3 UN staff killed in Kabul attack, says Ban |
- 3 UN staff killed in Kabul attack, says Ban
- The culture of bureaucracy and the need for reforms — Prijono Tjiptoherijanto
- A galloping feast of goodies
- Ice hotel creates ‘Frozen-inspired’ bedroom made of ice and snow
- Ukraine leader signs controversial anti-protest law
- Who lost Thailand? — Yuriko Koike
| 3 UN staff killed in Kabul attack, says Ban Posted: 17 Jan 2014 05:05 PM PST
A UN statement said other dead from the attack claimed by the Taliban were from international organisations. "Such targeted attacks against civilians are completely unacceptable and are in flagrant breach of international humanitarian law," Ban was quoted as saying by a spokesman. Ban condemned the attack "in the strongest terms," said deputy UN spokesman Farhan Haq. "Three United Nations personnel, along with a number of those from other international organisations, are now confirmed dead," added Haq. The International Monetary Fund has already said its representative in Afghanistan was killed in the attack on a restaurant used by foreigners. The United Nations is to take on a leading role in Afghanistan as international troops complete their withdrawal in 2014 and the country builds up to national elections. It has already tightened security at its bases, and the attack will lead to a new review of staff safety, UN officials said. — AFP  |
| The culture of bureaucracy and the need for reforms — Prijono Tjiptoherijanto Posted: 17 Jan 2014 05:03 PM PST
It inherits it and institutes personnel purges or reorganisation or both, either to cleanse the old system and reorient it to the needs of the new dispensation or to reshape the administrative culture and values in facilitating targeted policy and program objectives. Consequently, a new political order brings its own political culture to the regime-bureaucracy relationship. As the bureaucracy accommodates and eventually trusts the new regime, an administrative culture supportive of the political leadership ensues. The biggest hurdle to administrative reforms, however, appears to be the role of politicians in controlling the bureaucracy. Political leaders in a party-run polity are unlikely to appreciate the importance of a politically neutral civil service. They also may not be adequately restrained from pursuing extraneous goals in and through the bureaucracy. Indulgence by dominant-party politicians has also resulted in widespread political interference in administrative decisions and the politicisation of bureaucratic decision-making. Another factor that contributes to the success of administrative reform is the role of leaders. The implementation of change in public services requires highly persistent and visionary leaders. Therefore, there has to be quality leadership that will provide guidance and inspiration for the whole community, especially in the bureaucracy as the machine of government. Leadership is thus a necessary but insufficient condition for institutionalising public-sector reforms. Leadership is the key element in reforming the office and, in a larger sense, in achieving and engaging a performance-driven civil service within a challenging and globalizing world. Good governance occurs not only when politicians are honest and accountable, but also when civil servants are efficient and productive. The quality of governance is largely dependent on the quality of people who run it. A government maintained by responsible and highly competent individuals who are motivated by a strong desire to improve the lives of others, can ensure a government that truly works for the people. Most problems in government are said to be substantiated by the lack of this basic quality of service. Sadly, the reputation of public officials speaks for itself in almost all of the developing countries in ASEAN. As for administrative reform, or so-called "governance reform", administrative reform is directed toward the "trust deficit". The "trust deficit" can be reduced only by creating a government that is efficient and also just. In the United States, this paradigm stimulated rethinking about what government was and how it should function. Among the products were two theories of government administration which surfaced under two great presidents. One is the "minimal state" role, a form of administrative strategy used by the Reagan administration, whereas the other involved "reinventing government" during the Clinton Administration. The minimal state theory is similar to the school of thought that has its roots in the work of Friedrich A. Hayek and Milton Friedman and draws intellectual sustenance from the work of William A. Niskanen, Gordon Tullock, Nobel laureate James M. Buchanan and other members of the school of public choice. During the Reagan administration, minimalism was implemented through various means that sought diminished expectations of government; budgetary restraints and centralised decision making; a leaner and more responsive political establishment; and a focus on a few objectives of overriding natural importance. Reinventing government, on the other hand, took its inspiration from the experience of practitioners such as David Osborne, a journalist, and a former city manager, Ted Gaebler. Ideas posted by Osborne and Gaebler