Arrest warrant on Anwar over sodomy case, M'sian govt asks for DNA

July 15, 2008

Anwar to meet police on Wednesday, easing tension

KUALA LUMPUR - A lawyer says police have issued an arrest warrant for Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in connection with a sodomy accusation by a former male aide.

Counsel Sankara Nair says the police faxed him a letter on Tuesday asking Datuk Seri Anwar to appear at the police station for questioning before 2 pm the following day. He said the letter told him an arrest warrant had been issued for his client, Mr Anwar.

'It is my understanding that the police have applied for, and have been issued, an arrest warrant for Mr Anwar and that we are expecting him to be arrested on Wednesday', he told a press conference.

'But I don't discount him being arrested earlier. It's a matter of execution. After speaking to the investigating officer, I think Mr Anwar will be arrested under the Sodomy Act', he said, adding that a team of lawyers was on standby to apply for bail if necessary.

[What kind of lawyer is this? Don't even know statutes correctly. There is no "Sodomy Act". There is only Section 377A of the Penal Code. Sloppy talk from sloppy thinking from a sloppy lawyer.]

White card immigration ruling put off till Aug 15

July 15, 2008

JOHOR BARU - MALAYSIA'S Immigration Department has postponed enforcing the ruling that requires foreigners, including Singaporeans, to fill in disembarkation forms.

The ruling was to have been enforced from Wednesday.

In a statement on Monday, the department announced that the ruling would only be enforced from Aug 15 now.

No reason was given for postponing the enforcement of the ruling, said a report in the New Straits Times on Tuesday.

Foreigners have been exempted from filling in the forms, popularly known as 'white cards' since Jan 20.

Since then, all that they have to do is hand over their passports for verification and scanning. The move was aimed at easing traffic flow at border points.

Singaporeans, especially regular visitors, have expressed dismay over the enforcement of the ruling as it will mean longer queues at Immigration checkpoints and traffic build-up.

Statistics show that some 23,500 Singaporeans enter the city every day. They spend RM5.3 million (S$2.2 million) daily on food, shopping and entertainment.

Both the Johor Tourist Guides Association and the Small and Medium Entrepreneurs Association (Southern Johor) are worried that enforcing the ruling will deter Singaporeans from visiting frequently.

[Malaysia needs to get its act together. So far their track record for policy implementation has been shoot off their mouth first, think later, change mind, say something else, think of something else, say another thing, then someone else say something, then change mind, then have some big shot say something to finally lay all the concerns and uncertainty to rest, then do something totally different from what was said by the big shot and embarrass and undermine his and Malaysia's overall credibility.]

Study finds genetic link to violence, delinquency

July 15, 2008

WASHINGTON - THREE genes may play a strong role in determining why some young men raised in rough neighbourhoods or deprived families become violent criminals, while others do not, United States researchers reported on Monday.

One gene called MAOA that played an especially strong role has been shown in other studies to affect antisocial behaviour - and it was disturbingly common, the team at the University of North Carolina reported.

People with a particular variation of the MAOA gene called 2R were very prone to criminal and delinquent behaviour, said sociology professor Guo Guang, who led the study.

'I don't want to say it is a crime gene, but 1 per cent of people have it and scored very high in violence and delinquency,' Prof Guo said in a telephone interview.

His team, which studied only boys, used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a US nationally representative sample of about 20,000 adolescents in grades 7 to 12. The young men in the study are interviewed in person regularly, and some give blood samples.

Prof Guo's team constructed a 'serious delinquency scale' based on some of the questions the youngsters answered.

'Nonviolent delinquency includes stealing amounts larger or smaller than US$50 (S$68), breaking and entering, and selling drugs,' they wrote in the August issue of the American Sociological Review.

'Violent delinquency includes serious physical fighting that resulted in injuries needing medical treatment, use of weapons to get something from someone, involvement in physical fighting between groups, shooting or stabbing someone, deliberately damaging property, and pulling a knife or gun on someone.'

Genes plus environment
They found specific variations in three genes - the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene, the dopamine transporter 1 (DAT1) gene and the dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) gene - were associated with bad behaviour, but only when the boys suffered some other stress, such as family issues, low popularity and failing school.

