New Test Could Revolutionize Malaria Treatment: A new diagnostic test could revolutionize the treatment of malaria, one of the world’s most persistent and deadly diseases, making it possible to diagnose the illness from a single drop of blood or saliva.
The test, developed by researchers at Aarhus University in Denmark, detects very low levels of an enzyme produced by the Plasmodium parasite, the organism that causes malaria. This could allow intervention before an outbreak develops, researchers say.
“The great advantage of our ...
Nov 29, 2012
Ranbaxy Halts Production of Generic Lipitor
Ranbaxy Halts Production of Generic Lipitor: Ranbaxy stopped production of its generic version of cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor as the company investigates what caused tiny glass particles to appear in some bottles, triggering a large recall earlier this month.
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange Suffering from Chronic Lung Condition
Wikileaks’ Julian Assange Suffering from Chronic Lung Condition: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who has been living at the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than 5 months, is believed to be suffering from “a chronic lung condition.” Ecuador’s ambassador to Britain, Ana Alban, told an Ecuadorian TV network on a recent trip to Quito that Assange’s condition “could lead to complications.” She explained that the cold, dark London winter and the fact Assange has not been outside in five months has been detrimental to his health, reports the Guardian. (MORE: Why is Ecuador Julian Assange’s Choice for Asylum?) Assange took refuge in the embassy in June in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden under the terms of a European Arrest warrant, notes Reuters. The founder of Wikileaks, an Internet clearinghouse for classified and sensitive information, he became famous for leaking thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables through the site. He is charged in Sweden with two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of rape. Assange has denied the allegations, calling Sweden “the Saudi Arabia of feminism,” as quoted by the New York Times. He fears if he is sent to Sweden he will be subject to subsequent extradition to the United States, where he could face imprisonment for his role in disseminating classified documents. Since June, Assange has been staying in a small room in the Ecuadorian embassy, living off take-away meals and relying on a treadmill for exercise. He uses a sunlamp to help compensate for nearly half a year without fresh air. Located in the posh London district of Knightsbridge, Ecuador’s diplomatic base is modest in comparison to other embassies and has no garden. “Imagine how well someone is in a space of 50 square meters [about 540 square feet], without much sun and poor air circulation,” Alban said. “It’s absolutely logical to think that a human being in these circumstances is not going to be living well.” Assange has had a number of visitors in recent months, including a dinner visit from popstar Lady Gaga. Fashion designer Vivienne Westwood also visited the Australian
Dutch Parliament Revokes Blasphemy Law
Dutch Parliament Revokes Blasphemy Law: The Dutch parliament has voted to eliminate a law making it a crime to insult God. The abolition of the blasphemy law in the Netherlands comes after a decade of fierce debate about the limits of free speech in the country.
House Dems make lineup official
House Dems make lineup official:
The leaders were chosen unanimously during a private caucus meeting.
The leaders were chosen unanimously during a private caucus meeting.
National Journal to reorganize
National Journal to reorganize:
Its newsroom will split into two teams, and it will announce the elimination of 10 positions.
Its newsroom will split into two teams, and it will announce the elimination of 10 positions.
The Jihadis of Yemen
The Jihadis of Yemen: Robert F. Worth
The Last Refuge: Yemen, al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia
by Gregory D. Johnsen
High-Value Target: Countering Al Qaeda in Yemen
by Edmund J. Hull
Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images
The market and Old City in Sanaa, Yemen, March 2011
Yemen is an ancient country on the southern heel of the Arabian peninsula, the crucible of many of the peoples and customs we now think of as Arab. But to most Westerners, it is little more than a code word for bizarre terror plots.
The Last Refuge: Yemen, al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia
by Gregory D. Johnsen
High-Value Target: Countering Al Qaeda in Yemen
by Edmund J. Hull
Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images
The market and Old City in Sanaa, Yemen, March 2011
Yemen is an ancient country on the southern heel of the Arabian peninsula, the crucible of many of the peoples and customs we now think of as Arab. But to most Westerners, it is little more than a code word for bizarre terror plots.
