China's Revolutionary New Thinking On Private Capital

In a stunning series of announcements last week, Beijing opened the doors to private capital.  In the process, officials signaled a reversal of a half decade of anti-reform sentiment.

Play Video China has issued new measures on guiding non-governmental capital into the domestic banking sector.

The China Banking Regulatory Commission has stated that private investors will have equal rights with other state-owned banks. Private investors can bid for the establishment and capital increase of a rural bank.



They can now have a larger share of a rural bank, as state-owned financial institutions shareholding has been lowered to 15% from 20%.

In addition, the Chinese banking industry will strengthen its financial support for private investors.

Yesterday, for instance, the China Banking Regulatory Commission announced private capital will have the same entry standards as state capital when it comes to the country’s banks.  Specifically, private companies will be able to buy into banks through private stock placements, new share subscriptions, equity transfers, and mergers and acquisitions.  Moreover, the government will liberalize investment into the rural banks and as well as the trust, financial leasing, and auto financing sectors.

And on the day before, Beijing gave the “all-clear” for the break up of state monopolies.  The State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission issued guidelines that, among other things, permit private investors to contribute cash or assets like intellectual property to state enterprises in return for equity and discourage these enterprises from placing additional restrictions on private parties when the enterprises sell their stakes in listed companies.  As SASAC noted, “The guideline reflects equal treatment of various kinds of investors and it helps ensure fairness in economic development.”

These two major developments followed a series of other recent indications of liberalization.  The China Securities Regulatory Commission announced it would allow private companies to list on domestic and foreign stock markets and to issue bonds; the National Development and Reform Commission said it is drafting rules to open the electricity, oil, and natural gas sectors to private capital; and the Ministry of Railways talked about opening railroads to private capital.  The State Council itself announced it is looking for private investment in the energy, telecom, education, and health care industries.

China, in short, is open for business, and there is no mystery surrounding the sudden change of attitude.  First, many cite the eroding profitability of state enterprises for these announcements.  In fact, official figures show that their profits fell 8.6% year-on-year in the January-April 2012 period.

Second, other factors include the decline of foreign direct investment—FDI fell for the sixth consecutive month in April—and a dramatic slowdown in economic activity—the economy showed signs of either zero growth or contraction last month.  Initial indications for this month, such as the sinking HSBC Flash PMI, are mostly bearish.

Third, Beijing technocrats realize they will fall far short of reaching their target of 36 trillion yuan of fixed asset investment because the central government can only “channel” 402 billion yuan and state enterprises are sitting on their hands.  The inescapable conclusion is that the only way to make up the difference is private capital.

Despite the country’s economic distress, it’s not clear when we will actually see implementation of the dramatic announcements.  For one thing, it is not an encouraging sign that Beijing issued precious few details.  At the moment, this looks like another instance of Chinese vaporware.

Why?  In the last few years state enterprises have become entrenched and extremely powerful in Chinese political circles.  And provincial and local governments are even more hostile to non-state capital because of the perceived divergence of interests between private investors and Party officials.

Moreover, it’s unlikely that much, if anything, will get done this year as top leaders are now embroiled in disruptive political struggles.  In fact, part of the reason for the accelerating economic slide is that for months they have been distracted by the worsening turmoil in the top reaches of the Party.  Moreover, not much may get done next year either.  Xi Jinping is slated to take over this fall, and new supremos usually take a couple years before they are able to effectively exercise power.

In any event, central government ministries, if they were truly serious about liberalization, would just implement structural changes as opposed to talking about them.  Until there is a sign he is serious this time, many will think Premier Wen Jiabao is borrowing from his 2010 playbook when he had his State Council grandly announced similar reforms that were not put into effect with real rules.

And there is one more factor suggesting private capital will not rescue the Chinese economy this time.  As domestic and foreign investors learn more about both the fundamental and cyclical problems in China, it will be increasingly unlikely that anyone will commit substantial sums to the country.

After all, you don’t see private investors heading for Greece at the moment, and in some important ways China is in far worse shape.  The internal and global narratives on the Chinese economy and political system are changing, and those changes are bound to have a negative effect on investment sentiment.

In short, Beijing’s announcements this month may evidence a welcome change of heart, but they could end up being both too little and too late to stop the country’s accelerating slide.

Gordon G. Chang, Forbes Contributor

I write primarily on China, Asia, and nuclear proliferation.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

The Facebook Illusion

THERE were two grand illusions about the American economy in the first decade of the 21st century. One was the idea that housing prices were no longer tethered to normal economic trends, and instead would just keep going up and up. The second was the idea that in the age of Web 2.0, we were well on our way to figuring out how to make lots and lots of money on the Internet.

Josh Haner/The New York Times Ross Doutha

The first idea collapsed along with housing prices and the stock market in 2007 and 2008. But the Web 2.0 illusion survived long enough to cost credulous investors a small fortune last week, in Facebook’s disaster of an initial public offering.

I will confess to taking a certain amount of dyspeptic pleasure from Facebook’s hard landing, which had Bloomberg Businessweek declaring the I.P.O. “the biggest flop of the decade” after five days of trading. Of all the major hubs of Internet-era excitement, Mark Zuckerberg’s social networking site has always struck me as one of the most noxious, dependent for its success on the darker aspects of online life: the zeal for constant self-fashioning and self-promotion, the pursuit of virtual forms of “community” and “friendship” that bear only a passing resemblance to the genuine article, and the relentless diminution of the private sphere in the quest for advertising dollars.

But even readers who love Facebook, or at least cannot imagine life without it, should see its stock market failure as a sign of the commercial limits of the Internet.

As The New Yorker’s John Cassidy pointed out in one of the more perceptive prelaunch pieces, the problem is not that Facebook doesn’t make money. It’s that it doesn’t make that much money, and doesn’t have an obvious way to make that much more of it, because (like so many online concerns) it hasn’t figured out how to effectively monetize its million upon millions of users. The result is a company that’s successful, certainly, but whose balance sheet is much less impressive than its ubiquitous online presence would suggest.

This “huge reach, limited profitability” problem is characteristic of the digital economy as a whole. As the George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen wrote in his 2011 e-book, “The Great Stagnation,” the Internet is a wonder when it comes to generating “cheap fun.” But because “so many of its products are free,” and because so much of a typical Web company’s work is “performed more or less automatically by the software and the servers,” the online world is rather less impressive when it comes to generating job growth.

It’s telling, in this regard, that the companies most often cited as digital-era successes, Apple and Amazon, both have business models that are firmly rooted in the production and delivery of nonvirtual goods. Apple’s core competency is building better and more beautiful appliances; Amazon’s is delivering everything from appliances to DVDs to diapers more swiftly and cheaply to your door.By contrast, the more purely digital a company’s product, the fewer jobs it tends to create and the fewer dollars it can earn per user — a reality that journalists have become all too familiar with these last 10 years, and that Facebook’s investors collided with last week. There are exceptions to this rule, but not all that many: even pornography, long one of the Internet’s biggest moneymakers, has become steadily less profitable as amateur sites and videos have proliferated and the “professionals” have lost their monopoly on smut.The German philosopher Josef Pieper wrote a book in 1952 entitled “Leisure: The Basis of Culture.” Pieper would no doubt be underwhelmed by the kind of culture that flourishes online, but leisure is clearly the basis of the Internet. From the lowbrow to the highbrow, LOLcats to Wikipedia, vast amounts of Internet content are created by people with no expectation of remuneration. The “new economy,” in this sense, isn’t always even a commercial economy at all. Instead, as Slate’s Matthew Yglesias has suggested, it’s a kind of hobbyist’s paradise, one that’s subsidized by surpluses from the old economy it was supposed to gradually replace.

A glance at the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent unemployment numbers bears this reality out. Despite nearly two decades of dot-com enthusiasm, the information sector is still quite small relative to other sectors of the economy; it currently has one of the nation’s higher unemployment rates; and it’s one of the few sectors where unemployment has actually risen over the last year.None of this makes the Internet any less revolutionary. But it’s created a cultural revolution more than an economic one. Twitter is not the Ford Motor Company; Google is not General Electric. And except when he sells our eyeballs to advertisers for a pittance, we won’t all be working for Mark Zuckerberg someday.- IHT

Facebook Inc (NASDAQ) 

  vs. Technology Services  News

Chart

 Related posts:
Facebook Tumble, blame game begin !
Facebook, Zuckerberg & banks sued over IPO
Make money from Facebook IPO!
Facebook market makers' losses total at least $100m ...
The Biggest Cost of Facebook's Growth
The Facebook Fallacy  

Warning to Malaysian Internet Users: an Amendment to Evidence Act 2012

Onus on account owners as cyber bullies and stalkers often get away because of lack of evidence

PETALING JAYA: “It wasn't me.” That's the most common response from people when a hate or threatening message is traced to their Facebook or Twitter or any other Internet account.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission says it is almost legally impossible to take action if all that a person has to do is to deny any responsibility.

“Think of the victims. People who have been slandered or whose lives have been threatened,” commission chairman Datuk Mohamed Sharil Mohamed Tarmizi said, adding that many a time cyber bullies and stalkers who often use “the cloak of anonymity” have got away because of lack of evidence.

“As more of the young are connected online, who is going to watch over these kids when there are real people who want to harm them?” he said in an interview on the amendment to the Evidence Act passed by the Dewan Rakyat last month.

Answering critics who said the amendment was unfair in pushing the burden of proof to the accused, he said that owners of Internet accounts where hate messages had originated could easily rebut charges against them if they were innocent.

“For example, if you can produce witnesses to say that you were nowhere near your computer or any other communicating device at the time the message was sent out, you can get off,” Sharil said.

He added: “It is not easy nailing offenders to the charge. Sometimes you can find evidence and sometimes you can't.

“At least now (with the amendment), a flat denial (from the accused) cannot work anymore.”

The amendment to Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act includes the following stipulations:

> If your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the author, you are deemed to have published the content.

> If a posting comes from your Internet or phone account, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved.

> If you have the control or custody of any computer which published any material, you are presumed to be the publisher unless proven otherwise.

Asked if the amendment infringed on Internet users' personal liberties, Sharil said the authorities would still have to carry out rigorous and thorough investigations before charging anyone.

“Then there is the trial processs to go through,” he added.

He admitted that the conviction rate of suspected cyber offenders was very low.

From 2009 to 2011, 625 cases of people making obscene or offensive comments via the Internet or phone were investigated.

Only 16 were brought to court and just three were convicted.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said it was difficult to prosecute offenders before the amendment to the Act.

“It was especially difficult to prosecute offenders because the servers were located overseas.

“Everything was in a mess,” he said, and denied that the amendment was to curb dissent.

“The Government does not want to stifle anyone. But we don't want people to slander or threaten others,” Nazri added.

By REGINA LEE  regina@thestar.com.my

Amendment not justified, say groups

PETALING JAYA: The amendment to the Evidence Act transfers the burden of proof to the accused, which is contrary to the principle of justice, said lawyers and Internet users.

“At any trial, whether criminal or civil cases, it is up to the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Now the burden will be shifted to the accused to disprove (the allegation against them),” said human rights lawyer Edmund Bon.

He added: “All around the world where there is Internet any reasonable person would be against the posting of hate messages. But whether the Government should step in and take such control is another matter.”

Disputing that the amendment will bring more people to justice, Bon said that it will instead reduce the need for the police and other enforcement agencies to be thorough in their investigations.

He believed that current defamation and sedition laws were enough to curb offensive and criminal messages on the Internet.

Intellectual property lawyer and Kuala Lumpur Bar Information Technology Committee co-chairman Foong Cheng Leong said the amendment would be a source of harassment to people whose identities have been abused to send offensive or threatening messages.

“Say it is an elderly person who subscribes to the Internet and does not know how to secure his wifi account.

“If someone uses that unsecured wifi to upload all these offensive postings, it's the elderly man who will get into trouble,” he said.

However, he agreed that it was difficult to trace the author of the offensive material, especially when international servers or public computers are used.

“But changing the law is taking the easy way out,” said Foong, who authored an extensive article about the amendment on the Loyar Burok website. ( See below:Grave repercussions for internet users)

Meanwhile, many have tweeted their disapproval for the amendment, claiming that people would have to “flip over backwards to prove their innocence”.

At the same time, some have voiced their support for the amendment, especially those who have been on the receiving end of hate messages.


“These anonymous writers of hate messages against me are gutless and stupid.

“They help justify the Government's proposal to amend the Evidence Act,” tweeted lawyer Roger Tan who had been criticised for writing a critique on the recent Malaysian Bar extraordinary general meeting.

Grave repercussions for internet users

The Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 was one of the bills rushed and passed by the Parliament recently. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz, when winding up the Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2012, said the use of pseudonyms or anonymity by any party to do cyber crimes had made it difficult for the action to be taken against them. Hence, the Evidence Act 1950 must be amended to address the issue of Internet anonymity.

The amendments introduced s. 114A into the Evidence Act 1950 to provide for the presumption of fact in publication in order to facilitate the identification and proving of the identity of an anonymous person involved in publication through the internet. In simple words, s. 114A introduces 3 circumstances where an Internet user is deemed to be a publisher of a content unless proven otherwise by him or her.

Men in masks, beware of s.114A.

Although it is stated that the amendment is to cover anonymous persons on the internet, the effect of the amendment is quite wide. You see, we, especially social media network users, generally do not use our real names on the Internet. We use nicknames and pseudonyms. Our home addresses do not appear on our account. We sometimes use fictional characters or even digitalized images of ourselves as our profile picture. All these are done to protect our own privacy. So, if none of my personal details appear on my account, does this mean I am anonymous? If someone’s identity cannot be directly ascertained from his account, I would think that he would be anonymous.

The new s. 114A(1) states that “A person whose name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner, host , administrator, editor or sub-editor, or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved”. In simple words, if your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the aforesaid persons, you are deemed to have published the content. So, for example, if someone creates a blog with your name, you are deemed to have published the articles there unless you prove otherwise. If you have a blog and someone posts a comment, you are deemed to have published it. If you have a Facebook page and an user posts something on your wall, you are deemed to have published it!<.

Subsection (2) provides a graver consequence. If a posting originates from your account with a network service provider, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved. In simple terms, if a posting originates from your TM Unifi account, you are deemed to be the publisher. In the following scenarios, you are deemed to be the publisher unless you prove the contrary:-.

(1) You have a home network with a few house mates sharing one internet account. You are deemed to be the publisher even though one of your house mates posts something offensive online..

(2) You have wireless network at home but you did not secure your network. You are deemed to be the publisher even though someone “piggybacks” your network to post something offensive..

(3) You have a party at home and allows your friends to access your PC or wireless network.You are deemed to be the publisher even though it was a friend who posted something offensive..

(4) Someone use your phone or tablet to post something offensive. You are deemed to be the publisher..

As for subsection (3), you are presumed to have published a content if you have custory or control of any computer which the publication originates from. Here, you are deemed to be the publisher so long your computer was the device that had posted the content. So if someone “tweetjacks” you or naughtily updates your Facebook with something offensive, you are deemed to be the publisher unless you prove otherwise Admittedly, the amendments certainly saves a lot of the investigator’s time. It is very difficult to trace someone on the Internet. It will make prosecution for, among others, defamation, offences under the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 and Computer Crimes Act 1997 and, election offences much easier. But it is not impossible to trace someone. There are many cases where perpetrators are caught and charged..

The new Bill: to like or not to like? | Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/birgerking/

I do not see the logic to deem someone to be a publisher. If an investigator is unable to trace the anonymous internet user, then why should the innocent Internet user take the rap? The onus of proof should always be on the prosecuting side. In the English case of Applause Store Productions Limited & Anor v Grant Raphael [2008] EWHC 1781 (QB), the claimants were awarded £22,000 in damages against Raphael, an old school friend, who had created a false personal profile of the claimants on Facebook. The claimants convinced the Court that Raphael was the person who created the fake profile even though he claimed that he had a party at his house and someone in that party created the account.

In summary, the new amendments force an innocent party to show that he is not the publisher. Victims of stolen identity or hacking would have a lot more problems to fix. Since computers can be easily manipulated and identity theft is quite rampant, it is dangerous to put the onus on internet users. An internet user will need to give an alibi that it wasn’t him. He needs to prove that he has no access to the computer at that time of publication and he needs to produce call witnesses to support his alibi..

Clearly, it is against our very fundamental principal of “innocent until proven guilty”. With general election looming, I fear this amendment will be used oppressively. Fortunately, the amendment is not in force yet. I strongly hope that the government will relook into this amendment.

Posted by Foong Cheng Leong