Comment

Press freedom in Myanmar requires real reform

Myanmar’s president has released more than 6,000 prisoners, including two Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists imprisoned for reporting on a military crackdown on the Rohingya Muslim minority in Rakhine state. Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, who work for the news organisation Reuters, were arrested in 2017 and, after a corrupt trial engineered by the military, sentenced to seven years in prison. While the presidential pardon is welcome, there are still a number of serious, ongoing issues for freedom of expression and democracy in Myanmar. The influential military and its supporters in the government continue to work against press freedom in particular, waging what a UN human rights report referred to last year as a “political campaign against independent journalism.” Mishal Husain✔@MishalHusainBBC This is the extraordinary reporting for which Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were arrested https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/myanmar-rakhine-events/ …1,2236:22 PM – May 7, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacyMassacre in Myanmar: One grave for 10 Rohingya menReuters uncovers how Myanmar forces burned, looted and killed in a remote village.reuters.com1,079 people are talking about this Why did the government release the prisoners now? The pardon coincides with traditional New Year in Myanmar, which started on April 17. It is customary for government officials to release prisoners around this time. It was also a way to at least partly ease the increasing international pressure on the Myanmar government. Foreign governments, NGOs, and international organisations have heavily criticised the government for its failure to protect freedom of the press, its record on human rights, the Rohingya crisis, and its scant progress on meaningful democratic reform. A\nother way to look at the president’s decision to pardon Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo is as a balancing act. The ruling National League for Democracy must toe a careful line in terms of dealing with pressure from the West and appeasing the powerful military and the Burmese ethnic majority, who overwhelmingly […]

The law is closing in on Facebook and the ‘digital gangsters’

For social media and search engines, the law is back in town. Prompted by privacy invasions, the spread of misinformation, a crisis in news funding and potential interference in elections, regulators in several countries now propose a range of interventions to curb the power of digital platforms. A newly published UK inquiry is part of this building global momentum. e Shortly after Valentine’s Day, a committee of the British House of Commons published its final report into disinformation and “fake news”. It was explicitly directed at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and it was less a love letter than a challenge to a duel. The report found: Companies like Facebook should not be allowed to behave like ‘digital gangsters’ in the online world, considering themselves to be ahead of and beyond the law. The committee was particularly vexed by Zuckerberg himself, concluding: By choosing not to appear before the Committee … Mark Zuckerberg has shown contempt. Its far-reaching recommendations included giving the UK’s Information Commissioner greater capacity to be “… an effective ‘sheriff in the Wild West of the Internet’.” The law is back in town In December 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) handed down its preliminary report into the impact of digital platforms. It tabled a series of bold proposals. e Then, on February 12, the Cairncross Review – an independent analysis led by UK economist and journalist Frances Cairncross – handed down its report, A Sustainable Future for Journalism. Referring to sustainability of the production and distribution of high-quality journalism, “Public intervention may be the only remedy,” wrote Cairncross. “The future of a healthy democracy depends on it.” And a week later, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons issued its challenge in its final report on disinformation and “fake news”: The big tech companies must not […]

How to gently get a child to brush his teeth

How to gently get your child to brush his teeth

For most parents, the phrase “I don’t want to brush my teeth” is rather familiar. While it may seem easiest to pry their mouth open and force them to brush, research suggests there are better ways that may positively influence children’s future dental health. So, what does the literature say you should do to help children brush their teeth? What is gentle parenting? Gentle parenting centres around respect for the child. Parents who practise this approach generally avoid artificial or extrinsic rewards or punishments. These parents try to help their children habituate appropriate, or what we would call “good”, behaviours. The idea is the child should want to do the “right” thing for its own sake, not because it’s accompanied by a reward or because of the threat of a punishment. Studies suggest this method is effective because children will go on to have superior social skills and fewer behavioural problems. The effect is believed to continue into adulthood. Contrary to popular belief, this style of parenting does not eschew “consequences”. Rather, consequences are allowed to flow naturally from behaviour. Although, in the case of dental hygiene, we can’t let the natural consequence of not brushing lead to caries. So, what can you do? When should you start encouraging dental hygiene? One of the ways to ensure children brush their teeth, without resorting to bribes or punishments, is to start early. Dentists suggest brushing baby’s first teeth when they appear, even wiping gums, may help establish good dental hygiene early. By starting early with dental care, it will become an established part of life and may cause fewer power struggles. Let your child brush your teeth, and you theirs. from www.shutterstock.com Does routine help? Routine is said to be essential in children’s lives. Studies suggest routine can positively impact on children habituating positive behaviours because of the repeated exposure. Families who provide a loving and consistent structure are more likely to have children who brush […]

