth again. Those somewhat more in tune with the deeply worrying fundamentals think it will be U-shaped, and they think we've probably hit the bottom, or nearly so, but we have some months to go before growth begins again. Then there are the pessimists, who insist on being called realists, who think it will be L-shaped, with America's economy stagnating perhaps for an entire decade, or even more after it reaches the bottom of this recession.

Finally, there are those relative handful of so-called "prophets of gloom and doom", who continue to advise that this isn't merely a severe recession, but is rather the opening phase of a full-blown crisis, a financial/economic collapse centered in the US in which the severe recession is merely one of many repercussions to come.

They predict the crisis will be shaped like a series of steps going downward - in effect, a series of collapses with deceptive plateaus in between, with economic growth returning very slowly and painfully in the US and the UK several years off from today. They insist that we haven't even remotely seen the bottom yet, but have only experienced the first few steps downward so far, and that there are several more to come. They also warn that the worst for the US and the UK, by far, is yet to come.

Obviously, those in this last category of prognosticators aren't very popular, in spite of the fact that, by and large, they were primarily the ones who called this present dire crisis correctly, some of them doing so years in advance. Yours truly is proud to be in this last category.

At present, the optimists generally have the floor, as the media report multiple developments that are said to signal a turnaround, and the Wall Street rally that began on March 9, after US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's US$1 trillion toxic asset removal plan was announced, continues. In the crucial housing sector, pending sales of previously owned homes jumped 3.2% after a 2% jump the previous month, for the first back-to-back jump in more than a year.

Foreclosure-driven housing price collapses and Federal Reserve-driven mortgage rate decreases are putting homes in reach for more first-time buyers, who accounted for at least 50% of the pending home sales contracts.

However, the continued losses in the weakening job market and soaring foreclosure rates, with foreclosures reaching a record 803,489 in the first quarter alone, are likely to overwhelm such "green shoots" of "recovery". Builders of new homes are struggling as buyers flock to foreclosed properties at bargain prices. Thus, a genuine recovery of the vital housing sector is not genuinely being signaled yet.

Bigger trouble looms, regardless of this Wall Street rally and other "green shoots". Geithner's toxic asset removal plan hasn't worked yet, and it and other government plans face huge obstacles. Fears over the size of US debt are swiftly mounting, while China has "cancelled our credit card", according to US Senator Mark Kirk, referring to the fact that China's investors have radically slowed their purchase of US Treasury bonds in the past three months.

While Kirk's statement may reflect a significant measure of jumping to conclusions before all the facts are in, we nonetheless are witnessing a meaningful deterioration in the quality of foreign financing of the US Treasury. This extremely important development must not be lost in the fog of the present crisis. We should not be distracted by fleeting "green shoots" that appear and then disappear as suddenly, but analyze the condition of the roots, from whence all else of consequence emerges.

So before we can intelligently choose what the most likely shape of this crisis will turn out to be for the US, we must first look at its root causes to determine if these are actually being remedied, and if not, what the impact will be of a crisis like the present one whose root causes are not adequately and accurately addressed soon enough.

If we find from our investigation that the present severe recession is indeed only a symptom of something much more serious, that efforts to deal with the crisis are not reaching the root causes, that many of these efforts are actually exacerbating the situation in very dangerous ways, and that the present global environment in which the US operates as an economic power has changed so radically that a resumption of US growth anytime soon can no longer be taken for granted, then our choice of the most likely shape for this crisis is made far easier, is it not?

Economists often speak about the boom-bust "cycle" and implicitly insinuate or explicitly state that this bust, though severe, is merely part of the perpetual boom-bust cycle, and that growth will inevitably (and almost automatically) return soon, once the bust portion of the cycle runs its course and resets the financial and economic parameters for a resumption of growth. Thus, a resumption of growth before long is taken for granted.

Is the present crisis merely part of such a perpetual cycle of growth followed by downturn followed by growth again? Or has this crisis arisen out of extraordinary root causes which have actually derailed economic growth for the foreseeable future, destroyed financial and economic viability and stability, and severely discredited America's models of capitalism and finance on fundamental levels? Are you open-minded enough to give fair hearing to the facts that point unmistakably in the direction of extraordinary root causes that are producing the present crisis?