In Sinai: The Uprising of the Bedouin
In Sinai: The Uprising of the Bedouin: Nicolas Pelham
Hossam Ali/AP/Corbis
Protesters in front of the North Sinai governorate headquarters, El Arish, November 4, 2012
The Bedouin have acquired real power across the peninsula. They have launched raids on Israel, hobbled and threatened to oust the multinational force that is supposed to protect the Egyptian–Israeli peace treaty, and disrupted the region’s supply of gas, which passes via pipeline through their terrain.
Hossam Ali/AP/Corbis
Protesters in front of the North Sinai governorate headquarters, El Arish, November 4, 2012
The Bedouin have acquired real power across the peninsula. They have launched raids on Israel, hobbled and threatened to oust the multinational force that is supposed to protect the Egyptian–Israeli peace treaty, and disrupted the region’s supply of gas, which passes via pipeline through their terrain.
It's Time to Stop Killing in Secret
It's Time to Stop Killing in Secret: David Cole
Pete Souza/Official White House Photo
President Barack Obama telephoning Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, with counterterrorism adviser John Brennan at right, November 2, 2010
What would President Romney do with a drone? The New York Times reported Sunday that this question apparently haunted the White House so much that in the weeks before the election it raced to establish “explicit rules” and “clear standards and procedures” for the use of unmanned drones for targeted killings. It should not be surprising, I suppose, that the administration was less comfortable with someone else pushing buttons to kill people than with its own exercise of that authority. As one candid, though anonymous, official stated, “There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands.”
The content of the rules remains a tightly-held mystery. Apparently they are so secret that they are toted around from office to office in a single “playbook,” and not even shared on the government’s secure email reserved for classified material.
But what is most disturbing is the news that it took a possible transfer of power to push the White House to establish such rules. We’ve been assured by multiple Obama administration spokespersons over the years that its targeted killing program is fully lawful, and subject to “rigorous standards and process of review,” as Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan put it in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in April. Yet only on the eve of a potential transition did the administration think to reduce these rigorous standards and procedures to writing?
So they work on deadline, you’re thinking. What else is new? After all, a looming presidential transition is one hell of a deadline. According to the Times story, the administration was shooting to complete the rules by January; now that it’s clear that there will be no transition for another four years, the “matter may have lost some urgency.”
But a possible transition from Obama to Romney was not the only, or even the most important, deadline in play. What about each and every decision over the past four years to authorize a remote-control execution, without trial, without charges, without a defense? Surely each of those actions presented the decision makers with an even more urgent deadline: one would think that before giving the green light to such a momentous act, you would want the “clear rules and procedures” to be in place. Yet the Obama administration has evidently seen fit to make hundreds of such life-or-death decisions, and to authorize more than three hundred strikes, without first developing “explicit rules” or “clear standards and procedures.”
To be fair, it’s not that there were no rules before. A 2011 New York Times story reported on a Justice Department memo, still secret to this day, that authorized the killing of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. And it seems likely that there have been many internal memos along the way; you don’t get one hundred people on a conference call every Tuesday to discuss the “kill list” without generating a paper trail.
The real problem is not that there are no guidelines written down—though the administration itself seems now to acknowledge that what it has is insufficient—but that we the people don’t know what they are. The idea that the president can authorize the killing of a human being far from any traditional battlefield without any publically accessible set of constraints, conditions, or requirements is unacceptable in a country committed to the rule of law. In his first and only speech on security and our national ideals, at the National Archives in May 2009, President Obama insisted that adherence to the rule of law is essential in the fight against terror, and to that end, promised to be transparent about his actions “so that [the people] can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” Yet after four years and hundreds of killings authorized in secret, the most the president has been able to offer us about the scope of his most awesome power is a handful of vague paragraphs in a handful of administration officials’ speeches, which experts must then parse for clues as to what the rules might actually be. This is more akin to what law looked like in the Soviet Union than to what it should look like in the United States of America.
Apparently there is a battle within the administration about how public the president should be about his power. Some, not surprisingly at the CIA and the Defense Department, prefer to keep matters under wraps. Others, at the State Department and the Justice Department, are pushing for transparency. News reports suggest that John Brennan is on the side of transparency. As he told the Washington Post, “I think the rule should be that if we’re going to take actions overseas that result in the deaths of people, the United States should take responsibility for that.”
