The U.S. Navy’s Diving and Salvage Center can be found in a location as obscure as its name—down what was once a country lane in rural Panama City, a now-booming resort city
More
In a significant development for India’s cruise tourism industry, the country’s first international cruise ship, MV Empress, was launched from Chennai, setting sail to Sri Lanka. The ship, carrying 750 passengers, aims to promote affordable and accessible world-class cruise services for Indian travellers. The maiden voyage will visit three ports in Sri Lanka, Hambantota, Trincomalee, and Kankesanturei, before returning to Chennai
The Chinese-built port in Hambantota, which has been a subject of criticism among Indians over the years, has made extensive preparations to warmly welcome India’s inaugural international cruise ship. Despite speculations and concerns from Indian experts suggesting a military purpose behind the construction of the port, Sri Lanka vehemently denied such claims. The decision to choose Hambantota as the port of call for the first international cruise ship from India signifies a significant turning point in bilateral relations.
Sarbananda Sonowal, the union minister of Ports, Shipping & Waterways and Ayush, expressed his enthusiasm for the launch of MV Empress. He stated that India’s coastal region boasts rich heritage and culture, offering immense potential for cruise tourism. Sonowal emphasized that the new cruise service will provide passengers with an opportunity to experience opulent facilities, entertainment, and breathtaking views, while also making such services affordable and easily accessible.
The launch of MV Empress is the result of an agreement between Chennai Port and M/S Waterways Leisure Tourism Pvt Ltd, which was forged during the first Incredible India International Cruise Conference in 2022. The International Cruise Terminal in Chennai, developed at a cost of 17.21 crores Indian rupees, served as the starting point for this remarkable journey.
Looking ahead, the Indian government has ambitious plans to enhance the country’s cruise tourism infrastructure. It aims to construct three new international cruise ports by 2024, with a projected increase in the number of cruise ships from 208 in 2023 to 500 by 2030 and a staggering 1100 by 2047. Moreover, the government intends to explore additional ferry routes connecting India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Myanmar. As a result of these developments, the number of passengers availing cruise services is expected to surge from 9.5 lakhs in 2030 to 45 lakhs in 2047.
In addition to promoting international cruise tourism, the government is also focused on launching Gujarat Pilgrimage tours, Cultural and Scenic Tours, Ayurveda Wellness Tours, and Heritage Tourism initiatives. These efforts reflect India’s commitment to diversifying its tourism offerings and capitalizing on the country’s rich cultural and natural resources. The launch of MV Empress and the subsequent plans for the expansion of India’s cruise tourism industry indicate a promising future for the sector. With enhanced infrastructure, increased cruise ship arrivals, and diverse tour options, India aims to position itself as a major player in the global cruise tourism market, providing unforgettable experiences to both domestic and international travelers
You might be interested in
“We may travel the four corners of the world, but our job is to make you feel at home.”
International Flight Attendants’ Day – also called International Cabin Crew Members’ Day – falls on 31st May each year. To mark the day this year, The International Transport Workers’ Federation said inter alia:
“ As we mark another Cabin Crew Day, the ITF is proud to take this opportunity to reflect on the essential role these workers play in keeping the world moving. It is hard to imagine what aviation would possibly look like without the dedication, professionalism, and hard work of cabin crew. But today is also a reminder of the enormous challenges these workers face. Today is about celebration, but it is also about redoubling our efforts to fix the problems in the sector. The way employers in aviation work demands long hours and irregular shifts of workers. But this comes at a cost: overworked and under-rested cabin crew members mean that the well-being and safety of both workers and passengers alike is in jeopardy. Fatigue impairs judgement, attentiveness, and reaction times, all of which make the skies less safe.
But it is simply not true that this problem has no solution. Better rostering practices that consider crew members as human beings and provide sufficient rest periods between flights would make an enormous difference for the better – for everyone.
Another major challenge affecting cabin crew workers is the rise in incidents involving disruptive passengers. Whether it’s excessive alcohol consumption or refusing to comply with safety protocols, these kinds of behaviour make the job of cabin crew harder and less safe – but they also make the journey worse for everyone else. This is why promoting a culture of respect and empathy is vital – and why it’s a job that employers must take up”.
There are a few key words which jump out: essential role; dedication; professionalism; and challenges. Although admittedly, these words can be ascribed to any profession, and in the air transport field they do apply to the confident captain, the humble chap in overalls prepping up the aircraft, and the glamorous cabin crew, it is the last category that faces challenges posed by humans. They have to cope with emergencies on board; offer kindness and understanding and ensure safety on board. Often, while suffering verbal abuse they are spat on by drunks, kicked by obstreperous and disruptive elements and even sexually harassed and propositioned by lotharios. Cyberbullying is a new trend that cabin crew are subjected to.
