#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

The Fed is powerful, except in fighting wealth inequality

ColumnsJan 04. 2021Federal Reserve’s building

By Syndication Washington Post, Bloomberg Opinion · Brian Chappatta · OPINION, BUSINESS, US-GLOBAL-MARKETS 

When Jamie Dimon, the head of America’s largest bank, says the U.S. economy is in jeopardy, Federal Reserve policymakers and elected officials ought to take notice.

This detail was tucked away in a Wall Street Journal profile of JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive officer published near Christmas. The article began with his near-death experience in early March just as the covid-19 crisis was escalating worldwide, but sprinkled throughout were multiple warnings from Dimon: Without addressing the underlying economic inequality in the U.S., capitalism could soon meet its demise.

Dimon, of course, is hardly the first billionaire to bemoan the historically wide gap in the U.S. between rich and poor. Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, has said the American dream “does not exist” because of forces like extreme political polarization and wealth inequality. Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.com, wrote about “horrifying inequality” and the need for a new capitalism in October 2019. His net worth has increased by about $2 billion this year to $9 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

It’s easy to dismiss all this as cheap talk from those who benefited the most from the current system. But there’s only so much even the biggest hedge fund or largest U.S. bank can do to address these persistent problems. The power to narrow the yawning gaps in the world’s largest economy begins and ends in the halls of Congress. Unfortunately, for more than a decade, lawmakers have ceded much of that responsibility to the Fed, an institution that is particularly ill-equipped to address wealth inequality.

When I ask investors what they’ve learned in 2020, the answer is almost always the same: Don’t ever doubt how far the Fed is willing and able to go during periods of crisis. It added $3 trillion to its balance sheet in what seemed like a flash. It purchased corporate-bond exchange-traded funds, backstopped the municipal-debt market and injected enough confidence and liquidity into the financial system to lift the prices of just about all assets. As a result, U.S. household net worth reached an all-time high in the third quarter. 

So perhaps there’s another equally important takeaway from 2020: For all the central bank’s plaudits, its one kryptonite remains the same, whether in good economic times or bad. It’s powerless to stop the wealth gap in America from growing wider. 

The reason is straightforward: At its core, the Fed sets the level of interest rates in the economy. If interest rates are low, as they are now, that props up the value of stocks and other risky assets, which are disproportionately owned by high-net-worth households. If interest rates increase, as they did in 2018, then growth is strong and wealthy individuals can park more of their accumulated wealth in 10-year U.S. Treasuries and earn 3% or more for a decade, virtually free of risk. It’s a win-win – provided, of course, that you have a sizable amount of money to begin with. 

That last part is the context that many Fed critics seem to miss. During a year like 2020, when stock markets raced to record highs even as many workers lost their jobs and small businesses folded, it’s tempting to paint the central bank as a villain; an institution always looking out for Wall Street’s traders, dealmakers and hedge funds instead of the little guys. In reality, higher interest rates and tighter monetary policy are hardly a great wealth equalizer.

Instead, those in search of a foe should focus on Congress. 

Yes, lawmakers swiftly passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act early in 2020, which provided much-needed relief to many of those hit hardest by the pandemic. But over the course of at least the last decade, that sort of legislation has proved to be the exception rather than the norm. More typical was the excruciating back-and-forth over another round of fiscal aid that lasted for months.

The CARES Act showed how fiscal policy can chip away directly at wealth inequality. From March 31 through Sept. 30, the overall wealth of Americans in the bottom half increased by more than 20%, the largest two-quarter jump since late 2013. It was also a bigger boost than any of the other groups tracked by the Fed. Wealth rose 7.9% for those in the 50% to 90% tier, 10.3% in the 90% to 99% range and 15% for the top 1%. The top 10% now have roughly 34 times the wealth of the bottom half, which, while high on a historical basis, is also the lowest ratio since mid-2007, just before the longest recession since the Great Depression.

In that 13-year span, Congress has rarely been so focused on policies that support the most vulnerable Americans. Earlier in President Donald Trump’s term, Republicans passed a tax cut that skewed toward helping corporations and the wealthy. In the final years of Barack Obama’s presidency, deficits declined as congressional Republicans reined in government spending. Without a fiscal jolt to the economy, the Fed had little choice but to keep interest rates near zero. Stocks climbed steadily even as the economy recovered more slowly, with predictable and inequitable results. Research from the St. Louis Fed shows that the inflation-adjusted wealth gap has widened between White households and Black and Hispanic ones since the global financial crisis as well as over the past three decades. White families have a much higher median net worth to begin with and are twice as likely to own equities.

Some on Wall Street are optimistic that the covid-19 pandemic has changed the thinking in Washington around fiscal stimulus. “We see no political appetite for fiscal austerity, even as debt ratios hit historic highs globally. The politics of inequality will likely keep deficit spending high,” according to the 2021 global outlook from the BlackRock Investment Institute. “A post-pandemic recovery requires fiscal stimulus beyond the fiscal life preserver,” strategists at Citigroup wrote. “Without fiscal easing, when the pandemic is brought under control for good, the risk remains for rising inequalities and diminished prospects for living standards.”

Yet there are ample reasons to be skeptical. For one, even after Trump demanded $2,000 stimulus checks, a vast majority of House Republicans balked and prospects are fading fast in the Senate. Assuming the party wins at least one of the two Senate races in Georgia, that sets the stage for years of potential gridlock under President-elect Joe Biden and his pick for Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen. There’s no Fed policy that can avert such a fate.

“Monetary policy cannot change the distribution of wealth, monetary policy cannot get the stimulus to the right places today – it has to be fiscal,” Rick Rieder, BlackRock’s chief investment officer of global fixed income, told me in an interview. When it comes to steering the economy, “Jay Powell will be the co-pilot and the pilot will be Janet Yellen. Because whether its tax redistribution or creating more employment, it has to come through fiscal. Monetary has done virtually everything it can do.” 

As one example, Rieder points to the sharp increase in housing prices, which is cheered on by many economic observers, including Powell at his Dec. 16 press conference. Rieder isn’t so sure it’s a clear victory. Look no further than data that shows demand for million-dollar homes has grown faster than any other price tier. “The improvement of prices in housing is not necessarily a good story for a lot of people in the country,” he said. “There’s a whole series of things that can be done around making housing more affordable, but that all has to come through the fiscal side.”

