The US government have managed to set up a $20-billion BP compensation fund for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And rightly so.
However, this highlights a blaring double standard. The Bhopal disaster killed 3,500 people in the direct aftermath, and 15,000 in the following years; many children born disabled; and toxic waste continues to contaminate drinking water. Yet the Indian government and Union Carbide agreed at a settlement for a meagre $470 million.
Yes, the BP oil spill is outrageous but it is pale in comparison to the Bhopal gas leak. Senior managers at the time of the gas leak in Bhopal were sentenced to two-year prison sentences and a fine. This scandalous dispensation of justice has been said to be treated like "a minor traffic accident."
The Indian govermnent have pledged to pursue a clean-up of the toxic waste by Dow Chemical (the company who bought up the assets of Union Carbide but have refused to take responsibility for its liabilities.) This is a welcomed decision - better late than never.
Monday, 16 August 2010
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Capping the problem
Immigration issues were very prominent in the last general election - often seen as the elephant in the room that many politicians tip-toed around.
However, in the coalition agreement the need for a non-EU immigration cap was set out. The aim is to reduce the numbers coming in from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands, back to levels seen in the 1990s.
Cameron claims that a cap will finally put a cap on the heated issue of immigration in the public domain (excuse the pun!) The thinking is, the public will be appeased by action and thus, it will no longer pose a problem.
The number of bogus colleges with bogus students would also be curbed. Hence, a cap will reduce the number of people coming to the UK to work in the black economy.
However legitimate the plans may be, perhaps these comments are untimely. On a visit to India to strengthen economic ties, Cameron talks about a cap that would potentially prevent Indian doctors, nurses and engineers seeking employment in the UK. India's commerce minister, Anand Sharma has even gone as far as claiming it could have an adverse effect on trade relations.
However, in the coalition agreement the need for a non-EU immigration cap was set out. The aim is to reduce the numbers coming in from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands, back to levels seen in the 1990s.
Cameron claims that a cap will finally put a cap on the heated issue of immigration in the public domain (excuse the pun!) The thinking is, the public will be appeased by action and thus, it will no longer pose a problem.
The number of bogus colleges with bogus students would also be curbed. Hence, a cap will reduce the number of people coming to the UK to work in the black economy.
However legitimate the plans may be, perhaps these comments are untimely. On a visit to India to strengthen economic ties, Cameron talks about a cap that would potentially prevent Indian doctors, nurses and engineers seeking employment in the UK. India's commerce minister, Anand Sharma has even gone as far as claiming it could have an adverse effect on trade relations.
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
The key to all our woes...
...in David Cameron's eyes, it's certainly our foreign trade policy. And rightly so. By demonstrating Britain is "open for business", we can attract healthy foreign inward investment.
His reasoning is very logical: in times of austerity, when government spending is curbed on every level to tackle the structural budget deficit, we need trade. Companies all over the world need to buy British goods. Private companies must be the engine of growth as the public sector is squeezed, if we are not to see jobs lost.
Accordingly, Cameron has made it clear that diplomats, regardless of their juniority, must promote UK business abroad by trying to win orders for UK firms.
In the last week, the Prime Minister has been on a "jobs mission" - from the USA to Turkey to India. This is the right strategy.
His reasoning is very logical: in times of austerity, when government spending is curbed on every level to tackle the structural budget deficit, we need trade. Companies all over the world need to buy British goods. Private companies must be the engine of growth as the public sector is squeezed, if we are not to see jobs lost.
Accordingly, Cameron has made it clear that diplomats, regardless of their juniority, must promote UK business abroad by trying to win orders for UK firms.
In the last week, the Prime Minister has been on a "jobs mission" - from the USA to Turkey to India. This is the right strategy.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Freshfields
I have always thought that I wanted to go into the law profession in the future. So, to find out a bit a more about the field, I decided what better way than getting first hand experience; for the last three days I have been on work experience at Freshfields.
Being able to mingle with the people at the firm, from trainees to associates to partners, my time at Freshfields provided an ample opportunity for me to gain exposure to working life.
