US’ DEI curbs spark local fears

US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One as he departs from Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, US, March 14, 2025. (Reuters photo)
On March 14, 2025, US President Donald Trump leaves Joint Base Andrews in Maryland and boardeers Air Force One. ( Reuters image )

Indian advocates for female equality and anti-discrimination have been enraged by US President Donald Trump’s current executive order to destroy US federal laws of diversity, equity, and inclusion ( DEI), which has prompted them to need people to adhere to anti-discriminatory guidelines, especially in the workplace, as a means of advancing both business and the public interest.

The president’s executive order, which comes as he places a 90-day charitable delay on foreign aid, shocked the entire world, not the least of which is Thailand, where civic organizations are promoting the rights of the LGBTQ community.

They have expressed concern that the walk might have an impact on some of the most susceptible members of society.

According to Natthineethiti Phinyapincha, chairman of Trans Consulting Group, a diversity firm,” We view Trump’s professional attempt to destroy DEI initiatives as not merely backward but as suggestive of a larger problem: the misapplication of DEI over the past decades.” In some organizations, the principle is seen as unfair rather than a means of achieving equality in the workplace.

” DE I has faced resistance from those who view it as performative, divisive, or disconnected from core business outcomes for years. This is a chance to reevaluate, reevaluate, and reframe DEI for the future, she said.

According to Ms. Natthineethiti,” Trump’s action may lead Thai businesses, especially those in the multinational sector, to view DEI as a liability rather than a strategic asset” as many local businesses rely on surface-level strategies like awareness campaigns, short-term training, or token diversity hires.

Sulaiporn Chonwilai, a Tamtang Group advocacy officer, concurred that Mr. Trump’s executive order might serve as a blueprint for anti-DE I initiatives in some Thai organizations.

Additionally, it has the potential to influence discriminatory discourse around the world, particularly among conservative Thai policymakers who are unwilling to accept Mr. Trump’s decision to support domestic legal revision efforts.

The project manager for Tamtang Group, Chinthita Kraisrikul, expressed concern that Thailand might adopt the US’s example when ratifying international laws governing human rights.

She cited the Trump administration’s re-ratification of the Geneva Consensus Declaration, a global anti-abortion treaty with about 40 nations as signatories, in January.

The paper does not have any legal ramifications on member states. However, Ms. Chinthita said the paper suggests that members repeal their abortion laws, which have the phrase” The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state,” which might be perceived as a counterproductive position to a family unit run by same-sex couples in contemporary society.

According to Ms. Chinthita, the US has been lobbying for other nations to sign the agreement. Thailand’s potential signing of this agreement is very high, she continued.

HEALTH WORRIES

In the meantime, Mr. Trump’s decision to halt humanitarian aid has sparked concerns among Thai activists leading the fight against HIV/AIDS, particularly in the LGBTQ community.

The decision by Mr. Trump to stop providing humanitarian aid had an impact on health services to the LGBTQ community, particularly in terms of HIV/Aids protection and awareness efforts, according to Kittinun Daramadhaj, president of the Rainbow Sky Association of Thailand.

Thanks to US funding, he said,” Many LGBTQ organizations in Thailand are able to provide HIV or STIs]sexually transmitted infections ] tests free of charge.”

With their outreach capabilities and inclusive mindset, these organizations are crucial in putting an end to Thailand’s HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Some organizations have stopped operating following the funding suspension. In the wake of this, LGBTQ people who have long experienced stigma when receiving medical care from state institutions continue to be treated differently in the healthcare system.

According to Mr. Kittinun,” Trump’s action may be viewed as an indirect attempt to end lives.”

Due to the pause of the US humanitarian fund, Jarunee Siriphan, director of the Foundation for Action on Inclusion Rights ( Fair ) and the founder of the People’s Movement to Eliminate Discrimination ( MovED), was forced to suspend her project” GO MovED” ( Government’s Movement to Eliminate Discrimination ).

A project called GO MovED aims to end discrimination against those who have HIV.

Ms. Jarunee claimed that no money was given to her project by the Thai government. Foreign donors frequently provided sponsorship, with the US being one of the largest donors, she said.

Due to the executive order, and because the project is related to DEI, we were forced to stop working on it on January 24. We are not certain whether we can resume it after the 3-month funding pause, she said.

Apcom, a Thai company whose work focuses on HIV issues, claimed that funding for the US President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief ( Pepfar ) had also been halted.

The organization claimed that a number of projects, including those aimed at reducing harm, harm reduction, and basic HIV services, have completely been stopped as a result of the funding freeze. The five-year global project EpiC Program, which Pepfar and USAID have funded, aims to combat the HIV epidemic.

The President Trump’s executive order to stop Pepfar and USAID from providing foreign aid has unsettling consequences. It is crucial that we stand even closer and support one another in these uncertain times. We will overcome this challenge as well, according to Midnight Poonkasetwattana, Apcom Executive Director, by fostering trust, cooperating, and exchanging information.

Sulaiporn: Warns of the blueprint for anti-DE I policies

Sulaiporn: Warns of the blueprint for anti-DE I policies

Natthineethiti:

Natthineethiti:” Many rely on awareness campaigns.

Chinthita: Concerned about legal restrictions.

Chinthita: Concerned about legal restrictions.

Kittinun: Life is saved by American funding.

Kittinun: Life is saved by American funding.

Continue Reading

Thai govt refutes US criticism of Uyghur repatriation

irritates the record of providing refuge to migrants

Chatchai Bangchuad (4th from left), secretary-general of the National Security Council (NSC), meets families of some of the 40 repatriated Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang on March 1. (Photo: Pheu Thai Party)
On March 1, Chatchai Bangchuad, secretary-general of the National Security Council ( NSC), meets the families of some of the 40 repatriated Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang. Pheu Thai Party ( Photo )

The Thai government defended the relocation of 40 Tamils to China last month, saying it was done in full accordance with humanitarian standards.

