The Chinese-language website of Deutsche Welle on Tuesday published a commentary entitled "Maintaining critical dialogue with China is more important than ever." The article is filled with clichés about so-called "human rights issues in Xinjiang," which are not worth reading. But the phrase "critical dialogue" in the headline is intriguing. It is in fact the main attitude of the US and other Western countries in communicating with non-Western nations in recent years.
This is, in most cases, an unconscious revelation of American and Western elites' inner feeling of superiority. But now they put it forward consciously and promote it as an "effective way" to deal with China. This cannot be explained simply by "pride and prejudice." They did not articulate it in the past, but Western countries have been practicing and enhancing the so-called critical dialogue with China. It has become an approach or even a weapon in the West's strategic game with China. In other words, they are trying to "lecture" China under the cover of "dialogue."
In global interactions, disagreements are common. It is also normal to express different views or even criticize without mincing words. However, equal dialogue cannot be based on the premise that some values are superior to others. It also cannot be only one party lecturing or accusing the other. The US and the West's "critical dialogue" is condescending, and the implied logic is that only they have the ability, qualification and power to determine right and wrong. This means that one party already claimed the moral high ground before the "dialogue" even begins, which dwarfs the development level and moral image of other countries.
Colonialism has long been discarded as something despicable, but Western-centric power structures and mentality have not disappeared completely. Colonialism has been subtly transplanted into various aspects, lurking in Western political language and communication methods. Some elites in the US and the West, with a strong sense of superiority on civilization, regard non-Western countries as candidates waiting for their "approval." With ideological pointers in their hands, they took to the podium to oversee exams, judge papers, and then grade them based on the "performance" of these countries to determine whether they passed the exam. As for the standard of scoring, it is drawn by the US and the West according to their own historical and social formations, and "Western-centrism" is the only correct answer in all the exams.
In their eyes, only the West is right, civilized and advanced, while those who differ from them are branded as "evil," barbaric and backward. They forcibly create a dichotomy between "civilization" and "barbarism." On this fictional premise, they attach moral labels on different practices of other countries, trying to dwarf them in image so that they can "attack others from a high position" as they wish. It is for this reason they recklessly fabricate the lie of "genocide" in Xinjiang, audaciously call for "punishing China" by various means, and frantically threaten to bomb China "back into the Stone Age."
Sometimes, arrogance is a kind of overbearingness; sometimes, it is also a kind of deep inferiority. In the face of the rise of emerging market countries, including China, and their own troubles, the US and other Western countries are becoming increasingly overwhelmed. Faced with the narrowing gap between them and emerging market countries, they have to rely on slogans of "human rights" and "democracy" to maintain their "absolute advantage." The reason why they are so sensitive to their position in the dialogue is that they are aware of the disappearance of the absolute advantage they used to have. As a result, they have to deliberately highlight their discourse power to maintain the obsolete power structure behind it, which has become a subconscious reaction.
Even in the fields of human rights and democracy, the US and the West are increasingly lagging behind, relying only on slogans, posturing and fist-pumping to show their "self-esteem," which is actually laughable to the rest of the world. The West's self-confidence is collapsing, as the democratization of international relations is increasingly popular and as developing countries' awareness of their rights is strengthening. Today, if someone still wants to engage in colonialism and ideological hegemony, or even imagines leading other countries by the nose like livestock, no country with national pride and a sense of independence will obey.
Returning to the "critical dialogue," China has never been afraid of criticism, but firmly opposes hegemony. Times have changed, and US and Western elites should learn to be equal and respectful. Dialogue is necessary, and we welcome "constructive dialogue," but we reject "critical dialogue." We would also like to remind that a condescending posture is dangerous, because the farther you are from the ground, the harder you may fall.
Chinese envoy to the United Nations on Thursday sternly refuted the allegations of “genocide” made
by the US and the UK over human rights situation in China's Xinjiang region, after the two countries took a Security Council meeting on
international law and maintaining peace and security as a chance to attack China on Xinjiang-related issues. They have also called on another “investigative” trip to Xinjiang on Thursday after they found that the UN human rights chief's recent visit to Xinjiang had failed to support their “genocide” fallacies about the region.
After frequent gun shooting cases nationwide in the US
that caused heavy casualties, including children, the White House and Capitol Hill are trying to show that they are trying to find a solution
under pressure from society, as US President Joe Biden said Congress "must act to pass gun control legislation."
The US, whose flag flies over 750 military bases in more than 80 countries and regions, seems to
be sitting on pins and needles after witnessing China sign ONE security cooperation framework agreement with the Solomon Islands. On Tuesday
local time, US President Joe Biden met with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in the White House. Their “shared concern” about China's
security agreement and “China's Pacific ambitions” were soon placed under the spotlight of Western media outlets.
` ` MAN and nature are running out of time. That’s
the core message of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change
...
` In short, historically it was the Church that gave the moral blessing for colonisation, slavery and genocide during the Age of Globalisation.
The tragedy is that the Doctrine of Discovery is now embodied in US laws.
FILE
PHOTO: A view of the London skyline shows the City of London financial
district, seen from St Paul's Cathedral in London, Britain February 25,
2017. REUTERS/Neil Hall/File Photo/File PhotoReuters
UK Audit Shake-Up Targets Big Firms After Spate of Corporate Failures
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain set out sweeping reforms of big company audits on Tuesday after high-profile collapses at builder Carillion and retailer BHS in recent years hit thousands of jobs and raised questions about accounting quality.
The business ministry detailed changes to auditing and corporate governance that will be put into law, though the measures are unlikely to come into force until 2024 or later and smaller firms will be shielded from the new rules.
The reforms are in response to 150 recommendations from three government-sponsored reviews on improving auditing in a market dominated by KPMG, EY, PwC and Deloitte, known as the Big Four.
The new law would create a more powerful regulator, the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA), to push through changes set out by government.
In the meantime, the current watchdog, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), will have powers to vet audit companies and ban failing auditors, the ministry said.
Britain will also review a European Union definition of "micro entities", which benefit from simplified accounts. They typically have a balance sheet of no more than 350,000 euros ($377,230) and employ no more than 10 people.
Loosening the definition would mean more firms saving money by filing simplified accounts, though it could raise investor protection concerns. Other reporting requirements will also be reviewed to help attract growth companies to Britain.
The FRC currently focuses on big listed companies, but ARGA's remit would expand to include about 600 private firms with more than 750 staff and an annual turnover of over 750 million pounds ($949 million), a higher threshold than initially flagged. BHS was unlisted.
NO UK SARBANES-OXLEY
To curtail the dominance of the Big Four, the top 350 listed companies would have to appoint a non-Big Four accountant, or allocate a certain portion of their audit to a smaller accountant such as Mazars, BDO or Grant Thornton.
The business ministry could introduce market share caps on the Big Four if there is no improvement in competition.
Directors of premium listed companies would also have to state why they think their internal controls are effective.
This would be done under Britain's "comply or explain" corporate governance code, which the FRC can change without legislation.
UK companies pushed back against enshrining in law a version of mandatory U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley rules, which force U.S. directors to personally attest to the adequacy of internal controls, and face prison for breaches.
"Lessons from Carillion and other recent company failures have been ignored, with little emphasis now on tightening internal controls and modernising corporate governance," said Michael Izza, chief executive of ICAEW, a professional accounting body.
FRC chief Jon Thompson said: "The Government’s decision not to pursue the introduction of a version of the Sarbanes-Oxley reporting regime is, the FRC believes, a missed opportunity to improve internal controls in a proportionate, UK-specific manner."
Big firms would also have to state what external checks, if any, were made on the reliability of their non-financial information in annual reports, such as risks from climate change.
Larger companies would have to confirm the legality of their dividends, a lesson from Carillion.
For its part, EY is under particular pressure due to its auditing of collapsed German payments firm Wirecard AG – although it’s not clear that a break-up would rid it of any liabilities arising from that failure. Perhaps EY is preempting tougher regulation.Or perhaps it just sees an opportunity to monetise some of it assets.
A possible split of EY into separate audit and consulting firms must confront the problem faced by all break-ups: How do you create attractive businesses out of both when one is likely to be seen as inferior?
Here, that would be the newly established standalone auditor. EY – or any Big Four accounting firm that attempts such a separation – has its work cut out to make pure-play audit a success.
The revelation by Michael West Media that EY is considering the move heralds a potentially seismic shift for the industry.
A succession of accounting scandals has long prompted attacks on the Big Four for earning fees from audit clients by selling consulting services such as strategy or restructuring advice.
There’s an inherent conflict of interest in offering these to the same executives whose homework you’re meant to be marking.
While regulatory scrutiny is forcing firms to tread carefully, creating distinct companies is the most reliable remedy.
The United Kingdom’s competition watchdog called for an “operational separation” of audit and consulting within the existing firms in 2019, stopping short of demanding full break-ups because of cost and complexity.
For its part, EY is under particular pressure due to its auditing of collapsed German payments firm Wirecard AG – although it’s not clear that a break-up would rid it of any liabilities arising from that failure.
Perhaps EY is preempting tougher regulation.
Or perhaps it just sees an opportunity to monetise some of it assets.
One option under consideration is the sale of a stake in the consulting business to a private buyer or to the stock market, creating a windfall for EY’s current partners, according to the Financial Times. Demand would likely be strong.
Just look at the private-equity money piling in lately. PwC sold a tax advisory practice to Clayton, Dubilier & Rice for a reported US$2.2bil (RM9.6bil) last year, while KPMG offloaded its UK restructuring arm to HIG Capital LLC.
But what about the rump that remains?
While the underlying economics of the Big Four are opaque, there’s a widespread suspicion that consulting subsidises audit.
At the very least, the ability to share costs means audit fees are lower than they would be for a distinct firm, regulators have found.
Retaining talent
The biggest challenge is how a standalone auditor would attract and retain talent without offering an in-house career in consulting as an option.
Short-sellers and forensic investigators aside, checking company accounts is for many a laborious gateway to other roles.
Audit partners accused of getting it wrong have regulatory probes hanging over them for years (an investigation into Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc’s 2010 accounts only just closed).
No wonder juniors tend to jump ship to better paid and less risky careers in consulting or investment banking not long after they’re qualified.
So auditing will have to be made more attractive, both financially and culturally.
One place to start is expanding the function beyond checking financial statements to offering sophisticated checks on companies’ claims on non-financial performance such as climate and social impact.
When the United States Securities and Exchange Commission is clamping down on greenwashing by investment funds, it’s clear the future of environmental, social and governance investing rests on companies proving they’re not cooking the books on these issues too.
These public-interest assessments are going to be increasingly scrutinised by investors in future.
They are already offered under the umbrella of so-called assurance services, but ought to become a more developed part of corporate reporting.
That would involve transferring some skills over from the consultancy side. The trick will be to add in parts of the current consulting business that are relevant to a more modern vision of audit, without just recreating a new auditor-cum-consultancy.
Of course, separation won’t eliminate all the conflicts in audit.
The chief culprit is the way managers often effectively appoint the audit partners who are meant to be their policemen.
But the prize for stock-market investors is improved audit quality, and a break-up could support that.
The goal should be to create a virtuous circle.
Make audit more enticing as a long-term career, attract people who do the work better – and hopefully cut the number of blow-ups. — Bloomberg
Chris Hughes is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
Simon Chan Chai Wan had illegally provided short-term rents in 14 private residential properties to local and foreign guests through platforms such as Airbnb and HomeAway.
His accomplice Zhao Jing, 43, was fined S$84,000 (RM268,000) for aiding him in carrying out the offences.
The properties included units in International Plaza, Robinson Suites, Claremont, Centrepoint Apartments, The Abode at Devonshire and Caribbean
at Keppel Bay.
Zhao and Chan, who are a couple, were licensed real estate agents at the time of the offences, court documents said.
They were the directors of two companies, HTM Solutions and HTM Management, and Chan is the former director of SNS Infotech Global.
Chan would enter into tenancy agreements with the units’ owners using the three companies as corporate vehicles, and sublet the units for short-term accommodations on the platforms.
Chan had also persuaded Zhao to be the sole tenant for four of the units.
From June 30, 2017, to July 2018, Chan’s total revenue was S$1,254,907.78 (RM4mil).
He paid Zhao a monthly salary of S$4,000 (RM12,000) for helping him. Zhao would have received S$52,000 (RM166,000) for the period of the offences.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority said in a statement that all private residential properties rented out for accommodation are subject to a minimum stay of three consecutive months.
"Property owners should also exercise due diligence to ensure that their properties are not used by their tenants for unauthorised purposes," it
said.
“Unauthorised short-term accommodation not only changes the residential character of a property, but also causes disamenities to neighbouring residents.” — The Straits Times/ANN
China US Illustration: Liu Rui/GT
