Mediaboss Marketing

Hong Kong police were expanding their search on Saturday for a van and taxi driver linked to a claim by a local democracy activist that mainland Chinese agents kidnapped, drugged and tortured him before dumping him on a beach.

Democratic Party member Howard Lam Tsz-kin underwent surgery on Friday night to remove 21 staples from his legs he says were punched into him by his abductors. He was discharged from Queen Mary Hospital in Pok Fu Lam shortly before noon on Saturday, and declined an offer of police protection.

I do not have much hope in the police as they are just the state apparatus. How much can they do on a political issue? Lam said at the hospital.

I am exhausted. I just want the matter to end soon.

A police source close to the investigation into the case said officers would look at more closed-circuit television footage from Yau Ma Tei, the busy downtown district from where Lam says he was abducted after buying a soccer jersey. An initial sweep of footage on Friday did not show anything suspicious or capture where Lam went after he left the sports shop.

Lam claimed that two Putonghua-speaking men pushed him into a light goods vehicle. We are trying to get more footage from shops in the district to find if any suspicious vans were parked in the area, the source said. We will run an examination for toxins on Lam as there could be chemicals left in his blood if he was drugged.

At a press conference on Friday, Lam claimed was pushed into a van, tortured and later dumped on a beach in Sai Kung in eastern Hong Kong by mainland Chinese agents. He then took a taxi home early on Friday morning without reporting the case to police or going to hospital for treatment.

Later on Friday morning he showed the media about 20 staples still in his legs, before going to Queen Mary Hospital.

Lam said he believed the reason for the kidnapping was that he had received a signed postcard from Barcelona football star Lionel Messi last month addressed to late Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, and he intended to pass it on to Liu Xia, his widow.

A police force insider said officers had been looking for the taxi driver who drove Lam home on Friday morning.

The driver could confirm if Lam took the ride, where the driver picked him up, and what Lam did and said in the cab during the ride, the source said.

Officers had made trips to beaches in Sai Kung to look for evidence but nothing related had been found. We will also collect CCTV footage from the hotel nearby, the source added.

Speaking to the media at the hospital on Saturday, Lam said the surgery, which lasted half an hour, was done with no anaesthetic. He said he was tired and in pain, but would continue with plans to study in the United States later this month.

View post:
Hong Kong police hunt for taxi driver who drove home democracy activist after alleged kidnapping by China agents - South China Morning Post

Wherever regeneration of social housing has been outsourced to private developers, responsiveness, transparency, oversight and scrutiny are lessened for those most directly affected. Grenfell Tower. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images

Residents at Grenfell Tower describe how, as the local council outsourced contracts to private companies to work on their estate, essential elements of local democracy became unavailable to them. Their voices werent heard, information they requested wasnt granted, outcomes they were promised did not transpire, complaints they made were not answered. The outcome at Grenfell was unique in its scale but the background is a common enough story. Wherever regeneration of social housing has been outsourced to private developers, responsiveness, transparency, oversight and scrutiny key elements of healthy democracy are lessened for those most directly affected.

Outsourcing of public services began in the 1980s, a central feature of the drive to roll back what neoliberalism casts as a bureaucratic, inefficient state. Its proponents claimed the involvement of private providers would increase cost-savings and efficiency, and improve responsiveness to the consumers of public services. Thirty years later, the value of these contracts is enormous more than 120bn worth of government business was awarded to private companies between 2011 and 2016, and their number is increasing rapidly. At least 30% of all public outsourcing contracts are with local authorities.

Unlike government, private companies have no duty to provide for any public interest; the laws of the market mean their primary motive must be to maximise returns for shareholders. Questions have been raised about whether corruption or misuse of public office for private gain contributed to the Grenfell disaster; but the nature of outsourcing public services means that even the most well-meaning politicians can enter into contracts that result in severe detriment to the public, in both financial and human terms, without any crime having been committed.

The relationship between local councils and companies bidding for contracts is usually highly unequal. Local government funding cuts have caused a reduction in resources dedicated to providing scrutiny and oversight. The Audit Commission, previously responsible for scrutinising local authority contracts, has been abolished. The private companies involved, often huge multinationals, have significant advantage over local authorities in terms of technical knowledge and negotiating experience.

