Facebook comments, ads don't sway most users: poll

(Reuters) - Four out of five Facebook Inc users have never bought a product or service as a result of advertising or comments on the social network site, a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows, in the latest sign that much more needs to be done to turn its 900 million customer base into advertising dollars.

The online poll also found that 34 percent of Facebook users surveyed were spending less time on the website than six months ago, whereas only 20 percent were spending more.

The findings underscore investors' worries about Facebook's money-making abilities that have pushed the stock down 29 percent since its initial public offering last month, reducing its market value by $30 billion to roughly $74 billion.

About 44 percent of respondents said the botched market debut has made them less favorable toward Facebook, according to the survey conducted from May 31 to June 4. The poll included 1,032 Americans, 21 percent of whom had no Facebook account.

Facebook's 900 million users make it among the most popular online destinations, challenging entrenched Internet players such as Google Inc and Yahoo Inc. But not everyone is convinced that the company has figured out how to translate that popularity into a business that can justify its lofty valuation.

Shares of Facebook closed Monday's regular trading session down 3 percent at $26.90. Facebook did not have an immediate comment on the survey.

While the survey did not ask how other forms of advertising affected purchasing behavior, a February study by research firm eMarketer suggests that Facebook fared worse than email or direct-mail marketing in terms of influencing consumers' purchasing decisions.

"It shows that Facebook has work to do in terms of making its advertising more effective and more relevant to people," eMarketer analyst Debra Williamson said.

Those concerns were exacerbated last month when General Motors Co, the third largest advertiser in the United States, said it would stop paid-advertising on Facebook.

Measuring the effectiveness of advertising can be tricky, particularly for brand marketing in which the goal is to influence future purchases rather than generate immediate sales.

And the success of an ad campaign must be considered in relation to the product, said Steve Hasker, president of Global Media Products and Advertiser Solutions at Nielsen.

"If you are advertising Porsche motor cars and you can get 20 percent of people to make a purchase that's an astonishingly high conversion rate," said Hasker.

"If you are selling instant noodles, maybe it's not," he

WANING ENGAGEMENT

About two out of five people polled by Reuters and Ipsos Public Affairs said they used Facebook every day. Nearly half of the Facebook users polled spent about the same amount of time on the social network as six months ago.

The survey provides a look at the trends considered vital to Facebook's future at a time when the company has faced a harsh reception on Wall Street.

Facebook's $16 billion IPO, one the world's largest, made the U.S. company founded by Mark Zuckerberg the first to debut on markets with a capitalization of more than $100 billion.

It's coming out-party, which culminated years of breakneck growth for the social and business phenomenon, was marred by trading glitches on the Nasdaq exchange. A decision to call certain financial analysts ahead of the IPO and caution them about weakness in its business during the second quarter has triggered several lawsuits against Facebook and its underwriters.

Forty-six percent of survey respondents said the Facebook IPO had made them less favorable towards investing in the stock market in general.

While Facebook generated $3.7 billion in revenue last year, mostly from ads on its website, sales growth is slowing.

Consumers' increasing use of smartphones to access Facebook has been a drag on the company's revenue. It offers only limited advertising on the mobile version of its site, and analysts say the company has yet to figure out the ideal way to make money from mobile users.

Facebook competes for online ads with Google, the world's No. 1 Web search engine, which generated roughly $38 billion in revenue last year. Google's search ads, which appear alongside the company's search results, are considered among the most effective means of marketing.

The most frequent Facebook users are aged 18 to 34, according to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, with 60 percent of that group being daily users. Among people aged 55 years and above, 29 percent said they were daily users.

Of the 34 percent spending less time on the social network, their chief reason was that the site was "boring," "not relevant" or "not useful," while privacy concerns ranked third.

The survey has a "credibility interval" of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

By Alexei Oreskovic SAN FRANCISCO  Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Related posts:

Rightways: The Facebook Fallacy May 23, 2012

Rightways: Facebook Seeks Political Ad Dollars May 20, 2012
The Facebook Illusion May 28, 2012 

Competition begins at home

Much is being done to make sure M'sia can compete with the best on the world

BY now, most people would have heard of the term middle-income trap.

This describes a situation where a nation makes rapid progress in terms of economic growth and in increasing incomes from a low base, but is unable to make that final leap to becoming a high-income nation.

Why this happens is often not clear but economists theorise that once the economic factors of production such as land, labour and capital have been sufficiently harnessed, it needs real gains in productivity to further increase income.

Put in another way, there is only so much land, labour and capital. Once you have made optimum use of these, the next stage is simply to ensure that you use these much more efficiently, and that there is a further increase in productivity.

Are we stuck in a middle-income trap?

It’s too early to answer the question. If we don’t reach high-income status by our target date of 2020, then perhaps we are.

But let me tell you we are doing everything possible to get to high income.

In a nutshell, competitiveness is crucial for high income. We simply must do things better than before and more efficiently.

High income goal: ‘In a nutshell, competitiveness is crucial for high income. We simply must do things better than before and more efficiently.’

 

We need a technological and knowledge leap, and to foster an environment which breeds and encourages competitiveness.

