2008年8月19日 星期二

Hong-Lim Park

獨立43年 新加坡准示威
芳林公園的「演說者角落」將成為新加坡人民自由舉行戶外示威的場所。
(法新社)

新加坡總理李顯龍十八日表示,新加坡政府將放寬規定,使位於芳林公園的「演說者角落」成為人民自由舉行戶外示威的場所。這是新加坡獨立四十三年來,首度允許人民在戶外自由示威。

李顯龍在年度政策演說中指出,適度開放戶外示威及放寬政治影片管制,允許網路播放政治影片的新措施是新加坡政府逐步推動社會自由化的重要環節。他表示:「政治議題法規必須與時俱進;我們必須改變全面禁止的嚴格政策,使民眾擁有在安全情況下抒發意見的空間。」

按新加坡現行法律,民眾如欲舉行或參與五人以上的示威,事前必須向警方申請並獲准。這項法令讓星國警方可阻擋示威行動,也使得新加坡甚少出現公開示威。未 來在「演說者角落」的示威行動則不由警方監管,而是交給公園管理局維持秩序。不過示威者仍須遵守法律與秩序,避免觸及種族、語言與宗教課題。

目前在新加坡播放政治性影片將被罰款甚至坐牢。依據新規定,准許反映事實的畫面、紀錄片和活動現場的政治錄影,但仍不准散播政治廣告、政黨的片面政治宣傳和歪曲事實的畫面等。

新加坡政府二○○○年在芳林公園劃設「演說者角落」,而成為新加坡政府允許民眾在戶外公開演說的唯一地點,但因限制頗多,很少人按照政府規定,事前向附近派出所提出申請。

這次新加坡開放自由示威,一般認為多少受到中共的影響。中共在北京奧運期間畫定一塊區域,允許非政府組織在戶外示威,使得新加坡出現「連中國都允許示威, 我們卻不行」的聲音。另外,新加坡此前承辦世銀與國際貨幣基金會(IMF)年會時,禁止非政府組織舉行戶外示威而遭世銀與IMF批評後,讓新加坡政府的思 考開始出現改變。

新加坡四十多年前爆發族裔衝突,新加坡政府至今記憶猶新,也是多年來管制示威的理由。

2008年8月18日 星期一

Pakistan's Musharraf steps down, water

亞洲水源世界36%
污染 60%

Pakistan's Musharraf steps down

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is resigning after nine years in power, amid impeachment charges based on claims he violated the constitution.

面對國會彈劾的巴基斯坦總統穆沙拉夫宣佈辭職後,國內外對此做出種種表態。

2008年8月15日 星期五

Run, Thaksin, run

Thailand

Run, Thaksin, run

Aug 14th 2008 | BANGKOK
From The Economist print edition

Thailand’s deposed prime minister jumps bail. But political turmoil may persist

OnAsia

GIVEN the avalanche of corruption cases tumbling on Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife Potjaman, it caused some surprise in Thailand when the Supreme Court let them leave the country to attend the opening of the Olympics in Beijing. Right up until the early evening on August 10th, the deposed prime minister’s spokesman was insisting that the couple would return that day to Bangkok, to appear in court the next morning. However, they flew instead to London, where they had spent a period in exile following the 2006 military coup.

In a handwritten note faxed to Thai television stations, Mr Thaksin (the puppet-master in the cartoon above) admitted that “I am not a perfect man” but claimed the cases against him were a plot by his political foes, who he said were interfering in the judiciary. He said he hoped to return to Thailand some day but made it sound like that would not be soon. The court was shocked—shocked!—that its defendants had skipped bail, and issued arrest warrants. But its decision to let the couple go to Beijing prompted speculation that they had been given the nod to flee into exile, in the hope of ending Thailand’s three-year political stand-off.


The speculation inspired a sharp recovery in Bangkok’s stockmarket, which had slumped on fears of all-out violence between supporters and opponents of Mr Thaksin. These fears had intensified in late July when Thaksin fans armed with clubs and axes attacked a demonstration by his opponents in the north-eastern city of Udon Thani, injuring around a dozen.

Hopes for calm may be dashed. The main anti-Thaksin street movement, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), said its protests would continue until they brought down the government, a coalition led by Mr Thaksin’s allies and headed in his absence by Samak Sundaravej, a ferocious right-winger (whose strings Mr Thaksin is pulling above). Mr Thaksin is still popular among poorer, rural voters. But the urban, elite PAD might be emboldened to press on with its ideas for a “new politics”. What this means in fact is a return to old, pre-democracy politics with a mostly unelected parliament and powers for the army to intervene when it feels like it.