Income-based model versus asset-based model
At fundamental issue here is the new asset-based economic/financial model (as contrasted with a traditional income-based model) which the US and Britain in particular have progressively adopted over the past couple of decades, and whether that new model is really workable and revivable in the light of its massive collapse that began with the emergence of the subprime crisis in late July of 2007.

The US economy has rapidly converted from a traditional, income-generating machine to a so-called "new economy", an asset-inflating one. An income-generating machine derives wealth from the production and sale of goods and services, while an asset-inflating one derives wealth from accelerated asset appreciation, or targeted inflation of assets - in other words, by the creation of serial asset bubbles. In this new model, traditional wealth generation takes a back seat to "paper" wealth generation via serial asset bubble creation.

In the traditional income-based economic model, the financial sector serves to support the real economy, where the vast bulk of real income is generated, by providing credit and other traditional financing services aimed at sustaining existing and fostering new income-generating business ventures, and supporting consumer spending via traditional credit services. The income generated in the financial sector is not of major proportions, but is a distant second to that generated in the real economy.

The asset-based model is radically different. In this new model, innovative and grandiose opportunities arise for the generation of gigantic sums of "paper" wealth from within the financial sector itself, thanks to what can only be called the fostering of an incestuous relationship between government and Big Finance.

It is a relationship in which the state nurtures the negative real interest rate monetary environment and the "free" (inordinately unrestrained) market conditions wherein colossal asset bubbles can be grown, nurtured and capitalized upon by Big Finance, employing what has come to be known as "securitization" - the "innovative" process of the creation and marketing to global investors of cleverly packaged, deceptively credit-rated financial assets based upon, and secured by, the asset bubbles that have been fostered under the asset-based model.

That being the case, a huge financial services-based industry that is very tightly coupled to the wealth-generating core of the financial sector, Wall Street in America's case, proliferates its tentacles far and wide.

In this new model the entire economy takes on a decidedly finance/investment/asset-oriented complexion, with such ventures and operations coming to the foreground, while traditional income-based business tends to be eclipsed. When America's adoption of this new model is considered in conjunction with the decades-long trend of the withering of America's once-mighty traditional manufacturing sector, one can appreciate how America's "new economy" model has radically changed how it generates much of its $14 trillion of gross domestic product each year. A very large portion of that wealth is generated by, or is directly and considerably dependent upon, the new asset-based ventures and operations in the Wall Street core of the financial sector.

Catastrophic flaws in the asset-based model
Because the new asset-based model relies upon serial asset bubble creation (inflation) in order to thrive, the model simply chokes and suffocates when the environment of the massive credit excess needed to grow such bubbles is removed.

Hence, Washington's policies in attempting to deal with this crisis are all centered upon recreating the massive credit excess that it hopes will "reboot" the model and bring it back to life by re-inflating the assets whose values have collapsed in this crisis.

Therefore, Washington and Wall Street aren't interested in, nor are they attempting to revert to the traditional income-based model. Rather, they are committed to sinking all their efforts and all America's wealth into rebooting the new asset-based model. The salient question here is whether the model can be rebooted without triggering a cascade of much greater damage than it has already wrought.

One can easily see that the new asset-based model is an extremely dangerous trade-off between rapid and easy wealth creation on the one hand and acutely increased vulnerability and instability on the other hand, for the asset bubbles grown under the model inevitably rupture, leaving mountains of toxic rubble in their wake.

And when an economy subscribes to and adopts this new model to an excessive degree, as both America and Britain have done, thereby investing their future too fully in that model, then that economy invites catastrophe when all viable assets have been "bubbled and ruptured" and there's nothing left to feed the model to keep it breathing. That is precisely where America and Britain have now arrived.