If its hard for councillors to evaluate and oversee these contracts it is nigh on impossible for the people using and experiencing services to apply scrutiny to the contracts governing their delivery. Commercial confidentiality is frequently cited as a reason for not disclosing the information necessary to assess contract content and services, when delivered by the private sector, are not subject to the rules on freedom of information that apply to local government.

Attempting to use opportunities promised in legislation when the Audit Commission was abolished, residents in Lambeth, London, recently undertook a peoples audit of the councils accounts. The resident audit group included highly experienced finance professionals, who spent hundreds of hours chasing information requests and working their way through poor quality data. The published report claims to have identified numerous instances of inadequate governance of contracts, including questionable valuations of council property and land, systematic overcharging and billing for work that wasnt carried out. The report calculates financial losses that run into millions.

Politicians can enter into contracts that result in detriment to the public without any crime having been committed

In the London borough of Haringey, council leaders are planning the highest value local government-private sector contract in history. It was never presented in any manifesto on which voters could express their opinions or make their voices heard. The deal involves placing 2bn worth of council homes, property and land into a new development vehicle that will demolish and rebuild vast swaths of the area. This new entity will be 50% owned by private company Lendlease, a multinational property company with a turnover of billions of dollars.

Lendlease has form when it comes to contracts with the public sector. Its redevelopment of the Heygate estate in Southwark initially promised 500 social homes, that number reduced to just 82 in the final plan only 20 have so far been built. It has made millions of pounds from its contracts with Southwark council.

Five years ago the company admitted fraud in government contracts in the US. Three years ago an Australian local government deal resulted in the authority being hundreds of millions of dollars out of pocket. In 2016, the company was named in an investigation into noncompliance with building regulations in Melbourne, Victoria, for using highly flammable cladding on a public hospital construction project, although subsequently Lendlease has offered to replace the cladding in the spring at no charge to the taxpayer, and says test panels were successfully installed in May.

In Haringey, local campaigners have found it almost impossible to examine the content of the Lendlease contract. Senior councillors have ignored the overview and scrutiny committees advice against the deal, and campaigners now plan to challenge it via judicial review. Although the councillors responsible for agreeing the deal may no longer be in power come next Mays local elections, its consequences will outlive many political careers. Any future council wanting to reverse the deal will be breaking the terms of the contract, and that is likely to incur financial penalties which will impact heavily on all the boroughs residents. So where is the accountability?

Less than 90 years after the right to vote was extended to all men and women in the UK regardless of wealth, the practice of outsourcing government services to private companies is rendering democracy ineffective, particularly for those most affected. While we could attempt again to insert more transparency and accountability into these opaque agreements, it may just be simpler, and more cost-effective, to return responsibility for government provision where it belongs back in-house with the people elected to represent us.

Pilgrim Tucker is a housing campaigner who supported the Grenfell Tower residents campaign, Grenfell Action Group

See the original post:
Outsourcing is killing local democracy in Britain. Here's how we can stop that - The Guardian

Mr. Kara maintained that Israels actions were compatible with democracy, given this alleged incitement. But neither he nor anyone else from the government offered any specific evidence of incitement on Al Jazeera. The internationally recognized Johannesburg Principles set a high threshold for incitement: Direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence must be shown. These principles were adopted by international law experts in 1995 and endorsed by Abid Hussain, who was at the time the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression.

Mhamed Krichen, a senior news anchor at Al Jazeera and a board member of the Committee to Protect Journalists, rejected the charge. Israel always accused us of incitement, Mr. Krichen told me. I remember Shimon Peres, Israels former president and prime minister, did it in a live interview on my show a few years ago, but only now its politically convenient for Israel to act on it. (Paradoxically, by shutting down Al Jazeera, the Israeli government would be silencing one of the few Arab media outlets that regularly invite Israeli officials on air.)

By politically convenient, Mr. Krichen was alluding to Israels increasingly close relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as to Mr. Netanyahus loss in the standoff over the Aqsa Mosque. Al Jazeera, Mr. Krichen said, showed live coverage of the protests and posted images of an Israeli officer kicking a man while he was praying.

