Understanding BRICS

 

Western institutions like Goldman Sachs expect BRICS to dominate the world economy by 2050, but still cannot understand how it works despite its strengths.

FOUR countries, each with considerable growth promise, were exploring greater trade and investment prospects at the turn of the century.

They were already among the world’s top 10 countries by way of geographical spread, population size, and national economic strength in GDP, in both nominal and purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. They were also working well together.

Brazil, Russia, India, and China then came together in 2009, and Goldman Sachs nicknamed them by the acronym “BRIC”. South Africa joined the following year to make it “BRICS”.

Almost immediately, Western scepticism worked overtime. It ranged from how a grouping with no discernible identity could achieve anything, to how long such an association with no conceivable purpose could possibly last. The sceptics did not seem to notice that the five countries happened to form a quarter of the Group of 20 (G20). Serious observers had known that the G20 was steadily surpassing the Western-led Group of 7 (G7) countries in global significance.

The International Monetary Fund had initially identified the G7 as the world’s leading economies. Yet just the five BRICS countries had exceeded the G7 in terms of GDP in PPP – with the promise of more.

Clearly, BRICS represented a shift in the global economy’s tectonic

plates. A new planetary alignment in economic power was underway, but this could not be understood through old ways of thinking.

Within the typically narrow Western perspective, an alliance could hold only by targeting significant others outside the group – or had clear affinities among members in seeking to target others.

Evidently, BRICS did not fit this notion of an intergovernmental grouping to work. BRICS was not about targeting anyone, but about developing members’ potential for building a more equitable global order together.

Obviously, those intent on keeping the Global South permanently down will be alarmed by BRICS’ development. However, such neocolonial attitudes are now the ones fading out.

BRICS is about the Global South spreading its wings, in solidarity with transnational partners and megatrends moving in that direction.

To emerging regions in the developing world this is identity and purpose enough, even if it is a blur to former colonial powers.

Typically, many in the West cannot fathom how BRICS can

nd appeal to any “friendly” or nonaligned country. They assume that countries come together only as an “alliance”, which in turn must work to rival or oppose others in zero-sum fashion.

They tend to forget that BRICS began as a small community of emerging economies exploring greater trade and investment opportunities. Economic development is crucial to countries of the Global South because colonialism had robbed them of it.

Among the Global North’s misperceptions is that BRICS is a rival to the G7. That is a mistake in terms of BRICS’ identity and purpose.

Rivalry is another party’s definitive challenge to the point of rendering one redundant or irrelevant, and then usurping one’s purpose through displacement.

To that end, the G20 should be paired with the G7 and BRICS with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The G20 and G7 are competing entities much like BRICS and the OECD, not BRICS and the G7.

Each group has agency, yet only represents emerging or receding megatrends. Countering “unfavourable” megatrends is an enormous or impossible task that requires addressing their historic undercurrents, not the organisations themselves.

The fact that the G20 includes major BRICS countries shows that the G7 as its Western component, in ceding some influence, is facing the global shift towards multipolarity. This reality should be acknowledged and managed intelligently.

Most countries see no contradiction between joining BRICS and continuing healthy relationships with Western powers for mutual benefit. Of course, such relationships have to be based on equality and mutual respect between sovereign nations, not any kind of neocolonial or patron-client arrangement.

Indonesia reportedly considered joining BRICS, only to shelve the idea in prioritising OECD membership. Malaysia has applied to join BRICS, with an intention to join the OECD as well.

India as an important partner of the West is a leading member of BRICS. Vietnam is another Western partner considering BRICS membership.

US ally Thailand has applied for membership, while Laos and even its former “protectorate” master France have indicated interest in BRICS. Another Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) member Turkey showed interest in 2018 and applied for membership this year.

Naturally, nonaligned Malaysia seeks better economic opportunities with BRICS. After joining the Us-led Indo-pacific Economic Framework and the Trans-pacific Partnership (now Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-pacific Partnership) once led by the US to exclude China, for Malaysia to snub BRICS would be to tilt against its main trading partner.

BRICS membership provides pluses that are cumulative with no trade-offs elsewhere. Even if only some Asean members join, it would benefit Asean as a whole through better global economic networking, without disadvantaging neighbouring countries that are not BRICS members.