Asset bubbles are not new. They have existed and they have ruptured before, as in the Great Depression. What is new about the asset-based model is that, under the tutelage of such slipshod architects as former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, the perilous prospects for massive "paper" wealth generation afforded by asset bubbles (which would be calculatedly produced) were then consciously incorporated into a new economic/financial model actually intended to supersede the traditional income-based model, a new model that was deceptively and successfully hawked to the dim political leadership in Washington and London.
Additionally, what is also new about the asset-based model is the raft of revolutionary new financial instruments and assets it fosters that ingeniously leverage the foundational asset bubbles in order to magnify "paper" wealth generation many times over.

Finally, what is new is the swiftness with which new asset bubbles have been created, their unprecedented proportions, and the sheer number of bubbles that have been produced in such a compressed period of time - primarily in the past 10-15 years - and the severe damage that has been caused by their rupture.

Well, the architects and adoptees of the new asset-based model have gotten what they aimed for. Their brainchild has, indeed superseded the traditional income-based model. America and Britain are inordinately dependent upon that new model for economic growth. Look at the severe repercussions they are suffering as a result of the crash of the model. Neither can hope to return to economic growth any time in the foreseeable future without the successful rebooting of their asset-based model - a prospect whose chances are slim to none.

Full-blown collapse of the new model
This severe recession is much less about the business cycle and much more about the collapse of the new asset-based model, and the fact that the US and UK cannot simply revert to the traditional income-based model to resolve their self-made crisis. They've both become far too committed to the new model.

A reversion would take a decade or more to accomplish, even if it could be accomplished, and in the meantime the rest of the world (where the traditional income-based model survives and thrives) would not wait for the US and UK, but would unquestionably overwhelm the two. (If the new model cannot soon be rebooted to thrive again, then that is going to happen anyway).

Attempting to reboot the new model carries gargantuan risks, whether it sputters back to life or stays dead. The colossal sums of new debt being racked up, the hyper-inflationary forces, the inevitable era of high taxation, the eventual severe damage to the US dollar and the British pound that is being set firmly in place, the undermining of the creditworthiness of sovereign debt, are just some of the risks.

As severely as America's "new economy" has been discredited in this crisis, which has infected the entire globe, who's going to buy its collection of severely tainted dollar-denominated financial assets even if the model does sputter back to life? And how much would anyone be willing to pay for them? America and Britain are in colossal trouble.

The present crisis, which is not merely a recession fueled by the boom-bust cycle, actually signifies the asphyxiation of the asset-based model. Oh, it may for a time keep flailing its arms about while it suffers its death throes, and it might even sit up on the gurney once or twice to protest its own demise, but it cannot get up and promenade again. It is on total life support and must eventually be declared brain-dead.

There have been warning signs of this impending death, but these were largely ignored or misinterpreted as merely part of the perpetual boom-bust cycle. One such warning sign was the destructive rupture of the equities and dot-com bubbles in 1999/2001, which wiped out many trillions of dollars of wealth, cast American's pensions into an irresolvable crisis and savaged America's lead role in the IT technology sector. Catastrophe, like what we're now witnessing, was only avoided (temporarily) back then because the Fed and Wall Street quickly collaborated on the swift creation of new bubbles in real estate and stocks. Now that these are rupturing, there are no remaining virgin assets to feed to the asset-based model. That's why efforts are underway to attempt to reflate the old, previously ruptured asset bubbles and all the innovative financial assets coupled to them.

The shape of this crisis, then, is a series of steps proceeding downward into the gloom for the US and Britain. The two powers are guilty of massive over-reach, and now they are suffering the terrible consequences. Sooner or later, these ongoing events that were inevitable, and that should have been foreseen before the new asset-based model was so enthusiastically and wholly adopted, will force the two powers to make the gut-wrenching, long reversion back to a more traditional economic model.

The longer their leaders resist this, the more profoundly painful and destructive the adjustment will become. Obviously, this situation provides a tremendous opportunity for the rest of the world, but especially for the increasingly wealthy and powerful states in the East, to capitalize in various ways. The ongoing crash of the US and UK liberal capitalistic incarnations of the asset-based economic/financial model also, therefore, signifies the collective rise of the Eastern managed-capitalistic (authoritarian) incarnations of the traditional income-based model.