I worked in the Employment, Pensions and Benefits (EPB) Department shadowing an associate. I was able to learn so much more than I could by researching on the internet! First off, I read through and discussed an Employment Appeal Tribunal document . All three days I sat in on the department's training sessions - on cross border deals, treasury shares and pensions schemes. These sessions were littered with incomprehensible jargon! Accordingly, I made a glossary of all the legal terms I learnt.
Perhaps the most rewarding task I completed was my note on "Responses to Industrial Action." The note, based on research from books on employment law, outlined how a firm could deal with official and unofficial strikes from their employees. It was sent to the whole department for future reference!
After three fruitful days of working at Freshfields, my passion for this area is burning stronger than ever!
Being able to mingle with the people at the firm, from trainees to associates to partners, my time at Freshfields provided an ample opportunity for me to gain exposure to working life.
I worked in the Employment, Pensions and Benefits (EPB) Department shadowing an associate. I was able to learn so much more than I could by researching on the internet! First off, I read through and discussed an Employment Appeal Tribunal document . All three days I sat in on the department's training sessions - on cross border deals, treasury shares and pensions schemes. These sessions were littered with incomprehensible jargon! Accordingly, I made a glossary of all the legal terms I learnt.
Perhaps the most rewarding task I completed was my note on "Responses to Industrial Action." The note, based on research from books on employment law, outlined how a firm could deal with official and unofficial strikes from their employees. It was sent to the whole department for future reference!
After three fruitful days of working at Freshfields, my passion for this area is burning stronger than ever!
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Tonight's the night
Perhaps it is slightly pertrubing that tonight's election debate (just 15 minutes to go!) excites me just as much as the World Cup in June. Eeek!
Tonight could prove to be a game changer yet it could also be a damp squib. As its the very first election debate in British politics, no one quite knows how it will turn out. With trust in politics at a low ebb, it is essential that this debate is an engaged and responsive one. Although it will be fantastic for tomorrow morning's soundbites, I hope the debate does not prevail as one full of recited lines and bunch of pretty phrases. I hope for substance over style.
More than anything, I hope the rules are broken! The crowd are forbidden from cheering and booing - ridiculous!
Tonight could prove to be a game changer yet it could also be a damp squib. As its the very first election debate in British politics, no one quite knows how it will turn out. With trust in politics at a low ebb, it is essential that this debate is an engaged and responsive one. Although it will be fantastic for tomorrow morning's soundbites, I hope the debate does not prevail as one full of recited lines and bunch of pretty phrases. I hope for substance over style.
More than anything, I hope the rules are broken! The crowd are forbidden from cheering and booing - ridiculous!
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Negotiating with the non-negotiable
With the military offensive in Afghanistan looking bleak, politicians are considering another route - negotiation with the Taliban.
The thinking is that in exchange for a better future, many of the Taliban will put down their arms. It is said that most fighter are not ideologically driven, but instead, are forced into a life of fighting because it is their only option. If they are offered a better path - not bags of money - but the prospect of an education and jobs they will stop fighting.
Perhaps this solution is unsustainable. Even if we can "buy out" some of the smaller fighters, until we can eradicate the leaders we have very little chance.
This new idea taps into the debate about negotiating with terrorists. In principle, it is wrong to negotiate with people who try to achieve their aims through violence. However, there are those who claim these principles pale into insignifcance when we consider the benefits. If negotiation can ultimately lead to lives being saved, this must be the priority. The British government, under John Major, held secret talks with the IRA which led to the first breakthrough to a ceasefire. The ends justifies the means.
However, the idea of negotiation with the Taliban is nothing less than idealistic. The very nature of terrorists is that they want all or nothing. They are not prepared to make concessions.
Negotiation with the Taliban is unworkable.
The thinking is that in exchange for a better future, many of the Taliban will put down their arms. It is said that most fighter are not ideologically driven, but instead, are forced into a life of fighting because it is their only option. If they are offered a better path - not bags of money - but the prospect of an education and jobs they will stop fighting.
Perhaps this solution is unsustainable. Even if we can "buy out" some of the smaller fighters, until we can eradicate the leaders we have very little chance.
This new idea taps into the debate about negotiating with terrorists. In principle, it is wrong to negotiate with people who try to achieve their aims through violence. However, there are those who claim these principles pale into insignifcance when we consider the benefits. If negotiation can ultimately lead to lives being saved, this must be the priority. The British government, under John Major, held secret talks with the IRA which led to the first breakthrough to a ceasefire. The ends justifies the means.
