In modern times no crisis has been as devastating and extensive in its effect as has been the Coronavirus. Business shutdowns, social distancing, sanitization, suspension of international travel, closure of public places and a halt to sports events are just some of the immediate effects of this virus that come to mind. Skeptics will tell us that the flu kills more people than this virus, and had the plague been in the era of social media the effect of our social consciousness would have been far greater.
Indeed social media has added to the over all way we see this pandemic as billions of people has talking, sharing and giving out news through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and many other platforms. In a sense this attention has also been good that it has woken many people from a carefree slumber to take the coronavirus seriously.
In the United Arab Emirates attention to the virus and talk about it has been widespread. However the response of the authorities to the coronavirus has, by and large, been good and effective. The measures to close schools early, stop events and limit social outings has been graduated upwards each day in a response to the pandemics progress too. However, under the surface, testing has been widespread and most of all awareness has been across the board. Super markets have taken to sanitizing the trolleys after each customer has used it, staff are generally wearing gloves and masks and even at the beach I have seen the municipality workers cleaning up and taking the usual precautions.
On Friday I visited a riding school to pick up someone and was not allowed in. He had to come out, sign out with security and few hours later when I dropped him off he was tested at the entrance. He later told me every second day all the staff at the riding center, which is owned by the Government of Sharjah, are tested. All this is being done without the hysteria we are seeing in many other countries.
Speaking to a doctor, who is knowledgable about such viruses he informed me that whole a majority of those who test positive will recover from the coronavirus, the threat is that unlike other viruses this spreads very fast and usually for the first seven days does so without showing symptoms. While those with weak immune systems and generally the elderly are most vulnerable, the virus as of today has no vaccine readily available and perhaps will not for another year, given the long period of testing and approval of such medicines. Doctors in Australia have reported good results from using a quinine based vaccine used for malaria in patients who has shown serious symptoms of the coronavirus. The current coronavirus is named COVID 19 and has a 70% genetic similarity to the SARS virus some years back. It must be noted that even a common cold is technically a coronavirus; each strain of the corona virus differs in the way the cells attach to the receptor cells of the person infected and hence this determines their unique identification; like MERS, SARS and now COVID 19.
It is too soon to make any predictions of which of the current experiments will work, but the message coming out is prevention is the best cure. In this respect kudos does go to the UAE authorities for their measured response in limiting activities where people could be exposed to the risk of the corona virus. Cinema's, entertainment parks, beaches (since today) and schools being closed and many offices adopting a policy of 'work from home' are all very good measures. I do personally wonder why shopping malls have yet not been closed down, even though admittedly there has been a serious drop in the footfall at the malls, it still remains the one public place that is still open.
As these closures took place there was the inevitable rush at the stores and for about four days it was not uncommon to see empty shelves in almost every large hyper market. By Saturday afternoon things had returned to normal and the country's leadership made a public statement that there is no need for any panic as there are enough food and supplies to overcome this pandemic. Judging by the speed at which empty shelves were restocked indicates this to be entirely true.
A bio-medical model has been used to determine the pandemics profile. Using the Wuhan data it is interesting to note that this model about two weeks ago predicted that if the measures of testing and control are effective then within 86 days a downward trend in the infections will show up and after another 21 odd days the pandemic can said to have been contained. The Wuhan cases were first identified in December 2019 so it seems the bio-medical model seems right when around March 19th 2020 a slow down of new cases was reported from Wuhan in China.
This implies if the countries take quick action and widespread and effective action then perhaps within a period of 110 odd days the effects of the virus within a country can be brought under control. One of the key elements of this action has to be testing because it allows one to profile an infected person in terms of his/her contacts over the previous 48 hours. Then through quick isolation of the people (can be self isolation) who the infected person has been with the spread is contained. On a wider front the quick reaction of closing the places where contacts are frequent indicates a throw of a wide fishing net that ensures slowing down the spread of the virus.
I believe that the measures taken in the UAE seem effective and it is highly likely that within a period of 100 odd days the spread of the virus might well slow down and contained.
Sunday, March 22, 2020
Monday, March 2, 2020
India under BJP
Soon after India's abrogation of Article 370, which gave a special constitutional status to Kashmir, India enforced a lock down on Indian controlled Kashmir. It arrested political leaders and activists and shut down internet and control of movement into Kashmir was tightly restricted. Since the August 5th, 2019 shut down the situation has been pretty much the same, with some restoration of internet and telephone services, but with an overwhelming presence of Indian military the situation in Indian Kashmir can hardly be described as normal.
In 1999, at the height of the Kargil war between India and Pakistan, Kashmir was considered the hottest spot for conflict in the world. Today after over 200 days of what the UN special rapporteur described as a 'draconian shut down', there is, internationally, an eerie silence about the situation in Indian Kashmir. At the height of the crisis the Indian government itself admitted that 4,000 people had been arrested of whom 200 were politicians. While there has been a release of some prisoners, the numbers are still significantly high.
Prime Minister Modi and Interior Minister Amit Shah's move on Kashmir was not a bolt out of the blue but part of a strategy encapsulated in their party, BJP's, agenda. In the years leading up to the recent Indian action in Kashmir, New Delhi embarked on an aggressive public relations strategy highlighting their economic position, trade relations and repositioned their foreign relations with countries who could possibly be foremost in making a noise against the Indian treatment of the largely Muslim population of Kashmir. It is therefore not surprising that little governmental condemnation of India has been expressed in recent months.
Indeed Human Rights organizations, the various sections of the UN and leading NGO's have been more forthright about concern over India's Kashmir actions and the recent Citizenship Act (which deprives millions of their Indian nationality). The major powers, like United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and France have been hesitant to criticize India directly and have, on the Kashmir issue, refrained from castigating New Delhi of its draconian measures.