W Joseph Stroupe is a strategic forecasting expert and editor of Global Events Magazine online at www.globaleventsmagazine.com

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29543.1

Malaysia Proposes Third Bridge Link To Singapore

May 22, 2009 14:50 PM

Malaysia Proposes Third Bridge Link To Singapore

By Zakaria Abdul Wahab

SINGAPORE, May 22 (Bernama) -- Malaysia has proposed to Singapore that a new bridge be built to link the eastern side of Johor to the island republic.

The new bridge will help to further facilitate the movement of people and goods and services between both countries, Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said at a joint media conference with his Singapore counterpart Lee Hsien Loong here today.

Najib, who is here since yesterday for a two-day official visit to the city-state, said the new bridge would also help to develop the eastern side of Johor such as areas in Pengerang, including Desaru, which were still less developed and had huge economic potential.

He said the current linkages, such as the Johor Causeway, were having a high volume of traffic and had affected the smooth movement of people and goods between both the neighbouring countries.

Both sides agreed to look at the proposal in the medium and long term and also agreed to commission a study to look at the bridge viability, Najib said, adding that the new bridge proposal was one of the outcomes of their bilateral meeting to further enhance the close cooperation between Malaysia and Singapore.

Currently, the southern tip of Peninsular Malaysia is connected to Singapore by the ageing Johor Causeway and the Second Link crossing in Tuas.

In 2006, Malaysia dropped a plan to build a second bridge replacing the Johor Causeway after it hit a dead-end following some disagreement between the two neighbours.

Lee also suggested that the Johor Causeway be broadened and the rail link connecting both sides of the causeway be improved to further ease traffic movement.

Earlier, upon his arrival at the Istana, Najib inspected a military guard-of-honour before proceeding straight to a four-eyed meeting with Lee.

The two leaders later joined the bilateral meeting involving the top official delegations from both sides.

The Malaysian delegation included Foreign Minister Datuk Anifah Aman, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed, Minister in the Prime Minister�s Department Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop and Johor Menteri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman.

Najib also said he proposed that a wellness centre be set up in the Iskandar Malaysia development area in Johor as an iconic investment that would showcase the growing cooperation between the two countries.

The prime minister said the wellness centre would appeal to not only Singaporeans but also Malaysians and foreign visitors as going for spas, medical treatment, homeopathy and herbal treatment was the "in" thing to many people now.

Najib said that as part of another iconic investment, Lee proposed that a new township for mixed development be opened so that Singaporeans could have more flexibility to invest or relocate their businesses in Singapore to Iskandar Malaysia.

Saying that Iskandar Malaysia had progressed so much since it was launched in 2006 and had attracted about RM42.6 billion in investments, Najib said he hoped to see more participation from Singaporeans in the southern development corridor.

Najib also said that Malaysia had agreed to Singapore's request to open a counsellor's office in Johor Baharu to assist Singaporeans in need of assistance there.

Lee had said that an increasing number of Singaporeans were now going to or passing through Johor and there was no one to assist them if they were in trouble as he personally experienced it when Singaporeans started calling him for help when they were stuck there.

Najib also said that to further enhance their relations, both governments had agreed to encourage more air linkages between the two countries, especially by the low-cost carriers.

On security, Lee again thanked the Malaysian authorities for recapturing Singapore's most wanted fugitive Mas Selamat Kastari, the suspected leader of the Jemaah Islamiah militant group, in Johor last month.

However, to a question, Najib said there was no timeline as to when Mas Selamat would be returned to Singapore but the authorities here would be kept abreast of the information or intelligence gathered by the Malaysian side.

Najib also said that Malaysia had agreed to Singapore's request to open a consulate office in Johor Baharu to assist Singaporeans in need of assistance there.

Lee had said that an increasing number of Singaporeans were now going to or passing through Johor and there was no one to assist them if they were in trouble as he personally experienced it when Singaporeans started calling him for help when they were stuck there.

Najib also said that to further enhance their relations, both governments had agreed to encourage more air linkages between the two countries, especially by the low-cost carriers.

On security, Lee again thanked the Malaysian authorities for recapturing Singapore's most wanted fugitive Mas Selamat Kastari, the suspected leader of the Jemaah Islamiah militant group, in Johor last month.

However, to a question, Najib said there was no timeline as to when Mas Selamat would be returned to Singapore but the authorities here would be kept abreast of the information or intelligence gathered by the Malaysian side.

Najib said his discussion with Lee today was good and it was another step in the Malaysia-Singapore relationship.

Both Najib and Lee hoped that the old legacy of problems they inherited in the last 18 years could be solved as soon as possible.

"We don't have to wait for another 18 years to solve these problems," Najib said referring to the Points of Agreement that deals with the issue of the future of railway land owned by Keretapi Tanah Melayu in Singapore.

Najib said the foreign ministers of both countries would meet to study further the matter and hoped that it could be solved in a "win-win situation" for both sides.

After the news conference, Najib left for Friday prayers at the Sultan Mosque, Singapore's oldest, in Arab Street.

-- BERNAMA

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29465.1

Singapore's Temasek defends costly Bank of America exit

Fri May 22, 2009 2:13am EDT

By Kevin Lim and Saeed Azhar

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's Temasek defended its money-losing exit from Bank of America (BAC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), saying the U.S.-centric bank did not fit its investment criteria and the risk was perceived to be greater than the expected return.

The explanation, a rarity for the state investor, came in a letter to major Singapore newspapers after the loss on BofA attracted fierce criticism from the usually muted pro-government local media, investors and independent blogs, which noted BofA shares have rallied more than 70 percent after Temasek's exit.

The losses are also expected to be discussed when Singapore's Parliament convenes next week.

Temasek, which is headed by Ho Ching, the wife of Singapore's prime minister, sold its 3 percent stake in BofA in the first quarter after converting its Merrill shares into BofA in January. Temasek has not said how much it lost in the process, but Reuters estimated the loss was more than $3 billion.

Temasek announced in February that Ho will step down and be replaced by Chip Goodyear, the former CEO of BHP Billiton (BHP.AX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), on October 1.

"Our investment thesis had changed from Merrill's specific businesses to the more diversified BoA linkage to the broader U.S. economy. The risk-return environment had also changed substantially," Myrna Thomas, managing director for corporate affairs, said in the letter.

Temasek's aim is to ensure that its portfolio delivers returns that are higher than the cost of capital employed on a risk-adjusted basis, Thomas said.

"We may choose to divest an investment, even at a loss, to optimize our risk or portfolio exposure, or if there are better opportunities elsewhere or later," she added.

Temasek, which like other sovereign wealth funds, plowed billions into Merrill Lynch in the early phase of the credit crisis, saw the value of its portfolio plunge 31 percent to S$127 billion between March 31 and Nov 30 last year during the severe market turmoil.

KEY QUESTION UNANSWERED

Financial investments accounted for 40 percent of its portfolio.

"The letter doesn't give the answer that everybody is asking. How much did they lose?," Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Services Professionals, told Reuters.

The exact losses are difficult to quantify because Temasek had also offloaded about 30 million Merrill shares last year in smaller lots, reducing its exposure to the investment bank by the time BofA took over Merrill.

Conraj Raj, editor-at-large at the Today newspaper in Singapore, threw the spotlight on the sovereign wealth fund's stated strategy of taking a long-term view of its investments.

"After all, it has been drummed into us ad nauseam that both Temasek and its cousin, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, invest for the long term with a time horizon that could stretch for as long as 50 years," he wrote on May 18.

"Whatever happened to the sovereign wealth fund's (SWF) strategy of taking a long-term view of its investments?"

Singapore's bigger sovereign wealth fund, GIC, on the other hand said it was a long-term investor in Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and UBS (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

"It is difficult to understand why a long-term investor like Temasek was willing to stick with a dud like Australia's ABC Learning centers to the end, but did not try to exercise a little bit more patience with a U.S. government-backed entity like BofA," Png Eng Huat wrote in a letter to Straits Times forum.

"The U.S. government has stated clearly that it will not nationalize BofA even though it is technically the largest shareholder of the bank."

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29004.45