Rieder told me a few years ago that he could see himself one day going into public service. He has a passion for education reform and is chairman of the board of North Star Academy, a charter school network in Newark, New Jersey. I watched him pump up a gym full of middle schoolers by telling them: “Life is not a dress rehearsal! Life is the big event!” So it makes sense that he would see the urgency on fiscal policy as something of a no-brainer.

Channel money to the right places. Improve access to high-quality education and affordable housing. And once the pandemic has passed, perhaps even raise taxes on wealthier Americans after years of financial-market gains. These are all things elected officials can do and the Fed can’t.

I wrote around this time last year that the U.S. seemed to be turning from the Tea Party to Modern Monetary Theory in the past decade. At the time, I certainly didn’t envision the type of fiscal support needed in 2020 to keep the economy from crumbling under the weight of the pandemic. The bigger test might just come later in 2021 when there’s no longer such an imminent crisis. Will politicians embrace their power to send funds to the unemployed and those in lower income brackets or retreat and let the Fed do the heavy lifting again? Will they expand access to health care and bring the nation’s infrastructure up to 21st-century standards? Those are some tough questions.

By contrast, the path ahead is fairly simple for the Fed: It will keep interest rates pinned near zero until the economy approaches full employment and inflation averages 2%. That will be the policy regardless of whether wealth inequality grows even more extreme or reverses the long-term trend.

So in some ways 2020 taught us that the Fed is powerful – except in the area that Dimon and others are warning about.

– – – 

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Chappatta is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering debt markets. He previously covered bonds for Bloomberg News. He is also a CFA charterholder.

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

Why Foreign Ministry ends up being a helpless mouthpiece for the powers that be

ColumnsJan 04. 2021

By Preechapak Tekasuk
Special to The Nation

The Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) was formerly known for its unbelievably complicated entry-exam system and an out-of-reach conservative nature, especially when its former office was located at the Saranrom Palace.

This made it a wonderland for ordinary Thais, as far too few of them were aware of its negative side. The Thai public often dubbed the ministry as an elite department that housed mostly groups of upper-class offsprings from a well-established background. That is not the case anymore. Not long ago, an ambassador-turned-Facebook personality, Russ Charnsongkram, published his official fan page to openly criticise the current government. The MFA was again thrown into the spotlight and is being continuously attacked by large numbers of netizens.  

However, the reason that brought it into the crosshairs was not because of its noble background, but its myriad attempts to rationalise the government’s suppression of youth protesters through use of the lèse majesté law in the Criminal Code, after years of dysfunction. To be precise, it is not the first time that the MFA appears to speak for, and in the name of, the government. Last month one of its high-level officials sent an open letter to London-based The Economist magazine, hoping to give a clear picture about the Thai political situation, in response to criticism of the Thai monarchy published by the magazine. Its pro-establishment position conveys an impression to the public that the MFA does not really serve the taxpayers, but the government instead.                

Theoretically, the MFA is obliged to serve Thai taxpayers as a civil-servant organisation, since its payroll is bankrolled annually through the tax collections of the Ministry of Finance. Nevertheless, the MFA is not equipped with that much of a choice, in practical terms. At the end of the day, the MFA is still part of the government body where its employees are entitled as career diplomats, a large group of foot soldiers belonging to a bigger network of the establishment’s bureaucratic system and red tape. Therefore, what actually happens in that department is merely a bunch of bureaucrats taking direct orders from the leadership of the Cabinet, orders that they cannot refuse.  

Unlike politicians, government officers or career bureaucrats are ones that are not and cannot be independent. Lower-ranking officers are bound to receive commands from higher-ranking officers. If they disagree with the orders, either because they think it is immoral or corrupted, they can only declare in a statement saying that they disagree, but not anything further. And most importantly, they have to submit themselves to loads of regulations and rules. Any disobedience of the superiors will be recorded in their career profiles. It is not worth it for them to harm their careers by resisting the higher government official’s order. They can get bullied or blocked from getting promoted to top positions in the near future. This explains why most government officers, or in this case, career diplomats, just follow orders.  

Most of the textbooks related to the use of diplomacy often state that one of the diplomat’s essential tasks is an employment of soft power to protect national interest of the home country. The term “national interest” is also sometimes problematic. It is vague enough to lure career diplomats into a blurred boundary between the government’s interest and the public interest. Thus, when the concept is undoubtedly ambiguous as such, the bureaucratic system just automatically comes in and plays its part in guiding those diplomats towards providing excuses for the government. Most diplomats are aware of what they are assigned to do, yet the channels for their expression are limited. Rather than writing a statement or letter to their superiors, they might as well only be able to secretly write an op-ed article and publish in a newspaper without revealing their names.  

Take the Ukraingate case in the US, under outgoing President Donald Trump, as a live example. Many US diplomats were either forced to stay silent or resign from their posts if they did not give useful support to him. And  those underlings would have received no protection from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had they given impeachment testimony against President Trump. What Pompeo personally did last year was parrot the president’s commands and tell his subordinates to just obey what the superiors said. In short, this helps reflect the reality that most career diplomats do not possess that much negotiating power when confronted with problematic cabinet decisions. Even they are aware of those wrongdoings, but the choices while serving in the bureaucracy are limited. The same goes for Thai diplomats. They might have been unwilling to follow such orders, but that was their only choice. So, it would be impossible to expect the MFA and its staffs to stand up, and back the opposition.

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

Is Facebook interfering in Myanmar’s politics?

ColumnsJan 03. 2021

By ZAW MIN NAING
Eleven Myanmar

As the 2020 General Election nears, posts written by political observers and analysts are getting removed or blocked by Facebook.

Many such posts, with the absence of any swearing or defamatory language, are being removed through targeting by the social media platform.

“It is getting worse. People are asking me to complani to Facebook. I’m not going to do it,” said a Myanmar political analyst Dr Yan Myo Thein.

Dr Yan Myo Thein is a veteran analyst and an author who has written political articles since the reign of the military junta in platforms such as True News, Flower News, Myanmar Post and many news journals. His body work consisted of many perspectives into the political hemisphere, particularly that of the formation of the 2008 constitution and is still continuing to put out political articles in both local and international media.

Ever since 2016-2017, he started noticing that his politics-related posts were getting removed from Facebook.

“It didn’t used to happen. It became quite notable in 2016 and 2017. I have always been critical but no action like this. Lately, a lot of it gets taken down. Even if it is just an observation, it is getting blocked and punished,” said Dr Yan Myo Thein.