Beneath the glamourous façade, this special category of employee (be it male or female) is often a font of empathy, comfort and solace to passengers in distress. They have been known to hold the hand of a nervous passenger, offer a listening ear, and sit with an aged person who has just seen her spouse breath his last after dinner on board, or hold the hand of a nervous flyer during turbulence or other challenging situations. Many passengers are nervous and fearful of flying and the cabin crew step in to allay their fears. Fear of flying, or aerophobia ( also called aviophobia or aeroneurosis) which could also be caused by acrophobia (fear of heights) is increasingly becoming a unique human factors issue, has many facets, not all of which apply directly to flying itself. Some of these are: heights; enclosed spaces; crowded conditions; sitting in hot, stale air; being required to wait passively; not understanding the reasons for all the strange actions sounds and sensations occurring around; worrying about the dangers of turbulence; being dependant on an unknown pilot’s or mechanic’s judgment; not feeling in control; and the possibility of terrorism. Passenger hostility is a symptom of a blend of emotions and fear of flying is one of them. Other common symptoms are the threat of losing control, fatigue, and personal and environmental stress.
Fear of flying could lead to self protection—in demanding alcohol, a particular seat or the right to smoke in the cabin. In the early days of flying, the role of the cabin crew was to alleviate passenger concerns by explaining the rules of aerodynamics, cloud formations and meteorology. They also acted as tour guides, particularly when the aircraft flew at low altitudes since large windows offered spectacular views that could alleviate fear. Fear of flying does not always result in air rage or criminal conduct on the part of the person concerned. However, the fact that fear of flying has the potential to make a normally calm and law abiding person turn into an offender is real.
Elderly or Disabled Passengers are particular beneficiaries of prioritization by flight attendants who ensure their well being by assisting them in the process of boarding including reaching for the overhead bins to store their baggage and assisting them in using toilet facilities, particularly when the cabin lights are dimmed. Children are entertained with colouring books and toys while parents are supported in feeding their children which could extend to taking care of infants during flight.
Reports abound with instances of generosity of the cabin crew in offering extra food and drink and even enabling upgrades when available. Furthermore, they are usually multilingual and facilitate communication in flight, obviating communication barriers.
My Take
So ,what should be done to look after these flying angels better? A few things come to mind.
Some airlines have taken proactive steps in improving work-life balance; offering reduced duty hours and flexible scheduling as well as additional rest hours. Improved health coverage and enhanced wellness programmes are also desirable to ease the stress of service in flight. Hand in hand with comprehensive training on diversity and inclusion should go a supportive work environment which implements policies calculated to obviate harassment, discrimination, and other workplace issues. Adequate and efficient processes for reporting incidents are also important. ,
Above all, considering the extraordinary nature of this profession, incentives and rewards must be offered that recognize and appreciate the efforts of cabin crew. These can include performance-based bonuses, commendations for exceptional service, and opportunities for career advancement or transfers to preferred routes. There must be fora to look into concerns and complaints of cabin crew with feedback mechanisms that ensure transparency and fairness from an ethical standpoint.
Some of the above-mentioned measures have already been addressed by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) – the trade association of airlines. IATA has introduced well thought through best practices on cabin crew safety operations covering various aspects such as emergency procedures, crew resource management, and passenger handling, with the aim of ensuring the safety and well-being of cabin crew and passengers. There are other guidelines on cabin crew fatigue risk management; training; health and wellbeing. IATA also focuses on industry collaboration – a key factor in facilitating collaboration among airlines, regulators, and other stakeholders to address common challenges and promote industry-wide improvements for cabin crew. Additionally, IATA energetically promotes the development of standards and recommended regulations for international organizations and regulators.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has also made contributions by collaborating on standardization with its own safety management systems (SMS) programme, setting aviation health and medical requirements by establishing guidelines and standards for cabin crew health and medical requirements as well as guidance material and tools for airlines and regulators to implement fatigue risk management systems (FRMS) .
These are all on paper and it is left for prudent airlines to implement them.
You might be interested in
Human activity—mostly the burning of fossil fuels—has raised Earth’s atmospheric carbon content by 50 percent, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 420 ppm. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve released approximately 950 billion metric tons of carbon into the air. Every year, humans emit more than 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, as of 2021 measurements. Even if we stop burning fossil fuels now, the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere will cause Earth’s climate to continue warming for decades, triggering heat waves, droughts, rising sea levels, and extreme weather.
