SG Bike to exit bicycle-sharing market after nearly 7 years; user accounts to be transferred to Anywheel

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

SINGAPORE: With the transfer of SG Bike’s user accounts to Anywheel expected by the end of April, the native bicycle-sharing company is exiting the industry after almost seven years.

This move may successfully create homemade company Anywheel, when a rival of SG Bike, the largest player. &nbsp,

Users of SG Bike will be able to switch their current budget balance to the Anywheel platform in accordance with an agreement between the two companies. &nbsp,

Both companies said in a joint statement on Thursday ( Mar 21 ) that Anywheel ride only credits cannot be used for ride coupons, Anywheel passes, or merchandise. &nbsp,

This design comes as SG Bike has decided against renewing its license because it will expire on April 30 due to a” proper shift in business way.”

This agreement between Anywheel and SG Bike was made with the best interests of their users in mind, according to both users to ensure the stability and dependability of bike-sharing solutions and to minimize disruption to its clients in Singapore. &nbsp,

Starting on Thursday, SG Bike may quit accepting new sign-ups, fresh credit top-ups, and purchases of passes.

By May 3 for all SG Bike users, a notification on the Anywheel website states that they will have their budget balance reflected in the Anywheel software and that no further action will be required. &nbsp,

Those with S$ 0 or more in their budget does opt- in earlier for a S$ 10 ride- just credit incentive. By May 3 or earlier, according to the business, people who do so may view their budget balance displayed on the Anywheel game.

According to the statement, exchanges and converters can only be performed using the same documented or linked telephone number. &nbsp,

Clients of SG Bike who want to change their mind about the change can do so online. A payment has not been offered.

” We greatly encourage users to initiate automatic or early conversions for additional incentives.” The change will never occur if they choose to opt out, and their finances balance will be on the SG Bike application. In such a case, the treatment of the budget balance did following existing terms and conditions”, said an SG Bike director. &nbsp,

” Following, SG Bike will also be clearing all our bicycles off the streets for scrapping”.

Continue Reading

Friend-shoring having the desired anti-China effect - Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The tendency to shift production and trade aside from nations that are perceived as political rivals or national security risk to countries that are perceived as allies, or as “friend-shoring,” is a hot topic in academics. The phrase appeared during the Covid crisis, a period of significant disturbance to supply chains, and gained more popularity when Russia invaded Ukraine.

One of the most well-known outcomes of a friend-shoring policy is that Mexico has overtaken China as the country’s top importer and Canada has recently surpassed China in terms of total trade ( see figures below ).

This came after Donald Trump’s business strategy was introduced, which was intended to lessen US dependence on Chinese goods, primarily for political causes and partially because of Trump’s view of China as a foe nation. In an effort to boost US attractiveness with China and develop the US tech business, Joe Biden has also imposed trade restrictions on China.

During the Trump administration, the US substantially increased import tariffs. These prices continue to be large, increasing the costs of importing goods from China to the US.

Additionally, the International Labor Organization Global Wage Report 2022-23 reveals that China has experienced the highest level of actual income rise among all G20 nations during the time 2008-2010, which also increases the cost of Chinese products.

The Biden presidency continues to support friend-shoring, which has more ensnared businesses to change their output from China to Mexico as they weigh up variations in manufacturing costs against political risks.

Although no information is available about how many companies are moving production, the most recent business information ( see Figures 1 and 2 ) suggests Mexico has been able to capitalize on the US- China conflict.

Closer relationships with allies can be created by forming new trade agreements, for example, the US, Mexico, Canada Agreement ( USMCA ), which is more about geopolitics and friend- shoring than lowering tariff barriers as was the case of its predecessor, the North America Free Trade Agreement ( Nafta ).

However, the USMCA was likewise a design innovation. The social will of the US had shifted to undermining political rivals and releasing anti-China social remarks that were popular with voters.

Trump, a frequent critique of Nafta, had argued that it lacked American jobs and income, a claim that certainly made sense in US industrialized nations where manufacturing is declining. According to a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, much more US jobs were lost as a result of China’s competition.

Doing business with your buddies

A fresh name for a practice that has existed for a long time is friend-shoring. Countries participated in restrictions, barricades, and friend-shoring during the first and second world wars on a little larger scale.

The US began a 50-year-long program of economic sanctions against the Soviet Union in 1948, which included trade restrictions and was later strengthened by the Export Control Act of 1949.

Following the increase of the Korean War, these sanctions, which were made stronger after the Battle Act of 1951, were intended to restrict access to proper products to the Russian union. They became a permanent component of Cold War plan.

Social factors are analyzed in data analysis to illustrate how industry reacts. Trade economists have used the gravity type of business for more than 60 years to demonstrate empirically that nations trade more with nations geographically closer to them as well as those with nations where there is a common language, legal program, frequent exchange price regime, and shared colonial history.

Additionally, research shows how trade is impacted by political distance between nations and conventional military alliances.

Value of US imports from the top five buying lovers between 2010 and 2010:

US deal with countries by benefit:

Governments can use trade policy to strategically support their own industries, making it possible for them to cut out trade with rivals in order to promote domestic manufacturing ( and jobs ) instead of relying on imported goods.

The US Chips and Science Act and the German Chips Act, both of which are illustrations of procedures that can cause financial problems to adversaries while ensuring local production of this essential component of high-tech production.

However, developing an industry takes time. By the time the industry is established, it might not be successful, either as a result of declining prices brought on by increased supply or a depressed economy that stifles demand.

It is particularly interesting to note that the current industry focuses on creating high-quality chips through the design and production process. Therefore, the latest policy will see low- cost microchips, the mainstay of the Chinese chip industry, start to be produced in the US and compete with the established US high- end suppliers.