Perhaps a bigger question than what Mr Thaksin’s opponents will do next is what his supporters will do. Those who backed him in repeated elections remain grateful to the first Thai prime minister to give them some tangible benefits, such as cheap health care and village development funds. This has, so far, inclined them to excuse the strong whiff of corruption, and other abuses of power, around his government. Before the 2006 coup his supporters staged huge demonstrations to counter those of his opponents. If these now resume, there is a risk of violence.

Mr Samak will try to soldier on in government, although his People’s Power Party faces being dissolved for electoral malpractice, as was its predecessor, Thai Rak Thai. The mostly anti-Thaksin Bangkok press is talking up rumoured splits in the ruling coalition. But it has consistently underestimated the Thaksinites’ sticking power so far. Mr Samak seems to be trying to build bridges to the royalist and military establishment, making friends with General Anupong Paochinda, the army chief, and appointing Tej Bunnag, one of the king’s advisers, as foreign minister. But Mr Samak’s plans to rewrite the constitution, drawn up last year by a military-appointed panel, may cause fresh splits.

Indeed, it is still not clear what is the root cause of Thailand’s political conflict. Some academics suggest that it is essentially about the royalist establishment’s alarm that Mr Thaksin was building a base of public support to rival that of King Bhumibol. They may fear what will happen when the 80-year-old king’s reign ends. The PAD dresses itself in royal yellow and says it is saving Thailand from Mr Thaksin’s “republicanism”. Such matters cannot be discussed openly in Thailand because of its draconian lèse-majesté laws, which are often abused to sling mud at opponents (see article).

The Thai courts will probably go through the motions of trying to bring Mr Thaksin back to face justice. He may persuade the British courts not to extradite him, arguing he would be denied a fair trial. Of course, the Thai prosecutors and courts could prove him wrong: they could now pursue the various allegations against anti-Thaksin generals, bureaucrats and politicians with the same vigour as they are applying the law to Mr Thaksin.



South Korea president forgives some tycoons

South Korea

Pardon me

Aug 14th 2008 | SEOUL
From The Economist print edition

The president forgives some tycoons


THE leaders of South Korea’s conglomerates or chaebols have long acted as if they were above the law. Kim Seung-youn, chairman of Hanwha, an explosives, construction and insurance group, confessed last year to beating bar workers at a building site with the help of his own goons. He was retaliating after his son was hurt in a scuffle. After a few months in jail, Mr Kim was released on health grounds, and was soon back at his desk running Hanwha. This week, to mark the day South Korea celebrates liberation from Japanese colonialism, the president, Lee Myung-bak, pardoned him and 341,863 others.

They included Chung Mong-koo, the chairman of Hyundai, the world’s sixth-largest carmaker. Last year Mr Chung was convicted of embezzling about $90m from his company, and sentenced to 300 hours of community service. Chey Tae-won, of SK Group, a telecommunications, oil-refining and construction chaebol, was convicted in 2003 of illegal share swaps designed to keep the most lucrative parts of the group in his family’s control. Mr Chey did not serve any time in prison, but was given a suspended sentence. Now Mr Lee has pardoned him, too.

President Lee came to power earlier this year pledging to raise average national income per head to $40,000 a year and to achieve 7% annual economic growth. He has appealed to chaebol leaders to boost investment and jobs. But at his inauguration Mr Lee also promised to back “business leaders who are transparent and put in an honest day’s work”. So the pardons for the three chaebol bosses look a bit odd. Many South Koreans see them as proof that the wealthy are held to different standards from those applied to ordinary citizens.

Mr Lee, a former chief executive of ten different Hyundai group units, has himself been haunted by allegations that his past personal business dealings were less than pristine, particularly with regard to his family’s property sales and the failure of an investment firm he helped found. One of Mr Lee’s prospective ministers and several presidential aides have had to resign after questions were raised over their ethics. The first cousin of the president’s wife was arrested this month after receiving money from a man who wanted to clinch a parliamentary nomination from Mr Lee’s ruling party. The president’s approval rating hovers around 20%. Pardoning business bigwigs will not help it rise.