On a broader perspective there is concern that philosophically and ideologically, India under Modi and the BJP, has gone through a paradigm shift where democracy has been replaced with oligarchy, where a radical nationalist agenda in which an ‘India for Hindus only’ agenda has infested the psyche of the Indian majority, leaving over 250 million religious minorities at risk. The fabric of a secular India, which many of us admired, even if imperfect, is being rewoven into a Hindustan identity where even history is being rewritten to emphasize that India is Hindustan, which by the new definition means that other than Hindus everyone else is a second class citizen.
The history of India, much like any nation is layered through centuries of different predominant currents of cultural, social and religious persuasion. From ancient times the influence of Buddhism , Hinduism, Jainism, Muslim and British rule have moulded the India of today. Just as Any country cannot ride itself of its ancient past India too cannot rename its identity as simply as it renamed cities like Bombay to Mumbai. A secular India ensured that not only is the past history preserved it also allowed the segments of India's multi ethnic and multi cultural and diverse religious population to prosper and coexist side by side.
The India that Modi and the BJP are forging is inherently based upon a trait of hate, which harvested will only yield blood as the recent riots in New Delhi have shown. A lesson of history has shown that a misplaced sense of nationalism is a close cousin of fascism and this genie is not easy to put back into the bottle. Germany under Nazism, Italy under Mussolini, are just two examples of what happens when nationalism turned on its head can cause immense social and political damage.
The more telling question is whether Indians in general realize that the strength of their secular ethos has been sapped by the BJP and the rhetoric that rings in the streets of many Indian towns and cities under this new dogma will not bring unity to India but more discord. India is not a homogenous nation and its many diverse languages, customs and ethnic shades found a commonality in India's secular colors. Under BJP and Modi they are playing dangerous games with the same threads that bound Indian society together and when snapped the repercussions will not be pleasant for India.
India's strength was its diversity, the fact that Sonia Ghandi, an Italian by birth and upbringing could integrate into the India that Ghandi and Nehru envisioned and not only integrate but lead one of its major political parties, spoke of the power of India's secular tolerance. When replaced with intolerance the very Indian-ness of India becomes threatened and this is what Indians must wake up to and correct before its too late.
In 1999, at the height of the Kargil war between India and Pakistan, Kashmir was considered the hottest spot for conflict in the world. Today after over 200 days of what the UN special rapporteur described as a 'draconian shut down', there is, internationally, an eerie silence about the situation in Indian Kashmir. At the height of the crisis the Indian government itself admitted that 4,000 people had been arrested of whom 200 were politicians. While there has been a release of some prisoners, the numbers are still significantly high.
Prime Minister Modi and Interior Minister Amit Shah's move on Kashmir was not a bolt out of the blue but part of a strategy encapsulated in their party, BJP's, agenda. In the years leading up to the recent Indian action in Kashmir, New Delhi embarked on an aggressive public relations strategy highlighting their economic position, trade relations and repositioned their foreign relations with countries who could possibly be foremost in making a noise against the Indian treatment of the largely Muslim population of Kashmir. It is therefore not surprising that little governmental condemnation of India has been expressed in recent months.
Indeed Human Rights organizations, the various sections of the UN and leading NGO's have been more forthright about concern over India's Kashmir actions and the recent Citizenship Act (which deprives millions of their Indian nationality). The major powers, like United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and France have been hesitant to criticize India directly and have, on the Kashmir issue, refrained from castigating New Delhi of its draconian measures.
On a broader perspective there is concern that philosophically and ideologically, India under Modi and the BJP, has gone through a paradigm shift where democracy has been replaced with oligarchy, where a radical nationalist agenda in which an ‘India for Hindus only’ agenda has infested the psyche of the Indian majority, leaving over 250 million religious minorities at risk. The fabric of a secular India, which many of us admired, even if imperfect, is being rewoven into a Hindustan identity where even history is being rewritten to emphasize that India is Hindustan, which by the new definition means that other than Hindus everyone else is a second class citizen.
The history of India, much like any nation is layered through centuries of different predominant currents of cultural, social and religious persuasion. From ancient times the influence of Buddhism , Hinduism, Jainism, Muslim and British rule have moulded the India of today. Just as Any country cannot ride itself of its ancient past India too cannot rename its identity as simply as it renamed cities like Bombay to Mumbai. A secular India ensured that not only is the past history preserved it also allowed the segments of India's multi ethnic and multi cultural and diverse religious population to prosper and coexist side by side.
The India that Modi and the BJP are forging is inherently based upon a trait of hate, which harvested will only yield blood as the recent riots in New Delhi have shown. A lesson of history has shown that a misplaced sense of nationalism is a close cousin of fascism and this genie is not easy to put back into the bottle. Germany under Nazism, Italy under Mussolini, are just two examples of what happens when nationalism turned on its head can cause immense social and political damage.
The more telling question is whether Indians in general realize that the strength of their secular ethos has been sapped by the BJP and the rhetoric that rings in the streets of many Indian towns and cities under this new dogma will not bring unity to India but more discord. India is not a homogenous nation and its many diverse languages, customs and ethnic shades found a commonality in India's secular colors. Under BJP and Modi they are playing dangerous games with the same threads that bound Indian society together and when snapped the repercussions will not be pleasant for India.
India's strength was its diversity, the fact that Sonia Ghandi, an Italian by birth and upbringing could integrate into the India that Ghandi and Nehru envisioned and not only integrate but lead one of its major political parties, spoke of the power of India's secular tolerance. When replaced with intolerance the very Indian-ness of India becomes threatened and this is what Indians must wake up to and correct before its too late.
Saturday, February 22, 2020
The Shetty Saga.
B R Shetty, for most people in the UAE, was the sort of story that people reveled upon. From a salesman to a billionaire over a four decade period; a story of a family business that listed on the London Stock Exchange and a social profile that attracted all the platitudes that one could shower. Then suddenly the rags to riches story got a small dent and before we know it a gaping hole emerged leaving Mr Shetty's net worth seriously depleted. Beyond the erosion of personal wealth is the longer lasting damage to the credibility and image of the persona that was commonly known as "B R".