The steps against Al Jazeera come amid an escalating Israeli crackdown on journalists more broadly. Israeli authorities recently raided the West Bank offices of the pro-Hamas channel Al Quds TV, the pro-Hezbollah channel Al Manar and the Russian government-funded broadcaster RT under suspicion of incitement. At the time of the Committee to Protect Journalists most recent annual census of imprisoned journalists, in December, Israel was holding seven in jail, four of them on incitement accusations.

Israel bills itself as a democracy while in the same breath defending its decision on Al Jazeera by noting the example set by Saudi Arabias absolute monarchy and Egypts military dictatorship. It is true that the government in Jerusalem will need to jump through more hoops than did the Arab states to shut Al Jazeera down. But if Mr. Netanyahus government succeeds, it will set a dangerous precedent within Israel.

Sherif Mansour (@sherifmnsour) is the Middle East and North Africa program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 11, 2017, in The International New York Times.

Visit link:
'The Mideast's Only Democracy' Goes to War on Press Freedom - New York Times

Thailand faces the risk of discord between appointed senators and elected representativesafter its expected return to democracy next year, according to former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Critics say the countrys 20th constitution will lead toan upper chamber that gives appointed soldiers, judges and bureaucrats the power to stifle politicians voted into the House of Representatives. Abhisit said if a coalition or single party manages to achieve a lower-house majority, senators could in theory try to block its candidate for prime minister.

Photographer: Amanda Mustard/Bloomberg

"There could well be a tug-of-war after the election,"the 53-year-old leader of the Democrat Party said in an interview on Aug. 8 in Bangkok. "I dont subscribe to the view that the way its written means that the senators can call the shots. Its not as easy as some people think."

General Prayuth Chan-Ocha seized power in Thailand over three years ago after a period of political unrest, pledging to restore stability. A date for elections has yet to be announced, but Abhisit said he expected curbs on political parties to ease before the end of 2017 and polls in the second half of next year, if Prayuths military government sticks to its road map.

"If there is chaos, if there is instability, we could be in a different game," he said. "I see no other reasons to deviate from the road map."

If no single party or alliance of parties emerges with a lower-house majority, then "obviously the senators can have their say," Abhisit said.

Government spokesman Werachon Sukondhapatipak couldnt immediately be reached for comment.

Thailands current stretch of military rule is one of the longest since the 1970s, in a country with a history of coups since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932. Protests have flared over the past decade along class and regional lines.

Allies of exiled former leader Thaksin Shinawatra, who introduced cheap health care and bolstered price support for farmers, have won the past five elections, only to be ousted by either the courts or military.

Abhisits party hasnt won a majority in a nationwide vote since 1992. He was picked by legislators in December 2008 after a court dissolved the pro-Thaksin ruling party for election fraud. The decision coincided with the seizure of Bangkoks airports by protesters wearing yellow shirts who oppose Thaksin.

Prayuths military administration has championed ambitious infrastructure programs, the development of advanced industries and greater adoption of technology to help kick-start investment and bolster Thai economic growth.

A substantial current-account surplus and foreign buying of Thai bonds have made the baht Asias best-performing currency this year. The Bank of Thailand predicts 3.5 percent economic growth in 2017, which would be the fastest in five years but still lag behind neighbors in emerging Southeast Asia.

"We hear up and down the country people complaining about the economy," Abhisit said. "They feel that elections, when they happen, will be a real opportunity for the economy to pick up."

Thailands latest charter, promulgated in April, also provides for a two-decade national strategy. The military government is crafting it and says the plan will guide future administrations.

Photographer: Amanda Mustard/Bloomberg

Abhisit,who led Thailand from 2008 to 2011, said that could be another potential flash-point, since an elected government will seek to implement its promises and pledges.

"If the national strategy needs to be amended, it has to be amended," he said.

Recent experiences such as Brexit and the rise of President Donald Trump underline the unpredictability of the electoral process, he added.

"There is going to be a fair bit of tension," Abhisit said. "My advocacy for the senators to respect the will of the people is based on the rationale that that is the only way to ensure that there will not be fundamental conflicts."

Continue reading here:
Thailand's Return to Democracy May Raise Tension - Bloomberg - Bloomberg

For Navalny! Lets change Russia, starting with Moscow! reads this sticker. Pro-Navalny rally in Moscow, during the opposition leaders campaign for Moscow Mayor in 2013. Photo CC BY-NC 2.0: Vladmir Varfolomeev / Flickr. Some rights reserved.Liberal eschatologists have long been convinced the end times belong to them. Its hard to romanticise those who fight for the status quo after all, history is moving forward. What could possibly be positive about putting the brakes on progress?

Whatever their politics, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and anyone else worth a Hollywood biopic have been firmly ensconced in an idealised discourse. When figures rise up to reinforce the messianic narrative of hope and transformation, a certain class is primed to raise that strangers banner, however distant the land (or cause) is from their own. Cue Alexey Navalny, the Russian anti-corruption campaigner and presidential hopeful hoping to take on Vladimir Putin for the throne. Just mentioning Navalnys name sets off accusations and recriminations. Woe to the naive westerner looking to pour their own ideas into Navalnys distinctively conservative casting, the critics say.

The critics may have a point. For the screenwriter already writing the first draft of Navalnys triumph over tyranny, one key point is in order: a democratically restored Russia without Vladimir Putin (or Navalny, for that matter) will likely remain a conservative country. Take the work of Jonathan Haidt, who outlined the social-psychological roots of mans moral intuitions in The Righteous Mind.

Maybe, in the post-truth era, the progressives enemy is not on the other side of the political divide, but the institutional oneWhile not a complete determinist, Haidt argues that our political leanings stem from our genetics, shaped in a millennia-long waltz with group adaptation. He believes that human beings are equipped to exist in dominance hierarchies, though not in the alpha male might makes right model. We are social creatures who cooperate to survive. Rights forgone for the sake of the hierarchy also imply responsibilities for those who rise to the top, lest they be overthrown from within, or are crushed by more cohesive groups from without.

According to Haidt, human civilization is based on six moral foundations: Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Sanctity and Authority. Adherence to this moral matrix can explain our spectacular rise to planetary dominance. It might also illuminate the creeping shadow of revanchist conservatism worldwide.

Why? Because it appears that liberals, especially those in the west, have forsaken loyalty, sanctity and authority in their political messaging. For those with high levels of threat sensitivity but little predisposition to novelty, diversity and variety, progressives appear to be razing the very foundations that make broad social cohesion possible.

Haidts theories, of course, arent some perfect perfect tool for decrypting human cognition, but a mlange of social scientific theory, western philosophy and evolutionary psychology. Critics call him a conservative masquerading as a liberal, cagily trying to turn social norms into empirical truth.

With those caveats in mind, Russia might prove the perfect place to put Haidts theories to the test. A power-obsessed nation where the state narrative sacralises the military fetes of its forefathers, idolises the iron fist and mythologises itself as the Third Rome certainly demonstrates the role of loyalty, authority and sanctity in politics.

Any new leader will have to reclaim the Great Patriotic War and the arch of Russian history, girded by the Orthodox Church, conceived on the Crimean peninsula, as their ownPerhaps one need look no further than the punk rock group Pussy Riot, who called themselves the children of Dionysus, sailing in a barrel and not recognising any authority, to bring that point home. Pussy Riots punk rock prayer, staged in Russias main Orthodox cathedral in 2012, gambled on stomping on sanctity, loyalty and authority for the sake of care, liberty and fairness. According to the Levada Center, It managed to attract the sympathy of six percent of Russians one year after the women were locked up in a quasi-ecclesiastical show trial. The Russian authorities, for all of their love of graft and general incompetence, cannot be accused of not knowing their own people.

That isnt to say that Russian citizens are mere supplicants at the altar of power. Appeals to care and fairness also have weight, as seen through the underreported truckers protests in Russia or growing unrest over the enormous demolition and resettlement scheme slated for Moscow. But for anyone seeking democratic reform, whereby care, liberty and fairness are respected (if not through equal rights for minorities, then at least through less corruption and the rule of law), one thing is abundantly clear: other moral foundations will have to play a critical role in propping up ones political platform.

Any new leader will have to reclaim the Great Patriotic War and the arch of Russian history, girded by the Orthodox Church, conceived on the Crimean peninsula, as their own. They cannot merely seek to turn Russia into another European-style democracy. Rather, they will have to make Russia great again, projecting authority, engendering loyalty and safeguarding the sacred.