BRICS offers expanded trade and investment opportunities in new, untapped markets and preferential trading arrangements among members. Greater use of local currencies also reduces transaction costs, minimises exchange rate volatility, and strengthens the value and status of local currencies.

Membership also means access to funds from BRICS’ New Development Bank, and exchange-traded funds invested in members’ emerging economies that are among the world’s fastest growing. The potential benefits explain BRICS’ popularity among dozens of countries worldwide regardless of culture, history or politics.

For Asean countries like Malaysia, membership of BRICS and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) as the world’s biggest trading bloc can mean powerful new synergies for accelerated and sustained economic growth. Every country has the responsibility to its citizens of making the most of every available development opportunity.

For the developing world, BRICS provides a means for fasttracking the route to fully developed status. For all countries in the Global South and North, it also provides coordinated efforts for fulfilling such global public goods as UN Sustainable Development Goals.

By BUNN NAGARA Bunn Nagara is director and Senior Fellow of the BRI Caucus for Asiapacific, and Honorary Fellow of the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely his own.

China has a real world economy, not the fake economy bases on money ptiting kike America

Source link

Related posts:

In 75 years, China has become increasingly prominent in driving global development

Related Stories 

Marking 75 years of progress: China’s modernisation and its growing ties with SA

WE CELEBRATED the 75th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China yesterday, and I want to express my sincere gratitude to friends from all communities who have long cared about and supported China’s development and...

2 Oct 2024

Beyond Hegemony - We need a New International Order Under the UN Charter

Beyond Hegemony - We need a New International Order Under the UN Charter

 

To address these pivotal developments, UN Sec-Gen Antonio Guterres had called for a Summit of the Future to reform our international institutions so that they are fit for purpose in our fast-changing world. —AP

Jeffrey D. Sachs is University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has been advisor to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres.

We are at a new phase of human history because of the confluence of three interrelated trends. First, and most pivotal, the Western-led world system, in which countries of the North Atlantic region dominate the world militarily, economically, and financially, has ended. Second, the global ecological crisis marked by human-induced climate change, the destruction of biodiversity, and the massive pollution of the environment, will lead to fundamental changes of the world economy and governance. Third, the rapid advance of technologies across several domains—artificial intelligence, computing, biotechnology, geoengineering—will profoundly disrupt the world economy and politics.

“We propose […] to establish a “UN Parliamentary Assembly” as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly according to Article XXII of the UN Charter”

These interconnecting developments—geopolitical, environmental, and technological—are stoking huge uncertainties, societal dislocations, political crises, and open wars. To address these pivotal developments, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called for a Summit of the Future (SOTF) (September 22-23rd, 2024 at the UN headquarters in New York) to reform our international institutions so that they are fit for purpose in our fast-changing world. Since global peace depends more than ever on the efficacy of the UN and international law, the SOTF should be a watershed in global governance, even if it does no more than point the way to further negotiation and deliberation in the years immediately ahead.

Our existing institutions, both national and international, are certainly not up to the task of governance in our fast-changing world. The late, great evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson, often described our predicament as follows: “We have stumbled into the twenty-first century with stone-age emotions, medieval institutions, and near godlike technologies.” By this he meant that we face our challenges today with the basic cognitive and emotional human nature that was formed by human evolution tens of thousands of years ago, with political institutions forged centuries ago (the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787), and with the lightning speed of technological advance (think of ChatGPT as just the latest wonder).

Perhaps the most basic fact of deep societal change is uncertainty, and the most basic reaction to uncertainty is fear. In fact, the technological advances—if used correctly—could solve innumerable problems in economic development, social justice (e.g., improved access to healthcare and education through digital connectivity), and environmental sustainability (e.g., a rapid transition to zero-carbon energy sources). Yet the mood today is anything but optimistic, especially in the West. Open wars rage between the United States and Russia in Ukraine, and between U.S.-backed Israel and Palestine. The possibility of war between the United States and China is widely, openly, and even casually discussed in Washington, though such a war could mean the end of civilization itself. At the root of these conflicts is fear, built on our stone-age emotions.

