The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Some deal, at least
US steps back from precipice

Global financial markets felt relieved on Monday after US President Barack Obama and Republican leaders agreed to raise the ceiling on the US borrowing. The crisis arose when rating agencies recently threatened to downgrade the US debt, which has always enjoyed a AAA rating, meaning it is certain to be repaid. Whenever the government reaches a debt ceiling, the law requires the President to take Congress permission to raise the ceiling to borrow more. Such permission is normally granted without a fuss. Since the Republicans control the House of Representatives, they tied conditions to approval, which should be in place before August 2, the deadline. Otherwise, the government risked defaulting on its committed payments.

The Republicans and the Democrats had got stuck in the impasse over taxes and spending. During elections the Republicans had pledged that they would not raise taxes if voted to power. They pressed the President to cut government spending to get their support for a higher debt ceiling. The pro-poor Democrats favoured higher taxes on the rich to bridge the gap between government borrowing and spending, which was stepped up after the 2008 financial meltdown to boost the economy.

To reach the debt deal and avoid the consequent “financial calamity”, President Obama has stepped back from his stated position. The deal does not include any tax increases. The Republicans have retreated on their demand for huge spending cuts. The agreement calls for under $1 trillion in initial cuts and a committee will find ways for $1.5 trillion more cuts in spending spread over a decade. It is more a compromise than a solution and has to be approved by the Congress. But it definitely saves the superpower the shame of an unprecedented default. “This looks like a short-term quick-fix and we don’t have a long-term solution put in place”, observed an analyst. “Is this the deal I would have preferred?” President Barack Obama asked and said a firm “no” in answer.

To reveal or not
One of many dilemmas for women

What women should wear or more pertinently what they shouldn’t has strangely been open to public debate. What should be a private affair, a matter of personal choice and right is invariably brought in public domain. The so-called moralists often take an extremist position often relating sexual crimes against women to the dress worn by them. A reflection of this mindset, the sexist remark of a Canadian police officer: “If women don’t want to be victimised they should stop dressing like sluts” has led to series of protest ‘Slut Walks’ around the world. As Delhi organised the Slut Walk on Sunday, the tone and tenor might have been watered down, nevertheless the issue of protest against sexual violence remained the same.

In daily lives most women, now it seems not only in India but around the world, have to fight prejudices that infringe upon her personal liberty. In Sudan a woman is fined for wearing a trouser. A dental hospital director in Chandigarh objects to the slogan on an intern’s T-shirt. Top official in Russian Orthodox Church wants a dress code for women, even gives them a verbal lashing “they confuse the street with striptease”. Indeed, men all over the world consider it their moral imperative to dictate women how to behave and dress up. On the surface the issue what to wear and what not to may seem blown out of proportion. But beneath the societal dictates lie the “blaming the victim” approach and a patriarchal mind set that invariably shifts the onus of guilt on women.

To think that slut walks can lead to an overnight change in the psyche steeped in centuries of conditioning will be like asking for the moon. Women’s problems, as one of the protesters remarked, do not begin with wearing revealing clothes. Nor will it end with their earning the right to dare and bare. It’s time sincere efforts are made by the lawmakers and enforcers to make cities and villages safer for women. Let no society face a situation where women have to strip in public as the Manipuri women did, or be willing to be called sluts to draw attention to pressing concerns like sexual harassment and violence.

Thought for the Day

Talent does what it can; genius does what it must. Edward G. Bulwer. — Lytton

ARTICLE

Lokpal Bill belies hopes
Vital changes still needed
by Rajindar Sachar

The much-awaited Cabinet-approved Lokpal Bill comes as no surprise. The decision to exclude the office of Prime Minister is maintained, notwithstanding the proclaimed stand of Dr Manmohan Singh that he wants to be included, but has had to yield because of the Cabinet decision. This surrender of one’s conscientious opinion on a matter of vital public importance at the altar of petty considerations of party politics ill-serves the Prime Minister’s reputation because in spite of all the scams in the present government even his worst opponents preface their criticism by reiterating their faith in his personal integrity. His well-wishers still hope that the Prime Minister will still assert himself and respect the sentiments of the masses than that of a small coterie for whom the party is above the nation and principled politics secondary. Why should he be the whipping boy – let his successor, when time comes, face the people’s wrath by suggesting a change.