To become a high-income country, we have to be globally competitive, and focus on areas where we can bring our competitiveness to bear with the highest impact in terms of economic contributions and earnings.

Often, we hear the New Economic Model or NEM which is aimed at moving us into a high income country, is dead and is replaced by the Government and Economic Transformation Programmes. Nothing can be further from the truth and I am keen to dispel this transformation blues.

The moves we are taking to transform arise from the NEM - we are NOT replacing it.

We are implementing the NEM as best as we can through measures aimed at making major changes to our operating environment.

The Strategic Reform Initiatives have been put in place as an enabling process.

The National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) recommended in the NEM, 51 broad and cross cutting policy measures to enable us to realise our goal of transforming our nation into a high income, sustainable and inclusive economy. We are implementing, albeit at different stages, all the 51 strategic reform initiatives.

There are six areas in which we are making major changes:

·Competition, standards and liberalisation
·Improving public finance
·Better public service delivery
·Defining and reducing the Government’s role in business
·Human capital development
· Narrowing disparities

Like charity, competition begins at home.

We introduced the Competition Act, which is being enforced this year so that all anti-competitive behaviour among Malaysian industries can be removed and there will be free and fair competition.

This is a major milestone and our adoption of this, despite powerful vested interests, demonstrates our commitment towards a competitive economy.

We have made amendments to the Standards of Malaysia Act 1996, approved in Dec 2011, to accelerate the development of standards.

This includes reducing the period of adoption of international standards from a year previously to nine months.

These are key requirements for an industry to be internationally competitive.

In the last Budget, 17 sub-sectors were announced for liberalisation, with up to 100% foreign equity participation.

Nine sectors have been fully liberalised while the remaining will be liberalised in stages by end-2012.

For changes to take place we need a healthy fiscal position.

We have made progressive improvements in tax collection, and collected additional RM25bil through improved efficiencies in 2011.

We have other measures in the pipeline to be disclosed in due course.

In terms of public service delivery we are re-engineering business processes. 395 licences will be eliminated by year end, which is estimated to reduce RM729mil in business licence compliance costs.

We are exploring open recruitment between the private sector and the civil service, and introducing real time performance monitoring.

We have introduced a minimum wage to force industry to become more competitive and various other initiatives to improve skills and upgrade the workforce.

Concurrently, we are modernising labour laws, providing a labour safety net, recognising talented women, strengthening human resource management and providing labour market analysis.

In making Malaysians more employable in the ICT industry and addressing the industry’s talent supply issue, the MyProCert programme does its part in upskilling Malaysians with international certification standards on programmes such as iOS Mobile Development and Oracle Certified Professional Programmes.

We are limiting the Government’s role in business to four areas – national infrastructure such as public transport; businesses that need to be owned locally such as defence; specialised industries which require large growth, catalytic or new technology; and situations where the private sector needs co-investors. There is a programme to pare down Government investments.

Last year, 80 companies participated in TERAS – a programme that aims to develop high performing bumiputra SMEs by enabling them to scale up and accelerate their growth, thus making them more competitive in the open market.

In line with the NEM, we are using the principles of being market friendly, merit-based, need-based and transparent in implementing these measures.

So far 50 more companies have qualified under this programme this year.

We are committed to encouraging competition and entrepreneurship.

The Government’s role is to set the conditions for competitiveness, enabling the private sector to take the lead and rise to the challenge. We know if we don’t successfully transform here, we will lose the battle to become a high-income nation.

But we are already taking the measures by putting in place enablers to make the economy more competitive and taking specific measures in a cross-section of areas to achieve the income we need to make us a developed country.

We will get there.

Datuk Seri Idris Jala is CEO of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department. Fair and reasonable comments are most welcome at idrisjala@pemandu.gov.my

Young and in trouble!

Many factors can trigger depression in children and teenagers.

BY the time she was six years old, Amy (not her real name) had already been sexually abused by her father for four years.

Amy never told anyone about it because her father had said it was their “little secret”. The secret was blown when Amy's uncle somehow found out about it, and informed her mother about the abuse.

Sadly, instead of believing her, Amy's mother turned her anger on the child, insisting that Amy must have been lying.

Dr Lai: Every time they get a compliment, it’s like a deposit for their self-esteem.

With her mother furious with her, Amy believed that she must have done something wrong, and that she was responsible for the mess her family was in. She took it upon herself to somehow make things right. She killed herself.

While this case did not happen in Malaysia, experts say there is definitely a disturbing trend where children as young as six years old are expressing suicidal tendencies.

Penang Hospital consultant (child and adolescent) psychiatrist Dr Lai Fong Hwa says he started noticing suicide cases among Malaysian children in the last five to 10 years.

“Kindergarten-going children can suffer from depression. Actually, even children who are four or five years old can suffer from depression, but usually these cases are due to biological causes rather than external causes,” he says.

Many factors can trigger depression in children and teenagers that, if left undetected and undealt with, could lead to suicide.

One factor, he explains, is the overemphasis on academic performance and achievement, even among pre-schoolers, which makes schools an extremely stressful environment.