MAOA regulates several message-carrying chemicals called neurotransmitters that are important in aggression, emotion and cognition such as serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine.

The links were very specific.

The effect of repeating a grade depended on whether a boy had a certain mutation in MAOA called a 2 repeat, they found.

And a certain mutation in DRD2 seemed to set off a young man if he did not have regular meals with his family.

'But if people with the same gene have a parent who has regular meals with them, then the risk is gone,' Prof Guo said.

'Having a family meal is probably a proxy for parental involvement,' he added. 'It suggests that parenting is very important.' He said vulnerable children might benefit from having surrogates of some sort if their parents are unavailable.

'These results, which are among the first that link molecular genetic variants to delinquency, significantly expand our understanding of delinquent and violent behaviour, and they highlight the need to simultaneously consider their social and genetic origins,' the researchers said.

Prof Guo said it was far too early to explore whether drugs might be developed to protect a young man. He also was unsure if criminals might use a 'genetic defence' in court.

'In some courts (the judge might) think they maybe will commit the same crime again and again, and this would make the court less willing to let them out,' he said. -- REUTERS

'Western groups don't want Singapore to be an example'

July 15, 2008

THE office of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew yesterday issued a statement elaborating on comments he had made last Friday about human rights groups attacking Singapore's style of government.

These groups, as well as non- governmental organisations (NGOs) and the Western media, have an agenda, said his press secretary Yeong Yoon Ying.

'They do not want Singapore to be an example to other countries of how the free market plus the rule of law, and stable macro-economic policies, can lead to progress and success, but without Western-style 'liberal' democracy,' she said.

M'sia's Petronas posts record profits

July 15, 2008

KUALA LUMPUR - MALAYSIAN state energy firm Petronas on Tuesday announced a record profit of US$18.1 billion (S$24.42 billion) for 2007-08 and said it is still keen to develop Iran's Pars liquefied natural gas project.

'We have performed quite well. It is another historic set of numbers for Petronas Group,' president and chief executive Mr Mohamad Hassan Marican told reporters.

Petronas posted a net profit of US$12.9 billion last financial year, which was also an all-time record.

Mr Hassan said Petronas was still pursuing the US$2.0-billion LNG joint venture project in Iran but that it had not completed negotiations with the Iranian government due to rising costs.

'We can't come to a final decision because we need to make an assessment of the price, costs and the viability of the project,' he said.

Mr Hassan said Petronas had the resources to participate in the project on its own, after French energy giant Total dropped out of what was supposed to be a three-party development with the Iranian government.

'We are capable and able to undertake the project,' he said.

Iran has the world's second-largest reserves of natural gas.

The South Pars field in the Gulf has around 500 trillion cubic feet (14 trillion cubic metres) of gas, which represents about eight per cent of world reserves.

Petronas has a 20 per cent stake in the Pars LNG production company, which was set up in 2004 to build a liquefaction facility in Iran.

France's Total SA had a 30 per cent stake while the National Iranian Gas Export Company holds the remaining 50 per cent.

The French firm's chief Christophe de Margerie said earlier this month that it was too politically risky to invest in Iran at present. -- AFP

[This is an embarassing good news. M'sians are going to ask why no subsidy when Petronas making record profits.]

Defending the US or running the world?

July 14, 2008
CONTAINING CHINA

By Doug Bandow

THE United States accounts for roughly half of the world's military spending, enjoys the largest and most productive economy, plays a leading role in every international organisation, and is allied with every major industrialised state - save China and Russia.

The world will inevitably change, but Washington will control its own destiny for many more years. You wouldn't know that, however, listening to the Bush administration and its hawkish supporters. In their view America is a weak and pitiful giant, threatened by evil-doers around the globe.

Particularly worrisome is China. Mr Lev Navrozov of NewsMax warns that 'China's war with the US will be won (before Americans understand) what is going on'.

The Claremont Institute's Mark Helprin complains that Beijing is building up its military while the American 'story is evident without relief throughout our diminished air echelons, shrinking fleets, damaged and depleted stocks, and ground forces turned from preparation for heavy battle to the work of a gendarmerie'.