2008年8月14日 星期四

達賴喇嘛猛批中國實行“文化大革命”

五藏獨人士央視大廈挂示威條幅被捕
自由西藏示威條幅
北京警方很快將抗議條幅拿下并將示威者逮捕

五名外國藏獨活動人士星期五(15日)再次在北京奧運會期間舉行未經當局允許的示威,他們將一面寫有中英文"西藏自由"字樣的條幅掛在正在興建的中央電視台大廈的一個奧運廣告牌旁邊。

"自由西藏學生運動"組織發言人韓山說,3名美國人、1名英國人和1名加拿大人在北京中央電視台正在修建的"Z"字形總部大廈廣告牌上懸掛了一個藏獨條幅。

爬上廣告牌的是24歲的英國人菲利普﹒科克,以及41歲的加拿大籍人尼科爾﹒裡克羅夫特。

這兩人和另外三名參與示威遊行的藏獨支持者星期五都被警方拘留。

英國天空電視台新聞錄像顯示,身皮抗議條幅、戴著頭盔的藏獨人士將黑白兩色的示威條幅用繩子懸掛在離地6米高的地方,但北京警方很快將條幅拿下。

北京公安局發言人說,他不清楚有關事件,在對記者的有關情況作出評論前,他必須先獲得書面採訪問題。

自北京奧運會上周末開幕以來,"自由西藏學生運動"已在北京組織了幾次示威活動,但每次參與示威的人數不到5人,時間不過幾分鐘,參與示威的外國人後來都被中國當局驅逐,并在五年之內禁止他們再次入境。

中國外交部發言人秦剛星期三在例行記者會上警告說,"不管是中國公民還是外國人,如果想在中國遊行示威,你就必須遵守中國的法律規定。"

此前不久,"自由西藏學生運動"組織表示,在北京奧運會主體育場前舉行藏獨示威的8名該組織活動人士已被北京當局驅逐。




達賴喇嘛訪法期間猛批中國
達賴喇嘛在巴黎演講時指責中國對藏人實行“文化大革命”,
在北京奧運如火如荼之際,此舉有可能使這位西藏精神領袖與中國政府之間的關系變得更加緊張






“法國外長將與達賴喇嘛會晤”
達賴喇嘛
達賴喇嘛這次訪問不會見薩爾科齊

西藏流亡精神領袖達賴喇嘛的助理表示,法國外長庫什內將在下周與達賴會晤。

達賴喇嘛正在法國訪問,他的助理馬修﹒理查周四(8月14日)對法新社表示,庫什內與達賴喇嘛將在8月20日在法國西部城市南特會面。

理查說,庫什內曾表示希望與達賴會面,庫什內在周三與他們聯絡。

有法國人指法國總統薩爾科齊屈服於中國的壓力而拒絕與達賴喇嘛會面。

法新社還報道,法國負責外事與人權事務國務秘書拉瑪﹒亞德也表示希望與這位諾貝爾和平獎得主見面。亞德一直高調批評中國的西藏政策。

此外,法國媒體周三(13日)報道,法國一位官員透露,薩爾科齊總統和達賴喇嘛將在12月在法國舉行的慶祝人權宣言60周年的儀式上會面。

中國外交部發言人秦剛在周三的記者會上表示,中方希望法方能夠妥善處理好涉藏問題。

秦剛表示,在涉藏問題上希望法方同中方共同努力,維護目前中法關係得到改善這一來之不易的勢頭,推動中法關係繼續發展。

另一方面,在尼泊爾的警方和目擊者說,在加德滿都中國大使館外至少七百六十名流亡尼泊爾的藏人示威者被逮捕。

尼泊爾境內有大約二萬名藏人,自今年三月中國當局鎮壓西藏的抗議活動以來,在尼泊爾幾乎每天都有藏人示威。





Pakistan : Beyond Musharraf

穆沙拉夫近日可能宣佈辭職
巴基斯坦總統穆沙拉夫預計將於今後幾天在議會啟動對他的彈劾程序
前宣佈辭職﹐此前有關他下台後不受追究的秘密談判取得了突破。

The Americans arrive Georgia

Russia and Georgia

The Americans arrive

Aug 14th 2008 | GORI, MOSCOW AND TBLISI
From Economist.com

What next for Georgia, as American military cargo-planes land in Tbilisi?


AP

AMERICA'S George Bush delivered a stark warning to Russia this week that led Russia to begin to pull back its forces in Georgia. Mr Bush sent his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, to Georgia and told his defence secretary, Robert Gates, to organise a humanitarian-aid operation. The first American military aircraft landed at Tbilisi airport on Thursday August 14th.

This conflict is about more than the two separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or displacing Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s hot-headed president. It is about Russia, resurgent and nationalistic, pushing its way back into the Caucasus and chasing others out, and reversing the losses Russia feels it has suffered since the end of the cold war.

The fact that Georgia is backed by the West made it a particularly appealing target. In fighting Georgia, Russia fought a proxy war with the West—especially with America (which had upgraded the Georgian army). All this was a payback for the humiliation that Russia suffered in the 1990s, and its answer to NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999 and to America’s invasion of Iraq.

