Dalai Lama Says China Has Turned Tibet Into a ‘Hell on Earth’

BEIJING — The Dalai Lama delivered one of his harshest attacks on the Chinese government in recent times on Tuesday, saying that the Chinese Communist Party had transformed Tibet into a “hell on earth” and that the Chinese authorities regarded Tibetans as “criminals deserving to be put to death.”


“Today, the religion, culture, language and identity, which successive generations of Tibetans have considered more precious than their lives, are nearing extinction,” said the Dalai Lama, 73, the spiritual leader of Tibetans.


He spoke in Dharamsala, India, the Himalayan town that is the seat of the Tibetan government in exile. Tibetans outside of China and their supporters held rallies around the world on Tuesday to mark the 50th anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. China crushed the rebellion, forcing the Dalai Lama to flee to India.


The furious tone of the speech may have been in reaction to a new clampdown by China on the Tibetan regions. The Dalai Lama may also have adopted an angry approach to placate younger Tibetans who have accused him of being too conciliatory toward China. He advocates genuine autonomy for Tibet and not secession, while more radical Tibetans are urging him to support outright independence.


In the rugged Tibetan regions of China, where there is widespread resentment at Chinese rule, no reports emerged Tuesday of any large-scale protests. The Chinese government, fearing civil unrest among six million Tibetans, has locked down the vast areas, which make up a quarter of Chinese territory, by sending in thousands of troops in the past few weeks and cutting off cellphone and Internet services in some locations. An unofficial state of martial law now exists, with soldiers and police officers operating checkpoints, marching through streets and checking people for identification cards.


President Hu Jintao called this week for the building of a “Great Wall” of stability in Tibet.


“We must reinforce the solid Great Wall for combating separatism and safeguarding national unity, so that Tibet, now basically stable, will enjoy lasting peace and stability,” Mr. Hu said while meeting with Tibetan officials in Beijing on Monday, according to Xinhua, the state news agency.


Across Tibet, monks at large monasteries have been ordered to stay indoors.


In the town of Tongren, in Qinghai Province, monks at the Rongwo Monastery, where protests erupted last year, were told that they could not leave the compound from March 6 to March 16, said two monks reached by telephone. Security forces in riot gear have encircled the monastery. No classes or prayer gatherings were held Tuesday, and one monk said he and his peers were reading scriptures in their rooms.


“This morning, I cried,” he said.


The monk declined to give his name for fear of government retribution. A year ago this month, he was studying in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, and taking part in protests to mark the 49th anniversary of the failed uprising. When security forces suppressed those protests, Tibetans began rioting in the streets, attacking ethnic Han Chinese civilians and burning shops and vehicles.


The uprising quickly spread to Tibetan areas in other provinces, becoming the largest rebellion against Chinese rule in decades. At least 19 people were killed in Lhasa, most of them Han Chinese civilians, according to the Chinese government. In the violent repression that followed, 220 Tibetans were killed, nearly 1,300 were injured and nearly 7,000 were detained or imprisoned, according to the Tibetan government in exile. More than 1,000 Tibetans are still missing.


In a report released Tuesday, Human Rights Watch said that official Chinese accounts of last year’s uprising and its aftermath showed that “there have been thousands of arbitrary arrests, and more than 100 trials pushed through the judicial system.”


Officials from Lhasa said last week that 953 people were detained after the riots and that 76 of them were sentenced on charges of robbery, arson and attacking government institutions. The others have all been released, the officials said.


The Chinese government has accused the Dalai Lama of fomenting separatist violence; he says he is pushing only for autonomous powers that are outlined in the Chinese Constitution.


In his speech, the Dalai Lama reiterated that such autonomy had been promised to Tibet by Mao and other senior Chinese leaders whom he met in Beijing in 1954 and 1955. The Dalai Lama began negotiations over the future of Tibet after Chinese troops invaded the Tibetan plateau and seized full control of Tibet in 1951.


Despite the promises from Mao, he said, the Chinese government carried out “a series of repressive and violent campaigns” through the decades, including what the Chinese called “patriotic re-education” and “strike hard” campaigns after the protests last year.


“These thrust Tibetans into such depths of suffering and hardship that they literally experienced hell on earth,” the Dalai Lama said.