“Some parents have the tendency to say things like If you want mummy to love you, you must get straight As in your exam.' What happens is the child then equates academic performance with whether his parents will love him. So if the child doesn't do well, in his mind, his parents don't love him anymore.

“Even though parents may have good intentions, they should never say things like that because it can have serious negative repercussions. What they should say is We will love you no matter what',” says Dr Lai.

Children, he says, need what is called an “emotional bank account”.

“Every time they get a compliment, it's like a deposit for their self-esteem. But every time they are criticised, the account gets depleted. What's important is that they should always have a good emotional bank account, because otherwise, when difficulty comes, they have nothing to draw from.”

He adds that children these days are constantly drummed with the message that they're “not good enough” because society expects them to achieve certain academic standards.

In the younger children, this stress can cause them to fear school.

“If a child has been quite happy attending school, and then suddenly fears school a few months down the road, it shows that something is not right. School should be fun, not torture. This is why I encourage parents to send their pre-school children to playgroups, rather than to classroom-environment kindergartens,” says Dr Lai.

Apart from academic achievements, shoving a child into multiple co-curriculur activities can also be extremely stressful.

According to Childline project director Michelle Wong, the helpline has received calls from children who are stressed out from having “too many exams”.

“One girl contacted us, saying she was having piano, violin, ballet and school exams all in the same month, and she could not cope with the pressure. She didn't know what to do,” Wong says.

Dr Lai adds that when a child has so much on his plate, the actual time spent with his parents is usually minimal, which is unhealthy for the child.

One question he frequently uses in his clinic when testing children on who they turn to for support is: “If you are alone on an island, and you can wish for one person to be with you, who would it be?”

“A normal child below the age of 12 would usually name their mother, or father, or a sibling whom they're close to. If they've been brought up by their grandparents, then it's also quite normal for them to name a grandparent.

“But when a child starts wishing for a friend instead, it shows that he doesn't look to his family for support. This can be dangerous as his friends are not likely to be able to fully help him should he get into any problem,” Dr Lai explains.

His concern is very real. In the last few weeks, there have already been several sudden deaths involving students under the age of 18.

Last month, a 14-year-old boy hung himself after having a fight with a friend. Another 17-year-old boy hung himself over “academic issues”.

In another case, an 11-year-old boy who fell to his death from the 14th floor of a flat in Penang left behind a handwritten note. His family has, however, denied it is a suicide note, saying that he had always written letters to express himself.

Early this week, a 12-year-old boy in Sabah hung himself with his shoelaces he was apparently upset over not being able to return to his hometown to see his grandfather.

Dr Ng: Children often use acting out as a way to express their inner distress.

“The trend is worrying. Children shouldn't be killing themselves,” Dr Lai says.

Depression among children and teenagers, more often than not, may appear as irritation or agitation, as opposed to the typical expression of sadness, says clinical psychologist Dr Ng Wai Sheng who has served in various settings including children social services, substance abuse rehabilitation and inpatient and outpatient psychiatric settings.

“This may partly explain why adults often overlook depression in young people. Depressed children and adolescents may be mislabelled as “angry” or “moody” kids. For young children, their behaviour may be confused with Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“Children often use acting out as a way to express their inner distress, resulting in some being labelled as the bad kid'. Another common sign is the deterioration in academic performance and motivation, which may lead to the mislabelling of being lazy' or not smart enough',” she explains.

Divorce between parents has also frequently been linked to depression among children, but Dr Ng says it is not so much the divorce per se but rather how the divorce is handled that could be the determining factor.

“There is evidence to show that when a divorcing couple handles the matter prudently and maturely, and remain supportive of their children, the children continue to fare well in their lives,” says Dr Ng, a Fulbright alumni.

This includes communication between the parents and the child, whereby the child is assured of continuous love and support, and there is emphasis that the child is not responsible for the parents' decision.

However, she notes that the stigma of belonging to a single-parent or blended household could pose a challenge for children in Asian societies.

Senior community consultant paediatrician Datuk Dr Amar Singh says that based on his 30 years of experience working with children, child abuse (physical, emotional, or sexual) is also a trigger factor for suicide among children. For teenagers, peer relationship (including boyfriend or girlfriend problems) is also a common cause.

So, what can be done about children and teenagers who are suicidal?

The key is communication, say the experts.

“A majority of those who commit suicide would tell at least one person before they carry out the plan, so look out for the warning signs (refer to graphic above). If one suspects that a child/adolescent may have suicidal tendency, it is important to stay with the person, and raise the issue sensitively but directly with the person. Talking about death or suicidal thoughts does not mean you're putting ideas in the person's head'. That is a myth!

“Instead, talking about it openly, albeit with care and respect, gives the child the opportunity to share with you what's already in his head, and allows you to show that you care about him. Discussing the issue also provides for at least a 50% chance for him to consider alternative options to suicide. Avoiding the subject means you lose even that 50% chance of influencing him,” says Dr Ng.

Dr Amar, who is also Head of Paediatric Department Ipoh Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, agrees.
“Many Malaysians are afraid to talk about this issue, but they need to realise that drugs aren't always the solution (for depression).