Earlier this year the Pentagon pointed to China's improved intercontinental missiles, 'continued development of advanced cruise missiles, medium-range ballistic missiles, anti-ship missiles', and more as signs of Beijing's military ambitions.

The warning that the Chinese are 10 feet tall mirrors similar claims regarding the Soviet Union. Yet the People's Republic of China faces a multitude of economic, political and social challenges.

Indeed, the country remains poor, with a per capita GDP of about US$2,100 (S$2,800), and is hardly poised to win an arms race.

Nevertheless, Washington is being filled with cries for a significant military build-up. Mr Helprin argues: 'Were we to allot the average of 5.7 per cent of GNP that we devoted annually to defence in peace time from 1940 to 2000, we would have as a matter of course US$800 billion each year with which to develop and sustain armies and fleets.'

In that case America would police the world 'not with 280 ships but a thousand; not eleven carriers, or nine, but 40, not 183 F-22s, but a thousand; and so on'.

Apparently he believes China to be more dangerous than the Soviet Union, which was capable of destroying the American homeland, overrunning America's allies and contesting control of the world's oceans.

Yet consider the numbers 11 and 0. Those are the number of carriers possessed by America and the People's Republic of China (PRC), respectively. Indeed, estimates of the PRC's total defence spending tap out at US$100 billion annually, one-fifth what the Bush administration proposes spending next year.

What the PRC appears to be most interested in is deterrence. China is modernising its nuclear force, threatening US carriers, testing anti-satellite weapons, and developing asymmetric warfare capabilities. None of these give it much offensive power against the US.

China may extend its reach beyond its own shores and the Taiwan Strait, but will remain far short of an ability to project force globally for some time to come.

Moreover, what of America's friends and allies? Japan still has a larger economy than China and could do far more to defend itself and the region. India has been informally countering Chinese influence in South-east Asia and has a growing nuclear capability.

South Korea, Australia, and several Asean states also could help constrain Chinese geo-political ambitions. Not one of these states wants war with China, but all have an incentive to assert their own interests. Indeed, the PRC is surrounded by countries with which it has been in conflict in the not too distant past.

To threaten the US, China would have to create a force capable of destroying America's nuclear deterrent, controlling US airspace and invading American territory. That is well beyond the PRC's obvious capabilities and apparent intentions.

Actually, hawkish US policymakers fear Chinese parity far more than Chinese superiority. For parity would prevent America from imposing its will on China. Thus, proposals for a massive US military build-up have nothing to do with protecting America.

Admiral Timothy Keating, the top US commander in Asia, complained that some of China's weapons 'could be characterised as having, amongst perhaps other purposes, an ability to restrict movement in and around certain areas', especially in the Taiwan Strait, should the PRC attack Taiwan.

Put bluntly, Washington needs dozens of carrier groups not to prevent an attack on America, but to ensure that America can attack China. This is a fool's errand.

The economic and political costs of attempting to maintain global military hegemony will only rise. And just as Americans would be unlikely to supinely accept an attempt by a potentially antagonistic power to maintain perpetual military hegemony, China too is unlikely to accept an American attempt to do the same.

Defending America, not running the world, is the primary responsibility of the US government.

A more humble foreign policy also is likely to yield greater national security for America and its friends and allies throughout Asia.

The writer is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defence Alliance. He was a special assistant to former US president Ronald Reagan.

[True. True. The US has to start thinking about its role in a world that is not so US-centric anymore. The centre is shifting to a more plural world. ]

Too much heart, too little vision

July 14, 2008
GENERAL MOTORS' WOES

By Roger Lowenstein
WHO shot General Motors?

The company's stock is at its lowest level in 50 years, and its market valuation has plunged to US$5.9 billion (S$8 billion), less than that of the Hershey candy-bar company.

The American carmaker is weighing yet another round of layoffs - and maybe even a fire sale of venerable brands such as Buick and Pontiac. General Motors (GM) once manufactured half the cars on the American road, but now it sells barely two in 10 vehicles.

Bankruptcy is not unthinkable for Detroit's former king. The immediate cause of GM's distress, of course, is the surging price of oil, which has put a chill on the sale of petrol- guzzling sport utility vehicles and trucks. The company's failure to invest early enough in hybrids is another reason for its poor state of affairs. Years of poor car design is yet another.