Facebook removed his post on October 20 regarding the incident in which candidates from the National League for Democracy (NLD) that were captured by the Arakan Army (AA).

In that post, he shared his thoughts regarding the photos and statements regarding Rakhine NLD candidates captured by the AA. It was removed despite the post stressing the need to release captured candidates and encouraging discourse.

On October 31, Dr Yan Myo Thein wrote two posts concerning the Myanmar election. It only took minutes before it was taken down.

Those posts can be said to be critical of the ruling NLD as it concerns things that can happen to the NLD in the election, particularly in ethnic areas.

In the first one, Dr Yan Myo Thein pointed out that any predictions that claim that the NLD will see a bigger victory than the 2015 election is shallow and lofty, leading to negative consequences. If NLD leadership believes that to be so fully then it is rather detached from the true facts of the situation. It should be expected that as ethnic parties get stronger, the danger of losing many seats to them in the regional parliaments is a danger. It has to be expected that Tanintharyi, Ayeyawady, northern Sagaing and townships outside of Yangon’s municipality will have to be carefully waged competition.

Facebook removed the above mentioned post for 11 times total.

The second post stated that the “insinuation that ethnic parties engaging in fierce rallying to win landslide victories in their areas, causing the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) to gain more power, is one-sided. Ethnic parties fight to win their own region, their own homes. They are the locals. As far as I understand, the NLD was stubborn in negotiating politically with friendly and colleague ethnic parties and thus, the current risk of ethnic parties winning their local seats. They are fighting for the betterment of their own people and that is deserving. But apart from pointing out that ethnic parties winning will strengthen the USDP in a battle between the NLD and USDP by some political analysts, more priority should be given to discussing the NLD not establishing political alliances with ethnic parties. If this goes on, ethnic states will see higher chances of ethnic parties winning as well as the USDP winning. I believe that this is a result of political greed and pride darkening the truth. I wish for the ethcnic parties to win their areas in the 2020 General Election.”

It was also removed as it went against ‘Community Standards’. It was never able to go back up no matter when or how many times was tried.

But those that copy-pasted from his post never had their posts removed.

Facebook is putting restrictions on not only political analysts but also toward some political parties.

Ko Nay Yan Oo, a Pyithu Hluttaw candidate representing Kamaryut Township for the People’s Pioneer Party (PPP), claims that online panel discussions that the PPP does weekly via Facebook Live gets taken down if there ever involved words that criticised the government. 

Ko Nay Yan Oo was an IT professional and was also a regular writer regarding the Union government staff. His posts were also removed as it supposedly went against the rules.

“Initially, I just upload things that are part of my life and then, nothing was ever removed. Facebook started digging into me in 2019 when I criticized the union civil servants. I uncovered their mess. So then my post started getting targetted and removed,” said Ko Nay Yan Oo.

He also claims to have faced more restrictions campaigning online after he announced his decision to be a part of the PPP.

“It is worse now, especially more so as I am an opposition politician. It happened before the election period and also during it.”

“Number one is that I couldn’t upload anything on my Campaign Page on the very first day of the election period. No texts, no pictures, no videos, nothing. And it isn’t only the Campaign Page. There is another page that writes about the union government but Facebook had blocked it. So if it is the election campaign time and due to COVID-19, we cannot campaign on the ground so we have to do it online and the online option gets blocked then what do we do? The second thing is that we always hold a panel discussion online weekly every wednesday. We do it live with our voters. We faced this twice; everything was fine until we started criticizing the government. The alleged reason was that whatever we were talking about fringing copyright with BBC Burmese. So the excuse was that BBC reported us. In reality, the BBC did not report us. We have asked. And the other thing is we are talking live. We are not using any photos or texts or videos. We are speaking like we are speaking now on the phoe. There is no way that was getting copyrighted. It happened not the one time but twice. The last one, I think, many people have experienced. Things couldn’t be boosted. I tried boosting my picture with a western suit on (as I don’t have a lot of my photos in traditional clothing and it was COVID period so photo studios were closed) but I couldn’t boost it. Apparently my picture was too sexual. How is it possible that I have a suit on with a necktie that I am being sexually suggestive?” said Ko Nay Yan Oo.

Someone cleared to reply to The Daily Eleven had said that Facebook is working on blocking content that will use the political, religious and racial situation to incite hate.

The Daily Eleven had asked Facebook, in the middle of October, over the email regarding the removal of content from political analysts and how exactly were they qualified to be removed as those posts do not contain any words that may incite hate or utilized inflammatory language.

Facebook sent a reply that until November 22, they will be removing any content that can mislead and obstruct voters with misinformation or unverifiable rumors or anything that can harm the election process will all be removed. 

“We have a clear set of rules on action against inciting hate and violence. If those rules were broken in Myanmar or anywhere else, it will be removed. On top of removing any potentially dangerous content, Facebook had also introduced technological products to lower the amount of incidents of inciting violence and hatred before and after the election period,” replied Facebook.

It also said that attacks under the religious or racial guise are being removed such as calling groups like migrants or the Bengali that are without citizenship rights “trespassers” or “illegal immigrants” or any other word that comes close to its meaning.

Facebook had also announced the expansion of their bullying and harrasment policies to include journalists, activisists, humanitarians and other distinguished persons that always easily come under attack.

According to its announcement, Facebook removed around 300 thousand hate speech related content in the second quarter of 2020. It also cited utilizing AI that can recognize and remove content written in a total of 45 languages, including Burmese, with hate speech in them before anybody could see.

But lately, the removal of posts from political analysts and party candidates as well as campaigning by political parties are arguable in its capacity to be removed by Facebook due to infringing ‘Community Standards’.

Even when the usage of inflmmatory language was involved with breaching community standards, users that exercise their right to colourful speech that are supporters of the ruling NLD do not see any action from Facebook while those that go against them will surely be removed or made not visible by Facebook.

Incidents of posts that get removed despite not containing any explicit language amount to censorship of the freedom of speech.

The (6/2017) meeting of the Union Government approved the formation of the Social Media Monitoring Team (SMMT) in order to keep tabs on social media platforms including Facebook. The President’s Office formed the team on Februaruy 7, allowing them a budget of 6.462 billion Kyats from the special presidential reserve to purchase necessary technologies and equipment.

Thus the criticisms that the ruling party is sending to Facebook requests that will benefit the ruling party.

In a nation utilizing the democratic system, the rights of citizens in their freedom of thinking and speech is a basic commodity and Facebook’s restrictions, despite not utilizing language that are inflammatory racially, class or otherwise, it certainly begs the question whether a deal was made with the current government between it and Facebook.