had the enthusiastic endorsement of president Clinton when in 1993 he requested vice president Al Gore to review the performance of the federal government of the United States of America. The purpose of the review, as the title of the report that was submitted in the same year indicated, was to create a government that was result oriented, worked better and cost less. The report noted that only 20 per cent of the American people trusted the federal government to act correctly most of the time. To reduce this "trust deficit" then became an important objective of the administration at that time. In spite of the strategic differences between the two reform movements, there was a common theme, the urge to de-bureaucratise government administration. Several innovative public programs that broke free of the constraint of bureaucratic procedures were introduced. In order to understand the de-bureaucratising agenda in these two reform movements, comparison between them with regard to four dimensions of public administration namely : purpose, personnel, organization and management procedures, was required. These dimensions addressed the questions of why, who, what and how public administration ought to be conducted. At the risk of over simplification these questions provide a sense of the potential for and content of the de-bureaucratisation agenda. The de-bureaucratization movement as an administrative reform is more than a political act. It is an act of cultural change, reflecting and challenging basic social values. As James Q. Wilson has commented, "The way in which a bureaucracy operates cannot be explained simply by knowing its tasks and the economic and political incentives that it confronts. Culture makes a difference." Building trust in government as a way to strengthening the administrative culture is an ongoing process, where complacency is unwelcome. However, since this process should be taken, the following recommendations should be implemented: A clear definition of the power of different levels of government to enable better coordination and policy cohesiveness between actors in bureaucracy; additional attention to incentive and pay structures within the civil service; and continuing support to the fight against corruption. In each of these objectives, the role of leadership will be key in building the credibility of new reforms, providing the populace with an overall vision of a future in which government earns and fully merits citizens' confidence, and helping to commit different socioeconomic actors and resources to this long-term goal. — thejakartapost.com * The writer is a professor of economics at the University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online. |
| Posted: 17 Jan 2014 05:00 PM PST
Go for the homemade treats made by the Chan sisters. Previously the sisters ran the wantan mee stall at Restoran Seng Lee. After the coffeeshop closed at the end of December, they have turned their focus to homemade goodies for the festival. Expect to find about 30 varieties of cookies and deep-fried goodies -- prepared community-style at home with their aunts and cousins. Each batch of their deep-fried items is prepared using fresh oil hence there's no stale oil taste. Later in June, the sisters will re-open their wantan mee stall at Sri Hartamas. 1. Kuih kapit: Light flaky envelopes with a distinct coconut milk aroma. A rolled version is also available. 2. Almond cookies: Aromatic rounds filled with chopped almonds. 3. Chinese almond biscuits: These Macau inspired biscuits have a melt in the mouth texture with almond bits. 4. Pineapple tarts: Buttery base with a not-too-sweet jam. Other varieties of pineapple tarts are also available. 5. Sambal prawn spring rolls: Aromatic with a spicy kick. A chicken variety is also available. 6. Yam shreds: Totally addictive crunchy thin shreds sprinkled with sesame seeds with a slight savoury taste. 7. Dragon biscuits: Milky and fragrant with a melt in the mouth texture. 8. Walnut cookies: Tiny and slightly salty niblets that are aromatic with ground walnuts. 9. Green pea cookies: Crumbly milky cookies with a slight salty hit from ground green peas. 10. Multi-seed crisps: Thin crisps sprinkled with an assortment of seeds and nuts that are good paired with a glass of cold beer. 11. Chicken biscuits: Originally from Kampar, these crisp thins sprinkled with sesame seeds have a strong aroma of nam yue (fermented beancurd). 12. Arrowroot chips: Unsalted, crispy and totally addictive! 13. Coffee almond cookies: Delicious with a distinct coffee aroma topped with chopped toasted almonds. 14. Lotus root crisps: Wafer thin crisps with a savoury taste; you cannot stop eating once you start. This story was first published in Crave in the print edition of The Malay Mail on January 17, 2014 |
| Ice hotel creates ‘Frozen-inspired’ bedroom made of ice and snow Posted: 17 Jan 2014 04:59 PM PST
To be unveiled this weekend at the Hotel de Glace, the "Frozen Suite" is modelled after the royal bedrooms of sisters Anna and Elsa featured in the animated film. The movie itself is set in the dramatic landscapes of a wintry Norway and the film's fictional town of Arendelle, inspired by the picturesque Nordic town of Bergen. The Frozen Suite, meanwhile, features an ornate, ice-carved bed, armchair and bench, and will be open through March 23. The hotel is located 10 minutes from the centre of Quebec City, which will be hosting the 60th edition of the world's largest winter festival, the Quebec Winter Carnival between January 31 and February 16. — AFP-Relaxnews |
