"Politicization" of Nobel Peace Prize

SCO voices opposition to "politicization" of Nobel Peace Prize

Muratbek Sansyzbayevich Imanaliev, Secretary-General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), voiced his opposition to the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize here Friday, saying the award should not be used as a tool to interfere in other country's internal affairs.

Imanaliev said the Peace Prize should be awarded in accordance with the testament of Alfred Nobel.

Nobel's testament says the prize should be conferred on the person or persons who "have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

"It is very regrettable that the Prize was awarded to a criminal who is now in prison," Imanaliev said in an interview with Xinhua.

Imanaliev also expressed his hope "concerned parties" can faithfully adhere to Nobel's will and prevent such an award from being politicized.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo on Oct. 8th in Oslo, Norway.

Liu was sentenced to 11 years in jail on Dec. 25, 2009 after a local court in Beijing convicted him of agitation aimed at subverting the government.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Tuesday blasted the award for showing "no respect for China's judicial system" and questioned the "true intentions" behind the decision.
Imanaliev noted the remarkable achievements China has made in terms of political, economic and social development.

Facts prove the correctness of China's development path since the adoption of the opening up and reform policies, Imanaliev said.

He also said China is an important SCO member that has contributed significantly to the organization's development.

Imanaliev also said the SCO respects a country's sovereign right to choose its own development path, adding that he believes China will make further contributions to regional stability and prosperity.

Source: Xinhua

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Lawyer and three others charged with murder

By LISA GOH and NURBAITI HAMDAN
news@thestar.com.my

BANTING: One of the country’s more gruesome murder cases saw its first day in court when a lawyer and three of his farm hands were in the dock to face charges of murdering cosmetics millionaire Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others.

N. Pathmanabhan, 41, T. Thilaiyalagan, 19, R. Matan, 20, and R. Kathavarayan, 30, were jointly charged before magistrate Hurman Hussain yesterday.

Pathmanabhan

 

They were led into the courtroom at Telok Datok here at about 9am.

The courtroom was filled with members of the press and some 20 members of the public, including an ex-schoolmate of lawyer Pathmanabhan. However, none of their family members were present.

The charges against Pathmanabhan were read in Bahasa Malaysia while the charges against the rest were read in Tamil.

They were charged with the murder of Sosilawati, 47, CIMB Bank officer Noorhisham Mohammad, 38, personal lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abd Karim, 32, and driver Kamaruddin Shamsuddin, 44.

All the four accused allegedly committed the murders at Lot 2001, Jalan Tanjung Layang, Tanjung Sepat, Banting between 8.30pm and 9.45pm on Aug 30.

No plea was recorded.

The accused were all handcuffed, with Matan having two handcuffs on him. The four looked calm and composed when the charges were read out.

It was reported that the four victims had gone missing on Aug 30 after telling family and friends that they were going to Banting to discuss a land deal.

The other accused (from left) Thilaiyalagan, Matan and Kathavarayan (right) being taken to the Telok Datok magistrate’s court Wednesday. — K.K. SHAM / The Star

 

More than a week later, they were discovered to have been murdered. Their bodies were believed to have been burnt and their ashes thrown into a river near a farm owned by Pathmanabhan.

The accused are also being investigated for the disappearance of several others, including Indian millionaire A. Muthuraja, 34, local businessmen Mohd Shafiq Abdullah, 37, and housewife T. Selvi, 44.

Representing Patmanabhan were lawyers Amer Hamzah Arshad, Ravi Nekoo, Pushpa Ratnam and Datuk Ng See Teong, while prosecuting were deputy public prosecutors Ishak Mohd Yusoff, Saiful Edris Zainudin and Idham Abd Ghani. The other three accused were not represented.

http://www.youtube.com/v/d61tWeaQRTA&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3
After the charges were read, Amer told the court that counsel would like to speak to their client, as they had not had time to seek direction from him, and that they had only been allowed to see him twice, and only for a few minutes, since his arrest on Sept 11.

He also asked for the defence lawyers to be allowed to see the other three accused to help them get their counsel of choice, to which the magistrate replied:

“I am not getting involved in this. I am not an advertising agency. “Their family members should be aware of this, and they should contact the lawyers.”