While the act of preventing and removing misinformation, fake news and manipulations is welcome at any time, election period or otherwise, the Facebook Team must be responsible for acting upon the taboo of censoring the people’s freedom of speech.

Moreover, it harms the election ultimately as it restricts the mind of the voters from going through with enough mental exercises with thoughts and opinions derived from political parties campaigns as well as observations of the professionals.

“It makes sense if they were removing criticism based on fake news, hate speech or abusive language. But rethinking is necessary for acts of punishment because it was against their community standards, despite it being real news or me extrapolating and analyzing facts. If they are to go on this way, the reputation of a network that is working towards fariness and free from political bias can be damaged,” said Dr Yan Myo Thein.

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

Will EU target Thailand with its new sanctions regime? 

ColumnsDec 27. 2020

By Preechapak Tekasuk 

Special to The Nation

Just a month after Joe Biden’s victory in the US presidential election, the European Union recently announced that it had adopted the EU Human Rights Global Sanctions Regime to celebrate the world Human Rights Day on the eve of December 10. 

The legislation will equip the EU with transnational powers to impose sanctions on those accused of committing crimes that included mass genocide, arbitrary detentions, slavery and other human rights-related issues. While acting on its own, the move has been widely seen as a symbolic gesture by Brussels to re-emphasise its commitment to democracy alongside the US after a tumultuous decade of the world’s right-wing populist turn. 

The EU’s new sanctions regime is commonly known as a twin of the Global Magnitsky Act that grants the US the same absolute power to impose travel bans and freeze assets individually of officials from illiberal regimes. Though it does not target the whole country, it essentially aims to cause difficulties and irritations to most human rights abusers from conducting business with EU member states. Put simply, this development is believed, among diplomats and policymakers from both sides of the Atlantic region, to be a mechanism that halts dictators and political strongmen from acts of despotism against their opposition. 

Meanwhile, there is not much of a reaction from Bangkok and its foreign policy community. One possibility is that Bangkok might already be familiar with the EU sanctions regime since Thailand was previously attacked by the illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) yellow card, a warning against Thailand’s malpractices in fisheries, and that the new sanctions regime is far less threatening than the IUU. On one hand, the worst damage caused by the IUU sanction regime is that Thailand, as the third-largest seafood provider in the world, will be prohibited from exporting its seafood to the EU. On the other hand, the worst damage that can be done by the new regime is as small as individuals having hardship in accessing and locating assets in Europe. 

Moreover, such a minor punishment will have little effectiveness in dealing with the global human rights situation, even when both the US and the EU impose it simultaneously. The world already has witnessed what has happened in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Myanmar where violent abuses by states are not uncommon. To be clear, under the Global Magnitsky Act, outgoing US President Donald Trump had decisively slapped sanctions against many top military and party officials from those countries for alleged abuses and genocide, with asset freezes. The move, however, did not appear to be sufficient to stop those countries’ hawkish leaders from citizen abuses. Since some officials do not even have houses in the US and the targets of the sanctions are also merely not the true decisionmakers, in the realist’s playbook the twin of the Global Magnitsky Act is therefore not that frightening. Even if Bangkok is one of its targets, persons who hold top jobs in the Thai government are surely out of the radar, as the persons who receive punishment maybe some mid-level or other not-that-top officials from the Army that are not deemed as vital to the government. Besides, the strategy of diverging sanctions targets from the countries or states to individuals separately reveal that the EU does not really have an intention to create a wider range of casualties from its sanctions regime. For, there are still some friendly and strategically useful dictator regimes that are important for the EU’s geopolitics. 

The new EU sanctions regime was also firmly criticised by EU diplomats and policymakers as for that consensus from EU member-states is required before drawing up the sanctions lists. And there are no independent organisations or civil society bodies that have an ability to recommend sanctions like that in the US. As a result, it is almost near impossible for the EU to effectively impose sanctions on illiberal regimes, especially in a certain circumstance where many of the European leaders are conservative-oriented. Given that Budapest, Warsaw, and Vienna are unwilling to play by the rule, an initiative from Brussels will merely be a failed attempt. 

Plus, there is still an unusual belief among the elite and the foreign-policy community in Bangkok that as long as Thailand maintains its cooperation with the EU in other aspects, to be precise a strategic cooperation, it will easily have the EU’s nod no matter how undemocratically it behaves. The Bangkok elite had mistakenly understood that importing arms and giving a long-term security commitment to either the EU or the US will grant it an all-time pass from the sanctions regime. In practical terms, the new tool from Brussels is not going to bother Bangkok even when it is being critically targeted. Particularly not the current government where conservative military leaders have all the say in its decision-making process.

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

Trumponomics v Meng Wanzhou – tradition, extradition and exile

ColumnsDec 24. 2020

By Tim Taylor, Special to The Nation

Extradition and its ugly cousin, hostage-taking, have a long history, East and West, as a byproduct of what legal pundits have called ‘courtesy and goodwill between sovereigns’, ie rulers who have power over their subjects and their territories.

Exile was the flipside of rendition. Socrates, given the choice “exile or hemlock”’ went for hemlock. A puzzling choice for today’s Church of Englanders who, offered the choice between “Cake or Death?” reliably opt for the former.

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden, now resident in Russia, is one prominent example of modern exiles who, metaphorically speaking, went for the C of E option, rather than the Socratic choice.

The US’s ongoing extradition case in Canada against Huawei CFO Meng Wangzhou (aka Sabrina Meng) suggests two things. First that, on returning favours between heads of state, the more things change, the more they stay the same, as the French say. Secondly that conflicting ideas about “what is a sufficient nexus between alleged crimes and the place where they are to be prosecuted?” and “how much does the quality of justice depend on where it is handed down?”, have produced a legal muddle in the field of extradition.

On top of the vestiges of “hostage trades” between heads of state, that will be seen in our case study of the Meng case, the evolving laws of extradition remain shot through with two themes: First, the lingering tradition of crimes normally only being prosecutable in the territory where they are committed (piracy and war crimes being exceptions) and, secondly, finding the right balance between expedition and fairness.

Ancient legal history

In the US, the idea that the courts of, say, Twosticks, Alabama summoning a Palo Alto resident to show up in Alabama, infringed California’s sovereignty, was essentially snuffed out by the US Supreme Court in 1945 in the International Shoe case. This case stands for the principle that, if the defendant had had relevant dealings engaging the territory or laws of the summoning court, those “minimum contacts” were good enough to found jurisdiction, in the courts of Twosticks (for the purposes of our example).