| Ukraine leader signs controversial anti-protest law Posted: 17 Jan 2014 04:51 PM PST
The new legislation allows the authorities to jail those who blockade public buildings for up to five years. It also permits the arrest of protesters who wear masks or helmets. US Secretary of State John Kerry called the curbs anti-democratic and wrong, while EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said such actions "do not contribute to building confidence". Western rights groups had called on Yanukovych to veto the legislation, denouncing the bills as an attempt to impose a "dictatorship." The opposition has staged nearly two months of protests in response to Yanukovych's decision to ditch a key pact with the European Union in favour of close ties with Russia. Ashton said before Yanukovych signed off on the legislation she was "deeply concerned by the events in Kiev", asking him to "ensure that these decisions are revised and brought in line with Ukraine's international commitments". Ukraine's opposition fears the tough new legislation will be used to break up the opposition movement and prosecute its leaders. The provisions, which mirror restrictive measures in place in former master Russia, are clearly aimed at the protesters in Kiev who are occupying the City Hall building and manning a tent city with massive barricades on the central Independence Square and its surrounding streets. "This kind of anti-democratic manoeuvre is extremely disturbing and should be of concern to every nation that wants to see the people of Ukraine be able to, not only express their wish, but see it executed," Kerry said. In a fresh sign of tension within the administration, Yanukovych's office said his chief of staff, Sergiy Lyovochkin, was standing down and would instead act as an advisor. Lyovochkin first submitted his resignation after riot police brutally broke up an opposition protest late last year but Yanukovych refused to let him go at the time. Yanukovych's spokeswoman Darka Chepak may also leave, a representative of the presidential administration told AFP on condition of anonymity. Chepak was not immediately available for comment. 'High security prison' The opposition accused Yanukovych of ending democracy in the country and called on people to come out for a new monster rally on Sunday. "Yanukovych... took a new step toward installing a real neo-dictatorship in Ukraine," the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko said in a statement. "The bills are a high security prison for everyone who feels like a free person," added former interior minister turned opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko.
Other provisions passed Thursday introduced the term "foreign agent" to be applied to NGOs that receive even the smallest funding from foreign countries. Russia passed a similar package of bills after Vladimir Putin was inaugurated for his third term in the Kremlin in 2012, hiking fines for unsanctioned protests, making libel a criminal offence, and slapping NGOs with the "foreign agent" label. The German government, seen as one of the most influential voices in the European Union's dealings with ex-Soviet states, said it was watching the events in Kiev with "great concern". "The course chosen yesterday by President Yanukovych leads to a dead end," added German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. "Repressions should not be the response to heated political discussions," Steinmeier said in a statement. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said on Twitter the new bills lead to a situation where "there can be no business as usual with Kiev". "What Russia did in 60 days after Putin's (inauguration), Ukraine did in 20 minutes," the deputy chief of Human Rights Watch group Rachel Denber wrote on Twitter. Critics voiced concern after pro-government lawmakers voted by a show of hands instead of the regular electronic system, leaving no record to verify the figure of 235 in favour out of 450 present. — AFP |
| Who lost Thailand? — Yuriko Koike Posted: 17 Jan 2014 04:50 PM PST
Yet, most of the rest of Asia appears to be averting its eyes from the country's ongoing and increasingly anarchic unrest. That indifference is not only foolish; it is dangerous. Asia's democracies now risk confronting the same harsh question that the United States faced when Mao Zedong marched into Beijing and again when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ousted the Shah in Iran. Who, they will have to ask, lost Thailand? Much of the world is wondering how such a successful economy could allow its politics to spin out of control. What accounts for the armies of protesters — distinguished, gang-like, by the colour of their shirts — whose mutual antipathy often borders on nihilistic rage? The roots of the current unrest extend back more than a decade, to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's first electoral victory in 2001. Thaksin's triumph did not represent the normal alternation in power that one finds in a democracy. Instead, his victory heralded the political rise of the country's poor, long-silenced rural majority. Bangkok's entrenched elite recoiled in alarm. But, instead of learning to compete with Thaksin for the votes of Thailand's rural poor, the country's urban elite (including the powerful military) sought to delegitimise his rule. When he was re-elected by an even larger majority, his government was overthrown, his political party was banned by the Supreme Court and he was forced to flee the country after corruption charges against him led to a criminal conviction. Diluting Democracy Yet, Thaksin's supporters did not abandon him. When Thailand's military returned to their barracks, many Thai citizens voted for Thaksin at one remove, with his sister — Yingluck Shinawatra, a long-time executive at Thaksin's communications firm — becoming Prime Minister, supported by a powerful parliamentary majority. For much of her term in office, Ms Yingluck garnered praise for her pragmatism and for seeking to ameliorate the antagonism of her opponents. But that praise and success appears to have bred a form of hubris. She proposed an amnesty law that would have not only pardoned opposition leaders, including Abhisit Vejjajiva, her predecessor as Prime Minister (who faces murder charges), but allowed her brother to return to the country. And, in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, she sought a constitutional amendment that would make the Senate, whose members are appointed, an elected body. The opposition, sensing that its moment had arrived, launched a wave of street protests. Ms Yingluck, in an effort to defuse the situation, called for a parliamentary election next month. But the opposition has rejected this and says it will boycott the vote. It fears — rightly, most people suspect — that the Thaksin camp will be returned to power in any free and fair vote. So, in essence, what is happening in Thailand is an attempted nullification of democracy by the opposition and the country's entrenched elite. Unable to compete successfully with Thaksin for votes, they now want to dilute Thai democracy in order to prevent the electorate from ever again choosing a government that goes against their will. The China Factor If Thailand were an insignificant country with little geostrategic weight, its problems might not matter as much as they do to the rest of Asia. But Thailand is South-east Asia's linchpin economy. It is a key partner for Myanmar as it makes its own political and economic transition and a hub for trade with neighbouring Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. But the biggest reason that Thailand matters for Asia's democracies is fierce competition for influence between a rising China and the democratic world. Until now, Thailand has been a firm member of the democratic camp. Its military is mostly trained by the US; indeed, it was the key staging point for the US during the Vietnam War. Likewise, Japan and India have long regarded Thailand as a democratic bulwark in a neighbourhood where some regimes — Cambodia and Laos — are firmly under China's hegemonic sway. Indeed, its government has proven to be a strong supporter of Myanmar's President Thein Sein as he seeks to free his country from China's tight embrace. By standing aside as Thailand's opposition and traditional elite seek to undermine the country's democracy in the name of a permanent right to rule, Asia's democracies risk driving some elements of the Thaksin camp into the arms of China, which would happily accept the role of patron to so potent a political force. But this need not happen. Thailand's military has long and respectful ties not only with the US military, but with officers in Japan as well. Thailand's opposition politicians, many of whom were educated at top Western universities, may also be open to quiet advice that they are pushing things too far, not only putting Thailand's stability at risk, but also jeopardising regional security. Just as, a decade ago, the West objected to the efforts of Turkey's entrenched secular elite to rob Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan's mildly Islamist AKP party of its democratic victory, it needs to speak clearly today in defence of Thai democracy. The opposition's claim that it is acting in the interests of the world's democracies needs to be rebutted. Thaksin may be no saint and some constitutional reform will be needed if political reconciliation is to come about. But Thaksin's governments, like that of his sister, have kept China at one remove from influence. That is the key strategic interest that is now at stake. Should Ms Yingluck be ousted in a coup, or should the country's democracy be hollowed out to preclude her return to power, the Shinawatras may be left with no choice but to seek support from Thailand's giant neighbour to the north. If that happens, we will all know who lost Thailand. We did. PROJECT SYNDICATE. — todayonline.com * Yuriko Koike, Japan's former Defence Minister and National Security Adviser, was Chairwoman of Japan's Liberal Democrat Party and currently is a member of the National Diet. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Malay Mail Online | All To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