But taking responsibility would mean disclosing the rules of engagement, and reporting on the results of attacks. Targeted killing raises a number of difficult issues, all of which are made only more difficult by being shrouded in secrecy. Here are just four:
These are all difficult questions. The world is rightly concerned. The strikes have generated widespread and understandable resentment in those countries where people now have to live in fear of a US missile raining down upon them without notice. And the United Nations is set to open an investigation of American drone strikes.
But one question should not be difficult. In a democracy that rests on the rule of law, a policy of targeted killing demands public authority, public debate, and public accountability. It’s time to stop killing in secret. We don’t need to worry about President Romney, but we do need to worry about President Obama, and more importantly, about preserving our character as a nation under law.
President Obama told Jon Stewart on The Daily Show in October that “one of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of the some of the decisions we’re making.” That’s absolutely right, and one can only hope that saying so on a comedy show doesn’t mean Obama doesn’t take it seriously. Even had the administration finished the playbook in time for a transition, Romney would have been under no obligation to follow his predecessor’s secret rules. The rules of the game need to be public, so that they can be debated and assessed, and so that we the people can hold our leaders accountable to the laws they claim to be following in secret.
Pete Souza/Official White House Photo
President Barack Obama telephoning Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, with counterterrorism adviser John Brennan at right, November 2, 2010
The content of the rules remains a tightly-held mystery. Apparently they are so secret that they are toted around from office to office in a single “playbook,” and not even shared on the government’s secure email reserved for classified material.
But what is most disturbing is the news that it took a possible transfer of power to push the White House to establish such rules. We’ve been assured by multiple Obama administration spokespersons over the years that its targeted killing program is fully lawful, and subject to “rigorous standards and process of review,” as Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan put it in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in April. Yet only on the eve of a potential transition did the administration think to reduce these rigorous standards and procedures to writing?
So they work on deadline, you’re thinking. What else is new? After all, a looming presidential transition is one hell of a deadline. According to the Times story, the administration was shooting to complete the rules by January; now that it’s clear that there will be no transition for another four years, the “matter may have lost some urgency.”
But a possible transition from Obama to Romney was not the only, or even the most important, deadline in play. What about each and every decision over the past four years to authorize a remote-control execution, without trial, without charges, without a defense? Surely each of those actions presented the decision makers with an even more urgent deadline: one would think that before giving the green light to such a momentous act, you would want the “clear rules and procedures” to be in place. Yet the Obama administration has evidently seen fit to make hundreds of such life-or-death decisions, and to authorize more than three hundred strikes, without first developing “explicit rules” or “clear standards and procedures.”
To be fair, it’s not that there were no rules before. A 2011 New York Times story reported on a Justice Department memo, still secret to this day, that authorized the killing of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. And it seems likely that there have been many internal memos along the way; you don’t get one hundred people on a conference call every Tuesday to discuss the “kill list” without generating a paper trail.
The real problem is not that there are no guidelines written down—though the administration itself seems now to acknowledge that what it has is insufficient—but that we the people don’t know what they are. The idea that the president can authorize the killing of a human being far from any traditional battlefield without any publically accessible set of constraints, conditions, or requirements is unacceptable in a country committed to the rule of law. In his first and only speech on security and our national ideals, at the National Archives in May 2009, President Obama insisted that adherence to the rule of law is essential in the fight against terror, and to that end, promised to be transparent about his actions “so that [the people] can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” Yet after four years and hundreds of killings authorized in secret, the most the president has been able to offer us about the scope of his most awesome power is a handful of vague paragraphs in a handful of administration officials’ speeches, which experts must then parse for clues as to what the rules might actually be. This is more akin to what law looked like in the Soviet Union than to what it should look like in the United States of America.
Apparently there is a battle within the administration about how public the president should be about his power. Some, not surprisingly at the CIA and the Defense Department, prefer to keep matters under wraps. Others, at the State Department and the Justice Department, are pushing for transparency. News reports suggest that John Brennan is on the side of transparency. As he told the Washington Post, “I think the rule should be that if we’re going to take actions overseas that result in the deaths of people, the United States should take responsibility for that.”
But taking responsibility would mean disclosing the rules of engagement, and reporting on the results of attacks. Targeted killing raises a number of difficult issues, all of which are made only more difficult by being shrouded in secrecy. Here are just four:
1. Critics claim that the attacks have resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties. The administration has suggested that these charges are exaggerated, and that the attacks are extraordinarily precise, generating only minimal collateral damage. But since the administration will not acknowledge even its decision to undertake any specific attack, it cannot give its side of the story in any credible way.