And yet the spells that US lawyers have cast to deem connections to the US, using more or less imaginary territorial connections, include using US payment systems for monetary transactions wherever you may be, having a “dot com” as opposed to a “dot wherever”, and flying over US airspace. After all Uncle Sam can turn off your satnav at will, so its current attitude reflects Thucydides’ axiom – “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”

My particular favourite legal fiction, allied to this idea that all jurisdiction is territorial, was that it was unnecessary to seek the permission usually required from the English High Court to serve its proceedings abroad, if the defendant was aboard a British naval vessel anywhere in the world. All British Men O’ War (warships), were deemed by legal fiction to be situated in the parish of Stepney (where the Royal Naval Docks on the Thames were formerly located – obvious really).

Similarly Huawei’s Meng Wangzhou is presently confined to her home in Vancouver, on the theory that a PowerPoint presentation by her in a restaurant in Hong Kong caused HSBC to commit a crime in the US, by wiring money through the US clearing system for the supply of goods to Iran. If the HSBC back office person (who may even have been in India at the time) had “left-clicked” to use Hong Kong’s own clearing system instead, these electronic greenbacks would never have even notionally passed through the good old US’s geography or ecosystem, and Uncle Sam might not even have what US lawyers like to call a “colourable claim” that a crime had been committed – a counterintuitive expression for a claim you can articulate without actually blushing.

Before we get to the Meng, case, however, we need to take a quick look at some common themes in the modernisation of UK and Canadian extradition laws that bear on an assessment of whether the US may get its way in achieving the rendition of Meng to the United States.

The modern legal history

Canada in 1999 and the UK in 2003, for broadly similar reasons, modernised their extradition legislation with a view to making it fit for purpose for modern crime, where it is not so much about people fleeing, as money doing so.

Modern proceeds of crime, legislation essentially began with the 1971 Vienna Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which came up with the bright idea (possibly they were smoking and discussing such substances simultaneously) that the right response to the “victimless crime” of drug trafficking was to seize the profits. This idea was flawed for at least two reasons: first, it impedes criminals’ ambition to make and keep enough money through crime so that their children can “go straight”. The Crown Estates are, after all, an international crime proceed dating to 1066, laundered by the passage of time. The second flaw, is “why stop at drugs? What about financial crime?” Only redressing the second of those two flaws has found favour with the wider legal and political community and hence the ability of states to forfeit the fruits of criminal activity is now more or less ubiquitous and all embracing.

Apart from the EU dimension and the advent of the European Arrest Warrant for the UK, Canada’s modernisation of its extradition laws in 1999 and the UK’s in 2003 (both intended, in part at least, to meet the needs of the new international crime proceeds era) followed similar lines.

In broad terms, four features are especially important:

1. To justify extradition, the offence needs to be one which was a crime where it was committed and would have been a crime if it had been committed in the state asked to extradite. This is called the “double criminality test” (which did not apply for the European Arrest Warrant).

2. The requesting state must demonstrate that is has evidence which would justify a matter being sent to trial, if the conduct had occurred in the state required to extradite.

3. The requesting state must make a fair presentation of the evidence that would justify a criminal trial, but does not have to disclose all its evidence, or even exculpatory evidence, in the way that the prosecuting authorities typically would be obligated to do in a domestic prosecution.

4. If the requesting state has abused the process of the courts of the requested state, the request can get kicked out.

The way that the UK -US extradition arrangements worked following the UK’s modernisation attracted a lot of flak as being “lop-sided” in favour of the US, because the Brits have to show “Probable Cause” to get an extradition from the US, but the Yanks only have to show a “Reasonable Suspicion” to get you all cuffed up and wearing an orange boiler suit. The majority view amongst extradition lawyers today (and following official inquiries into the question of asymmetry) seems to be that, in practice, this is a distinction without a difference.

I suspect, however, that ordinary punters who struggle with lawyers’ “Humpty Dumpty” linguistic distinctions – eg, about why “tax avoidance” may be okay, but “tax evasion”, not so much – instinctively feel that “the accused was seen leaving the deceased’s room” may ground a “reasonable suspicion” whereas it might take “the accused was seen leaving the deceased’s room carrying a gun” to rise to the level of “probable cause”.

Perhaps the more powerful concern on lop-sidedness in favour of the US emerges from the rather extravagant views that Uncle Sam has about what facts constitute a crime being committed in the United States.

The ongoing case in British Columbia of USA v Meng Wangzhou provides ample scope to illustrate not only the extravagant reach of US theories about how people outside the US can be said to be committing crimes within the US, but also how the primal theme of extradition as a favour between sovereigns can produce “abuse of process” grounds as a ‘fig leaf’ for judges to deny extradition, without having to risk embarrassment in international relations by calling out extradition requests as political.

‘Trumpanomics’

The story that is unfolding in continuing proceedings in Vancouver about the arrest and detention of Meng Wangzhou and the US’s case against her, includes the following ‘eyebrow raising’ features, according to the arguments being rolled out by her Defence team.

1. Despite there being a judicial warrant for her immediate arrest, which both the Canadian border officials and the RCMP (the “Mounties”) were empowered and bound to execute, the Mounties stood by whilst the Border guys feigned a regular immigration side check, in which they managed to relieve, Meng of her laptop and phones, including getting her to write down the passwords. They put these in protective bags to stop them being wiped remotely. All of this was done without “immediately arresting” and reading Meng her rights as required. The Border agents also handed her devices and passwords over to the Mounties “by mistake”.

2. Meng lost a preliminary hearing to strike down the extradition as entailing no “double criminality”. It would not be a crime to trade with Iran from Canada (or Hong Kong) per se. But the US’s case theory is that Meng duped HSBC exposing it to potential financial loss, and such alleged deception of HSBC, could count as criminal, had it happened in Canada. Bear in mind that none of the actors were US citizens or entities, and the presentation had been in a restaurant in Hong Kong. But HSBC had a powerful incentive to co-operate with the US by claiming Huawei had misled them, as the bank was still subject to a US Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) relating to allegations that it had laundered drug monies. If HSBC had knowingly infringed US sanctions by using the US clearing system, instead of Hong Kong’s own CHATs system, it could have been accused of breaching DPA conditions, potentially making the money laundering charges “live” once more.