China has defended its policies in Tibet by saying that it abolished a feudal slave-holding system overseen by the Dalai Lama and poured vast sums of money into building roads, railroads and other infrastructure projects.


Despite his harsh words, the Dalai Lama reaffirmed his commitment to trying to maintain a dialogue with China.


----

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/world/asia/11tibet.html?ref=asia#

Posted by 【洪】ILHONG
,

A sinking feeling in South Korea

By Louise Lucas, Song Jung-a and Raphael Minder

Published: October 13 2008 19:46 | Last updated: October 13 2008 19:46

ship building Korea
Lowered expectations? A vessel under construction at the STX yard in Jinhae. South Korea is the world leader in shipbuilding but an economy reliant on exports is vulnerable to a fall in demand Bloomberg

  

The global credit crisis is washing up on Asia’s shores. The region, having been through its own devastating financial crisis in 1997-98, remembers many of the lessons that others forgot. By and large, Asia today is a continent of current account surpluses, well-capitalised banks and modestly leveraged balance sheets.

But fault-lines exist. South Korea, which was bailed out by the International Monetary Fund in 1997, has seen its currency plunge to a 10-year low amid a scramble for dollars.

Politicians and the private sector are rallying round. Kang Man-soo, finance minister, is taking his plea for dollars to Wall Street, where he is due to meet executives of banks such as Citigroup and Morgan Stanley. Posco, the steel maker, said last week it would sell $1bn (€730m, €570m) of bonds overseas as part of efforts to stabilise the won. Employees at Kyunggi NongHyup, a farmers’ bank in greater Seoul, are hunting down dollars so that they can open deposit accounts at the lender – and provide it with foreign funding. The employee who hauls in the most dollars will win a prize.

Lest anyone miss the point that one of the world’s most successful exporting nations is in a bind, Mr Kang recently told a parliamentary session that “apart from exports, everything – including investment, consumption, employment and the current account balance – is showing a trend similar to that seen during the [Asian crisis]”.

EDUCATION REMITTANCES:

‘The amount I need to send is growing’

South Korea’s tumbling currency has brought sleepless nights for Kim Seung-ki, a technology analyst at a Seoul securities house and one of the thousands of kirogi appa, the “geese fathers” who fund their families’ overseas schooling, writes Song Jung-a

Every month Mr Kim changes an ever bigger chunk of his won-denominated salary into dollars, which he duly remits to his wife and two children who migrated to Canada for the young Kims’ education.

“The amount that I have to send them is getting bigger, adding more financial burden. And I am afraid the situation will get worse,” he laments.

More Koreans have been choosing this split existence, as parents and children alike despair of a gruelling school system based on rote learning.

The trend started in the rich districts of southern Seoul but has spread across the country, with many middle-class families joining the trend despite the personal sacrifices and financial costs involved.

Koreans form the largest group of foreign students in the US, with about 73,000 studying there. The number has been growing rapidly, with an American education increasingly seen as a ticket to success in Korea.

The US is the prime destination but cheaper countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are becoming popular alternatives. Last year, nearly 218,000 Koreans were studying at overseas universities and graduate schools, up 36 per cent from four years ago. But the number of children attending school abroad, at around 30,000, has jumped 80 per cent over a similar period.

Although South Koreans are increasingly becoming global consumers of higher educational services, the tumbling won may put a brake on the trend as parents start to feel the pinch. The won has plunged about 24 per cent so far this year to its lowest level in a decade, reminding many South Koreans of the 1997-98 financial crisis, in which the value of the local currency halved. At that time, many parents brought children studying abroad back home, unable to meet the cost.

“I still don’t want to bring them back, although it is getting more difficult,” says Mr Kim. “But I may have to if the situation gets worse.

South Korea’s problems look scarily familiar. Like the US, its consumers and companies have taken on too much debt. Like banks in the US and UK, Korean lenders rely on wholesale markets for funding – and with global credit markets clammed up, they are left in the same position: between a rock and a hard place.

South Korea has some $175bn in external short-term debt that has to be rolled over by the end of next June. Of this, perhaps $80bn relates to foreign banks’ onshore branches and can be deducted (on the assumption that the banks’ head offices will make dollars available). It is the balance that has Korean policymakers sweating at night – and which lies behind the pleas for access to dollar credit lines.

In a worst-case scenario, Korea’s foreign exchange trove of $240bn could be deployed. But what makes the position of Korean banks especially precarious is that domestic liquidity too is ebbing. The widening spread between banks’ funding rates and policy rates shows that risk aversion exists on home turf as well.

Lee Myung-bak

Hence, perhaps, the appeal to grassroots patriotism. Last week, President Lee Myung-bak (right) lambasted Koreans for not helping stem the won’s tumble. “Some businesses and individuals seem to think they can get rich quickly by hoarding dollars,” he said. “But individual greed should be put aside in times of national crisis.”

Individual greed was put aside in spades in the last crisis, when housewives brought necklaces and wedding rings to be melted down in order to repay foreign debt. This time, that may not be possible. Korean consumers tend to have more debts than baubles, a result of a push into home ownership. Indeed, levels of indebtedness in Korea are enough to make the average American blush: private sector debt stands at 180 per cent of gross domestic product.

Reliance on overseas markets has increased too. Banks rake in 12 per cent of their funding from overseas, according to Moody’s Investors Service. Wholesale markets are more important than in most of the rest of Asia, where banks generally have far more deposits than they can lend on to borrowers. In Korea, by contrast, the loan-to-deposit ratio is about 124 per cent. For the big four banks, adjusted loan-to-deposit ratios rose to 150-180 per cent in the second quarter, according to Moody’s. The rating agency changed its outlook on the four to negative this month.

“The liquidity squeeze is serious, and an obvious concern is that it may evolve into an issue of solvency,” says James McCormack, head of Asia-Pacific sovereign ratings at Fitch Ratings.

Elsewhere on the checklist for vulnerability, South Korea ticks several boxes. It has high external debt. Short- and long-term borrowing totals $400bn, above the levels at the time of the last crisis both in nominal terms and as a percentage of GDP.

The current account balance has teetered into the red, for the first time since the crisis of 1997-98. Portfolio capital flows into the country are susceptible to swift changes of direction – foreigners have been net sellers of the stock market in each of the past four years, for example. The economy, which Mr Lee pledged would grow by 7 per cent a year, is instead decelerating sharply and is this year expected to expand by a modest 4.7 per cent.

Arguably, this time around, Korea could be seen as a victim of its own success. On a macroeconomic level, a country that derives 40 per cent of its GDP from exports will now have to cope with dwindling western demand for its products. Companies such as Samsung and LG supply consumers worldwide with goods ranging from computer chips and mobile phones to televisions and fridges. Korea is also the world’s leading shipbuilding nation, with unchallenged expertise in the manufacturing of advanced vessels such as liquefied gas carriers. Hyundai, meanwhile, has built the world’s largest car manufacturing centre in its southern fiefdom of Ulsan, using a dedicated deep-water port to ship out 1m vehicles a year.

Beyond such household names, the country’s small- and medium-sized enterprises are often world leaders in niche markets and have come to play a key role in South Korea’s development. SMEs account for 88 per cent of Korea’s employment, half of its manufacturing output and 32 per cent of its exports.

Knock-on effects

Seoul is to help small and midsize enterprises (SMEs) suffering losses from a currency derivative product called kiko (knock-in knock-out).

Kiko contracts set a predetermined range for the won/dollar exchange rate. So long as the won stays within this range – usually 10 per cent – holders can sell at a specified rate. But if the currency moves beyond that, they take a bigger hit than if no derivative contract were in place.

The government estimates that SMEs chalked up W1,285bn ($1.03bn, £591m, €756m) in losses on the instrument as of the end of August.

Yet this segment is highly vulnerable to a downturn, implying higher unemployment, reduced domestic demand and more bank loans turning bad. “I think Korea will weather this [crisis] but not without some battle wounds,” says Duncan Wooldridge, Asia chief economist at UBS. “I’m much more concerned about the risk of a domestic credit bubble bursting. Many people do not seem to appreciate the risk.”

