IRAQ: Contracts Leave Local Business Out
Peyman Pejman
BAGHDAD, Nov 21 (IPS) - U.S. officials have shut Iraqis out of the business of reconstruction contracts, many local businessmen say.
U.S. officials and the contractors working for them favour a few high-profile Iraqi companies they trust, and set excessively high contract standards that most Iraqi companies cannot meet, they say.
U.S. officials have reportedly allowed some companies closely associated with the former regime to win lucrative contracts.
U.S. officials deny most of the charges. They say some of the frustration comes because Iraqis do not understand legal obligations.
Reconstruction contracts in Iraq are awarded through three sources: the U.S. Army, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) headed by Paul Bremer.
USAID contracts are awarded through the Bechtel Corporation. Army contracts are awarded primarily through the Halliburton Corporation which Vice President Richard Cheney headed until he moved to the White House. Some CPA contracts are awarded through Halliburton, but it has also signed some of its own agreements.
The total value of the contracts awarded has not been made public, but sources in Baghdad put the figure above 10 billion dollars.
For most Iraqis the two primary ways of learning about new reconstruction contracts are through a website set up by the CPA, and by attending a weekly meeting at the Convention Centre in Baghdad.
The weekly meetings are organised by Kellog, Brown & Root, engaged by Halliburton to find subcontractors for its work.
Several Iraqis say they are frustrated by the process.
"We look at the website, it has some good information about each contract, but not enough," Hend Adnan from an Iraqi engineering company told IPS. "They don't give information over the phone, so you have to come and attend these meetings to know more."
But coming to the meetings does nothing to end the Iraqis' suspicion of the process.
"In colloquial Arabic we say things are done behind doors," says contractor Haidar Abdel Kazem. "You don't 'feel' the contracts, you feel it is decided before they are announced."
Iraqis are often given less than a week to respond to bids, and asked to present lengthy documents.
"They give four, five days," says Abdel Kazem. "How are you going to prepare for it, how are you going to answer it, how are you going to get the answer to them? The period is unreasonable."
And when they do respond properly to the contracts, many say they go home empty-handed.
"I am not happy with their system," says Adnan. "My company has been coming here for four months and has responded to at least 10 bids but has not won anything. You look at the list of the companies that win and see there are a few companies that are always on top of the list."
Other Iraqis complain that U.S. officials have let firms associated with the former regime enrich themselves once more.
Two such companies are Boniye & Sons and Mediterranean Global Holdings. The first belongs to an old Iraqi family which had diverse business interests during Saddam's time. The family is widely reputed to have been close to Saddam and his son Uday.
The second is a London-based company headed by Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi- British businessman who left Iraq in the early 1980s and has since accumulated a fortune estimated at more than a billion dollars.
The CPA awarded Boniye "a couple of fairly large" construction contracts, says a senior U.S. official.
Auchi is said to have secured a multi-million dollar contract through associates in Baghdad to establish a mobile telephone network for central Iraq, including Baghdad.
Boniye managers could not be reached for comment. They were in Saudi Arabia for the annual Muslim pilgrimage, company officials said.
Officials at Auchi's London headquarters did not respond to emailed questions and numerous phone calls.
The question of fairness in contracting procedures has become a touchy point in Baghdad. It is likely to gain more attention as the United States plans to award about 25 billion dollars in reconstruction contracts next year, CPA officials say.
Asked for an official comment, a U.S. spokeswoman said her colleagues in Iraq "have answered questions till they have become blue in the face. You want to trash them too, go ahead."
She said Bechtel, KBR and Halliburton now refer all questions on contracting to their headquarters in the United States.
But the officials are more accommodating off the record.
They say a part of the dissatisfaction and frustration Iraqis feel is due to misplaced expectations. All three sources of awarding reconstruction contracts receive funds from the U.S. Congress, and they are legally obliged to give preference to U.S. companies, they say.
But U.S. companies are encouraged, though not obliged, to hire as many Iraqi subcontractors as possible, the officials say.
In USAID contracts, Bechtel and KBR have dished out half their contracts to Iraqis, and plan to increase the figure to 70 percent "soon", a U.S. official familiar with USAID contracts said.
U.S. officials concede that some contracts may have been awarded to companies associated with the previous regime. But they say a company is not tied to the previous regime just because some Iraqis say so.
About the short response period to the contracts, U.S. officials say this is in the nature of the fast turnaround work in Iraq. They say if Iraqis get short notice to respond to bids, U.S. contractors get just that much notice from their bosses.
U.S. officials concede that setting high standards for winning contracts is true for "sophisticated" engineering and construction contracts.
"We are here trying to do a good job and build things that will still be standing 50, 100 years from now," says a U.S. official. "Sorry if we are trying to do too good a job for people who have been deprived of it for so many years."
BAGHDAD, Nov 21 (IPS) - U.S. officials have shut Iraqis out of the business of reconstruction contracts, many local businessmen say.
U.S. officials and the contractors working for them favour a few high-profile Iraqi companies they trust, and set excessively high contract standards that most Iraqi companies cannot meet, they say.
U.S. officials have reportedly allowed some companies closely associated with the former regime to win lucrative contracts.
U.S. officials deny most of the charges. They say some of the frustration comes because Iraqis do not understand legal obligations.
Reconstruction contracts in Iraq are awarded through three sources: the U.S. Army, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) headed by Paul Bremer.
USAID contracts are awarded through the Bechtel Corporation. Army contracts are awarded primarily through the Halliburton Corporation which Vice President Richard Cheney headed until he moved to the White House. Some CPA contracts are awarded through Halliburton, but it has also signed some of its own agreements.
The total value of the contracts awarded has not been made public, but sources in Baghdad put the figure above 10 billion dollars.
For most Iraqis the two primary ways of learning about new reconstruction contracts are through a website set up by the CPA, and by attending a weekly meeting at the Convention Centre in Baghdad.
The weekly meetings are organised by Kellog, Brown & Root, engaged by Halliburton to find subcontractors for its work.
Several Iraqis say they are frustrated by the process.
"We look at the website, it has some good information about each contract, but not enough," Hend Adnan from an Iraqi engineering company told IPS. "They don't give information over the phone, so you have to come and attend these meetings to know more."
But coming to the meetings does nothing to end the Iraqis' suspicion of the process.
"In colloquial Arabic we say things are done behind doors," says contractor Haidar Abdel Kazem. "You don't 'feel' the contracts, you feel it is decided before they are announced."
Iraqis are often given less than a week to respond to bids, and asked to present lengthy documents.
"They give four, five days," says Abdel Kazem. "How are you going to prepare for it, how are you going to answer it, how are you going to get the answer to them? The period is unreasonable."
And when they do respond properly to the contracts, many say they go home empty-handed.
"I am not happy with their system," says Adnan. "My company has been coming here for four months and has responded to at least 10 bids but has not won anything. You look at the list of the companies that win and see there are a few companies that are always on top of the list."
Other Iraqis complain that U.S. officials have let firms associated with the former regime enrich themselves once more.
Two such companies are Boniye & Sons and Mediterranean Global Holdings. The first belongs to an old Iraqi family which had diverse business interests during Saddam's time. The family is widely reputed to have been close to Saddam and his son Uday.
The second is a London-based company headed by Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi- British businessman who left Iraq in the early 1980s and has since accumulated a fortune estimated at more than a billion dollars.
The CPA awarded Boniye "a couple of fairly large" construction contracts, says a senior U.S. official.
Auchi is said to have secured a multi-million dollar contract through associates in Baghdad to establish a mobile telephone network for central Iraq, including Baghdad.
Boniye managers could not be reached for comment. They were in Saudi Arabia for the annual Muslim pilgrimage, company officials said.
Officials at Auchi's London headquarters did not respond to emailed questions and numerous phone calls.
The question of fairness in contracting procedures has become a touchy point in Baghdad. It is likely to gain more attention as the United States plans to award about 25 billion dollars in reconstruction contracts next year, CPA officials say.
Asked for an official comment, a U.S. spokeswoman said her colleagues in Iraq "have answered questions till they have become blue in the face. You want to trash them too, go ahead."
She said Bechtel, KBR and Halliburton now refer all questions on contracting to their headquarters in the United States.
But the officials are more accommodating off the record.
They say a part of the dissatisfaction and frustration Iraqis feel is due to misplaced expectations. All three sources of awarding reconstruction contracts receive funds from the U.S. Congress, and they are legally obliged to give preference to U.S. companies, they say.
But U.S. companies are encouraged, though not obliged, to hire as many Iraqi subcontractors as possible, the officials say.
In USAID contracts, Bechtel and KBR have dished out half their contracts to Iraqis, and plan to increase the figure to 70 percent "soon", a U.S. official familiar with USAID contracts said.
U.S. officials concede that some contracts may have been awarded to companies associated with the previous regime. But they say a company is not tied to the previous regime just because some Iraqis say so.
About the short response period to the contracts, U.S. officials say this is in the nature of the fast turnaround work in Iraq. They say if Iraqis get short notice to respond to bids, U.S. contractors get just that much notice from their bosses.
U.S. officials concede that setting high standards for winning contracts is true for "sophisticated" engineering and construction contracts.
"We are here trying to do a good job and build things that will still be standing 50, 100 years from now," says a U.S. official. "Sorry if we are trying to do too good a job for people who have been deprived of it for so many years."
Singapore takes war on terror to the Web
SCMP-Monday, November 24, 2003
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE in Singapore
Laws allowing Singapore to launch pre-emptive strikes against computer hackers have raised fears that internet controls are being tightened and privacy compromised in the name of fighting terrorism.
The city-state's parliament has approved tough legislation aimed at stopping "cyber-terrorism", referring to computer crimes that could endanger national security, foreign relations, banking and essential public services.
Security agencies can now patrol the internet and swoop on hackers suspected of plotting to use computers as weapons of mass disruption.
Violators of the computer misuse act such as website hackers can be jailed up to three years or fined up to S$10,000 (HK$45,000).
But opponents fear the law will be abused.
"It could be misused to invade the privacy of citizens to gather information," said Sinapan Samydorai, president of Think Centre, a civil liberties group. He said the laws could be used as an "instrument of oppression" by the government.
But the Ministry of Home Affairs said the measures would be non-intrusive.
"Any scanning program deployed will not intrude into a subscriber's personal computer. It will only scan the internet passively to determine vulnerabilities in the affected network," a spokeswoman said.
The measures have been likened by critics to the Internal Security Act, which has been used to detain political dissidents and radicals without trial.
Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said the new powers would be used sparingly, and warned that online saboteurs could be as dangerous as suicide bombers.