Climate scientists warn that if we want to avert catastrophe, a significant amount of excess atmospheric CO2 must be captured and sequestered. The process is called carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and it has been receiving more attention as nations, states, and industries strive to meet their climate goals. But how should we go about doing it?
There are two broad strategies: biological and mechanical. Nature already absorbs and emits about 100 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide every year through the natural processes in the biosphere—including plant growth—an amount 2.5 times humanity’s annual carbon output. So, according to advocates for biological carbon removal, our best bet is simply to help the planet do a little more of what it is already doing to absorb carbon. We could accomplish this through reforestation, soil-building agricultural practices, and encouraging kelp growth in oceans.
On the other hand, advocates for mechanical carbon removal point to technologies that successfully capture CO2 in the laboratory; if these machines were scaled up, those advocates tell us, we could create an enormous new industry with plenty of jobs while removing atmospheric carbon and reducing climate risk. Scientists are exploring several chemical pathways for direct air capture (DAC) of carbon and ways to sequester CO2 in porous rock formations. Revenue streams come from government subsidies or from the use of captured CO2 in enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
So, which pathway—nature or machines—holds more promise?
In its sixth assessment report, released in March 2023, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body that regularly assesses the current state of climate science, points out that “biological CDR methods like reforestation, improved forest management, soil carbon sequestration, peatland restoration[,] and coastal blue carbon management can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions, employment[,] and local livelihoods.”
On the other hand, notes the IPCC, the implementation of mechanical DAC along with underground sequestration of CO2 “currently faces technological, economic, institutional, ecological-environmental and socio-cultural barriers.” Further, the current global rates of mechanical carbon capture and storage “are far below those in modeled pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C to 2°C.”
In a study published in the journal PLOS Climate in February 2023, a team of American scientists analyzed the benefits and downsides of the two pathways in detail. They used three criteria: effectiveness (“[d]oes the process achieve a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere” once all inputs and outputs are accounted for?), efficiency (“[a]t a climate-relevant scale… [of a billion metric tons of CO2 per year], how much energy and land are required?”), and impacts (“[w]hat are the significant co-benefits or adverse impacts [on nature and society]?”).
The team gathered data and crunched the numbers. The lead author, June Sekera, a carbon researcher and visiting scholar at the New School for Social Research in New York, concluded:
“[B]iological sequestration methods, including restoration of forests, grasslands, and wetlands and regenerative agriculture, are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal than are techno-mechanical methods—which use machinery and chemicals to capture CO2. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those of technical/mechanical methods are negative. Biological methods are also far less expensive.”
In this comparative study, the scores for natural versus mechanical carbon removal methods were not close: Natural methods won in every category—and by a significant margin. The problem with machine-based carbon removal is not just that current technologies are immature (with the hope of getting better with more research and investment), but also that using machines is inherently inefficient, costly, and risky. On the other hand, removing carbon by restoring nature costs less, is more effective at reducing atmospheric carbon, and offers numerous side benefits.
The American study also noted that its findings “that biological methods exhibit superior effectiveness in comparison to DAC are consistent with data reported in the 2022 IPCC study.” It added in plain terms: “According to the IPCC, not only are biological methods of CDR more effective than DAC…, but their effectiveness is projected to increase significantly over time.”
As if to underscore that conclusion, a separate study published in March 2023 in the journal Nature Climate Change concluded that the protection and rewilding of even a small targeted group of wildlife species would help facilitate the capture and storage of enough carbon to keep the global temperature below the tipping point of warming 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
You might expect, therefore, that policymakers would currently be directing all of their support toward natural carbon removal methods. But you’d be wrong. Government policy support in the form of subsidies is being shoveled mostly into mechanical carbon removal.
In the U.S., the primary subsidy for mechanical CDR is the federal 45Q tax credit, introduced in 2008, which offers $10 to $20 per metric ton of CO2 captured and stored. But there are also carbon offset credit programs (including the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard), subsidies for building CO2 pipelines, and subsidies for the production of alternative fuels (including ethanol and hydrogen) that rely on carbon capture technology to be considered “low-carbon.” The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 significantly increased the number of credits in 45Q and broadened eligibility, and included federal subsidies for oil producers who pump CO2 underground to make it easier to extract trapped petroleum—which is by far the most common way of using captured CO2.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which President Biden signed in November 2021, included billions in federal funding for carbon capture projects. In the Midwest, as a result, there has been a rush to build thousands of miles of CO2 pipelines for carbon sequestration—a frenzy that has set off regulatory chaos and is pitting farmers and Native Americans against biofuel plant operators and venture capitalists. Researchers continue to spend time and money finding new chemical pathways to mechanical CO2 capture—resources that could instead be diverted to biological CO2 removal methods. Even AI is being enlisted in mechanical carbon capture efforts.