The biggest fear of all is that of many American and European political leaders that the West is losing its hegemony after centuries, and that somehow the loss of hegemony will have catastrophic consequences. Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson made this Western fear explicit in an April 2024 column for the UK’s Daily Mail, when he stated that if the West loses the war in Ukraine, “it will be the end of Western hegemony.”

Herein lies the essence of the Ukraine war, and many other global conflicts as well. The United States and its allies want to expand NATO to Ukraine. Russia has firmly said no. Both Washington and London were ready to fight a war with Russia over NATO enlargement to protect Western hegemony (specifically, the right to dictate security arrangements to Russia), while Russia was ready to fight a war in order to keep NATO away. In fact, Russia is prevailing on the battlefield over Ukraine’s army and NATO’s armaments. This is not surprising. What is perhaps surprising is how the West completely underestimated Russia’s capabilities.

In broad terms, with the changing global order, including the rise of China and the rest of East Asia, the military and technological strength of Russia, the rapid development of India, and the growing unity of Africa, the Western-dominated world has been brought to an end, not by a tumultuous collapse of the West, but by the growing economic, technological, and therefore military, power of the rest of the world. In principle, the West has no reason to fear the rise of the rest, as the United States and Europe still maintain an overwhelming deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, against any military threat from the outside. The West is bemoaning its loss of relative status—the ability to dictate to others—not any real military insecurity.

Nothing is going to restore Western hegemony in the coming years—no military victory, technological advance, or economic leverage. The rise of advanced military, technological, economic, and financial capacities to Asia and beyond, is unstoppable (and of course should not be stopped, since it signifies a world that is fairer and more prosperous than the preceding Western-dominated world). Yet, the end of Western hegemony does not mean a new Chinese, Indian, or Asian hegemony. There are simply too many power centers—the United States, the EU, China, Russia, India, the African Union, etc.—and too much capacity and diversity to enable any other hegemon to replace the Western-led world order. We have arrived, after centuries of Western dominance, to a world beyond hegemony.

This new world, beyond hegemony, should be the starting point for the Summit of the Future. The United States, UK, and the EU should come to the Summit not in a vain attempt to sustain their hegemony (as Boris Johnson fantasizes), or equivalently, to protect America’s self-declared “rules-based order”—a vacuous expression that envisions the rules as determined by the United States alone. They should come as part of a new multipolar world looking to find solutions to profound ecological, technological, economic, and other challenges. The new order should be based on multilateralism and international law under a suitably reformed UN Charter.

As President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN)—a worldwide network of more than 2,000 universities and think tanks dedicated to sustainable development generally and to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically—I have the opportunity to discuss humanity’s future with university leaders, scientists, technologists, policymakers, and politicians around the world, with the goal of envisioning a future that is prosperous, fair, sustainable, and peaceful for all of the world, not for a privileged West or any other small part of the world. Based on these extensive discussions, the SDSN issued a Statement on the Summit of the Future, responding to the five main “Chapters” for decisionmaking at the Summit: (1) achieving sustainable development; (2) ensuring global peace; (3) governing the cutting-edge technologies; (4) educating young people for our new world; and (5) reforming the UN institutions to make them fit for the post-hegemonic balance of the twenty-first century. 

Here is a summary of the core recommendations of the SDSN.

 

Achieving Sustainable Development

1. The SDG Agenda should remain the core of global cooperation to 2050.

The SDGs were initially set for the fifteen-year period between 2016 and 2030, following the fifteen-year period of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It is clear that the SDGs will not be achieved in the original time frame. We strongly urge that the SOTF recognize the pivotal role of the SDGs in aligning national, regional and global policies, and commit to the SDG framework until 2050, so as to reinforce the efforts already underway and recognize the time horizon needed to reorient the world economy to sustainable development. The new horizon of 2050 does not mean a slackening of effort. Rather, it means improved long-term planning to achieve highly ambitious 2050 goals and milestones on the way to 2050. 