"Instead of a backpack of explosives, a terrorist can create just as much devastation by sending a carefully engineered packet of data into the computer systems which control the delivery of an essential service, say, for example, a power station, thus causing it to malfunction," Mr Ho said.
Mr Ho said authorities had noted a big increase in hacking.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE in Singapore
Laws allowing Singapore to launch pre-emptive strikes against computer hackers have raised fears that internet controls are being tightened and privacy compromised in the name of fighting terrorism.
The city-state's parliament has approved tough legislation aimed at stopping "cyber-terrorism", referring to computer crimes that could endanger national security, foreign relations, banking and essential public services.
Security agencies can now patrol the internet and swoop on hackers suspected of plotting to use computers as weapons of mass disruption.
Violators of the computer misuse act such as website hackers can be jailed up to three years or fined up to S$10,000 (HK$45,000).
But opponents fear the law will be abused.
"It could be misused to invade the privacy of citizens to gather information," said Sinapan Samydorai, president of Think Centre, a civil liberties group. He said the laws could be used as an "instrument of oppression" by the government.
But the Ministry of Home Affairs said the measures would be non-intrusive.
"Any scanning program deployed will not intrude into a subscriber's personal computer. It will only scan the internet passively to determine vulnerabilities in the affected network," a spokeswoman said.
The measures have been likened by critics to the Internal Security Act, which has been used to detain political dissidents and radicals without trial.
Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said the new powers would be used sparingly, and warned that online saboteurs could be as dangerous as suicide bombers.
"Instead of a backpack of explosives, a terrorist can create just as much devastation by sending a carefully engineered packet of data into the computer systems which control the delivery of an essential service, say, for example, a power station, thus causing it to malfunction," Mr Ho said.
Mr Ho said authorities had noted a big increase in hacking.
Build nation on shared beliefs, urges Islamic preacher
Malaysiakini - Sun Nov 23rd, 2003
A senior Islamic preacher in Sabah has encouraged Catholic priests to build interreligious harmony by stressing the common beliefs shared by followers of Islam and Christianity.
According to a report in the Herald, the Catholic weekly of the Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur, Ustaz Abuhuraira Abdurrahman made the appeal in a talk he gave to some 25 priests in Kota Kinabalu early this month.
In his paper themed "Unity between Muslims and Christians" Abdurrahman quoted from both the Qu’ran nd Bible and cited "common points of meeting" between the two religions.
He noted that both religions oppose the worship of idols but share a belief in the oneness of God and other convictions concerning the prophets, social justice, the condemnation of evil deeds, and the prohibition of unjustified bloodshed such as murder, abortion and suicide.
No absolute unity
He pointed out that Islam and Christianity cannot form an absolute unity, nor can their differences be minimised.
Nevertheless, he said, what we are seeking is a mutual understanding between followers of both religions to harmonise relations among all religions worldwide.
Abdurrahman was accompanied on his first visit to the Sacred Heart Cathedral where the talk was held by Hasbullah Haji Mohd Taha, deputy president of the United Sabah Islamic Association.
Taha said that his association operates as an NGO and that its primary function is to preach and explain Islam to others. He also noted that Sabah has enjoyed peace and all ethnic groups live harmoniously together.
Kota Kinabalu Bishop John Lee, in welcoming the Islamic visitors said that "we have been looking forward to this sort of interreligious dialogue.
"We made history today with this meeting," he noted proudly.
According to Rev Fr Nicholas Ong, assistant pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral, Abdurrahman was the first Islamic preacher in Sabah to address Catholic priests in the state on Muslim and Cahristian unity.
A senior Islamic preacher in Sabah has encouraged Catholic priests to build interreligious harmony by stressing the common beliefs shared by followers of Islam and Christianity.
According to a report in the Herald, the Catholic weekly of the Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur, Ustaz Abuhuraira Abdurrahman made the appeal in a talk he gave to some 25 priests in Kota Kinabalu early this month.
In his paper themed "Unity between Muslims and Christians" Abdurrahman quoted from both the Qu’ran nd Bible and cited "common points of meeting" between the two religions.
He noted that both religions oppose the worship of idols but share a belief in the oneness of God and other convictions concerning the prophets, social justice, the condemnation of evil deeds, and the prohibition of unjustified bloodshed such as murder, abortion and suicide.
No absolute unity
He pointed out that Islam and Christianity cannot form an absolute unity, nor can their differences be minimised.
Nevertheless, he said, what we are seeking is a mutual understanding between followers of both religions to harmonise relations among all religions worldwide.
Abdurrahman was accompanied on his first visit to the Sacred Heart Cathedral where the talk was held by Hasbullah Haji Mohd Taha, deputy president of the United Sabah Islamic Association.
Taha said that his association operates as an NGO and that its primary function is to preach and explain Islam to others. He also noted that Sabah has enjoyed peace and all ethnic groups live harmoniously together.
Kota Kinabalu Bishop John Lee, in welcoming the Islamic visitors said that "we have been looking forward to this sort of interreligious dialogue.
"We made history today with this meeting," he noted proudly.
According to Rev Fr Nicholas Ong, assistant pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral, Abdurrahman was the first Islamic preacher in Sabah to address Catholic priests in the state on Muslim and Cahristian unity.
One crisis to another?
SCMP-Thursday, November 20, 2003
BRAD GLOSSERMAN
US relations with China are the best they have ever been. That is the view of US officials, and most China-watchers. Beijing gets a lot of the credit for building this new relationship. In particular, it is applauded for co-operating in the war on terror and, perhaps even more important, working hard to get North Korea to join talks over its nuclear weapons programme.
But the two governments should not get too comfortable. This favourable atmosphere could sour quickly. Ironically, the biggest problems are likely to arise as the two governments work together to defuse the North Korean crisis. All governments in the six-party negotiations agree that Beijing has played a critical role in getting Pyongyang to the table and in accepting a multilateral format. China's combination of sticks and carrots has proved critical.
Officially, China shares the US desire that the Korean peninsula remains free of nuclear weapons. But, says Bonnie Glaser, a senior fellow at CSIS, a Washington think-tank, the Chinese do not see themselves as part of the "five" countries trying to convince Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons programme - and therein lies a source of conflict with the US.
Ms Glaser, one of America's top China-watchers, believes Beijing is resisting the five versus one formula. China has to maintain the appearance of balance to continue to host the talks. But Ms Glaser argues that it does not see itself as part of the five because it is not in the country's long-term interests to press North Korea. Coming down hard on Pyongyang could turn North Korea against its long-time ally and cost China influence in the region. Not surprisingly, Beijing thinks of itself as a mediator. China's preference for the middle ground will become a source of friction if - or rather, when - North Korea plays hardball.
The talks are giving rise to a second irritant: China's demand for compensation for co-operation. This is a new phenomenon. Taiwan has long worried about a quid pro quo between Washington and Beijing to win co-operation. Those fears were groundless. Trends concerning the priority issue on the Chinese government's agenda - Taiwan - appeared to be moving in a direction generally favourable to its long-term interests. The balance of forces favoured mainland China, and Beijing saw no need to draw attention to that fact.
President Chen Shui-bian's recent trip through the US and Latin America has forced Beijing to change tack and link the issues of Taiwan and North Korea. That promises trouble.
Having played a critical role in getting Pyongyang to talk, China now feels that it has leverage over Washington. And even if that is putting the case a bit too strongly, Beijing believes Washington needs to respond to its security concerns. Either way, says Ms Glaser, the result is the same: China wants the US to return the favour done by Beijing, and get Mr Chen to stop his pro-independence moves.
From the US perspective, that linkage is unhelpful. China should be concerned about North Korean nuclear weapons because they threaten to destabilise the region. The US does take Chinese concerns seriously, but linking the two issues is not going to get China a sympathetic hearing.
This shrinking common ground is the third problem, Despite unprecedented high-level dialogue between the two countries and detailed conversations about the North Korean problem, Ms Glaser says the two governments are not talking about long-term issues; one particularly thorny topic is the role of the US alliances in providing security.
That may sound abstract, but that question goes to the heart of East Asia's future. Will the US maintain a military presence in the region? Even after Korean unification? There is already talk of a multinational security framework in Northeast Asia emerging from the six-party talks. If this happens, how will the US alliances interact with it? Ms Glaser says that a failure to discuss this question guarantees that the US will remain suspicious of Chinese intentions: it will continue to be reluctant to endorse multilateralism as long as it believes Beijing is using that idea to drive a wedge between the US and its allies in the region.
In other words, enjoy these halcyon days of Sino-US relations. They may yet be torpedoed by a lack of trust that is all too easy to see and anticipate.
Brad Glosserman is director of research at Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based think-tank.
BRAD GLOSSERMAN
US relations with China are the best they have ever been. That is the view of US officials, and most China-watchers. Beijing gets a lot of the credit for building this new relationship. In particular, it is applauded for co-operating in the war on terror and, perhaps even more important, working hard to get North Korea to join talks over its nuclear weapons programme.
But the two governments should not get too comfortable. This favourable atmosphere could sour quickly. Ironically, the biggest problems are likely to arise as the two governments work together to defuse the North Korean crisis. All governments in the six-party negotiations agree that Beijing has played a critical role in getting Pyongyang to the table and in accepting a multilateral format. China's combination of sticks and carrots has proved critical.
Officially, China shares the US desire that the Korean peninsula remains free of nuclear weapons. But, says Bonnie Glaser, a senior fellow at CSIS, a Washington think-tank, the Chinese do not see themselves as part of the "five" countries trying to convince Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons programme - and therein lies a source of conflict with the US.
Ms Glaser, one of America's top China-watchers, believes Beijing is resisting the five versus one formula. China has to maintain the appearance of balance to continue to host the talks. But Ms Glaser argues that it does not see itself as part of the five because it is not in the country's long-term interests to press North Korea. Coming down hard on Pyongyang could turn North Korea against its long-time ally and cost China influence in the region. Not surprisingly, Beijing thinks of itself as a mediator. China's preference for the middle ground will become a source of friction if - or rather, when - North Korea plays hardball.
The talks are giving rise to a second irritant: China's demand for compensation for co-operation. This is a new phenomenon. Taiwan has long worried about a quid pro quo between Washington and Beijing to win co-operation. Those fears were groundless. Trends concerning the priority issue on the Chinese government's agenda - Taiwan - appeared to be moving in a direction generally favourable to its long-term interests. The balance of forces favoured mainland China, and Beijing saw no need to draw attention to that fact.