The argument that if allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister are allowed to be examined by Lokpal, it would prejudice the working of the government is a non-starter. The Bofors scandal was not about the quality of guns purchased, but the pay-off received in lieu thereof. Similarly, the Kargil coffins scandal was not about the quality of the product but about the alleged pay-offs. The tragic-comic provision that the Prime Minister will be covered after he demits office is like bolting the stable after the horses have run away. Can there be more callous absurdity in public life than a corrupt Prime Minister continuing in office with immunity? If this decision on the Prime Minister’s exclusion is not modified, a veritable storm would ensue.

Keeping the judiciary out may be acceptable provided simultaneously the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill and other connected Bills are brought in. One may call this institution as Lokpal (Judiciary).

Members of Parliament are putting their case for exclusion from the Lokpal Bill by seeking cover under Article 105 of the Constitution, and for this they apparently have some marginal support from the widely criticised majority judgment (3 against 2) in the Narsimma Rao case (1999) (I believe the matter was referred to a larger bench). It may apparently be technically correct but it is certainly a morally reprehensible conduct and cannot be pleaded by an MP to be excluded from the jurisdiction of Lokpal.

The minority judgment very aptly pointed out the absurdity of the argument that Article 105(2) exempts the legislator from being convicted on a charge of taking bribes and observed that this interpretation could lead to a charter for corruption so as to elevate members of Parliament as “super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility”.

It would indeed be ironic if a claim for immunity from prosecution founded on the need to ensure the independence of members of Parliament in exercising their right to speak or cast their vote in Parliament, could be put forward by a member who has bartered away his independence by agreeing to speak or vote in a particular manner in lieu of illegal gratification that has been paid or promised. By claiming immunity such a member would only be seeking a licence to indulge in such corrupt conduct.

In other countries such a conduct of MPs is treated as criminal. Thus as far back as 1875 Australian courts took the view that an attempt to bribe a member of the legislative assembly in order to influence his vote was a criminal offence and that there is no difference between paying money to a member of parliament to use his vote in a particular manner and paying him money for the said purpose outside parliament.

The exemption of an MP from the ambit of Lokpal would make a mockery of the legislation – the public already has a low opinion of legislators. Their criminal antecedents already cast a doubt on their honest working.

It is amazing that the Cabinet did not pay heed even to the pain and anguish expressed by the Vice President of India, who, speaking at the all-India whips conference, warned: “The most important issue of concern today is the decreasing credibility of our legislatures as effective institutions capable of delivering public good and contributing effective formulation of laws…. Exactly 23 per cent of MPs elected in 2004 had criminal cases registered against them – over half of these cases could lead to imprisonment of five years or more. The situation is worse in the case of MLAs failing to discharge their two-fold brief, legislate and deliberate, and that the country’s top lawmaking body had fallen short of people’s expectations.”

In view of the above one expects sensitivity of legislators that they should take steps to seek an amendment to Article 105 of our Constitution. I have one more suggestion. As is well known the politicisation of crime is a stark and dangerous reality. Even in Parliament there are nearly 100 MPs having criminal cases pending against them. There has been a demand that tainted persons should not be allowed to contest elections. I feel that the Lokpal Bill should provide that whenever Lokpal takes a decision, after having the matter investigated that the legislator has to be prosecuted for his misdemeanor, the latter should be deemed to be ineligible to continue as a legislator till he is proved innocent.

A serious flaw in the government Bill is the denial of power to Lokpal to prosecute those accused of corruption. This is totally unacceptable. No self-respecting person will agree to be on the Lokpal body if his/her decisions are subject to control by the government.

If all parties could simultaneously agree to provide a strong Lokayukat, much criticism of the lower officials not being included under Lokpal would disappear. Extending the jurisdiction of Lokpal right to the lowest official may hinder the expeditious working of Lokpal. A Lokayukat should be able to do that. But in this the BJP will have to come clean because Narendra Modi has been resisting a Lokayukat in Gujarat for the past nine years.

The power for the removal of Lokpal should be vested in the seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The government should not treat the Lokpal Bill as a battle of people versus Parliament, as indiscrete remarks of some ministers seem to suggest. The government needs to be humble enough to recognise that power to take the ultimate decisions rests with the real sovereign under our Constitution, namely, the people, and not the temporary occupant, the government, which remains subordinate to the people.

The writer is a retired Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi

MIDDLE

Editing or babysitting
by Harbans Singh Virdi

I am in communication and student of journalism. I hate editing since it is akin to babysitting. I hate babysitting,’ wrote a would-be Khushwant Singh. He was a ‘brilliant’ second-year student of the Department of Mass Communication at a reputed university in the region. The ‘provocation’ was a simple question whether he would like to work on the news desk or prefer a field job. Further on, in his masterly prose, the student refers to Osama bin Laden as Alko-e-da founder. Sample another.