2. The Sustainable Development agenda should be properly financed.

All evidence developed by academia, the Bretton Woods system, and UN institutions is that there remains a massive shortfall in the pace of investments needed for the poorer nations to achieve the SDGs. In order to mobilize the needed investment flows for human and infrastructure capital, the global financial architecture must be reformed and made fit for sustainable development. The major objective is to ensure that the poorer countries have adequate financing, both from domestic and external sources, and at sufficient quality in terms of the cost of capital and the maturity of loans, to scale up the investments required to achieve the SDGs.

1.3 Countries and regions should produce medium-term sustainable development strategies

Sustainable Development in general and the SDGs specifically, require long-term public investment plans, transformation pathways, and a mission orientation to provide the public goods and services required to achieve the SDGs. For this purpose, all nations and regions need medium-term strategies to achieve the SDGs. These strategies, with a horizon to the year 2050, and in some cases beyond, should provide an integrated framework for local, national, and regional investments to achieve the SDGs, and for the technological transformations needed to achieve green, digital, and inclusive societies. 

 

Achieving International Peace and Security

2.1 The core principles of non-intervention should be reinforced and extended. 

The greatest threat to global peace is the interference by one nation in the internal affairs of another nation against the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. Such interference, in the form of wars, military coercion, covert regime-change operations, cyberwarfare, information warfare, political manipulation and financing, and unilateral coercive measures (financial, economic, trade, and technological), all violate the UN Charter and generate untold international tensions, violence, conflict, and war.

For this reason, the UN member states should resolve to end illegal measures of intervention by any nation (or group of nations) in the internal affairs of another nation or group of nations. The principles of non-intervention, enshrined in the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolutions, and international law, should be reinforced along the following lines. 

First, no nation should interfere in the politics of any other country through the funding or other support of political parties, movements, or candidates. 

Second, no nation or group of nations should deploy unilateral coercive measures, as recognized repeatedly by the UN General Assembly.

Third, in a world operating under the UN Charter, there is no need for nations to permanently station military forces in foreign countries other than according to UN Security Council decisions. Existing overseas military bases should be reduced dramatically in number with the aim of phasing out and eliminating overseas military bases over the course of the next 20 years. 

2.2 The UN Security Council and other UN agencies should be strengthened to keep the peace and sustain the security of UN member states.

The UN Security Council should be reformed, expanded, and empowered to keep the peace under the UN Charter. Reform of the structure of the UN Security Council is described in Section 5 below. Here we emphasize the enhanced power and tools of the UN Security Council, including super-majority voting within the Security Council to overcome the veto by one member; the power to ban the international flow of weapons to conflict zones; strengthened mediation and arbitration services; and enhanced funding of peacebuilding operations, especially in low-income settings. 

In addition to the Security Council, other key instrumentalities of global peacekeeping, human rights, and international law should be strengthened. These include the authority and independence of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, the functionality and support for UN-based humanitarian assistance especially in war zones, and the role of the UN Human Rights Council in defending and promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

2.3 The nuclear powers should return to the process of nuclear disarmament.

The greatest danger to global survival remains thermonuclear war. In this regard, the 10 nations with nuclear weapons have an urgent responsibility to abide by the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) mandate under Article VI “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” All nations, and especially the nuclear powers, should ratify and comply with the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. 

 

Governing Cutting-Edge Technologies 

3.1 Enhancing the multilateral governance of technological risks.

The world is experiencing unprecedented advances in the power, sophistication, and risks of advanced technologies across a range of sciences, technologies, and applications. These include biotechnology, including the ability to enhance pathogens and create new forms of life; artificial intelligence, including the potential for pervasive surveillance, spying, addiction, autonomous weapons, deep fakes, and cyberwarfare; nuclear weapons, notably the emergence of yet more powerful and destructive weapons and their deployment outside of international controls; and geoengineering, for example proposals to alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere and oceans, or to deflect solar radiation, in response to anthropogenic climate change.

We call on the UN General Assembly to establish urgent processes of global oversight of each class of cutting-edge technologies, including mandates to relevant UN agencies to report annually to the UN General Assembly on these technological developments, including their potential threats and requirements of regulatory oversight. 

3.2 Universal access to vital technologies.

In the spirit of Section 3.1, we also call upon the UN General Assembly to establish and support global and regional centers of excellence, training, and production to ensure that all parts of the world are empowered to participate in the research and development, production, and regulatory oversight of advanced technologies that actually support sustainable development (rather than hyper-militarization). Universities in all regions of the world should train and nurture the next generation of outstanding engineers and scientists needed to drive sustainable development, with expertise in structural transformations in energy, industry, agriculture, and the built environment. Africa in particular should be supported to build world-class universities in the coming years. 

3.3 Universal access to R&D capacities and platforms. 

More than ever, we need open science for scientists in poorer countries and regions, including universal free access to scientific and technical publications, to ensure the fair and inclusive access to the advanced technological knowledge and expertise that will shape global economy and global society in the twenty-first century. 

 

Educating Youth for Sustainable Development 

We call on the Summit of the Future to prioritize the access of every child on the planet to the core investments in their human capital, and to create new modalities of global long-term financing to ensure that the human right of every child to quality primary and secondary education, nutrition, and healthcare is fulfilled no later than 2030. 

4.2 Universal education for sustainable development and global citizenship (Paideia). 

In adopting the SDGs, the UN member states wisely recognized the need to educate the world’s children in the challenges of sustainable development. They did this in adopting Target 4.7 of the SDGs:

“4.7 By 2030 ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development”

Target 4.7 is, in effect, the call for a twenty-first-century paideia, the ancient Greek concept of the core knowledge, virtues, and skills that should be attained by all citizens of the Polis. Today, we have a global polis—a global citizenry—that must be equipped to foster and promote the values of sustainable development and the respect of human rights throughout the world. We call on the Summit of the Future to reinforce Target 4.7 and bring it to life in education for sustainable development around the world. This includes not only an updated and upgraded curriculum at all levels of education, but training at all stages of the life-cycle in the technical and ethical skills needed for a green, digital, and sustainable economy in an interconnected world. 

4.3 Council of Youth and Future Generations 

The empowerment of youth, by training, education, mentorship, and participation in public deliberations, can foster a new generation that is committed to sustainable development, peace, and global cooperation. A new UN Council of Youth and Future Generations can strengthen the UN’s activities in training and empowering young people and can provide a vital global voice of youth to today’s complex challenges. 

 

Transforming Global Governance Under the UN Charter

5.1 There should be the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly.

Around the world, civil society, scholars, and citizens have called for strengthening global institutions by establishing representation of “We the Peoples” in the UN. We propose as a first instance to establish a “UN Parliamentary Assembly” as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly according to Article XXII of the UN Charter (“The General Assembly may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.”). The new UN Parliamentary Assembly would be constituted by representative members of national parliaments, upon principles of representation established by the UN General Assembly. 

5.2 Other UN subsidiary bodies should be established.

Invoking the powers under Article XXII, the UN General Assembly should establish new subsidiary chambers as needed to support the processes of sustainable development, and the representativeness of UN institutions. The new chambers might include, inter alia:

• A Council of the Regions to enable representation of regional bodies such as ASEAN, the EU, African Union, Eurasian Economic Union, and others;

• A Council of Cities to enable representation of cities and other sub-national jurisdictions;

• A Council of Indigenous Peoples to represent the estimated 400 million indigenous peoples of the world;

• A Council of Culture, Religion, and Civilization’ to promote a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation for cultural diversity, religion, and civilizations;

• A Council of Youth and Future Generations to represent the needs and aspirations of today’s youth and of generations to come (see Section 4.3 above);

• A Council on the Anthropocene to support and enhance the work of the UN agencies in fulfilling the aims of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (including the Paris Climate Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework) and the environmental objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals.

5.3 The UN Security Council Should Be Reformed in Membership and Powers 

We call on the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly to adopt urgently needed reforms of the Security Council structure and processes. These should include: (1) the addition of India as a permanent member, considering that India represents no less than 18 percent of humanity, the third largest economy in the world at purchasing-power parity, and other attributes signifying India’s global reach in economy, technology, and geopolitical affairs; (2) the adoption of procedures to override a veto by a super-majority (perhaps of three-quarters of the votes); (3) an expansion and rebalancing of total seats to ensure that all regions of the world are better represented relative to their population shares; and (4) the adoption of new tools for addressing threats to the peace, as outlined in Section 2.2.

 

Reflection & Reconsideration

The most fundamental principle for our new world system must be mutual respect among nations. The world faces profound and unprecedented challenges—environmental destruction, widespread political instability, the weaponization of cutting-edge technologies, and the dramatic widening of inequalities of wealth and power—that can only be addressed through peaceful cooperation among nations. Yet, despite the urgency of cooperation, we are drifting towards wider war.

The UN is very much a work in progress. It is the creation of a very different world, one that was dominated by the United States in the intermediate aftermath of World War II. At 79 years old, the UN is still an infant in the age-old challenge of good governance and international statecraft. In a world filled to the brim with ever more powerful weaponry, especially nuclear weaponry, solving the challenge of peaceful cooperation is the most vital challenge of all.

The Summit of the Future is therefore a key moment for reflection and reconsideration on how to govern our new multipolar world, at a time of unprecedented challenges facing humanity. The world’s challenges will certainly not be solved at the September conference, but the Summit of the Future can nevertheless mark a vital starting point for a new global governance in which all regions of the world contribute cooperatively to the global common good.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned economics professor, bestselling author, innovative educator, and global leader in sustainable development. Originally published on the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development. 

Source link

Related:

China's GDI, GSI, and GCI foster global cooperation, address urgent challenges

Related posts:

UN Pact for the Future builds up a hard-won consensus

 

Pope Francis, power rivalry and the global order

The Economics of The Halal Scam, A Blockbuster By Sam The CEO.

 

The following is written by my friend Sam The CEO or Sam The Oilman.

Sunday Sermon: The Economics of The Halal Scam. 

Or How to Make the Clerical and Political Class Rich on the Backs of Muslims and Make Them Poorer

My thesis: The halal concept is a bureaucratic structure made up by the clerical class initially for political power. And like any creation of political power, it was not long before it became a set of regulatory rules that induces payment, i.e. corruption, in order for the ordinary citizen to exist or make an honest living.

Think about this:

1. It creates additional cost for compliance

2. The product is actually still the same but costs more to obtain Halal approval and/or certification

There is ZERO innovation or new products created that provide either a game-changing technology or societal progress for society. 

It is just extra costs for the same damn thing which such extra costs goes into the pockets of the powers that be and their cronies to line-up their pockets. That includes the civil service authorities that are employed at the expense of tax-payers with no productive value. 

Repeat after me:   ZERO PRODUCTIVE VALUE

The Quran never asks Muslims to set up Halal certification. You only need to assess for yourself to your own confidence whether it is halal or otherwise. There is no compulsion on you or others for halal certification. It is your call. It is FOC.

But Halal certification makes money. And in our modern economics, halal certification controls whole industries and prints money for those with the power to create and maintain such systems. And muslims become poorer for it.

The Halal Banking Scam

Don't just think about food. Take the banking and investment sector. Money is money. The source of money is the same. It flows through various industries the way water meander through rivers, oceans, up to the clouds and rain back down to earth in a cycle. There is no halal water. There is no halal money. There is only money.

None of the loan you take on syariah terms makes any sense. They still charge you interest. They just don't call it interest. The Quran forbade "usury" i.e. "making obscene profits" not interest. Instead today, any cursory review shows that syariah-compliant loans often have effectively usurious interest rates compared to non-syariah loans. But why not? Because:

1. You have now entrapped muslims into a system where they think this is the only choice for the islamic ethical system of "halal" - so charge more for this monopoly. You now can funnel muslim money based on this "ethical" conundrum.

(ps. BlackRock invented its halal investment: ESG. And they have their own halal/ESG certification ratings body)

2. Just for this certification, it will naturally cost more because the money is from the same banking system but with the halal system adding another layer of costs.

This is basically re-badging a product. Import the car from China and put the Pr*t*n logo on it and call it Halal. Charge 'em more. 

Conclusion

1. The Halal System is maintained to make money for the political and clerical/authority class and their cronies. Nothing more, nothing less. But the clerics can make people stupid and don't think. So what else are we going to do? S*d*mise them as much as you can.

2. A society that is this dumb, wastes time and money on unproductive economic activities - making this and that halal, having it certified halal. None of which creates anything new. There is no innovation, creativity or even productivity. It is in fact counter-productive. It is a net negative economic sector for the population as a whole. If there is innovation - it is the innovation the way scammers innovate to scam their victims. That's about it.

Such a society cannot evolve to be a civilised and progressive society because its economic focus is on a negative productivity sector with no industrial innovation and the money goes down the drain of corruption.

There is a lesson to be learnt here somewhere. If only we think. 

By Syed Akbar Ali at September 29, 2024

 Source link

Global Ikhwan Service and Business Holding (GISB) When the long arm of the law seems too short

 

Exterior view of Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings (GISBH) headquarters in Rawang on Sept 12, 2024. - (Photo by FAZRY ISMAIL / EPA)

Global Ikhwan Service and Business Holdings (GISB), a company embroiled in controversy recently over the exploitation of children in 20 charity homes, was originally founded by the banned Al-Arqam leader, Ashaari Muhammad, under the name Global Ikhwan Sdn Bhd.

According to GISBH Holdings' 2024 corporate video on the company’s website, after Ashaari’s death in 2010, GISBH was led by two former executive chairpersons, Hatijah Aam who was Ashaari's wife and Datuk Mohd Rasidi Abdullah.

Currently, GISBH is headed by Datuk Nasiruddin Mohd Ali, who served as both executive chairman and chief executive officer.

Based on the website, the company was established to promote an Islamic way of life in all aspects, including education, arts, culture and agriculture.

At present, GISBH operates 415 business networks in 20 countries, including Britain, the UAE and France.

GISBH employed 5,346 people across 25 of its subsidiaries, with key assets such as restaurants in London, Paris, Istanbul, Dubai and Makkah; accommodations in Turkey; a hotel in Sarajevo; and a 48-hectare farm in Perth, Australia.

"There are 1,656 families within GISBH and its business network, 425 of which are polygamous families," according to the corporate video.

- SinarDsily.

With every revelation related to Gisb, more questions emerge.

WE should all be shocked, angry and, yes, absolutely disgusted, which was how Federal Police Criminal Investigation Department director Datuk Seri Mohd Shuhaily Mohd Zain felt regarding the investigation into Global Ikhwan Service and Business Holding (GISB).

“All I can say is... In this case, I am disgusted by the findings (of the investigation),” he told the press. This was in the early days following the police’s Sept 11 raid of 20 GISB-RUN charity houses in Selangor and Negri Sembilan. A total of 402 children aged between one and 17 years were rescued, and 171 individuals were arrested.

While Shuhaily declined to explain his feelings of disgust, the nation soon knew the reason: Many of the children in those homes were subjected to horrific treatment and exploitation.

By Monday, the number had risen to 572 children rescued from GISB care homes, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, who added that the authorities had opened 80 investigation papers against the company and 359 individuals associated with the company had been detained in connection with the ongoing investigation.

This is unfortunately shaping up to be Malaysia’s worst child abuse scandal. But possibly, the most shocking revelation is that the children are not orphans but third or fourth-generation offspring of GISB members, who are estimated to number about 10,000.

Inspector-general of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Razarudin Husain disclosed that the children were separated from their parents from as young as two years old and spent their formative years entirely in these homes.

The public also got to know that GISB goes back to the outlawed organisation Al-arqam. Older Malaysians will recall how Ashaari Muhammad, the founder, was arrested and Al-arqam banned in 1994 for deviant teachings. But the movement did not die out, with the remnant followers keeping Ashaari’s ideology and business activities alive by setting up Rufaqa Corporation.

When the government went after Rufaqa for trying to revive Al-arqam, it morphed into GISB, which was established by Khadijah Aam, Ashaari’s widow, before his death in 2010.

According to reports, GISB positions itself as a bumiputra-muslim-run business with assets worth Rm325mil and an annual revenue of Rm187mil, and numerous supermarkets, bakeries, pharmacies, factories and restaurants in Malaysia and 20 other countries.

The Malaysian Reserve reported that it even has accommodations in Turkiye, a hotel in Sarajevo, Bosnia-herzegovina, and a 120acre estate in Perth, Australia. It has more than 5,300 employees under its 25 subsidiaries.

Just how this group could flourish under the guise of another name in the last 15 years or so is simply mind-boggling. Understandably, people and civil groups like G25 are asking why action was only taken now when Razarudin said police had been investigating 41 police reports over the allegations since 2011. Not only that, the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) was also aware of the issues surrounding GISB since 2019.

By way of explareligion,nation, the IGP said it could only make the arrests after receiving “credible evidence” while Jakim director-general Datin Hakimah Mohd Yusoff claimed action was taken against the company since February 2019 in the form of 12 meetings, workshops, special task forces and collaborations with national security agencies such as the National Security Council, Home Ministry, and police. Go figure.

As for the credible evidence, was it supplied by the Malaysia Centre for the Study of Heresy (Pukas) when it revealed GISB’S alleged deviant activities on its Facebook page?

Whenever illegal and immoral activities are done behind a veil of religiosity, the authorities will understandably want to tread carefully. But 13 years of investigation is jaw-droppingly slow.

If Jakim had pushed for real action five years ago, how many of the 572 children could have been spared the inhumane treatment and indoctrination they went through? At least one teacher has pleaded guilty to four charges of abusing three boys and was sentenced to 10 years’ jail by the Klang Sessions Court. Police said these children are

nd third or even fourth-generation offspring, which shows how long this has been going on and how tightly controlled GISB members are.

While the children have been rescued, they may face further problems with their status. According to press reports quoting Syariah Lawyers Association of Malaysia president Musa Awang, they could face the risk of being declared anak wati’ syubhah (children born from illegitimate intercourse) under syariah law if the parents cannot prove their marital status.

Weeks after the police raids on the homes, none of the parents of the rescued children had come forward to claim their children, Razarudin said, because to do so would expose their facade of presenting the charity homes as orphanages to solicit donations.

Surely it can’t get uglier than this – parents denying or abandoning their children to save their own hides. Will the authorities resort to DNA tests then to match children and parents?

What has also emerged from this scandal is the claim and counterclaim between agencies. On Sept 25, Razarudin had asserted that its investigation with the Inland Revenue Board (LHDN) under the Income Tax Act 1967 showed that the company had never paid their relevant taxes.

On Monday, however, LHDN issued a statement saying the IGP was only referring to the current assessment year, and that it had conducted more than 60 audits on GISB, its associated companies and individuals in previous assessment years, resulting in fines that had been paid by the respective taxpayers.

The Selangor Zakat Board has also come out to say the 20-plus Gisb-linked companies had never paid their business zakat (tithe). This coming from a self-styled bumiputra-muslim company is truly despicable.

Yet another revelation on Monday showed how widespread the company’s tentacles went.

According to Malaysia Competition Commission chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Hishamudin Yunus, GISB Travel & Tours Sdn Bhd is among 81 companies that might face financial penalties for allegedly participating in a price-fixing agreement for umrah travel services in Malaysia from early 2023.

While Perlis Mufti Datuk Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin – who, in early September, urged the authorities to investigate GISB – has issued a fatwa declaring the group’s beliefs and teachings to be deviant and a continuation of Al-arqam, other states have yet to do so.

Declaring fatwas against them, shutting down their businesses, freezing their bank accounts, and arresting and charging the perpetrators are all well and good. But all this still pales in comparison to what they have done to hundreds of vulnerable, innocent children for decades.

One might say it has nothing to do with religion, or rather that the religion was misused. But this country needs to do more against those who will use religion to mislead many for their evil and self-serving ends.

What we need is a Royal Commission of Inquiry to find out exactly how and why, despite numerous reports lodged against it, a banned deviant group was allowed to keep reinventing itself into a multi-national empire and evade taxes, brainwash thousands of followers and run homes of horror for children for years.

His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia, has called for a thorough investigation into the alleged crimes and child abuse, and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has also spoken: No one can hide behind religion or race if found guilty of child abuse or exploitation. “Do not use race, do not use religion. If you are oppressive, break the law, or abuse and mistreat children, you are in the wrong.”

The views expressed here are the writer’s own.

JUNE HL Wong

Source link