President Chen Shui-bian's recent trip through the US and Latin America has forced Beijing to change tack and link the issues of Taiwan and North Korea. That promises trouble.
Having played a critical role in getting Pyongyang to talk, China now feels that it has leverage over Washington. And even if that is putting the case a bit too strongly, Beijing believes Washington needs to respond to its security concerns. Either way, says Ms Glaser, the result is the same: China wants the US to return the favour done by Beijing, and get Mr Chen to stop his pro-independence moves.
From the US perspective, that linkage is unhelpful. China should be concerned about North Korean nuclear weapons because they threaten to destabilise the region. The US does take Chinese concerns seriously, but linking the two issues is not going to get China a sympathetic hearing.
This shrinking common ground is the third problem, Despite unprecedented high-level dialogue between the two countries and detailed conversations about the North Korean problem, Ms Glaser says the two governments are not talking about long-term issues; one particularly thorny topic is the role of the US alliances in providing security.
That may sound abstract, but that question goes to the heart of East Asia's future. Will the US maintain a military presence in the region? Even after Korean unification? There is already talk of a multinational security framework in Northeast Asia emerging from the six-party talks. If this happens, how will the US alliances interact with it? Ms Glaser says that a failure to discuss this question guarantees that the US will remain suspicious of Chinese intentions: it will continue to be reluctant to endorse multilateralism as long as it believes Beijing is using that idea to drive a wedge between the US and its allies in the region.
In other words, enjoy these halcyon days of Sino-US relations. They may yet be torpedoed by a lack of trust that is all too easy to see and anticipate.
Brad Glosserman is director of research at Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based think-tank.
Dramatic rise in violence against women revealed in new study
SCMP-Wednesday, November 19, 2003
ALICE YAN
A dramatic rise in domestic violence has been revealed in the first national survey on women's issues.
The survey, by the All-China Women's Federation, showed that more than 50 per cent of respondents admitted having been beaten by their partner at least once in the past six months.
More than 20 per cent admitted receiving beatings several times, while 1 per cent said they had experienced systematic domestic violence.
The survey also showed that a lower level of domestic violence occurred in cities, while 10 per cent more respondents in western areas said they experienced domestic violence than those in the east.
The survey polled nearly 20,000 people across the country. Although the majority replied to questions about whether they had experienced domestic violence and if so, how often, just 3,000 replied when asked if they had experienced domestic violence in the past six months.
The survey results, which will be published next year, are in marked contrast to the findings of the 1990 census. At that time just 8.2 per cent of women said they had been beaten at home on several occasions, while 20 per cent said they had been beaten at least once.
The overwhelming majority, or 80 per cent, said they had never been beaten, while 1 per cent said they suffered systematic domestic violence.
Experts are divided over the reason for the overall increase. Rong Weiyi, director of the Domestic Violence Centre under the China Association of Law, said the increase was due to greater awareness of the issue and willingness to report it.
"In 1990, very few people would report their suffering to people outside their own families," said Ms Rong. "Some were not even aware that their rights were being infringed."
But Wang Simei, director of the Women's Institute under the All-ChinaWomen's Federation, said the increase might reflect a real increase in cases of domestic violence on the mainland.
"Society has become much more competitive," she said. "Laidoff workers, migrants and even young professionals are under enormous pressure and some of them cannot cope."
The women's federation is preparing a draft Women's Law, which will legislate against domestic violence for the first time. It is expected to be presented to the federation by the end of the year and then to the National People's Congress in March.
Wu Changzhen, director of the panel responsible for drawing up the law, said: "The work is going ahead on schedule. The draft law addresses the issue of physical violence against women in the home. At this stage, it is unlikely to deal with marital rape or mental abuse."
ALICE YAN
A dramatic rise in domestic violence has been revealed in the first national survey on women's issues.
The survey, by the All-China Women's Federation, showed that more than 50 per cent of respondents admitted having been beaten by their partner at least once in the past six months.
More than 20 per cent admitted receiving beatings several times, while 1 per cent said they had experienced systematic domestic violence.
The survey also showed that a lower level of domestic violence occurred in cities, while 10 per cent more respondents in western areas said they experienced domestic violence than those in the east.
The survey polled nearly 20,000 people across the country. Although the majority replied to questions about whether they had experienced domestic violence and if so, how often, just 3,000 replied when asked if they had experienced domestic violence in the past six months.
The survey results, which will be published next year, are in marked contrast to the findings of the 1990 census. At that time just 8.2 per cent of women said they had been beaten at home on several occasions, while 20 per cent said they had been beaten at least once.
The overwhelming majority, or 80 per cent, said they had never been beaten, while 1 per cent said they suffered systematic domestic violence.
Experts are divided over the reason for the overall increase. Rong Weiyi, director of the Domestic Violence Centre under the China Association of Law, said the increase was due to greater awareness of the issue and willingness to report it.
"In 1990, very few people would report their suffering to people outside their own families," said Ms Rong. "Some were not even aware that their rights were being infringed."
But Wang Simei, director of the Women's Institute under the All-ChinaWomen's Federation, said the increase might reflect a real increase in cases of domestic violence on the mainland.
"Society has become much more competitive," she said. "Laidoff workers, migrants and even young professionals are under enormous pressure and some of them cannot cope."
The women's federation is preparing a draft Women's Law, which will legislate against domestic violence for the first time. It is expected to be presented to the federation by the end of the year and then to the National People's Congress in March.
Wu Changzhen, director of the panel responsible for drawing up the law, said: "The work is going ahead on schedule. The draft law addresses the issue of physical violence against women in the home. At this stage, it is unlikely to deal with marital rape or mental abuse."
Illegal workers in limbo as South Korea cracks down
SCMP-Monday, November 17, 2003
KHANG HYUN-SUNG in Seoul
Gayan Wickramaratha, an illegal foreign worker from Sri Lanka, is planning to go into hiding ahead of a government crackdown on illegal workers due to start today.
"We are not rebels, we are not thieves. We are here to work and support our families. We have no chance to earn money in our own countries," he said.
The 32-year-old arrived in South Korea five years ago through the country's discredited "industrial technical training scheme" and then left his designated workplace or outstayed his visa - he is sketchy about the details - to earn more elsewhere.
He has spent the past two years working 13 hours a day, six days a week, in a small factory making moulds for car parts. Mr Wickramaratha resigned last week to avoid the new labour squads which have been tasked with rounding up illegal workers like him.
"My employer has told me, `You can go into hiding for two months, then come back and you can work again'."
Mr Wickramaratha is one of an estimated 300,000 migrant workers in South Korea. It is thought about 120,000 will be affected by the new government measure which requires illegal workers who outstayed their visa to leave the country by yesterday or face forced deportation.
Foreign workers first started arriving in South Korea about 15 years ago in search of work and higher wages. More than half come from China, with others from Southeast Asian countries like the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Pakistan.
The government needed the workers to counter growing union militancy and fill the labour gaps left by South Koreans who, with growing affluence, have shunned the "3-D" jobs - dirty, dangerous and difficult - which have been taken up by the migrant workers.
The overseas employees were recruited under the government's "industrial technical training scheme" and given visas to work for a limited period in designated jobs.
However, the scheme has proved largely unworkable as the recruits were employed on wages far lower than those on the free market, encouraging many to overstay their visas or leave their designated workplace to seek illegal employment.
The government has been ambivalent about this illegal source of labour, unhappy with their presence but recognising that they play a crucial role.
This ambivalence is complicated by cultural factors. South Korea is a highly homogenous country and the prospect of overseas workers settling permanently in the country is not welcome.
Sri Lankan Tsarath Fgrnando, 38, has been in South Korea for 10 years, but still rejects the accusation that he will remain permanently in the country.
"We come here to do a job, earn money and go back. No one comes here to get citizenship. All my family are in Sri Lanka, why would I want to stay here?"
The government crackdown has been harshly criticised by welfare groups. Their anger has been fuelled by last week's suicide of two illegal workers from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, who are said to have killed themselves in despair over the government clampdown.
Last Thursday Kim Jae-sik, the owner of a small manufacturing company, attended the funeral of a former Sri Lankan employee, Chiran Tharaka, 31, who threw himself under a subway train.
"I understand the government's policy and why it is doing this. But our factory is now facing labour shortages which I can't fill," Mr Kim said.
"In the past, when our country was poor, South Korean workers went to places like Germany and the United States to earn money. Now foreign workers are doing the same coming here, shouldn't we receive them kindly?"
KHANG HYUN-SUNG in Seoul
Gayan Wickramaratha, an illegal foreign worker from Sri Lanka, is planning to go into hiding ahead of a government crackdown on illegal workers due to start today.
"We are not rebels, we are not thieves. We are here to work and support our families. We have no chance to earn money in our own countries," he said.
The 32-year-old arrived in South Korea five years ago through the country's discredited "industrial technical training scheme" and then left his designated workplace or outstayed his visa - he is sketchy about the details - to earn more elsewhere.
He has spent the past two years working 13 hours a day, six days a week, in a small factory making moulds for car parts. Mr Wickramaratha resigned last week to avoid the new labour squads which have been tasked with rounding up illegal workers like him.
"My employer has told me, `You can go into hiding for two months, then come back and you can work again'."
Mr Wickramaratha is one of an estimated 300,000 migrant workers in South Korea. It is thought about 120,000 will be affected by the new government measure which requires illegal workers who outstayed their visa to leave the country by yesterday or face forced deportation.
Foreign workers first started arriving in South Korea about 15 years ago in search of work and higher wages. More than half come from China, with others from Southeast Asian countries like the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Pakistan.
The government needed the workers to counter growing union militancy and fill the labour gaps left by South Koreans who, with growing affluence, have shunned the "3-D" jobs - dirty, dangerous and difficult - which have been taken up by the migrant workers.
The overseas employees were recruited under the government's "industrial technical training scheme" and given visas to work for a limited period in designated jobs.
However, the scheme has proved largely unworkable as the recruits were employed on wages far lower than those on the free market, encouraging many to overstay their visas or leave their designated workplace to seek illegal employment.
The government has been ambivalent about this illegal source of labour, unhappy with their presence but recognising that they play a crucial role.
This ambivalence is complicated by cultural factors. South Korea is a highly homogenous country and the prospect of overseas workers settling permanently in the country is not welcome.
Sri Lankan Tsarath Fgrnando, 38, has been in South Korea for 10 years, but still rejects the accusation that he will remain permanently in the country.
"We come here to do a job, earn money and go back. No one comes here to get citizenship. All my family are in Sri Lanka, why would I want to stay here?"