“You need to probe and ask the right questions, and you most definitely need to talk about it,” he says.

Stories by LISA GOH lisagoh@thestar.com.my

Related Stories:

Reaching out for help

US naval fleet to shift towards Pacific by 2020

New strategy: The US plans to shift the bulk of its naval fleet to the Pacific, as Defence Minister Stephen Smith dismissed fears the move would stoke tensions with China. Picture: AP AP

SHIFTING FOCUS:While the US plans a ‘new strategic focus’ in Asia, China warned that now is not the time to ‘make waves’ in the South China Sea, which it claims

AFP, BEIJING and SINGAPORE

US fighter jets take off from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class USS George Washington for joint military exercises between the US and South Korea in the Sea of Japan (also known as the East Sea) on June 26, 2010.

China’s Xinhua news agency warned yesterday it was no time to “make waves” in the disputed South China Sea, after the US said it would shift the bulk of its naval fleet to the Pacific Ocean by 2020.

“It is advisable for some to refrain from muddying the waters and fishing therein,” said Xinhua, referring to the sea, which is part of the Pacific and the subject of overlapping territorial claims.

China claims the sea in full, and it is also claimed in whole or part by Taiwan, Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines.

“As regards the South China Sea tensions, it is some other claimants, whether emboldened by the United States’ new posture or not, that sparked the fire and have been stoking the flames,” the agency said.

It was Beijing’s “genuine wish” to turn the South China Sea “into a sea of peace, friendship and cooperation,” Xinhua added.

The commentary was a reaction to US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta telling a summit in Singapore yesterday that the US would shift the bulk of its naval fleet to the Pacific as part of a new strategic focus on Asia,

The decision to deploy more ships to the Pacific Ocean, along with expanding a network of military partnerships, was part of a “steady, deliberate” effort to bolster the US role in an area deemed vital to the US’ future, he said.

He insisted the switch in strategy was not a challenge to China, saying both countries had a common interest in promoting security and trade in the region.

“By 2020, the navy will re-posture its forces from today’s roughly 50/50 percent split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about a 60/40 split between those oceans,” Panetta said.

“That will include six aircraft carriers in this region, a majority of our cruisers, destroyers, littoral combat ships and submarines,” he added.

The US Navy currently has a fleet of 285 ships, with about half of those vessels deployed or assigned to the Pacific.

Although the total size of the overall fleet might decline in coming years depending on budget pressures, Pentagon officials said the number of US naval ships in the Pacific would rise in absolute terms.

The US also planned to expand military exercises in the Pacific and to conduct more port visits over a wider area extending to the Indian Ocean.

Panetta was speaking to mainly Asian defense officials and officers from 27 countries at the Shangri-la Dialogue, an annual summit organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

VIDEO: US EXPLAINS PACIFIC-FOCUSED MILITARY STRATEGY CCTV News - CNTV English



Unlike previous summits, China chose not to send a high-level delegation to the event, prompting speculation as to what lay behind the move.

Since US President Barack Obama unveiled plans in January to shift toward Asia, the Pentagon has offered up few details about how it intends to achieve that goal.

Yesterday’s announcement on the future of the US fleet provided the clearest evidence yet of a shift to Asia, and the speech appeared designed to reassure allies that Washington would back its much-publicized “pivot” to Asia with tangible action.

In his speech, Panetta said budget woes in Washington would not affect the plan to tilt towards Asia, which he said would take years to fully realize.

The US planned new investments in capabilities needed “to project power and operate in the Asia-Pacific,” including radar-evading fighter jets, a new long-distance bomber, electronic warfare and missile defenses, he said.

“But make no mistake — in a steady, deliberate and sustainable way — the United States military is rebalancing and is bringing an enhanced capability and development to this vital region,” he added.

Military commanders are revising doctrine to take into account new weapons that “could deny our forces access to key sea routes and lines of communication,” Panetta said.

Amid a growing US-China rivalry, US officials privately acknowledge the push for a larger military footprint is meant to reinforce US diplomacy when confronting Beijing’s assertive stance in the South China Sea.

Related posts:
Who owns the South China Sea islets in the eyes of the world?
U.S. designs on South China Sea exposed!
China's warns US of Confrontation over South China Sea

American drone wars and state secrecy!

How Barack Obama became a hardliner?

He was once a liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war. Now, according to revelations last week, the US president personally oversees a 'kill list' for drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. Then there's the CIA renditions, increased surveillance and a crackdown on whistleblowers. No wonder Washington insiders are likening him to 'George W Bush on steroids'

The revelation that Barack Obama keeps a 'kill list' of people to be targeted by drones has led to criticism from former supporters. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP



Amos Guiora knows all about the pitfalls of targeted assassinations, both in terms of legal process and the risk of killing the wrong people or causing civilian casualties. The University of Utah law professor spent many years in the Israel Defence Forces, including time as a legal adviser in the Gaza Strip where such killing strikes are common. He knows what it feels like when people weigh life-and-death decisions.