‘Aishwarya belong to a south family. She is famous for her eyes and I like it too,’ wrote a Raju Bharatan in the making. To polish up readers’ memories, Raju was an expert writing on films and sports in The Illustrated Weekly of India, then edited by the man in the bulb.

These answers were given during a test held to select trainee sub-editors for an English newspaper. Those conducting the exam were naturally aghast at the lack of any grammatical sense and writing skill while answering simple questions. In my reaction, I told the editor that the scene was no different from what it used to be in the past.

A few years ago, the newspaper I was working for held a similar test. The paper setter included a question to test the general knowledge of would-be journalists: ‘Who was Jeff Thomson?’ One student wrote: ‘Jeff Thomson was the popular hockey player of New Zealand’. Needless to say, I did not read further on.

There was a time when even lecturers in the English language left lucrative jobs to join the editorial staff of a newsroom. The correct use of the language, proper connotation of each word and the perfect use of punctuation was the hallmark of good editing. After a few years’ hard training, the sub-editors made English dance to their commands. They toyed with the existing vocabulary but coined new phrases which gained currency in due course. “Living from hand to loom” was a brilliant heading given to a report on poor workers of handloom industry by a former librarian, whom years of training had made a master-sub. Alas, editing has been reduced to mere babysitting for a student, who failed to correctly write that he was a student of the Department of Mass Communication.

But there was light at the end of the tunnel. “Being a journalist gives me the right to write and inform society. Journalism makes me (to) look at things in different perspectives,” wrote a girl student. I do not know whether she made it to the news desk or not but she certainly had the making of a good journalist.

In the meantime those who liken editing to washing kids’ diapers may apply for a vendor’s licence.

OPED WORLD

Instead of seeking gratification by going shopping, the British are achieving it by finding new ways of saving money
How austerity is changing uK
Mary Ann Sieghart

I’m afraid there’s no money left, the note read. It was written, only half in jest, by the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne. But it could have been addressed to almost any government or individual in the developed world. As America wrestles with its debt ceiling, the eurozone struggles with its members’ insolvency, and the rest of us try to cope with falling incomes and rising prices, a dearth of money is forcing us all to see ourselves through a different lens.

Literally, in some cases. At the weekend, I bumped into an old friend, a former fashion editor. As we went outside and put on our shades, she said that mine trumped hers. “I doubt it,” I replied. “They only cost a fiver.” She, always immaculately turned out but now looking slightly disappointed, admitted hers cost £15. Where you might have expected designer rivalry, we found ourselves engaged in competitive frugality.

Excesses of the past

Five years ago, at the height of the absurd debt-fuelled boom, you couldn’t open a newspaper or magazine without reading about “must-have” handbags costing a thousand pounds or more. Now people are questioning what they genuinely must have. When food and housing take up such a large slice of their income, do they really need a car, let alone a pointless pair of designer heels? The excesses of the past look pretty sick now that we’re living in what our parents might call “reduced circumstances”.

It’s not fun being poorer, but there’s at least a certain satisfaction to be had in making money go further. You can now download an app that tells you not just where your nearest petrol station is, but how much it charges per litre. Instead of seeking happiness by going shopping, we are achieving some of that gratification by finding new ways of saving money. As the Romans knew, there’s something to be said for a purge after a binge.

Fall in spending

The trouble is, the decline in household consumption, which is necessary for people to pay off debts, is disastrous collectively for the economy. After the previous three recessions, in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, it was our consumer spending that dragged the economy back to growth. This time, household spending fell sharply in the first year of the downturn and has barely picked up since.

It’s not surprising. Real household disposable income has been falling for two-and-a-half years, faster than at any time since the data were introduced in 1955. At the beginning of this year, we were £8bn poorer than we were at the end of 2008. Worse may be to come. The public-sector cuts have barely begun to be felt, and interest rates are still artificially low. What’s more, we entered the recession with lower savings and higher personal debt than in previous downturns.

Lived on borrowing

Americans are facing the same problems. Like us, they lived for too long on borrowed money — both individually and as a nation. But their fiscal austerity is only just beginning. Whatever deal emerges from Congress, there will have to be savage cuts in spending. What will that do to America’s image of itself? George Bush started two wars, which have so far cost his country £2.4trn. The Pentagon will surely not emerge unscathed by spending cuts. Expect a lot of questioning about whether America can remain a superpower if there’s no money left.

Political parties on both sides of the Atlantic are having to reassess their thinking too. A Conservative asked me the other day: “What’s the point of Labour if there’s no money to spend?” It’s a good question, but you might also ask: “What’s the point of the Tories if they can’t cut taxes?” The two easiest routes to popularity for left and right have been blocked off by debt. And so has the easiest way to stimulate growth, a problem that has been perplexing George Osborne.

