Singapore faces long haul back

Jun 5, 2009

Singapore faces long haul back
By R M Cutler

MONTREAL - Hopes that surging share prices in Singapore over the past three months point to an early recovery may be short-lived. A decline in exports, the city's life-blood, is picking up pace even after 13 months of falls, and stock declines this week may herald a longer pull back.

Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) fell 10.1% in the first quarter this year from the same period in 2008. This represents a decline of 14.6% quarter-on-quarter following a 16.4% fall in the fourth quarter of 2008. All sectors experienced further quarter-on-quarter declines, with the exception of construction and financial services. The broad weakness was especially marked in electronics, biomedical manufacturing, precision engineering, chemicals and manufacturing.

Exports have fallen for 13 months straight and, at least for the time being, the decline in exports is accelerating: down 19% in April from the year previous after a 17% year-on-year decline in March. Singapore's exports-to-GDP ratio is over 1.8, meaning that capital expenditure cannot be expected to recover significantly anytime soon either. This notwithstanding, the country's Purchasing Managers' Index climbed to a nine-month high in May, just above the 50 level, meaning that manufacturing is expanding, despite earlier expectations that manufacturing output would contract throughout 2009.

While there is some month-on-month improvement, however, levels remain far below the equivalent period from 2008. Increased unemployment throughout 2009, resulting from decreased global demand, will mean that domestic consumption will also lead to further production declines in goods intended for domestic consumption.

The corporate sector will therefore continue to be under enormous stress while access to credit will remain tight as well. Small and medium enterprises are faring marginally better than the large corporations thanks to relaxation of conditions of their access to credit under the stimulus package adopted earlier this year.

Despite the improvement, therefore, the country's national bank maintains its forecast of a 9% decline in GDP during 2009, around which level the consensus forecasts also falls. This follows a deceleration to 1.1% growth in 2008 after a 7.7% rate in 2007. Insofar as recent growth had been led by the banking sector and by exports, the country's central bank projects a slow recovery dependent on the recovery of export markets.

According to many observers, all this means that no meaningful economic recovery will come in Singapore by at least the end of 2009. Citigroup, for example, expects GDP to recover to pre-recession levels only by the end of 2010. Given the continuing weakness in the economic systems of developed industrial countries (negative economic growth, still fragile financial and banking institutions, rising unemployment, restrained consumer spending), it is surprising that such analysts are so relatively optimistic.

The journalistic commentary has lately begun, in order to avoid discussing the "L" shaped depression (or worse), to adumbrate a "W" shaped recovery now that the "V" won't happen and the "U" seems unlikely. The "green shoots" theme recently in vogue has passed out of currency, and while the US situation ameliorated slightly before showing its continued further weakness, neither Japan nor Europe has shown even the slightest improvement.

The consensus inflation forecast for 2009 is slightly negative (about 1%), with deflationary pressures greater than inflationary ones due to the falling currency abetted by foreign exchange and monetary intervention by the central bank. Countervailing, inflationary pressures are likely to come from such sources as increased transportation prices for imports due to such factors as the recent rise in the price of oil.

Meanwhile, PetroChina has bid US$2.2 billion to buy half a refinery in Singapore, as part of a long-standing Chinese strategy for its parastatal companies to become more influential in global energy markets. Since most of Asia's oil prices are determined in the Singapore trading hub, the move provides not only a significant source of supply but also a still greater presence where the markets are made.

PetroChina has doubled its fuel trading volumes in Singapore over the past four years, participating more and more deeply in the price-setting mechanism itself. In the end, this will especially increase its leverage on spot prices in Singapore. According to Reuters, it will also give PetroChina a more equal ground with Sinopec in matters of trading expertise and market influence as well as a more dispersed economic geography of refining.

The country's equity market benchmark Straits Times Index (STI), which closed as low as 1,457 on March 9, has risen over 60% from that level to the high 2,300s in less than three months, is now set to retrace some of those gains, perhaps back as low as the low 2,100s. Indeed, the Singapore market has already begun this process in the past two days.

Generalized risk aversion in world equity markets has also hurt Singapore's stock markets as capital outflows have increased, raising long-term pressure on the Singapore dollar. This comes as Asian markets in general also prepare for a generalized correction of their recent run-up.