3. Canada’s extradition legislation has the usual carve-out to protect against alleged political crimes, of the sort for example that would ground an asylum claim under international refugee conventions. The way the US and Canadian authorities collaborated, may have just been a coincidence (like Justin Trudeau and his brother both having been born on Christmas Day) but Meng’s disclosure requests to interrogate their dealings yielded a few documents full of redactions for claimed Public Interest Immunity (PII) and Legal Privilege, which the judge has largely refused to have unredacted.

Having encountered the mafia instincts of politicians and the executive branch of government, acting both for and against government interests of various nations around the world over the years, I have learned that an independent judiciary and robust rule of law is essential to prevent laws being wielded by governments to perpetrate injustices.

Standing back from the detail of the Meng case, it is important to bear in mind that the standard of review by the requested court is intended to be a fairly “low resolution” assessment of whether the material presented by the requesting state reaches a prima facie standard sufficient for charges to be sent to trial. The requested court should not conduct a mini trial of the charges the putative deportee will face abroad. The Canadian and other courts will, however, be vigilant if there is a concrete concern that either an individual’s due process rights, or the courts own processes are being abused. On the face of it, there would seem to be some reasonably rich materials for the Canadian judge to throw out the Meng request on abuse of process grounds, without having to “call a spade a bloody shovel” , by condemning the request as politically motivated.

Epilogue?

If and when President Trump leaves the White House, it is plausible to imagine that the line for the “End of Regime Pardon Sale” will stretch a long way down Pennsylvania Avenue, and that those pardons will be flying out of the Oval Office quicker than indulgences from a Borgia-occupied Vatican. Having himself described Meng Wangzhou as “the Ivanka Trump of China”, we shall see whether he spares Canada’s courts their task, in the hope of putting his relationship with President Xi back to the good old days of sharing delicious chocolate cake while “cruising Syrians” from Mar a Largo. I should hastily clarify (to avoid this concluding remark from being mistaken as libellous by Rudy Giuliani) that the verb “cruising” in this context refers to the launch of missiles and not to a method of making new friends in nightclubs.

—–

Tim Taylor QC specialises in international commercial and investment arbitration at King & Wood Mallesons, a law firm that has represented Huawei.

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

Government’s subsidy shopping scheme is winning people’s hearts

ColumnsDec 23. 2020

By The Nation

The “Khon La Khrueng” (Let’s Go Halves) subsidised shopping scheme is gaining popularity among people, so much so that the government has decided to launch the second phase to meet the demands of more people. From 10 million, the scheme is being expanded to cover 15 million people.

However, there are some negative views about the scheme, such as loopholes which facilitate corruption.

Even though it cannot be denied that various schemes tend to be misused, but thanks to technology, the government has been able to check damage and arrest participants who violate the scheme’s regulations as soon as possible.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha had instructed the Finance Ministry to work on his policy to relieve the people’s sufferings from the Covid-19 impact, especially of low-income people.

As a result, the Finance Ministry launched three measures to help the people:

1. Low-income people: The government paid an extra Bt500 to 14 million state welfare cardholders for six months.

2. Moderate-income people: The government launched the “Let’s Go Halves” scheme to reduce the cost of living for 15 million participants and boosted approximately 1 million retailers’ incomes.

3. High-income people: The government launched the “Shop Dee Mee Kuen” (Shop and Payback) scheme, which enables people to deduct tax from buying goods.

Apart from reducing the cost of living, the scheme helps stimulate spending to boost the economy and enables people to spend via the electronic payment system as well.

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

There are flickers of hope for local journalism; so far, it’s not nearly enough (nationthailand.com)

There are flickers of hope for local journalism; so far, it’s not nearly enough

ColumnsDec 20. 2020

Margaret Sullivan is The Washington Post’s media columnist. 

By The Washington Post · Margaret Sullivan · OPINION, MEDIA, OP-ED 

You would think that Adam Ganucheau would be feeling upbeat about the state of local journalism.

After all, Mississippi Today, the nonprofit, all-digital news organization where he is editor in chief, had a triumphant year. Its investigation exposed the state’s system of modern-day debtors’ prisons, where inmates contending with court-ordered fines are forced into low-wage, sometimes dangerous jobs to pay them off, with the state Department of Corrections taking “room and board” fees off the top of their paltry paychecks. The revelations brought a state auditors’ review – and a national award.

It was a model of how journalism can work at this moment: The local reporters collaborated with the Marshall Project, a national nonprofit that covers criminal justice; and the work was republished across the state, including in the Clarion Ledger newspaper.

But when I asked Ganucheau to assess local journalism nationally, he was blunt – and far from positive. “It feels overwhelmingly bleak,” he said. 

The 28-year-old journalist elaborated. “I’ve lost a lot of sleep thinking about what Mississippi’s elected officials are getting away with,” he said, “because of how impossible things have become in the shrinking legacy newsrooms across this state.” 

With its 14-member newsroom, Mississippi Today is by far the largest in the state, he said. Only 20 years ago, a typical regional newspaper boasted a newsroom staff of at least 100; larger ones, as in Cleveland and Detroit, had 300 journalists or more.

I share his worry.

When I put out a call on Twitter last week, asking for examples of outstanding local journalism of the past year, I was flooded with worthy suggestions of how local journalists held public officials to account, uncovered wrongdoing, stood up for the voiceless. 

The Boston Globe investigated how police cover up the crimes of their brethren. The Austin American-Statesman and KVUE dug into the death of Javier Ambler while being arrested by police; and the staff of the Louisville Courier-Journal never let up on the infamous death of Breonna Taylor.

Phil Williams of WTVF, the CBS affiliate in Nashville, uncovered how Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee’s administration has been on an $80 million, no-bid “spending spree” for coronavirus supplies, with some contracts going to politically connected companies.

This watchdog journalism was especially impressive given the troubles of the local-news business. And within the industry itself, there were some hopeful signs: Virginia-based Axios bought a small local news start-up, The Charlotte Agenda, where revenue has soared; there are plans to expand the model into other cities. In Tennessee, the digital Daily Memphian came on strong, competing with Memphis’s 179-year-old Commercial Appealnewspaper: “about as close as a major American city has gotten to a digital news site that can go toe-to-toe with the local daily newspaper,” Harvard’s Nieman Lab wrote. And collaborations such as Spotlight PA and States Newsroom shored up statehouse coverage.