These kinds of policies have had the opposite effects in the US before. Just consider the US support for the steel industry, a popular choice among US presidents, including the current administration. Under the Trump administration, this saw 25 % tariffs imposed on steel imports, which benefited the US industry but imposed costs on steel users.

Countries such as Australia were exempt from this policy, while other allies, such as the EU, were hit hard. It’s possible to reduce dependence on rivals with industrial policy, but it’s not clear whether friends are always given special treatment.

Other laws may have an impact on a friend-shoring goal. The most recent wave of EU trade agreements address issues like environmental protection and labor rights, making it clear that third countries that want to conduct business with the EU must adhere to the same standards. Additionally, the EU has been discussing new anti-forced labor legislation, which could lead to more serious consideration of this kind of legislation in the UK, for instance.

Friend- shoring policies are n’t new, but the slogan is. Self-sufficientness at the national level can cause adversaries short-term harm but may have only the potential to be advantageous in the medium term. However, more and more people are now accepting that trading bloc friends are necessary for businesses.

Trade between trade blocs, which account for half of all trade currently occurring, and recent trade data for the US and Mexico ( see figures above ) suggest that trade blocs may gain more and more significance as production increases.

Karen Jackson is Reader in Economics, University of Westminster and Oleksandr Shepotylo, is Lecturer in Economics, Aston University

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Asia feels the pinch of growing 'food chokepoints' - Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Business

In recent years, global food security has suffered from overlapping problems caused by problems, political tensions, climate change, and the Covid- 19 pandemic, resulting in severe foods provide problems.

These problems have been made worse by a number of “food causeways,” such as those that Yemen-based Houthi soldiers have attacked merchant boats and have hampered food shipments through the Suez Canal.

The transport visitors through the Panama Canal has decreased expected to&nbsp, drought&nbsp, which likewise hit river transport systems like as the&nbsp, Mississippi River&nbsp, and the&nbsp, Rhine River.

The emphasis on particular transport routes makes the pressure on global food security even more pressing because the global food system is already becoming increasingly dependent on the movement of meals from a few key “breadbasket” exporting areas to food-deficit locations around the world – frequently through these “food chokepoints”

It furthermore impacts agricultural goods profitability, shipping schedules, as well as food supply and prices. Longer delivery periods even put perishable foods at hazard, while&nbsp, shipping disruptions&nbsp, such as changes to shipping schedules stress cargo management and street transport sectors, causing major delays.

What does Asia’s interpretation of this mean?

For both food- exporting and importing countries, challenges loom. Exporting nations may experience profit margin pressures, which lower the cost of production while importing nations may have to deal with potential increases in transportation costs, which could lead to higher food prices, increased price volatility, and altered consumption patterns.

Due to their reliance on European and Black Sea markets for important agricultural products and fertilizers, Southeast Asia, East Asia, and South Asia are more vulnerable. Import disruptions pose inflation risks, contributing to a cost- of- living crisis.

In countries already grappling with crises like extreme weather ( Pakistan ), conflict ( Bangladesh and Myanmar ), economic turmoil ( Sri Lanka ) and political uncertainties ( Thailand ), &nbsp, food price inflation&nbsp, exacerbates poverty, stalling socioeconomic growth.

The most under- and middle-income households, which are most likely to be affected, may also be at increased risk of malnutrition, which could turn back decades of development progress in Asia.

Trade disruption implications

The US announced plans for a task force&nbsp in late December 2023 to combat the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, but it is unlikely that immediate redress for trade turbulence and food price inflation will occur.

Concerns about food and fertilizer supplies being manipulated are raised by ongoing supply chain disruptions, as demonstrated by the Ukraine-Russian war, combined with the escalating geopolitical tensions.

Amid recurrent crises, urgent reforms to food systems are essential. Governments and policymakers must prioritize&nbsp, preparedness and resilience- building&nbsp, at national and regional levels to address food security issues and mitigate future impacts.

Governments and policymakers should diversify their sources of supply chain disruptions in addition to the increasing national stockpiles that the numerous net food importing nations in Asia have.

A good example is Singapore, which, while importing over 90 % of its food, has reduced vulnerability to food price and supply fluctuations through contact with&nbsp, more than 180 countries and regions.

This strategy has been largely successful, resulting in Singapore enjoying the world ‘s&nbsp, second most affordable food, behind Australia. &nbsp, The average&nbsp, Singaporean household&nbsp, spends less than 10 % of monthly expenses on food, in contrast with the Philippines ‘ 38 %.

Additionally, the Philippines, which has a large food deficit, ranks low in affordability, importing&nbsp, nearly 80 %&nbsp, of its agricultural imports. Food inflation in the Philippines reached&nbsp, 8 % &nbsp, in 2023.

Facilitating food access

Governments across the country must develop early action plans and strengthen social safety nets to lessen the strain of the cost-of-living crisis. For lower-income households with lower incomes, initiatives like food relief, cash support, and food voucher programs can help ease the strain. Subsidies and tax measures, which can provide temporary relief, may also be considered.

With average households spending over a third of their income on food in countries like&nbsp, the Philippines, and lower- income households in countries like&nbsp, Indonesia&nbsp, spending up to 64 % on food monthly, addressing food price inflation is crucial to safeguard average and lower- income households from undernutrition.

To address the interconnected issues of food availability, access, and affordability, Asian governments reliant on food imports could sign agreements with agricultural exporting countries in the region such as&nbsp, grain and oilseed powerhouses&nbsp, Australia and New Zealand. Doing so can avoid risks posed by chokepoints.

Greater focus on intra- regional trading could also be encouraged, such as in Southeast Asia, which has large exporters of key agricultural products including&nbsp, rice&nbsp, ( Vietnam and Thailand ) and&nbsp, palm oil&nbsp, ( Malaysia and Indonesia ).

Increased intra- regional trade could reduce&nbsp, regional food import dependency&nbsp, while also increasing regional food accessibility, market stability, and economic development. This could be aided by initiatives to encourage investments in agricultural research and development in the area to increase production of other staple grains ( such as wheat ) and reduce reliance on imports.