The government crackdown has been harshly criticised by welfare groups. Their anger has been fuelled by last week's suicide of two illegal workers from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, who are said to have killed themselves in despair over the government clampdown.
Last Thursday Kim Jae-sik, the owner of a small manufacturing company, attended the funeral of a former Sri Lankan employee, Chiran Tharaka, 31, who threw himself under a subway train.
"I understand the government's policy and why it is doing this. But our factory is now facing labour shortages which I can't fill," Mr Kim said.
"In the past, when our country was poor, South Korean workers went to places like Germany and the United States to earn money. Now foreign workers are doing the same coming here, shouldn't we receive them kindly?"
Military retaliates against US push for probe
SCMP-Monday, November 17, 2003
MARIANNE KEARNEY in Jakarta
The military's announcement that it wants to stop guarding the Freeport mine in Papua - and other foreign facilities in Indonesia - is retaliation against US pressure to conduct a proper investigation into last year's fatal ambush of two Americans at the mine, analysts said.
The head of the Indonesian armed forces, General Endriartono Sutarto, said last week that the military no longer wanted to provide security for the giant Freeport-McMoran gold and copper mine. Neither did it want to protect any other foreign gas, oil and mining facilities. He said the armed forces were not guns for private hire.
General Endriartono denied the move was connected to the American decision to withhold military aid until US authorities suitably investigated the Freeport attack. He said the military should not be "scapegoated" for incidents at foreign installations.
In the attack on Freeport employees in August last year, two Americans and one Indonesian were killed.
The announcement, along with an assertion that foreign assets were unlikely to come under attack in the next five years, surprised analysts.
The military has always defended its right to protect foreign installations. Such protection can also prove lucrative for commanders stationed nearby. Freeport paid US$5.6 million last year to provide the military with facilities at the Papuan mine, and to pay daily for troop allowances.
"It was a statement intended to frighten [foreign companies]," said political analyst Ikrar Nusabakti.
He also said the announcement was clearly provocative, given that the regional militant Islamists group Jemaah Islamiah has targeted foreign-owned assets in Indonesia, particularly American-linked ones such as the J W Marriott Hotel which was bombed in August.
Police investigations last year, headed by General I Made Mangku Pastika, who also led the highly successful investigations into the Bali bombings, pointed to Kopassus special forces troops as being behind the gun attack on a convoy of Freeport employees.
"The decision is based on a feeling of revenge because the Indonesian military is really angry about the results so far from that . . . investigation," said Dr Ikrar.
Earlier this year, agents from America's Federal Bureau of Investigation joined military police in Papua to continue the investigation. But they were denied access to witnesses and police evidence. The agents will be allowed to return to Papua sometime in the future, according the US embassy.
Dr Ikrar said the decision to stop guarding foreign installations was fuelled by the military's reluctance to see its troops put on trial.
"I think it is part of their strategy to avoid the . . . case being brought to the courts."
Even in smaller cases, such as the trial involving troops blamed for the Tanjung Priok massacre of Muslim activists, the military has argued it should not be put on trial, he said. In that incident troops opened fire on Muslim protesters, killing at least 14 people and injuring at least 64.
A western security analyst said commanders were afraid that damaging information about their operations in Papua might be revealed during the course of a trial.
"The military can't afford to have them appear in court, because they can't afford to have them talking about anything else that went on over there," he said.
The military has denied any involvement in the Freeport attack, but western security analysts close to the investigation said the military was suspected of instigating it.
They made it appear as the work of Papuan separatists in order to receive more security payments from Freeport, it is argued.
Chief Security Minister Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has backed a proposal suggesting that either police or private security guards be hired to guard foreign facilities.
MARIANNE KEARNEY in Jakarta
The military's announcement that it wants to stop guarding the Freeport mine in Papua - and other foreign facilities in Indonesia - is retaliation against US pressure to conduct a proper investigation into last year's fatal ambush of two Americans at the mine, analysts said.
The head of the Indonesian armed forces, General Endriartono Sutarto, said last week that the military no longer wanted to provide security for the giant Freeport-McMoran gold and copper mine. Neither did it want to protect any other foreign gas, oil and mining facilities. He said the armed forces were not guns for private hire.
General Endriartono denied the move was connected to the American decision to withhold military aid until US authorities suitably investigated the Freeport attack. He said the military should not be "scapegoated" for incidents at foreign installations.
In the attack on Freeport employees in August last year, two Americans and one Indonesian were killed.
The announcement, along with an assertion that foreign assets were unlikely to come under attack in the next five years, surprised analysts.
The military has always defended its right to protect foreign installations. Such protection can also prove lucrative for commanders stationed nearby. Freeport paid US$5.6 million last year to provide the military with facilities at the Papuan mine, and to pay daily for troop allowances.
"It was a statement intended to frighten [foreign companies]," said political analyst Ikrar Nusabakti.
He also said the announcement was clearly provocative, given that the regional militant Islamists group Jemaah Islamiah has targeted foreign-owned assets in Indonesia, particularly American-linked ones such as the J W Marriott Hotel which was bombed in August.
Police investigations last year, headed by General I Made Mangku Pastika, who also led the highly successful investigations into the Bali bombings, pointed to Kopassus special forces troops as being behind the gun attack on a convoy of Freeport employees.
"The decision is based on a feeling of revenge because the Indonesian military is really angry about the results so far from that . . . investigation," said Dr Ikrar.
Earlier this year, agents from America's Federal Bureau of Investigation joined military police in Papua to continue the investigation. But they were denied access to witnesses and police evidence. The agents will be allowed to return to Papua sometime in the future, according the US embassy.
Dr Ikrar said the decision to stop guarding foreign installations was fuelled by the military's reluctance to see its troops put on trial.
"I think it is part of their strategy to avoid the . . . case being brought to the courts."
Even in smaller cases, such as the trial involving troops blamed for the Tanjung Priok massacre of Muslim activists, the military has argued it should not be put on trial, he said. In that incident troops opened fire on Muslim protesters, killing at least 14 people and injuring at least 64.
A western security analyst said commanders were afraid that damaging information about their operations in Papua might be revealed during the course of a trial.
"The military can't afford to have them appear in court, because they can't afford to have them talking about anything else that went on over there," he said.
The military has denied any involvement in the Freeport attack, but western security analysts close to the investigation said the military was suspected of instigating it.
They made it appear as the work of Papuan separatists in order to receive more security payments from Freeport, it is argued.
Chief Security Minister Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has backed a proposal suggesting that either police or private security guards be hired to guard foreign facilities.
Horror behind Aceh's closed door
atimes.com
Nov 14, 2003
By Lesley McCulloch
It is too easy for the world to forget Aceh, an embattled, silent and closed province in the northwest of Indonesia. The reason is simple: international journalists are prevented from entering legally and the local media are either embedded in the military or attacked - even kidnapped - when attempting to work independently.
There is an acute sense of lingering Suhartoism in Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri's response to Aceh - dissent has been met with state-sponsored violence. Almost six months of martial law has resulted in the province being all but closed to the outside world. On average, 12 people are killed each day, the same number are arrested and many more simply disappear. These are the official figures; data from locals suggest the human cost of this latest military operation is in fact much higher.
The misery of the Acehnese is compounded by the fact that poverty is running at around 40 percent, food and health security are something of the past - certainly not the present - and many children do not attend school. The education infrastructure no longer exists in any meaningful form (600 schools have been destroyed); many teachers - accused by the military of spreading pro-independence "propaganda" - have been killed or abducted, and pupils are often too afraid to venture far from home.
Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has in recent days announced an extension to martial law, which had been due to end in mid-November. To many, this has come as no surprise. Sofyan Daud, spokesman for the separatist movement, said by satellite phone from Aceh: "You know, we are never surprised by the actions of the Indonesian government or military - and we are always ready for them. Of course it would be much better to return to the dialogue and stop the bloodshed, but the Indonesians are reluctant to follow this path."
The question remains whether the extended military operation can indeed fulfill its aims of eliminating the movement. Said Daud: "Yudhoyono has himself said that the operation is proving to be less effective and more costly - in terms of both finances and lives lost - than they had planned. We [GAM, or the Free Aceh Movement] are still a force to be reckoned with. So what to do now? It is a real problem for the Indonesians - our people just wait and see. They can never eliminate us. Some day - soon I hope - they will realize this and resume another peace process."
With the fall of Suharto in 1998, the Indonesian media were hailed as the freest in Asia by over-enthusiastic or self-deluding supporters of the new regime. It is true that they had more freedom then than during Suharto's time, but they were by no means free.
In the weeks following the imposition of martial law in Aceh on May 19 this year, both local and international media were still able to cover the military operation. As journalists traveled the embattled province, worldwide headlines such as "Aceh's death toll tops 100" (British Broadcasting Corp, May 29) after only 11 days of war, and stories of military-backed militia destroying infrastructure and killing civilians became unpalatable to both the Indonesian military and government. The inevitable response - closing Aceh to the media - was met with little opposition by the domestic populace that has lived in a country where traditionally voices of dissent have been silenced - one way or another. In the absence of any "new" news, the international community quickly lost interest.
In Indonesia a culture of militarism and secrecy has outlived the 30-year dictatorship of Suharto. Megawati's administration has discovered that withholding information is an extremely powerful weapon. Freedom of expression, association and access to information are all fundamental rights and constitute a large component of the cornerstone of democracy: none are yet available in Indonesia.
The process of closing Aceh to the media was very simple. By late May the military, and by extension the government, was already showing signs of nervousness because of the negative coverage. Military commander General Endriartono Sutarto stated: "[Media] reports covering the comments of both sides, or neutrality, cannot be permitted because GAM's chaotic statements will then be released and lead to confusion among Acehnese about who is in the right." The only Acehnese newspaper covering the war, Serambi, followed military orders and all but stopped reporting the conflict.
Following that theme, local military operations chief General Endang Suwarya warned journalists not to quote, interview or write about the rebels: "I want all news published to contain the spirit of nationalism."
Presidential decree 43/2003 (June 16 ) on restricting the media stipulates that foreign journalists must get permission to report on Aceh from the minister of foreign affairs, and that local journalists must apply to the military emergency authority.
In the post-Suharto flush of enthusiasm that Indonesia was firmly on the path to reform, many hailed the country as the world's "newest democracy". These days, since the reformasi dust has settled, we don't hear so much praise for the process of democratization. There has been a realization that reformasi has, by design rather than default, all but stalled, and that democracy is something that only the most optimistic can see on the horizon. For most there is only quiet acknowledgement that nothing much has changed as Megawati struggles to convince the domestic and international audience that she is not simply a figurehead president while the old Suharto guards and the military continue to reign supreme.
Under Megawati the Acehnese continue to inhabit an "extreme zone" where death, arrest, torture and destruction are the norm. If Indonesia wants to prove its democratizing credentials, the restrictions on access to information in Aceh must be opened to a public and independent review that should ask: "In closing Aceh to the media, exactly what information are Megawati and the military trying to withhold?"
Perhaps we do not fire the bullets or draw the bayonets to kill, maim and terrorize; nor do we light the torches to burn the schools and houses. But our willful ignorance makes us complicit - as it did in East Timor - to the unfolding tragedies. The door is closed, we cannot see - we know, but (again) choose to ignore.
Lesley McCulloch is a research fellow in the School of Social and International Studies, Deakin University, Melbourne.
Nov 14, 2003
By Lesley McCulloch
It is too easy for the world to forget Aceh, an embattled, silent and closed province in the northwest of Indonesia. The reason is simple: international journalists are prevented from entering legally and the local media are either embedded in the military or attacked - even kidnapped - when attempting to work independently.
There is an acute sense of lingering Suhartoism in Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri's response to Aceh - dissent has been met with state-sponsored violence. Almost six months of martial law has resulted in the province being all but closed to the outside world. On average, 12 people are killed each day, the same number are arrested and many more simply disappear. These are the official figures; data from locals suggest the human cost of this latest military operation is in fact much higher.
The misery of the Acehnese is compounded by the fact that poverty is running at around 40 percent, food and health security are something of the past - certainly not the present - and many children do not attend school. The education infrastructure no longer exists in any meaningful form (600 schools have been destroyed); many teachers - accused by the military of spreading pro-independence "propaganda" - have been killed or abducted, and pupils are often too afraid to venture far from home.
Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has in recent days announced an extension to martial law, which had been due to end in mid-November. To many, this has come as no surprise. Sofyan Daud, spokesman for the separatist movement, said by satellite phone from Aceh: "You know, we are never surprised by the actions of the Indonesian government or military - and we are always ready for them. Of course it would be much better to return to the dialogue and stop the bloodshed, but the Indonesians are reluctant to follow this path."
The question remains whether the extended military operation can indeed fulfill its aims of eliminating the movement. Said Daud: "Yudhoyono has himself said that the operation is proving to be less effective and more costly - in terms of both finances and lives lost - than they had planned. We [GAM, or the Free Aceh Movement] are still a force to be reckoned with. So what to do now? It is a real problem for the Indonesians - our people just wait and see. They can never eliminate us. Some day - soon I hope - they will realize this and resume another peace process."
With the fall of Suharto in 1998, the Indonesian media were hailed as the freest in Asia by over-enthusiastic or self-deluding supporters of the new regime. It is true that they had more freedom then than during Suharto's time, but they were by no means free.
In the weeks following the imposition of martial law in Aceh on May 19 this year, both local and international media were still able to cover the military operation. As journalists traveled the embattled province, worldwide headlines such as "Aceh's death toll tops 100" (British Broadcasting Corp, May 29) after only 11 days of war, and stories of military-backed militia destroying infrastructure and killing civilians became unpalatable to both the Indonesian military and government. The inevitable response - closing Aceh to the media - was met with little opposition by the domestic populace that has lived in a country where traditionally voices of dissent have been silenced - one way or another. In the absence of any "new" news, the international community quickly lost interest.
In Indonesia a culture of militarism and secrecy has outlived the 30-year dictatorship of Suharto. Megawati's administration has discovered that withholding information is an extremely powerful weapon. Freedom of expression, association and access to information are all fundamental rights and constitute a large component of the cornerstone of democracy: none are yet available in Indonesia.
The process of closing Aceh to the media was very simple. By late May the military, and by extension the government, was already showing signs of nervousness because of the negative coverage. Military commander General Endriartono Sutarto stated: "[Media] reports covering the comments of both sides, or neutrality, cannot be permitted because GAM's chaotic statements will then be released and lead to confusion among Acehnese about who is in the right." The only Acehnese newspaper covering the war, Serambi, followed military orders and all but stopped reporting the conflict.
Following that theme, local military operations chief General Endang Suwarya warned journalists not to quote, interview or write about the rebels: "I want all news published to contain the spirit of nationalism."
Presidential decree 43/2003 (June 16 ) on restricting the media stipulates that foreign journalists must get permission to report on Aceh from the minister of foreign affairs, and that local journalists must apply to the military emergency authority.
In the post-Suharto flush of enthusiasm that Indonesia was firmly on the path to reform, many hailed the country as the world's "newest democracy". These days, since the reformasi dust has settled, we don't hear so much praise for the process of democratization. There has been a realization that reformasi has, by design rather than default, all but stalled, and that democracy is something that only the most optimistic can see on the horizon. For most there is only quiet acknowledgement that nothing much has changed as Megawati struggles to convince the domestic and international audience that she is not simply a figurehead president while the old Suharto guards and the military continue to reign supreme.
Under Megawati the Acehnese continue to inhabit an "extreme zone" where death, arrest, torture and destruction are the norm. If Indonesia wants to prove its democratizing credentials, the restrictions on access to information in Aceh must be opened to a public and independent review that should ask: "In closing Aceh to the media, exactly what information are Megawati and the military trying to withhold?"
Perhaps we do not fire the bullets or draw the bayonets to kill, maim and terrorize; nor do we light the torches to burn the schools and houses. But our willful ignorance makes us complicit - as it did in East Timor - to the unfolding tragedies. The door is closed, we cannot see - we know, but (again) choose to ignore.
Lesley McCulloch is a research fellow in the School of Social and International Studies, Deakin University, Melbourne.
Australia 'dragging heels on oil deal'
Saturday, November 15, 2003
ASSOCIATED PRESS in Canberra
East Timor's prime minister accused Australia yesterday of deliberately dragging out talks aimed at bolstering his impoverished nation's share of billions of dollars worth of oil and gas under the sea dividing the two countries.
Speaking by telephone from the capital Dili, Mari Alkatiri said his tiny country, desperate to get oil and gas revenue flowing, had been pressured to sign a temporary agreement to carve up the riches earlier this year.
"It was always deadline over deadline to have it done in a timeframe that was not easy for . . . a new country, to respond to," Mr Alkatiri said of the pressure from Australia and oil companies.
Officials from Australia and East Timor met in northern Australia earlier this week to begin the long process of setting a permanent maritime boundary between the two nations that would settle once and for all each country's share of the oil and gas field.
Mr Alkatiri said East Timor was eager to set the border fast - in three to five years - but added that the Australian government was in no hurry, probably because a permanent boundary would scrap existing revenue-sharing treaties that favour Australia. "We have proposed monthly meetings; they are only ready for twice-a-year meetings," Mr Alkatiri said.
"With this type of schedule maybe my grandson and granddaughter will resolve the problems."
At stake are billions of dollars in revenues needed to drag the half island state out of debt and poverty.
"It would really break our dependency from these donors and the whole process of the development of the country would take another step forward," he said.
East Timor gained independence 18 months ago after four centuries of colonial rule by Portugal and 24 years of brutal Indonesian occupation. The country of 800,000 is just beginning the huge task of rebuilding and developing an infrastructure.
Outside of Dili, residents live on as little as 55 US cents a day. Many people have no phones, electricity or clean water.
Mr Alkatiri said the border should be drawn in the middle of the 600km of sea separating one of the world's most affluent nations from one of its poorest.
That would place 90 per cent of the oil and gas reserves on East Timor's side.
Australia wants its continental shelf to be the border. In some places that is just 150km from East Timor's coastline.
Under the current agreement, East Timor gets 20 per cent of the Greater Sunrise gas field, the richest in the area, while Australia takes 80 per cent.
East Timor also gets 90 per cent of several fields in a "joint development" area to Australia's 10 per cent, but those fields are not as lucrative.
Not covered by those treaties are three other fields - Buffalo, Laminaria and Corralina - which lie on East Timor's side of the disputed area. Australia has a 100 per cent claim on those and has received around US$1.2 billion in revenue since 1999.
Mr Alkatiri said Australia ignored a request early this year to stop production in those three fields until the boundaries were settled.
The East Timor government estimates the current deal will give it about US$4 billion in revenues over the next two to three decades. Under what Mr Alkatiri believes are its "entitlements under international law", the country would get US$13 billion.
Australian officials were not immediately available for comment.
ASSOCIATED PRESS in Canberra
East Timor's prime minister accused Australia yesterday of deliberately dragging out talks aimed at bolstering his impoverished nation's share of billions of dollars worth of oil and gas under the sea dividing the two countries.
Speaking by telephone from the capital Dili, Mari Alkatiri said his tiny country, desperate to get oil and gas revenue flowing, had been pressured to sign a temporary agreement to carve up the riches earlier this year.
"It was always deadline over deadline to have it done in a timeframe that was not easy for . . . a new country, to respond to," Mr Alkatiri said of the pressure from Australia and oil companies.
Officials from Australia and East Timor met in northern Australia earlier this week to begin the long process of setting a permanent maritime boundary between the two nations that would settle once and for all each country's share of the oil and gas field.
Mr Alkatiri said East Timor was eager to set the border fast - in three to five years - but added that the Australian government was in no hurry, probably because a permanent boundary would scrap existing revenue-sharing treaties that favour Australia. "We have proposed monthly meetings; they are only ready for twice-a-year meetings," Mr Alkatiri said.
"With this type of schedule maybe my grandson and granddaughter will resolve the problems."
At stake are billions of dollars in revenues needed to drag the half island state out of debt and poverty.
"It would really break our dependency from these donors and the whole process of the development of the country would take another step forward," he said.
East Timor gained independence 18 months ago after four centuries of colonial rule by Portugal and 24 years of brutal Indonesian occupation. The country of 800,000 is just beginning the huge task of rebuilding and developing an infrastructure.
Outside of Dili, residents live on as little as 55 US cents a day. Many people have no phones, electricity or clean water.
Mr Alkatiri said the border should be drawn in the middle of the 600km of sea separating one of the world's most affluent nations from one of its poorest.
That would place 90 per cent of the oil and gas reserves on East Timor's side.
Australia wants its continental shelf to be the border. In some places that is just 150km from East Timor's coastline.
Under the current agreement, East Timor gets 20 per cent of the Greater Sunrise gas field, the richest in the area, while Australia takes 80 per cent.
East Timor also gets 90 per cent of several fields in a "joint development" area to Australia's 10 per cent, but those fields are not as lucrative.