The Thai authorities issued an official response on Saturday in response to the US’s immigration restrictions on Thai officials for their part in deporting at least 40 Tamils to China last month.

The Thai government’s assertion once more stated that the Chinese government had promised to uphold all commitments made to ensure the health of all Uyghurs deported back to China.

The government also pledged to continue monitoring the well-being of the Tamils, as it has done on numerous times since concerns were raised about the situation of those who were repatriated.

Thailand will continue to provide humanitarian shelter to immigrants entering the country, it said, as it has done for more than 50 years.

The notes also reaffirmed the government’s desire to maintain the countries ‘ usually strong relationships and to continue to benefit from them both on bilateral and regional levels.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday that immigration restrictions did still apply to current and former Thai officials who are to blame for the required return of 40 Tamils from Thailand or those who are complicit in it.

While the US has previously imposed sanctions on Thailand, including suspending military support following military dictatorships, and even pursuing Thai business and individuals for defying sanctions against third countries, Murray Hiebert, a local professional with the Southeast Asia program at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he could not remember previous instances of sanctions against Thai state officials.

Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, the leader of the opposition, demanded that the government follow international human rights laws.

He cited the US and China as examples of Thailand adhering to the human rights process when making any decisions. ” Good decisions will keep Thailand from any condemnation or disciplinary actions from either part,” he said.

When asked about the rumor that Thai officials Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Phumtham Wechayachai might experience US card restrictions, Mr. Natthaphong declined to comment.

They have not yet made any comments about whether they are affected.

The European Parliament’s decision on Thursday criticizing Thailand for the repatriation of Tamils to China and problems relating to its lese-majeste laws resulted in the US’s ban on entry.

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra reacted by suggesting that the government should contact the International ambassador in Thailand to discuss a resolution to improve understanding of the Uyghur issue.

The state has recently stated that it is going to China to explore and experience how the Tamils are treated.

Mr. Natthaphong argued that Thai government leaders may be permitted to travel freely and be accompanied by independent third-party watchers for any journey to occur.

An international relations expert, Panitan Wattanayagorn, demanded from China to ensure the whereabouts of the 40 Uyghur deported next month and discuss it with both the European Parliament and the US for their comfort.

Continue Reading

Govt refutes US Uyghur criticism

irks the record of providing refuge to migrants

Chatchai Bangchuad (4th from left), secretary-general of the National Security Council (NSC), meets families of some of the 40 repatriated Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang on March 1. (Photo: Pheu Thai Party)
On March 1, Chatchai Bangchuad, secretary-general of the National Security Council ( NSC), meets the families of some of the 40 repatriated Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang. ( Photo: Pheu Thai Party )

The Thai government reiterated its support for the repatriation of 40 Tamils up to China last month, stating that the move was in full compliance with charitable standards.

The Thai authorities issued an official response on Saturday in response to the US’s visa ban on Thai officials from Friday for their part in the deportation of at least 40 Tamils to China last month.

The Thai government’s assertion once more stated that the Chinese government had promised to uphold all commitments made to ensure the health of all Uyghurs deported back to China.

The state also pledged to follow up on the safety of the Uyghurs on numerous times in response to concerns raised about those who were repatriated.

And Thailand will continue to provide humanitarian house to immigrants entering the country, it said, as it has done for more than 50 years.

The comment also reaffirmed the president’s desire to maintain the diplomatic and regionally important ties that have always existed between the nations and to continue to benefit from them.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday that immigration restrictions will still apply to Indian officials who are currently and past, or who were responsible in the forced transfer of 40 Uyghurs from Thailand on February 27.

While the US has previously imposed sanctions on Thailand, including suspending military support following military dictatorships, and pursuing sanctions against Thai businesses for enforcing them, Murray Hiebert, a local professional with the Southeast Asia program at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he could not remember previous sanctions against Thai government authorities.

In the meantime, Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, the leader of the opposition, demanded that the government follow international human rights requirements.

He said,” Thailand must keep the individual rights concept in mind when making any decisions,” making reference to the US and China. ” Good decisions will keep Thailand from any condemnation or disciplinary actions from either side,” he said.

When asked about the rumor that Thai officials Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Phumtham Wechayachai might experience US card restrictions, Mr. Natthaphong declined to comment.

They have not yet made any comments about whether they are affected.

The European Parliament’s decision on Thursday criticizing Thailand for the repatriation of Tamils to China and problems relating to its lese-majeste laws resulted in the US’s ban on entry.

Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra reacted by suggesting that the government should contact the International embassy in Thailand to discuss a resolution to improve understanding of the Uyghur issue.

The state has recently stated that it is going to China to explore and experience how the Separatists are treated.

Mr. Natthaphong argued that Thai government officials may be permitted to travel freely and be accompanied by independent third-party observers for any vacation.

A researcher studying international relations, Panitan Wattanayagorn, demanded from China to ensure the whereabouts of the 40 Uyghur deported next month and share it with the European Parliament and the US for their comfort.

Continue Reading

Chinese lawmakers urge action on age discrimination in job market

Chinese politicians have urged the government to lead the charge against bias against people over 35 on the job market.

Hidden bias in China’s work market, including age caps on enrollment, bias against engaged but unmarried women, and discrimination against graduates from non-elite universities, has become more prevalent in recent years, giving employers more reason to worry about hiring middle-aged workers.

Zheng Gongcheng, a deputy member of the National People’s Congress ( NPC ), claimed that many universities and government departments place an age restriction of 35 on PhD candidates, which was in contravention of fair employment practices and made young people follow an unrestricted academic path, leaving them little room to pause or adjust their careers.