Yet Guiora – no dove on such matters – confessed he was "deeply concerned" about President Barack Obama's own "kill list" of terrorists and the way they are eliminated by missiles fired from robot drones around the world. He believes US policy has not tightly defined how people get on the list, leaving it open to legal and moral problems when the order to kill leaves Obama's desk. "He is making a decision largely devoid of external review," Guiroa told the Observer, saying the US's apparent methodology for deciding who is a terrorist is "loosey goosey".

Indeed, newspaper revelations last week about the "kill list" showed the Obama administration defines a militant as any military-age male in the strike zone when its drone attacks. That has raised the hackles of many who saw Obama as somehow more sophisticated on terrorism issues than his predecessor, George W Bush. But Guiora does not view it that way. He sees Obama as the same as Bush, just much more enthusiastic when it comes to waging drone war. "If Bush did what Obama has been doing, then journalists would have been all over it," he said.

But the "kill list" and rapidly expanded drone programme are just two of many aspects of Obama's national security policy that seem at odds with the expectations of many supporters in 2008. Having come to office on a powerful message of breaking with Bush, Obama has in fact built on his predecessor's national security tactics.

Obama has presided over a massive expansion of secret surveillance of American citizens by the National Security Agency. He has launched a ferocious and unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers. He has made more government documents classified than any previous president. He has broken his promise to close down the controversial Guantánamo Bay prison and pressed on with prosecutions via secretive military tribunals, rather than civilian courts. He has preserved CIA renditions. He has tried to grab broad new powers on what defines a terrorist or a terrorist supporter and what can be done with them, often without recourse to legal process.

The sheer scope and breadth of Obama's national security policy has stunned even fervent Bush supporters and members of the Washington DC establishment. In last week's New York Times article that detailed the "kill list", Bush's last CIA director, Michael Hayden, said Obama should open the process to more public scrutiny. "Democracies do not make war on the basis of legal memos locked in a [Department of Justice] safe," he told the newspaper.

Even more pertinently, Aaron David Miller, a long-term Middle East policy adviser to both Republican and Democratic administrations, delivered a damning verdict in a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine. He wrote bluntly: "Barack Obama has become George W Bush on steroids."

Many disillusioned supporters would agree. Jesselyn Radack was a justice department ethics adviser under Bush who became a whistleblower over violations of the legal rights of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh. Now Radack works for the Government Accountability Project, defending fellow whistleblowers. She campaigned for Obama, donated money and voted for him. Now she has watched his administration – which promised transparency and whistleblower protection – crack down on national security whistleblowers.

It has used the Espionage Act – an obscure first world war anti-spy law – six times. That is more such uses in three years than all previous presidents combined. Cases include John Kiriakou, a CIA agent who leaked details of waterboarding, and Thomas Drake, who revealed the inflated costs of an NSA data collection project that had been contracted out. "We did not see this coming. Obama has led the most brutal crackdown on whistleblowers ever," Radack said.

Yet the development fits in with a growing level of secrecy in government under Obama. Last week a report by the Information Security Oversight Office revealed 2011 had seen US officials create more than 92m classified documents: the most ever and 16m more than the year before. Officials insist much of the growth is due to simple administrative procedure, but anti-secrecy activists are not convinced. Some estimates put the number of documents wrongly classified as secret at 90%.

"We are seeing the reversal of the proper flow of information between the government and the governed. It is probably the fundamental civil liberties issue of our time," said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security expert at the Brennan Centre for Justice. "The national security establishment is getting bigger and bigger."

One astonishing example of this lies high in the mountain deserts of Utah. This is the innocuously named Utah Data Centre being built for the NSA near a tiny town called Bluffdale. When completed next year, the heavily fortified $2bn building, which is self-sufficient with its own power plant, will be five times the size of the US Capitol in Washington DC. It will house gigantic servers that will store vast amounts of data from ordinary Americans that will be sifted and mined for intelligence clues. It will cover everything from phone calls to emails to credit card receipts.

Yet the UDC is just the most obvious sign of how the operations and scope of the NSA has grown since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Under Bush, a key part was a secret "warrantless wiretapping" programme that was scrapped when it was exposed. However, in 2008 Congress passed a bill that effectively allowed the programme to continue by simply legalising key components. Under Obama, that work has intensified and earlier this year a Senate intelligence committee extended the law until 2017, which would make it last until the end of any Obama second term.

"Obama did not reverse what Bush did, he went beyond it. Obama is just able to wrap it up in a better looking package. He is more liberal, more eloquent. He does not look like a cowboy," said James Bamford, journalist and author of numerous books about the NSA including 2008's The Shadow Factory.

That might explain the lack of media coverage of Obama's planned changes to a military funding law called the National Defence Authorisation Act. A clause was added to the NDAA that had such a vague definition of support of terrorism that journalists and political activists went to court claiming it threatened them with indefinite detention for things like interviewing members of Hamas or WikiLeaks. Few expected the group to win, but when lawyers for Obama refused to definitively rebut their claims, a New York judge ruled in their favour. Yet, far from seeking to adjust the NDAA's wording, the White House is now appealing against the decision.