Looking ahead

The Middle East’s ongoing supply chain disruptions serve as a reminder of how crucial it is to have resilient national and regional food supplies and agrifood systems, according to Asian governments and policymakers. Countries must try to address these interlinked issues at national and regional levels in both the short and long term in the face of persistent food price inflation and malnutrition.

The region has a better chance of preparing itself for the challenges that lie ahead in terms of food security by implementing policy measures like diversifying food imports and strengthening social safety nets.

Genevieve Donnellon- May is a Research Associate at the Asia Society Policy Institute, Melbourne, Australia. Paul Teng is a Senior Adjunct Fellow at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University (NTS Center ), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies ( RSIS), and the Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre ).

This article first appeared on RSIS Commentary, and it has since been republished with kind permission. &nbsp,

Continue Reading

AI's rapid evolution | FinanceAsia

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance, South-East Asia

Asian listed technology stocks outperformed world indices in 2023. While lingering geopolitical worries and supply chain constraints muffled the industry’s early year outlook, the sector was buoyed by the near overnight mass adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI).

The release of user-friendly chatbots found an immediate audience. Within two months of its official launch, ChatGPT reached 100 million monthly active users, making it the fastest-growing consumer application in history, according to Similarweb data. The popularity of the OpenAI-designed chatbot spurred other notable rivals, including Google’s Bard and graphic designer Midjourney. AI systems are now capable of producing digital art designs, college-level essays and software coding – all in just a matter of seconds.

Unsure which generative AI platform will ultimately reign supreme, investors have been adopting a “picks and shovels” approach, a mining analogy favouring equipment makers. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index returned almost 50% in 2023. Asian tech companies followed, with the MSCI AC Asia Pacific Information Technology Index rallying more than a fifth, compared to a 10% gain for the MSCI World Index.

Looking into 2024, there is little to believe tech’s outperformance will reverse, said Mazen Salhab, chief market strategist, MENA for BDSwiss, speaking to FinanceAsia. Salhab foresees the trend continuing beyond the next 12 months, considering the urgency for corporations to leverage innovative technologies capable of addressing headwinds such as tightening labour dynamics and higher costs.

Given its technological reach, experts see generative AI’s transformative properties creating significant economic value across a spectrum of industries. Bloomberg Intelligence predicts generative AI sales to reach $1.3 trillion over the next decade from a market size of $40 billion in 2022, representing a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 42%, with rising demand for AI products adding $280 billion in new software revenues. 

These numbers are hard to ignore, explained Hong Kong-based Robert Zhan, director of financial risk management for KPMG China, to FA. He added that companies harnessing AI would not only establish a competitive advantage for themselves, but would also unlock substantial client and shareholder values, enriching the entire business ecosystem.

Concentrated gains

Yet, despite the broad-based optimism, generative AI value creation has been narrowly focussed with select names. The market cap of US-listed Nvidia, the graphic processing unit (GPU) chipmaker behind chatbots like ChatGPT, tripled in 2023, breaching the trillion-dollar level and quickly becoming the industry’s benchmark for AI sentiment.

The excitement surrounding AI pushed Nvidia’s current price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple to 120 times, compared to Nasdaq’s market multiple of just 25 times, with analysts justifying AI premiums due to the sector’s rising income profile and robust sales outlook. While historical productivity cycles have often inflated speculative prices, even at the current trading multiples, Salhab doesn’t believe an asset bubble exists, arguing that visible efficiency gains are set to materialise in the near future.

Timing when those AI-related gains appear is riddled with obstacles for asset allocators. Chip designer Arm Holdings, which listed on the Nasdaq in September 2023, has been trading with a P/E as much of 200 times, nearly double that of Nvidia’s, reflecting the widening gap investors are assigning to companies with AI linked revenues.

Despite the elevated valuations, fund managers see generative AI investments as just one catalyst for the tech sector. 

The outlook is particularly promising for semiconductors, said Matthew Cioppa, co-portfolio manager of Franklin Templeton’s technology fund, in a conversation with FA. Cioppa highlights ongoing drivers such as proliferating demand for electric vehicles, internet of things (IoT), and cloud computing, noting that these technologies are at the early growth stages of their innovation, offering catalysts for semiconductor stocks.

The politics of chips 

There are also many political considerations for AI investors. 

As semiconductors serve as the underlying hardware for AI, experts say the technology will inevitably always be related to political decisions that can quickly rattle markets. In October 2023, the US tightened export controls on advanced chip sales to China, hampering Beijing’s AI ambitions and fuelling US-Sino tensions ahead of the US 2024 presidential election.

The US-China trade dispute has diminished the Chinese semiconductor market for US suppliers, acknowledged Cioppa. Although he argues that export restrictions are already priced into the market, Cioppa believes that the political fallout linked to semiconductor chips and AI technology remains a volatile factor that can never be ignored, especially when the world’s two largest economies are directly involved.

Nvidia’s share price has bucked the trend. While the company has thus far overcome trading hurdles by offering alternative chips, that balancing act appears vulnerable following the group’s third-quarter earnings announcement which mentioned a more challenging operating environment ahead. That caution is now being echoed by Nvidia’s Chinese customers who are also concerned about their own generative AI aspirations.

In late November 2023, e-commerce giant Alibaba reversed its decision to spin off its Cloud Intelligence Group, citing the US export controls of advanced Nvidia chips, while China’s Tencent said it would look to domestic semiconductor manufacturers to meet its demand. Even as Nvidia coordinates with the US government on developing approved chip designs compliant with the existing rules, the outcome and timing of decisions remains unclear.

This matters for any technical development, said KPMG’s Zhan. “[Because] geopolitics impacts which AI vendor is selected, companies will be cautious to ensure they meet local regulatory requirements, particularly across data privacy and security.”

Rapid development of Chinese-produced semiconductors may test market sentiment if incumbents like Nvidia underestimate those capabilities. While supply may meet chip demand in the current market, Nvidia believes those alternatives may not provide sufficient computing power to train the next generation of AI systems, as stated in the earnings report.

Technological challenges are also occurring alongside policymaker efforts to incubate a regulatory landscape that supports AI platforms without derailing its potential. In October 2023, London initiated a summit aimed at establishing an AI oversight committee, but soon discovered that Washington had similar intentions, reflecting a lost coordination opportunity. 

What regulations are ultimately introduced is uncertain, but it’s anticipated that numerous discussions and obstacles will arise in the years ahead, said Zhan. When asked what type of regulation works best, he shared: “I would like to compare AI to a human. Right now, AI technology is still in its infancy, so it makes sense that it should get more supervision and more controls to help it learn and grow. But as AI matures and learns, such controls should adjust proportionately according to the risk.”

It is a sentiment underscored by Franklin Templeton’s Cioppa, who said that “over time a combination of sovereign regulatory frameworks and private market solutions would effectively provide AI guardrails as not to stifle innovation or make it too difficult for smaller companies to compete with the mega cap companies on any advancements.”

2024 outlook

The uncertainties facing AI investors for the year ahead are magnified by higher capital costs such as elevated interest expenses as central bankers grapple with inflation, and also the increasing need for expensive data centres.

It will be interesting to see how AI stocks’ performance compare to non-tech companies in an overall weaker investment environment. Any company looking to bring AI into their businesses will have an expensive journey which could weigh on their earnings’ outlook.

As the market undergoes tapering, venture capital and private equity firms are adjusting their expectations. Hong Kong-based Alex Wong, head of M&A advisory at FTI Capital Advisors, told FA:

“Our clients, particularly those considering Hong Kong initial public offerings (IPOs), have recalibrated their expectations. Impacted by the weaker local market, some are exploring various alternatives at reduced exit valuations. Others are studying different listing venues, or altogether, deferring IPO plans and choosing direct exit strategies like trade sales.”

For fund managers preparing for the year ahead, these factors may bode well again for Asia’s technology stocks over non-tech names, particularly innovative companies backed by reliable cash flows and visible dividend payouts to shareholders. For investors that may mean holding onto 2023’s winner in 2024.

Peter Choi, a senior analyst at Vontobel, favours firms such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the largest constituent for MSCI AC Asia Pacific Information Technology Index which returned more than a third to investors last year, highlighting that TMSC powers AI businesses not only for Nvidia, but also for tech giants such as Google and Microsoft.

Yet, no matter which AI-related companies lead stock market returns, the generative AI attention will unlikely fade, explained Andrew Pearson, managing director of Intellligencia, an AI and analytics company in Hong Kong and Macau.  

“Fundamentally, generative AI is anything that can be imagined even if it doesn’t currently exist, making it good marketing material inside a PowerPoint presentation or even a book,” said Pearson, who recently published The Dead Chip Syndicate. Ominously, he added: “There will always be an audience for something that carries a 10% chance of destroying the human race. It is too big to disregard at this point.”

For investors, there may be a sense of irony by sticking to the same investment strategy in 2024, as arguably the most prudent approach to capture the market upside for a constantly evolving technology, is to repeat what has worked before. Will this trade work again? We will find out over the next 12 months.

This article first appeared in the print publication Volume One 2024 of Finance Asia.


¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Should we still be flying on Boeing planes? - Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Boeing, a major American aerospace company, has long been a symbol of healthy air traveling. Boeing and its German rival Airbus have dominated the market for huge passenger jet since the 1990s.

But this year, Boeing has been in the media for all the incorrect reasons. In January, an emergency entry switch blew off a Boeing 737 MAX in late- flight, triggering an investigation from United States federal regulators.

More recently, we have seen a Boeing aircraft lose a wheel while taking off, another trip turned back as the aircraft was leaking smooth, an obvious engine fire, a landing gear collapse, a hooked rudder pedal, and a plane “dropping” in flight and injuring dozens of passengers.

A Boeing architect who had raised questions about quality control during the 787 and 737 MAX plane manufacturing process also died earlier this week, reportedly from a self-inflicted bullet wound.

As people of the traveling government, should we be concerned? Also, yes and no.

Although Boeing may not have been at fault for every new event, it has certainly been spectacular. Five incidents occurred on United Airlines-owned and operated aircraft and were related to factors beyond the manufacturer’s power, such as maintenance problems, prospective foreign object dust, and human error.

A maintenance problem that was unrelated to Boeing caused a United Airlines 777 to lose a tire on takeoff. The aircraft made a safe landing in Los Angeles.

A “maintenance issue” prevented a United Airlines flight from Sydney to Los Angeles from departing because a fluid was visible to leak from the aircraft.

A United Airlines 737- 900 traveling from Texas to Florida ended up with some plastic bubble wrap in the engine, which could have caused a alleged compressor stall. This is a disruption of air flow to an operating engine, making it “backfire” and emit flames.

After a normal landing, a United Airlines 737 Max‘s gear collided after making a normal landing. The pilot continued to the end of the runway before turning onto a taxiway, possibly at too high a speed, and the aircraft ended up in the grass with the left main landing gear sagging.

On a United Airlines 737- 8 flight from the Bahamas to New Jersey, there was a fifth incident. The pilots reported that the aircraft’s rudder pedals, which control the flight’s left and right movements, were stuck in neutral during landing.

On an Alaska Airlines flight in January, the exit door plug broke. As a result, US regulators are currently looking into Boeing’s manufacturing quality control. A subcontractor for Boeing, Spirit AeroSystem, installed the door plug.