In so far as a person's individual fortunes or misfortunes go there is little an outsider should comment upon. But this goes beyond the persona of Mr Shetty; his two kingpin companies are listed on the stock exchange and suddenly questions of inappropriate corporate governance and accusations of misleading the public and shareholders have surfaced. The verdict is still not out but the tell tale signs are showing up that indicate that all is not well in the Shetty empire.
Years ago a prominent Saudi family business icon, while speaking at Harvard University, made a point that when family businesses grow and expand into becoming regional or multinational conglomerates the challenges this transition throws out are unique and require a paradigm shift in the thinking of the family business owners. In the Middle East a number of companies owned by individuals grew into very large corporates and while some created the processes of corporate governance similar to large public joint stock companies, not all have been successful at this. Single person business empires have a tendency to attract "yes" men, and anyone not meeting the test of adoring admiration for the 'boss' is cast out. Creating an ethos of debate, discussion and disagreement do not come easy to these companies. Business owners, especially where they own all the shares of the business, also tend to believe that what they want will be done and few would advise them on the proprietary of the matter.
Family owned businesses are generally run in a manner where all key decisions are made by the owner himself. While advice and counsel may be available it is the will of the owner that eventually prevails. In some successful cases, and there are quite a few, the family head has created all the apparatus of governance and indeed in many cases an effective board of directors; the key word being effective. These companies stand out, even though family owned, it seems clear that the patriarch sets the policy and direction and lets the business professionals do the job.
Mr Shetty and the problems he is facing now need deeper analysis, and indeed a greater degree of transparency with regards to the dealings between the two public listed companies and his many other companies which hold their accounts private. At the heart of the problem lies the assertion that he and two other principal shareholders mis-stated their holdings in the companies. In addition, it is stated that a significant portion of the shares where held by banks and lenders for loans to Mr Shetty or his controlled companies.
The first allegation is indeed serious, especially if you have listed you company on a major stock exchange like the LSE. In family run businesses, especially in the past, it was not unusual for key shareholders to hold shares for each other, or indeed not report the changes if they swap shares between them. Once you are a listed company then any holdings have to be correctly reported. The errors do not seem to be a few shares that could have gone unreported and this is the crux of the issue for NMC. The Board of NMC has rightly denied the three key shareholders admittance to the Board meetings given these large discrepancies in their shareholdings. It is in the interest of all three to quickly issue a clarification of the status of their holdings. The auditors of the company should also come clean on how they overlooked such a crucial aspect of compliance to stock exchange rules.
Much has been said in the press about the fact that Mr Shetty has large borrowings against his shares and analogies have been created with Mr Elon Musk, who does also have borrowings against his shares is Tesla. The issue is not that you have borrowed funds against shares, this is normal. The issue is that as key shareholders and a board member these borrowings against shares have to be fully disclosed and the companies books must properly record any liens (which there must be) against the shares. The fact that every one is taken aback that the borrowing could be as high as $1 billion in the case of Mr Shetty is not surprising as it would seem the financial records of the two companies did not disclose this.
While Mr Shetty and Co have engaged various experts to investigate and clear up the air on these issues is a welcome sign. A forensic examination of shareholders register should not be a laborious affair and it would seem apart from the public, the Securities regulators in UK will be eagerly waiting for such a report. Whether what will follow will be a simple sanction against the shareholders or perhaps more punitive and legal actions remains to be seen.
At the core of the whole NMC share debacle lies the report by a company, Muddy Waters, which in its December 17th 2019 report issued wide ranging and serious accusations against NMC Health. The charges included insufficient disclosures on related party transactions, manipulation of the balance sheer and asset purchases at inflated prices. In a peer to peer analysis Muddy Waters concluded that the net margins boasted by NMC Health were, in their words are "too good to be true". The most damaging comment was "we are unsure how deep the rot at NMC goes, but we do not believe that its insiders or financials can be trusted."
While NMC has responded that the accusations are false, the battering in the markets in the backdrop of a respected firm like Muddy Waters comments has caused the damage that has far reaching implications. One of the key shareholders and the Vice Chairman off loaded over $500m of shares to settle debts against the shares (which in fairness he has reported), and while the core business may still have a good story to tell the damage to Mr Shetty is deeper than just NMC.
On the positive side the NMC business side has not seemingly been damaged by this fiasco and even if revenues and asset values are over stated the basic model of treating patients remains intact. This explains why there are rumors of predatory interests to acquire the business, which might be the fair outcome for the customers and employees of the business. However, it would seem rash for any buyer to dip into his wallet just yet. The air has to be cleared over not only the key shareholders but also a deeper probe into the allegations of Muddy Waters about the business itself. After all this whole pandoras box on shareholders only opened up after the Muddy Waters report, which did not question the shareholders but rather the business numbers itself.
In the larger scheme of things the NMC business model, while rattled may plod along, Mr Shetty may be able to restructure his debt and survive the crisis. The damage to his personal reputation will be more difficult to fix and certainly it is in his interests to push for correct disclosures as soon as possible. The longer the specter of wrong doing lingers out there the more damage will happen. The after taste will stay for a while and we can only hope that the way this resolves will restore confidence in the market place.
In so far as a person's individual fortunes or misfortunes go there is little an outsider should comment upon. But this goes beyond the persona of Mr Shetty; his two kingpin companies are listed on the stock exchange and suddenly questions of inappropriate corporate governance and accusations of misleading the public and shareholders have surfaced. The verdict is still not out but the tell tale signs are showing up that indicate that all is not well in the Shetty empire.