Not covered by those treaties are three other fields - Buffalo, Laminaria and Corralina - which lie on East Timor's side of the disputed area. Australia has a 100 per cent claim on those and has received around US$1.2 billion in revenue since 1999.
Mr Alkatiri said Australia ignored a request early this year to stop production in those three fields until the boundaries were settled.
The East Timor government estimates the current deal will give it about US$4 billion in revenues over the next two to three decades. Under what Mr Alkatiri believes are its "entitlements under international law", the country would get US$13 billion.
Australian officials were not immediately available for comment.
Illegal loggers turn to Papua
SCMP - Friday, November 14, 2003
MARIANNE KEARNEY in Jakarta
The vast virgin forests of Indonesia's Papua province have become the new frontier for illegal loggers and logging companies who are rapidly destroying the country's remaining resources, according to environmentalists.
As much as 70 per cent of logs smuggled out of Indonesia to timber merchants in China, Singapore, Malaysia and the rest of the world come from Papua, according to the Ministry of Forestry.
The ministry estimates that 7.2 million cubic metres are smuggled from Papua each year, out of between 10 million and 13 million cubic metres smuggled from Indonesia.
But millions more are smuggled from Papua to ports in Java or Kalimantan where they are then either processed or illegally smuggled from Indonesia, according to Togu Manurung from Forest Watch Indonesia.
In an attempt to try to cut down on illegal logging, which is mainly fuelled by demand from Malaysia, Singapore and China, Indonesia introduced a ban on the export of logs last year.
However, logging in Papua has not slowed down, as logging companies shift their attention from forests in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Java, which will soon be exhausted.
"The concentration of the logging business is happening in Papua, and volume and activity is definitely high there. Companies have transferred their heavy machinery [for logging] to Papua," Mr Togu said.
Although the Ministry of Forestry and the Indonesian military signed an agreement in January to work together to stop illegal logging, environmentalists based in Papua say the military is heavily involved in the log-smuggling business in Papua.
Officers or military-linked companies also own forest concessions around Sorong and Jayapura, and sell timber to international buyers who then smuggle it out of Indonesia, say researchers from Indonesian environmental group Telepak.
They say that a well-intentioned plan to give out forest concessions to community groups, under a scheme known as kopermas, is being exploited by logging companies and local military commanders to buy the traditional landowners' forest rights at extremely low prices, then sell the timber to international buyers.
Under the kopermas scheme, traditional Papuans were recognised as the rightful land-owners and are allowed to log their forest, if they apply for logging licences from the Forestry Department.
So far at least 122 traditional communities have been granted logging rights to 100 hectare areas in the Sorong district of Papua.
However, most of the traditional landowners were being conned by local military commanders dubbed "foster fathers" who offer to act as go-betweens between the Papuan villagers, the government and the logging companies, says Abner Korwa a researcher for Telepak.
These so-called foster fathers offer the villagers money up front if they agree to sign over their logging rights, and then tell them the remainder of the money will be handed over once he has been paid by the buyers from Singapore, Malaysia or China.
Many of the logging companies are in fact military-owned companies, or companies partly owned by military members who already have licences to log forest concessions in the area.
However, villagers believing they have to wait for their payment at the Sorong port spend weeks waiting for their logs to be sold, frittering away their money.
"The foster father tells them you stay here in this hotel [at the port] but then at the end of the month he deducts all their expenses from staying at the hotel, from the money promised. So they go home taking only two sacks of rice, and some boxes of noodles," Mr Abner said.
The villagers, who have little idea about the value of the timber on the market, or how many international buyers there are for this timber, believe the foster father when he tells them it takes weeks for the sale to go through.
The initial down-payment paid to the villagers by the foster father is only a fraction of what they would receive if they sold the timber directly to a cukong, or timber trader Mr Abner said.
In one case a village that sold 3,000 cubic metres of timber should have received 100 million rupiah (HK$91,000) but was paid only 25 million rupiah, plus some sacks of rice, noodles and their hotel bills.
Although some villages have been tricked several times by these military go-betweens, they continue to work with the foster fathers because they believe the foster father is far more adept at negotiating with local government and timber traders than themselves, Mr Abner said.
MARIANNE KEARNEY in Jakarta
The vast virgin forests of Indonesia's Papua province have become the new frontier for illegal loggers and logging companies who are rapidly destroying the country's remaining resources, according to environmentalists.
As much as 70 per cent of logs smuggled out of Indonesia to timber merchants in China, Singapore, Malaysia and the rest of the world come from Papua, according to the Ministry of Forestry.
The ministry estimates that 7.2 million cubic metres are smuggled from Papua each year, out of between 10 million and 13 million cubic metres smuggled from Indonesia.
But millions more are smuggled from Papua to ports in Java or Kalimantan where they are then either processed or illegally smuggled from Indonesia, according to Togu Manurung from Forest Watch Indonesia.
In an attempt to try to cut down on illegal logging, which is mainly fuelled by demand from Malaysia, Singapore and China, Indonesia introduced a ban on the export of logs last year.
However, logging in Papua has not slowed down, as logging companies shift their attention from forests in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Java, which will soon be exhausted.
"The concentration of the logging business is happening in Papua, and volume and activity is definitely high there. Companies have transferred their heavy machinery [for logging] to Papua," Mr Togu said.
Although the Ministry of Forestry and the Indonesian military signed an agreement in January to work together to stop illegal logging, environmentalists based in Papua say the military is heavily involved in the log-smuggling business in Papua.
Officers or military-linked companies also own forest concessions around Sorong and Jayapura, and sell timber to international buyers who then smuggle it out of Indonesia, say researchers from Indonesian environmental group Telepak.
They say that a well-intentioned plan to give out forest concessions to community groups, under a scheme known as kopermas, is being exploited by logging companies and local military commanders to buy the traditional landowners' forest rights at extremely low prices, then sell the timber to international buyers.
Under the kopermas scheme, traditional Papuans were recognised as the rightful land-owners and are allowed to log their forest, if they apply for logging licences from the Forestry Department.
So far at least 122 traditional communities have been granted logging rights to 100 hectare areas in the Sorong district of Papua.
However, most of the traditional landowners were being conned by local military commanders dubbed "foster fathers" who offer to act as go-betweens between the Papuan villagers, the government and the logging companies, says Abner Korwa a researcher for Telepak.
These so-called foster fathers offer the villagers money up front if they agree to sign over their logging rights, and then tell them the remainder of the money will be handed over once he has been paid by the buyers from Singapore, Malaysia or China.
Many of the logging companies are in fact military-owned companies, or companies partly owned by military members who already have licences to log forest concessions in the area.
However, villagers believing they have to wait for their payment at the Sorong port spend weeks waiting for their logs to be sold, frittering away their money.
"The foster father tells them you stay here in this hotel [at the port] but then at the end of the month he deducts all their expenses from staying at the hotel, from the money promised. So they go home taking only two sacks of rice, and some boxes of noodles," Mr Abner said.
The villagers, who have little idea about the value of the timber on the market, or how many international buyers there are for this timber, believe the foster father when he tells them it takes weeks for the sale to go through.
The initial down-payment paid to the villagers by the foster father is only a fraction of what they would receive if they sold the timber directly to a cukong, or timber trader Mr Abner said.
In one case a village that sold 3,000 cubic metres of timber should have received 100 million rupiah (HK$91,000) but was paid only 25 million rupiah, plus some sacks of rice, noodles and their hotel bills.
Although some villages have been tricked several times by these military go-betweens, they continue to work with the foster fathers because they believe the foster father is far more adept at negotiating with local government and timber traders than themselves, Mr Abner said.
Foreign media not free to comment on Singapore policies, minister says
SCMP - Thursday, November 13, 2003
ASSOCIATED PRESS in Singapore
Updated at 3.43pm:
Foreign journalists should not comment on the policies of the Singapore government, according to the city-state's information minister.
The government has no plans to relax its censorship rules to appease a "vocal minority," Information Minister Lee Boon Yang said in a speech to the Singapore Press Club on Wednesday.
Mr Lee singled out as unacceptable a comment piece suggesting Singapore should abandon its restrictive press laws, written by London-based writer Michael Backman and published in the local Today newspaper last month.
"He had clearly crossed the line and engaged in our domestic politics," Mr Lee said.
One rule "that remains firmly in place, is the requirement that foreign journalists stay out of Singapore's politics," he added.
But he said the government does not expect its stand on foreign journalists to impede Singapore's ambition to become a base for international news organizations, adding that the number of foreign correspondents here has risen to 190 from 82 in 1986.
Singapore has no plans to abolish its censorship rules - which have led to risque films and television shows being cut - despite recent moves toward liberalisation, Mr Lee said.
He said censorship is necessary to prevent violent and promiscuous behaviour.
"We cannot override the majority's concern over the impact of a liberal attitude towards media content on the younger generation just to placate a vocal minority," Mr Lee said.
Sexual content and scenes showing drug use are regularly chopped from films shown in Singapore. The government only recently allowed Cosmopolitan magazine to be sold and HBO's "Sex and the City" to be broadcast on late-night cable TV.
A local film titled "15" also faced the censor's snips. Mr Lee said the teenage gangster movie showcased the dark side of the squeaky-clean city-state, and police feared it "could spark off gang fights."
ASSOCIATED PRESS in Singapore
Updated at 3.43pm:
Foreign journalists should not comment on the policies of the Singapore government, according to the city-state's information minister.
The government has no plans to relax its censorship rules to appease a "vocal minority," Information Minister Lee Boon Yang said in a speech to the Singapore Press Club on Wednesday.
Mr Lee singled out as unacceptable a comment piece suggesting Singapore should abandon its restrictive press laws, written by London-based writer Michael Backman and published in the local Today newspaper last month.
"He had clearly crossed the line and engaged in our domestic politics," Mr Lee said.
One rule "that remains firmly in place, is the requirement that foreign journalists stay out of Singapore's politics," he added.
But he said the government does not expect its stand on foreign journalists to impede Singapore's ambition to become a base for international news organizations, adding that the number of foreign correspondents here has risen to 190 from 82 in 1986.
Singapore has no plans to abolish its censorship rules - which have led to risque films and television shows being cut - despite recent moves toward liberalisation, Mr Lee said.
He said censorship is necessary to prevent violent and promiscuous behaviour.
"We cannot override the majority's concern over the impact of a liberal attitude towards media content on the younger generation just to placate a vocal minority," Mr Lee said.
Sexual content and scenes showing drug use are regularly chopped from films shown in Singapore. The government only recently allowed Cosmopolitan magazine to be sold and HBO's "Sex and the City" to be broadcast on late-night cable TV.
