Showing posts with label Law Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law Crime. Show all posts

Thursday, November 2, 2023

Man offered S$2 to sex worker instead of agreed fee in repeat offence, gets jail

The Australian woman, who was in Singapore for a holiday, charged S$700 per hour.

[Note that she is described as an "Australian Woman". Not "Australian Prostitute", or "illegal foreign sex worker." No judgement here.]



Lydia Lam

31 Oct 2023


SINGAPORE: A repeat offender on remission for refusing to pay sex workers after obtaining their services struck again, this time targeting an Australian woman who was in Singapore for a holiday.

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

What you can find on the dark web besides drugs and child porn: military secrets, stolen art and more

17 FEBRUARY, 2019


HONG KONG — Although most people have no idea how to access the dark web, their exposure on this hidden, crime-ridden corner of the internet continues to grow.

Six million hacked personal accounts were added to the dark web last week, adding to the 6.5 billion personal records already available in the internet’s netherworld, stolen from websites where internet users entrust their personal information every day.

This leaked data is passed around in forums where hackers gloat about their recent cybercrimes, and scammers go shopping for identities to steal.

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

The NRA is losing its grip — on reality and on politicians

By Jennifer Rubin
The Washington Post

February 26 2018


National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre and spokeswoman Dana Loesch have in recent days helped pull back the curtain on the mind-set of the NRA. This is not a group that wants responsible gun ownership. (Do responsible people have a weapon of war designed purely to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible?) This is not a group that is focused on making cogent arguments about gun legislation. Instead, like President Trump and Fox News, the NRA now operates in the fever swamp of what used to be a conservative party. Now, it’s a cult based on the preservation of Trump, a cult that requires conspiracies, bizarre rhetoric and out-and-out lies to keep its members in a high-pitch frenzy.

LaPierre ranted at the Conservative Political Action Conference, “If they seize power, if these so-called European socialists take over the House and the Senate, and God forbid they get the White House again, our American freedoms could be lost and our country will be changed forever.” If someone were mumbling like that at a bar, the bartender would be obligated to cut off his drinks.

The NRA’s arguments no longer depend on or even include facts; they are tribal calls to signal that it’s time for the faithful to toss away rational debate. (What about all the people saved by guns?! Any cursory look at the facts would tell you that’s a horrible argument, but it’s part of the NRA playbook. It’s what the NRA crowd says because … socialists are out to get them?)

Sunday, March 27, 2016

S’pore facing at least four types of terror threats, says Shanmugam

Neo Chai Chin

March 19, 2016


SINGAPORE — Cautioning that Singapore is a prime terrorism target for all, Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said there are “at least” four possible types of threats the Republic is facing.

Speaking at the Home Team Leaders’ Forum yesterday, the minister said the threat of a terror attack on Singapore soil is at its highest level in recent times because of what the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) wants to do, the situation in countries in the region and developments within Singapore.

Attacks that are planned just outside of the country and executed here, much like the one in Paris last November, is one. The Paris attacks were planned in Molenbeek in Belgium and “we have several possible Molenbeeks around us”, said Mr Shanmugam.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

A Chinese murder mystery, far from solved

Aug 17, 2012







LAST Thursday's hastily orchestrated murder trial of Gu Kailai, the
wife of ousted Chinese Politburo member Bo Xilai, has raised several
questions that cast serious doubt on the case.


It appears that the trial, which lasted less than eight hours, was a
sham and Gu was made a scapegoat in a broader political power struggle
between her husband and top leaders like Premier Wen Jiabao and
President Hu Jintao.


During the trial, Gu confessed to murdering her British business
partner, Mr Neil Heywood; she said she was willing to "accept and calmly
face sentencing" and that she expected the court to give her a "fair
and just verdict".


After combing through leaked court proceedings and official news
reports and interviewing two of the 140 people carefully selected by the
Chinese government to attend the trial, I have identified a dozen
important legal problems that were ignored or omitted during the trial
and that might have resulted in either a dismissal of charges or
acquittal, if the defence had been allowed to address them properly.


  • Gu had been officially given a diagnosis of manic depression and
    moderate schizophrenia by court-appointed medical experts. The
    indictment is largely based on her confession. Without any corroborating
    witness accounts, how do we know her memory was reliable and that her
    mental illness did not affect criminal intent?
  • The motivation for the murder was not clear. The prosecution stated
    that Gu hatched the plot to kill Mr Heywood when she was told that he
    had detained and kidnapped her son in Britain after their business deal
    soured.

The only evidence shown in court was an early November e-mail from Mr
Heywood, who wrote to Gu's son, Mr Bo Guagua: "You will be destroyed."


But by then, her son was already in the United States, studying at Harvard.


  • The indictment said that Gu had illegally obtained rat poison. Is
    there proof that she actually did? From whom did she get it? And did the
    rat poison contain cyanide?
  • Was there cyanide in Mr Heywood's body? Gu admitted getting him
    drunk and then giving him water laced with cyanide after getting him
    drunk.

However, the initial forensic report, according to the defence,
displayed no primary signs of cyanide poisoning. A CT scan performed on
the victim's body before it was cremated and an initial blood test found
no traces of cyanide.