The plug door’s door plug bolts sank in flight because the bolts were n’t properly secured. The same aircraft was scheduled for a maintenance check at the end of the flight after it had a number of pressurization alarms on two previous flights.

Spirit began after Boeing shut down its own manufacturing facilities in Kansas and Oklahoma, and Boeing is currently looking to purchase the business to improve quality control. Spirit currently works with Airbus, as well, though that may change.

What changed at Boeing?

Since Airbus emerged as a major competitor in the early 2000s, according to critics, the atmosphere at Boeing has changed. The business has been accused of shifting its attention away from profit and away from high-quality engineering.

Former employees expressed concern about the company’s tight production schedules, which put extra pressure on the workers to finish the aircraft. After tools and debris were discovered on aircraft being inspected, many engineers began to question the process, and the US Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) issued a fine for Boeing for lapses in quality control.

Numerous employees have testified before the US Congress about quality control-related production issues. Based on the congressional findings, the FAA began to inspect Boeing’s processes more closely.

Several Boeing employees pointed out that during the Covid pandemic, there was a high staff turnover rate. This is not just a Boeing case; all other manufacturing processes and maintenance facilities were also affected by high turnover.

As a result, there is an acute shortage of qualified maintenance engineers, as well as pilots. The airline industry is successfully returning to pre-pandemic levels of 2019 despite these shortages having caused a number of issues.

Training programs for replacements are being conducted by airlines and maintenance centers all over the world, but this takes time because one cannot become an airline pilot or engineer overnight.

,So, is it still safe to fly on Boeing planes? Yes it is. Even though there have been some dramatic events in the news and some humorous posts on social media, Boeing still offers a very safe air travel experience.

These problems with Boeing aircraft are anticipated to be resolved right away. Even a profit-driven company will require change because the financial impact has been significant.

Doug Drury is Professor/ Head of Aviation, CQUniversity Australia

This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

From Western domination to a dialogue of civilizations - Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

A speech between civilizations has been seen as necessary at times. The League of Nations and the United Nations were established to help this speech as the world appeared to be emerging from a long black hole at the end of the First and Second World Wars.

However, the pattern of war has remained unbroken to this point, and Taiwan’s threat of nuclear conflict is also looming. Are we on the verge of a civilization-wide speech?

It’s not just the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, we also face natural disturbance, increasing injustice, loss of society, declining physical and mental health, and the lack of reliable sources of significance.

We are essentially one world because technology has made connections between us. But how do we create the institutions and mindsets that enable us to respond to our shared problems in a planned manner, fueled by various inputs?

The West: Enlightened or Barbaric?

American administration is being challenged. But are American beliefs. However, many Northern people see their democratic society as the country’s best trust in the face of Chinese and Russian totalitarianism, religious fundamentalism and terrorism.

However, such claims have a dull ring for those with darker body who have lived through American imperialism and its aftermath.

The winning Allies after World War I refused to support self-determination for participant people and racial justice because of the grievous harm that racism and imperialism had caused to non-white people. The viability of Western humankind’s capability to calm violence and maintain civility was undermined when Eastern intellectuals saw the fractious slaughter of two world wars.

There have been brutal attacks of human populations by the United States during World War II, the Holocaust in Germany, and numerous deaths in Vietnam and Gaza at the hands of British military technology, to add to the horrors of servitude, the murder of indigenous people, and the indignities of colonialism. As Gandhi pointed out over a century ago, the West lacks the social capital for global leadership.

Do non-Western leadership and a world order based on various civilized principles, however, been more compassionate? Not necessarily, in light of recent history. Once they become militarily powerful, the Japanese and Chinese peoples are humiliated and downed by Western imperial powers and support nationalist governments with their own imperial designs.

After being subject to racism and unfair treaties by the West, Japan rose to the position of imperialist power in Asia. Its alleged goal was to elude Western imperial powers from Asia as a pretext for brutal aggression. Today, the Chinese government acts bellicosely toward its less prosperous neighbors in Southeast Asia.

Under the banner of the Belt and Road Initiative, it is trying to set up its own sphere of influence, justified, as in prewar Japan, by appeals to” co- prosperity”.

Once they mastered the technical mentality and its associated skills and established modern institutions, it was inevitable that non-Western peoples would overtake them in terms of wealth and power. But such “development” has come at a high cost.

The emerging countries ‘ embrace of the nation-state system, whose driving force is nationalism, has been replaced by emerging ones, such as China and India. Moral considerations do not impede the national pursuit of wealth and power, just like in the West.

Nevertheless, competition among nation- states for supremacy may be coming to a close. The stakes are too high, given the crises we face. Our current difficulties cannot primarily be attributed to Western leadership. Rather, they point to the limits of global modernity. All modern countries are affected by ecological decay, the threat of nuclear war, and the absence of a moral and spiritual compass.

Globalization, promoted by the liberal West, promises material abundance evenly distributed as the basis for lasting peace. However, this promise ca n’t be kept in a world of finite resources where people must adjust to environmental constraints. What’s more, the West, and the United States, in particular, expect China and India to make the greatest sacrifices for the sake of the environment.

Additionally, the West has denied the Islamic, Chinese, and Indian civilizations more political voice and influence. Because these civilizations have large populations, seek a place in the sun, and are frequently motivated by anger toward the West, this will only increase conflict.

Within Eastern civilizations, the path to inner awakening has been highly developed, but it is never a central part of the majority’s daily lives. Their influence, though, evaporated in modern times as Westernization and the nation- state took hold.

Then, as the West’s admiration for it faded and ethnic nationalism grew, warrior virtues and a masculine cult took hold. Inner development and reflection appeared to be unaffordable luxuries due to the need for quick and decisive action.

The code of the samurai was idealized in prewar Japan, while in contemporary India, Modi has supplanted Gandhi’s nonviolent and Nehru’s cosmopolitan outlooks with a muscular Hindu nationalism.

