Freedom, GEABSOLUTE POWERS CORRUPT ABSOLUTELY, General Election (GE15), Malaysia, Politics, polling Nov 19: Destroy Umno for the betterment of Malaysia, race, religion, Solidality, support Aliran for Justice
ScienceDaily — You wouldn't think that there would be much similarity between a hockey line and an automobile assembly line. However, University of Alberta management-science researcher Ken Schultz says that both groups can learn something about line design and human behaviour, which may help them perform better.
Schultz, who recently published an article in Management Science, analyzed production-line data from a General Motors plant and identified that there seemed to be a shift in how fast the task was completed. What he and his fellow researchers hypothesized was that these workers, who were performing similar tasks, were positively influenced by the performance on a fellow worker who completed his task more efficiently.
Schultz found that an individual's performance level may have a direct effect on what becomes "a good day's work" in that some members may change their work behaviour to match the output of their co-worker.
Schultz ties the results of their study to the principle of equity theory, or the idea that motivation comes from fair treatment -- a good day's work for a good day's pay. "The workers may think 'we're not really connected, so I have no real reason to care about how fast you are working. But I'm a human being and I do care, and I do notice,'" said Schultz, who concluded that is possible for "people [to] change based on what they see."
Part of that change, Schultz found in his analysis of the production-line data, was that, by changing up lines to introduce a higher-performing worker to an average or lower-than-average performing line, an impact can be made on efficiency or productivity.
However, Schultz notes, simple switching people on teams will not produce the desired effect. In a plant, as in hockey, knowing which players to change up will provide the most benefit.
"You'd look for the person who's a good performer but doesn't react to others around him; that's the person you want to move to the low-level team," he said, because "there's a good chance he's going to be a person who has proven to be a leader.
Schultz also noted that the design of the workspace is equally important in influencing productivity, yet is an aspect that is ignored when designing new plants or redesigning workspaces. The key is to arrange the area so that workers are facing each other when performing their tasks, rather than facing away from each other, or in same direction. Allowing the workers to observe and monitor the speed of their co-workers is the necessary catalyst for the behavioural change to occur, he says.
"You don't have to say anything, you don't have to do anything, you don't have to put a flashing light over their head, said Schultz. "Just make sure people can see each other and allow the workers to do what they would naturally do."
Thus, whether seeking to improve productivity or build a strong contender for Lord Stanley's Cup, Schultz says that, while the environments and processes are different, being mindful of the human element and its motivational properties can produce the desired effect.
"Good coaches have seen this, and we have research that shows it's being doing in the factory floor as well," said Schultz. "You want your team to have not just good or average -- or even great players -- that can play well no matter where they are.
"To get that extra bit, you want to find the good or great players who will perform better around other great players."
Poor political decisions pose the highest risk to global sustainability!
WHAT ARE WE TO DO? By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN
THE World Bank’s Global Economic Prospect Summer 2010 Report carries both good and bad news. The good news: the global economy will grow faster than previously forecast at between 2.9% and 3.3% this year, up from January 2010 forecast of 2.7%.
Developing economies will spearhead recovery, growing three times as quickly as their high-income counterparts from now till 2012.
For developing countries in East Asia, World Bank projects growth of 8.7% this year before slowing next year and in 2012. China is projected to be the fastest growing economy, by 9.5% this year and 8.5% in 2011. But for the rebound to endure, high-income nations need to seize opportunities offered by stronger growth elsewhere.
A double dip?
The bad news: while markets have improved, reaction to a possible debt default and eventual contagion reflects fragility of the current situation. Indeed, “market nervousness concerning the fiscal position of several European high-income countries poses new challenge for the world economy.” Upheaval in Europe simply means a double-dip recession can’t be ruled out.
Recent efforts of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other European institutions are expected to stave off a major European sovereign debt default. In this scenario, World Bank expects high-income countries to grow just 2.1% to 2.3% this year – not enough to reverse last year’s 3.3% GDP (or gross domestic product) contraction.
However, global economic growth could stall sharply if the European sovereign debt crisis produces a debt default or spurs loss of market confidence. If bond yields rise by one percentage point, projected world growth could slow to 2% this year and 0.7% in 2011.
In the case of a full-fledged debt meltdown, high-income countries will expand by just 0.9% in 2010 and 0.6% in 2011. In this case, the GDP of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Britain would fall sharply, causing a domino effect on exports to the rest of European Union and the world.
If Europe can avoid a debt crisis, signs of a steady recovery will continue. In the United States and Japan, the stimulus-led rebound is now being driven increasingly by more organic expansion, fuelled by investment and consumer demand. That signals a more self-sustaining recovery and diminishes the risk of a double-dip recession.
Historically, the only double-dip recession in modern times begun during 1980 when the US Federal Reserve (Fed) slashed federal funds rate to 9% that April from 17.5% in July 1979. Inflation returned, so the Fed reversed course and pushed the rate above 19% by January 1981.
Europe is a different story. With growth last year now undermined by debt anxieties, World Bank sees much weaker growth – possibly even no growth. Indeed, the fiscal situation in high-income countries in Europe and the United States is currently on an “unsustainable path, and there is a need for more rapid fiscal consolidation,” says World Bank.
This is not just to ensure sustainability of rich countries’ public finances, but also rapid cuts in public spending or tax hikes designed to return their debt ratio to 60% of GDP by 2030, would benefit poorer economies too. There will be a fall in export demand for sure, but this would be offset by improved financial positions, improved investment climate, and improved long-term interest rates.
Over the longer term, these same factors can be expected to kick-in a win-win situation. Nevertheless, Wall Street is convinced fiscal tightening by European governments has dramatically shifted the macroeconomic environment for the worse over the past five weeks. The world’s leading hedge fund managers are already acting to re-position their funds for a double-dip recession. Many have begun to aggressively de-risk their portfolios. Others are closely monitoring, preparing for growth to be far less than what people now expect.
The deflation dilemma
Since the Greece debacle, financial markets have been sending mixed signals. We see falling yields on US Treasury bills, suggesting investors seem to worry more about economic stagnation and deflation. But we also see soaring gold prices, pointing to prospects of runaway inflation.
This is confusing. A fair assessment suggests that as of today, deflation is the bigger danger in the big, rich nations, whereas inflation is of immediate worry in many emerging economies, and potentially a longer-term danger for the richer ones.
Worries about consumer price deflation are resurfacing in the rich nations after weeks of market turmoil driven by Europe’s fiscal crisis. The fears are most pronounced in Europe where policymakers are under strong pressure to reduce unsustainable public debt before any durable recovery can emerge.
A combination of spending cuts and tax increases is likely to weigh down growth and feed in to deflation. In United States, eurozone and Japan, deflation is uncomfortably close by, despite near-zero interest rates and other central bank actions. Year to April 2010 core consumer prices rose by 0.9% in the United States (the lowest in four decades), by 0.7% in the eurozone, but fell by 1.5% in Japan, which has been battling falling prices for more than a decade.
Money and credit growth are virtually stagnant or shrinking in all three places. Unemployment (especially among youths) is high and large gaps remain between actual output and their potential. Eurozone’s austerity programmes will further sap domestic demand. The short-term consumer price outlook clearly points downwards.
Deflation makes it harder for consumers, businesses and government to pay off debts. Principal debt repayments are fixed but deflation is marked by falling incomes.
So as deflation sets in, debt burden rises. Additionally, when prices fall, consumers put off purchasing in anticipation of still lower prices, driving the economy to a vicious cycle of weak spending and further sliding prices.
Indeed, deflation is harder to fight. With interest rates near zero, policymakers can’t use traditional rate cuts to spur growth and stop deflation. That’s an acute worry.
Japan’s ongoing fight against deflation suggests preventing prices from falling is less well understood; further budget belt-tightening suggests interest rates will remain low for some time. This causes problems for emerging nations in terms of unwelcome capital inflows, making it difficult for healthier economies to maintain financial stability. Many are already overheating, with rising consumer prices and asset bubbles.
The irony is governments were the solution to the recent great recession. Now they are the problem. The scale of sovereign debts has left rich-nation governments with less room to manoeuvre in any new downturn; so most of them are being forced into austerity. The real danger lies in these fears reinforcing each other in a pernicious reversal of the dynamics of 2008-09.
New conventional wisdom
After nearly two years of lockstep economic policy moves, the United States and Europe are going separate ways. Debt-wary Germany is pressing for austerity on public spending and tax hikes, while the United States preaches patience. This recent feud is best articulated by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman (supported by Nobel laureate Joseph Stigliz), calling it the “spread of a destructive idea”.
After less than a year of weak recovery from the worst slump since World War II, it is not timely for governments to switch from supporting the economy and helping the jobless, to start inflicting pain through fiscal austerity. Surely, not until the recovery is secure and self-sustainable. Lessons from the 1930s, when premature lifting of monetary and fiscal support led to a double-dip, must be applied. Germany’s old scar is hyperinflation.
What irked Krugman is the idea that nascent economies need even more suffering. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has picked up on this and suggested in its latest report that policymakers should stop promoting economic recovery and instead bring on raising interest rates, slashing spending, and hiking taxes.
Ironically, this flies in the face of what the global economy now really needs. OECD justifies its stand on two grounds: (i) the need to head off inflation (certainly, inflationary expectations); yet, inflation is low and declining, and OECD’s own forecasts indicated no hint of an inflationary threat; (ii) the need to cut spending to guard against the “possibility that longer term inflationary expectations could become unanchored…”; yet, fiscal austerity at a time of high unemployment must be a lousy idea, not only does it deepen the downturn, it does little to improve the budget outlook.
On top of it all, OECD predicts that high unemployment will persist for years. It just doesn’t make sense. Indeed, the battle has taken a higher profile. Next week, the Group of 20 Summit of world leaders (G-20) will meet in Toronto. Gone was an earlier pledge to maintain policy support until recovery is finally entrenched. In its place are statements stressing sustainable public finances and the need for some nations to accelerate the pace of consolidation.
One thing is clear: both the United States and Europe agree that current public debt levels are not sustainable. Their views differ on how and when to tackle them; quite obviously coloured by their memories of the 1930s – the US fear of pre-mature lifting of fiscal and monetary support (and a double-dip); and Europe, fearful of runaway inflation, emphasises fiscal restraint to restore confidence as a precondition for growth.
The rift goes beyond US-European politics – it’s also in academia, as evidenced by the divide between prominent economists four months ago in Britain: those who assert that budget cuts should be postponed until the economy is out of the liquidity trap, and those who insist on immediate cuts to achieve market credibility. Here, Krugman has a point: currently, there is no evidence that the United States and Britain have any problems of access to markets. Based on experience, premature fiscal tightening is as big a danger as delayed tightening can be. It is not clear Europe is strong enough to absorb all that austerity. To be sure, a weaker Europe means a weaker global economy.
New political risks
Markets have been sending mixed signals. Much of the recent volatility of markets – rapid fall of the euro, tightening of bank rate spreads, tumbling stock indices, sharp swings in commodity markets – reflect new political risks.
These include (i) market perception that governments are unwilling or unable to reform their economies – the Greek crisis saw governments paralysed, where inaction and delay made the problem worse; (ii) market worries how soaring debts and budget deficits in the United States, Japan and Europe are being handled – no evidence they are prepared for large tax increases or severe spending cuts, resulting in potential soaring inflation and debt defaults; (iii) market concern over uncoordinated bank regulation reform – right now, the United States, the EU and Basle are all moving in different directions, at different speeds, and on different time lines.
Other potential political risks – inability of governments to politically borrow more in the face of another shock crisis; fiscal austerity could plunge economies into deflation, further raising unemployment and reviving recession; fear of competitive devaluations and global tariff war; and heightened sensitivity to connectivity among national and international economies.
So, the world is nervous for good reason. At this time, fundamentals are reasonably good. Unfortunately, political decisions are often unreasonably bad. Right now, that’s what poses the highest risk to global sustainability.
● Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching and promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email: starbizweek@thestar.com.my.
ON this Father’s Day, I would like to share the pain of a father who is going through difficult times because of the “wounds” inflicted by his daughter who had gone against the very principles in life he stood for and hoped his children would follow.
He is a very old friend known for his cheerfulness and a positive outlook in life. I was shocked to see him depressed and very different from the person I used to know.
He said everything was all right until a few years ago when his only daughter disobeyed him and married a man who already had a wife and grown-up children.
He loved the daughter so much and had great hopes for her. His life seems to have come to a standstill and depression has made him a withdrawn and reclusive person who avoids even his close friends and relatives.
This friend is not alone. I realise many fathers today are facing similar problems. Delinquency, drug addiction, immoral activities and crime are some of the problems which have turned their once obedient and caring children into nightmares.
Life is no longer as simple as it used to be when a father’s word was the absolute truth that could not be challenged by the children. This had its pros and cons but by and large, it contributed to peace and unity in the family, as most fathers had the welfare of the family at heart in whatever they did.
Society today is much more complex with tremendous advancements in technology. Today, the role of the elder is becoming irrelevant.
We may be highly developed in technology but we must not fail to realise that the value of experience can only be obtained after years of handling the challenges in life.
We must not forget that wisdom, forbearance and tact acquired through years of experience are equally important in managing the many pressing issues today.
Our fathers may not be technology savvy but their experiences in life were invaluable. We must not ignore them as that would only lead to our downfall.
We should explain our stand, especially when we think they are wrong. As children, obedience to our father should be out of respect for the sacrifices that he has made for our well being.
What we are today is very much due to his dedicated love that no amount of money, technology or education can buy.
He may be outdated in this world of technology but he is still relevant as we need his blessings. We can make him happy by consulting him on the major decisions in our lives. We can make him happy by trying not to do what he hates.
We can make him happy by correcting our wrongs in life. In short, we can make him happy by trying to be the children we were to our dads when we were young. We should not underestimate the value of his blessings in our lives.
On this Father’s Day, let us try to heal the wounds we have caused through disobedience by mending our wrongful ways. Obedience to our fathers should not be seen as a sign of weakness but as a sign of respect and faith in them.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks in Dushanbe, June 9, 2010. Credit: Reuters/Nozim Kalandarov
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury on Wednesday imposed new sanctions on Iran to curb its nuclear program, blacklisting another of its state-controlled banks, companies that are fronts for its state shipping line, and more of its Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The actions are the first set of U.S. measures to implement new United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran approved last week. They prohibit U.S. transactions with the blacklisted entities and seek to freeze any assets they may have under U.S. jurisdiction.
The Treasury also took a separate step to squeeze Iran's energy sector by identifying some 20 petroleum and petrochemical companies as being under Iranian government control -- an action that puts them off limits to U.S. businesses under a general trade embargo.
A number of the firms are based outside of Iran and their ties to Tehran were far from obvious, Treasury officials said. They also identified two insurance companies that would fall under the trade embargo, including one based in Britain.
"Our actions today are designed to deter other governments and foreign financial institutions from dealing with these entities and thereby supporting Iran's illicit activities," U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a news briefing.
He added that the United States planned more actions to boost financial pressure on Iran in the coming weeks.
"We will continue to target Iran's support for terrorist organizations. We will continue to focus on Iran's Revolutionary Guard," he said. "And we will continue to expose Iran's efforts to evade international sanctions."
The Treasury said it added Post Bank of Iran to its list of specially designated proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, marking the 16th bank in Iran that it has sought to cut off from the international financial system.
Since Bank Sepah was sanctioned in 2007, Post Bank has stepped in to handle and disguise international transactions on its behalf, said Stuart Levey, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. Among these were a transfer worth millions of dollars to Hong Kong Electronics, a previously blacklisted firm involved in North Korea's weapons proliferation efforts, Levey said. Previously, Post Bank only operated domestically in Iran.
SHIPPING SHELL-GAME
The Treasury's action also aims to thwart Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) from skirting previous sanctions against it by renaming vessels and shifting them to new front companies. It blacklisted five such companies, identified 27 new vessels blocked under the sanctions, and updated entries for 71 others that were renamed, reregistered and flying new flags.
The new Treasury sanctions also take further aim at the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, blacklisting its air force and missile commands over their activities in the development of ballistic missiles. The United States had previously sanctioned Revolutionary Guard entities over their support for terrorist activities and Iran's nuclear and missile programs.
The Revolutionary Guard has taken over increasingly large parts of Iran's economy and "should not have any place in the world financial system," Levey said.
Iran denies Western allegations that it is seeking atomic weapons, insisting that it only wants peaceful nuclear energy.
The U.N. resolution called for measures against new Iranian banks abroad if a connection to the nuclear or missile programs is suspected, as well as vigilance over transactions with any Iranian bank, including its central bank. It also called on countries to blacklist entities linked to IRISL and the Revolutionary Guard, and urged a cargo inspection regime like the one in place for North Korea.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
The U.S. actions come as the European Union states this week are considering their own sanctions over and above the U.N. resolution, including actions against Iranian banks and insurance companies involved in trade finance. The EU package could be ready by mid-July.
The success of U.S. sanctions on Iranian entities will depend largely on whether foreign governments and businesses heed them. So far, many European banks have halted trade with firms on Treasury blacklists, and U.S. officials plan a major effort to persuade governments to support the U.S. sanctions and take similar steps.
U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman said he expects Congress to finish shortly legislation tightening U.S. sanctions on Iran that will include provisions affecting the supply of refined petroleum products to Tehran, and add to sanctions on its financial sector.
Lieberman, an independent, is a member of a House-Senate committee of negotiators working on final details of the bill and said it could pass by July 4.
"There definitely will be refined petroleum products provisions in there," he told reporters. "I think there also will be really powerful sanctions against the financial sector in Iran."
Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and billionaire investor Warren Buffett are launching a campaign to get other American billionaires to give at least half their wealth to charity.
Buffett, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said in a letter introducing the concept that he couldn't be happier with his decision in 2006 to give 99 per cent of his roughly $US46 billion ($A53.3 billion) fortune to charity.
Patty Stonesifer, former CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said on Wednesday that Gates and Buffett have been campaigning for the past year to get others to donate the bulk of their wealth.
The friends and philanthropic colleagues are asking people to pledge to donate either during their lifetime or at the time of their death. They estimate their efforts could generate $US600 billion ($A695.17 billion) dollars in charitable giving.
In 2009, American philanthropies received a total of about $US300 billion ($A347.58 billion) in donations, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
The handful of billionaires approached so far have embraced the campaign, said Stonesifer, a close friend of Gates who offered to speak about the effort.
Four wealthy couples have already announced their pledges, including Los Angeles philanthropists Eli and Edythe Broad, Gerry and Marguerite Lenfest of Philadelphia, John and Ann Doerr of Menlo Park, California, and John and Tasha Mortgridge of San Jose, California.
In addition to making a donation commitment, Gates and Buffett are asking billionaires to pledge to give wisely and learn from their peers.
They said they were inspired by the philanthropic efforts of not just other billionaires but of the people of all financial means and backgrounds who have given generously to make the world a better place.
Their philosophical forebears are the Carnegie and Rockefeller families, who donated most of their wealth back to improve society and were the grandparents of modern philanthropy, said Stacy Palmer, editor of The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Ted Turner's announcement 13 years ago of a $US1 billion ($A1.16 billion) gift to United Nations programs also was done in part to inspire other big givers, but did not have a noticeable result, Palmer said.
"It's a stretch to see how they're going to get to the $US600 billion ($A695.17 billion) figure," she said, noting that only 17 people on the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest people in America are also on the Chronicle's list of the most generous American donors.
Many of these people may be giving anonymously or plan to donate when they die, but the bulk of money raised by charities today comes from non-billionaires giving $US5, $US10 or $US50 at a time, Palmer said. Buffett's plan will eventually split most of his shares of his Omaha, Nebraska, company between five charitable foundations, with the largest chunk going to the Gates Foundation.
He also plans to give Class B Berkshire shares to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which he and his late first wife started, and to the three foundations run by his three children.
Buffett said in 2006 that his other 73,332 Class A shares of Berkshire stock, worth about $US8 billion ($A9.27 billion), would also go to philanthropy, but he didn't specify how those shares would be distributed. Bill and Melinda Gates have made a similar pledge through the establishment of their Seattle-based foundation.
Gates and Buffett are asking each individual or couple who make a pledge to do so publicly, with a letter explaining their decision.
"The pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract. It does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes or organisations," they explain in a written statement about the project.
GEORGE TOWN: Yet another person almost fell victim to the infamous Internet romance scam when a young “beautiful English woman” started courting and wooing him over the Internet.
But the love-struck businessman got a little suspicious and reported the matter to the Penang Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) when a “Customs officer” called him and asked for money.
The MACC swung into action and arrested the “English woman”, who happened to be a 24-year-old Malaysian.
The MACC team also arrested the woman’s husband, mother and a Nigerian man who is believed to be the mastermind.
The woman and her 25-year-old husband were arrested when they went to the state MACC office yesterday to have their statements recorded.
State MACC director Datuk Latifah Md Yatim told a press conference yesterday that the woman, who had earlier posted a picture of a beautiful English woman on the Internet, began chatting with the businessman last year.
“She claimed that she was in her 20s and the victim eventually fell in love with her,” she said.
Latifah said the businessman received a call in early March this year from a man identifying himself as a Customs officer, asking for the businessman to credit RM5,000 into his account.
“The money was to secure the release of his ‘English’ girlfriend who had been detained at the KL International Airport for bringing more than £50,000 (RM241,000) into Malaysia.”
The following day, the businessman received another call from the “officer” asking for an additional RM3,000 to be banked in as there were some problems in securing the release of the girlfriend.
“Suspecting something amiss, the businessman lodged a report with the MACC here,” she said.
China, with the most Internet users of any country in the world, has issued its first government whitepaper declaring an overall Internet strategy--one that advocates Internet growth while implicitly defending censorship policies amid global concern over online repression and China-based cyber espionage.
Tangled Web: Chinese Internet users, like these in a Shanghai café, must contend with broad censorship amid surging Internet growth. Credit: Justin Guariglia
"I think this whitepaper is a statement that the Chinese Communist Party intends to stay in power, and also intends to expand Internet access, and be on the cutting edge of Internet innovation, and that there isn't any contradiction in any of those things," says Rebecca MacKinnon, a China Internet expert who is a visiting fellow at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy.
While the document, which comes from Beijing's information ministry, contains no surprises, it is noteworthy as the first complete declaration of its kind from China. It is also clearly--if not explicitly--a response to recent events. Last year China announced it would require computers sold inside China to contain censorship software known as Green Dam, although it later suspended the requirement. And this year Google pulled its search operation out of mainland China, declaring it could no longer comply with censorship requirements after China-based attackers attempted to steal intellectual property and spy on e-mail accounts of human rights activists. Google has also asked the United States to petition the World Trade Organization to recognize Chinese censorship as an unfair trade barrier.
"The timing of course coincides with the public uproar about Google China and Green Dam software," says Guobin Yang, a China Internet expert and sociologist at Columbia University, and author of the book The Power of the Internet in China. "What is interesting here is that I see this as reflecting part of an effort to promote the government's point of view--a larger strategy of projecting 'soft power.' They want to put out their own position, a defense of their policies and strategies."
The whitepaper is partly an effort to promote the idea that states can assert sovereignty over and administer the Internet, Yang adds. "It's such big business, such a big part of the Chinese economy," he says. "More and more so, the government has an interest in maintaining growth of this economy, while at the same time it still wants to control the Internet."
China has nearly 400 million Internet users--nearly one-quarter of the world's total--plus 750 million mobile-phone users, many of whom access the Web from their phones. Despite censorship, Internet-based grassroots campaigns on Chinese social-networking sites have had some targeted successes, such as pressuring the Chinese government to jail corrupt local officials. Referring generally to this kind of activism, the Beijing whitepaper makes a bold assertion: "Chinese citizens fully enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet." Left unstated is that Chinese Internet companies are under government pressure to self-censor, and do so very effectively on a slate of banned topics, including advocacy of democracy, opposition movements, the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising, and Tibetan independence.
"This is not the first time the Chinese government has said 'we have free speech in this country, except for the speech that isn't allowed,' and then there's a long list of things that aren't allowed," MacKinnon adds.
"There is a much broader scope of public discourse happening on the Chinese Internet now than there was in the public sphere before the Internet existed in China," MacKinnon says. "The thing is, it's circumscribed."
China's statement advertises itself as "providing an overall picture to the Chinese people and the peoples of the rest of the world of the true situation of the Internet in China." It is a synthesis of long-understood positions: China "energetically advocates and actively supports the development and application of the Internet across the country" and sees it as crucial to economic expansion, but also reserves the right to "administer" the Internet.
"Frankly, I think China is Exhibit A for how authoritarianism will survive the Internet age," MacKinnon says. "I think Americans have this assumption that nondemocratic regimes can't survive the Internet, and I think that's naïve. The Chinese Communist Party fully intends to survive in the Internet age and has a strategy for doing so. So far, it's working."
