Categories
ASEAN Economics

[994] Of ASEAN-India FTA is not looking good

Exactly a year ago, I caught a piece of news on a proposed ASEAN-India free trade agreement. ASEAN however rejected the Indian initial offer because India wanted too many items that fuel ASEAN economy excluded from the FTA. By July 2006, the talk was suspended by ASEAN because the Indian list — down to 850 as of July 2006 from 1400 items as of December 2005 — was still too long:

KUALA LUMPUR, JULY 25: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has suspended free-trade talks with India because of New Delhi’s reluctance to open its markets, Malaysia’s trade and industry minister said on Tuesday.

By August 2006, the Indian list was reduced to 560 items. The lists were supposed to be finalized in June 2005 while the FTA itself was expected to come into force by January 2007.

The latest development on the FTA this month reveals that negotiation doesn’t look too good:

NEW DELHI, NOV 30: Asean has given a jolt to India by deciding to almost double its negative list for the proposed free trade agreement (FTA) with India.

“The negative list which they gave us in August was 2,700 which, after subtracting the overlapping items in the country-specific list, came to a consolidated figure of 600. But on November 17, they came up with a revised list of 6,900 which amounts to a consolidated list of 1,000 plus,” commerce secretary GK Pillai told media on the sidelines of the International Chamber of Commerce of the World Council Meeting here on Thursday.

I’m unsure what ASEAN is trying to do by increasing the size of its list but the increase is unfair to India, especially when the India has been trying hard to reduce the list length, though admittedly, I myself prefer to see a much shorter Indian list; I prefer a more liberal market for both sides with almost no exclusion list at all. But when the Indian proposes something like:

Ramesh [Indian Minister of State for Commerce] added that India will not compromise the interests of its farmers by pruning the list. India’s negative list of 560 does not include palm oil, pepper and black tea on which the country has proposed to gradually bring down duties to 50 percent.

I think we shouldn’t call this agreement as an FTA. A 50%-tariff is still way too high, no matter what the initial level is. Perhaps, the reason why ASEAN increases the length of its list is due to frustration. I’d be frustrated too if I were in the negotiation, looking at a “liberalized” market with a 50%-tariff staring back at me.

This latest development looks very different from the optimism we all saw back in early 2005:

KUALA LUMPUR, Mar 28 2005 India and Malaysia are on the verge of signing a comprehensive economic co-operation agreement by year-end. It will include free trade between the two nations.

The signing may be done during a visit by Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh to Malaysia in December.

Indian High Commissioner to Malaysia R.L. Narayan said both sides had worked hard on the matter following Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s visit to India last December.

In the past three months, they have charted a “road map” of the broad parameters of the agreement.

Let’s hope the negotiation won’t end here because prosperity comes from trade, not isolation.

Apart from India, Malaysia, as far as I know — on its own or as part of ASEAN — is in FTA negotiation with Australia, Chile, Pakistan, People’s Republic of China, South Korea and the United States. There’s rumor of a Malaysia-Canada FTA but Canadian officials have ruled them out, at least from the next one or two years.

Categories
Activism Environment

[993] Of introduction to birdwatching by MNS

The Malaysian Nature Society is organizing a birdwatching for newbie event this coming Sunday at 8 o’clock in the morning. It will be held at Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), not far from Kuala Lumpur.

Come and join us!

Heh. Now I gotta figure out on how to get there. We totally need MapQuest for Malaysia.

Categories
Earthly Strip Liberty

[992] Of Earthly Strip: Kota Bharu women uniform

Moral and fashion police from PAS introduces a uniform for women.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

Can you say Islamofascist?

Categories
Education Liberty

[991] Of is active racial integration discrimination?

An interesting case is currently being heard at the US Supreme Court this week. It concerns racial integration or diversity. At the NYT:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 — By the time the Supreme Court finished hearing arguments on Monday on the student-assignment plans that two urban school systems use to maintain racial integration, the only question was how far the court would go in ruling such plans unconstitutional.

There seemed little prospect that either the Louisville, Ky., or Seattle plans would survive the hostile scrutiny of the court’s new majority. In each system, students are offered a choice of schools but can be denied admission based on their race if enrolling at a particular school would upset the racial balance.

At its most profound, the debate among the justices was over whether measures designed to maintain or achieve integration should be subjected to the same harsh scrutiny to which Brown v. Board of Education subjected the regime of official segregation. In the view of the conservative majority, the answer was yes.

The Wall Street Journal summarized the camps in the case:

The fundamental dispute is whether antidiscrimination laws–the 14th Amendment and, by implication, the Civil Rights Act of 1964–ban discrimination altogether, or only in the pursuit of invidious ends. Broadly stated, the “conservative” position is that these laws protect individuals from discrimination, whereas the “liberal” position is that discrimination is fine in the pursuit of “diversity” or integration but not of white supremacy.

It’s becoming tougher for me to decide which is right and which is wrong. The black and white are merging.

Regardless, this case is almost similar to the Michigan case.

Categories
Environment Science & technology

[990] Of incorporating wildlife-friendly designs into our highway system

If a person is a member of the Malaysian Nature Society — any green for that matter — this piece of news is especially depressing:

SHAH ALAM: A tapir was killed and two cars were badly damaged in an accident in Puncak Alam early yesterday.

The adult female tapir was crossing the road about 6am when it was hit by a Proton Wira driven by an army personnel.

The impact caused the animal to be flung to the opposite side of the road where it was hit by another car.

Below is the tapir in question:

Fair use. By New Straits Times, December 6 2006.

The Malayan tapir is the icon of MNS.

Construction of highways across biologically diverse ecologies disrupts wildlife movement. It effectively divides a single ecology into two, much like how the Berlin Wall once divided Germany into two. The division is unnatural and adversely affects wildlife. For any pragmatic nature lover that seeks to conform to both modernity and conservation, any freeway crossing through natural wildlife habitat should have barriers to prevent “jaywalking” and special underpasses or over-crossings specially built to allow animals to cross such highway safely.

The idea of constructing crossings for animals in the wild is not new. It has been tested in North America. An MSNBC article, More wildlife getting helped across the highway, shows how such crossings enables the free flow of human and wildlife alike, while guaranteeing the safety of both. Below is a visual example of such crossings:

Fair use. By Anthony P. Clevenger, Western Transportation Institute

As mentioned in the MSNBC article, the picture was taken at Banff National Park, Canada.

It’s time we incorporate green designs into our highways and prevent future accident, in memory of the tapir. Life, regardless of species, is too precious to waste.