Scenarios for the future of geopolitics

The balance of power is shifting. To understand events in the international arena, it helps to distinguish whether our current period is essentially stable or in significant flux. In an article written a quarter of a century ago, during another time of rapid and relentless change, my co-author and I described the former type of period as a plateau phase, and the latter as one of historical transition. A series of recent developments suggests that the domestic political situations of several key players in the international arena are undergoing significant shifts, as are relations between players. Everything seems to indicate that the world is in another period of historical transition. A shortlist of the developments that point in this direction include: the breakdown of the political centre in several advanced democracies; centrifugal tendencies in the long-prevailing regional and international structures, of which the Brexit vote is one example; the accentuation of authoritarianism in Russia and China; and last, but certainly not least, the collapse of American moral leadership. Against this backdrop, how might we expect strategic relations to evolve in the next 20 years? In the short to mid-term, the key issue is the relationship between those powers that have been largely responsible for creating the post-WWII order, and those that are challenging it, in an effort to erect a new paradigm calling that order into question. In which direction this relationship is moving should become clear within the next five to ten years, and perhaps much sooner. There are essentially three possible outcomes. One is that the current Western-dominated paradigm manages to overcome its current weaknesses and disunity, creating space for and movement towards a renewed democratic revolution. In the process, it forges an environment in which the challenging powers can be successfully encouraged to integrate. Call […]

What Can Save Capitalism from a Medici Cycle?

By Peter M.J. Gross Can truly free markets be protected from government interference? According to Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, government regulation may be necessary to keep markets free and competitive. He doubts whether it’s desirable, or even possible, for markets to operate without government oversight. In “Towards a Political Theory of the Firm,” Zingales theorizes that firms use their economic power to acquire political power. They then apply that political power to achieve greater economic gains, which in turn helps them acquire ever more political power. It’s a cycle Zingales likens to the Medici dynasty of 15th-century Florence, Italy. The Medicis leveraged their lending relationships with the Roman Catholic Church into considerable political influence in Renaissance Europe. If firms are naturally driven to seek political power and gain an insurmountable economic advantage, then government action may be the only way to prevent them from acquiring and exercising a degree of influence that dissuades or suppresses competition. However, not all government action is equal, and there are nuances involved, according to Zingales. He draws a distinction between being “pro-business” and “pro-market,”suggesting that the former phrase is commonly used to discuss policies that favor established businesses, and may actually stifle the ability of upstart companies to challenge them. Zingales considers himself pro-market and favors policies that encourage competition among firms in the marketplace. He says that to to support “growth, and innovation, new entry, and welfare of people, I think the pro-market is the right position.” Zingales says that the antitrust enforcement action taken against Microsoft, which began in 1998, was an example of political power applied to keep economic power in check and ensure healthy competition. As Zingales sees it, government intervention impeded Microsoft’s ability to monopolize the internet and created the opportunity for companies like Google and Facebook to develop. “Today’s monopolies […]

Why Africa is turning the heads of investors

Chinese and Western firms could experience high returns by investing in Africa’s strong economic growth. Since 2000, at least half of the world’s fastest-growing economies have been in Africa. And by 2030, Africa will be home to 1.7 billion people, whose combined consumer and business spending will total $6.7 trillion. Image: World Bank Seven years ago, the Harvard Business Review pointed out that Africa is also home to many of the world’s biggest opportunities. And yet, despite its tremendous business potential, Africa has not risen to the top of Western business leaders’ agendas. In fact, between 2014 and 2016, US exports to Africa fell by almost half, from $38 billion to $22 billion. And while the United Kingdom’s investments on the continent more than doubled between 2005 and 2014, reaching £42.5 billion ($57.6 billion), only 2.5% of its total exports are to Africa. Western countries are quickly losing ground to China, which increased its exports to Africa more than sevenfold – to $103 billion – from 2005 to 2015. If Western businesses hope to keep up, they will need to tap into the African countries and sectors with the highest potential for growth. By 2030, more than half of Africa’s population will reside in seven countries: Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Tanzania, Kenya, and South Africa. But, more important, 43% of Africans will belong to the middle or upper classes, up from 39.6% in 2013, implying considerably higher demand for goods and services. By 2030, household consumption is expected to reach $2.5 trillion, up from $1.1 trillion in 2015. Nearly half of that $2.5 trillion will be spent in three countries: Nigeria (20%), Egypt (17%), and South Africa (11%). But there will also be lucrative opportunities in Algeria, Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia. Any one of these countries would […]

Bali’s Mt Agung eruption shows how businesses should and shouldn’t react

Tourism businesses should start by communicating precisely what they are going to do about the situation to the customer – quickly and clearly, to reduce uncertainty and avoid confusion. Russel PJ Kingshott, Senior Lecturer in Retailing, School of Marketing, Curtin Business School, Curtin University There’s nothing like an erupting volcano to reveal who does and doesn’t have their crisis management plans sorted out. Sudden uncontrollable events are an inevitable part of any tourism operation. Businesses worth their salt should at least in principle have the capacity to remedy situations that go wrong, as part of their modus operandi. Conventional marketing wisdom says that when organisations react properly to uncontrollable events, it has positive consequences for their overall relationship with their customers. But for this to be effective, those affected customers need to have a quick response from businesses or it could simply be counterproductive. The closure of Bali’s Ngurah Rai Airport left many passengers stranded. And while the volcano and its ash cloud are beyond airlines’ control, how they respond to the needs of stranded passengers is completely within their remit. How to prepare and handle uncontrollable events Tourism businesses should start by communicating precisely what they are going to do about the situation to the customer – quickly and clearly, to reduce uncertainty and avoid confusion. This needs to be backed up by tangible actions, namely doing the specific things promised and making amends with the customer. Fail to do this, and businesses run the risk of further negative consequences. Speaking from recent personal experience during a short vacation in Bali, Jetstar Australia quickly communicated that relief flights departing from the island would come into operation immediately (weather permitting). They also made it clear to any inbound Bali passengers that there would be no flights bringing them to the island unless longer-term weather conditions were deemed […]

The truth behind big bubbles and crashes

When Katherine Hunt’s dad asked her whether or not he should invest in Bitcoin, alarm bells rang, first she thought “he’s a musician”. Hunt is a lecturer in accounting at the Griffith Business School, and as someone who knows the five stages of a bubble and crash, she was worried when it seemed everyone was thinking they needed to “get in on” Bitcoin. “The stock market is a manifestation of the psychology of everyone who is investing, so of course there is going to be these crazy stages,” Hunt says. There is a boom, as momentum behind a new stock or asset speeds up and the media starts to cover it, fuelling its price rise. Then the euphoria sets in, the value of the asset skyrockets and people start to make a profit. But looming around the corner is the panic. Investors feel the last phase of a crash far more than they do the elation of the price rising, Hunt says. Panic breeds more panic and the price falls. Hunt is seeing this pattern play out with the stocks of the more well known gig economy businesses like Airbnb and Uber. These businesses now enjoy the privilege of being the only, or one of a few of their kind, in the marketplace. But Hunt says this can’t last. “In an open market that’s not the case at all, there’s always going to be competition and these companies will fall. It’s just probably that they’ll fall in 30 or 40 years, not necessarily tomorrow,” she says. Of course this is all easier to see in hindsight. Remembering the global financial crisis John Crosby, now a senior lecturer in finance at the University of Technology Sydney, was once working as an investment banker at Lloyds of London in 2007 when he […]

American detained in North Korea – CNN.com

I saw this State Department, Swedish Embassy to work on caseThe detention was confirmed by Martina Aberg, deputy chief of mission at the Swedish Embassy in Pyongyang.The embassy represents US interests in North Korea, since Washington and Pyongyang do not have direct diplomatic relations.”He was prevented from getting on the flight out of Pyongyang,” Aberg said. “We don’t comment further than this.”The US State Department on Sunday said it was working on the case.”We are aware of reports that a US citizen was detained in North Korea,” said a department official. “The protection of US citizens is one of the Department’s highest priorities.”The official said the United States would work with the Swedish Embassy on the matter, but did not provide further comment. Source: American detained in North Korea – CNN.com

Time to rethink the meaning of work

A great deal has been written in recent years about the perils of automation. With predicted mass unemployment, declining wages, and increasing inequality, clearly we should all be afraid. By now it’s no longer just the Silicon Valley trend watchers and technoprophets who are apprehensive. In a study that has already racked up several hundred citations, scholars at Oxford University have estimated that no less than 47% of all American jobs and 54% of those in Europe are at a high risk of being usurped by machines. And not in a hundred years or so, but in the next 20. “The only real difference between enthusiasts and skeptics is a time frame,” notes a New York University professor. “But a century from now, nobody will much care about how long it took, only what happened next.” I admit, we’ve heard it all before. Employees have been worrying about the rising tide of automation for 200 years now, and for 200 years employers have been assuring them that new jobs will naturally materialise to take their place. After all, if you look at the year 1800, some 74% of all Americans were farmers, whereas by 1900 this figure was down to 31%, and by 2000 to a mere 3%. Yet this hasn’t led to mass unemployment. In 1930, the famous economist John Maynard Keynes was predicting that we’d all be working just 15-hour weeks by the year 2030. Yet, since the 1980s, work has only been taking up more of our time, bringing waves of burnouts and stress in its wake. Meanwhile, the crux of the issue isn’t even being discussed. The real question we should be asking ourselves is: what actually constitutes “work” in this day and age? What is “work” anyway? In a 2013 survey of 12,000 professionals by the Harvard Business Review, half said they […]

«‹ 12 13 14 15 ›