While the rapidly weakening won should stimulate exports, it again recalls the 1997 crisis and adds to fears about rolling over short-term dollar-denominated debt. It also risks depleting Korea’s formidable foreign currency kitty, the sixth biggest in the world and a key difference between 2008 and 1998, when reserves were a mere $22bn. While the current $240bn gives the Bank of Korea a far bigger buffer, it can still be whittled back – JPMorgan estimates that intervention, on both the spot and futures market, cost $40bn over the past two months.

While the government makes frequent reference to its foreign reserves and insists that the won will stabilise, economists are divided over whether the currency can recover soon, especially in the wake of Korea’s interest rate cut last week.

But it is hard for ordinary Koreans to avoid a sense of panic when the government unveils ever more desperate-sounding measures: on Monday, for example, Mr Lee urged people to ration energy consumption and overseas spending. “If we cut down on energy by 10 per cent, we will not post a current account deficit,” he told radio listeners.

Adding to nervousness is the fact that Koreans have been here before – several times in the past decade. Takahira Ogawa, sovereign analyst at Standard & Poor’s, notes that Korea was among the first Asian economies to recover from the 1997-98 crisis, in part because the government increased the issuance of domestic corporate bonds to companies shut out of international markets. The financial groups accumulating the paper soon ran into difficulties and had to be bailed out by the government.

Still determined to galvanise growth, the government then targeted consumer spending. A cocktail of tax incentives and credit card deregulation prompted a debt-fuelled spending binge – and another burst credit bubble in 2002-03. Hundreds of thousands of Koreans were obliged to file for bankruptcy; several also committed suicide.

The latest slump takes place under the watch of a relatively new, and unpopular, government. “The government has lost its credibility in terms of economic policy, because of its failed handling of currency rates. People don’t seem to trust its policy management capability, which makes the current situation more difficult,” says Huh Chan-gook, a researcher at the Korea Economic Research Institute.

The most immediate concern for Korea, however, is how to unwind the leverage that it has accumulated since the Asian crisis. That will not only be painful for the banks but could also bring the economy to a standstill, given how much of the lending has been handed to SMEs in the form of collateralised loans. Since 60 per cent of these SME loans are supported by government-controlled banks, however, the most likely scenario is a quantum leap in non-performing loans.

Furthermore, while the currency’s fall should normally benefit exporters, it could prove expensive for the many that have taken hedges against currency swings (see above). Two years ago, when the Korean won was steadily appreciating, shipbuilders and others grew worried about the mismatch between rising manufacturing costs and dollar order books stretching for as long as three years. To protect themselves, they bought hedging contracts from banks, which in turn had to go and borrow short-term US currency to offset this additional risk.

For now, Koreans are not running to their banks to withdraw savings and most pundits remain confident that Korea and its banks are sufficiently solid to avoid an Icelandic-style implosion. Some investors, in fact, are already positioning themselves to take advantage of a recovery. Just as it did in the aftermath of the 1998 crisis, when it established its presence in Korea, Oaktree Capital Management, the US private equity fund, is now earmarking $3bn to buy on the cheap once calm returns. “If assets become mispriced, they become more attractive,” says Oaktree’s Asian managing director, Robert Zulkoski.

Alas, if the experience of the west is any guide, it may take some time and angst before that point is reached.









Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e32a33d0-9952-11dd-9d48-000077b07658.html

Posted by 【洪】ILHONG
,
I am very annoyed with how many (innocent) people are reacting to the $700 billion bailout, and politicians are as usual being as stupid as they can be with election on the way. I cannot give a vote, but I know what's going on. I have been reading on innocent people complaining about the economy and about the bailout, but they don’t have any understanding. They just hearsay on how the economy and capitalism would change. They also just show abhorrence to Wall Streeters and don’t want the bailout to take its place. I have been trying to explain, but I gave up talking to the general innocent public.

Story: The US Government and the Fed are working on a $700 billion bailout plan on buying bad debts of financial institutions, and are waiting for the approval of the Capitol. The politicians want to include bad student loan, car loan, and other bad outstanding loans in the bail out.

The reason for this bail out is this: there is no liquidity in financial market.

What the US government and the Fed are trying to do is to give liquidity in the market to stabilize operations.