  • According to Gu's defence, Mr Heywood had a family history of
    cardiovascular disease. Since he was not a heavy drinker, could it be
    possible that he died naturally of a heart attack induced by excessive
    drinking?
  • According to the prosecution, the chief investigator took another
    blood sample, which later became a crucial piece of evidence after Mr
    Heywood's body had been cremated. However, the chief investigator
    carried that blood sample home without permission.

Four months later, tests on the second blood sample showed cyanide,
the amount of which was, by coincidence, just enough to kill a person.
Is there any evidence that the integrity of that blood sample was
safeguarded during that four-month period?


  • Was there a struggle before Mr Heywood's death? Gu said that he was
    dead before she left the room, his head resting on a pillow. When the
    police discovered Mr Heywood's body two days later, however, he was
    lying flat on the bed, and the mattress showed signs of having been
    rolled on.

Considering this evidence, a criminal expert I interviewed believes
that Mr Heywood was probably not killed by cyanide, which tends to kill
quickly, or there was not sufficient poison to kill him right away and
that he was actually still alive when Gu left the room.


  • According to the defence, after Gu left the crime scene, strangers'
    footprints were found on the balcony, but there were no signs of a
    break-in. Why has the court not investigated where these footprints came
    from?
  • The prosecution claimed to have collected 394 witness testimonies,
    but the trial was conducted without the direct participation and
    cross-examinations of key witnesses, including Chongqing police chief
    Wang Lijun, who fled to the US consulate there and personally brought
    the case to light.

Gu picked her defence lawyer from a list provided by the government a
month before the trial. For such an important case, why was the lawyer
given only a short period of time to study the case? And why didn't the
defence lawyer have a chance to question key witnesses during the trial?


  • There was no explicit mention of Gu's husband in the indictment.
    When Gu learnt that Mr Heywood was threatening her son, wouldn't she
    tell her husband, the local party boss? Was Bo Xilai involved in the
    plotting of the murder?
  • After the Chongqing police had ruled that Mr Heywood died of a heart
    attack from excessive alcohol consumption, Gu successfully persuaded
    the Heywood family to agree to a quick cremation without an autopsy. Did
    Gu or the Chongqing government pay money in exchange for the family's
    silence?
  • The indictment pointed out that Gu and Heywood teamed up in 2005
    with a senior manager at a Chinese state-run enterprise in several real
    estate deals in Chongqing and in France.

If successful, Mr Heywood would have been awarded £40 million. But
the deals fell apart. Mr Heywood demanded 10 per cent of the original
amount as compensation.


There were no explanations of what the projects were, why the deal failed and what Mr Heywood's role was.


According to a source in Beijing, Bo Xilai, who was transferred to
Chongqing in 2007, halted the projects for fear that the deals could
jeopardise his political future. If that proves to be true, could it be
that the prosecution hid these details, which might contradict claims by
the government-controlled media that he was a corrupt official?


Gu and her family may have intentionally refrained from mounting a
vigorous defence against the murder charges and decided to strike a deal
with the government because she understood that the trial's real target
was her husband - whom senior party leaders in Beijing are hoping to
render guilty by association and destroy for good.


If she had fought against the murder charges, the Bo family's
political foes would have initiated corruption charges, which could also
be punishable by death. In China today, corruption is so rampant that
no government official is immune, and if such charges were made, her
son, her husband and many of her friends could be implicated. Between
the two, perhaps the murder charge seemed the better deal.


By actively cooperating with the government - she confessed to the
crime and implicated the police chief and his assistants - Gu aimed to
get her potential death sentence commuted.


As the Chinese saying goes, "as long as the green hills last, there
will always be wood to feed the stove". In Gu's case, keeping her life
and shielding her husband from criminal prosecution leaves open the
possibility of a comeback when the political winds shift.


Gu's father-in-law, Mr Bo Yibo, was branded a traitor during the
Cultural Revolution, beaten, paraded around and locked up in a prison
where he was often deprived of food and water. Three years after Mao
Zedong died, the case against him was overturned. He was reinstated by
the new leadership as the vice-premier of China and lived to age 99,
outliving most of his foes.


Given the complexities of the case and the tremendous amount of media
attention, one would have assumed that the Chinese government would
take the case seriously or at least attempt to honour due process.


Unfortunately, the trial was conducted hastily and shabbily, exposing
the ugliness of the Chinese legal system. One can only imagine the fate
of the thousands of faceless or nameless Chinese who are being judged
by the legal system without any media attention.


Gu's verdict will be decided by party leaders in Beijing, rather than
judges in court. Rushing to justify the ousting of Bo Xilai, who was a
strong contender for a spot on the powerful Politburo Standing
Committee, helps leaders in Beijing clear a major hurdle before the
leadership transition at the 18th Party Congress later this year.


Therefore, the Chinese government will most likely give Gu a harsh
sentence. But the fundamental legal questions have not even been asked,
let alone answered.


Ho Pin, a New York-based publisher of Chinese-language
magazines and books, is the author of a forthcoming book on the Bo Xilai
case. This essay was translated by Wenguang Huang from the Chinese.


NEW YORK TIMES SYNDICATE

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Why Chinese Officials Are In Love With The Singapore Model

In this article, Kyle Spencer explains why China is enamored with SG's economic and political model, but how the Chinese underestimate the task ahead of them of emulating SG (in part if not in whole, and if this is indeed their intent).