Policies cost money

No wonder people are complaining that there are no new ideas coming out of Labour. Most new policies cost money. There are a few — such as moving the clocks an hour forward or decriminalising drugs — that might add to the happiness of the nation while actually saving money, but they’re thin on the ground.

The one thing government can still do is change the rules. So it can, for instance, alter planning regulations to make it easier for councils to protect and encourage independent shops. That requires no spending, but it would improve our local high streets. Ministers can also help to make housing more affordable by relaxing planning rules to allow more housebuilding. Neither of these cost the Treasury a penny.

Demanding times

Politicians have been struggling, though, to fire our imaginations in a world with no money. David Cameron tried with the Big Society, but it hasn’t really caught on, and too many people see it as a cover for government cuts. Ed Miliband has recently come up with some interesting ideas on responsibility but they haven’t yet coalesced into a political programme.

It’s probably time for us to change our expectations of politics. We still want our politicians to do stuff and haven’t quite accepted that doing stuff generally costs money. Just as we are having to get used to austerity at home — no foreign holiday this summer — we also need to lower our horizons as voters. For if we keep demanding more from our leaders, the only reasonable response they can give is: “I’m afraid there’s no money left.” — The Independent

European, Asian factories slip into stagnation
Andy Bruce

Factories in Asia and Europe all but stagnated in July, according to business surveys that showed the weakest rates of growth since major industrial powers were struggling through the 2009 recession.

While stock markets rose on signs of a last minute solution that would avoid a U.S. debt default, manufacturing purchasing managers indexes (PMIs) provided the latest evidence of a slowing global economy.

The euro zone manufacturing PMI, which gauges the activities of thousands of businesses, fell to 50.4 in July from 52.0 in June — its worst showing since September 2009 and barely above the 50 mark dividing growth and contraction. Perhaps more worryingly, China’s official government PMI dropped to 50.7 from 50.9 in June, its weakest in more than two years, while the HSBC PMI fell below the 50 mark for the first time in a year-to 49.3 in July from 51.6.

China was the main engine of growth as the developed world sank into recession after the 2008 financial crisis and signs of a slowdown there would worsen the global outlook at a time when both the U.S. and European economies are struggling with debt crises.

All eyes will also be on the United States’ ISM manufacturing survey, due at 1400 GMT, which is expected to dip as well but still show a more positive reading of 54.9 points.

In Germany, the euro zone’s key growth engine in the recovery thus far, manufacturing growth fell to a 21-month low after new orders contracted for the frist time in more than two years.

Slowdown in Europe

“If you’re looking at Germany, and if you’re looking at the trends over recent months, it does seem as though sentiment in the euro zone has turned down,” said Mark Miller, global economist at Lloyds Banking Group.

Miller outlined the difference between the slowdown in China — which he said was growth responding to a series of interest rate and bank reserve requirement hikes — and Europe, where economies are close to stall speed.

In some cases, like Greece, they are already contracting. Even in the UK, which so far has been shielded from the crisis gripping the euro zone, the manufacturing PMI fell to 49.1 from 51.4 in June-the first time below the 50 mark since the country was in recession two years ago. “The UK is going through more than just a little local difficulty,” said Peter Dixon, economist at Commerzbank. “You’ve got a slowdown in global economy and a fall-off in domestic demand, and that’s a pretty toxic combination.” While the decline in the UK PMI was worrying, the likes of Spain and Ireland saw contraction among factories only deepening in July.

Indian manufacturing

Emerging market are also taking a hit. Indian manufacturing growth slowed in July for the third month in a row. The HSBC PMI dropped to 53.6, from 55.3 in June, the lowest level since November 2009.

New export order growth in China, the world’s biggest exporter, hit its lowest level in 17 months, the official survey showed.

But HSBC said new export orders in India fell in July at their fastest pace in 29 months and in Taiwan, home to the world’s two biggest contract computer chip makers, they fell markedly and for the first time in nine months. “There is still a lot of uncertainty about how global demand will hold up,” said Vishnu Varathan, economist at Capital Economics in Singapore.

Many economists prefer to describe China’s economic growth as a slowdown rather than slump. But some say Beijing is treading an increasingly fine balance between fostering growth and fighting inflation, especially as its monetary policy tightening campaign runs into its 10th month.

Bucking the trend, South Korean manufacturing growth accelerated for the first time in seven months in July and new export orders also picked. — Reuters