There are also subsidies that, in effect, promote nature-based CDR methods, including soil conservation and wetlands restoration programs, but these programs were not initially intended for carbon capture and sequestration, and they are not optimized for that purpose. In November 2022, at the global COP27 climate summit in Cairo, the Biden administration announced the “Nature-Based Solutions Roadmap,” an outline of strategic recommendations to put America on a path to “unlock the full potential of nature-based solutions” to address “climate change, nature loss, and inequity.” The roadmap calls for updating policies, providing funding, training a nature-based solutions workforce, and prioritizing research, innovation, knowledge, and adaptive learning to advance nature-based solutions. However, the roadmap remains, for the most part, in the realm of good intentions.
There’s only so much funding available for climate solutions, and the total amount is woefully inadequate. Only strategic investment will obtain significant results for the dollars spent, and it is now clear which path will get results.
Given the clear superiority of nature-based solutions, why is so much support still going toward mechanical carbon capture? Poor judgments in the past have created funding streams and projects with a momentum of their own. Most of the gold-rush fever surrounding mechanical carbon capture can be attributed simply to the lure of subsidies for building new DAC plants and pipelines.
In a 2018 article published by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, Justin Adams—who at the time was the managing director for global lands at the U.S.-based environmental nonprofit Nature Conservancy—urged the European Union to take the lead on using nature-based solutions in the climate crisis fight. “Many economists and policy advisors ignore the potential of natural climate solutions at our peril,” warned Adams’s article, calling a 2018 report by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) “short-sighted” for downplaying the potential of nature-based climate solutions.
“Natural climate solutions are in fact the world’s oldest negative emissions technology,” Adams wrote. “By managing carbon dioxide-hungry forests and agricultural lands better, we can remove vast quantities of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and store them in trees and soils.”
The science tells us that policymakers and investors have so far been wrong to advocate so strongly for mechanical CDR solutions to the detriment of biological ones. The fate of future generations is at stake, and we cannot afford to waste both time and money on techno-fixes that are ineffective at achieving our climate goals. The clear path forward to addressing the looming catastrophic effects of climate change is to restore nature.
You might be interested in
The name of China’s first domestically-built large cruise ship was unveiled in Shanghai on Friday.
“Adora Magic City” aims to offer a unique and immersive cruise experience that seamlessly blends Eastern and Western cultures, with Shanghai serving as its home port in the inaugural season, according to details released at an event held by the municipal culture and tourism bureau and China State Shipbuilding Corporation Cruise Technology Development Co., Ltd. (CCTD).
Jointly designed and built by the CCTD and Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding Co. Ltd., the cruise ship, measuring 323.6 meters in length with a gross tonnage of 135,500 tonnes, can accommodate up to 5,246 passengers and is expected to be delivered by the end of 2023.
After the successful delivery of the cruise ship, an array of international routes will commence between the home port of Shanghai and neighboring countries serving as the destinations. In addition, medium and long-term routes will be launched to enhance cultural exchanges between China and other countries. (Xinhua)
You might be interested in
A changing world order, a shrinking U.S. empire, migrations and related demographic shifts, and major economic crashes have all enhanced religious fundamentalisms around the world. Beyond religions, other ideological fundamentalisms likewise provide widely welcomed reassurances. One of the latter—market fundamentalism—invites and deserves criticism as a major obstacle to navigating this time of rapid social change. Market fundamentalism attributes to that particular social institution a level of perfection and “optimality” quite parallel to what fundamentalist religions attribute to prophets and divinities.
Yet markets are just one among many social means of rationing. Anything scarce relative to demand for it raises the same question: Who will get it and who must do without it? The market is one institutional way to ration the scarce item. In a market, those who want it bid up its price leading others to drop out because they cannot or will not pay the higher price. When higher prices have eliminated the excess of demand over supply, scarcity is gone, and no more bidding up is required. Those able and willing to pay the higher prices are satisfied by receiving distributions of the available supply.
The market has thus rationed out the scarce supply. It has determined who gets and who does not. Clearly, the richer a buyer is, the more likely that buyer will welcome, endorse, and celebrate “the market system.” Markets favor rich buyers. Such buyers in turn will more likely support teachers, clerics, politicians, and others who promote arguments that markets are “efficient,” “socially positive,” or “best for everyone.”
Yet even the economics profession—which routinely celebrates markets—includes a sizable—if underemphasized—literature about how, why, and when free (i.e., unregulated) markets do not work efficiently or in socially positive ways. That literature has developed concepts like “imperfect competition,” “market distortions,” and “externalities,” to pinpoint markets failing to be efficient or benefit social welfare. Social leaders who have had to deal with actual markets in society have likewise repeatedly intervened in them when and because markets worked in socially unacceptable ways. Thus, we have minimum wage laws, maximum interest-rate laws, price-gouging laws, and tariff and trade wars. Practical people know that “leaving matters to the market” has often yielded disasters (e.g., the crashes of 2000, 2008, and 2020) overcome by massive, sustained governmental regulation of and intervention in markets.
So then why do market fundamentalists celebrate a rationing system—the market—that in both theory and practice is more replete with holes than a block of Swiss cheese? Libertarians go so far as to promote a “pure” market economy as a realizable utopia. Such a pure market system is their policy to fix the massive problems they admit exist in contemporary (impure) capitalism. Libertarians are forever frustrated by their lack of success.
For many reasons, markets ought not claim anyone’s loyalty. Among alternative systems of rationing scarcity, markets are clearly inferior. For example, in many religious, ethical, and moral traditions, basic precepts urge or insist that scarcity be addressed by a rationing system based on their respective concepts of human need. Many other rationing systems—including the U.S. version used in World War II—dispensed with the market system and substituted a needs-based rationing system managed by the government.
Rationing systems could likewise be based on age, type of work performed, employment status, family situation, health conditions, distance between home and workplace, or other criteria. Their importance relative to one another and relative to some composite notion of “need,” could and should be determined democratically. Indeed, a genuinely democratic society would let the people decide which (if any) scarcities should be rationed by the market and which (if any) by alternative rationing systems.
Market fetishists will surely trot out their favorite rationalizations with which to regale students. For example, they argue that when buyers bid up prices for scarce items other entrepreneurs will rush in with more supply to capture those higher prices, thereby ending the scarcity. This simple-minded argument fails to grasp that the entrepreneurs cashing in on the higher prices for scarce items have every incentive and many of the means to prevent, delay, or block altogether the entry of new suppliers. Actual business history shows that they often do so successfully. In other words, glib assurances about reactions to market prices are ideological noise and little else.
We can also catch the market fetishizers in their own contradictions. When justifying the sky-high pay packages of mega-corporate CEOs, we are told their scarcity requires their high prices. The same folks explain to us that to overcome scarcity of wage labor, it was necessary to cut U.S. workers’ pandemic-era unemployment supplement, not to raise their wages. During times of scarcity, markets often reveal to capitalists the possibility of earning higher profits on lower volumes of product and sales. If they prioritize profits and when they can afford to bar others’ entry, they will produce and sell less at higher prices to a richer clientele. We are watching that process unfold in the United States now.
The neoliberal turn in U.S. capitalism since the 1970s yielded big profits from a globalized market system. However, outside the purview of neoliberal ideology, that global market catapulted the Chinese economy forward far faster than the United States and far faster than the United States found acceptable. Thus the United States junked its market celebrations (substituting intense “security” concerns) to justify massive governmental interventions in markets to thwart Chinese development: a trade war, tariff wars, chip subsidies, and sanctions. Awkwardly and unpersuasively, the economic profession keeps teaching about the efficiency of free or pure markets, while students learn from the news all about U.S. protectionism, market management, and the need to turn away from the free market gods previously venerated.
Then too the market-based health care system of the United States challenges market fundamentalism: the United States has 4.3 percent of the world population but accounted for 16.9 percent of the world’s COVID-19 deaths. Might the market system bear a significant share of the blame and fault here? So dangerous is the potential disruption of ideological consensus that it becomes vital to avoid asking the question, let alone pursuing a serious answer.
During the pandemic, millions of workers were told that they were “essential” and “front-line responders.” A grateful society appreciated them. As they often noted, the market had not rewarded them accordingly. They got very low wages. They must not have been scarce enough to command better. That’s how markets work. Markets do not reward what is most valuable and essential. They never did. They reward what is scarce relative to people’s ability to buy, no matter the social importance we give to the actual work and roles people play. Markets pander to where the money is. No wonder the rich subsidize market fundamentalism. The wonder is why the rest of society believes or tolerates it.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
You might be interested in
The Redress Design Award 2023 has unveiled its 10 Finalists, representing the world’s top emerging sustainable fashion designers who have stood out among hundreds of applicants. These talented designers will compete at the Grand Final Fashion Show in Hong Kong in September, showcasing their innovative solutions to tackle fashion’s waste problem.