Do you have any inquiries about the hottest issues and styles from different parts of the world? With our award-winning team’s innovative platform of tailored content, SCMP Knowledge, you can find answers to all your questions, answers, FAQs, analyses, and infographics.

Age limits in civil service selection that have eventually influenced private-sector hiring strategies in a job market marred by fierce competition, with the majority of the 12.22 million new college graduates expected to enter the workforce this year, can be traced to the prejudice against those over 35.

Companies in big cities favor younger, lower-paid employees, especially in the web and high-tech sectors, where market volatility exacerbates mid-career employment insecurity.

After the bottom government approved a plan last year to slowly increase the retirement age by up to five years by 2040, age prejudice in hiring conflicts with China’s drive for delayed retirement. While the government encourages after retirement to relieve pressure on pension funds, popular workplace discrimination against over 35s leads to career stagnation. If finding employment after age 35 continues to be challenging, its delayed retirement targets may be challenging to reach.

Employment age bias is becoming more prevalent and is causing growing unrest.

Zheng Gongcheng, a lieutenant of the NPC,

China has pledged to maintain its level of urban joblessness at about 5.5 % this year, which would result in the creation of more than 12 million new urban jobs.

Numerous NPC delegates urged government organizations, open institutions, and state-owned businesses to take the lead in eradicating age discrimination.

“Employment age bias is becoming more prevalent and is causing growing unrest.,” Zheng said in a proposal to the NPC’s just-concluded annual session. “China’s labour regulations can no longer turn a blind eye to it. Urgent action is needed to curb the worsening trend and address public concerns.”

The legal services age limit should be 40 or 45, according to NPC lieutenant Liu Xiya, and NPC lieutenant Meng Yuan suggested changing the laws that prohibit age discrimination.

However, the minimum age for entry into this week’s civil service exam is 18 to 35, with just recent mentor and PhD alumni who are available up to the age of 40.

The whole crew, including a state-owned bank mid-level director Vincent Lin, is between the ages of 30 and has graduated from prestigious universities in China, the United States, or Hong Kong.

” The most sought-after positions in state-owned businesses, public schools, and government organizations typically come from recent graduates from prestigious establishments,” he said.

If you work for a few years before pursuing a PhD, you’ll get over 35 and unsuitable to apply for legal services or public college positions, according to Crystal Peng, who is pursuing a master’s in training. Competition is fierce with over 11 million fresh graduates arriving each month. These recommendations for policies? Simply empty talk to me, please.

According to Jiang Shengnan, a part of China’s most influential social consulting figure, the Chinese Women’s Political Consultative Conference, prejudice against over-35s was” a systemic problem affecting community as a whole.” In 2021, she initially suggested reversing the civil service time cap.

More from the South China Morning Post:

Download our smart app for South China Morning Post to get the most recent information. Copyright 2025.

Continue Reading

Don’t count your chickens

Natthaphong: Urges better city policies
Natthaphong: Demands better capital plans

Bangkok has always been tricky to contest for any aspiring governor, and the main opposition People’s Party ( PP ) is unfazed by the prospect of a tough gubernatorial race due next year.

The group claims to have home carpet edge after declaring on February 25 that it intends to contest for the state’s most coveted governorship.

In the 2023 public vote, the PP re-elected all but one of the city’s 33 seats. It was a hair aside from securing a clear blow and left perhaps its most outspoken critics stunned.

The party developed a powerful strategy that used social media to target generally young voters. According to a social resource, its election messages influenced industrial tech-savvy voters to support reforms.

But, the PP’s, and its father the Move Forward Party’s ( MFP), work of defeats in municipal operational organisation president races– except in Lamphun– have made some PP supporters despondent and fear the party’s prospects in the next general election in 2027.

The party needs to strive for a favorable “return fit” to demonstrate its relevance before the election results.

The PP is jumped at the chance to become chancellor, and Bangkok government Chadchart Sittipunt is scheduled to serve his final year in the coming season.

Nevertheless, it may not be plain sailing as validity has been lent to growing debate that Mr Chadchart is poised to get re-election, judging from his walk to show his efforts of late. One of Bangkok’s biggest produce distribution hubs, Klong Toey Market, had for years entirely occupied a pavement opposite to Lao Market, which had previously occupied it.

The road was restored and the place was given a new lease of life as a result of the market’s removal. Mr Chadchart has been basking in the site’s success, and one resource expects he could be looking to move out more short-term successes to point the popularity stakes in his behalf ahead of next week’s competition.

If Mr. Chadchart decides to run for a minute word, he would be a force to reckon with for the PP. He emphatically won the 2022 election as an independent, claiming a sizable 1, 386, 769 seats, or 52 % of the popular vote.

In contrast, the MFP’s individual candidate at the time, Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn, came in a distant second, having clinched only 253, 938 seats or 9 % of the popular vote.

Nevertheless, the MFP recovered from Mr. Wiroj’s fight in Bangkok in the following year with a flood victory.

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and Mr. Chadchart’s candidacy for president have today pledged to support the PP, which is led by Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut.

The group insisted it does not need to control the executive branch to know how to fix the city’s myriad of issues.

Mr. Natthaphong claimed that critics only need to examine the government to realize that having power at its disposal does not maintain an effective way to enhance important national goals. He claimed that the Paetongtarn Shinawatra leadership was being hampered by internal conflicts in the alliance.

” Over the next year, we’ll remain formulating our policies for the people of Bangkok”, he said, citing PP’s so-called” 3 Genuine” strategy– real people, real situations and true places.

The party has boosted its” Hackable Bangkok 2026″ campaign by setting the stage for voters to post ideas, join forums, and even register as potential party candidates.

The PP currently has more than five potential candidates with diverse backgrounds who hold executive positions in businesses and organizations.

” Without a doubt, they have what it takes to be quality candidates…. They “are suited to managing the city,” said Mr. Natthaphong.