That hard line should perhaps surprise only the naive. "He's expanded the secrecy regime in general," said Radack. Yet it is the drone programme and "kill list" that have emerged as most central to Obama's hardline national security policy. In January 2009, when Obama came to power, the drone programme existed only for Pakistan and had seen 44 strikes in five years. With Obama in office it expanded to Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia with more than 250 strikes. Since April there have been 14 strikes in Yemen alone.

Civilian casualties are common. Obama's first strike in Yemen killed two families who were neighbours of the target. One in Pakistan missed and blew up a respected tribal leader and a peace delegation. He has deliberately killed American citizens, including the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in September last year, and accidentally killed others, such as Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdul-Rahman.

The drone operation now operates out of two main bases in the US, dozens of smaller installations and at least six foreign countries. There are "terror Tuesday" meetings to discuss targets which Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, sometimes attends, lending credence to those who see naked political calculation involved.

Yet for some, politics seems moot. Obama has shown himself to be a ruthless projector of national security powers at home and abroad, but the alternative in the coming election is Republican Mitt Romney.

"Whoever gets elected, whether it's Obama or Romney, they are going to continue this very dangerous path," said Radack. "It creates a constitutional crisis for our country. A crisis of who we are as Americans. You can't be a free society when all this happens in secret."

Death from the sky

• Popularly called drones, the flying robots used by Obama are referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles by the defence industry that makes them. The air force, however, calls them RPAs, or remotely piloted aircraft, as they are flown by human pilots, just at a great distance from where they are operating.

• The US air force alone has up to 70,000 people processing the surveillance information collected from drones. This includes examining footage of people and vehicles on the ground in target countries and trying to observe patterns in their movements.

• Drones are not just used by the military and intelligence community. US Customs and Border Protection has drones patrolling land and sea borders. They are used in drug busts and to prevent illegal cross-border traffic.

• It is assumed the Pentagon alone has 7,000 or so drones at work. Ten years ago there were fewer than 50. Their origins go back to the Vietnam war and beyond that to the use of reconnaissance balloons on the battlefield.

• Last year a diplomatic crisis with Iran broke out after a sophisticated US drone, the RQ-170 Sentinel, crash-landed on Iranian soil. Iranian forces claimed it had been downed by sophisticated jamming technology.

 By Paul Harris guardian.co.uk,  Newscribe : get free news in real time

Japan's Politics Favoring a Regional FTA over TPP?

It is easy to misapprehend Japanese politics.  It is hard—to put it mildly—to correctly apprehend them.   I say misapprehend, rather than misunderstand, Japan’s politics because the problem is not so much interpretation of information as of one of limited and biased sources of information.

Sad to say, if you don’t have Japanese and aren’t listening to and reading the Japanese media, you can simply give up thinking that any judgment you make is based on meaningfully representative information.  But even if you do follow matters in Japanese, it is hard to avoid finding one’s judgment biased by the fact that only Japan’s big business community—whose organ is the Nihon Keizai Shimbun—seems to speak on any issue clearly and with one voice.  The trap is allowing oneself to think that the Nikkei’s advocacy—because clear and forceful—holds more sway in the political process than that of a host of other interest groups, or that Japan’s political process is particularly responsive to big business.

I say this by way of apology and no doubt excuse for what I have suggested in the past is the “slam dunk” logic of Japan’s entering the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, or of meeting any ostensible deadlines for doing so, or of TTP being one of the highest priorities of the Noda government, and that accession to an agreement is critical to Japan’s future.

During the past month, and for at least the next few weeks, the Noda government—and Prime Minister Noda personally—have been engaged in a raucous and exhausting debate with dissident members of its own ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) as well as the opposition parties, led by the Liberal Democrats (LDP), over legislation to raise Japan’s consumption tax from 5% to 10%.  Noda has said many times that he is staking his political life on passage of the consumption tax rise, so vital does he believe it is to putting Japan back on a path to fiscal soundness and avoiding a Greece-like crisis.

Noda’s policy stance on the consumption tax is exactly that of Japan’s big business establishment, and the editorial pages of the Nihon Keizai Shimbun.   What about TPP—along with the consumption tax hike, a cause celebre of the Nikkei?  In fact, the trade agreement seems to have slipped completely off the agenda, at least for the time being.  Why—if it is so critical—might this be the case?

In answering this question I am indebted to an exceptionally insightful analysis by Professor Aurelia George Mulgan of the University of New South Wales in Australia recently posted in the East Asian Forum (website: eastasiaforum.org).  Apart from the obvious point that presently Noda has no spare political capital to invest in TPP, Professor Mulgan notes that “Japan’s record on signing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) is not promising.  As a general rule, Japan prefers signing FTAs with non-agricultural exporting powers, rather than with powerhouses like Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S….  Japan has not signed trade agreements with its major trading partners or with developed countries (except for Switzerland in 2009); and it has preferred developing countries instead because it asks them to accept a lower trade liberalization rate with exceptions for some agricultural product.”