Years ago a prominent Saudi family business icon, while speaking at Harvard University, made a point that when family businesses grow and expand into becoming regional or multinational conglomerates the challenges this transition throws out are unique and require a paradigm shift in the thinking of the family business owners. In the Middle East a number of companies owned by individuals grew into very large corporates and while some created the processes of corporate governance similar to large public joint stock companies, not all have been successful at this. Single person business empires have a tendency to attract "yes" men, and anyone not meeting the test of adoring admiration for the 'boss' is cast out. Creating an ethos of debate, discussion and disagreement do not come easy to these companies. Business owners, especially where they own all the shares of the business, also tend to believe that what they want will be done and few would advise them on the proprietary of the matter.
Family owned businesses are generally run in a manner where all key decisions are made by the owner himself. While advice and counsel may be available it is the will of the owner that eventually prevails. In some successful cases, and there are quite a few, the family head has created all the apparatus of governance and indeed in many cases an effective board of directors; the key word being effective. These companies stand out, even though family owned, it seems clear that the patriarch sets the policy and direction and lets the business professionals do the job.
Mr Shetty and the problems he is facing now need deeper analysis, and indeed a greater degree of transparency with regards to the dealings between the two public listed companies and his many other companies which hold their accounts private. At the heart of the problem lies the assertion that he and two other principal shareholders mis-stated their holdings in the companies. In addition, it is stated that a significant portion of the shares where held by banks and lenders for loans to Mr Shetty or his controlled companies.
The first allegation is indeed serious, especially if you have listed you company on a major stock exchange like the LSE. In family run businesses, especially in the past, it was not unusual for key shareholders to hold shares for each other, or indeed not report the changes if they swap shares between them. Once you are a listed company then any holdings have to be correctly reported. The errors do not seem to be a few shares that could have gone unreported and this is the crux of the issue for NMC. The Board of NMC has rightly denied the three key shareholders admittance to the Board meetings given these large discrepancies in their shareholdings. It is in the interest of all three to quickly issue a clarification of the status of their holdings. The auditors of the company should also come clean on how they overlooked such a crucial aspect of compliance to stock exchange rules.
Much has been said in the press about the fact that Mr Shetty has large borrowings against his shares and analogies have been created with Mr Elon Musk, who does also have borrowings against his shares is Tesla. The issue is not that you have borrowed funds against shares, this is normal. The issue is that as key shareholders and a board member these borrowings against shares have to be fully disclosed and the companies books must properly record any liens (which there must be) against the shares. The fact that every one is taken aback that the borrowing could be as high as $1 billion in the case of Mr Shetty is not surprising as it would seem the financial records of the two companies did not disclose this.
While Mr Shetty and Co have engaged various experts to investigate and clear up the air on these issues is a welcome sign. A forensic examination of shareholders register should not be a laborious affair and it would seem apart from the public, the Securities regulators in UK will be eagerly waiting for such a report. Whether what will follow will be a simple sanction against the shareholders or perhaps more punitive and legal actions remains to be seen.
At the core of the whole NMC share debacle lies the report by a company, Muddy Waters, which in its December 17th 2019 report issued wide ranging and serious accusations against NMC Health. The charges included insufficient disclosures on related party transactions, manipulation of the balance sheer and asset purchases at inflated prices. In a peer to peer analysis Muddy Waters concluded that the net margins boasted by NMC Health were, in their words are "too good to be true". The most damaging comment was "we are unsure how deep the rot at NMC goes, but we do not believe that its insiders or financials can be trusted."
While NMC has responded that the accusations are false, the battering in the markets in the backdrop of a respected firm like Muddy Waters comments has caused the damage that has far reaching implications. One of the key shareholders and the Vice Chairman off loaded over $500m of shares to settle debts against the shares (which in fairness he has reported), and while the core business may still have a good story to tell the damage to Mr Shetty is deeper than just NMC.
On the positive side the NMC business side has not seemingly been damaged by this fiasco and even if revenues and asset values are over stated the basic model of treating patients remains intact. This explains why there are rumors of predatory interests to acquire the business, which might be the fair outcome for the customers and employees of the business. However, it would seem rash for any buyer to dip into his wallet just yet. The air has to be cleared over not only the key shareholders but also a deeper probe into the allegations of Muddy Waters about the business itself. After all this whole pandoras box on shareholders only opened up after the Muddy Waters report, which did not question the shareholders but rather the business numbers itself.
In the larger scheme of things the NMC business model, while rattled may plod along, Mr Shetty may be able to restructure his debt and survive the crisis. The damage to his personal reputation will be more difficult to fix and certainly it is in his interests to push for correct disclosures as soon as possible. The longer the specter of wrong doing lingers out there the more damage will happen. The after taste will stay for a while and we can only hope that the way this resolves will restore confidence in the market place.
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
An unhinged Trump and another four years?
The Democratic impeachment of Donald Trump was destined to fail in large measure due to partisan politics in the US Congress. This was a fore gone conclusion and if the Democrats hoped the impeachment process would dent the credibility of the incumbent US President there was little mileage in that effort. Trumps resonance to his base and the undecided voters is not based on what is goon in human nature but more on the unsaid in decades of US politics. If Gray Hart in 1988 had to bow out of politics for his alleged affairs with women, Donald Trump in 2016 could flick off any political fall out even when his own words showed his misogynist trait because character is no more an issue for the electorate.
Trump's impeachment proceedings clearly highlight probable cause for impeachment, but without more witnesses enough wiggle room was there for Trump and his party to squeeze out of the discomfort of some on the line Republican senators from joining the impeachment camp. The thing about Trump has been that while he has elevated politicians lying to art form, his decisive and at times racial bias have become more the norm than the exception. His die hard supporters rejoice at his remarks against the Mexicans, Muslims and African countries (amongst others) because this is something they would have wanted to say themselves without being called 'politically incorrect'.