In the gubernatorial election, the party has pledged to dominate Bangkok.

While recognising Mr Chadchart’s hard work, Mr Natthaphong insisted the city deserves better policies and a new face to turn Bangkok around.

He also emphasized the need to address structural issues, such as Bangkok’s skewed local authority.

Nattacha Boonchaiinsawat, an MP for Bangkok and the head of the PP’s election strategy, claimed the party has focused on the pressing issue of PM2.5 microdust pollution, which is harming city residents.

Concerns have mounted that prolonged exposure to the haze would pose a severe health risk, triggering such ailments as asthma, chronic respiratory disease and heart conditions.

He claimed that the city could use a long-term solution to end the haze permanently.

” It’s time to address the root causes,” especially by creating dust-free zones. While facilities may be ready, funding remains lacking.

For the sake of clean air for the people of Bangkok and to avoid paying excessive fees, Mr. Nattacha said,” We need to prioritize this issue.”

The PP has made it clear that policies will determine the outcome of the gubernatorial election as opposed to candidates ‘ personalities.

” I believe Bangkok voters won’t vote on the basis of an individual candidate’s persona or the party he or she represents or is affiliated to, but rather the policies that work best for city residents,” Mr Nattacha said.

A reasonable compromise

Tawee: Not undermining the EC

Tawee: Not undermining the EC

After waiting for a week, the Department of Special Investigation ( DSI) special cases board decided on March 6 to investigate allegations related to last year’s Senate election.

However, the board, which is led by Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai, decided to only look into allegations of money laundering because the DSI discovered that more than 300 million baht had been used to allegedly fix votes in the election, in violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

It avoided accusations of criminal association, which sparked a backlash from a group of senators. A criminal organisation charge is a serious criminal offence classified as a threat to national security.

The DSI, which is overseen by Justice Minister Pol Col Tawee Sodsong, claimed that at least 20 senators were implicated in alleged money laundering connected to the election.

He claimed that nearly half of the more than 7, 000 witnesses who the agency had a list of reported irregularities during the national-level selection process. The DSI is also working with the Election Commission (EC ) to seek the removal of implicated senators– a process expected to take around three months, as the agency has been gathering evidence for some time.

We are not undermining the authority of the EC. The Justice Minister stated that while the EC is in charge of obtaining the removal of those chosen under unfair circumstances, our task is to gather evidence.

According to observers, the board’s decision offers a solution to possible authority conflicts among agencies after questions arose as to who has the jurisdiction to investigate.

However, the move suggests a carefully negotiated political agreement between the ruling Pheu Thai Party and its Bhumjaithai Party, according to the report.

The decision to limit the investigation to money laundering is demonstrated by the DS I’s investigation’s focus on the so-called “blue faction,” a group of senators linked to Bhumjaithai, as a result of the investigation’s decision to limit the investigation to money laundering.

A money laundering probe will take at least a year, and the DSI has about 3, 000 witnesses to question.

Notably, Bhumjaithai leader Anutin Charnvirakul and party patriarch Newin Chidchob met with ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the alleged de facto leader of the ruling party, at Thaksin’s residence before the board’s decision. They were widely believed to have covered a variety of issues, including the DS I’s ongoing investigation.

Stithorn Thananithichot, director of the Office of Innovation for Democracy at King Prajadhipok’s Institute, told the Bangkok Post that he expects about 20 senators will be ousted.

The figure, which conveniently corresponds to the number of senators on the reserve list and who are involved in the DS I’s investigation, benefits the interests of all parties involved, including the EC, which can reclaim credit and avoid criticism for not doing enough, he said.

He noted that only a few senators have close ties to Pheu Thai, and the majority of the senators on the reserve list are believed to be connected to Capt. Thamanat Prompow, the coalition’s chief adviser, and Kla Dharma Party and United Nation Party.

According to Mr Stithorn, the deal-making between Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai is far from over, with more negotiations on the horizon.

He claimed that negotiations between the two coalition partners will move toward the upcoming appointments of public independent agencies as the DSI probe is anticipated to fade into the background soon.

The analyst believes that the MotoGP Grand Prix has now entered the political fray and could become involved in political bargaining.

Reports have surfaced that the government is considering terminating the contract to host the event if it is deemed not worth the investment.

Since 2018, the race has been held at Buri Ram’s Chang International Circuit, which is home to the Bhumjaithai Party’s political center, where Mr. Newin serves as the circuit’s executive.

The next significant political flashpoint is anticipated to be section-by-section charter amendments, as Pheu Thai is particularly interested in changing ethical standards for political officeholders.

One key target is Section 160, which sets the prerequisites for ministerial candidates, requiring them to be evidently honest with a clean, criminal-free background.

Pheu Thai’s push to amend this section is widely believed to be an effort to soften the laws, especially after Srettha Thavisin was ousted as prime minister in response to his appointment of ex-convict Pichit Chuenban as minister.

Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the leader of Pheu Thai and prime minister, herself is the subject of a number of ethics-related complaints, including about her ownership of the contentious Alpine Golf Club, which is situated on a monastic plot. Without enough senators sympathetic to the party, some of Pheu Thai’s leading figures, including Ms Paetongtarn, could see their political futures cut short, according to observers.

Perhaps the best way to entice the senators and Bhumjaithai to show some” compassion” is to rein them in by using a particular stern strategy, they said.

Continue Reading

Musk’s way of streamlining tech startups is wrong for government – Asia Times

Elon Musk has been steadily gaining political influence since being named a” unique government staff” by President Donald Trump in January. Musk has pushed for widespread layoffs of government employees and made an effort to shut down the US Agency for International Development ( USAID), and he has been appointed to lead the newly established Department of Government Efficiency ( DOGE ).