Professor Mulgan elaborates on why TPP is stalled, and may be doomed, in Japan.  I want to relate his many insights in a future post.  Now I will focus on one more; he writes:

“PM Noda has argued that by joining the TPP Japan ‘can absorb the Asia Pacific’s growth power’, but this argument is flawed because…China, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, are not in it.”

While TPP may be going nowhere, Professor Mulgan believes that Japan will “continue to push the Japan-China-South Korea FTA proposal, which was boosted by Noda’s recent trip to Beijing.”  In fact, at the tripartite meeting in Beijing Noda suffered another humiliating snub as Hu Jintao refused to meet one-on-one with him.  Speculation was briefly rife in the Japanese press as to why this happened.  But the buzz quickly passed, as snubs from Beijing seem recently to be the rule rather than the exception.

As readers of this blog know, I believe that the China-centric Asian regional economic and trade integration is an overriding mega-trend shaping and redefining Japan’s future.

Despite the Nikkei’s advocacy, movement toward TPP has stalled.    Very likely, where Japan’s varied political interests are aligning is toward a Japan-China-Korea FTA.

Stephen Harner, Forbes Contributor

Newscribe : get free news in real time

You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent in cyberspace, right?

Write or not, you can be wrong!

It is absolutely right that we be held responsible for what we post and say in cyberspace. But only if we indeed are the ones who wrote and posted it. 

SOME years ago, a nephew – a freshie in college then – walked over to me with his phone and pointed out an app he had. It was all in Russian, so it was pretty much Greek to me.

“Watch this,” he said, and fiddled with the keys. Seconds later, my phone rang. It was my wife.

But the wife was sitting across the table, all innocent-like and with her handphone safely ensconced in one of those tie-string cloth bags – inside her handbag (why they do that with handphones, I will never understand).

So, I stared at the nephew. He grinned. It was an app, he said, that could tap into any phone nearby and make a call out, using that number. You got to chat and someone else got the bill.

Cyber fun: This file picture shows a group of people patronising a cybercafe in Petaling Jaya. Someone could very easily walk into a place like this, hack into a person’s account and do something nasty.

 

“Do you want it? I can bluetooth it over to your phone,” he asked, oh so generously.

No thanks, I said, I can pay my bills without having to land someone else with the burden.

That was years ago and with a phone that’s nowhere as canggih as the ones to be found these days. These days, I am told, kids can do just about anything with their phones and computers or tablets.

Which is why the story of the new Evidence Act is quite scary for people like me. You see, anything posted on, say, your Facebook account is now your responsibility (as it should be, if you really did post it) and the real scary part is: you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

I’m no wonderkid and I am still trying to figure out what all this means but the doctrine of being guilty until proven innocent just doesn’t sit right.

Sure, some friends tell me that IP addresses are infallible and unique but these days, tech guys can do just about anything.

And what if some guy goes into a cybercafé, hacks into my computer and does some nasty stuff. Do I take the fall?

I mean, I’m the guy who grew up with stuff like The Net, where Sandra Bullock’s character has her identity stolen and loses just about everything. Of course, in the movie, she’s this IT-savvy girl-genius who manages to outdo the bad guys. But this is the real world. The bad guys often win!

And even Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir (she needs no introduction) had to make clear a few days ago that some imposter (im-poster, how apt) was posting stuff in her name.

Sure, there’s a need to regulate what’s being said in social media these days. I tell you, it’s a real rancorous country out there these days.

We’ve had a yellow rally, a red rally, big guys with beef burgers, bigger guys going bottoms up (with warm water please, no isotonic drinks. Someone should tell them that bottoms up is best done with the hard stuff), even punch-ups and egg-throwing fests.

And all that rancour is turning into a lot of venom and seditious, defamatory stuff that’s being spewed anonymously on the Net.

It doesn’t have to be all politics, either.

There was this model who was rubbed the wrong way, quite literally, by some guy in a cybercafe. And a few other guys had heckled her and made catcalls in Tamil.

If she is expecting catcalls in Hindi, Urdu, Telegu or Malayalam from Indian-looking guys in Malaysia, she has a long wait coming.

Most Indian-looking guys here speak Tamil and many do make cat-calls at pretty, young Indian-looking woman.

I don’t know where this woman’s ancestors came from in India but since the guys spoke in Tamil, she decided she hated the Tamils and went on a hate-spree on Facebook.

Of course, that angered other Tamils, whose only crime was trolling the Net. And they went after her with a real vengeance.

The poor woman had to apologise in a newspaper, saying she meant to scold only those guys who had hurt her.

That is the problem with the social media. It’s one thing to grumble to friends about others, but another altogether to go about hate-mongering on the Net.

This model is not alone. Some years ago, another woman – a snatch theft victim, I think – also went on a racist rant after her ordeal.

She, too, received several angry retorts before being forced to apologise.

So, it is important that we stop to think about what we want to write in cyberspace.

And I believe it is absolutely right that we be held responsible for what we post and say. But only if we indeed are the ones who wrote and posted it. But guilty until proven innocent? I’ll definitely take a rain check on that.

> The law comes into effect June 1, 2012 but the writer hopes that lawmakers will take another look at it, although he has no solutions to offer. It’s over to the techies, really.

Why Not? By D. RAJ

Related post:

Warning to Malaysian Internet Users: an Amendment to Evidence Act 2012

Bridging the rich-poor gap in Singapore

The recent pay increases are seen by some Singaporeans as a step forward, but critics view them as tweaking, rather than resolving, a fundamental problem.

WHEN Cabinet ministers took turns to rebuff a proposal to push up salaries of lowly-paid workers, most Singaporeans viewed it as good as buried.

Given the strict way the government is run, the revolutionary idea raised by former state economic adviser Professor Lim Chong Yah might well have faced the death sentence.

His think-out-of-the-box way of narrowing the economic gap called for the salaries of low-level workers to be raised by 50% over three years, and those at the top-end be frozen for a similar period.

The widening gap between rich and poor is becoming one of the most pressing problems here today. It threatens Singapore’s social fabric despite its strong GDP growth.

To the PAP, Prof Lim’s suggestion probably smacks too much of socialism.

But according to the professor, this land of record millionaires needs such a solution because it has for years been significantly under-paying its poorer workers.

The rich are becoming richer, and the poor poorer, not the best way to win votes.

The Boston Consulting Group said that 15.5% of Singapore households have at least S$1mil (RM2.4mil) in liquid assets, the highest percentage in the world.

But the earnings of the city’s 20% lowest paid had declined during the past 10 years.

The unequal growth was not due to globalisation or technological change, but the mass influx of foreign workers in the past 10 years, said prominent diplomat Prof Tommy Koh.

He said Singapore had a per capita income similar to Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, yet cleaners in these countries were paid some seven times more than those in Singapore.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s response to Prof Lim was a firm “no” and said such pay increases must be matched by a rise in productivity.

That is virtually impossible as this growth slowed to an average 1% a year in the past decade.

However, I’m glad no one said “never” to Prof Lim. Due to the seriousness of the problem, it is unlikely any leader can swear that the concept will not be relooked at one day.

In fact, since Prof Lim’s controversial suggestion, a series of steep pay increases resembling — and even exceeding — his suggestion has been announced — although only for a duration of one year.

Prof Lim’s proposal was for an average of 16%-17% a year for a consecutive three years.

The recent ones included the following:

> SMRT announced that it was raising bus drivers’ salaries by 35%, but for a six- instead of five-day week.

> Public health workers, including nurses, will have had increases of up to 17% from last month.

> Social workers can expect pay rises of up to 15% this year.

> NTUC, the large union movement, announced that non-executive staff will get up to 15.8% in wage increment and adjustment.

> Several thousand junior and mid-level civil servants will get pay increases of between 5% and 15% this year.

The increases are, of course, unconnected to Prof Lim’s proposal but some observers believe the government is worried over, and may be responding to, the growing public unhappiness about stagnant salaries.

In its way, the job market seems to be lending support to Prof Lim’s proposed measures. The economic imbalance is the second worse in the world, next only to Hong Kong.

But Premier Lee disagreed.

“Although we want our workers to earn more, we cannot simply push up Singaporean wages as we would like,” he wrote on his Facebook page.

“The only way for our workers to do better is to compete on knowledge and innovation, upgrade our skills, and stay ahead of the pack.”

Critics, however, say this is near crisis time and it is not sufficient for the premier to stick to a conventional approach.

Meanwhile, the national wages advisory council, of which Prof Lim is former chairman, has for the first time since 1984 recommended a minimum quantum of pay raise.

It suggested S$50 (RM120) plus an unspecified percentage for workers earning less than S$1,000 (RM2,400) a month.

Although critics say it is a far cry from what is needed, it is apparently aimed at drawing a minimum line.
The authorities have always rejected calls for a minimum wage in Singapore.

Ryan Ong of Yahoo Moneysmart commented: “No offence and all, but that’s about as helpful as a pair of blunt scissors.

“I guarantee a whole bunch of companies are already reading ‘unspecified percentage’ as ‘nothing’.”

Some Singaporeans welcome the recent pay increases as a step forward but critics view them as tweaking, rather than resolving, a fundamental problem.

But as the debate flows, a dark shadow is appearing on the horizon that can worsen the situation and threaten any prospect of strong pay increases.

The global economy appears to be slowing down as it faces woes from Europe, which Singapore has strongly invested in, and an economic slowdown in China.

More employers are likely to become more concerned about avoiding being pulled down rather than how much to raise staff salaries.

A local daily reported that some industries, including shipping, are already feeling the pinch from the slowing Western markets.

Some are planning measures to reduce costs or retrench workers as a short term solution, TODAY reported.

This puts the squeeze on the government’s social compact of promising jobs and a reasonable living standard to Singaporeans in return for their political support.

The grounds at home and abroad are becoming tougher for everyone.

INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH By SEAH CHIANG NEE

cnseah05@hotmail.com 

Related posts:

Foreign worker flow choked in Singapore

Mar 17, 2012

Singapore 'warns' US on China bashing

Feb 24, 2012

Singapore warns US on anti-China rhetoric!

Feb 11, 2012