With the smoke of battle still in the air, it is impossible to say who actually started it. But, given the scale and promptness of Russia’s response, the script must have been written in Moscow. The rattling of sabres has been heard in both capitals for months, if not years. Russia imposed sanctions on Georgia and rounded up Georgians in Moscow. In revenge for the recognition of Kosovo’s independence earlier this year, Mr Putin established legal ties with the governments of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

In the late spring, Russia and Georgia came close to a clash over Abkhazia but diplomats pulled the two sides apart. A war in Georgia became a favourite subject in Moscow’s rumour mill. In early July Russia staged a massive military exercise on the border with South Ossetia. At the same time Russian jets flew over the region “to establish the situation” and “cool down Georgia’s hot-heads”, according to the Russians.

South Ossetia is a tiny patchwork of villages—Georgian and South Ossetian—which was easy to drag into a war. It is headed by a thuggish former Soviet official, Eduard Kokoity, and run by the Russian security services. It lives off smuggling and Russian money. In early August Georgian and South Ossetian separatists exchanged fire and explosive attacks. South Ossetia blew up a truck carrying Georgian policemen and attacked Georgian villages; Georgia fired back at the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.

What happened next is less clear. Russia claims that Mr Saakashvili treacherously broke a unilateral ceasefire he had just announced, ordering a massive offensive on Tskhinvali, ethnically cleansing South Ossetian villages and killing as many as 2,000 people. What triggered the Georgian action, says Mr Saakashvili, was the movement of Russian troops through the Roki tunnel that connects South Ossetia to Russia.

Georgia started to shell and invade Tskhinvali. Then the Russian army moved in. The picture Russia presented to the world seemed clear: Georgia was a reckless and dangerous aggressor and Russia had an obligation, as a peacekeeper in the region, to protect the victims. Russia’s response was predictable. One thing which almost all observers agree on is that Mr Saakashvili made a catastrophic mistake by walking into the Russian trap.

Russia was prepared for the war not only militarily, but also ideologically. Its campaign was crude but effective. While its forces were dropping bombs on Georgia, the Kremlin bombarded its own population with an astonishing propaganda campaign. One Russian deputy reflected the mood: “Today, it is quite obvious who the parties in the conflict are. They are the US, UK, Israel who participated in training the Georgian army, Ukraine who supplied it with weapons. We are facing a situation where there is a NATO aggression against us.”

In blue jeans and a sports jacket, Mr Putin, cast as the hero of the war, flew to the Russian side of the Caucasus mountain range to hear hair-raising stories from refugees that ranged from burning young girls alive to stabbing babies and running tanks over old women and children. These stories were whipped up into anti-Georgian and anti-Western hysteria. What Russia was doing, it seemed, was no different from what the West had done in its “humanitarian” interventions.

There was one difference, however. Russia was dealing with a crisis that it had deliberately created. Its biggest justification for military intervention was that it was formally protecting its own citizens. Soon after Mr Putin’s arrival in the Kremlin in 2000, Russia started to hand out passports to Abkhaz and South Ossetians, while also claiming the role of a neutral peacekeeper in the region. When the fighting broke out between Georgia and South Ossetia, Russia, which had killed tens of thousands of its own citizens in Chechnya, argued that it had to defend its nationals.

The biggest victims of this war are civilians in South Ossetia and Georgia. Militarily, Mr Putin has won. But all Russia has got from its victory so far is a ruined reputation, broken ties with Georgia, control over separatist enclaves (which it had anyway) and fear from other former Soviet republics.

A six-point peace plan negotiated by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, recognises Georgian sovereignty but not its integrity. In practice, this means that Russia will not allow Georgia back into Abkhazia and South Ossetia. According to the same plan, Russia should withdraw its troops to where they were before the war broke out.

The ceasefire is signed, but it still needs to be implemented. The early signs were not good with looting, killing and rapes in villages in both Georgia and South Ossetia. On Wednesday the Americans announced that they would send military aircraft and naval forces to deliver humanitarian aid to the Georgians. This seemed to make an impression on the Russians, who soon began to withdraw.

Other former Soviet republics, including Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Ukraine, have been dealt a lesson, about both Russia’s capacity to exert its influence and the weakness of Western commitments. America’s inability to stop or deter Russia from attacking its smaller neighbours has been devastatingly obvious in Georgia over the past week.

Yet the people who are likely in the end to pay the biggest price for the attack on Georgia are the Russians. This price will go well beyond any sanctions America or the European Union could impose. Like any foreign aggression, it will lead to further stifling of civil freedoms in Russia. The war in Georgia has demonstrated convincingly who is in charge in Russia. Just as the war in Chechnya helped Mr Putin’s rise to power in 1999, the war in Georgia may now keep him in power for years to come.