The Riots Of Paris and London: A Tale Of Two Cities

Posted by Bruce Crumley

With the violence that broke out in London Saturday having spread to other English cities during a third straight night of rioting Monday, it's tempting (and probably portentous) from the comfort of Paris to offer up lessons learned from the nearly three weeks of upheaval that rocked French towns in 2005. Yet while there seem to be certain details common to both those explosions of urban fury, significant differences not only complicate directly comparing events in the U.K. to those that occurred in France nearly six years ago—but also leave the current unrest looking more serious in terms of destruction and consequence. As shocking as the images of burning cars, vandalism, and clashes with police were in 2005, the scenes today from across London inspire an even stronger, awesome fear. Here's why.

The detonators of both uprisings appear to have been similar: first, police involvement in the deaths of local youths in neighborhoods with large populations of visible minorities, followed by the fury — nourished with wider frustrations of discrimination and alienation — that those killings unleashed. And as happened in 2005 France, the initial unrest that broke out Saturday in Tottenham has gradually spread to other areas of London and to two other British cities as young people have embraced the underlying message of social protest and rage—or used them as convenient excuses for running amok. Not insignificantly, the spread of violence in both cases also provoked laments-cum-accusation that over-dramatization and voyeuristic media coverage early on led to “copy-cat” replication of the urban outrage.

From there, however, things seem to get different in important ways--starting with urban geography. The Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois that initially erupted in unrest in Oct. 2005 is just that: one of the many towns hosting huge but decrepit housing projects for increasingly disenfranchised segments of French society. Those large clusters of projects are almost invariably located in relatively remote suburbs ringing most major French cities, sparing France the kinds of intra muros ghetto areas that cities like New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles have—or neighborhoods with very large non-white, often economically disadvantaged populations as London does.

(SEE: Pictures of the riots in London.)

In stark contrast to the districts in London now suffering violence, therefore, virtually all unrest that rocked France in 2005 occurred in these project-heavy outlying suburbs. And for all intents and purposes, the nightly clashes in 2005 France were never exported anywhere near the businesses, shops, and primarily white, affluent residents of French city centers. The recurring destruction that stunned wider French society in 2005 essentially involved its most disadvantaged and alienated members wrecking havoc in their own, very remote backyards.

As anyone watching the images of destruction knows, the rioting in the English capital and other cities is now surging right up to the doors of comfortable, middle and upper-middle class homes. The reasons: the sprawling nature of London makes it a much geographically larger and a far more populated city than intramuros Paris. Meanwhile, like France's blighted banlieues, the London neighborhoods now suffering turmoil have heavy immigrant and visible minority populations airing complaints of discrimination, endemic unemployment, and tense relations with police. Yet these populations are part of a wider, mixed residential pool. Indeed, unlike France 2005, the Watts or South Central riots in Los Angeles, or instances of arson and looting in New York's Harlem, objectives of “containment” by officials in reacting to violence those cities are non-starters in London—whose mixed socio-economic-ethnic demographics make the current violence an equal opportunity threat. It numbs the mind to contemplate what kinds of new attacks on multi-culturalism will surge in Britain once the waves of nightly violence subside.

Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/08/09/the-riots-of-paris-and-london-a-tale-of-two-cities/#ixzz1UZRJGQkd

Related article:

The Great Riot of London: The Stakes for David Cameron

Malaysia's New Journey

By Michael Schuman / Kuala Lumpur
Monday, Sep. 06, 2010

ENLARGE PHOTO+

Common cause Malaysia's three major races are reflected in one train carriage.

Malaysia is that rare country with an unequivocal national narrative. It goes something like this: Malaysia's 28 million people, comprising mainly Malays, Chinese and Indians, make up a moderate and modern emerging democracy. Unlike members of other multiethnic countries, they respect one another's beliefs and values and share a commitment to achieving prosperity. The official religion is Islam, but other faiths are freely allowed and celebrated. This is one harmonious place.

Much of that narrative is true — but not all of it. Malaysia's economic miracle has stalled, and while the nation is, indeed, somewhat pluralistic, it is no melting pot. Indeed, it is a society where people define themselves first and foremost by race. (See pictures of Islam in Asia.)

The country's political leadership has in some respects reinforced those ethnic identities. For the past 40 years, policymakers have doled out special privileges — in education and business — to one community: the majority Malays. The program is one of modern history's greatest experiments in social engineering and possibly the world's most extensive attempt at affirmative action. But the policies have also bred resentment among minorities, distorted the economy and undermined the concept of a single Malaysian identity.

Now a movement is gaining strength to finally change the system — and it's coming from the very top. Prime Minister Najib Razak, 57, has surprised the country by advocating a fundamental reform of the pro-Malay program first introduced, ironically, by his father, who was Malaysia's Prime Minister in the 1970s. Though the specifics of the new policies remain hazy, Najib's intent is not. "I want Malaysia to be globally competitive," he told TIME in an exclusive interview. "For that, we need to get every single Malaysian to be together."

Najib's proposals have simultaneously raised hopes, ire and fear. The mere idea of changing the affirmative-action system has reopened old wounds in Malaysian society and reactivated the long-running debate on how best to fuse Malays, Chinese and Indians into one nation. The direction Malaysia takes, moreover, has repercussions beyond its shores. The issues raised by Najib's proposals are relevant to any upwardly mobile developing economy, especially a multicultural one: how to increase wealth and do so equitably. (Read "Why the Honeymoon is Over for Malaysia's New PM.")

In confronting these sensitive challenges, Najib is taking enormous political risks. The primary base of electoral support for Najib's political party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), is the Malay community, and altering decades-old perquisites could cause voters to defect to the opposition. But Najib believes he has little choice. If Malaysia's economy is to compete with China, India and other rapidly emerging neighbors, Najib sees no other route but reform. "The competition is much greater and some would describe it even as cutthroat," Najib says. "There is a realization that what has worked in the past may not necessarily work in the future."

The Malay Card
Najib is facing the same dilemma his predecessors have since the earliest days of Malaysian independence: balancing the perceived needs of the Malays, both political and economic, with those of the country as a whole. At the heart of the problem is the reverse-pyramid shape of the Malaysian economy. Though the Malays and other indigenous peoples, together known as bumiputra in Malay, make up about 60% of the population, they have traditionally been poorer than the Chinese and Indian immigrants, who have long dominated the nation's business and trade. After Kuala Lumpur was struck by race riots in 1969, a shaken leadership determined that communal peace was impossible without economic balance. The result was the New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced in 1971, which aimed to raise the Malays' share of the economic pie. Malays were given preferential access to public contracts and university scholarships. Any company listing on the stock market had to sell 30% of its shares to bumiputra investors. Though some measures have been softened or eliminated over the past two decades, many pro-Malay privileges remain. Certain government contracts are available only to bumiputra-controlled firms, for example. Malays even receive special discounts on home purchases. The affirmative-action program has become so ingrained in the Malaysian psyche that it is akin to a national ideology.

It is also controversial. Critics contend that the pro-Malay program too often benefits the connected few over its intended targets: the poor and struggling. All car-import permits, for example, are awarded to bumiputra-controlled firms, a policy intended to foster entrepreneurs in the community. But government audits have revealed that Malay businessmen with access to the permits sometimes sell them to minority traders who don't — at an instant profit. (The Ministry of Trade and Industry, recognizing the problem, says it will phase out the permit system by 2020.) "Unfortunately, as [the NEP] was implemented over time, some of the zealots, politicians and bureaucrats included, tended to become more racial and emphasized more on the people who have relationships with them," says Razaleigh Hamzah, an UMNO dignitary and former Finance Minister. "That's where it went wrong."

Despite four decades of special aid, 3 in 4 of the poorest people in Malaysia are still bumiputra. Adli Ahmad Ghazi, the Malay co-owner of Malaysian Defensive Driving & Riding, a 70-employee driving school in Kuala Lumpur, complains that the pro-Malay policies do little to help a small businessman like himself. In 2008, Adli tried to get financing from three agencies tasked with supporting Malay businessmen or small enterprises, but got rejected. When he has to deal with the bureaucracy, Adli says, he faces the same red tape as any other businessman. It took him two years to buy a parcel of land for his company from the local government. "The [NEP] rules don't really apply to people on the ground," Adli says. "They say the NEP would help the Malays, but it only helps a small percentage of the Malays."

Comfort Zone
Affirmative action may not be helping the overall Malaysian economy either. Though Malaysia has been among the best-performing economies in the world since World War II and boasts a spectacular record of improving human welfare — the percentage of the population living in absolute poverty has plummeted from 50% in 1970 to less than 4% today — the story is now stuck on the same chapter. Malaysia has fallen into what is called the "middle-income trap." Having elevated itself to a comfortable level of income, Malaysia has been unable to take that next leap into the realm of advanced economies. While growth has slowed, Malaysians have watched other fast-paced Asian rivals zip by. In 1970, the gross national income per capita of South Korea, at $260, was below Malaysia's $380, but by 2009, South Korea's was almost three times larger, at $19,830 vs. $7,230, according to the World Bank. (See pictures of Malaysia.)

Malaysia's struggles reflect those facing Southeast Asia as a whole. The region's economies once seemed among the world's most promising emerging markets, but in recent years, progress in almost all of them has been stymied by upheaval and poor governance. Thailand remains rudderless as its fragile democracy has degenerated into perpetual factional strife. The promise of the Philippines remains unrealized as its feeble government has continually failed to enact the tough reforms needed to turn around the underperforming economy. Indonesia is only now returning to its place as one of the world's premier emerging economies after a decade of political uncertainty scared off foreign investors.

If it is able to change its economic system, Malaysia could show its neighbors the way forward. Malaysia's essential problem is that its growth model — export-oriented manufacturing, often by foreign-invested factories — has become mismatched with its needs. Malaysia must become more innovative if its rapid development is to continue. But that's not happening. Private investment has fallen from a third of GDP in the mid-1990s to only about 10% today, labor-productivity growth has slowed, and R&D spending remains anemic. Instead of developing new products with highly skilled technicians, Malaysia's manufacturing sector still too often assembles goods designed by others, using imported technology and low-skilled foreign workers. "There is a growing realization that Malaysia's relative position compared to other countries that are catching up very quickly is not improving," says Philip Schellekens, a senior economist at the World Bank. "Relative to where they want to be, there is still a long road." (Read "Fortress Asia: Is a Powerful New Trade Bloc Forming?")

Though it would be incorrect to blame the pro-Malay policies for the economy's woes — Malaysia did, once, achieve remarkable rates of growth with the perquisites in place — they are nevertheless dampening business sentiment, scaring off talent, curtailing investment and stifling domestic competition. Chua Tiam Wee, president of the SMI Association of Malaysia, a small-enterprise organization, believes relaxing the NEP preferences would create a more level playing field on which the most capable firms could advance, making the economy more merit-based and upgrading Malaysian industry. The affirmative-action policy is "a source of a lot of distortions to the economic system," Chua says. By limiting the opportunities available to minorities, the NEP is likely contributing to a brain drain, in which some of the country's most talented people choose to work elsewhere. The government estimates that more than half of the 350,000 Malaysians working abroad have a college education. Stéphane Garelli, director of the World Competitiveness Center at IMD, a business school in Switzerland, believes that the affirmative-action regulations have made Malaysia less attractive to foreign investors. Malaysia's "bargaining power to put such restrictions on foreign investors is not as big as other nations'," he says.

Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs in Malaysia certainly believe the pro-Malay policies cap their business opportunities. Pardip Kumar Kukreja, the Malaysian-Indian chairman of Grand Paradise Holdings, a Kuala Lumpur — based firm that manages and owns hotels and operates travel agencies, laments that he can't get access to lucrative contracts providing travel services to the government due to regulations that favor Malay-owned enterprises. Removing such restrictions, he says, can act as an incentive to invest. Kukreja recently decided to launch an Internet-based business to sell travel services worldwide because Najib's administration liberalized affirmative-action rules for the tourism sector last year. "There are many things we'd like to do, which we hope we'll be able to do in the near future," he says. "To a small and medium entrepreneur, he wants to make his own decisions."Read more.

Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers?

By John Cloud Monday, Aug. 30, 2010

(Read and consume at your own risk - Hantu Laut)

One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that — for reasons that aren't entirely clear — abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one's risk of dying, even when you exclude former problem drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers. (See pictures of booze under a microscope.)

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors — job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who were not current drinkers, regardless of whether they used to be alcoholics, second highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers. (Watch TIME's Video "Taste Test: Beer with Extra Buzz.")

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the abstainers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than don't drink, even if they never had a problem with alcohol. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle. (Comment on this story.)

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

The original version of this article misidentified abstainers (people in the study who were not current drinkers, regardless of their past drinking status) as people who had never drunk. The article has been edited to reflect the correction.

See the top 10 long-forgotten liquors.

See "Why Nondrinkers May Be More Depressed."

Time

How Do 'Rogue Waves' Work?

Workers clean up broken windows on the cruise ship Louis Majesty, anchored at the port in Barcelona

Manu Fernandez / AP

It was like something out of a Hollywood disaster movie. On March 3, a sudden wall of water hit a cruise ship sailing in the Mediterranean Sea off the northeastern coast of Spain, killing two people, injuring 14 and causing severe damage to the vessel.

According to Louis Cruise Lines, the owner of the vessel, the Louis Majesty was hit by three "abnormally high" waves, each more than 33 ft. (10 m) high, striking in clear weather and without warning. "We heard a loud noise, and it was the wave that hit us," Claudine Armand, a passenger from France, told the Associated Press Television News. "When we came out of [our room], we saw the wave had flooded everything." (See the top 10 scientific discoveries of 2009.)

The Louis Majesty wasn't hit by a sudden storm or any of the other expected dangers of maritime travel. Rather, it may have been the victim of rogue waves. For centuries mariners have told stories about sudden waves that would emerge out of the open ocean without warning, strong enough to topple even large ships. The S.S. Waratah, which vanished on a journey to Cape Town; the M.S. München, lost en route to Savannah, Ga.; even the S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald, "the good ship and true" of the Gordon Lightfoot song, which disappeared on Lake Superior — all were rumored to have been sunk by rogue waves.

Until recently, however, marine scientists dismissed the idea of rogue waves as little more than a sailors' fantasy, with reason — there was little evidence to back it up. But in 1995, an oil rig in the North Sea recorded an 84-ft.-high (25.6 m) wave that appeared out of nowhere, and in 2000, a British oceanographic vessel recorded a 95-ft.-high (29 m) wave off the coast of Scotland. In 2004, scientists from the European Space Agency (ESA), as part of the MaxWave project, used satellite data to show that freak waves higher than 10 stories were rare but did occur on the oceans. (Comment on this story.)

Scientists still don't know exactly how rogue waves occur, nor do they know how to predict them. Open ocean waves, possibly including rogue waves, form when wind produces distortion over the surface of the sea — the stronger the wind, the higher the wave, which is why hurricanes can create such destructive walls of water. Tsunamis, on the other hand, like the one produced by the 8.8-magnitude earthquake in coastal Chile on Feb. 27, don't create rogue waves; tsunamis barely make a ripple on the open ocean and gather in size only when they reach shallow land near a coastline. (See TIME's special report on the environment.)

Rogue waves generally occur out in the open ocean. They may be the result of a number of factors coming together — strong winds and fast currents coinciding, for instance — or of a focusing effect, in which several smaller waves join together to form one big wave. There may even be a nonlinear effect at work, in which just a small change in wind speed multiplies to form a big wave. And certain areas of the ocean, like the strong waters off Africa's coast, may be more vulnerable to rogue waves than others. Read more..

Killing The Competitions: Death Of The Far Eastern Economic Review.

Hantu Laut

Many would have thought that the Review died a long time ago.No, it didn't.Dow Jones makes sure it dies a slow excruciating death.The announcement of its demise came in September 2009. The final death blow and the end of its long history will come in December 2009.

I used to subscribe to this magazine for many years.It used to be a highly respected publications in this region, popular with businessmen,economists,government policy makers and those who have keen interests in the business,economy and politics of the Asian regions.It was once the most authoritative magazine in Asia and one that have rattled a few governments of the region.

A few of its issues were banned in Singapore and the publisher sued by former Singapore Premier Mr Lee Kuan Yew.It has also been at loggerhead with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad.Like Singapore, Malaysia had its fair share of banning certain issues of the Review.I used to remember,with is laughable now, getting my copy of the magazine with either a paragraph or whole page blackened.

The magazine started in 1946 by an Austrian Jewish immigrant and has changed hands a number of times, from its original owner to a consortium of investors, to Rupert Murdoch and finally sold to Dow Jones.

The problems started under Dow Jones, publisher of the Asian Wall Street Journal, which do not enjoy the same popularity as the Review.

Former Chief Editor of the Review Philip Bowring lay the blame on Dow Jones for the decline of the magazine.In 2004, Dow Jones converted the magazine from weekly to monthly issue.In September this year Dow Jones announced the closure of the magazine by December 2009.

It is sad to see a magazine which have enjoyed such popularity among the elites of Asia to finally hit the dust, facing the same fate as Asiaweek which was closed down by Time magazine after having bought it. Both Time Asia and the Asian Wall Street Journal do not enjoy the same kind of popularity as the demised magazines.

Message from the Editor of the Review.

The editor spoke for his masters.

November 2009

From the Editor

Five years after the REVIEW was relaunched as a monthly journal, and 63 years after its founding, we have regretfully decided to close the magazine. Subscribers have already received notices in the mail. Thankfully we still have one more issue left in which to pen a proper valedictory.

In the meantime, however, a few thoughts on the dislocations faced by us and everybody else in the information business. The Economist newspaper's "Banyan" column tackled the review's closure by focusing on the difficulties faced by Asia's regional publications. The market has fragmented as individual economies have developed to the point that advertisers need to target their campaigns more precisely, and local publications have sprung up to allow them to do so. Readers too are less catholic in their interests than they were just a decade or two ago.

Those challenges were widely discussed when the weekly review folded. The business model was put under further pressure by competition from global publications that could use content from other editions and thereby enjoy a lower cost base. Since then, however, it has become increasingly clear that the newsweekly format has passed its sell-by date in most developed markets. It is a hallmark of this gloomy age for journalism that no publisher can afford to take heart from the closure of a competitor; in most cases it does not bring an uptick in revenue but rather is a harbinger of more pain to come.

Nevertheless, there are good reasons to be skeptical that the media business is in its death throes, globally or in Asia. The appetite for information continues to grow, but publishers have made several mistakes that meant they failed to capture this demand. By giving away their content without charge on the Internet, media companies have done double damage. First, they have conditioned consumers to see content as a free good, and second, valuable time has been lost in the development of efficient payment mechanisms.

While e-readers will not be a silver bullet, the development of such new platforms for reading will surely play a big part in the renaissance of publishing. This development comes too late for the review, but it is a natural fit for the niche publication, removing the problems of availability, distribution and production costs.

Eric Halpern founded the review in Hong Kong after he was forced by World War II to abandon a Shanghai-based magazine. Perhaps the review may rise once more in a new incarnation, following Halpern's spirit of optimism that "a period of prosperity will certainly follow."

H.R.

The biggest insult to the Review and its readers was Dow Jones refusal to sell the title.It has received many offers.

Both Time which is owned by Time Warner and Dow Jones are prepared to buy these Asian-based magazines and killed them to improve circulation of their American-based publications.

It's called killing the competitions.A fair game in corporate America.