The legal team: Leaving the courthouse in Banting are (from left) Pushpa, Amer Hamzah, Nekoo and Ng.

 

Amer told the court that their family members were not aware that they had been arrested.
Patmanabhan then addressed the court directly, and said that the others were not “legally savvy”, and that even if their family members were aware, they might not know how to get legal representation.

The other three accused also piped up that they would like to speak with Patmanabhan’s lawyers.
The court then allowed the defence lawyers 10 minutes to see their client and the three other accused, and ordered the prosecution to inform the family members of the charging.

The court fixed Dec 16 for mention of the case.

Related Stories:
Lawyer’s pals turn up to see him
Suspects being probed for disappearances
Continue earlier posts:
Matters we need to redress: Murder of cosmetic millionaire

Currency wars: Scholar acccuses U.S. of hypocrisy on exchange rates

The United States is engaging in the same practice it criticizes others for when it tries to push down the value of the U.S. dollar against the Chinese currency, a renowned U.S. scholar says.

Harry Harding, a top China specialist who is now dean of Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia, said in a recent interview with Xinhua that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at a congressional hearing warned people in the financial and business communities of "a currency war", which he defined as "competitive devaluation".

But the treasury secretary did not realize, "or at least did not acknowledge," that the United States was doing what it criticized others for doing when it pressured China to revalue its currency. Revaluing the Chinese yuan equalled devaluing the U.S. dollar, "and so, my point is simply that we are engaging in the same practice, too," Harding said.

Meanwhile, Harding downplayed the threat of trade wars as a result of economic disputes among nations. Trade wars were far more difficult in today's world because the World Trade Organization (WTO) made it difficult for countries to impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers to protect their industries, he said.

However, as there were no WTO equivalents to govern investment or currency policies, "I think people are right in saying" that economic wars in the 21st century, if there would be any economic wars, would be currency wars, he said.

The U.S. was pushing China to appreciate its currency mainly because of pressure from the business sector to promote U.S. exports against the backdrop of continued recession in the country, Harding said.

There were basically three ways to stimulate the economy: by increasing government spending, by increasing domestic consumption or by promoting exports, he said.

In the U.S. case, "the government cannot buy anymore because of the level of the fiscal debt, and consumers cannot buy anymore, or at least the increase in consumption will be lower than before," and, as U.S. President Barack Obama said, the "way out" is to increase exports, Harding said.

Changing the value of the dollar might be the quickest way to increase exports, but it would not change the U.S. trade imbalance. The main problem of the U.S. economy was over-consumption, he said.
 
The U.S. House of Representatives recently approved a tax bill targeting China over its currency policies, but Harding said there was a fairly low possibility that the bill would become law.

The bill had to go to the Senate for approval and, even if the Senate adopted it, unless it's exactly the same as the House bill, it would be sent back to the House for reconsideration, Harding said.

U.S. lawmakers were running out of time to get the bill passed because this congress was to end soon and every piece of legislation died when congress went out of session. When a new congress came into session in January next year, they would start from the beginning, Harding said.

Even if the bill became law, Harding said, it would have limited impact because it simply instructed the U.S. Commerce Department to take into account the devaluation of currency in deciding on anti-dumping cases.

Harding accepted Xinhua's interview on the sideline of a luncheon meeting with Houston business leaders sponsored by the Asia Society Texas Center.

In a keynote speech on U.S.-China relations delivered at the luncheon, Harding, former Deputy National Security Adviser to the Clinton Administration, used the word "resilient" to describe the current U.S.-China relationship, instead of "fragile" he used in his 1992 book "A Fragile Relationship: the United States and China since 1972".

Common interests between the two countries, including mutual prosperity, anti-terrorism, energy security and climate change, had brought the two together, but because of the limits in their interests and differences in approaching issues of common interests, the relations sometimes could not run smoothly, he said.

The China specialist also used "frenemies", which meant both friends and rivals, to define the complex Sino-U.S. relations.

Elaborating on why he thinks the U.S.-China ties now are "resilient" rather than "fragile", Harding said "resilient" meant that, despite ups and downs, the relations would not break up because they were too valuable for both countries.

Source: Xinhua
Newscribe : get free news in real tim