However, the reasons for China's interest in the Singapore Model makes for a compelling argument for Singapore as an investment interest, and Spencer makes this argument well.

Inevitably, there will be conspiracy theorists and Singapore bashers who seem to crawl out of the woodwork and trot out their pet conspiracy theories as to how Singapore succeeded (they need to justify to themselves why their own country is in the shits, despite having more natural resources, despite having more people, despite having more land, despite having history on their side).

Spencer was not interested in defending Singapore or Singapore's model, only his argument that Singapore is a good investment. So in the original article he has this to say:

Extract from:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/785611-why-chinese-officials-are-in-love-with-the-singapore-model

Corruption-Free

To hear the most enthusiastic of the pro-Singapore Chinese bureaucrats tell it, the only significant obstacle to adapting the Singapore Model to China is to stamp out corruption, and success will surely follow.

What the intelligentsia of the CPC fail to grasp is just how corrupt Singapore isn't. Transparency International ranks Singapore as the fifth least corrupt country in the world. By Singaporean standards, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and the United States are hopelessly and inexcusably corrupt.

China, on the other hand, is the 75th most corrupt nation. That means that China is more corrupt than Italy, about par with Columbia (sic), and only slightly less corrupt than Greece.

That's a long way to climb.

Singapore also offers protection for intellectual property rights, adhering to the WTO's TRIPS Agreement, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. China is one of the world's most notorious offenders. In addition, Singapore holds the highest e-government ranking in the world.




























Spencer's reply to the question in the comments, "Is Singapore a Corruption Haven for the billions of dollars parked there by corrupt Indonesians?" was this:
It's a matter of corruption chasing Singapore rather than Singapore chasing corruption.

"The global financial organization estimates that the amount of assets of Indonesian people in Singapore is S$87 billion, or around Rp506.8 trillion.

According to Teten, embezzlers prefer to deposit their funds in Singapore because they feel safe there although the origin of the funds is illegal.

The reason for this is that Singapore does not have a Money Laundering Law nor is it yet willing to sign an extradition agreement with Indonesia.

Through such an agreement, Indonesia can force Singapore to surrender bad debtors, including return of assets and funds.

Teten acknowledged that Indonesians also save funds in Singapore because of other factors, for example business.

This is because the business and investment climate in Singapore is very attractive.

"In addition, legal certainty is also good, far better compared to in Indonesia," he said."

http://bit.ly/Nz3u33

If you're corrupt, you don't want to park your money in a banana republic, because there's no honor among thieves. You'd want the just the opposite: an affluent, bustling international financial center that doesn't ask foreigners inconvenient questions.

Singapore is the world's fourth leading financial center, but its success as such isn't built on corruption, it's built on Singapore's maritime supremacy and ease of doing business. Singapore is the world's second-biggest casino gambling market, one of the world's top three oil refining centres, the  world's largest oil-rig producer, a major ship-repairer, and a top tourist destination. The port is one of the five busiest ports in the world. Singapore has the world's highest percentage of millionaires, with one out of every six households having at least one million US dollars in disposable wealth. This excludes property, businesses, and luxury goods, which if included would further increase the number of millionaires.

Now, that being said, it's prosperity is linked through its reliance on exports to the broader global market,
specifically America. Historically, Singapore is the first to go down in the event of an acute crisis, but its also the first to recover. See:

http://bloom.bg/Nz3u3b

http://buswk.co/NaQIMq

As always, due diligence is a must.

The article Spencer quoted (and linked) was from Oct 2006. In Dec 2010, SG's Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister visited Indonesia and spoke to students of Indonesia's Defence University. One of the question was about the extradition of corrupt officials.

In brief, the answer to the students was:

1) Corrupt Indonesians and corruption in Indonesia are an Indonesian problem to be solved by Indonesia. Singapore solved the corruption issue internally. We did not need extradition of corrupt officials, or money laundering laws to be enacted by other countries. Even if such laws and treaties were in place, without addressing the root cause of corruption, it simply means that the fruits of corruption will be channeled elsewhere.
2) Singapore is willing to help and had in fact agreed to an extradition and defence cooperation treaty. Indonesia's parliament has refused to ratify the treaty.
3) Where the Indonesian Courts have made a finding or judgement as to corruption and the funds involved and made a court order, the Singapore authorities have complied with such court orders.











Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Do business schools incubate criminals?

by Luigi Zingales

Todayonline
Jul 18, 2012

The recent scandals at Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and other banks might give the impression that the financial sector has some serious morality problems. Unfortunately, it's worse than that: We are dealing with a drop in ethical standards throughout the business world and our graduate schools are partly to blame.

Consider, for example, the revelations about two top executives at the elite consulting firm McKinsey & Co, which has avoided public vilification despite the transgressions of its former employees.

McKinsey Director Anil Kumar - a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School - pleaded guilty to providing insider information to hedge-fund manager and fellow Wharton alumnus Raj Rajaratnam.

Rajat Gupta, a graduate of Harvard Business School who served for nine years as McKinsey's worldwide Managing Director, was convicted of insider trading in the same case.

Although Gupta had long left McKinsey when the actions leading to his conviction took place, it would be shortsighted not to take the problem seriously. While every firm can have its bad apples, when these bad apples are at the top, it suggests that a company has either a corrupt culture or a defective selection process, or both.

This is particularly troubling at a company like McKinsey, which cites the integrity and quality of its consultants as key advantages. "Keep our client information confidential" is one of its credos proudly displayed on its website.

Where did Gupta, Kumar and others get the idea that this kind of behaviour might be okay?

ETHICS CLASSES - OF A SORT

Most business schools offer ethics classes, which are generally divided into two categories. Some simply illustrate ethical dilemmas without taking a position on how people are expected to act. It is as if students were presented with the pros and cons of racial segregation, leaving them to decide which side they wanted to take.

Others hide behind the concept of corporate social responsibility, suggesting that social obligations rest on firms, not on individuals. I say "hide" because a firm is nothing but an organised group of individuals.

So, before we talk about corporate social responsibility, we need to talk about individual social responsibility. If we do not recognise the latter, we cannot talk about the former.

Oddly, most economists see their subject as divorced from morality. They liken themselves to physicists who teach how atoms do behave, not how they should behave.

But physicists do not teach atoms and atoms do not have free will. If they did, physicists would and should be concerned about how the atoms being instructed could change their behaviour and affect the universe.


TEACHING GREED, UNINTENTIONALLY

Experimental evidence suggests that the teaching of economics does have an effect on students' behaviour: It makes them more selfish and less concerned about the common good. This is not intentional. Most teachers are not aware of what they are doing.

My colleague, Dr Gary Becker, pioneered the economic study of crime. Employing a basic utilitarian approach, he compared the benefits of a crime with the expected cost of punishment. While insightful, Dr Becker's model, which had no intention of telling people how they should behave, had some unintended consequences.

A former student of Dr Becker's told me that he found many of his classmates to be remarkably amoral, a fact he took as a sign that they interpreted Dr Becker's descriptive model of crime as prescriptive. They perceived any failure to commit a high-benefit crime with a low expected cost as a failure to act rationally, almost a proof of stupidity. The student's experience is consistent with the experimental findings I mentioned above.

In other words, if teachers pretend to be agnostic, they subtly encourage amoral behaviour without taking any responsibility. True, economists are not moral philosophers and we have no particular competence to determine what is ethical and what is not. We are, though, able to identify behaviour that makes people better off.

When economist Milton Friedman said the one and only responsibility of business is to increase its profits, he added: "So long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." That is a very big caveat - and one that is not stressed nearly enough in our business schools.

Lobbying to secure a competitive advantage from the government certainly does not represent "open and free competition". Similarly, preying on customers' addictions or cognitive limitations constitutes deception, if not outright fraud. Not to mention using clients' confidential information for personal gain, manipulating a major interest-rate benchmark such as Libor or selling financial products you know to be flawed.

The way to teach these ethics is not to set up a separate class in which a typically low-ranking professor preaches to students who would rather be somewhere else. This approach, common at business schools, serves only to perpetuate the idea that ethics are only for those students who aren't smart enough to avoid getting caught.


MAKE IT A VITAL CORE SUBJECT

Rather, ethics should become an integral part of the so-called core classes - such as accounting, corporate finance, macroeconomics and microeconomics - that tend to be taught by the most respected professors.

These teachers should make their students aware of the reputational (and often legal) costs of violating ethical norms in real business settings, as well as the broader social downsides of acting in one's individual best interest.

Of course, no amount of instruction can prevent some people from engaging in bad behaviour. It can, however, contribute to a social consensus that would discourage diffuse fraud, like the widespread misreporting of Libor rates or the wilful self-delusion and dishonest dealing that helped turn the sub-prime crisis into a global financial disaster.

The daily scandals that expose corruption and deception in business are not merely the doing of isolated crooks. They are the result of an amoral culture that we - business-school professors - helped foster. The solution should start in our classrooms. BLOOMBERG


Luigi Zingales is a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and the author of A Capitalism for the People: Recapturing the Lost Genius of American Prosperity.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Witnessing the birth of a superpower

by Jonathan Watts

Jun 20, 2012 TODAYONLINE

When I moved to Beijing in August 2003, I believed I had the best job in the world: Working for my favourite newspaper in the biggest nation at arguably the most dramatic phase of transformation in its history.

In the past decade, it has given me a front-row seat to watch 200-odd years of industrial development playing at fast forward on a continent-wide screen with a cast of more than a billion. That said, I am glad my daughters were young and easy to please back then or we might well have taken the first plane out of the country.


EVERYTHING SEEMED POSSIBLE

We had come from Japan - a democratic, comfortable, polite, hygiene-obsessed, orderly, first-world nation - to the grim-looking capital of a developing, nominally communist country that looked and sounded like a giant building site.

It required an adjustment of preconceptions. The mix of communist politics and capitalist economics appeared to have created a system designed to exploit people and the environment like never before. And it was changing fast.

As swaths of the capital were being demolished and rebuilt for the Olympics, there was an exhilarating (and sometimes disorientating) sense of mutability. Everything seemed possible.

My focus has been on development and its impact on individuals and the environment. In 2003, China had the world's sixth-biggest GDP. On current course, it will replace the United States as No 1 within the next 15 years.

The primary driver for change has been the movement of people. Over the past nine years, 120 million Chinese people have moved from the countryside to the city.

This mind-boggling shift has its problems, but for the most part, China appears to have avoided the worst of the poverty, crime and ghettoes seen in other rapidly urbanising countries.

Yet it also seems more brittle, perhaps because of the other big economic engine: Infrastructure investment. There has been an extraordinary expansion of power, transport and communication networks that have linked the nation like never before, including a massive new electricity grid linking wind and solar power plants in the deserts to power-hungry consumers in cities and industrial plants.

This has been a decade of cement and steel, a time when economic development has pushed into the most remote corners of China with a series of prestige projects: The world's highest railway, the biggest dam, the longest bridge, putting a man into space, the most ambitious hydroengineering project in human history and, of course, hosting - and dominating - the Olympics for the first time.


RUN-INS WITH POLICE

I never expected China to be an easy place to work. For historical and geo-strategic reasons, there is a lingering distrust of foreign reporters.

Run-ins with the police, local authorities or thugs are depressingly common. I have been detained five times, turned back six times at roadblocks and physically manhandled on a couple of occasions.

Members of state security have sometimes followed interviewees and invited my assistants "out for tea", to question them on who I was meeting and where I planned to visit. The police have twice seized my journalist credentials, most recently on this year's World Press Freedom Day after I tried to interview the blind human-rights activist Chen Guangcheng in hospital.

When that happened, I debated with another British newspaper reporter about whether to report on the confiscation. He argued that it was against his principles for journalists to become part of the story.

I used to believe the same, but after nine years in China, I have seen how coverage is influenced by a lack of access, intimidation of sources and official harassment. I now believe reporters are doing a disservice to their readers if they fail to reveal these limitations on their ability to gather information.


RISE OF THE NETIZENS

Yes, there is often negative coverage and yes, many of the positive developments in China are under-emphasised. But I do not think it does the country's international image any favours to clumsily choke access to what is happening on the ground.

Treated like a spy, I sometimes had to behave like one. At various times, I have concealed myself under blankets in a car and met sources in the middle of the night to avoid detection.

At other times, it is Chinese journalists and officials who pull the screen of secrecy aside. Take the foot-and-mouth outbreak on the outskirts of Beijing in 2005. I was first alerted to this by a Chinese reporter, who was frustrated that the Propaganda Department had ordered the domestic media not to run the story.

Foreign ministry officials often tell me China is becoming more open and, indeed, there have been steps in that direction. But restrictions create fertile ground for rumour-mongering.

One of the biggest changes in this period has been the spread of ideas through mobile phones and social networks. The 513 million netizens in China have incomparably greater access to information than any previous generation and huge numbers now speak out in ways that might have got them threatened or detained in 2003.

Microblogs are perhaps nowhere more influential than in China because there is so little trust of the communist-controlled official media.


MEETING REMARKABLE FOLKS

I will never forget the epic road trips - across the Tibetan plateau, along the silk road, through the Three Gorges and most memorably from Shangri-la to Xanadu.

Along the way, I met remarkable people with extraordinary stories. True to the oft-heard criticism of the foreign media, many were from the "dark side": A young man in Shaoguan who confessed to killing Uighur co-workers at his toy factory because of a rumour they had raped Han women; a gynaecologist in Yunnan who argued with great conviction that it had once been necessary to tie pregnant women up to carry out abortions.

Other stories literally turned up on my doorstep - such as the petitioner who arrived at my office a few weeks before I left. We had never met, but it was easy to identify Yang Zhong, who stood out a mile with his country boots, green overalls and bags crammed full of injustice. The look was all too familiar. I have lost count of the number of petitioners who have asked The Guardian to investigate land thefts, corruption cases, industrial accidents, rapes, murders and other alleged abuses of power.

Mr Yang had come from Jinshantun village in the far northern province of Heilongjiang to accuse a local forestry chief of illegal logging in one of China's last great protected forests and for having him locked up and beaten when he dared to complain.

Weak laws and strong censorship make it difficult for such people to have their cases heard in the domestic system so they turn to foreign news bureaus.


HEROISM AND BRUTALITY

But there were also stories of success, heroism and inspiration: The business empires built by enlightened philanthropists such as Yin Mingshan of Lifan auto, the Internet fortunes accrued by entrepreneurs such as Jack Ma of Alibaba and Robin Li of Baidu.

Compared with nine years ago, people in China have more freedom to shop, to travel and to express their views on the Internet. The Communist Party tolerates a degree of criticism,but step over the invisible line of what is acceptable and the consequences are brutal.

In my first years in China, I interviewed several outspoken opponents - Liu Xiaobo, Gao Zhisheng, Hu Jia and Teng Biao. I was impressed back then that they were at liberty to speak out. It seemed like the act of a confident government. But all of them have subsequently been locked up and, in at least two cases, tortured.

The blame for that surely lies with the authorities. But I have sometimes felt pangs of guilt. I first interviewed Ai Weiwei in the summer of 2007 for an Olympic preview. He was one of the creators of the "Bird's Nest" stadium and I was expecting him to tell me how proud he would be when it was unveiled at the opening ceremony.

Instead, he told me he would not attend in protest at the "disgusting" political conditions in the one-party state and then launched into a withering assault on propaganda. It was the first time he had expressed such views to the foreign media - a great scoop, but also one fraught with risk.

At the end of the interview, I cautioned him: "Are you sure you want to say this? It could get you into a great deal of trouble with the authorities."

"Absolutely," he replied. "I only wish I could say it more clearly."

Despite that confirmation and the similarly critical comments he subsequently made to other media organisations, I felt partly responsible when Weiwei was detained last year.


LESS TOLERANT COUNTRY

Whether the repression is getting better or worse has been a constant question with few clear answers. My feeling is that China has become a less tolerant country since 2008.

That was a coming of age of sorts, when China stopped seeming like a work in progress and started looking and behaving like a superpower.

On the Beijing skyline, the scaffolding and cranes had been replaced by stunning architectural wonders. The ever-present sentiments of victim-hood and nationalism found powerful outlets in the Tibetan uprising, torch relay protests and the Sichuan earthquake.

Meanwhile, those who had supported moves towards a more open, liberal, internationalist China saw the value of their political stock plunge almost as fast as the Dow Jones index in the global financial crisis.

In the four years since, China has become a more modern and connected nation, but - despite the official hubris - it also seems more anxious that the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa may spread.

The government now spends more on internal security than defence of its borders.

Little wonder. This has been an era of protest in China. Academics with access to internal documents say there are tens of thousands of demonstrations each year.

The reasons are manifold - land grabs, ethnic unrest, factory layoffs, corruption cases and territorial disputes.

But I have come to believe the fundamental cause is ecological stress: Foul air, filthy water, growing pressure on the soil and an ever more desperate quest for resources that is pushing development into remote mountains, deserts and forests.


OUTSOURCING ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS

This is not primarily China's fault. It is a historical, global trend. China is merely roaring along the same unsustainable path set by the developed world, but on a bigger scale, a faster speed. The worst problems are found in the countryside: "Cancer villages", toxic spills, health hazards from air pollution and water and the rapid depletion of aquifers under the north China plain - the country's bread-basket.

The implications are global. China has become the biggest greenhouse-gas emitter. For me, the most profound story of this period was the demise of the baiji - a Yangtze river dolphin that had been on earth for 20 million years but was declared extinct in 2006 as a result of river traffic, pollution, reckless fishing and massive damming.

I switched my focus to environment reporting. It was not just the charismatic megafauna and the smog, though the concern about air quality never went away.

As I have noted at greater length elsewhere, I had come to fear that China may be where the 200-odd-year-old carbon-fuelled, capital-driven model of economic development runs into an ecological wall.

Developed nations have been outsourcing their environmental stress to other countries and future generations for more than two centuries.

China is trying to do the same as it looks overseas for food, fuel and minerals to satisfy the rising demand of its cities and factories.

I sympathise with China. It is doing what imperial, dominant powers have done for more than two centuries, but it is harder for China because the planet is running short of land and time.


AMBITIOUS GREEN PLANS

With their engineering backgrounds, President Hu Jintao (a trained hydro-engineer) and Premier Wen Jiabao (one of China's leading experts on rare earth minerals) are probably better aware than most global leaders about the challenge this poses.

While there has been almost no political reform during their terms of office, there have been several ambitious steps forward in terms of environmental policy, such as anti-desertification campaigns, adoption of carbon targets; eco-services compensation, and increased monitoring of PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) and huge investments in eco-cities. The far western deserts of China have been filled with wind farms and solar panels.

That is the most hopeful story of this grey era. If China could emerge from the smog with a low-carbon economy, it would be a boon for the world.


WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

In the future, I believe the most important political division will not be between left and right, but between conservers and consumers. The old battle of "equality versus competition" in the allocation of the resource pie will become secondary to maintaining the pie itself.

But the transition has some way to go. In the next 10 years, China is likely to build more dams than the US managed in its entire history, and it plans to construct about 20 new nuclear power stations.

But even with this huge expansion of non-fossil-fuel-based energy, if the economy continues to grow at its current pace, China will require about 50 per cent more coal than it currently burns.

I expect there will be a slowdown before then as overseas markets contract and domestic investment suffers from the law of diminishing returns.

Meanwhile a new leadership - almost certainly to be headed by Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang - will take the helm at this autumn's party congress. They will have their work cut out. While the Hu-Wen era was one of construction, Xi and Li will have to put more effort into maintenance.

This will require more than the creation of wealth and construction jobs; it will require a system with greater flexibility, efficiency and a new set of values. I expect that transition will be more turbulent than anything seen in the past 10 years. But success or failure, I believe it will remain the most important story in the world.


HARD ACT TO FOLLOW

Regardless of Beijing's choking smog, traffic and politics, it will be hard to match living and working in China.

On my final weekend in China, I went to Weiwei's grey-walled home in the Caochangdi art district. He was with his wife, two aides, a film crew and two lawyers, but as gregarious and mischievous as ever.

"It's hot. Let's take our clothes off," said Weiwei, who proceeded to strip to the waist. I was too shy to follow suit.

I could not stay. The China story was moving on again. News had just come in that Chen Guangcheng was at Beijing airport, about to board a plane to the US. After six years of house arrest and prison, he was finally flying to freedom.

I said my goodbyes and wandered home to write up what felt like an uplifting article to finish on. I knew though, that it was not really the end.

For all the hardship Chen endured, I guessed he would miss China. I certainly will.

This is a peak and perhaps one for mankind. THE GUARDIAN



Jonathan Watts will be based in Rio de Janeiro as The Guardian's Latin America correspondent from next month. The is an abridged version of a longer article.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Would we give Al Qaeda the same say?

It's disturbing that the public combs over every word from Breivik, who should be treated as a terrorist

Apr 23, 2012

by Jonathan Freedland

Does Abu Qatada play World of Warcraft? Did he once, like Anders Behring Breivik, dedicate a sabbatical year to a "hardcore" playing of the game?

We don't know. Perhaps we will find out when Abu Qatada, often described as the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda in Europe, finally faces trial. But I wouldn't bet on it. For when alleged jihadists like Abu Qatada have been brought to trial, they don't quite get the treatment accorded to Breivik this past week.

If they are allowed to testify for five solid days, given an extended opportunity to expound their world view, then the world's press do not hang on their every word, reporting in tweet-sized nuggets the nuances of their philosophy. Nor are their personal life histories, their psychology and video game habits, probed and debated.

Of course comparisons are tricky, not least because those who have staged the most lethal acts of jihadist violence - in New York, Madrid or London - have rarely lived to stand trial. But take this contrast.

In Oslo, the court has been listening to a man who planted a bomb that killed eight and who went on to murder another 69 people, mostly teenagers, on the island of Utoya - a death spree Breivik described on Friday in terms that stop the heart.

There has been copious discussion of Breivik's psyche and especially his views, starting with his courtroom lament that Norway had become "a dumping ground for the surplus births of the Third World".

VASTLY DIFFERENT COVERAGE

Contrast that with the airline bomb plot of 2006, in which an Al Qaeda cell in Britain planned to blow seven transatlantic jets out of the sky.

News reports of that trial offered a scant few lines about the conspirators' individual motives, with most of the coverage focused on operational details, the mechanics and scale, of the planned attack.

My colleague Vikram Dodd, who covered that London trial, was struck when he heard a BBC Radio 5 live phone-in this week that was regularly interrupted by snippets from Breivik's statement. "The grammar of the coverage was as if this was the Chancellor giving his budget," says Mr Dodd.

More than one caller to that programme, while quick to insist they disagreed with Breivik's methods, did rather think the Norwegian had a point about multiculturalism run riot. "I can understand where this guy's coming from," said Mr Tom from Dover, south-east England.

Several readers of a Guardian article sought to post comments in the same vein, calling for "a complete stop of immigration from Muslim countries" and suchlike.

To listen to it, you'd think Breivik had simply wanted to start a debate, that he'd perhaps written a provocative pamphlet rather than commit an act of murderous cruelty.

TRIAL AS A STAGE TO THE WORLD

It was to avoid precisely this problem that the United States Congress acted to relocate the prospective trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged principal architect of the 9/11 attacks, from federal court in Manhattan to a military tribunal at Guantanamo.

They did not want him enjoying the platform so gleefully exploited by Breivik. Perhaps they understood what the latter wrote in his 1,801-page manifesto, posted before the Utoya killings: "Your trial offers you a stage to the world."

The comparison is not so far-fetched. Breivik has expressed his admiration for Al Qaeda's willingness to "embrace" death and was keen to adopt the organisation's methods: His ultimate goal last July was to behead Norway's former Prime Minister and post the video online.

Like Al Qaeda, he believes in acts of spectacular violence as a first step to changing the world, seeks to purge his own people of those deemed weak in the face of the enemy, yearns for a pure, past golden age that never existed and dreams of apocalypse. Above all, he wants those he regards as his people to be unsullied by contact with inferior others.

In this, Breivik and Al Qaeda are kindred spirits.

IS THERE A RIGHT WAY?

What, then, is the right way to bring such people to justice, whether Breivik or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

The cost of the Norwegian approach is that, by treating Breivik like any other defendant, the courts have given him that global megaphone. That represents a perverse reward for his actions: He would never have got such a hearing had he confined himself to ranting on a blog.

More alarmingly, the Oslo trial has surely supplied an incentive to any would-be Breiviks: Kill as he killed and you too will get the attention of the world.

And yet, by trying Mohammed behind closed doors, the US too has handed the forces of terror a kind of victory. They have declared there are limits to the open society, that the rule of law is not strong enough to cope with every eventuality. In a small way, they have conceded ground to the terrorists' view of the world.

How much more appealing is the message of the Norwegian PM last summer, who declared his country would respond to Breivik with "more democracy, more openness and greater political participation".

ONE OF THEM Versus ONE OF US

Whichever approach we take to such crimes, Oslo's or Washington's, one duty is surely clear: We have to be consistent. We cannot apply different standards to terrorists depending on whether they are fanatics of the white supremacist or jihadist variety.

And yet we do just that.

Mr Scott Atran, an eminent anthropologist who has briefed American officials on the nature of terrorism, explains that we adopt radically different approaches depending on whether we believe the threat is from within or without.

Outside attackers, like the 9/11 hijackers, are treated only in terms of the impact and consequences of their actions; those who come from "our side", as the Norwegians see Breivik, are examined for their intentions, what made them act the way they did.

Witness the case of Robert Bales, the US soldier who murdered 16 civilians in Afghanistan. "When it all comes out, it will be a combination of stress, alcohol and domestic issues - he just snapped," said the US military spokesman. It was personal, not political.

Had it been an Afghan soldier killing Americans, it would have been the other way around.

It's clear why we might do this. We can unite against an outside enemy; if the threat is from within, we want to believe it amounts to no more than a single, lone madman. "People don't want to probe," says Mr Atran. "They want to be reassured."

But this division, instinctive as it might be, is not really defensible. Terrorist murder is terrorist murder and we need to treat it that way - even when the killer looks like us. THE GUARDIAN

Jonathan Freedland writes a weekly column for The Guardian.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Obama Says 'If I Had a Son, He'd Look Like Trayvon' - NYTimes.com


March 23, 2012
Obama Speaks Out on Trayvon Martin Killing
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

President Obama spoke in highly personal terms on Friday about how the shooting in Florida of a 17-year-old black youth named Trayvon Martin had affected him, saying that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

The comments by Mr. Obama were his first on the explosive case in which a neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, has claimed self-defense after shooting Mr. Martin several weeks ago. The case has generated outrage about the state’s so-called Stand Your Ground law.

Mr. Obama was asked about his feelings regarding the case during the announcement of his nominee for president of the World Bank in the Rose Garden on Friday morning.

The president often appears perturbed when he is asked off-topic questions at ceremonial events, but on Friday, he seemed eager to address the case, which has quickly developed into a cause célèbre around the country. He cautioned that his comments would be limited because the Justice Department was investigating. But he talked at length about his personal feelings about the case.

“I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this,” Mr. Obama said. “All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen.”

The brief remarks were nonetheless a rare example of Mr. Obama speaking to the nation as an African-American parent and the father of two children.

“Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” Mr. Obama said, his face grim. “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”
President Obama spoke in the Rose Garden at the White House on Friday.Jonathan Ernst/ReutersPresident Obama spoke in the Rose Garden at the White House on Friday.

The most powerful line came at the end of his brief remarks, as he said that his “main message” was directed at the parents of Mr. Martin, who have expressed their deep grief during interviews on television over the last several days.

“You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Mr. Obama said, pausing for a moment. “I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Mr. Obama sidestepped some of the most sensitive and politically charged specifics about the case — whether Mr. Zimmerman should be arrested; whether the Stand Your Ground law goes too far in protecting people who shoot others; whether the police chief in Sanford, where the shooting took place, should be fired. (The chief, Bill Lee, stepped down temporarily on Thursday, saying he had become a distraction to the investigation.)

“I’m the head of the executive branch, and the attorney general reports to me,” Mr. Obama said. “So I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.”

Thousands of supporters of Mr. Martin’s parents expressed their outrage about the killing at a rally in Florida on Thursday night, adding to the growing political dimensions of the case.
Trayvon Martin.Courtesy of Sybrina FultonTrayvon Martin.

The shooting took place Feb. 26, when Mr. Zimmerman, 28, pursued, confronted and fatally shot Mr. Martin, an unarmed high school student carrying only an iced tea and a bag of Skittles.

In a statement on Friday, Mitt Romney, the presumed front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, said: “What happened to Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. There needs to be a thorough investigation that reassures the public that justice is carried out with impartiality and integrity.”

Rick Santorum made some pointed comments about the killing while campaigning at a shooting range in West Monroe, La., before the Louisiana primary on Saturday.

“Well, stand your ground is not doing what this man did,” he said. “There’s a difference between stand your ground and doing what he did. It’s a horrible case. I mean it’s chilling to hear what happened, and of course the fact that law enforcement didn’t immediately go after and prosecute this case is another chilling example of horrible decisions made by people in this process.”

Newt Gingrich, campaigning Friday in Port Fourchon, La., said the district attorney had done “the right thing” in empaneling a grand jury. But, speaking of Mr. Zimmerman, he said it was “pretty clear that this is a guy who found a hobby that’s very dangerous.”

“Having some kind of neighborhood watch is reasonable, but you had somebody who was clearly overreaching,” Mr. Gingrich said. “As I understand Florida law, what he was doing had nothing to do with the law that people are talking about.”

A History of Caution on Race

The last time the president waded into a racially charged incident, it became a political problem for him.

Asked at a news conference about the arrest of a black Harvard professor in the summer of 2009, Mr. Obama offered his opinion, saying that the white officer from Cambridge, Mass., had acted “stupidly” and starting a weeklong controversy about what he said.

“I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 , what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately,’’ Mr. Obama said at the time. “That’s just a fact.’’

Mr. Obama eventually invited the professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and the police officer, James Crowley, to the White House to discuss the situation over some beers.

But despite that incident, the president has been careful not to wade into racial politics. As the nation’s first African-American president, he is sometimes criticized by black leaders who say he is not doing enough to deal with problems in that community.

Asked about the issue in a news conference in his first few months in office, Mr. Obama defended his approach as one that “will lift all boats” by working to “level the playing field and ensure bottom-up economic growth.”

“I’m confident that that will help the African-American community live out the American dream at the same time that it’s helping communities all across the country,” Mr. Obama said in April of 2009.

Richard A. Oppel contributed reporting from West Monroe, La., and Trip Gabriel from Port Fourchon, La.


[I think Obama is doing the right thing. He is POTUS, not President of African-Americans. He is a symbol that the members of that community has progressed, if not arrived. If he does help the African-American community, it should be in his personal capacity as far as possible. Which is difficult to do as POTUS.]