Despite those flickers of good news – and others, like the emergence of the Tiny News Collective that helps people start community news sites – journalism remains in a state of emergency. Increasingly under the control of corporate chains backed by private-equity firm, far too many American newsrooms are hemorrhaging staff.

Fifty-five news outlets have closed for good since the pandemic began – and that’s on top of more than 2,000 newspapers that have folded since 2004. Thousands of local journalists have been fired or furloughed.

“A crisis within a crisis,” as Gabby Miller of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism put it, describing an industry that had already been hit hard by structural change – the precipitous loss of advertising revenue to behemoths like Facebook and Google – before getting walloped by the economic downturn.

Traditional newspapers bore the brunt because their business still depends somewhat on print advertising. And, against the odds, they’re still doing some of the best work. 

I spent a lot of this past year fielding questions about the troubled state of local news. My book, “Ghosting the News: Local Journalism and the Crisis of American Democracy,” was published last summer, and because of the pandemic, my real-life book tour was canceled. That had one advantage: I found myself talking, via Zoom, to more far-flung audiences, in “places” from New York City’s Strand Books to Rappahannock County, Va., to Sioux Falls, S.D.

Wherever they were, people pressed me on the same point: OK, you’ve laid out the problem. Now, what’s the solution?

I was forced to give an answer that they found as unsatisfactory as I did: There is no obvious, single fix; there are only pieces of the puzzle that need to be found and fit together – as quickly as possible. Subscribing to your city’s newspaper or supporting your local news website is a necessity, but it’s not enough.

Smart people are working on bigger answers. An initiative from the City University of New York’s journalism school helped bring $10 million in advertising revenue from city agencies to local news outlets. If replicated around the country, the project “could be a game-changer,” Sarah Bartlett, the school’s dean, told me.

The American Journalism Project, the Knight Foundation, the Texas Tribune: All are focused on solutions. And a sweeping antitrust suit against Google could bring relief, if successful, because “the duopoly” – Facebook and Google – have sucked up so much digital advertising revenue.

But all of this takes time. None of it is certain. And meanwhile, the cutbacks and closures keep coming. 

Almost miraculously, essential local journalism keeps coming, too. But for how long?

…

Margaret Sullivan is The Washington Post’s media columnist. Previously, she was the New York Times public editor, and the chief editor of the Buffalo News, her hometown paper.

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

2020 and beyond – the Good, Bad and Ugly (nationthailand.com)

2020 and beyond – the Good, Bad and Ugly

ColumnsDec 19. 2020President-elect Joe Biden 

By Andrew Sheng for Asia News Network

2020 must be one of the toughest years in living memory.

 In one year, more than 300,000 people died from coronavirus in the United States, more than the number killed in four years of her involvement in the Second World War.   World growth is down between 5-7 percent and many millions are struggling with their health, jobs and livelihood.  Many more millions have been driven below the poverty line. 

What does the coming 2020s decade portend?   Instead of predicting an unknowable future, let’s paint three possible scenarios – using the Italian spaghetti Western movie title, the Good, the Bad and Ugly. 

The good scenario is that the incoming Biden Administration will heal America, rebuild the multilateral order, growth will recover in 2021, global trade tensions are reduced, and continued trade will bring better cooperation amongst the Great Powers.  Gradually, climate change issues are addressed, social inequality is reduced, there are better jobs from green infrastructure investments, and we have a decade of peace and prosperity.   Stock markets will continue to rise as central banks commit to low interest rates, whilst technology companies are rewarded for game-changing innovation. 

The bad scenario is more muddling through.  This was the opportunity missed during the last 2007/2009 global financial crisis.   Instead of addressing fundamental inequality, clean up the bad management that messed up the banks and derivatives, everyone got rewarded with more central bank money.  We ended up with worse climate change, huge debt overhang, big asset bubbles, rich got richer and poor were so depressed from failing states that they migrated.   The middle class felt they were worst off, blamed immigrants, foreigners, globalization and voted in Brexit and Mr. Trump.

In short, instead of making real structural reforms, most rich countries doubled down on loose monetary policy and avoided rocking the boat.  EU Commission Jean-Claude Juncker summed up this period: “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”  

Toxic politics got us where we are today, in a bad place with nowhere to hide.

Today, most politicians are repeating the same mistakes, with bad money politics selling out the interests of the majority to keep a minority in power.  Everyone hopes that the vaccine will help the economy recover, but relying only on hope is not good policy.  The pandemic is truly a global crisis, because without close cooperation, no single economy is powerful enough to get out of secular stagnation.   That Britain can risk a No Deal Brexit signals to the world that emotional nationalism triumphs over economic rationalism. 

The recent US Presidential elections reflected this deep polarisation.  With a record voter turnout, it was supposed to be a celebration of rationalism over anger.   Instead, 47% of voters are backing Trump and the Republican leadership in challenging the legitimacy of the Biden victory in the courts.   Although the institutional checks and balances held, it augers badly for the future.  

There is an ugly scenario that I could not have dreamed possible even as late as last year.

For 70 years, the world has assumed that the United States will always be united, land of the free, welcoming to immigrants, opportunities and stood for fairness, rule of law and global peace.  When Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the New Deal and President Truman launched the Marshall Plan, the United States was capitalist but left-leaning in caring for the weak and downtrodden.  The United States won world leadership by standing up against the Fascist far right in the Second World War.  

What if America swings to the Far Right to set a scene for a very different world?  An America that stands for world interests is very different from an America First philosophy that changed the game fundamentally as played by Trump.   The Republican Party has moved sharply to the right, and represents today more the white minority that feels threatened by the rising plurality and diversity in US population and cultural values.  The roots of the resentment of the Trump supporters are complex, but they signal an emotional anger that most non-Americans have difficulty comprehending.   The Democratic Left united just in time to hold back this Right Wing tide.  Even they are surprised by the Republicans playing by different rules. 

This ugly scenario will unfold if the Republicans block all Biden initiatives, domestic and foreign, to ensure that he does not deliver.  By 2022 mid-term elections, the Republicans will regain majority in Congress, and with the Republican Party controlling the Senate, House and Supreme Court, the right wing shift in American values and ideology will be difficult to reverse.  Whose rules apply when the game is fixed?

What does that mean for the Rest of the World?  No one will feel secure with radical changes in US foreign policy that swing from moderation to possible extremism and back.  All will feel insecure and few will think and act for the long-term. 