On the Democratic party side the impeachment proceedings were too rushed, leaving one to question why more witnesses were not brought before the House Committees; even though some subpoenas to Trump officials were ignored. On the broader political forum there is no denying the Democratic party has continued to be in disarray and the Iowa caucus fiasco only highlights their problems. Senior leadership of the party is lacking, and in general none of the current flock of Presidential hopefuls make one step back and say 'Wow'. The Obama legacy of a strong unified party has been left of the wayside, thanks in part of the Hilary Clinton era of an election run against Trump which lacked planning and intent.
What all this might mean is that a Trump re-election, as unpalatable as that may sound, his win in the 2020 election will not be because of him being the better candidate but because the Democrats are just not organized enough to have a charismatic leader to take on Trump. Much like boxing promoters one can only wish for a Trump versus Obama election fight but sadly that is not to be; even though I do believe Obama would have trounced Trump within the ten rounds. In a sense Michelle Obama against Donald Trump stands a better chance of winning than any of the current aspirants in the Democratic stable. This is not because the current coterie of Democratic candidates are not qualified enough, it just that they are not unqualified enough as Trump to tackle him on his terms; a dirty campaign!
Unless Trump does something more off the wall than he has done so far, and that is not impossible, the chances are that a Trump re-election, albeit with a smaller margin than 2016, is more than likely. A reinvigorated Trump with scale higher in his arrogance, and certainly we have a larger dose of his un Presidential style through the next four years. The impact of the trade wars he started may well come home to roost in his next term and any slow down will hurt the average American more than ever before. Will there be further attempts to impeach him? Highly doubtful unless the Republicans also lose control of the Senate, which is possible. Some Trump supporters may hope that a second term may bring out the better Trump and negate some of the damage he has done to the prestige of the office he occupies. This would only be necessary for the greater good of the Republican party because when it comes to congressional elections and local council politics the Democratic party has managed a better showing; they only seem to fail at the level of the national leadership.
Sadly for the impartial observer the next four years of an unhinged President Trump will be hard to follow. Frequent changes in his team, scandals and the general lack of an ethical bent to the administration will remain the order of the day. On the good side of things it will mean the end of the era of Trump, an era where crudeness, lack of honor and a slide into unhinged tweeting were the hallmarks of the Presidency.
Trump's impeachment proceedings clearly highlight probable cause for impeachment, but without more witnesses enough wiggle room was there for Trump and his party to squeeze out of the discomfort of some on the line Republican senators from joining the impeachment camp. The thing about Trump has been that while he has elevated politicians lying to art form, his decisive and at times racial bias have become more the norm than the exception. His die hard supporters rejoice at his remarks against the Mexicans, Muslims and African countries (amongst others) because this is something they would have wanted to say themselves without being called 'politically incorrect'.
On the Democratic party side the impeachment proceedings were too rushed, leaving one to question why more witnesses were not brought before the House Committees; even though some subpoenas to Trump officials were ignored. On the broader political forum there is no denying the Democratic party has continued to be in disarray and the Iowa caucus fiasco only highlights their problems. Senior leadership of the party is lacking, and in general none of the current flock of Presidential hopefuls make one step back and say 'Wow'. The Obama legacy of a strong unified party has been left of the wayside, thanks in part of the Hilary Clinton era of an election run against Trump which lacked planning and intent.
What all this might mean is that a Trump re-election, as unpalatable as that may sound, his win in the 2020 election will not be because of him being the better candidate but because the Democrats are just not organized enough to have a charismatic leader to take on Trump. Much like boxing promoters one can only wish for a Trump versus Obama election fight but sadly that is not to be; even though I do believe Obama would have trounced Trump within the ten rounds. In a sense Michelle Obama against Donald Trump stands a better chance of winning than any of the current aspirants in the Democratic stable. This is not because the current coterie of Democratic candidates are not qualified enough, it just that they are not unqualified enough as Trump to tackle him on his terms; a dirty campaign!
Unless Trump does something more off the wall than he has done so far, and that is not impossible, the chances are that a Trump re-election, albeit with a smaller margin than 2016, is more than likely. A reinvigorated Trump with scale higher in his arrogance, and certainly we have a larger dose of his un Presidential style through the next four years. The impact of the trade wars he started may well come home to roost in his next term and any slow down will hurt the average American more than ever before. Will there be further attempts to impeach him? Highly doubtful unless the Republicans also lose control of the Senate, which is possible. Some Trump supporters may hope that a second term may bring out the better Trump and negate some of the damage he has done to the prestige of the office he occupies. This would only be necessary for the greater good of the Republican party because when it comes to congressional elections and local council politics the Democratic party has managed a better showing; they only seem to fail at the level of the national leadership.
Sadly for the impartial observer the next four years of an unhinged President Trump will be hard to follow. Frequent changes in his team, scandals and the general lack of an ethical bent to the administration will remain the order of the day. On the good side of things it will mean the end of the era of Trump, an era where crudeness, lack of honor and a slide into unhinged tweeting were the hallmarks of the Presidency.
Saturday, December 7, 2019
A distant view: Trump Impeachment.
Being outside the fray of the daily US political scene has its advantages, the main one being having a distant view without the emotional drama that dictates whether you are pro or anti Trump. It allows one to see the issues without the political parties bias that has become the hallmark of a divided US political diaspora. The Trump impeachment issue is headline news, and the obvious question is whether he will be impeached and removed from office.
There is no denying that the process of impeachment itself has totally unhinged a President who was not entirely stable to begin with. It is often touted that it is his style and straight forwardness that in the hallmark of his behavior. His supporters often say 'he says it like it is', a trait they say that is removed from the political figures in Washington and it endears him to his political base. being straight forward and being vindictive are not the same, being politically savvy and telling lies are the not the same, expecting loyalty and dumping the people who went on a limb for him are opposites. But in the Trump world it does not matter. Its the world according to Trump and no one else.
However, the impeachment process makes it all different because it more than just washing the dirty laundry in public and on television. It could have the consequences of being removed from office. Herein lies the problem as given the US system his impeachment by the House of Representatives will mean then the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans, will then hold a trial to determine if indeed he should be removed from office. Currently there is a slim chance of that even though it would mean seven Republicans in the Senate voting for impeachment.
There is a possibility that Trump quite relishes the idea of the impeachment as he knows he can hold the Republicans in the Senate to use their majority to not remove him from office, while the impeachment battle allows him to rally his base and remain the focus as the only national issue in the 2020 elections. However, a great deal of the impeachment process and its success will depend upon the validity of the arguments. Some Republican Senators are also mindful of the changing mood within their constituencies where in recent elections the Democrats have made inroads. Also the Democratic voters who were swayed to the Trump camp in 2016 are the ones suffering most from Trumps trade wars and GOP Senators are going to need something persuasive enough to voter against Trump in the Senate.
There is ample evidence emerging through the impeachment process that President Trump did indeed commit impeachable offenses. It must be remembered that since President Reagan almost every US President has had some impeachment resolution table against him in the House of Representatives, and most of them have faltered or fallen by the wayside. This impeachment resolution certainly has the legs to make it to the Senate. While one may argue that the Democrats may be rushing things, which is a cause for concern, eventually it is in the Senate that the trial will reveal the depth of the allegations.
It is unlikely that once the impeachment trial is in the Senate that the GOP will be able to pressure Trump into either stepping down or at least stepping down from a re-election bid in 2020. The outcome in the Senate will mostly likely be a win for Trump, given the slim majority the GOP has, but the extent of the damage it will do to him in the 2020 election will depend on the weight of the evidence that will come out at the trial stage. One can argue that there were other more stronger arguments for impeachment, but this one has the more credible witnesses and based on the testimony thus far on judicial principles Trumps goose is cooked. However, in the Senate no matter who strong the legal arguments to remove him from office the matter will most likely be decided on political considerations; i.e party lines.
For the Democrats the aim might well be expose Trump and his wrong doing in the eyes of the public to such an extent that even if they don't succeed in the Senate they may well have damaged him in the 2020 elections. This is only a partially viable strategy as his political base does not care what Trumps personal character or conduct is, and the swing voters may well be influenced by the economy more than by Trump asking political favors from foreign leaders. While the economy in some sectors has worked to Trumps advantage, i.e job numbers, the trade war has begun to take its toll in the largely rural vote bank which was Trumps election backbone.
On a more theoretical level one has to ask to what extent will Trumps supporters go to excuse him his shortcomings or wrong doing? Was he right in saying that he could shoot someone on Times Square and his supporters would still vote for him? He has politically shot many of his former supporters and his political base did not seem to balk. He has demeaned the stature of the Oval Office and all it stands for to petting tirades on Twitter and instead of putting people off, his supporters have cheered him on. Perhaps the political psyche of US politics was always divisive and politicians were mean little souls pretending to be nice and all that Trump has done is bring that reality to the forefront.
The impeachment process in this respect will only give up the substance to what we all knew that the man was not fit of the office he holds. Whether that opinion is not substantiated by impeachable acts will resonate in the minds of people according to where people stand on the scale of USA's divide political platform. His supporters could not care less, the vast middle class swing voters may well have got fed up with the politics anyways to care. In the end it is unlikely that the impeachment process will succeed in the Senate and in the end the trial of Donald J Trump will be at the elections of 2020.
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Third Umpire: Misbah and the cult of hope.
There is a propensity within Pakistan cricket, administrators, players and fans alike, to always hinge the outcome of a game upon that one indispensable ingredient called 'hope'. Ever since Javed Miandad hit the last ball six against India in 1986 at Sharjah, the element of hope became an integral part of Pakistan's cricket psyche. We hoped the Akmal brothers will come through, and time after time at crucial moments they failed us. We hoped in most games that one of the many players who had under performed would suddenly become the Javed Miandad of the moment.
Yes there were periods where planning and developing a scientific approach to each game took front stage, but when the planning failed, be if better opposition or poor execution of the game plan we gravitated back to the 'hope'. At times players seem to have that belief that their cameo can save the game and they would abolish the game plan and go for that one slog that will change their fortunes more than that of Pakistan cricket.
The current tour of Australia suffers from two major set backs. A coach like Misbah who is steeped in being defensive, and the continuation of relying more on hope than planning. Yes Misbah has the distinction of being a successful test captain, compared to most others from Pakistan, but one cannot dispute that an aggressive strategy and mind set are not his forte. Most of the games he won were not from the implementation of a game plan but more from the individual brilliance of some of the players. Usually when two or three players clicked Misbah, as captain got the credit.
Hope, on the other hand, continues to be an integral part of the dressing room accessories that the Pakistan team carries in its kit bag. Sadly this cocktail has often been mixed with liberal doses of favoritism and inexplicable exclusions or inclusions of players that do not fit into any rationale of selection policy; like the inclusion of the tall Irfan on this tour of Australia. Someone must have said the Aussie pitches have a good deal of bounce and we have Irfan who is 7 foot 1 inch tall lets include him, forgetting that he is 37 years old, with highly questionable fielding and even more questionable fitness!
Well there was the hope that he would rattle the likes of Warner, and Steve Smith; none of that happened and much more capable bowlers were sidelined because someone, perhaps Misbah, introduced the element of hope and of course no one in the Pakistan selectors argues with hope. After all we have been hoping that Fakhar Zamman will find form, even though after a dozen consecutive failures someone would have woken up and said this is simply not working. We continue with the hope that Haris Sohail, who can be effective in the shorter format will somehow become a test player of class.
Yes we have reorganized Pakistan cricket, as indeed Imran Khan promised he would, and while the results of this may take time to show up, I personally do not believe replacing corporate owned teams by provincial teams (like in England as Australia) is the sole answer. We need to build a base to the game and the base is built at the school level. Create and effective school cricket system and the results will show in a few years. Take the example of New Zealand rugby. Why is it such a formidable force for over 50 years? Because the school rugby system in New Zealand is strong, well supported and encouraged. Any All Black players will proudly speak of his heritage of school rugby. Pakistan cricket needs to concentrate on long term plans not just a quick fix glued together by hope.
Yes there were periods where planning and developing a scientific approach to each game took front stage, but when the planning failed, be if better opposition or poor execution of the game plan we gravitated back to the 'hope'. At times players seem to have that belief that their cameo can save the game and they would abolish the game plan and go for that one slog that will change their fortunes more than that of Pakistan cricket.
The current tour of Australia suffers from two major set backs. A coach like Misbah who is steeped in being defensive, and the continuation of relying more on hope than planning. Yes Misbah has the distinction of being a successful test captain, compared to most others from Pakistan, but one cannot dispute that an aggressive strategy and mind set are not his forte. Most of the games he won were not from the implementation of a game plan but more from the individual brilliance of some of the players. Usually when two or three players clicked Misbah, as captain got the credit.
Hope, on the other hand, continues to be an integral part of the dressing room accessories that the Pakistan team carries in its kit bag. Sadly this cocktail has often been mixed with liberal doses of favoritism and inexplicable exclusions or inclusions of players that do not fit into any rationale of selection policy; like the inclusion of the tall Irfan on this tour of Australia. Someone must have said the Aussie pitches have a good deal of bounce and we have Irfan who is 7 foot 1 inch tall lets include him, forgetting that he is 37 years old, with highly questionable fielding and even more questionable fitness!
Well there was the hope that he would rattle the likes of Warner, and Steve Smith; none of that happened and much more capable bowlers were sidelined because someone, perhaps Misbah, introduced the element of hope and of course no one in the Pakistan selectors argues with hope. After all we have been hoping that Fakhar Zamman will find form, even though after a dozen consecutive failures someone would have woken up and said this is simply not working. We continue with the hope that Haris Sohail, who can be effective in the shorter format will somehow become a test player of class.
Yes we have reorganized Pakistan cricket, as indeed Imran Khan promised he would, and while the results of this may take time to show up, I personally do not believe replacing corporate owned teams by provincial teams (like in England as Australia) is the sole answer. We need to build a base to the game and the base is built at the school level. Create and effective school cricket system and the results will show in a few years. Take the example of New Zealand rugby. Why is it such a formidable force for over 50 years? Because the school rugby system in New Zealand is strong, well supported and encouraged. Any All Black players will proudly speak of his heritage of school rugby. Pakistan cricket needs to concentrate on long term plans not just a quick fix glued together by hope.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Imran's Challenge of Governance.
Imran Khan, the Pakistan Prime Minister's, integrity and sincerity towards making his country a better place economically, socially and in the eyes of the world is never in dispute. He has a clean record in terms of financial ethics and indeed what appeals to his many supporters, especially the younger generation is this sense of values and mission. Countries, however, cannot be run alone on intentions. Intentions have been be backed by actions and a sense of implementation which requires many aspect of the process and people to come together to give a result oriented system.
Imran, in my opinion has, in his zeal, taken on too much on his agenda of change, and this ever expanding menu creates its own challenges on delivery. Added to that has been a regional political scenario, especially Kashmir, which has created its own priority. In fairness Pakistan has never been an easy country to govern and added to years of economic mismanagement the task on the shoulders of Imran is far to heavy to carry in the current package of things he wants to tackle.
Yes education, health, social order, and ending corruption are all vital parts of the Imran agenda and need to be tackled. However, into this melee has been the ongoing investigations into corruption by former political leaders, most of who happen to be from the opposition parties, give a nasty twist to the perception of the process. Yes the accountability process is carried out by a supposedly independent government body and the higher courts in Pakistan have shown a remarkable independence from the government yet one would like to see government ministers and Imran himself not commenting on the cases against his political foes. The moment he or his ministers make a statement about the cases against former President Zardari or former Prime Minister Sharif, it erodes the independence of the accountability process.
Pakistan's democracy, which has had a stunted growth with interruptions of military rule, is far from mature. When a right wing religious party (JUI F) which fared abysmally in not only the last election but ever election in Pakistan, suddenly calls for a march on Islamabad and demands Imran Khan resign it harkens to the 1970's when street power was considered a means of political change. Indeed Imran Khan himself also employed the same tactics against the Sharif government, though in fairness he did not get the resignation he may have wanted, it did elevate him in political stature within the country. The JUIF ascertain that Imran is a 'selected' prime minister rather than elected one is a silly street slogan considering that while some merit will always be in the allegation of rigging in Pakistan elections, few would accept that the election that brought Imran to power was rigged to the point of him being considered 'selected'.
So what is the governance that should be expected of Imran Khan's government. My sincere opinion is that his first and foremost priority has to be the economy. He needs some seriously bright people to be heading up the economic policy formulation and implementation team. At the same time seeing things from abroad the oversight that some government agencies have been given into scrutinizing financial transactions even for foreign investments (individuals) needs to be toned down. Potential investors from abroad, including overseas Pakistanis are prone to ask that even if no more than normal questions are asked on their investments today, some years down the road who knows if the scrutiny will be more broad based and perhaps political too.
Creating an investment atmosphere is more than just announcing projects. In involves crucial confidence building steps, and for Pakistan shifting the economy towards and export oriented economy is a necessity given that it would boost foreign exchange reserves. Export orientation has to be towards value added goods, and for this base industrial sector incentives have to be put in place. Aligning the financial sector to boost not only exports but provide important financial support to export based industries is the need of the hour.
Imran's government has taken steps to tighten its spending and rationalize the government workforce. However these steps are just the beginning and to create a lighter more efficient government machinery also require higher levels of competence and expertise. Job creation has somehow been projected in Pakistan as the job of the government in power. In reality the government must create the conditions for job creation in the private sector and this means a rethink of the stimulus package that is needed for the private sector.
Pakistan has been plagued by what is known as 'circular debt' and its concerns years of mismanagement of the electricity sector in the country. Power theft and non payment of bills by a large segment of the population has meant that an endemic crisis in financing the power sector has resulted in circular debt which is simply rolled over with interest each year. There has to be reform of this sector and something bold has to be done about it. It weighs down the financial sector and also creates a very inefficient power supply system that cannot sustain itself in the long run.
Imran Khan's government must clearly understand that all the posturing in the public eye has its own place in terms of garnering support of their agenda. However, if they do not deliver on the economy then at the end of the day everything else is a wasted effort. I do believe that the agenda of reform has to be pared down to manageable levels and the priority on the economy should be foremost. Then within the economic plan various measures need to be taken to reform the system. Some contentious issues like sales tax and broadening the tax base, while very laudable, need to be implemented through a dialogue with the business community and to consider them the long term stakeholders of the benefits from reforms. Increasing taxes on the people who already pay the tax is not a solution as much as the IMF would prefer it, the solution is to broaden the tax base and for this the business community who pay taxes would certainly not object.
The passion for reform and transforming Pakistan has to be spearheaded by economic change and the social welfare that flows of this economic change is what would benefit the population at large. The government has to also seek to work in partnership with the business community rather than have a adversarial posture towards them. Once the economy starts to head in the right direction then the broader social agenda of the Khan government can be seen and will be more palatable to the people on the back of economic well being. The slogan has to be 'economy first'.
Imran, in my opinion has, in his zeal, taken on too much on his agenda of change, and this ever expanding menu creates its own challenges on delivery. Added to that has been a regional political scenario, especially Kashmir, which has created its own priority. In fairness Pakistan has never been an easy country to govern and added to years of economic mismanagement the task on the shoulders of Imran is far to heavy to carry in the current package of things he wants to tackle.
Yes education, health, social order, and ending corruption are all vital parts of the Imran agenda and need to be tackled. However, into this melee has been the ongoing investigations into corruption by former political leaders, most of who happen to be from the opposition parties, give a nasty twist to the perception of the process. Yes the accountability process is carried out by a supposedly independent government body and the higher courts in Pakistan have shown a remarkable independence from the government yet one would like to see government ministers and Imran himself not commenting on the cases against his political foes. The moment he or his ministers make a statement about the cases against former President Zardari or former Prime Minister Sharif, it erodes the independence of the accountability process.
Pakistan's democracy, which has had a stunted growth with interruptions of military rule, is far from mature. When a right wing religious party (JUI F) which fared abysmally in not only the last election but ever election in Pakistan, suddenly calls for a march on Islamabad and demands Imran Khan resign it harkens to the 1970's when street power was considered a means of political change. Indeed Imran Khan himself also employed the same tactics against the Sharif government, though in fairness he did not get the resignation he may have wanted, it did elevate him in political stature within the country. The JUIF ascertain that Imran is a 'selected' prime minister rather than elected one is a silly street slogan considering that while some merit will always be in the allegation of rigging in Pakistan elections, few would accept that the election that brought Imran to power was rigged to the point of him being considered 'selected'.
So what is the governance that should be expected of Imran Khan's government. My sincere opinion is that his first and foremost priority has to be the economy. He needs some seriously bright people to be heading up the economic policy formulation and implementation team. At the same time seeing things from abroad the oversight that some government agencies have been given into scrutinizing financial transactions even for foreign investments (individuals) needs to be toned down. Potential investors from abroad, including overseas Pakistanis are prone to ask that even if no more than normal questions are asked on their investments today, some years down the road who knows if the scrutiny will be more broad based and perhaps political too.
Creating an investment atmosphere is more than just announcing projects. In involves crucial confidence building steps, and for Pakistan shifting the economy towards and export oriented economy is a necessity given that it would boost foreign exchange reserves. Export orientation has to be towards value added goods, and for this base industrial sector incentives have to be put in place. Aligning the financial sector to boost not only exports but provide important financial support to export based industries is the need of the hour.
Imran's government has taken steps to tighten its spending and rationalize the government workforce. However these steps are just the beginning and to create a lighter more efficient government machinery also require higher levels of competence and expertise. Job creation has somehow been projected in Pakistan as the job of the government in power. In reality the government must create the conditions for job creation in the private sector and this means a rethink of the stimulus package that is needed for the private sector.
Pakistan has been plagued by what is known as 'circular debt' and its concerns years of mismanagement of the electricity sector in the country. Power theft and non payment of bills by a large segment of the population has meant that an endemic crisis in financing the power sector has resulted in circular debt which is simply rolled over with interest each year. There has to be reform of this sector and something bold has to be done about it. It weighs down the financial sector and also creates a very inefficient power supply system that cannot sustain itself in the long run.
Imran Khan's government must clearly understand that all the posturing in the public eye has its own place in terms of garnering support of their agenda. However, if they do not deliver on the economy then at the end of the day everything else is a wasted effort. I do believe that the agenda of reform has to be pared down to manageable levels and the priority on the economy should be foremost. Then within the economic plan various measures need to be taken to reform the system. Some contentious issues like sales tax and broadening the tax base, while very laudable, need to be implemented through a dialogue with the business community and to consider them the long term stakeholders of the benefits from reforms. Increasing taxes on the people who already pay the tax is not a solution as much as the IMF would prefer it, the solution is to broaden the tax base and for this the business community who pay taxes would certainly not object.
The passion for reform and transforming Pakistan has to be spearheaded by economic change and the social welfare that flows of this economic change is what would benefit the population at large. The government has to also seek to work in partnership with the business community rather than have a adversarial posture towards them. Once the economy starts to head in the right direction then the broader social agenda of the Khan government can be seen and will be more palatable to the people on the back of economic well being. The slogan has to be 'economy first'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)