Burma - movement by all parties

Burma is facing a new dawn despite scepticism of the election facade largely directed by the military junta to ensure its continued hold on to power.

Significantly, everyone's attention is on the release The Lady and her willingness to compromise and bring about real change for her people. Western countries who had cut off ties with Burma are keen to jump on Aung San Suu Kyi's call for dismantling of economic sanctions.

Quote :

After spending 15 of the last 20 years in confinement Mrs Suu Kyi, the Nobel peace laureate and democracy advocate, acknowledged that her release marked a potential moment of great change in the stand-off between Burma/Myanmar and the West. The freeze in relations has seen the former British colony grow increasing reliant on China.

Kevin Rudd, the Australian foreign minister and former prime minister, has told Mrs Suu Kyi that "reliable" friends were ready to be flexible on sanctions if she could make headway on domestic reform with the generals that run the country.

Mrs Suu Kyi used her second full day of freedom to indicate that her position on Burma's international isolation had undergone changes from the view that the military regime could only be overthrown by sanctions and isolation. "I don't want to see the military falling. I want to see the military rising to dignified heights of professionalism and true patriotism," she told the BBC. "I think it's quite obvious what the people want: the people just want better lives based on security and on freedom."

International sanctions mostly target regime figures – banning travel, financial transactions and business dealing – and many Western countries have imposed an arms embargo on the regime.

As recently as last Thursday, the EU added judges responsible for sentencing Mrs Suu Kyi to the visa ban list and President Barack Obama of the US renewed sanctions in May.

However Senator Jim Webb, a prominent supporter of President Obama, has warned that sanctions and Western business boycotts had rendered Burma as little more than a "province" of China. And the sanctions were already deeply unpopular within Asia, including among intellectual opinion. Jose Ramos Horta, the president of East Timor and a fellow winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, hit out at the isolation of Burma as not "morally good". "I'm very happy with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest after more than 15 years without reason," he said. "I see it as something good and I congratulate the military regime in Myanmar for handling this," he said.

"I'm also waiting and hoping for two blocs, namely America and Europe, which have been applying harsh sanctions against Myanmar, to lift them."
Derek Tonkin, a former British ambassador in Bangkok, said: "Suu Kyi's reappearance is something that will be utilised at a time when the US and EU are looking for some kind of engagement. There are areas where she can play a considerable role. Suu Kyi could hold consultations with diplomats, even if the regime isn't prepared to talk to them at this stage. There are things she can do with the West that they can't do with the regime."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/burmamyanmar/8134988/Western-states-hint-at-support-for-easing-Burma-sanctions.html

It was easy for outsiders living in the free world to rally to liberal academicians' agitation for sanctions, not realising that blockades hurt the Burmese people more than the military regime. Similar experience in South Africa showed that sanctions against apartheid did not work.

Idealists who denounce that the military junta absolutely gives up all their power are harbouring unrealistic expectations. The military must have a continued and key role in nation building as it has the machinery to keep the country from falling apart. As history has shown, removal of autocrats and tyrants forcibly would most likely leave a power vacuum for militants, religious fundamentalists, or other tyrants to fill its place.

The generals would have more to gain to include ASSK into its fold. Together they could achieve more and deliver economic growth to the impoverished nation. Too many opportunities for unity have slipped away and it is high time that the Burmese people deserve what they are entitled to.

The world can look forward to helping the Burmese people through engagement rather than cold shoulder.

- copyright of c.g.

Gains and governance overshadow politicised "national Interests" in a globalised economy : proposed Singapore-Australian Stock Exchange merger

Most articles on the issue of the proposed Singapore-Australian stock exchanges merger have been replete with emotional outbursts on national interest and the impact on investors' profits.

Here are some objective analysis by economic, industry, legal and regulatory experts that should be considered seriously than politicising an economic issues.

The main players are keen but each side is worried that they have the short end of the deal. Most Australians' concerns focus on compromises on regulations of companies' listing, complaince such as disclosure requirements and independence. Singaporean analysts, on the other hand, are uncomfortable that the venture is overpriced and laden with obstacles on approval as well as potential management and competition issues from Chi-X.

It is a perennial challenge to achieve an optimal balance between regulation and economic vibrance.

QUOTE :

[Lawyers Michael Wilton and Jill Gauntlett say : ... shareholders should be comforted by the long historical links in regulation between Australia and Singapore. When Singapore fashioned its corporations law almost 50 years ago, it modelled it on the uniform Companies Act passed by all Australian states in 1961. Revised uniform listing rules took effect in Australia at the same time.]

[Singapore has different financial track record requirements and does not have an equivalent of Australia's assets test that allows mining exploration companies to list before they turn a profit.]

[Jennifer Hill, Professor of Law in University of Sydney says :
Australia and Singapore allow their exchanges to grant waivers case by case. This ''may potentially constitute a form of selective regulation'' ... the corporate governance consultancy ISS released a report in 2007 that concluded that the Australian waiver scheme lacked transparency, especially compared with New Zealand, but was substantially more transparent than London or New York .... such disparities could be a concern as global competition among exchanges increases.]

[''During the 1990s, it was often assumed that the trend towards cross-listing of foreign firms in the United States was itself a new form of regulatory competition, under which foreign companies from jurisdictions with poor corporate governance would cross-list to gain regulatory credibility,'' she says.

But this assumption was questioned after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002, when many high-profile Asian companies bypassed the New York Stock Exchange in favour of other international exchanges.

''This suggested that overly stringent governance may repel, rather than attract, cross-listing,'' Hill says. ''This remains a danger for securities exchanges, particularly given increased competition for listing and trading revenues.'' ]

http://www.theage.com.au/business/asx-merger-plan-raises-questions-of-governance-20101028-175s7.html

Confusion over Religions and Cultures - Multicultuaralism Betrayed

Hijacked multi-religionism mistakenedly touted as multi-culturalism that has failed us. It would be more reliable to follow the common ethnic identification than religion that is divided, cuts across cultures, ethnicity and personal. In modern diverse societies, tolerance and non-interference would help to foster peaceful relations and unity.

The bottomline is that democracy, English common law and secular government must prevail over all else unless exceptions are provided for in the constitution for the protection of indigenous rights. A clear boundary must be drawn in no uncertain terms.

No religious group should be allowed to challenge the existing laws of the country. Neither should any religious sect or group be allowed to undermine safety and quiet living of our people. Penalising innocent cultural / religious groups would not augur well for harmonious relations among Australians of different backgrounds.

Emotionally charged and misguided government leaders, media and religious fundamentalists who have often contributed to the strife and misunderstanding in communities should reflect on their actions and omissions. Clarifying the issues in their minds will bring about constructive comments and policies.

This is a frank, balanced and insightful article published in The Australian.

QUOTE :

Religious leaders should not be the only Muslims allowed to speak

MULTICULTURALISM is under severe strain. Not from detractors such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel who confuse having an ethnically mixed society with a policy of social integration designed to cope with and cherish ethnic diversity. No, multiculturalism is undermined because religious groups, more specifically Muslim groups, have come to supplant ethnic ones. This has been a slow, almost inevitable process.

The problematisation of Muslim identity in the wake of terrorist attacks have presented Muslims in the West with difficult questions. In the pre-September 11 era, issues of socioeconomic integration dominated, often focusing on the experience of distinct ethnic groups rather than the community of faith. Unemployment, wealth disparity and educational achievements were the issues of concern.

But the emergence of terrorist activity among the Muslim population of the West has elevated the question of socioeconomic integration into an existential one. Now the issue is no longer about the social standing and wealth disparity between ethnic groups of Muslim background and the rest of the society but the presumed threat that Islam poses to the Western way of life.

The heightened sense of unease concerning the place of Islam in the West has put Muslims on the back foot. All of a sudden, Muslims feel an overbearing pressure to condemn terrorism and pledge loyalty to the state of their residence/citizenship. At the same time, public scrutiny of Islam has offered the moderate Muslim leadership an opportunity to advance a version of Islam that is modern, tolerant and aligned with the rule of law in the West. In articulating Muslim loyalty to the state, the moderate leadership has found the multicultural system very useful on two key counts. It allows Muslim leaders to express their views publicly, reiterate Muslims' commitment to social harmony and criticise aspects of government policy or public discourse that they find harmful. At the same time, these leaders can defend Islam and maintain their position among their communities. In other words, declaring loyalty to Australia does not necessary have to come at the expense of religious belief, as multiculturalism allows for cultural/religious autonomy within the framework of civic citizenship. This flexibility makes moderate Muslims among the most ardent defenders of multiculturalism.

The assertiveness of moderate Muslim leadership, however, has tended to come at the expense of the public visibility of non-religious Muslims. Cultural Muslims who congregate in ethnic organisations face difficult questions about the extent of their "Muslimness". The more pious moderate Muslims speak in defence of Islam in the public domain and government agencies turn to such spokespeople for advice on Muslim issues, the more cultural Muslims are marginalised. This is a self-perpetuating process that undermines the credibility of cultural Muslims as "true Muslims" in the public eye and reserves the title for the use of the religiously inclined.

Perhaps the best example of this was the convening of the Muslim advisory committee under the Howard government. It excluded the Turkish community, even though Muslim Turks constitute the second largest ethnic group among Australian Muslims. This omission was as bad as the practice of interviewing hijabi women when there are more qualified, but unveiled, Muslim women. In the eyes of the media, unveiled Muslim women do not have the authenticity of hijabi women. Just as ethnic Muslims are not considered genuinely attuned to community sentiments when compared with religious organisations.

This process is restricting the public space for cultural Muslims who see Islam as part of their ethnic identity and refuse to be classified as simply Muslim. The policy of multiculturalism allows for the public presence of a multiplicity of ethnic groups. It is unfortunate that this flexibility is being bracketed for, and by, religious groups.

- Shahram Akbarzadeh is professor of Asian politics (Middle East and Central Asia) at the University of Melbourne.

(emphasis are mine for easier reading)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/religious-leaders-should-not-be-the-only-muslims-allowed-to-speak/story-e6frg6zo-1225944419389