Author: PaLao

On Sunday, July 3, Thailand goes to the polls. With both sides all but saying that they will not accept a decision that goes against them, the post-election scene promises to be as fractious as the run-up to the poll. More violence seems a given. The military, which deposed a democratically elected government a few years ago, is meddling again.  The following letter, which was published in one of the country’s leading dailies, remains as relevant to Thailand,  as for the country it originally referred to.

The dictator has gone. Long live the dictatorship!

The revolution in Egypt is only a partial success. The front man will be replaced with another front man. As long as the military is in control, nothing will really change. For the Egyptians to realize their aspirations they will not only have to send the soldiers back to the barracks, but ensure that they stay there.

Beware. When generals promise general elections, only generals get elected.

(Published in Bangkok Post, 15 February 2011)

The Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama is bound to be controversial. The early news in the United States must have spoilt many a breakfast on the rabid Right, and the froth and foam would not have been from the morning espressos.

The Nobel Committee in awarding President Obama the prize for his “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples” would have been aware that their decision was not only hasty, but rather premature. It is likely the decision was more for his intentions, and an investment in future efforts. “We gave you the Peace Prize, now don’t backtrack, or cut deals that go against those hoping you deliver.” It is also possible that this was an attempt to give impetus to his peace attempts, keeping in mind how vicious and vociferous his opponents, especially at home, are becoming each time he takes a step.

But will ground realities allow President Obama to be worthy of the prize?

In Afghanistan he seems ready to up the ante in an ill-advised and immoral war.  If terrorist actions by a group of citizens were justification for invading a country, then the deeds of past U.S. governments would have made the United States the most invaded country in the world.

Will Mr Obama be able to stare down a small number of West Bank settlers whose intransigence causes so much unrest in the world as they usurp land they can have no moral justification over?

True, the president’s actions in trying to build bridges to the rest of the world are a welcome change from the Texan gunslinger, and his Mephistophelian ‘pardner’ before him. Some wit has suggested that the award was more an indication of just how bad the previous administration was.

Many of us think that President Barack Obama is the most charismatic and exciting leader on the world stage and desperately want him to succeed.

But Mr Obama might just find out that making peace in the world is as difficult as making peace with the Republican Party.

16 October 2010

© Percy Aaron

The quadrennial circus that is the process of electing a U.S. president is upon us once again. It throws up all kinds of performers long on style, short on substance. Most of them, including the pundits and the press, are as profound as the pancake on their faces.

Two elections ago, with a sleight of hands that would have been the envy of any juggler, a clown was thrust upon the country, a midget in mind and morality. Like any raconteur he told the people many stories: about chatting to God every day and about weapons of mass destruction.

Now as this process marches on to Election Day the theatre of the absurd becomes even more ridiculous.    The office being contested for is often referred to as the most powerful job in the world. Yet, listening to the issues being raised each day, one cannot help wondering whether this is just another episode of Trivial Pursuit.

Two issues regularly referred to, against one candidate, are race and experience.

This candidate is 50% black. So if he’s half black, he’s also half white. Why can’t he be referred to as white? Or biracial?

If being black is a crime, why don’t they come out and say it? Why don’t they come out and say discrimination and prejudice are bad things when practised elsewhere, but it’s O.K. when we do it. Everybody will understand, because most people already know who the world champions in hypocrisy are.

Being black was never an issue when a disproportionate number of black men were asked, or forced, to lay down their lives in the nation’s wars.

So is America ready to vote for a black man? Well if it isn’t, then shame on it. Spit on it!

The other issue being raised is of experience. The answer is simple. Since none of the candidates has been president before, neither has the experience. The incumbent has been president for almost eight years. Eight years later, not even his mother will say he is experienced.

COMMENTS

Jan

June 15, 2011 at 9:21 pm

You forgot to mention that the 50% “black candidate” is also 50% Muslim!!

Jansan

© Percy Aaron

Sometime ago I watched an interview with a senior, very articulate, Chinese official. At one point, in reply to a lop-sided question, he told the interviewer, “You westerners have the most breath-taking double standards”.

The recent Olympics have brought home to me how alive and kicking, these double standards are.

Remarks by a number of people I’ve met here, and reports in the western media, show how double standards have plunged to new depths of hypocrisy.

Prior to the Games, and during it, there was continuous criticism of Beijing’s security measures and the censorship. Nowhere was there the realization that tight security is inevitable nowadays at large, especially international, gatherings. Obviously, the authoritarian nature of Chinese society and the paranoia of its government, made such arrangements obvious to everybody. I remember reading about the U.S authorities having a tank posted outside one of the stadiums during the 1994 World Cup soccer. Even making allowances for football hooliganism, that was a bit of overkill.

Then there were the constant barbs about the training regimen of Chinese athletes, the use of professional performers for the opening and closing ceremonies (as if Olympic rules precluded these) and any number of other issues. Admiration for the performances of the Chinese sportsmen and women, or the organization and conduct of the Games, was always qualified with caveats about the oppressive nature of the government. The constant sniping about the cost of the Games made me wonder whether they had been asked to contribute to it. The Chinese, it seemed, could not do anything right.

Many articles criticized the lip-synching incident at the opening ceremony when a more ‘acceptable’ face was used instead of that of the little girl with the golden voice.

True, that incident like many other things that the Chinese government did, is doing, and will do, was deplorable. But who thought up playback singing, stage names, etc? In the world of make-believe and deceit few people are blameless.

The hypocrisy and meanness, or should it be madness, astounded me when some people kept hoping for a terrorist ‘incident’ that would disrupt the Games and embarrass the hosts. Shocking, shocking, shocking! Obviously, acts of violence against people one doesn’t like are acceptable.

‘Breath-taking double standards’, did we say? What an understatement!

Some of my friends wrote in about a previous post, ‘Biased Broadcasting Corporation’ saying that I was ignoring the fact of inferior Chinese quality.

I think they missed the point of that post. I was not denying that many Chinese products are very shoddy in quality. What I was trying to show was the one-sidedness of a telecast from a news corporation that has, or at least had, a reputation for balanced reporting. To devote 19 minutes of an approximately 25-minute news program to problems with Chinese-made toys in the U.S., when there were so many news stories of equal or more importance,  seemed like a misplaced sense of priority. Or was it bias? Considering the spate in the number of recent reports on product quality from China, one could be forgiven for thinking that there is more to it than meets the eye.

Anyway, while there is no denying that many products coming out of China are of very poor quality, in some cases other people, not just the manufacturer, must share the blame for this.

While there are factories producing the ‘thirty-day wonder’ – if it lasts 30 days it’s a wonder – there are also factories producing top-of-the-range quality. Products coming out of these units are at par with anything elsewhere in the world. Even within the same factory the quality offered will depend on the price paid.

This is a fact ignored, or covered up, by China bashers and ignorant or biased journalists.

Many years ago when I was in business I made a trip to Australia to meet various buyers for my leather products. At one meeting with a big importer in Melbourne I was shown the product line that they were sourcing from China. The quality ranged from adequate to awful. Each item had ‘genuine leather’, or for additional snob value, vrai cuir or cuoio reale, embossed on it. The only genuine leather in each item was that particular part which carried the stamp. In most cases this was the most visible external component, while the rest of the product was made of imitation or synthetic leather. Often too, the leather portion was made from split, that part of the hide which is of poorest quality.

When I showed them samples of bags and small leather goods manufactured at my factory there was no reaction from some of the people in the room, while others remarked on the excellent quality. Then I gave them my prices and they were taken aback. I knew my products were being retailed at 10-15 times of what I was wholesaling them at.

They gave me sketches of a range that they would be running during Christmas that year and asked for samples and quotations. Weeks later we met again and they were very impressed both with quality and price. We waited for the boss, one of the persons who had shown no reaction at our first meeting, to arrive. When he came into the room he examined the goods and looked slyly at one of his assistants. He asked the prices and then told me that they were much too high. I knew that the price I was offering was at least a tenth of what they would eventually be retailed at but asked him what he thought the bags should cost.

He quoted prices that were 30% to 50% lower. I didn’t even bother to negotiate. I stood up, collected my samples and told him that he couldn’t afford my quality.

He tried to get back at me by saying that my prices were acceptable only for Italian products. I told him that I realised why quality manufacturers in India thought Australia, and the U.S., were the bottom end of the business.

That incident comes to mind nowadays when I read reports on ‘inferior’ Chinese quality.

The quality of products made in China depends on the prices that foreign buyers pay to the Chinese manufacturer.

Airbus and Boeing supposedly have Chinese suppliers for some aircraft parts. Surely they would not put passenger safety at risk by buying sub-standard components. I’ve just purchased an expensive iPod made in China. I’m sure Apple didn’t pay peanuts for that quality.

When many manufacturers closed down their factories in other countries and moved production to China, they did so to cut costs. Did they pass on those lower costs to the consumer? And in cutting costs did they turn a blind eye to cutting corners?

And what of the others who are culpable for the poor quality coming out of some Chinese factories. Most foreign buyers maintain well-to-highly paid quality control inspectors on site. In most cases to avoid compromise and corruption these inspectors are non-locals. Why weren’t they doing their job?

There are also other reasons when buyers accuse manufacturers of poor quality. Some of them are: products ordered have not clicked in the marketplace; competitors have similar products at lower prices; and the worst of all, trying to squeeze extra discounts from desperate suppliers with cash flow problems who are already operating on wafer-thin margins.

COMMENTS

Jan

June 15, 2011 at 9:04 pm

Once again Aaron..you have hit the nail on the head!
The buzz words in industry and commerce are now “downsizing”, “shareholder value”, profit maximizing”, just to name a few. The consumer / end-user does not even feature in this equation, except as a stupid consumer, tricked via “clever” marketing and “swanky” advertising into buying sub-standard products at a premium price.
China is currently in “focus” because of basic US fear that their entire manufacturing industry has slowly but steadily been relocated abroad – Mexico, China, India and even an erstwhile “enemy”…Vietnam.
As ABBA sang money, money, money….
PS Let’s just hope that these sub-standard Boeing parts aren’t installed in any planes that I board!
PPS Well argued and written…keep up the good work!

Jansan

Peter

June 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm

I agree Percy. People like Apple for example are producing all their products in China because it’s cheaper, but, they also insist the best top quality. I guess Mr. Job’s is paying the Chinese for their experience at making quality goods???? He makes a point of telling the press this when he is being bashed by the press for getting Apple’s products made in China. I must say that the Chinese can produce top quality goods if they are paid good money. It is a human fact of life – if you are paid well you produce better quality.

Good posting Percy. Keep it up.

Peter Markham

Peter

June 15, 2011 at 9:06 pm

For all your readers out there, a “must read” book…
The State of the American Empire – How the USA Shapes the World, by Stephen Burman
(University of California Press, Myriad Editions, 2007)
Deals basically with “the militarisation and economic subjugation of the global community and its commodification by corporate governance and by the American government.”

Jansan

© Percy Aaron

When people die suddenly, especially if they are young, we generally tend to speak well of them. Maybe that is how it should be.

However, the eulogies to Benazir Bhutto have been quite over the top. Fact is being mixed with large dollops of fiction.

The West says that she was a democrat. I think that their understanding of the term is rather different from mine. Benazir Bhutto wouldn’t have recognized democracy if it had gone up to her and introduced itself.

As prime minister of Pakistan she was as allergic to democracy as most Pakistani rulers have been, before and after her. She showed no respect for the country’s democratic institutions undermining even the judiciary. She treated members of the Pakistani People’s Party like servants in a feudal household and allowed her husband to get away with even greater excesses. As prime minister she was an expert in playing both sides against the middle and all sides against everybody. She encouraged fundamentalism when it suited her and rubbished it when it didn’t. She made deals with Musharraf, her devil, because of her lust for power and her belief in her ability to eventually outsmart him. That she thought she was the destiny of her country was supreme arrogance.

They say she was a modern woman. She was modern when travelling abroad, feudal back in Pakistan.

They say she was intelligent. But she wasn’t intelligent enough to realize, that in her country at least, being close to the U.S. was the kiss of death.

For a ‘democrat’ there were too many allegations of culpability in some murders, including those of her brothers.

And then there was the matter of the corruption; mountains and mountains of it.

In an impoverished country with foreign currency restrictions how did she get the money to afford the lavish lifestyle of holidays in the South of France, Switzerland and other snob destinations?

When she was investigated for corruption she often claimed that these were politically motivated. What did she say when these investigations were conducted by government agencies in the West?

She could hardly have been married to Mr. Ten-per-cent without being, at least, Mrs. Something-per-cent. When she insisted to reporters that her husband was clean, she was probably talking about his hygiene.

Press reports say that in her will, drawn up a few days before she returned to Pakistan, she wrote that if anything happened to her, her husband was to lead the PPP. Obviously, this ‘democrat’ hadn’t heard the term ‘party elections’.

This act – assuming the will wasn’t another fraud by Mr. Ten-per-cent – was one more indication of the contempt she had for her party, her people and her country.

© Percy Aaron