Historically, the Greek and Roman empires went through the same shift, from an open Republican era to an Imperial and autocratic phase.  The British empire did not go through this phase because it was always checked by the Europeans and then over-taken by their American cousins.  Global neoliberal rules of the game will not hold if the strongest military power will not play by its own rules.   Great Power politics will definitely get uglier.

Since we don’t want to spoil the mood for the Christmas festive season, let us hope that the bad and ugly scenarios do not unfold.  Most Hollywood films end up with the good guys winning.  

But as the Good cowboy (Clint Eastwood) won over the Bad (Lee Van Cleef), it was the Ugly (Eli Wallach), who asked the question many asked themselves during this pandemic: “If you work for a living, why do you kill yourself working?”

The answer is that most have no choice.  So let us pray for the Good outcome in 2021. 

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

What’s a debt-to-income ratio, and why you need a low one to buy a home (nationthailand.com)

What’s a debt-to-income ratio, and why you need a low one to buy a home

ColumnsDec 17. 2020

By Special To The Washington Post
Michele Lerner

When it comes to qualifying for a loan to buy a home or to refinance your mortgage, there are plenty of numbers to consider, such as your credit score and the appraised home value. Perhaps one of the most important numbers is your debt-to-income (DTI) ratio, which compares the minimum payments on all debt you must make each month with your gross monthly income.

“The DTI ratio is one of the most important considerations lenders take into account when evaluating the risk associated with a borrower taking on another payment,” says Paul Buege, president and chief operating officer of Inlanta Mortgage in Pewaukee, Wis. “The lower the DTI ratio a borrower has, the more confident the lender is about getting paid on time in the future based on the loan terms.”

It’s not just the lender who benefits from knowing your DTI, says Buege.

“Calculating your DTI ratio can help you determine how comfortable you are with your current debt and whether you have enough income to take on a mortgage payment,” he says.

Your DTI tells a lender what percentage of your income is being consumed by debts, says Joseph Mayhew, chief credit officer of Evolve Mortgage Services in Frisco, Texas.

“Lenders like to see low DTI ratios because it means a borrower has excess income to cover unforeseen emergencies and to save for a rainy day,” says Mayhew. “As DTI ratios go higher, lenders become less willing to lend. In the eyes of a mortgage lender, a high DTI can signify poor credit management, living beyond your means and difficulty saving money for the future.”

– How to calculate your DTI

A simple DTI calculation is to divide your total monthly obligations by your total monthly income to generate a percentage, says Mayhew. For example, if your total monthly debts are $1,000 and your total monthly income is $4,000, your DTI would be 25%.

However, not every monthly bill is included in your DTI.

“Lenders typically look at installment loan obligations, such as auto and student loans, as well as any revolving debt payments such as credit cards or a home equity line of credit,” says Buege. ”Alimony and child support payments are also included. When calculating DTI ratios, lenders don’t include utilities, cable and phone bills or health insurance premiums. Medical bills are generally not included. Everyday items like food and gas are also not included when calculating DTI ratios.

Your mortgage payments, including principal, interest, taxes and insurance, are contained in the DTI calculation, but auto insurance and life insurance payments, 401(k) contributions, income tax deductions and college or private school tuition payments are not, says Mayhew.

– What’s a good DTI?

While an ideal DTI would be 25% or less, says Buege, the lower the DTI the better. Various loan programs have different DTI ratio requirements.

“For consumers with a good credit history, stable income and a down payment of 5% or more, most lenders will easily lend up to 45% DTI,” says Mayhew. “Those with smaller down payments or problems in their credit history may find themselves limited to a DTI around 38%.”

If your DTI is between 45 and 50%, many lenders will still approve a loan, says Mayhew, but they will require a perfect credit history, a larger down payment of 20% or more and plenty of cash in the bank for an emergency. Applicants with a higher level of debt will usually need to reduce their debt and/or increase their income.

#SootinClaimon.Com : ขอบคุณแหล่งข้อมูล : หนังสือพิมพ์ The Nation.

What the story of Kaavan tells us (nationthailand.com)

What the story of Kaavan tells us

ColumnsDec 13. 2020Kaavan has spent nearly a decade alone. (Photo: Reuters) 

By Amitava Kar
The Daily Star

Amid the sad, the sordid and the sensational, let us look at some other news. On November 30, Kaavan, dubbed the “loneliest elephant” arrived from Islamabad to Cambodia to start a new life. It was the culmination of years of campaigning for his transfer by the animal rights group Free the Wild.

Kaavan was gifted to Pakistan by the government of Sri Lanka in 1985 when he was 1. For more than 30 years, he was kept in shackles in poor conditions in an Islamabad zoo. After the death of his companion Saheli in 2012, he developed multiple physical and psychological issues. 

In a landmark verdict earlier this year, Athar Minallah, the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court observed that Kaavan had been treated harshly which caused him unimaginable pain and suffering. His anguish must come to an end by relocating him to a proper elephant sanctuary, in or outside Pakistan, the verdict held. Like humans, animals have natural rights which must be recognised, the judgment added, and that it is a right of each animal, a living being, to live in an environment that has been contemplated by nature.

Iconic American singer Cher, the founder of Free the Wild, arrived a day earlier to see Kaavan off and thank the government. Animal welfare group Four Paws International had been deployed to move him. When the crew tried to coax the five and a half ton animal into the giant airplane, he got agitated, as he was unaccustomed to close human contact. Amir Khalil, the group’s celebrated Egyptian veterinarian, started singing Frank Sinatra’s classic melody “My Way”, which apparently calmed the elephant. Before taking off, Cher serenaded Kaavan with “A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes.” 

Why would people go to such great lengths to rescue an animal during a pandemic? So what if he had been suffering? So are humans. 

There is, indeed, much to celebrate in this story. It is a story of human tenderness out of the blue which is no less powerful than the stories of death, destruction, and savagery. Have we grown so inured to think the worst of experience constitutes our lives, that evidence of the best of experience is an outlier and thus unworthy of our attention? 

It would be naïve to regard the dark caves of the world as an aberration. We know better than that. We have seen too much. Yet, we can recognise the thrilling beauty in this world too, when we see it, and cherish it, and spend time with it. It is not to say that everyone could act the same way. But everyone feels the possibility in themselves. That is the abiding wonder of this story. The news is just what is happening. We, too, can be happening. These are our lives. Should we not attempt to control them? Must we not assert and discover these moments of human sublimity by which we know life, too?

Amitava Kar is a mechanical engineer.