A local film titled "15" also faced the censor's snips. Mr Lee said the teenage gangster movie showcased the dark side of the squeaky-clean city-state, and police feared it "could spark off gang fights."
China lays down law to Dalai Lama over possible return
SCMP - Thursday, November 13, 2003
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE in Beijing
Updated at 6.02pm:
China insisted on Thursday the Dalai Lama publicly accept that Taiwan is a part of China and drop his call for Tibetan independence if he ever wants to set foot in Tibet again.
"If the Dalai Lama really gives up Tibet independence and makes a statement openly that Tibet is an inalienable part of China and announces in public that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China and stops all separatist activities, the government could contact and talk with him on his future," the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Tibet's exiled spiritual leader said in Russia this week he wants to return his homeland within the next three years.
He has lived in India since fleeing the Tibetan capital Lhasa in 1959 with thousands of supporters after an abortive revolt against Chinese rule.
He told Japanese reporters this month he could accept three of China's conditions for talks; that Tibet drop its call for independence, put an end to separatist movements and accept the legitimacy of the Chinese government.
But when it came to the Chinese demand that the Tibetan side accept that Taiwan is an integral part of China, he said, "Let them [the Taiwanese] decide [on the issue]."
China dismissed the Dalai Lama's suggestion that Beijing should apply the "one country, two systems" model to Tibet as it has done in Hong Kong and Macau.
"As for the application of the one-country, two-systems in dealing with this issue, this principle is a principle only applicable to the Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau question," said the foreign ministry.
"The Tibet question is a separate question. This principle is not applicable."
China, which annexed Tibet in 1950, regularly condemns the Dalai Lama as a "splittist" and renewed its attack on Thursday.
"The Dalai Lama makes moves on the international community everywhere, makes false propaganda of Tibetan history and the present, attacks religious policy and policy for ethnic groups," it said.
"This injures the feelings of Chinese people, including Tibetans, and this will not help improve relations between the central government and the Dalai Lama."
Two rounds of talks between the Dalai Lama's camp and Chinese representatives have already taken place, in September 2002 and May 2003.
A third round was expected in October but never occurred.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE in Beijing
Updated at 6.02pm:
China insisted on Thursday the Dalai Lama publicly accept that Taiwan is a part of China and drop his call for Tibetan independence if he ever wants to set foot in Tibet again.
"If the Dalai Lama really gives up Tibet independence and makes a statement openly that Tibet is an inalienable part of China and announces in public that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China and stops all separatist activities, the government could contact and talk with him on his future," the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Tibet's exiled spiritual leader said in Russia this week he wants to return his homeland within the next three years.
He has lived in India since fleeing the Tibetan capital Lhasa in 1959 with thousands of supporters after an abortive revolt against Chinese rule.
He told Japanese reporters this month he could accept three of China's conditions for talks; that Tibet drop its call for independence, put an end to separatist movements and accept the legitimacy of the Chinese government.
But when it came to the Chinese demand that the Tibetan side accept that Taiwan is an integral part of China, he said, "Let them [the Taiwanese] decide [on the issue]."
China dismissed the Dalai Lama's suggestion that Beijing should apply the "one country, two systems" model to Tibet as it has done in Hong Kong and Macau.
"As for the application of the one-country, two-systems in dealing with this issue, this principle is a principle only applicable to the Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau question," said the foreign ministry.
"The Tibet question is a separate question. This principle is not applicable."
China, which annexed Tibet in 1950, regularly condemns the Dalai Lama as a "splittist" and renewed its attack on Thursday.
"The Dalai Lama makes moves on the international community everywhere, makes false propaganda of Tibetan history and the present, attacks religious policy and policy for ethnic groups," it said.
"This injures the feelings of Chinese people, including Tibetans, and this will not help improve relations between the central government and the Dalai Lama."
Two rounds of talks between the Dalai Lama's camp and Chinese representatives have already taken place, in September 2002 and May 2003.
A third round was expected in October but never occurred.
Singapore toughens laws to combat cyber-terrorists
SCMP-Tuesday, November 11, 2003
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE in Singapore
Singapore introduced tough new laws that allowed authorities to take action against "cyber-terrorists" before they had a chance to strike, local media reported on Tuesday.
The Straits Times daily said changes to the Computer Misuse Act, which passed through parliament on Monday, allowed for "pre-emptive action" against hackers.
Under the old law, authorities could only act after a hacker committed a crime. Hackers face a maximum three years in jail or a fine of up to S$10,000 (US$5,750).
Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Ho Peng Kee, told parliament the new laws were prompted by a rising threat from cyber-terrorism.
"Instead of a backpack of explosives, a terrorist can create just as much devastation by sending a carefully engineered packet of data into the computer systems which control the network for essential services," Mr Ho said.
The new laws have raised concerns that they give authorities too much power and could be open to abuse.
One member of parliament dubbed it the internet version of the Singapore's Internal Security Act that allows people to be jailed without trial.
The new laws did not specify what measures the government could take to find and act against potential hackers.
Mr Ho said people should rely on the professionalism and integrity of authorities not to abuse the new laws, according to the Today paper.
"The powers will be invoked only to avert threats that may endanger national security, essential services, such as any service directly related to communications infrastructure, banking and finance, and defence and foreign relations of Singapore," Mr Ho said.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE in Singapore
Singapore introduced tough new laws that allowed authorities to take action against "cyber-terrorists" before they had a chance to strike, local media reported on Tuesday.
The Straits Times daily said changes to the Computer Misuse Act, which passed through parliament on Monday, allowed for "pre-emptive action" against hackers.
Under the old law, authorities could only act after a hacker committed a crime. Hackers face a maximum three years in jail or a fine of up to S$10,000 (US$5,750).
Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, Ho Peng Kee, told parliament the new laws were prompted by a rising threat from cyber-terrorism.
"Instead of a backpack of explosives, a terrorist can create just as much devastation by sending a carefully engineered packet of data into the computer systems which control the network for essential services," Mr Ho said.
The new laws have raised concerns that they give authorities too much power and could be open to abuse.
One member of parliament dubbed it the internet version of the Singapore's Internal Security Act that allows people to be jailed without trial.
The new laws did not specify what measures the government could take to find and act against potential hackers.
Mr Ho said people should rely on the professionalism and integrity of authorities not to abuse the new laws, according to the Today paper.
"The powers will be invoked only to avert threats that may endanger national security, essential services, such as any service directly related to communications infrastructure, banking and finance, and defence and foreign relations of Singapore," Mr Ho said.
Malaysia's answer to Zhu Rongji
Monday, November 10, 2003
LAURENCE BRAHM
This year marks a threshold for both China and Malaysia. In March, premier Zhu Rongji, who guided China through the Asian financial crisis, retired. Last week, Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, followed suit. The tough, uncompromising policies of both men led their respective countries through the financial crises to emerge more robust than before.
Despite different cultures and political structures, both countries adhered to one common principle. They refused to be bullied into International Monetary Fund prescriptions. Through a decade of economic experimentation, both countries proved that American models of economic development, previously believed to be infallible, were flawed.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's political and economic models are again being applied. In the future, economists may look to Mr Zhu's and Dr Mahathir's textbooks to straighten out these messes.
In many ways, Malaysia's pattern paralleled China's over the same two-decade period; high growth, increased per-capita wealth and the maintenance of broad social stability, despite contrasting ethnic and religious diversity. During Dr Mahathir's 22 years in power, he successfully led Malaysia from an underdeveloped backwater to the forefront of industry and technology. Average per capita income rose from M$4,630 (HK$9,400) to MS$14,877 between 1982 and 2003, giving 60 per cent of Malaysian households the cars, houses and trappings of the American dream.
But for some reason, certain western media and political elite in Washington have consistently tried to discredit Dr Mahathir's achievements. Why? Because he challenged their rigid views.
Dr Mahathir turned Malaysia into a leader in Asian software chips and hi-tech manufacturing, but was labelled as being against globalisation. Why? Because he separated technology globalisation from global Americanisation, instead adhering and promoting a concept of Asian values.
When the Asian financial crisis struck, Washington rejoiced, proclaiming ideological supremacy over Asian values. The US Congressional Banking and Financial Services Committee said in January 1998: "The US effectively has all the cards in the current crisis - to advance our principles about the working of the global economy ...We should be using the present crisis to insist that other nations take those actions now and make those actions a precondition for our assistance. Today the dollar is the undisputed king of the world financial community ... good news, because understanding it is key to pursuing the objectives mentioned earlier."
Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs once explained the logic underlying such thinking, "America ... was desperate for the developing world and post-communist economies to buy into its vision, in which globalisation, private capital flows and Washington advice would overcome the obstacles to shared prosperity, so that pressures on the rich countries to do more for the poorer countries could be contained by the dream of universal economic growth."
Dr Mahathir, like his counterpart Mr Zhu, had the willpower to challenge such visions. A mere five years after the financial crisis, Asian values are still steering growth dynamics in this region. More countries are looking to Malaysia and China as their models, not the Washington consensus. Investors are today voting with their money.
Mr Zhu recalled: "In 1993 China, adopted the system of `macro-controls'... [China] was able to go through the Asian financial crisis due to the experiences of 1993. American funds overflowed into Asia ... followed by the monetary policies of certain institutions. ... Economic development and financial opening must have macro-controls which accord to each country's specific situation."
With Dr Mahathir having gone of his own accord, he follows in the footsteps of other Asian leaders Deng Xiaoping and Mr Zhu, leaving behind a legacy of pragmatism.
Today the developing world is crying out for pragmatism. It is the reason the IMF, World Bank, G8 and World Trade Organisation cannot hold a single meeting without protesters and non-governmental organisations disrupting it. Likewise, terrorism bursts from desperation.
The White House may see all this as a clash over righteousness - Islam against Judaeo-Christianity, socialism vying with capitalism - solved by creating American-style democracies everywhere.
The solution may prove different. Try a Zhu-Mahathir prescription instead. Development can be solved locally through pragmatism, not globally through fundamentalism.
Laurence Brahm is a political economist and lawyer based in Beijing.
LAURENCE BRAHM
This year marks a threshold for both China and Malaysia. In March, premier Zhu Rongji, who guided China through the Asian financial crisis, retired. Last week, Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, followed suit. The tough, uncompromising policies of both men led their respective countries through the financial crises to emerge more robust than before.
Despite different cultures and political structures, both countries adhered to one common principle. They refused to be bullied into International Monetary Fund prescriptions. Through a decade of economic experimentation, both countries proved that American models of economic development, previously believed to be infallible, were flawed.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's political and economic models are again being applied. In the future, economists may look to Mr Zhu's and Dr Mahathir's textbooks to straighten out these messes.
In many ways, Malaysia's pattern paralleled China's over the same two-decade period; high growth, increased per-capita wealth and the maintenance of broad social stability, despite contrasting ethnic and religious diversity. During Dr Mahathir's 22 years in power, he successfully led Malaysia from an underdeveloped backwater to the forefront of industry and technology. Average per capita income rose from M$4,630 (HK$9,400) to MS$14,877 between 1982 and 2003, giving 60 per cent of Malaysian households the cars, houses and trappings of the American dream.
But for some reason, certain western media and political elite in Washington have consistently tried to discredit Dr Mahathir's achievements. Why? Because he challenged their rigid views.
Dr Mahathir turned Malaysia into a leader in Asian software chips and hi-tech manufacturing, but was labelled as being against globalisation. Why? Because he separated technology globalisation from global Americanisation, instead adhering and promoting a concept of Asian values.
When the Asian financial crisis struck, Washington rejoiced, proclaiming ideological supremacy over Asian values. The US Congressional Banking and Financial Services Committee said in January 1998: "The US effectively has all the cards in the current crisis - to advance our principles about the working of the global economy ...We should be using the present crisis to insist that other nations take those actions now and make those actions a precondition for our assistance. Today the dollar is the undisputed king of the world financial community ... good news, because understanding it is key to pursuing the objectives mentioned earlier."
Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs once explained the logic underlying such thinking, "America ... was desperate for the developing world and post-communist economies to buy into its vision, in which globalisation, private capital flows and Washington advice would overcome the obstacles to shared prosperity, so that pressures on the rich countries to do more for the poorer countries could be contained by the dream of universal economic growth."
Dr Mahathir, like his counterpart Mr Zhu, had the willpower to challenge such visions. A mere five years after the financial crisis, Asian values are still steering growth dynamics in this region. More countries are looking to Malaysia and China as their models, not the Washington consensus. Investors are today voting with their money.
Mr Zhu recalled: "In 1993 China, adopted the system of `macro-controls'... [China] was able to go through the Asian financial crisis due to the experiences of 1993. American funds overflowed into Asia ... followed by the monetary policies of certain institutions. ... Economic development and financial opening must have macro-controls which accord to each country's specific situation."
With Dr Mahathir having gone of his own accord, he follows in the footsteps of other Asian leaders Deng Xiaoping and Mr Zhu, leaving behind a legacy of pragmatism.
Today the developing world is crying out for pragmatism. It is the reason the IMF, World Bank, G8 and World Trade Organisation cannot hold a single meeting without protesters and non-governmental organisations disrupting it. Likewise, terrorism bursts from desperation.
The White House may see all this as a clash over righteousness - Islam against Judaeo-Christianity, socialism vying with capitalism - solved by creating American-style democracies everywhere.
The solution may prove different. Try a Zhu-Mahathir prescription instead. Development can be solved locally through pragmatism, not globally through fundamentalism.
Laurence Brahm is a political economist and lawyer based in Beijing.
Human rights: Abdullah's greatest challenge
Saturday, November 8, 2003
NISHA VARIA
Malaysia's first new prime minister in more than 20 years, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, faces scores of challenges after succeeding Mahathir Mohammed on Friday. But none will be greater than those necessary to transform Malaysia from an authoritarian regime into a nation that respects human rights and operates under the rule of law. A critical first step would be to protect those members of society whose rights have consistently been under attack: migrant workers and those who defend their rights.
Two million foreign migrant workers - predominantly from Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines- reside in Malaysia. Less than half work there legally. Increasingly, they are women who find employment within private homes, in factories or on plantations.
Malaysia's export-oriented economic strategy has relied heavily on the labour of foreign workers, who comprise about 10 per cent of the total workforce. Government estimates suggest that illegal migrant workers comprise up to 70 per cent of the labour force in manufacturing and construction, sectors that have driven Malaysia's economic growth.
After 22 years in power marked by a remarkable rise in standards of living, the Mahathir government has left a legacy of excessively punitive policies and practices that often deny basic rights to migrant workers - especially those without full legal status - and stifle the work of human-rights groups investigating alleged abuses.
A stark example is the October 16 conviction of Irene Fernandez, a leading advocate for the rights of women and migrant workers, for publicising human-rights abuses in Malaysia. In 1995, Tenaganita (Women's Force), a nongovernmental organisation led by Fernandez, issued a report documenting beatings, sexual violence and inadequate food and water in immigration detention camps. Instead of prosecuting the prison guards allegedly responsible for these abuses, however, the government targeted Fernandez under the restrictive press laws for "maliciously publishing false news".
Fernandez' seven-year trial, the longest in the country's history, became a symbol of the government's hostile stance towards human-rights defenders. It drained the resources of one of the country's few organisations addressing the needs of migrants, whose legal status and poverty renders them particularly vulnerable to abuse.
Fernandez is an internationally recognised human rights advocate, who has worked to reform laws on rape and domestic violence, provide support services to women trafficked into forced labour and sex work, and create programmes to improve health and awareness for HIV-positive women.
What reward did Dr Mahathir's government confer upon this activist who has worked tirelessly for social justice? Twelve months in prison. Years of being called to court. Increased monitoring and harassment. And a clear warning to others who dare to speak up about state violations of migrants' rights.
In the face of this repression, local human rights groups and women's organisations have courageously expressed defiance. As Fernandez observed after her conviction: "Other Malaysian NGOs are becoming vocal about the incidence of state violations of human rights. There is more solidarity between organisations because of this development."
Another worrying development was the amendment last year of Malaysia's immigration law and tough enforcement measures to provide for caning, fines, imprisonment and mass deportation of undocumented migrant workers. Local nongovernmental organisations report that migrant workers suffer poor conditions in detention facilities, violations of due process and lack of access to health care. The country's punitive immigration law deters migrant workers from reporting or escaping abusive employment situations, but it fosters impunity for exploitative employers. Women domestic workers, because of their isolation in private homes, are particularly at risk of abuse and often have no options for redress. Arbitrary quotas and high registration fees create ample opportunities for extortion by government officials and private agents.
With the retirement of Dr Mahathir, Malaysia has a chance to redefine itself as a rights-respecting nation. Mr Abdullah should take the opportunity to promote reforms that protect the rights of migrant workers. He should also endorse laws that abide by international human-rights standards, such as the Migrant Workers Convention, a UN human rights treaty that entered into force in July.
Mr Abdullah should also request a pardon for Fernandez and focus his government's attention on pursuing human-rights abusers instead of harassing human-rights defenders. He can either obstruct the important work of human-rights groups, or create an environment where they can operate freely. The choice he makes will tell us much about what kind of Malaysia he intends to govern.
Nisha Varia is the Asia researcher in the Women's Rights Division of Human Rights Watch.
NISHA VARIA
Malaysia's first new prime minister in more than 20 years, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, faces scores of challenges after succeeding Mahathir Mohammed on Friday. But none will be greater than those necessary to transform Malaysia from an authoritarian regime into a nation that respects human rights and operates under the rule of law. A critical first step would be to protect those members of society whose rights have consistently been under attack: migrant workers and those who defend their rights.
Two million foreign migrant workers - predominantly from Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines- reside in Malaysia. Less than half work there legally. Increasingly, they are women who find employment within private homes, in factories or on plantations.
Malaysia's export-oriented economic strategy has relied heavily on the labour of foreign workers, who comprise about 10 per cent of the total workforce. Government estimates suggest that illegal migrant workers comprise up to 70 per cent of the labour force in manufacturing and construction, sectors that have driven Malaysia's economic growth.
After 22 years in power marked by a remarkable rise in standards of living, the Mahathir government has left a legacy of excessively punitive policies and practices that often deny basic rights to migrant workers - especially those without full legal status - and stifle the work of human-rights groups investigating alleged abuses.
A stark example is the October 16 conviction of Irene Fernandez, a leading advocate for the rights of women and migrant workers, for publicising human-rights abuses in Malaysia. In 1995, Tenaganita (Women's Force), a nongovernmental organisation led by Fernandez, issued a report documenting beatings, sexual violence and inadequate food and water in immigration detention camps. Instead of prosecuting the prison guards allegedly responsible for these abuses, however, the government targeted Fernandez under the restrictive press laws for "maliciously publishing false news".
Fernandez' seven-year trial, the longest in the country's history, became a symbol of the government's hostile stance towards human-rights defenders. It drained the resources of one of the country's few organisations addressing the needs of migrants, whose legal status and poverty renders them particularly vulnerable to abuse.
Fernandez is an internationally recognised human rights advocate, who has worked to reform laws on rape and domestic violence, provide support services to women trafficked into forced labour and sex work, and create programmes to improve health and awareness for HIV-positive women.
What reward did Dr Mahathir's government confer upon this activist who has worked tirelessly for social justice? Twelve months in prison. Years of being called to court. Increased monitoring and harassment. And a clear warning to others who dare to speak up about state violations of migrants' rights.
In the face of this repression, local human rights groups and women's organisations have courageously expressed defiance. As Fernandez observed after her conviction: "Other Malaysian NGOs are becoming vocal about the incidence of state violations of human rights. There is more solidarity between organisations because of this development."
Another worrying development was the amendment last year of Malaysia's immigration law and tough enforcement measures to provide for caning, fines, imprisonment and mass deportation of undocumented migrant workers. Local nongovernmental organisations report that migrant workers suffer poor conditions in detention facilities, violations of due process and lack of access to health care. The country's punitive immigration law deters migrant workers from reporting or escaping abusive employment situations, but it fosters impunity for exploitative employers. Women domestic workers, because of their isolation in private homes, are particularly at risk of abuse and often have no options for redress. Arbitrary quotas and high registration fees create ample opportunities for extortion by government officials and private agents.
With the retirement of Dr Mahathir, Malaysia has a chance to redefine itself as a rights-respecting nation. Mr Abdullah should take the opportunity to promote reforms that protect the rights of migrant workers. He should also endorse laws that abide by international human-rights standards, such as the Migrant Workers Convention, a UN human rights treaty that entered into force in July.
Mr Abdullah should also request a pardon for Fernandez and focus his government's attention on pursuing human-rights abusers instead of harassing human-rights defenders. He can either obstruct the important work of human-rights groups, or create an environment where they can operate freely. The choice he makes will tell us much about what kind of Malaysia he intends to govern.
Nisha Varia is the Asia researcher in the Women's Rights Division of Human Rights Watch.