However, the idea of negotiation with the Taliban is nothing less than idealistic. The very nature of terrorists is that they want all or nothing. They are not prepared to make concessions.
Negotiation with the Taliban is unworkable.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
"We are all Keynesians now"
It is what we have all been waiting for: slamming the door on the recession.
However, we must not be too hasty - the prospect of a strong recovery lies in the balance. Figures that the economy grew by 0.1% in the last quarter of 2009 was substantially weaker than what most economists predicted. More worrying is that the figure could yet be revised downwards. The latest reading is only the first of three. The next two will come in February and March. It is entirely plausible that we could record minus growth again, just like in the recession of 1990-2.
There are two factors that will jeopardise the recovery. Firstly, with the election battle in full swing, Labour and Conservatives are keen to show that they can handle the budget deficit. In many areas they will be looking for spending cuts. This is a risky business. If any good can come out of Japan's demise in the 1990s, it is that there are pertinent lessons to be learnt. Japan tightened their fiscal policy before private demand could sustain itself. We must not take the same path and risk a double-dip recession. The second threat to our recovery is inflation. There has been a sharp rise in inflation to 2.9% (CPI index). Although this can be largely attributed to the VAT rise back to 17.5%, consumers will nevertheless cut spending. The Bank of England sees the hike in inflation as temporary, but the public may not.
It is in this dire context that the government must sustain the recovery. The goverment must continue to sustain demand through big spending to encourgae businesses to invest. It is the proper role of government to fill the shorfall in private demand - "we are all Keynesians now." However, this will come at a cost. Our budget deficit is utterly unsustainable. If the government continue to spend more than it recieves from tax receipts for much longer, confidence will plummet. Credit agencies have already warned that our AAA status is being threatened. A downgrade will have catastrophic results. Interest rates will soar as creditors judge loans to be very risky. The rate at which the goverment must press the brakes on our aggressive fiscal policy is very much a judgement call. The rate of growth, unemployment levels and credit levels must all be considered.
Britain were worryingly sluggish out of recession. These new figures of timid growth is not a poll asset for Labour. But it can be used to scare the public away from Conservative plans for unprecendented cuts.
However, we must not be too hasty - the prospect of a strong recovery lies in the balance. Figures that the economy grew by 0.1% in the last quarter of 2009 was substantially weaker than what most economists predicted. More worrying is that the figure could yet be revised downwards. The latest reading is only the first of three. The next two will come in February and March. It is entirely plausible that we could record minus growth again, just like in the recession of 1990-2.
There are two factors that will jeopardise the recovery. Firstly, with the election battle in full swing, Labour and Conservatives are keen to show that they can handle the budget deficit. In many areas they will be looking for spending cuts. This is a risky business. If any good can come out of Japan's demise in the 1990s, it is that there are pertinent lessons to be learnt. Japan tightened their fiscal policy before private demand could sustain itself. We must not take the same path and risk a double-dip recession. The second threat to our recovery is inflation. There has been a sharp rise in inflation to 2.9% (CPI index). Although this can be largely attributed to the VAT rise back to 17.5%, consumers will nevertheless cut spending. The Bank of England sees the hike in inflation as temporary, but the public may not.
It is in this dire context that the government must sustain the recovery. The goverment must continue to sustain demand through big spending to encourgae businesses to invest. It is the proper role of government to fill the shorfall in private demand - "we are all Keynesians now." However, this will come at a cost. Our budget deficit is utterly unsustainable. If the government continue to spend more than it recieves from tax receipts for much longer, confidence will plummet. Credit agencies have already warned that our AAA status is being threatened. A downgrade will have catastrophic results. Interest rates will soar as creditors judge loans to be very risky. The rate at which the goverment must press the brakes on our aggressive fiscal policy is very much a judgement call. The rate of growth, unemployment levels and credit levels must all be considered.
Britain were worryingly sluggish out of recession. These new figures of timid growth is not a poll asset for Labour. But it can be used to scare the public away from Conservative plans for unprecendented cuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)