The Redress Design Award is the largest circular fashion design competition in the world, organized by environmental NGO Redress and supported by Create Hong Kong (CreateHK). The competition is unique in showcasing, educating, and empowering emerging designers who are committed to revolutionizing the future of fashion.
This year’s 10 Finalists represent nine different regions worldwide, including Sri Lanka. Among them is Ruwanthi Gajadeera, whose collection ‘kaeli – resurgence’ incorporates recycled yarn to create a handloom denim fabric, designed for recyclability with monofibres. The Redress Design Award invites the next generation of designers to use creativity, innovation, and circular design strategies to tackle fashion waste and create a better future for fashion.
The Finalists will join an all-expenses-paid educational trip to Hong Kong in September, where they will defend their collections in front of an international panel of industry-leading judges before showcasing them to the world on the runway of the Grand Final Fashion Show. The winner will have a chance to join global leading fashion brand Timberland by VF Corporation for an exclusive sustainable collaboration.
“We believe fostering talent and innovation is both good for business and a necessity for the future of our planet,” says Sean Cady, VP Global Sustainability and Responsibility at VF Corporation. “Mentoring the next generation of designers [through this competition] is incredibly rewarding.”
Redress’ headquarters being in Hong Kong, and the opportunities it offers to Redress Design Award Alumni in reaching neighbouring Asian countries and regions, are critical advantages in our efforts to push the needle toward a more circular fashion industry.”
To encourage consumer participation in driving sustainability in fashion, the Redress Design Award invited the public to vote online for their favourite Semi-finalist. The winner of the People’s Choice Award 2023, Pavneet Kaur of India, has automatically advanced to the final round of the competition based on receiving the most votes.
The Redress Design Award 2023 Finalists are:
- Aya Letzter, Israel
- Frances Brunner, USA
- Jasmine Leung, Hong Kong
- Mandy Fong Sze Man, Hong Kong
- Molly Ryan, Australia
- Nils Hauser, Germany
- Pavneet Kaur, India
- Ruwanthi Gajadeera, Sri Lanka
- Kim Yanghun, France
- Wen Hanzhang, Canada
The 10 Finalists will send their completed collections, including four physical looks and one digital outfit, to Redress for a professional photoshoot with Vogue Hong Kong. The garments will be safely delivered via UPS’ carbon-neutral shipping.
The Redress Design Award 2023 is an essential platform for designers who understand circularity and how the entire fashion supply chain fits together. By showcasing emerging sustainable fashion designers, the Redress Design Award is committed to creating a better future for fashion.
For more information on the Redress Design Award 2023, please visit the website at www.redressdesignaward.com.
You might be interested in
Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) on Wednesday (May 10) filed a petition (SC SD 19/2023) with the Supreme Court, challenging the Anti-Corruption Bill, highlighting several key concerns.
While TISL welcomes the long-awaited Anti-Corruption Bill, TISL’s petition was filed challenging certain provisions of the law, on the basis that they are unconstitutional, considering that the law must be enacted in accordance with accepted international norms, whilst safeguarding fundamental rights ensured by the Constitution of Sri Lanka.
TISL has challenged 37 Clauses of the Anti-Corruption Bill in total, including clause 28(3), 161 and 119. (Refer to the full petition on our website- https://www.tisrilanka.org/tisl-files-a-petition-with-the-supreme-court-challenging-the-anti-corruption-bill/ )
In its petition, TISL raises concerns that several provisions of the Bill are disproportionate and could have a chilling effect on whistleblowing, the right to information and the freedom of expression, and could affect the concepts of transparency and accountability.
The Attorney General has been named as the Respondent in this petition. Attorney-at Law Pulasthi Hewamanna appears for the petitioners with Attorneys-at-Law Githmi Wijenarayana, Fadhila Fairoze, Piumi Madhushani, Harini Jayawardhana, Lasanthika Hettiarachchi and Sankhitha Gunaratne, instructed by Attorney-at-Law Niluka Dissanayake.
The case will be taken up today (12th May) in the Supreme Court.
You might be interested in
In a crucial ruling on May 5, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria decided in favor of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) and 18 other applicants seeking relief from severe power outages that have affected much of the country. The Court ordered the Minister of Public Enterprises to take “all reasonable steps” within 60 days to ensure that there is sufficient supply or generation of electricity to prevent any interruption due to load shedding to all public health establishments, all public schools, and the South African Police Service.
South Africa has been in the throes of an electricity crisis as Eskom, the state-owned energy utility company, has struggled to meet the country’s energy demands for over 15 years, resorting to load shedding in the process.
Record power outages over the past year have inflicted major economic losses and disrupted access to crucial public services including hospitals. Conditions are set to worsen with Eskom preparing protocols for Stage 9 load shedding, which could see outages lasting for over 14 hours a day.
In March, the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and NUMSA joined political parties, trade unions, and civil society groups in calling upon the court to declare load shedding (or rotational power cuts) unconstitutional.
As such, the application not only named Eskom, but also President Cyril Ramaphosa, the Ministers of Mineral Resources and Energy and Public Enterprises, and the South African government as a whole.
from the Peoples Dispatch / Globetrotter News Service
You might be interested in
Imran Khan, the former cricketer turned politician and ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan, has been a controversial figure since he entered politics. Over the years, he has been accused of corruption and faced numerous legal challenges. In recent months, there have been renewed allegations of corruption against him, leading to his arrest.
Imran Khan rose to fame as a cricketing legend in the 1980s and 1990s, leading Pakistan to its first and only World Cup victory in 1992. After retiring from cricket, he turned his attention to philanthropy and activism, founding the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre in Lahore and becoming a vocal critic of Pakistan’s political establishment. In 1996, he founded the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, with the aim of ending corruption and dynastic politics in the country. However, despite being one of the most popular politicians in Pakistan, Khan struggled to gain a foothold in national politics for many years. It was only in the 2010s that the PTI began to gain significant traction, with Khan’s calls for reform and anti-corruption message resonating with a younger, more educated electorate. In the 2018 general elections, the PTI emerged as the largest party in the National Assembly, allowing Khan to become Prime Minister. Since taking office, Khan has faced numerous legal challenges and allegations of corruption. However, his supporters argue that these allegations are politically motivated and that he is the victim of a smear campaign.
However, this is not the first time that Khan has been accused of corruption. In 2017, a petition in the Supreme Court alleging that Khan had failed to disclose assets and accounts held in offshore companies in his nomination papers for the 2013 general elections. The case was eventually dismissed, with the Supreme Court ruling that Khan was not liable for any wrongdoing as he had not been a public office holder at the time. However, the ruling did not fully exonerate Khan, with the court noting that “it is the duty of every citizen to be truthful and honest.” More recently, Khan has been accused of granting amnesty to a close aide who was facing corruption charges. The aide, Tareen, was a prominent figure. He was facing charges of money laundering and fraud, but the charges were dropped in March 2021 after the government reached a settlement with him.
Imran Khan, the leader of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), was detained by NAB officials on Tuesday at the Islamabad High Court in connection with the Al-Qadir Trust case. Al-Qadir University for Sufism was established in Sohawa, Jhelum district, in 2019 with the help of the country’s former prime minister, Imran Khan. However, he and a real estate magnate were accused of stealing Rs. 50 billion from the national coffers and registering the Trust on 450 kanals.
The ongoing allegations of corruption against Imran Khan are not only damaging to his reputation but also to Pakistan’s standing on the international stage. Corruption is a major issue in Pakistan, and any perception that the country’s leaders are involved in corrupt activities can erode public trust and undermine efforts to attract foreign investment.
Moreover, Khan’s image as a reformer and anti-corruption crusader has been central to his political brand. If he is found to have engaged in corrupt activities, it could undermine the legitimacy of his party, the PTI.
The allegations of corruption against Imran Khan are a cause for concern for his supporters and critics alike. The ongoing allegations and investigations are damaging to his reputation and that of his party. Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to determine whether Khan is guilty of any wrongdoing. In the meantime, it is important for Pakistan’s leaders to take strong action to combat corruption and restore public trust.
You might be interested in
Future historians will likely look back at the debt ceiling rituals being reenacted these days with a frustrated shaking of their heads. That otherwise reasonable people would be so readily deceived raises the question that will provoke those historians: How could this happen?
The U.S. Congress has imposed successive ceilings on the national debt, each one higher than the last. Ceilings were intended to limit the amount of federal borrowing. But the same U.S. Congress so managed its taxing and spending that it created ever more excesses of spending over tax revenues (deficits). Those excesses required borrowing to cover them. The borrowings accumulated to hit successive ceilings. A highly political ritual of threats and counterthreats accompanied each rise of the ceiling required by the need to borrow to finance deficits.
It is elementary economics to note that if Congress raised more taxes or cut federal spending—or both—there would be no need to borrow and thus no ceiling on borrowing to worry about. The ceiling would become irrelevant or merely symbolic. Further, if taxes were raised enough and spending cut enough, the existing U.S. national debt could be reduced. That situation has happened occasionally in U.S. history.
The real issue then is that when borrowing approaches any ceiling, the policy choices are these three: raise the ceiling (to borrow more), raise taxes, or cut spending. Of course, combinations of them would also be possible.
In contrast to this reality, U.S. politics deceives by constricting its debate. Politicians, the mainstream media, and academics simply omit—basically by refusing to admit or consider—tax increases. The GOP demands spending cuts or else it will block raising the ceiling. The Democrats insist that raising the ceiling is the better choice than cutting spending. Democrats threaten to blame the GOP for the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling. They paint those consequences in lurid colors depicting U.S. bondholders denied interest or repayment, Social Security recipients denied their pensions, and government employees denied their wages. The unspoken agreement between the two major parties is to omit any serious discussion of raising taxes to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. That omission entails deception.
Here are some tax increases that could help solve the problem by avoiding any need to raise the debt ceiling. The social security tax could be applied to all wage and salary incomes, not only those of $160,000 or less as is now the case. The social security tax could be applied to nonwage income such as interest dividends, capital gains, and rents. The corporate profits tax could be raised back to what it was a few decades ago: near or above 50 percent versus the current 37 percent rate. A property tax could be levied on property that takes the form of stocks and bonds. The current property tax in the United States (levied mostly at the local level) includes land, houses, automobiles, and business inventories, while it excludes stocks and bonds. Perhaps that is because the richest 10 percent of Americans own roughly 80 percent of stocks and bonds. The current property tax system in the United States is very nice for that 10 percent. Another logical candidate is the federal estate tax which a few years ago exempted under $1 million of an estate from the tax, but now exempts over $12 million per person (over $25 million per couple). That exemption makes a mockery of the idea that all Americans start or live their lives on a level playing field where merit counts more than inheritance. The U.S. could and should go back from that tax giveaway to the richest. There are many more possible tax increases.
Of course, there are strengths and weaknesses entailed in raising every tax, positive and negative consequences. But the exact same is true of raising the debt ceiling and thereby increasing the U.S. national debt. Likewise cutting spending has its pluses and minuses in terms of pain and gain. There is no logical or reasonable basis for excluding tax increases from the national debate and discussion about raising the debt ceiling and thereby the national debt.
It is rather the shared political commitments of both major parties that require and motivate the exclusion. There is no reason for U.S. citizens to accept, tolerate, endorse, or otherwise validate the debt ceiling deception perpetrated against us.
Nor is the debt ceiling deception alone. The previous national debate over responding to inflation by having the Federal Reserve raise interest rates provides another quite parallel example. That debate proceeded by debating the pros and cons of interest rate increases as if no other anti-inflationary policy existed or was even worth mentioning. Once again elementary economics teaches that wage-price freezes and rationing have been used against inflations in the past—including in the United States—as alternatives to raising interest rates or alongside them. U.S. President Nixon in 1971 used wage-price freezes. U.S. President Roosevelt used rationing during World War II. But the government, Federal Reserve, major media, and major academic leaders carried on their recent policy debates as if those other anti-inflationary tools did not exist or were not worth including in the debate.
Wage-price freezes and rationing have their strengths and weaknesses—just as tax increases do—but once again the same applies to raising interest rates. No justification exists for proceeding as if alternative options are not there. The U.S. national debate over fighting inflation was deceptive in the same way that the debate over the debt ceiling is.
Nor is the deception any less if it is covered by a claim of “realism.” Those who grasp elementary economics enough to know that tax increases could “solve” the debt ceiling issue become complicit in the deception by invoking “realism.” Since the two major parties are jointly subservient to corporations and the rich, they rule out tax increases on them. It thus becomes “realistic” to exclude that option from the debt ceiling debate. What is best for corporations and the rich thus gets equated to what is “realistic.” It is worth remembering that throughout history ruling classes have discovered, to their shock and surprise, that the ruled can and often do quickly alter what is “realistic.”
The debt ceiling deceptions favor corporations over individuals and the richest individuals over the rest of us. In our thinking and speaking too, the nation’s class structure and class struggles exhibit their influential power. The mainstream debt ceiling debate deceives by lying by omission rather than commission.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
You might be interested in