Teachers at a May Day demonstration in St Petersburg. Photo (c) Teacher Inter-regional trade union of education workers. All rights reserved.Only then can the authorities properly be targeted for neglecting fairness through the systematic elimination of democratic institutions and civil society; for letting the countrys healthcare, social services and infrastructure be degraded for the sake of their laundered money and European villas.

This brings us back to Alexey Navalny, who, it seems, has his finger on the pulse of the nation, setting off alarms among his peers along the way.

Prominent journalist Oleg Kashin has warned on the pages of the New York Times that Navalny, with an authoritarian leadership style and past participation in nationalist causes, may actually be another iteration of Putin rather than his foil. Leftist Ilya Budraitskis has argued that Navalnys vertically organised protest movement is like a political machine coldly indifferent to input from the little guy. Alexey Sakhnin and Per Leander went as far as to brand Navalny the Russian version of Donald Trump. Bloombergs Leonid Bershidsky has likewise referred to his political platform as Trump-like.

So what does Navalny actually believe? A bizarre recent debate with Igor Girkin a key figure in Russias aggression against Ukraine and a dyed in the wool monarchist left that question mostly unanswered. Navalny skirted the hard questions during the debate, all the while attempting to recast Russian nationalism as less of a 19th century imperial redux syndrome and more of a corruption is undermining our ability to be great crusade. Who cares if we have Donetsk if hospitals are crumbling in Saratov, Navalny asks. This, however, does little to clarify whether Navany believes Donetsk should remain under Russian-backed rule if the price is right.

Alexey Navalny and Igor Girkin hold a debate online. Source: Youtube. Navalny seems content to leave the big questions within the purview of European technocrats and not moral necessity, hoping, vaguely, that the Minsk Agreement will sort the Ukraine situation out. He is equally vague on Crimea. The Syrian intervention is portrayed by Navalny as a waste of financial, and not moral capital. Navalny, in short, takes a utilitarian approach that is right in Haidts wheelhouse.

To be fair, Navalny is clearly stuck between scylla and charybdis. What is demanded of Navalny from his nebulous western supporters is likely antithetical to what would put him in power back home, if he is actually allowed to run.

Maybe the true slant of Navalnys political leanings are not the most important matter at hand anyways. Maybe, in the post-truth era, the progressives enemy is not on the other side of the political divide, but the institutional one. It may be less important if Navalny believes in gay adoption and more important if hed respect a courts ruling to that effect; whether such a court would be allowed to exist in the first place under his government.

Haidt, after all, argues that good people are divided by politics, not their belief in institutions. And it appears that robust institutions, in Russia and elsewhere, are the key to a brighter future. A successful Navalny presidency would reassert the independence of the judicial and legislative branches, reduce wealth inequality, fix crumbling infrastructure in the regions, invest in education and pensions, significantly reduce graft, relinquish state control of the fourth estate, respect Russias neighbors within a 21st (rather than 19th) century framework, significantly develop the role of civil society, focus on leading through soft power and seek to bolster the sclerotic post-war global order rather than disrupt it.

Political voices relegated to the wilderness would be allowed back in from the cold, onto the airwaves, and relatively free from state-sponsored harassment. More importantly, the exact date on which he would step down would be known and constitutionally determined.

But Navalnys rule could also result in the type of curb on immigration that Trump could only dream of, with issues related to LBGTQ rights being left to die on a regional level. The gay propaganda law might go, but will there be gay marriage? Dont count on it yet. A secular state will be enshrined, but the Orthodox Church, cleaved from the states grip but cosseted by officials all the same, might end up taking a larger role in society than ever before, granted people actually start believing in society again.

In reality, however, Putin is likely primed to lay the foundations for his third decade in power next year. Navalny will likely become a footnote in history a Decembrist rather than a Bolshevik to inform the next generation of rebels to come.

But the issue of Russias future, political and otherwise, goes far beyond Navalny. Activists looking to prioritise gender equality, minority rights and protection of the most vulnerable members of society in Russia today will probably not succeed tomorrow. For those issues to have their day in court, an institutionally sound Russia will first have to be built on foundations not reflecting what Russia should be, but rather, what it is.

Link:
Alexey Navalny and the moral pillars of democracy - Open Democracy