Musk has excelled at Space X and Tesla with his relentless pursuit of productivity, but can the same strategy also be applied to state where the stakes are significantly higher and companies are more tightly tied to people’s lives?

Cuttings to government programs may disrupt vital services and have an impact on millions of people around the world, in contrast to the private sector, where people and investors are typically impacted by streamlining operations.

Governments are not tech companies.

Musk is unquestionably renowned for his innovative success; he has founded and taken companies from the beginning to unfathomable levels, frequently at the same time. He has been merciless in terms of performance in doing so.

In his biography of Musk, Walter Isaacson devotes several chapters to his method of creating effective process and systems, a subject that industrial and systems engineering covers.

Musk’s strategy is incredibly problematic. His default response when analyzing a set of tasks to accomplish a goal is to eliminate as many as possible, with an attempt to overcut by at least 10 %. Not enough tasks were eliminated in the first place if he doesn’t gain 10 % of the things to the process in the second half. No cutting sufficient tasks is a mistake that Musk’s “productivity algorithm” avoids.

Industrial and systems architecture is based on the idea that eliminating misuse is essential. It is a method that is frequently associated with the post-war Japan-inspired Lean Production theory. A basic tenet of Lean is that leaders should support employees in identifying waste and that workers should be supported in removing inefficient tasks. It’s designed to be a bottom-up strategy, unlike Musk’s top-down performance engine.

Musk developed his strategy for tech startups, where failing is expected, widespread, and generally unimportant for everyone but shareholders. If SpaceX doesn’t send people to Mars, it’s irrelevant for the majority of people. Choices does fill the void if Tesla, PayPal, or Twitter/X crash.

His default strategy is to eliminate as many [tasks ] as possible, with an emphasis on reducing the number by at least 10 %. Not enough tasks were eliminated in the first place if he doesn’t gain 10 % of the things to the process in the second half.

However, this design is difficult to transfer to government, where failing has more profound and profound effects on people’s lives.

People are never things.

The businesses he’s led have benefited greatly from Musk’s efficiency-driven technique. Soon after taking over Twitter/X, Musk switched from eliminating jobs to eliminating individuals. Musk fired around 80 % of Twitter’s team over the course of the course of a year.

New devices were required because identifying “wasteful” staff is more difficult than eliminating pointless tasks. Employees were given an ultimatum: those who didn’t settle in to remain at their jobs may be fired, putting the pressure on them to consider their commitment to keep. Software engineers were asked to submit script for evaluation, but this didn’t lead to significant cuts.

In February, the FBI employed a comparable strategy. Musk sent an email to federal employees outlining what they had done the previous year and outlining how non-responses may be treated as resignations. This was quashed in less than 48 days, and actions were made on a voluntary basis.

The National Nuclear Security Administration even struggled to understand this business ethos of “failing hard,” as a result of a recent round of firings that raised concerns that federal security was in jeopardy. Most of the layoffs were canceled within 48 days, and 322 of the 350 people who had been fired were reinstated.

Similar to how DOGE-led firings at USAID “accidentally” reduce Ebola protection during an outbreak in Uganda, a error that could have had disastrous effects.

Musk’s weak productivity algorithms

The notion that fired workers can always be rehired if necessary is one of the shortcomings of Musk’s efficiency algorithm. However, people are not things that can be discarded and replaced with for good without effect.

The National Nuclear Security Administration had a difficult time reaching the fired employees. One of the fired researchers at the US Food and Drug Administration questioned,” How are you going to be able to get good citizens when you’re not offering Silicon Valley property or pay and you’ve taken their balance.”

Although this approach does have worked in the fast-paced, high-rewarding world of tech startups, its use in state has been turbulent at best and risky at worst. Additionally, beginning studies reveal that investing is not being significantly affected by the cuts.

No luxuries of failure and prosecution

Lean manufacturing has frequently been credited with revolutionary effects that transformed troubled businesses into fiercely organized competitors, but Musk’s performance engineering fails to take into account long-term effects.

Yet Lean apostles would not label it destructive or adopt an overzealous” shoot first, ask questions later” mentality. Effectiveness is not associated with cut; instead, it should be put into practice with consideration, careful consideration of value creation, and consultation with the parties involved.

In contrast to Henry Ford, Joseph Juran, or Tim Cook, the man who pioneered real-world effectiveness in his approach to government, Musk’s so much seems more like the ruthless corporate downsizer George Clooney plays in Up in the Air.

Public employees are not jobs, public services don’t have the pleasure of trial and error when national security or public health are in the public’s interests, and government organizations don’t work like technology startups.

Peter Vanberkel is a teacher at Dalhousie University’s Department of Industrial Engineering.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the text of the content.

Continue Reading

Beijing calls Li Ka-shing a ‘traitor’ in Panama ports deal – Asia Times

After his premier business announced its plan to sell most of its international ships, including two at the Panama Canal, to BlackRock, Beijing billionaire Li Ka-shing was accused of “betraying all Chinese people.”

On Thursday, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office ( HKMAO ) of the Chinese State Council published an article titled” Don’t be naive and senile” and demanded that the 96-year-old entrepreneur reconsider the transaction. &nbsp,

According to the content, CK Hutchison, Li’s main business, proposed a “big deal” not just another form of business behavior, as it was revealed after US President Donald Trump called for the Panama Canal’s regaining power in January.

The author, Wang Junxi, cites comments from “many netizens” in the post, citing” the US will definitely use it for social purposes and follow its own political agenda.

” China’s shipping costs and supply chain stability will be seriously impacted if the US places “political fees” on docking limitations and raises “political surcharges”.”

Wang claims that BlackRock will become one of the world’s three largest port operators by completing approximately 10 % of the world’s container terminal capacity as a result of this exchange. The company will likely cooperate with the United States ‘ destruction plan against China, raise the cost of China’s cargo docking, and lower the market share of Chinese delivery companies.

The US may also use this deal as a design to encourage port mergers and acquisitions across the world under the influence of political pressure, handle more important ships, and use “long-arm control” to impose restrictions on Chinese ships ‘ ability to dock elsewhere, he adds.

Because of this, bloggers frequently criticized and questioned CK Hutchison and its proposed agreement, arguing that it was a deal of integrity for earnings, a disrespect for national interests and regional fairness, and a betrayal of all Chinese citizens, he continues. These empathetic emotions from users are completely natural.

According to the artist, Li should choose the right side of the conflict between China and the US.

Following the end of China’s” two sessions,” which ended on Tuesday, the post was first published by Ta Kung Pao, a pro-Beijing newspapers in Hong Kong, on Thursday. The annual meetings of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference ( CPPCC ) and the National People’s Congress ( NPC ) are the” two sessions.” &nbsp,

hefty landing payment

Trump declared that it was day for the US to retake control of the Panama Canal in his opening speech on January 20. He attributed the drafting of the Panama Canal Treaty in 1977, which assured Panama of its resumption of its maritime rights after 1999, to former US President Jimmy Carter. &nbsp,

Trump claimed that a Chinese firm is now in charge of the Panama Canal, which has defense significance.

He claimed this because in 1997, Hutchison Port Holdings ( Hutchison Ports ), a subsidiary of the Hong Kong-listed CK Hutchison, began running the ports of Balboa and Cristobal at both ends of the Panama Canal. The US discontinued Hong Kong’s particular standing in 2020 and began treating Hong Kong businesses as Chinese. &nbsp, &nbsp,

The US Trade Representative ( USTR ) held a public consultation on the ongoing Section 301 investigation into China’s actions, practices, and policies that aim to dominate the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding industries on January 21.

China-made box boats should be charged a price of up to US$ 1.5 million whenever they make calls to US ships, according to the USTR. The conversation will close on March 24.

On March 4, CK Hutchison announced it had agreed to sell to BlackRock for US$ 22.8 billion its 80 % stake in Hutchison Ports, which owns, operates, and develops 43 ports with 199 berths in 23 nations.

The United States ‘ plan to impose taxes on China-related arteries is a unilateralist strategy that goes against World Trade Organization guidelines, according to Zhou Mi, a senior research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, who spoke to the Global Times on March 7.

” This may cause prices to go up in shipping. According to him, US businesses will probably go on this cost to the river, leading to an increase in US supply chain costs. Restricting US companies ‘ use of Chinese boats will only worsen the ship fleet imbalance and stifle the expansion of the country’s manufacturing sector.

Additionally, the Trump administration has already imposed a 10 % tariff on all Chinese imports starting on February 10 and another 10 % on March 20 in addition to the already existing 20 % tariff.

Additionally, it imposed a 25 % tariff on all imported steel and aluminum in the US on March 12 to compel American metal suppliers to set up factories.

Deng’s claim

The Kowloon coast and Hong Kong Island were given to Great Britain in 1842 by the Qing state. &nbsp,

The Hongkong and Whampoa Dock Company ( HWD), which is currently Hutchison Ports, was founded in 1863 by two Scottish businessmen. Hutchison Whampoa, which was acquired by Li in 1979, was merged with Hutchison International Ltd in 1977.

Chinese President Deng Xiaoping told Li in a 1990 meet that Hong Kong’s freedom and autonomy may be the same for 50 years following the transfer in 1989.

But, after Chinese President Xi Jinping took company in 2012 and tightened social power in Hong Kong, things changed. Li started selling possessions in mainland China and Hong Kong.

A think tank affiliated with Xinhua published an article titled” Don’t Let Li Ka-shing Run Away” in September 2015! Li was accused of selling goods in China to make investments in Europe in the content. According to the content, Li had benefited from Beijing’s years of aid and should not withdraw all of his funds from Hong Kong. &nbsp,

Victor Li, the elder brother of Li Ka-shing, announced in August 2016 that Cheung Kong could offer all of its properties in Hong Kong, with the exception of its Central office.

After the protests in 2019, Beijing “made best” Hong Kong’s electoral system in March 2021, removing the tycoon’s right to vote as a member of the 1,500-member Election Committee tasked with selecting the city’s following chief executive. However, China’s command now realizes that Li’s ports have a significant strategic significance in the Sino-US trade conflict.

Simon Lau, a Hong Kong critic based in Canada, claims on his YouTube channel that Li may have sold all of his ports in Panama, which indicates that he is skeptical about the long-term international trade environment. According to Lau, Li’s choice significantly irritates Beijing.

Yong Jian contributes to the Asia Times. He is a journalist from China who writes about politics, Chinese technology, and the market. &nbsp,

Read: US-China negotiating a very real incident over the Panama Canal.

Continue Reading

Singapore and Thailand sign 5 MOUs, mark 60 years of diplomatic ties

60 Times OF PERSONALITY This time, Singapore and Thailand honor their 60 years of political relations, according to MTI. The STEER governmental conference was co-chaired by both ministers on Friday in Singapore. They praised partnerships between Singapore and Thailand firms and reiterated long-standing diplomatic financial assistance. MTI reported that theContinue Reading

China is trying to kneecap Indian manufacturing – Asia Times

The United States is working hard to stifle its position in the world market under President Donald Trump. But in the rest of the world, globalization is still proceeding steadily.

When you said “globalization” in the 2000s and the early 2010s, it was frequently simply meant “moving manufacturing to China,” but that’s now pretty much over. Inbound foreign direct investment has dropped off a cliff, and businesses are now trying to pull their cash out. Blame a combination of rising labour costs, the closing off of the Chinese domestic market, and “de-risking” over fears of battle.

However, this doesn’t think China will just shut itself off from the rest of the world and vanish. Far from it. China will change from being a&nbsp, destination&nbsp, for strong funding to being a&nbsp, source&nbsp, of funding. A whole bunch of Chinese companies are going to build factories ( and offices ) in other countries.

In reality, this is already taking place in a significant manner. Kyle Chan ( whose website I highly recommend, by the way ) has a really excellent article about this trend.

He states:

Chinese firms are racing to develop companies around the world and build new global supply chains, driven by a desire to avoid taxes and safe access to marketplaces.

Chinese businesses have been setting up factories in big target markets like the EU and Brazil. And they’ve been building flowers in” cable countries” like Mexico and Vietnam that offer access to developed industry through trade agreements. &nbsp,

Morocco, for instance, has emerged as a surprisingly common destination…due to its trade agreements with both the US and the EU…Countries across the developed world and the Global South everywhere are keen for Chinese firms to build businesses in their industry, with the promise of new tasks and new technologies.

Kyle’s excellent map demonstrates how global this boom in investment is:

Source: &nbsp, Kyle Chan

This boom in overall numbers may seem a little unintuitive. As Rhodium Group reports, a large portion of China’s official&nbsp, completed&nbsp, outbound investment is actually “phantom FDI” — Chinese companies keeping their earnings outside of China by pretending to do FDI. And when you look at FDI&nbsp and announcements, the total is still significantly below what it was in the middle of 2010:

Source: &nbsp, Rhodium Group

However, this overall decline obscures a significant shift in how much FDI China is doing, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Up until the pandemic, China’s foreign investment was focused more on acquiring foreign companies, usually in developed countries — basically, Chinese companies bought American/European/Japanese/Korean companies so that they could A) get their technology, and B) use them as local beachheads to sell stuff to rich consumers. The mid-2010s saw a significant boom.

Since 2022, however, China’s focus has shifted dramatically to “greenfield” investment — Chinese companies are building their own offices and factories overseas:

Source: &nbsp, Rhodium Group

The auto and energy sectors account for the majority of this new wave of greenfield FDI:

Source: &nbsp, Rhodium Group

Basically, the Chinese auto and battery industries are going global. In addition to his post, Kyle has written in a fantastic thread about the plans to expand BYD, China’s flagship automaker, and its most notable business.

Greenfield FDI is in many ways more of a boon to the receiving country than M&amp, A, when you build new factories and offices in a country, it creates new jobs, and often transfers new technologies, instead of just changing the ownership of an existing business. And unlike M&amp, A, greenfield FDA frequently targets developing nations because it’s typically at least partially concerned with lowering costs.

So it makes sense for developing countries around the world to be a lot more excited about the flood of Chinese investment now than back in 2016. Additionally, we should anticipate that this wave will be more resilient than the previous one because it is driven by Chinese costs and by mature Chinese businesses with long-term interests in foreign markets.

Generally speaking, &nbsp, this is how economic development is supposed to work. As economies become more expensive, countries are forced to shift production to less expensive locations. China was the cheap place to make stuff 20 years ago, now, it’s places like Vietnam, Indonesia and Morocco. Manufacturing companies frequently fly from one country to another, helping each one to become industrialized along the way like a flock of geese.

Also, it’s easier to sell products in a country if you also produce those things inside that country — transport costs are lower, you can get a better understanding of the local market, and you can more quickly respond to local changes in demand, policy, and so on. Additionally, there are currently a number of tariffs to take into account; if those products are made in Europe, they will be much friendlier to Chinese companies.

So we should generally view China’s outbound investment boom as a great thing for the world. It is assisting in industrializing developing nations like Morocco and Indonesia, as well as diversifying and modernizing the economies of middle-income nations like Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, and Thailand. Chinese-led globalization is looking like a positive alternative to America’s bizarre, ideologically-motivated retreat from the world economy.

However, there are indications that China will no longer be as welcoming and helpful as it was in the 1990s and 2000s. Kyle reports that China is trying to isolate the world’s biggest and most important developing country from its new economic world order:

Beijing is trying to influence the Chinese industry’s global expansion, including which nations they invest in and how. Beijing is encouraging Chinese companies to build plants in “friendly” countries while discouraging them from investing in others in a kind of “industrial diplomacy” .…India represents the most striking case of Beijing’s effort to shape the international behavior of Chinese firms …]A ] cross a number of industries, Beijing seems to be discouraging Chinese firms making future plans to invest in India while also limiting the flow of workers and equipment …

Beijing appears to be restricting the flow of Chinese equipment and workers to India, which would otherwise restrict Apple’s manufacturing partner Foxconn from&nbsp. Some of Foxconn’s Chinese workers in India were even told to return to China. This informal Chinese ban covers businesses that work in India, as well as other electronics manufacturers. Beijing has warned Chinese automakers to avoid investing in India.

Why is China doing this? According to Kyle, one possible cause is geopolitical spite, and China appears to be restricting investment into the Philippines, which it has a territorial dispute with. China also has a border dispute with India. And to be fair, not all of the chit is from China; some Chinese leaders have also blocked Chinese investments.

But it’s fairly obvious there’s something more strategic going on here — China doesn’t want to build up the manufacturing capabilities of its biggest potential rival.

India is now the most populous nation in the world, having overtaken China a few years ago. Its GDP is growing faster — it grew 6.5 % in 2024 and 9.2 % in 2023, significantly faster than China. And as the Wall Street Journal reported back in 2023, it’s been making a push to become a global manufacturing hub, much like China did in the 2000s:

Western companies are desperately looking for a backup to China as the world’s factory floor, a strategy widely termed” China plus one” .…India is making a concerted push to be the plus one…Only India has a labor force and an internal market comparable in size to China ‘s…Western governments see democratic India as a natural partner, and the Indian government has pushed to make the business environment more friendly than in the past …] India ] scored a coup with the decision by&nbsp, Apple&nbsp, to significantly&nbsp, expand iPhone production in India, including&nbsp, expediting the manufacturing&nbsp, of its most advanced model …

After decades of disappointment, [ India ] is making progress. Its manufactured exports were barely a tenth of China’s in 2021, but they exceeded all other emerging markets except Mexico’s and Vietnam ‘s…The biggest gains have been in electronics, where exports have tripled since 2018 to$ 23 billion… India has gone from making 9 % of the world’s smartphone handsets in 2016 to a projected 19 % this year…

Foreign direct investment into India increased by$ 42 billion annually between 2020 and 2022, which is doubling in less than a decade.

India’s electronics sector has &nbsp, especially taken off, helped by specific government incentives and by Apple’s decision to locate much of its production in the country.

India’s manufacturing sector is still hindered by some poorly designed policies, particularly those that impose tariffs on imported components, which make it difficult for India to carry out the kind of assembly work that helped China expand in the 2000s.

But the country’s infrastructure has improved by leaps and bounds, and the government has made some progress in reducing red tape. The government should increase that momentum by easing the burdensome regulations even further, promoting education and labor mobility, and shifting from protectionism to export promotion.

But the most important reason companies want to make things in India isn’t low labor costs — it’s the lure of the company’s domestic market. Establishing factories in India means opening a door to 1.5 billion people with rapid income growth.

Remember, &nbsp, scale matters in manufacturing. The lower your costs go, the more units you can ship, and the more competitive you become. It’s going to be a while before Indians can all afford the latest and best electronics and cars and appliances, but soon they’ll be able to afford unbelievably huge numbers of the pretty-good stuff. Any business that capitalizes on that demand won’t just generate tons of revenue; it’ll also lower its costs.

And unlike China, India probably won’t force out multinational companies once it has &nbsp, strip-mined them&nbsp, for their technological secrets. India offers a unique opportunity to expand its market that China has never had. Of&nbsp, course, &nbsp, companies want to put their factories there, just as soon as government policy makes it feasible to do so.

At first, multinational corporations will export their best technology to India, focusing solely on low-quality assembly work. But as Indian manufacturers master those simple tasks, they will start to climb the value chain, learning how to do more complex processes and make higher-value goods. When that happens, multinational companies will have a better sense of why they should invest in higher-tech projects in India.

Eventually the Indian companies themselves will get so good that they’ll be able to create their own brands, start doing R&amp, D for themselves, and compete on the global stage, using the advantages of scale that they get from knowing their home market better than anyone else.

This implies that multinational corporations are naturally inclined to train their future rivals. Nowhere was this effect more powerful than in China, where European, American, Japanese and Korean companies offshored production to China in the 1990s and 2000s, then found themselves competing with Chinese companies in the 2010s. Many Americans now consider that allowing this to happen was a grave tactical error.

China’s leaders probably concur with that assessment, and are determined not to make a similar error with respect to India. To take advantage of India’s cheaper labor and sizable domestic market, it would be less expensive for BYD, CATL, or Chinese electronics companies to relocate their factories to India.

But in the long run, that could risk speeding up the technological development of Indian rivals to Chinese manufacturers, as well as making India itself rich enough to challenge China on the world stage.

People in China are, undoubtedly, considering this possibility. In&nbsp, a great article&nbsp, back in 2023, Viola Zhou and Nilesh Christopher wrote about how Chinese engineers working at plants in India felt like they were training their own replacements:

Chinese engineers occasionally discussed how they were working to make their own jobs obsolete, according to Li. One day, Indians might become so adept at creating iPhones that Apple and other global brands could not operate without Chinese workers.

Three managers said some Chinese employees aren’t willing teachers because they see their Indian colleagues as competition. However, Li asserted that progress was unavoidable. ” If we didn’t come here, someone else would”, he said. This is the turning point of history. No one will be able to stop it”.

This was undoubtedly the experience of Korean and German engineers working in China in 2007 or 2012

But it’s not just that Indian&nbsp, companies&nbsp, might one day compete with Chinese ones. India and China will be the most powerful in a world where economic development is largely evenly distributed because they have by far the largest populations in the world.

So if China wants to stay much more powerful than India, it has an incentive to make sure that economic development is not evenly distributed — that the new wave of globalization skips India entirely.

China’s leaders are likely to envision a new global economy with lower-quality assembly jobs in other nations, low-income manufacturing, and a service-dependent backwater like India.

India, of course, doesn’t want this, and it has some powerful natural allies. Other highly developed nations, such as Germany, Japan, Korea, France, and others, want to stop China from establishing a future in which they will dominate the world. The best way to do that is to invest in India.

Of course, the US ought to be India’s most significant and valuable ally in this conflict. A rational and reasonable US would be trying to encourage as much investment as possible in India, and to boost India’s technological capabilities and income level as fast as possible.

However, the days of the US acting rationally and justly are over, at least for the moment. America has retreated from the world, engaged in internal struggles, and shattered by its own bizarre ideology.

So India needs to focus on partnering with the world’s other developed countries — with Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Canada and the nations of Europe. It needs to maintain cordial and friendly relations with these nations, ratify free trade agreements, lower or eliminate tariffs on imported goods, expand business-friendly policies, encourage more inbound FDI, and generally integrate itself into a global bloc that includes every wealthy nation that opposes China’s rule over the world economy.

The withdrawal of the US will create headaches for India, as will China’s determination to keep Indian manufacturing down. However, India still has a lot of places where it can invest in technology and technology. And in the long run, its natural advantages will allow it to industrialize and grow rich, regardless of the forces arrayed against it.

This article was originally published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion&nbsp, Substack, and it is now republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion&nbsp, subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading