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

Share This

Wednesday, 18 May 2011

Strauss-Kahn's scandal, a chance for a fresh IMF rethink way of appointing a capable non-European?




Dominique Strauss-Kahn was the single currency's cuckoo in the IMF nest

It gives me no pleasure at all to jump up and down on Dominique Strauss-Kahn's grave. Nor should we yet presume him entirely dead.

It gives me no pleasure at all to jump up and down on Dominique Strauss-Kahn's grave. Nor should we yet presume him entirely dead.
As it happens, Mr Strauss-Kahn took a somewhat unorthodox route to the top, with spells at both Harvard and Stanford. Photo: AFP,

The man must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and in any event, there is still some chance that the whole sordid affair turns out to have been a political set-up, in which case he might even emerge from this bizarre scandal with credit and sympathy.

Strauss-Kahn's lawyer has said he will plead not guilty at any trial, which could be as long as six months away [Reuters]
Yet it is about time Europe's ownership of the International Monetary Fund, and particularly France's apparently divine right to the top job, was brought to a close. If Mr Strauss-Kahn's nemesis in a New York hotel room loosens Europe's grip, then that may be no bad thing.

Whatever the truth of otherwise of the allegations, Mr Strauss-Kahn's spectacular fall from grace is widely seen as a near catastrophe both for the IMF and the delicate negotiations around further rescue packages for the stricken eurozone periphery. This it is definitively not. To the contrary, it might even bring about a rethink of the currently doomed strategy of throwing good money after bad.

By convention, the position of IMF managing director has always gone to a European. What's more, no fewer than four out of the 10 managing directors since the war have been French.

There's nothing wrong with that as such. France's Grande Ecoles have a long tradition of churning out impressively multi-lingual and well connected international policy makers of this sort. Few are better trained or suited to straddling the often conflicting demands of American, European and Asian governments.

As it happens, Mr Strauss-Kahn took a somewhat unorthodox route to the top, with spells at both Harvard and Stanford. But that in a sense made him even more appropriate for the role. A man of formidable intellect and political skill, he's managed to bring an unprecedented degree of international vision and authority to the job.

The financial crisis gave him his stage, and he took it. Under his watch, the IMF has been transformed from frequently mocked irrelevance to international crisis manager par excellence, with a trillion dollar balance sheet and a powerful voice in almost every aspect of the international debate.

Yet he has in a sense been almost too successful, and though it seems unlikely his demise will have any immediate effect on the European bailouts, it's plain enough that the whole process is in desperate need of fresh thinking. Mr Strauss-Kahn's departure provides that opportunity.

Not that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor sees it that way. There is no vacancy yet, she rightly pointed out on Monday, but she also made clear that Europe won't be giving up its prerogative when there is one.

Now of course, Mr Strauss-Kahn was shortly expected to leave the IMF anyway to fight for the French presidency, which very probably he would have won. But the hot favourite to step effortlessly into his shoes was the current French finance minister Christine Lagarde. She would have continued in much the same vein.

She too would have bent the IMF to the apparently sole purpose of holding the European project together. I don't want to say that the European bailouts, which Mr Strauss-Kahn has so generously supported with IMF money and expertise (that's partly our money, by the way), were definitively the wrong approach. They may at least have bought Europe a little time. But they certainly don't seem to be succeeding as hoped. Bailing out Greece and Ireland failed to stop the contagion spreading to Portugal, while Greece has now returned, cap in hand, for even more.

There is, moreover, a quite obvious reason for this failure. An IMF rescue is normally conditional on devaluation to restore competitiveness, and or a sovereign restructuring to put debt back on a sustainable footing. The single currency prevents devaluation, while the shock to the European banking system of a restructuring is judged too big a risk to contemplate.

Far from solving the crisis, the bailouts have therefore virtually guaranteed a rolling series of periphery nation crises into the indefinite future. The German Chancellor believes this makes it vital that Europe maintains its grip on the top IMF job. If not Christine Lagarde, then maybe Axel Weber, the former Bundesbank chief.

Mmmm. In fact, Mr Straus-Kahn's ignominious end should be seen as a way of breaking with precedent and appointing a non-European capable of seeing things in a less partial light. The trouble with Christine Lagarde is the same as Mr Strauss-Kahn – she's part of the single currency establishment and she's determined that for now there will be neither debt restructuring nor exits.

The reasons for this intransigence are both understandable and well rehearsed. The European Central Bank holds a very considerable proportion of Greece's national debt as collateral against funding. Direct asset purchases have further increased the ECB's exposure.

If Greece were either to restructure, or leave the euro, these holdings would be correspondingly devalued and the ECB would be bust. The same goes for a number of European banks with large holdings of Greek sovereign debt, and indeed the Greek banking system as a whole and some of the country's main pension funds.

They've not been able to sell the debt for fear of crystalising the losses, which would destroy their capital, and thereby causing a Lehman style crisis of confidence in financial markets. So the policy has been to keep the distressed sovereigns afloat for long enough to allow these positions to be worked off in an orderly way.

Unfortunately for the policy makers, political support for further rescue packages is fast ebbing away. The process has therefore become as much a race against time – to buttress the system with fresh loans before angry voters call a halt – as playing for time.

Economic success in the eurozone core, with German economic output back above pre-crisis levels and France not far behind, has helped defuse political opposition to some degree, but it has brought with it a further headache – pressure from the Germans for rising interest rates. What's good for the core is very bad indeed for the depression engulfed periphery.

Only the Portugese bailout was formerly rubber stamped yesterday. Greece has to wait its turn. The price is going to be harsh - not just further fiscal austerity, but very likely some form of burden sharing too. This is most likely to take the form of maturity extension.

In the absence of such action, holders of the debt would be able to realise their capital without loss on maturity, leaving the costs of eventual restructuring to fall heavily on the IMF and the European Financial Stability Mechanism. It's all getting too intractable for words. There appears to be no workable solution that holds the whole thing together.

As the German Chancellor has said, the European view is that the IMF needs a European at the helm to look after Europe's interests and help the euro navigate its way through the storm. Mr Strauss-Kahn filled that role. He was a sort of cuckoo in the nest, crowding out all other concerns for the IMF.

Whatever Mr Strauss-Kahn's innocence or otherwise, it's now impossible for him credibly to carry on. Even if cleared, there's a history there which he'll find impossible to counter. A power vacuum has opened up, which may for the first time allow for the appointment of a non European, perhaps even someone from the developing world. It's unlikely they'll look as kindly on the begging bowl from already rich and privileged economies as Mr Strauss Kahn did.

Perhaps it's time for David Cameron to swallow his pride and support Gordon Brown's candidature. As a non member of the euro, the UK would make an interesting compromise choice. Only kidding.

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

Skype's guerilla roots calling service




By PETER SVENSSON , AP Technology Writer

Skype has guerilla roots, still has room to grow in phones and TV videoconferencing

The guerilla roots of the Skype calling service (AP)

A Microsoft and Skype sign are displayed at a news conference in San Francisco Tuesday, May 10, 2011, announcing Microsoft's acquisition of Skype. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

In buying Skype, Microsoft is getting one of the rare companies that has turned its name into a verb, like Xerox or Google. "Let's Skype" is a phrase understandable, with slight translation, in much of the world.
 
NEW YORK: Skype is one of the rare companies that has turned its name into a verb, like Xerox or Google. "Let's Skype" is a phrase understandable, with slight translation, in much of the world.

For most people, it means sitting in front of your computer to talk, often for free. Four out of 10 times, there are cameras involved too, turning the session into a video chat.

The service has become popular for long, rambling chats with distant friends and relatives. Children too young to talk on the phone can still be entranced by the image of Grandma on the computer screen.

"Skype really is that inner circle, that inner set of social experiences," CEO Tony Bates said.
Skype bypasses the traditional phone system by routing calls and video over the Internet, just like e-mail and webpages.

The calls vault effortlessly over national borders, ignoring the fences that phone companies put up in the form of international calling charges. Usernames take the place of phone numbers.

Calling from computer to computer is free. Skype charges for calls to phone numbers on the traditional phone network.

It also charges for getting a phone number associated with your Skype username, so people can call you from regular phones.

Skype wasn't the first to offer phone calls over the Internet when it launched in 2003, but the way it did it was unique and rebellious.

It relied on a technology that had already disrupted the music industry - peer-to-peer file sharing, in which computers connect to share things directly, without an intermediary vulnerable to legal action.

The founders, Niklas Zennstrom, a Swede, and Janus Friis, a Dane, had run a peer-to-peer filesharing network called Kazaa.


They sold it to an Australian company in 2002 after coming under intense legal pressure from the entertainment industry, which accused Kazaa of facilitating the theft of millions of copyright-protected songs and videos.

The Australian company ended up fighting long battles in court, while Zennstrom and Friis walked away.
The pair turned their efforts instead toward applying the peer-to-peer principle to communications.

Peer to peer

This was the genius of Skype: Thanks to peer-to-peer technology, it could get started with very little investment.

The heavy lifting of running the network - figuring out how to find users and connecting their calls - was mostly done by the users' computers.

With very low costs, Zennstrom and Friis could afford to give the software away, feeding its popularity.
As Skype grew, eBay Inc came calling. In 2005, it bought the company for US$2.6bil (RM7.8bil at today's exchange rate), with a plan to integrate it into its auction site.

The synergies never materialised. Skype languished under eBay, with a rapid succession of CEOs.
Despite low operating costs, revenue was small; just a few percent of active users paid any money to Skype. Those who did were mostly Europeans, as they made a lot more international calls. In the United States, state-to-state calls are already cheap.

In 2007, eBay had to write down much of Skype's value. Two years later, eBay sold two-thirds of Skype to an investor group that included Zennstrom and Friis for roughly US$2bil (RM6bil today).

Microsoft is buying the company for US$8.5bil (RM25.5bil) - three times what eBay had valued it at. The software company sees in Skype a way to support its own products.

Skype still has room to grow on phones, including those running Microsoft's Windows software.
Skype has been slow in getting onto cellphones, which have seen explosive growth since Skype was founded. Cellphone companies feared that allowing Skype on phones would hurt revenue by letting callers save their minutes.

Sea change

The phone companies came around slowly after US regulators started to take an interest in Skype's complaints.

AT&T said in late 2009 that it would allow Skype calls over its wireless network. Since then, the other major carriers have joined, figuring that Skype calls are a way to sell data plans.

Another area Skype has a foothold but no dominance is the living room. TVs are increasingly connected to the Internet. Panasonic and Samsung TVs come with the capability to do Skype video chats, but no built-in cameras.

"It's an area where we'd like it just to be easier," Bates said. Today, Skype's technology doesn't give it much of an advantage over competing services. Video-chatting software isn't hard to create.

What Skype does have is a big user base - the roughly 170 million people who have the software installed, know how to use it and tell each other "to Skype."

Competitors have to replicate that user base somehow because communications software is only as good as the number of people you can contact with it.

Google Inc is trying. Its Gmail service has more than 190 million users and serves as a springboard for voice and video chats. It can even be used to place calls to phone lines, just like Skype.

Other competitors are piggybacking on the popularity of Facebook, which has more than 500 million active users. T-Mobile USA, the No 4 cellphone company in the United States, launched software that lets Facebook friends call one another.

Facebook could adopt Skype itself, or launch its own calling service. In 10 years, people might still say "Skype me," but the actual call might use some other software entirely. - AP

Why the 1Malaysia agenda is important?




CERITALAH by KARIM RASLAN

In the country’s current political climate, the hardliners seem to be gaining ground as the moderate voices are drowned out. Despite the gloom, one positive factor stands out – the overall good sense and moderation of Malaysians. 

ON MAY 7, Utusan Malaysia carried yet another explosive front-page article reporting on a meeting of church leaders in Penang with the headline “Kristian Agama Rasmi?” (Is Christianity the Official Religion?).

The article and the polemic that followed marks a new low in Malaysian public life as we struggle to cope with competing visions of how our nation should be constituted, ordered and run.

There are five main points that I would like to make about the incident and what it says about Malay­sia’s current political situation.

Firstly – and this is self-evident – the Malay hardliners are gaining ground as moderate voices are drowned out.

Whilst many of us are sceptical about Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s 1Malaysia agenda, events like this underline its importance to the nation as a whole.

Still, there is a mounting consensus within Umno, especially after the Sarawak state polls, that non-Malay votes, especially the Chinese, will not return to Barisan Nasional.



As such, an alternative strategy is being proposed, namely that Umno should focus exclusively on the Malay heartlands.

Amidst such thinking, ideas such as nation-building across racial and religious lines are becoming increasingly passé and irrelevant.

Of course, this approach is fundamentally flawed. More importantly, the Malay community is itself deeply divided.

A rock-solid block of Malay voters – an estimated 30% – are committed PAS supporters. They will never vote for Umno.

In the past, this reality forced Umno to occupy the middle ground, canvassing for non-Malay votes in order to control the Dewan Rakyat.

Ironically, the political terrain has been upended so much so that PAS seems to have assumed Umno’s more conciliatory and inclusivist stance.

Secondly, the growing might and confidence of the hardliners also means that Barisan’s ethos of give-and-take is slowly but steadily falling apart. This is very dangerous, especially since such “winner-takes-all” views are already feeding into the civil service.

The steady decline in understanding and mutual cooperation across racial and religious lines will in­evitably eat away at Barisan’s once un­shakeable hold of Sabah and Sarawak’s non-Muslim bumiputra communities, most of whom are staunch Christians.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that once the culture of shared aspirations and tolerance is lost it will be hard for Barisan to retain the support of other minorities.

Exclusivism, once adopted, has a pernicious impact on intra-commu­­­nity relations.

As such, it remains to be seen whether the Indian community will truly remain in Barisan’s embrace right up to election day.

The third point concerns PAS’ future intentions. Many in Umno now view PAS as their logical electoral partner.

They see this alliance as one that would unite the Malays, whilst ousting the difficult and overly demanding non-Malay communities.

However, this view ignores decades of mutual antipathy and loathing between the two majority Malay parties.

I cannot envisage a scenario in which Tok Guru Nik Aziz (Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat) could ever work with Umno. Moreover, I’m not sure Tok Guru Hadi Awang (Datuk Seri Hadi Awang) would settle for the post of Deputy Prime Minister.

In short, PAS smells power and is playing to win.

Fourthly, as these political alignments continue to shift and public rhetoric becomes ever shriller, you can guarantee that many Malaysians will vote with their feet.

The uncertainty and the ugliness of the debate gnaws away at business confidence. Malaysia’s brain drain, as reported by the World Bank, and capital flight will only accelerate.

Unfortunately, the more open and free-wheeling environment has revealed the inadequacy of Umno’s cadres in explaining and winning over middle Malaysia.

Having grown up with a compliant mainstream media, they are unable to debate issues of substance with the opposition head-to-head.

Finally, before the gloom becomes too oppressive, I have to stress one positive factor, namely the overall good sense and moderation of the Malaysian people – you, out there.

Thankfully, most of you have switched off from politics. I guess you are too busy trying to manage the impact of spiralling commodity and oil prices to care.

Whatever the case, I salute you – you have prevented our nation from falling apart.