But none of GM's management miscues was so damaging to its long-term fate as the rich pensions and health-care system that robbed it of its financial flexibility and, ultimately, of its cash.

GM established its pension in the 'treaty of Detroit', the five-year contract that it signed with the United Automobile Workers (UAW) in 1950 that also provided health insurance and other benefits for the company's workers.

Mr Walter Reuther, the union's captain, would have preferred that the government provide pensions and health care to all citizens. He urged the carmakers to 'go down to Washington and fight with us' for federal benefits.

But the carmakers wanted no part of socialised care. They seemed not to notice, as a union expert wrote, that if Washington didn't provide social insurance it would be 'sought from employers across the collective bargaining table'.

Detroit was too flush then to envision that it would ever face a financial strain. Ford and Chrysler signed identical pacts with labour, so all three carmakers were able to pass on their costs to customers. Besides, the industry's work force was so young that few workers would be collecting a pension any time soon.

But pension commitments last forever. They far outlived Detroit's prosperity.

GM got into the dubious habit of steadily increasing worker benefits. In 1961, GM was able to get away with a skimpy 2.5 per cent increase in wages by also guaranteeing a 12 per cent rise in pensions. Such promises significantly burdened the company's future. As workers lived longer, the cost of fulfilling pension commitments rose accordingly. And health-care costs exploded.

By the 1980s, it was clear that the Big Three carmakers faced a serious threat from Japan. But GM and UAW were locked in a mutually destructive embrace.

GM, fearing the short-term consequences of a strike, continued to grant large increases in benefits - creating an intolerable gap between its costs and those of its foreign competitors. Union officials feared to face the rank and file without a big contract.

In the 1990s, the consequences of maintaining a corporate welfare state became too obvious to ignore. In that decade, GM poured tens of billions of dollars into its pension fund - an irretrievable loss of opportunity.

What else might GM have accomplished with that money? It could have designed new cars or carried out research into alternative fuels. Or it could have acquired half of Toyota - a company that the stock market now values at close to US$150 billion.

GM acknowledged in its most recent annual report that, from 1993 to 2007, it spent US$103 billion 'to fund legacy pensions and retiree health care - an average of about US$7 billion a year - a dramatic competitive and cash-flow disadvantage'.

During those 15 years, GM paid only US$13 billion or so in shareholder dividends. The company has been sending far more money to its retirees than to its owners.

After falling US$20 billion behind on its pension plan earlier this decade, GM doggedly put money into its plan to catch up. It has also agreed to invest more than US$30 billion in a fund to cover future health-care expenses. But these efforts have starved its business.

The sorry decline of GM has proved Mr Reuther right: The government is the better provider of social insurance. Let industry worry about selling products.

Unhappily, however, the fate of many public-sector pension plans in the United States is even worse than GM's. Responding to the same temptation to offload expenses into the future, public employers have committed to trillions of dollars in future liabilities.

In New Jersey, a huge pension liability has created a budgetary nightmare for the state. The city of Vallejo, in California, burdened by police pensions, recently filed for bankruptcy.

Just as GM's shareholders bore the burdens of its pensions, states and cities will have to force taxpayers to sacrifice in the form of service cuts, tax increases or both.

It is too late to restore GM to its former grandeur. But if public officials do not show courage by quickly funding the pensions they have promised their workers, American taxpayers will soon find themselves in an even worse crisis than the one GM's shareholders are facing now.

The writer is the author of While America Aged: How Pension Debts Ruined General Motors.

This column first appeared in the International Herald Tribune on July 10.

[The company is not the best provider of social insurance. Neither is the govt. For retirement plans, the employee the individual is the one that has the most at stake and therefore the most incentive to plan for his retirement. The govt role is to protect the employee and ensure that the employer does not exploit the employee. In Singapore, the govt also has schemes in place to ensure that employees do not shortsightedly spend their savings away. So there is the CPF.

At the low end, there is Workfare incentives, where low wage workers will get govt contribution to their CPF. At the upper end, there is Supplementary Retirement Savings where the high-income earners can save more for their retirement.]