2. The administration claims it targets “imminent” threats to the United States, invoking the international law concept of self-defense. But as I have noted previously there are serious questions about how it defines “imminent.” The core idea of the imminence requirement is that a state should not attack unless there is no time left, so that lethal force is being used only as a last resort. Yet until now, we have yet to see a single report of a drone strike actually halting a truly imminent attack on the United States. Instead, the administration appears to have redefined imminence to be satisfied by the fact that an individual is a member of a group that seeks to attack the United States whenever it has the chance to do so. Thus, US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was said to pose an imminent threat even though there was no claim he was engaged in any sort of attack or preparations for an attack when we killed him in Yemen with a drone. Without public rules, we don’t know what criteria the administration is using for its decisions; and without acknowledgement of the grounds for specific attacks, we can’t assess whether those criteria are being properly applied.
3. The Times reports that the drone strikes, initially justified as focused on the senior commanders of al-Qaeda, have more recently been deployed against militants who are not part of al-Qaeda and do not directly threaten the United States at all, but who are enemies of states with which we are seeking to curry favor, such as Pakistan and Yemen. If this is correct, this would be a dramatic expansion of drone policy, one that veers far from any justification in the law of war. But again, because the policy is secret, we don’t know why the administration feels such strikes are warranted.
4. Finally, the administration apparently authorizes not only “personality strikes” to target identified and known individuals who have been placed on a “kill list” by an advance review process, but also “signature strikes,” in which drones are used to kill unidentified individuals who are acting in ways that suggest that they are combatants, that they belong to a particular militant or terrorist group. Such attacks might well have a place on a hot battlefield, where the law of war has never required soldiers to identify their enemies before shooting at them. But the president has also reportedly authorized “signature strikes” in Yemen, far from any battlefield, where we are not at war, and where it is much more difficult to assign combatant status to individuals based on patterns of activity.
These are all difficult questions. The world is rightly concerned. The strikes have generated widespread and understandable resentment in those countries where people now have to live in fear of a US missile raining down upon them without notice. And the United Nations is set to open an investigation of American drone strikes.
But one question should not be difficult. In a democracy that rests on the rule of law, a policy of targeted killing demands public authority, public debate, and public accountability. It’s time to stop killing in secret. We don’t need to worry about President Romney, but we do need to worry about President Obama, and more importantly, about preserving our character as a nation under law.
President Obama told Jon Stewart on The Daily Show in October that “one of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of the some of the decisions we’re making.” That’s absolutely right, and one can only hope that saying so on a comedy show doesn’t mean Obama doesn’t take it seriously. Even had the administration finished the playbook in time for a transition, Romney would have been under no obligation to follow his predecessor’s secret rules. The rules of the game need to be public, so that they can be debated and assessed, and so that we the people can hold our leaders accountable to the laws they claim to be following in secret.
In Silicon Valley, Technology Talent Gap Threatens G.O.P. Campaigns
In Silicon Valley, Technology Talent Gap Threatens G.O.P. Campaigns: It doesn't take an algorithm to deduce that those who would donate to a campaign might also be those who would consider working for it.
Authorities Confiscate Ri Photos
Authorities Confiscate Ri Photos: 
North Korean authorities have ordered the public to hand over photos containing the image of a former military official who fell from political grace in a bid to purge him from the country’s historical record, according to sources in the country and in China.
The move comes amid reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has named a hardliner general, Kim Kyok Sik, to the post of Armed Forces Minister as part of a broad reshuffle of the military.
North Korean sources say efforts are underway to tarnish the image of former Chief of the Army General Staff Ri Yong Ho, who was abruptly removed from all military duties in July.
A relatively new general, Hyon Yong Chol, was made vice marshal in the 1.2 million strong Korean People's Army—among the world's largest—to replace Ri.
The high-level political shuffle has led to widespread speculation of a possible power scramble in Pyongyang—a theory that has been bolstered by reports that it is now forbidden to own photos of the ex-military leader, which are considered treasured keepsakes by the public.
“There is a rumor that the regime has branded him an ‘anti-party reactionary’ since August,” a North Korean source who now lives in China told RFA’s Korean Service.
“The party council of the North Korean army first started to collect pictures of him [then],” the source said.
He said he was aware of at least one soldier in North Korea’s North Pyongan province, near the border with China, who had been told to submit a photo he had hung on his wall which included Ri’s image to local government officials and that it had not been returned.
“I don’t know if he will get the picture back with Ri Yong Ho’s face destroyed or if he will never get it back,” the source said.
The regime is not only confiscating photos of Ri from members of the army, but from regular civilians as well, he said.
“As Ri Yong Ho has participated in a lot of ceremonies, there are many pictures of him with ordinary people,” the source said.
The decision to destroy photos of the former army chief is similar to one taken by the North Korean regime in 1969 following the purge of Kim Chang Bong, then-minister of national defense, and Hue Bong Hak, general political director of the military at the time.
Following their removal, authorities collected photos containing images of the two disgraced officials and returned them with their faces blotted out by black ink.
The source in China said that he knew of workers from an ammunition factory that considered a photo of them with Ri “their treasure” who are now “feeling emptiness and fear” after it was seized by authorities.
“It will take considerable time and labor to remove all photos with Ri Young Ho’s face and the action will have a bad effect on [morale].”
Widespread confusion
Ri Yong Ho’s hasty removal from power has left North Koreans confused, the source said.
Once powerful enough to stand at the helm of former leader Kim Jong Il’s funeral cortege following his death last year, Ri was suddenly branded a reactionary and the public has little understanding of why.
“Residents of Pyongyang are saying that if Ri is a reactionary, he must have done something bad to [current leader] Kim Jong Un while he was close to him, but nothing happened, so they cannot understand why he was purged,” the source said.
The youngest of three children, Kim Jong Un—widely believed to be in his late 20’s—assumed power from his father Kim Jong Il in December after the elder Kim died of a suspected heart attack.
Another source in North Pyongan province, who also spoke to RFA on condition of anonymity, said that rumors were swirling about Ri’s fate.
“Even party officials don’t know where Ri Yong Ho is now. Some say that he was put to death and others say he is undergoing medical care for a cerebral hemorrhage,” he said.
“It seems there is no possibility that Ri Yong Ho will return.”
According to Kim Yong Hyun, a professor at Dongkuk University in South Korea, Kim Jong Un ordered the collection of Ri’s photos as part of increased public security measures meant to address the rumors surrounding the former military leader’s removal from power.
“The collection is related to making the Kim Jong Un system sturdy through strong internal unity and by minimizing any anti-government movements,” he said.
In late October, while addressing officials at Ri Yong Ho’s former school—Kim Il Sung Military University—Kim Jong Un said that North Korea has no need for people who are disloyal to the regime, regardless of their military aptitude.
Kim Kyok Sik's appointment, according to South Korea’s officials Thursday, is the latest move in a military reshuffle that began earlier in the year with the purge of Ri.
"It could be the most significant move after Ri's dismissal to strengthen [Kim Jong Un's] grip on the military," a South Korean official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Reuters news agency.
The post of the Minister of Armed Forces is considered subordinate to the Army Chief of General Staff and its head of the Political Department.
But the appointment is indication of a top army general being rewarded for loyalty to the new leader as he tries to cement his power, Reuters quoted South Korean officials as saying.
Reported by Young Jung for RFA’s Korean service. Translated by Ju Hyeon Park. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.
North Korean authorities have ordered the public to hand over photos containing the image of a former military official who fell from political grace in a bid to purge him from the country’s historical record, according to sources in the country and in China.
The move comes amid reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has named a hardliner general, Kim Kyok Sik, to the post of Armed Forces Minister as part of a broad reshuffle of the military.
North Korean sources say efforts are underway to tarnish the image of former Chief of the Army General Staff Ri Yong Ho, who was abruptly removed from all military duties in July.
A relatively new general, Hyon Yong Chol, was made vice marshal in the 1.2 million strong Korean People's Army—among the world's largest—to replace Ri.
The high-level political shuffle has led to widespread speculation of a possible power scramble in Pyongyang—a theory that has been bolstered by reports that it is now forbidden to own photos of the ex-military leader, which are considered treasured keepsakes by the public.
“There is a rumor that the regime has branded him an ‘anti-party reactionary’ since August,” a North Korean source who now lives in China told RFA’s Korean Service.
“The party council of the North Korean army first started to collect pictures of him [then],” the source said.
He said he was aware of at least one soldier in North Korea’s North Pyongan province, near the border with China, who had been told to submit a photo he had hung on his wall which included Ri’s image to local government officials and that it had not been returned.
“I don’t know if he will get the picture back with Ri Yong Ho’s face destroyed or if he will never get it back,” the source said.
The regime is not only confiscating photos of Ri from members of the army, but from regular civilians as well, he said.
“As Ri Yong Ho has participated in a lot of ceremonies, there are many pictures of him with ordinary people,” the source said.
The decision to destroy photos of the former army chief is similar to one taken by the North Korean regime in 1969 following the purge of Kim Chang Bong, then-minister of national defense, and Hue Bong Hak, general political director of the military at the time.
Following their removal, authorities collected photos containing images of the two disgraced officials and returned them with their faces blotted out by black ink.
The source in China said that he knew of workers from an ammunition factory that considered a photo of them with Ri “their treasure” who are now “feeling emptiness and fear” after it was seized by authorities.
“It will take considerable time and labor to remove all photos with Ri Young Ho’s face and the action will have a bad effect on [morale].”
Widespread confusion
Ri Yong Ho’s hasty removal from power has left North Koreans confused, the source said.
Once powerful enough to stand at the helm of former leader Kim Jong Il’s funeral cortege following his death last year, Ri was suddenly branded a reactionary and the public has little understanding of why.
“Residents of Pyongyang are saying that if Ri is a reactionary, he must have done something bad to [current leader] Kim Jong Un while he was close to him, but nothing happened, so they cannot understand why he was purged,” the source said.
The youngest of three children, Kim Jong Un—widely believed to be in his late 20’s—assumed power from his father Kim Jong Il in December after the elder Kim died of a suspected heart attack.
Another source in North Pyongan province, who also spoke to RFA on condition of anonymity, said that rumors were swirling about Ri’s fate.
“Even party officials don’t know where Ri Yong Ho is now. Some say that he was put to death and others say he is undergoing medical care for a cerebral hemorrhage,” he said.
“It seems there is no possibility that Ri Yong Ho will return.”
According to Kim Yong Hyun, a professor at Dongkuk University in South Korea, Kim Jong Un ordered the collection of Ri’s photos as part of increased public security measures meant to address the rumors surrounding the former military leader’s removal from power.
“The collection is related to making the Kim Jong Un system sturdy through strong internal unity and by minimizing any anti-government movements,” he said.
In late October, while addressing officials at Ri Yong Ho’s former school—Kim Il Sung Military University—Kim Jong Un said that North Korea has no need for people who are disloyal to the regime, regardless of their military aptitude.
Kim Kyok Sik's appointment, according to South Korea’s officials Thursday, is the latest move in a military reshuffle that began earlier in the year with the purge of Ri.
"It could be the most significant move after Ri's dismissal to strengthen [Kim Jong Un's] grip on the military," a South Korean official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Reuters news agency.
The post of the Minister of Armed Forces is considered subordinate to the Army Chief of General Staff and its head of the Political Department.
But the appointment is indication of a top army general being rewarded for loyalty to the new leader as he tries to cement his power, Reuters quoted South Korean officials as saying.
Reported by Young Jung for RFA’s Korean service. Translated by Ju Hyeon Park. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.
Selling Peace of Mind to Sell More Used Stuff
Selling Peace of Mind to Sell More Used Stuff: A boomlet of so-called re-commerce sites are making used goods more attractive for buyers and sellers
Mahfud's on top (almost) (Indonesia)
Mahfud's on top (almost) (Indonesia): A few days ago, I posted news that Mahkamah Konstitusi Chief Justice Mahfud MD is leaving the court after his term expires next year. I speculated that this is directly linked to his presidential ambitions. Lo and behold, a new poll from Lembaga Survei Indonesia finds Mahfud to be one of the most popular potential presidential candidates. Over 74% had a favorable impression of his leadership ability (second only to Jusuf Kalla at 79%). Moreover, Mahfud scored highest on a question asking about general positive image (79% versus Kalla's 77%).
A caveat is that the poll does not necessarily ask whom respondents will vote for. Voters can of course respect a candidate but for various reasons choose another, perhaps because of a specific policy proposal.
Nonetheless, it seems the question is not if, but how, Mahfud will run. From the polls alone, a Kalla-Mahfud pair sounds unbeatable. Mahfud, as Javanese (Kalla is from Sulawesi) might even make more sense at the head of the ticket. But all we have thus far is speculation. My guess is that Mahfud will have a more difficult time passing the first round of the presidential voting than the second. In other words, he'd need enough name recognition and a political party apparatus to support his bid and make it past the first round.
Mahfud's response to all the speculation has certainly not been Shermanesque. According to The Jakarta Post, his response to the speculation was:
A caveat is that the poll does not necessarily ask whom respondents will vote for. Voters can of course respect a candidate but for various reasons choose another, perhaps because of a specific policy proposal.
Nonetheless, it seems the question is not if, but how, Mahfud will run. From the polls alone, a Kalla-Mahfud pair sounds unbeatable. Mahfud, as Javanese (Kalla is from Sulawesi) might even make more sense at the head of the ticket. But all we have thus far is speculation. My guess is that Mahfud will have a more difficult time passing the first round of the presidential voting than the second. In other words, he'd need enough name recognition and a political party apparatus to support his bid and make it past the first round.
Mahfud's response to all the speculation has certainly not been Shermanesque. According to The Jakarta Post, his response to the speculation was:
I can’t decide now because it will affect my present position as chief justice with the Constitutional Court, as well as at my [academic] institution. Let’s wait until after my term expires in April.Which sounds like a good reason for retiring from the MK!
First Singapore Strike in Years Highlights Strains
First Singapore Strike in Years Highlights Strains:
A police van reverses out of the premises of a dormitory as negotiations with striking bus drivers continue within the building in Singapore. (Photo: Reuters)SINGAPORE—Singapore responded to its first strike in nearly three decades with riot police and strident official criticism of the disgruntled Chinese immigrant workers, highlighting strains from an influx of foreign labor.
Many of the 171 striking bus drivers returned to work on Wednesday after a government minister warned them they had “crossed the line” and riot police were stationed near their hostel. They went on strike on Monday in protest at being paid nearly a quarter less than Malaysian bus drivers who work for the same Singapore transport company.
Strikes are almost unheard of in Singapore where the ruling party has been in power since 1959 and maintains strict control over political dissent. The last strike was in 1986 by shipyard workers.
As the city-state grew wealthier over the years, its citizens increasingly spurned menial, low status work and the government, concerned about remaining competitive with lower cost countries in Asia, needed a solution. The island of 5.2 million people now relies on hundreds of thousands of immigrants from countries such as Burma, Indonesia, Bangladesh and China who work as maids, construction workers and other occupations deemed unappealing by many locals.
The influx has strained public services and sparked a backlash, particularly among low-income Singaporeans, by keeping wages down while the growing numbers of expatriate professionals working for global companies based in the city have pushed up housing and other costs.
The government is “losing the ability to feel the pulse of the public and react accordingly,” said commentator and former newspaper editor P.N. Balji who characterized the strike as a “huge embarrassment” for Singapore. “This inability, if not tackled quickly, can only damage the country’s jealously-guarded reputation in the long run.”
The city-state’s pliant workforce and reputation for political stability helped it attract significant foreign investment in manufacturing and other areas since the 1970s, transforming the island into a major port and oil refining center as well as base for financial services and manufacturing of electronics and pharmaceuticals.
On Monday, the Chinese drivers who are paid S$1,075 (US $879) a month compared with S$1,400 for a Malaysian driver, refused to board a shuttle bus to take them to work. Riot police and four police special operations vehicles were ordered to nearby their dormitory while management of SMRT Corp., the bus and commuter rail company, tried to convince the drivers to return to work. About half continued the strike on Tuesday.
“They should reflect on our behavior and investigate why we have reacted in such a way,” state TV quoted a driver it didn’t name as saying.
Government reaction was swift.
Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan Jin announced that the strike was illegal because it disrupted an essential public service. He said the government had “zero tolerance” for unlawful behavior and police were investigating the workers.
“By taking matters into their own hands the drivers have clearly crossed the line. These workers have disrupted public transport services and Singapore’s industrial harmony,” Tan said.
SMRT said the strike affected around five percent of its bus services.
Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party won 60 percent of the vote in May elections, its lowest share of the vote since 1965, as rising living costs and the influx of foreigners caused some of its support to ebb to the fragmented opposition.
The government says it has been restricting growth in the number of immigrants through measures such as increasing its foreign worker levies. A government report released in June showed the number of foreign residents rose to 1.49 million from 1.39 million the year before.
SMRT said the difference in pay between the Chinese and Malaysian bus drivers was due to the Malaysians being permanent employees.
A police van reverses out of the premises of a dormitory as negotiations with striking bus drivers continue within the building in Singapore. (Photo: Reuters)
Many of the 171 striking bus drivers returned to work on Wednesday after a government minister warned them they had “crossed the line” and riot police were stationed near their hostel. They went on strike on Monday in protest at being paid nearly a quarter less than Malaysian bus drivers who work for the same Singapore transport company.
Strikes are almost unheard of in Singapore where the ruling party has been in power since 1959 and maintains strict control over political dissent. The last strike was in 1986 by shipyard workers.
As the city-state grew wealthier over the years, its citizens increasingly spurned menial, low status work and the government, concerned about remaining competitive with lower cost countries in Asia, needed a solution. The island of 5.2 million people now relies on hundreds of thousands of immigrants from countries such as Burma, Indonesia, Bangladesh and China who work as maids, construction workers and other occupations deemed unappealing by many locals.
The influx has strained public services and sparked a backlash, particularly among low-income Singaporeans, by keeping wages down while the growing numbers of expatriate professionals working for global companies based in the city have pushed up housing and other costs.
The government is “losing the ability to feel the pulse of the public and react accordingly,” said commentator and former newspaper editor P.N. Balji who characterized the strike as a “huge embarrassment” for Singapore. “This inability, if not tackled quickly, can only damage the country’s jealously-guarded reputation in the long run.”
The city-state’s pliant workforce and reputation for political stability helped it attract significant foreign investment in manufacturing and other areas since the 1970s, transforming the island into a major port and oil refining center as well as base for financial services and manufacturing of electronics and pharmaceuticals.
On Monday, the Chinese drivers who are paid S$1,075 (US $879) a month compared with S$1,400 for a Malaysian driver, refused to board a shuttle bus to take them to work. Riot police and four police special operations vehicles were ordered to nearby their dormitory while management of SMRT Corp., the bus and commuter rail company, tried to convince the drivers to return to work. About half continued the strike on Tuesday.
“They should reflect on our behavior and investigate why we have reacted in such a way,” state TV quoted a driver it didn’t name as saying.
Government reaction was swift.
Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan Jin announced that the strike was illegal because it disrupted an essential public service. He said the government had “zero tolerance” for unlawful behavior and police were investigating the workers.
“By taking matters into their own hands the drivers have clearly crossed the line. These workers have disrupted public transport services and Singapore’s industrial harmony,” Tan said.
SMRT said the strike affected around five percent of its bus services.
Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party won 60 percent of the vote in May elections, its lowest share of the vote since 1965, as rising living costs and the influx of foreigners caused some of its support to ebb to the fragmented opposition.
The government says it has been restricting growth in the number of immigrants through measures such as increasing its foreign worker levies. A government report released in June showed the number of foreign residents rose to 1.49 million from 1.39 million the year before.
SMRT said the difference in pay between the Chinese and Malaysian bus drivers was due to the Malaysians being permanent employees.
Nov 28, 2012
Yudhoyono not satisfied with Indonesia's corruption fight
Yudhoyono not satisfied with Indonesia's corruption fight: Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said yesterday that budget misappropriation and collusion were still rampant among bureaucrats across the nation, suggesting that the country's anti-corru .....
 |  |
Cambodia external borrowing to reach $915m next year
Cambodia external borrowing to reach $915m next year: Cambodian Finance Minister Keat Chhun said the government would borrow US$915 million from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Asian Development Bank, China, Japan and South Korea next year. .....
| |
Thai Democrats uncover massive graft in disaster fund
Thai Democrats uncover massive graft in disaster fund: Thai Democrat MPs yesterday backed their allegations against the government with findings from their own investigations - something new for a censure debate, as the Opposition is often accused of rely .....
| |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)