To make up for the emergent liquidity, the institutions sell assets very cheaply, and this further decreases withdrawal of investments and worsen the liquidity situation.

The US Gov and the Fed is trying to stop this vicious cycle.

Is this necessary? Yes.

But these are the argument points that blurs the necessities:
1) The plan proposed intends to draw $700 B from tax payers.
2) The money seems to be saving asses of those who caused all the problems: Wall Streeters, and seems to harm all the tax payers.
3) There are politicians keep saying things about the crisis with the presidential election coming, and they add blames to the Wall Streeters.

Here is what I say:
For 3, who cares whatever politicians say. It's all because of politics that $700 B is proposed to be paid out of tax payers. If Bush hadn't increased the government debt exponentially, this would not be as big of an issue.

The cause of all these problems is bad REAL ESTATE loans. There is no point of adding other kinds of loans like student loans and car loans in the bail out. That's total BULL CRAP.

For 2, Yes. It's saving asses of the Wall Streeters who were dumb and stupid enough to loose fundamentals of investment and asset management with short term gains that turned out to be exponential long term loss. But, whatever happens to your investment or savings, FDIC will cover only $10K. So, anyone or any entity that has more than $10K would certainly be affected by the financial market if there is no bail out.

For 1, using tax payers money would gives more confidence to the financial market. Here, I don't have a stand but I know the reasons.

Using tax to bail out would hurt many people - as it is calculated to be $2000 per American (or aliens working, including babies), and that's a lot of tax. But given how much tax cut the Bush administration had been giving out including recent $600 rebate, this could be understandable. This should be the tax he should have taxed to run the economy better, if he had plans and executions like Bill Clinton on economy.
Tax money would mean no strings attached to the financial market, and everyone loves free money.

But, as with the AIG $85B bail out, the US government could ask for some stake in return. Although this would include additional risk in the market, it could provide incentives for the institutions to perform better in whatever they have to do.
Some people say let the market handle its own problem. The thing is, it’s no longer only market’s problem, it has become an international problem.

If you wait for the market to fix itself, with lack of liquidity in the financial market, given that the US government and the Fed does nothing, almost every institution would go bankruptcy and everyone will end up having cashes hidden in their closet safe.

Overseas institutions cannot help much, since they will be busy saving their own asses as they lose their assets in the US and other places. We can see this as Barclays and Nomura only buys cheap bankrupt Lehman operations other than Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley.

Can the US infuse this money elsewhere, say on Social Security or Health Plans? The answer is NO. The money is not going to where it’s needed the most and there won’t be any multiplier effects or whatsoever to the economy as the money would be held on instead of being circulated.

The US government and the Fed seem to be trying this:

1)    Put liquidity into the economy, and lower interest rates for the time being. (The Fed had kept low interest rates throughout 2008, and many were wondering what the heck they were doing with rising prices, now I guess we all know why.)
2)    Most likely this would induce relatively high inflation.
3)    Raise interest rates to induce saving and control inflation. (If no domestic saving, currency inflow also can do the work.)

This is going to take some time, but it certainly is a sounding plan rather than LET THE MARKET FIX ITSELF. It’s going to hurt, but it does sound less painful than LET THE MARKET FIX ITSELF. Remember, it’s the market that has screwed all of us.

What government has to do is increasing regulations. The recent real estate bubble was a result of a leak in the regulations where investors saw enormous returns to go crazy enough to make things this bad.

Although some innocent cry for the death of capitalism, this probably is just a correction on the capitalism as it calls for more regulations from the government. Certainly the market was not efficient and had (big) flaws.

Currently, the biggest issue probably is if the $700B is enough. If not, what’s going to happen?

My answer to that is I DO NOT KNOW. I am not a qualified economist (yet) to say on whatever is going to happen. But I expect other countries to do something as they are also holding assets denoted in the US dollars.

With all the crazy things going on, I would certainly want to see how the global financial market would be shaped as institutions go through several transformations. I also wonder how regulations would be changed.

Also, hopefully, next presidents would know how to handle the budget better, and hopefully people will read and hear from more insightful people before complaining. There are things needed to be done and it can get better. Lastly, I found some respect for the Fed and maybe the US treasury, but not that much.

Posted by 【洪】ILHONG
,