Dr Robert M Cutler (http://www.robertcutler.org), educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The University of Michigan, has researched and taught at universities in the United States, Canada, France, Switzerland, and Russia. Now senior research fellow in the Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, Carleton University, Canada, he also consults privately in a variety of fields.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30454.1

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON A NEW BEGINNING

June 4, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt

1:10 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

END
2:05 P.M. (Local)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/

People value not the right to vote, but the right to a peaceful life

People value not the right to vote, but the right to a peaceful life

THE publication of internal Communist Party documents (the Tiananmen Papers), as well as the late Chinese leader Zhao Ziyang's memoirs (Prisoner Of The State), has allowed a dispassionate analysis of the Tiananmen incident, deriving useful lessons for developing democracies as we approach the 20th anniversary of this momentous event.

In 1989, the five-man Politburo Standing Committee could not agree on a united strategy to face the popular public display of dissatisfaction at governance in China; two favoured negotiations, two favoured a crackdown while the third hedged his bets. This resulted in intense lobbying by both factions of Deng Xiaoping who, although officially retired, was the one making important decisions. The side that got to Deng first publicly announced his privately expressed anger at the student demonstrators, thus starting on the road leading inevitably to violence.

The lesson to be learnt is that those with the responsibility of governance must keep differences under control, avoid excessive politicking and not seek total victory, whatever the consequences. Because of June 4, 1989, China's reforms and development stagnated until Deng reignited them with his famous Southern Tour of Shenzen in 1992, arguing that 'to get rich is glorious'. There is a message here for future political protagonists in a more liberal Singapore.

In telling his story, Zhao expressed frustration at the difficulty in negotiating with the diverse groups making up the Tiananmen demonstrators, and their constantly shifting demands. Thus, in a young democracy unused to loud and aggressive debate, it is important that public demonstrations are avoided, and extreme demands be deprived of publicity. Instead of having opponents criticise the extremists of one side, it may be better for the country if unacceptable views are checked by one's own party. This makes it more likely for a negotiated outcome to prevail. After all, in the United States, a liberal Republican often agrees with a conservative Democrat.

In 1989, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was hailed as a hero, not just in the Soviet Union but around the world. In the last Russian election in which he stood, Mr Gorbachev obtained less than 5 per cent of the votes cast. Over the past 20 years, China has become the world's third largest economy, and the US Treasury Secretary is in Beijing seeking continued Chinese purchase of US debts. Many are thus relieved that Zhao, although earnest, did not win the debate in 1989.

Ultimately, people value not the right to vote as some in America seem to be saying, but the right to a peaceful life and a decent rice-bowl. Aspiring politicians will do well to remember that Singaporeans will be on the side of those who can deliver a better quality of life.

Dr Ong Hean Teik

Penang, Malaysia

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30304.1

TEMASEK: Split portfolio in two

June 5, 2009
ASSESSING TEMASEK'S PERFORMANCE
Split portfolio in two

I REFER to the report on the Finance Minister's response in Parliament on Temasek Holdings' performance ('Temasek beats returns of many funds', last Friday). In explaining Temasek's loss in the sale of its stake in Bank of America, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam mentioned that a large part of the $58 billion portfolio decline was due to the slump in market value of the 10 largest listed Temasek-linked companies in Singapore.

I understand that most of its investments in Singapore - such as in Singapore Airlines, DBS Bank, ST Engineering and SingTel - are for strategic purposes and cannot be traded to maximise returns.

We should review Temasek's performance on a portfolio basis over a period of time rather than each individual investment decision. The problem with assessing Temasek's performance is that its trading investments and national strategic investments are mingled together to form one portfolio.

I propose that the current portfolio be split in two, with one for national strategic purposes and another for trading purposes. Temasek can provide separate performance statements in its annual report for the respective funds.

The strategic portfolio would probably be static and passively managed as investments are not held for profit maximisation but for national security reasons. Ministries can decide on the need for Temasek to retain the stake in these companies.

For example, the Ministry of Defence can decide if there is a need to retain a controlling interest in ST Engineering; likewise, the Ministry of Trade and Industry can decide on the size of Temasek's stake in SIA. In this way, Temasek fund managers will not be penalised if these shares go down.

The investment portfolio would comprise all investment assets which are managed actively like a private equity fund or a mutual fund. Fund managers can actively manage this portfolio and be assessed on their performance within an investment cycle to be decided by the Ministry of Finance. They can be judged on their investment decisions in Shin Corp, Bank of China, Merrill Lynch, ABC Learning and others. We can also formally benchmark them against other similar best-in-class global funds.

In this way, we can judge Temasek's performance as an active fund manager.

Eric Tan Heng Chong

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30300.1

Singapore: Buy High, Sell Low II

Singapore: Buy High, Sell Low II
Written by Our Correspondent
Friday, 05 June 2009

Singapore officials' sense of superiority has taken another beating. A behind-the-curve bunch of sheep with MBAs may now be the truer image. While the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi has cleaned up on its investment in Britain's Barclays Bank, Temasek Holdings, still headed until October by Ho Ching, wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has bailed out at a loss estimated at around US$850 million.

The news didn't come out of Singapore, where embarrassments involving the first family get the minimum attention, but from analysts in London and New York studying the movement of major shareholders in Barclays. The citizens of Singapore were apparently not worthy of being told of how their money is being mismanaged.

Not content with buying into Barclays at a time when the banking sector was viewed as the way to easy riches, Temasek sold out close to the bottom of the market. The Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Investment Corp meanwhile bought in when Barclays was desperate and sold out just this week when the Barclays share price had recovered, netting a profit of £1.45 billion sterling (US$ 2.2 billion) in just seven months.

The Temasek debacle followed hard on the heels of massive losses on a Bank of America stake mostly acquired near the top of the market and sold close to the bottom. Temasek's loss is estimated at US$4.6 billion, or roughly US$1,000 for every Singaporean citizen. After the sale, presumably in March, the share price promptly rose by 66 percent.

Singapore Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has claimed that despite recent losses Temasek has made gains averaging a respectable 15 respectable a year. However, this was during a sustained global bull market and also reflected the fact that some of its assets were state-owned companies whose shares had been transferred at non-market prices. These included power stations which have been sold off over the past two years, generating large gains which cannot be replicated.

Some aspects of Temasek are also so obscure that no proper analysis is possible. One black hole looks to be a leveraged investment in a series of private equity funds at the top of the market.

Having bought into financials near the top – making them 40% of its total portfolio -- and sold off near the bottom, it is now focusing on commodities, most recently buying a stake in locally listed agriculture company Olam international. It got a 13.76 percent stake at an 18 percent discount to the market, nonetheless it had already almost doubled in price this year thanks to a rebound in commodities which may or may not be sustained.

Not that it is completely neglecting financials. It is considering a stake in a consortium to buy AIG's asset management business. But potential partner in this is the high-profile Hong Kong businessman notorious for losing shareholders' money – Richard Lee of PCCW.

Nor can Temasek ignore the problems of Singapore state enterprises which must compete internationally. It has just had to inject equity to reduce the massive debt of money-losing ship-owner NOL. Meanwhile it is trying to offload loss-making manufacturer Chartered Semiconductor.

In short, Temasek's bad news is unlikely to be over. But don't expect to hear about it first in the local media.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29352.3

HTML clipboard

A woeful omission by the ST

I caught on a link that my friend posted on Facebook, a report by the BBC about the woeful working conditions in Singapore concerning the upcoming IR at Marina Bay.

According to the report, workers at the Marina IR were being subjected to oppressive conditions, forced to meet crushing deadlines while their monthly/OT pay was being withheld. Workers that proved resistant were immediately evicted, and these are now pursuing legal action against their employers.

Now this is serious news, a case where labour laws and possibly even human rights were violated. So, I checked Thursday’s papers and the ST online to see whether any similar reports were done, and this is what I found:

SINGAPORE ROCKS SINGAPORE ROCKS SINGAPORE ROCKS LET’S GET OUT OF THIS CRISIS COME TOGETHER WOOHOO!

Even before its completion, the IR has already wrecked lives

Nothing. That’s right — there was not a single word on the strike, nor on the conditions of these foreign workers. In fact, on Thursday’s papers (ref. Home Section), it did two reports concerning the construction sector; one about improved safety standards in the marine sector, and the other on a failed lawsuit by a foreign worker, who was demanding greater compensation from an injury sustained during work.

This seems to me like adding insult to injury. What’s the point of reporting on improved safety standards for workers when on one hand a group of workers have their rights so patently violated? And again, what’s the point of reporting on a worker’s failed attempt to get compensation when there a bunch of workers who aren’t even getting basic pay?

Now I’ve always been FOR the ST. I’ve disliked blanket accusations against them that they are simply a means of pro-gahmen propaganda, their reports not worth reading. And despite this, I still maintain that relative to some newspapers I’ve read elsewhere, ST still holds a pretty high standard.

But, having said this, the claim that the ST is “balanced” — not just a government mouthpiece — seems to hold much less water now. Its a real shame and tragedy when we have to realise on a foreign news agency like the BBC to do the reporting for us. And this case isn’t even about testing political OB markers (i.e. WSJ), but about basic socioeconomic conditions not being met.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=31033.2