Politicized versions of Islam have pushed Sufism aside in recent times, but the nation-state has also neutralized the influence of Muslim jurists and scholars.

Even in China, long ruled in accordance with communist ideology, Xi Jinping has introduced Confucian nationalism. This politicized Confucianism, justifying Xi’s authoritarian rule and top- down orientation, is a far cry from Confucian reliance on the building of moral character and appeals to benevolence.

Is it too harsh or too simple to say that the political and moral values that are a significant component of Eastern culture’s excellence have been undermined by economic development and political power? After all, cultural differences can be accommodated in order for economic development to be achieved without widespread consumerism and ecological collapse, and international politics does n’t need to be a zero-sum game.

Time for intercivilizational dialogue

The alternative modernities to the Western model that Japan, China, and now India have adopted have succeeded in promoting economic growth.

As Tu Weiming suggests, the Enlightenment values of instrumental rationality, freedom, rights, the rule of law and individualism are universal modern values, and so are the Confucian values of sympathy, equality, duty, ritual and group orientation. It seems that yang and yin, reason and emotion, left and right hemispheres of the brain are complementary.

If Western and Confucian civilizations compensate for each other’s weaknesses, they both would benefit from intercivilizational dialogue. Real power is the capacity to be aware of and detach ourselves from our social and cultural conditioning, and the leaders and peoples of China and the United States disagree because they lack a crucial insight that is at the spiritual core of Eastern philosophies. Then we no longer unconsciously react to the prompts of media, advertising and political propaganda, like puppets on a string.

By choosing our own destiny, we take the next step in human development. We are well-versed in the East but also in the West with wisdom traditions that enable us to make this significant leap forward.

Modern science, which has provided us with a lot of insight into human nature and its psychological and social dimensions, is now integrating ancient wisdom, greatly increasing our ability to address the world’s modern crisis. However, opinion leaders and their supporters must acknowledge that no country can win the global fight for power because, under current circumstances, we all lose by its very existence. This is due to modern identities, which are built on gaining power in a zero-sum game.

Civilizations are interconnected, not independently evolving. This was Marshall Hodgson’s radical conclusion, whose book in the 1950s and 1960s revolutionized Western understanding of the Islamic world.

Equally important, Hodgson realized that in the wake of World War II, the world outlook of the West had to become cosmopolitan. Scholars were unable to see these regions in Western terms as the rest of the world began to assert itself. They each had their own distinct histories, religions, and cultures that a narrowly Western perspective could n’t possibly cover.

Iran, in 1998, proposed the idea of a UN Year of Intercivilizational Dialogue, which was adopted in 2001. Muhammad Khatami, the President of Iran, stressed the need for a global culture, while also emphasizing the importance of being anchored in local culture.

Without dialogue among thinkers, scholars and artists from different civilizations, we would be vulnerable to” cultural homelessness”. He added that it was impossible to continue relying on the discourse of power in international relations. From an ethical standpoint, the will to power had to give way to empathy and compassion, without which a stable world order was not possible.

Discussions were taking place at UN Headquarters in New York at the same time as the Twin Towers bombings took place. The South African author who took part in the discussions, Nadine Gordimer, made the point that even more sophisticated weapons did not keep a nation safe.

The question is whether or not we will engage in sincere intercivilizational dialogue before new tragedies happen. Or will we continue with the status quo in terms of politics and culture while ignoring the dangers that lie ahead?

Continue Reading

Over half in Singapore say society, technology changing too fast, and in ways that don't benefit them: Survey

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

Dr. Vincent Oh, a psychology lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences ( SUSS), claimed that the proliferation of alternative viewpoints on social media platforms may have also contributed to a growing distrust of leaders. While no inherently bad because freedom of speech and expression is “fundamental to anyContinue Reading

Russia using Ukraine as a cyberwar testing ground - Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

This is part four of a series, ‘Lessons from the first cyberwar.’ Read part one, part two and part three.

From the Estonian attack in 2007 to leveraging cyber operations and supporting military operations in Georgia in 2008, Russia already had some experience waging cyberwar. And before the Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine in late November 2013, Russia had begun preparing for an actual war against Ukraine – both physical and digital.

Ukraine’s president at the time, Viktor Yanukovych, who had close ties with Russia, had backpedaled against closer ties with the European Union, refusing under the Kremlin’s pressure to sign an association agreement with the EU.

Russia offered Ukraine US$15 billion in economic aid, which was seen by some as a bribe to Yanukovych to turn away from the EU.

Activists started large protests against the president’s decision to try to bring the country deeper into Russia’s sphere of influence. Yanukovych tried to stop these protests with force, but that only made the protesters more determined and brought more people into the streets. The situation continued to escalate and eventually Yanukovych fled to Russia.

Putin exerted pressure on Yanukovych to pivot Ukraine toward joining the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), mirroring Russia’s successful coercion of Armenia.

Compared with Armenia’s transition from the EU Association Agreement to the EEU, which occurred without significant public dissent, Ukraine’s situation was markedly different, culminating in mass protests.

Following the ascent of the Euromaidan activists to power, Russia executed an invasion of Crimea. This operation was characterized by the deployment of Russian special forces, who were notably disguised as “little green men” – soldiers without identifiable insignia.

Little green men: Masked men at the building of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea during its attack, February 27, 2014. Photo: Wikipedia

However, during Russia’s invasion of Crimea and illegal referendum, the Kremlin also launched an eight-minute DDoS attack against Ukraine, which was 32 times more powerful than Russia’s largest attack against Georgia during its invasion in 2008.

Then, on the day of the referendum in Crimea, Russia also began conducting DDoS attacks against NATO websites for voicing support for Ukraine against Russia’s invasion. This set a precedent for Russia targeting Ukraine’s supporters with cyberattacks in subsequent confrontations.

In May 2014, the pro-Russian hacktivist group CyberBerkut tried to disrupt the Ukrainian presidential elections. Four days before the vote, they hacked into Ukraine’s main election computers and deleted important files, causing the system that counts the votes to stop working.

The next day, the hackers announced they had “destroyed the computer network infrastructure” used for the election, leaking emails and documents online to show what they had done.

Furthermore, they continued attacking the vote counting system with DDoS attacks, which overloaded the system with traffic. The next day, Ukrainian officials reported that they had fixed the system using backup files, which were ready to be used again. However, government cyber experts still had to remove – 40 minutes before the results were announced – a virus that would have resulted in false votes being released.

Russia’s aim was to discredit Ukraine’s elections. The attacks also revealed how Russian cyber operations are targeted to disrupt services and create instability.

In April 2014, after illegally annexing Crimea, Russia also sent militant groups into south-eastern Ukraine to create a violent uprising that ultimately led to war in Ukraine’s Eastern Donbas region between Ukraine and Russian-backed militants.

As Russian tanks invaded Ukraine in August 2014, Russian hackers were already working on conducting cyberattacks against Ukraine, with the country distracted by what was happening politically.

The war in eastern Ukraine also gave Russia-affiliated hackers the opportunity to begin launching extensive cyberattacks against Ukraine. As a result, Ukraine’s situation would end up being termed “Russia’s test lab” for cyberwar.

In 2015, Russia conducted an unprecedented hack of Ukraine’s power grid, which marked one of the first known instances of a cyberattack resulting in a major power outage, this affecting around 230,000 residents of Western Ukraine.

The hackers used a spear-phishing scheme with malicious Microsoft Office attachments to first gain access to the networks by obtaining the legitimate credentials of three regional electricity distribution companies, providing them with remote access.

They sent malicious emails to employees, which, when opened, infected their operating systems. The attackers deployed BlackEnergy malware on the companies’ computer networks, which was used to gather intelligence on infrastructure and networks to guide future cyberattacks.

The hackers took over the control systems of the power distribution stations and manually switched off the electricity. The power was only out for one to six hours in the affected areas, but even two months after the attack, the control centers were still not fully operational.

The attack was carefully planned and executed over many months with one of Russia’s political goals being to undermine public trust in the Ukrainian Government and private companies.

Viktor Yushchenko, who was Ukraine’s president from 2005 to 2010, highlighted that Russia’s tactics in the digital and physical realm were intended “to destabilize the situation in Ukraine, to make its government look incompetent and vulnerable.”

Russia also began using these attacks against Ukraine to learn about the impact and to perfect its craft for future attacks against both Ukraine and the West.

The attack on Ukraine’s critical infrastructure served as a wake-up call for the international community about the potential dangers of cyber warfare and the impact it could have on civilians.

In 2016, Russia conducted another cyberattack targeting Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. This attack specifically targeted the electrical grid of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, and marked a continuation of the cyberwar tactics that were evident in the 2015 attack on Ukraine’s power grid in Western Ukraine.

The 2016 cyberattack used a more sophisticated approach by deploying a new type of malware known as “Industroyer.” Industroyer is highly sophisticated and dangerous because it is designed to directly target and control electricity substation switches and circuit breakers. This enables it to automate the process of controlling the electrical distribution network.

The blackout malware was similar to the Stuxnet attack in that the aim was not only to disrupt physical infrastructure but to destroy it. The attack was also designed to cause prolonged harm, potentially resulting in power outages that could have lasted for weeks, if not months.

This showed that hackers were developing more sophisticated tools specifically designed to disrupt critical infrastructure, foreshadowing future Russian cyberattacks. Ukraine had become a “battleground in a cyberwar arms race for global influence.”

In what would become one of the most devasting cyberattacks ever launched, Ukraine was hit with an attack involving the NotPetya ransomware, which took place on June 27, 2017, Ukraine’s Constitution Day.

This attack was particularly destructive and had a far-reaching impact, both on the country’s infrastructure and also internationally as the cyberattack resulted in a global financial impact of $10 billion worth of damage.

In 2020, the US Justice Department accused six Russian hackers of developing and launching attacks using the KillDisk and Industroyer (also known as Crash Override) to target and disrupt the power supply in Ukraine, which left hundreds of thousands of customers without electricity. Photo: TechCrunch

The primary objective of NotPetya was to disrupt Ukraine’s financial system but its effects extended well beyond that as it targeted a wide range of entities including banks, energy companies, government offices, airports and even some non-governmental organizations.

Within 24 hours, NotPetya managed to erase data from 10% of computers across Ukraine, causing widespread disruption across various sectors.

The malware initially spread through MeDoc, Ukraine’s most popular accounting software.

Researchers discovered that some of MeDoc’s software updates contained a hidden “back door.”

This was likely implemented by someone with access to the company’s source code and provided hackers with a stealthy way to infiltrate the systems of various companies without being detected.

As compared with typical ransomware, which encrypts data and demands payment for its release, NotPetya was more destructive as it masqueraded as ransomware but was designed primarily to wipe data and disrupt systems. NotPetya also spread on its own and was a much more effective malware attack than in previous cases.

Former US Department of Homeland Security advisor Tom Bossert stated that the use of NotPetya was like “using a nuclear bomb to achieve a small tactical victory.”

In what would become one of the most devasting cyberattacks ever launched, Ukraine was hit with an attack involving the NotPetya ransomware, which took place on June 27, 2017. Former US Department of Homeland Security advisor Tom Bossert stated that the use of NotPetya was like ‘using a nuclear bomb to achieve a small tactical victory.’ Image: Bleeping Computer

The attack also pointed out the interconnected nature of cyber vulnerabilities and how a cyberattack can rapidly spread around the globe from one piece of software. In essence, Ukraine’s vulnerabilities in the cyber war against Russia are also the West’s vulnerabilities.

The need to help Ukraine shore up its defenses was becoming more critical due to the fear of contagion in a globalized, interconnected world. In July 2018, Russia attempted a cyberattack against a Ukrainian chlorine plant, the Auly Chlorine Distillation, with the intent of causing damage to the country’s infrastructure.

The facility is involved in the treatment of chlorine, which is vital for water purification and other industrial processes. The attackers used a malware known as “VPNFilter” which can survive a reboot, making it particularly resilient. The malware can be used to spy, steal data, and disrupt industrial processes and render devices inoperable.

The malware targeted the chlorine station’s control systems, which could have interrupted how chlorine is treated and supplied. If the plant’s operations were badly affected, it might have caused major environmental and health problems for the civilian population.

This attack was planned to be Russia’s next big cyberattack on Ukraine. However, security companies found the botnet, which had 500,000 infected devices before it could fully launch.

Next: The Ukraine War

David Kirichenko is a Ukrainian-American security engineer and freelance journalist. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 he has taken a civilian activist role.

These articles are excerpted, with kind permission, from a report he presented at the UK Parliament on February 20 on behalf of the Henry Jackson Society.

Continue Reading

AI chip race reshaping global politics and security - Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

A global race to build powerful computer chips that are essential for the next generation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools could have a major impact on global politics and security.

The US is currently leading the race in the design of these chips. But most of the manufacturing is carried out in Taiwan. The debate has been fuelled by the call by Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGPT’s developer OpenAI, for a US$5-$7 trillion global investment to produce more powerful chips for the next generation of AI platforms.

The amount of money Altman called for is more than the chip industry has spent in total since it began. Whatever the facts about those numbers, overall projections for the AI market are mind-blowing. The data analytics company GlobalData forecasts that the market will be worth $909 billion by 2030.

Unsurprisingly, over the past two years, the US, China, Japan and several European countries have increased their budget allocations and put in place measures to secure or maintain a share of the chip industry for themselves.

China is catching up fast and is subsidizing chips, including next-generation ones for AI, by hundreds of billions over the next decade to build a manufacturing supply chain.

Subsidies seem to be the preferred strategy for Germany too. The UK government has announced its plans to invest £100 million (US$126.8) to support regulators and universities in addressing challenges around AI.

The economic historian Chris Miller, the author of the book Chip War, has talked about how powerful chips have become a “strategic commodity” on the global geopolitical stage.

Despite the efforts by several countries to invest in the future of chips, there is currently a shortage of the types currently needed for AI systems. Miller recently explained that 90% of the chips used to train, or improve, AI systems are produced by just one company.

That company is the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). Taiwan’s dominance in the chip manufacturing industry is notable because the island is also the focus for tensions between China and the US.

Taiwan has, for the most part, been independent since the middle of the 20th century. However, Beijing believes it should be reunited with the rest of China and US legislation requires Washington to help defend Taiwan if it is invaded. What would happen to the chip industry under such a scenario is unclear but it is obviously a focus for global concern.

The disruption of supply chains in chip manufacturing has the potential to bring entire industries to a halt. Access to the raw materials, such as rare earth metals, used in computer chips has also proven to be an important bottleneck.

For example, China controls 60% of the production of gallium metal and 80% of the global production of germanium. These are both critical raw products used in chip manufacturing.

Sam Altman
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has called for a $5 trillion to $7 trillion investment in chips to support the growth in AI. Photo: Photosince / Shutterstock via The Conversation

And there are other, lesser-known bottlenecks. A process called extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography is vital for the ability to continue making computer chips smaller and smaller – and therefore more powerful. A single company in the Netherlands, ASML, is the only manufacturer of EUV systems for chip production.

However, chip factories are increasingly being built outside Asia again – something that has the potential to reduce over-reliance on a few supply chains. Plants in the US are being subsidized to the tune of $43 billion and in Europe, $53 billion.

For example, the Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturer TSMC is planning to build a multibillion-dollar facility in Arizona. When it opens, that factory will not be producing the most advanced chips that it’s possible to currently make, many of which are still produced by Taiwan.

Moving chip production outside Taiwan could reduce the risk to global supplies in the event that manufacturing were somehow disrupted. But this process could take years to have a meaningful impact.

It’s perhaps not surprising that, for the first time, this year’s Munich Security Conference created a chapter devoted to technology as a global security issue, with discussion of the role of computer chips.

Wider issues

Of course, the demand for chips to fuel AI’s growth is not the only way that AI will make a major impact on geopolitics and global security. The growth of disinformation and misinformation online has transformed politics in recent years by inflating prejudices on both sides of debates.

We have seen it during the Brexit campaign, during US presidential elections and, more recently, during the conflict in Gaza. AI could be the ultimate amplifier of disinformation. Take, for example, deepfakes – AI-manipulated videos, audio or images of public figures. These could easily fool people into thinking a major political candidate had said something they didn’t.

As a sign of this technology’s growing importance, at the 2024 Munich Security Conference, 20 of the world’s largest tech companies launched something called the “Tech Accord.” In it, they pledged to cooperate to create tools to spot, label and debunk deepfakes.

But should such important issues be left to tech companies to police? Mechanisms such as the EU’s Digital Service Act, the UK’s Online Safety Bill as well as frameworks to regulate AI itself should help. But it remains to be seen what impact they can have on the issue.

The issues raised by the chip industry and the growing demand driven by AI’s growth are just one way that AI is driving change on the global stage. But it remains a vitally important one. National leaders and authorities must not underestimate the influence of AI.

Its potential to redefine geopolitics and global security could exceed our ability to both predict and plan for the changes.

Kirk Chang is Professor of Management and Technology, University of East London and Alina Vaduva is Director of the Business Advice Center for Post Graduate Students at UEL, Ambassador of the Centre for Innovation, Management and Enterprise, University of East London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading