Pages

Share This

Thursday, June 2, 2022

UK audit shake-up after spate of corporate failures; The two sides of the EY break-up

 

The Big Four

Britain to shake up audit market after Carillion crash

Britain to shake up audit market after Carillion crash - Reuters

 

FILE PHOTO: A view of the London skyline shows the City of London financial district, seen from St Paul's Cathedral in London, Britain February 25, 2017. REUTERS/Neil Hall/File Photo/File PhotoReuters

UK Audit Shake-Up Targets Big Firms After Spate of Corporate Failures

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain set out sweeping reforms of big company audits on Tuesday after high-profile collapses at builder Carillion and retailer BHS in recent years hit thousands of jobs and raised questions about accounting quality.

The business ministry detailed changes to auditing and corporate governance that will be put into law, though the measures are unlikely to come into force until 2024 or later and smaller firms will be shielded from the new rules.

The reforms are in response to 150 recommendations from three government-sponsored reviews on improving auditing in a market dominated by KPMG, EY, PwC and Deloitte, known as the Big Four.

The new law would create a more powerful regulator, the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA), to push through changes set out by government.

In the meantime, the current watchdog, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), will have powers to vet audit companies and ban failing auditors, the ministry said.

Britain will also review a European Union definition of "micro entities", which benefit from simplified accounts. They typically have a balance sheet of no more than 350,000 euros ($377,230) and employ no more than 10 people.

Loosening the definition would mean more firms saving money by filing simplified accounts, though it could raise investor protection concerns. Other reporting requirements will also be reviewed to help attract growth companies to Britain.

The FRC currently focuses on big listed companies, but ARGA's remit would expand to include about 600 private firms with more than 750 staff and an annual turnover of over 750 million pounds ($949 million), a higher threshold than initially flagged. BHS was unlisted.

NO UK SARBANES-OXLEY

To curtail the dominance of the Big Four, the top 350 listed companies would have to appoint a non-Big Four accountant, or allocate a certain portion of their audit to a smaller accountant such as Mazars, BDO or Grant Thornton.

The business ministry could introduce market share caps on the Big Four if there is no improvement in competition.

Directors of premium listed companies would also have to state why they think their internal controls are effective.

This would be done under Britain's "comply or explain" corporate governance code, which the FRC can change without legislation.

UK companies pushed back against enshrining in law a version of mandatory U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley rules, which force U.S. directors to personally attest to the adequacy of internal controls, and face prison for breaches.

"Lessons from Carillion and other recent company failures have been ignored, with little emphasis now on tightening internal controls and modernising corporate governance," said Michael Izza, chief executive of ICAEW, a professional accounting body.

FRC chief Jon Thompson said: "The Government’s decision not to pursue the introduction of a version of the Sarbanes-Oxley reporting regime is, the FRC believes, a missed opportunity to improve internal controls in a proportionate, UK-specific manner."

Big firms would also have to state what external checks, if any, were made on the reliability of their non-financial information in annual reports, such as risks from climate change.

Larger companies would have to confirm the legality of their dividends, a lesson from Carillion. 

Source link

 

Insight - The two sides of the EY break-up

 

For its part, EY is under particular pressure due to its auditing of collapsed German payments firm Wirecard AG – although it’s not clear that a break-up would rid it of any liabilities arising from that failure. Perhaps EY is preempting tougher regulation.Or perhaps it just sees an opportunity to monetise some of it assets.

  A possible split of EY into separate audit and consulting firms must confront the problem faced by all break-ups: How do you create attractive businesses out of both when one is likely to be seen as inferior?

Here, that would be the newly established standalone auditor. EY – or any Big Four accounting firm that attempts such a separation – has its work cut out to make pure-play audit a success.

The revelation by Michael West Media that EY is considering the move heralds a potentially seismic shift for the industry.

A succession of accounting scandals has long prompted attacks on the Big Four for earning fees from audit clients by selling consulting services such as strategy or restructuring advice.

There’s an inherent conflict of interest in offering these to the same executives whose homework you’re meant to be marking.

While regulatory scrutiny is forcing firms to tread carefully, creating distinct companies is the most reliable remedy.

The United Kingdom’s competition watchdog called for an “operational separation” of audit and consulting within the existing firms in 2019, stopping short of demanding full break-ups because of cost and complexity.

For its part, EY is under particular pressure due to its auditing of collapsed German payments firm Wirecard AG – although it’s not clear that a break-up would rid it of any liabilities arising from that failure.

Perhaps EY is preempting tougher regulation.

Or perhaps it just sees an opportunity to monetise some of it assets.

One option under consideration is the sale of a stake in the consulting business to a private buyer or to the stock market, creating a windfall for EY’s current partners, according to the Financial Times. Demand would likely be strong.

Just look at the private-equity money piling in lately. PwC sold a tax advisory practice to Clayton, Dubilier & Rice for a reported US$2.2bil (RM9.6bil) last year, while KPMG offloaded its UK restructuring arm to HIG Capital LLC.

But what about the rump that remains?

While the underlying economics of the Big Four are opaque, there’s a widespread suspicion that consulting subsidises audit.

At the very least, the ability to share costs means audit fees are lower than they would be for a distinct firm, regulators have found.

Retaining talent

The biggest challenge is how a standalone auditor would attract and retain talent without offering an in-house career in consulting as an option.

Short-sellers and forensic investigators aside, checking company accounts is for many a laborious gateway to other roles.

Audit partners accused of getting it wrong have regulatory probes hanging over them for years (an investigation into Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc’s 2010 accounts only just closed).

No wonder juniors tend to jump ship to better paid and less risky careers in consulting or investment banking not long after they’re qualified.

So auditing will have to be made more attractive, both financially and culturally.

One place to start is expanding the function beyond checking financial statements to offering sophisticated checks on companies’ claims on non-financial performance such as climate and social impact.

When the United States Securities and Exchange Commission is clamping down on greenwashing by investment funds, it’s clear the future of environmental, social and governance investing rests on companies proving they’re not cooking the books on these issues too.

These public-interest assessments are going to be increasingly scrutinised by investors in future.

They are already offered under the umbrella of so-called assurance services, but ought to become a more developed part of corporate reporting.

That would involve transferring some skills over from the consultancy side. The trick will be to add in parts of the current consulting business that are relevant to a more modern vision of audit, without just recreating a new auditor-cum-consultancy.

Of course, separation won’t eliminate all the conflicts in audit.

The chief culprit is the way managers often effectively appoint the audit partners who are meant to be their policemen.

But the prize for stock-market investors is improved audit quality, and a break-up could support that.

The goal should be to create a virtuous circle.

Make audit more enticing as a long-term career, attract people who do the work better – and hopefully cut the number of blow-ups. — Bloomberg

Chris Hughes is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.

Source link

 

Related news

 UK Auditors - Chartered Accountant Audits UK

 

Inside EY's break-up plan: why it could radically reshape the ...

 

EY plans to spin off audit business in shake-up for industry

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Ex-property agent in S’pore fined record S$1.16mil for illegally subletting private homes on Airbnb, HomeAway

Simon Chan Chai Wan paid his accomplice Zhao Jing a monthly salary of $4,000 for helping him. PHOTOS: SGP BUSINESS


Chan had illegally rented residential properties such as Caribbean at Keppel Bay (pictured). — The Straits Times/ANN

 

A 57-YEAR-OLD man was fined a record S$1,158,000 (RM3.7mil) for offences related to unauthorised short-term accommodation.

Simon Chan Chai Wan had illegally provided short-term rents in 14 private residential properties to local and foreign guests through platforms such as Airbnb and HomeAway.

His accomplice Zhao Jing, 43, was fined S$84,000 (RM268,000) for aiding him in carrying out the offences.

The properties included units in International Plaza, Robinson Suites, Claremont, Centrepoint Apartments, The Abode at Devonshire and Caribbean at Keppel Bay.

Zhao and Chan, who are a couple, were licensed real estate agents at the time of the offences, court documents said.

They were the directors of two companies, HTM Solutions and HTM Management, and Chan is the former director of SNS Infotech Global.

Chan would enter into tenancy agreements with the units’ owners using the three companies as corporate vehicles, and sublet the units for short-term accommodations on the platforms.

Chan had also persuaded Zhao to be the sole tenant for four of the units.

From June 30, 2017, to July 2018, Chan’s total revenue was S$1,254,907.78 (RM4mil).

He paid Zhao a monthly salary of S$4,000 (RM12,000) for helping him. Zhao would have received S$52,000 (RM166,000) for the period of the offences.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority said in a statement that all private residential properties rented out for accommodation are subject to a minimum stay of three consecutive months.

"Property owners should also exercise due diligence to ensure that their properties are not used by their tenants for unauthorised purposes," it said.

Unauthorised short-term accommodation not only changes the residential character of a property, but also causes disamenities to neighbouring residents.” — The Straits Times/ANN 

Source link

 Ex-agent gets record fine for illegally subletting private homes

Singapore Airbnb host hit with $845k fine - New Straits Times

Property agent suspended, fined for altering documents to earn extra commissions

 

Related posts:

Penang State to study Airbnb woes before legalising operations; More Malaysians are using Airbnb to settle mortgages

 

Airbnb and other Home-sharing businesses have Hotels worried in US

 

Homestays, a booming business: Homes vs hotels, a study of the industry

Tuesday, May 31, 2022

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should investigate US shootings

 

America's lucrative gun business Cartoon: Carlos Latuff

 

US President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden visited the Texan town of Uvalde on Sunday, laying a bouquet for the 21 victims, including 19 children, in the latest mass shooting. The grief that this school tragedy brought to American society is far from dissipating. Only 12 days ago, the Bidens were at the site of another mass shooting - a supermarket in Buffalo, New York - to mourn the 10 victims. Just in the past weekend, there were multiple shootings across the US, killing at least six people and injuring more than 30 others.

Public anger is growing as more details of the Robb Elementary School shooting are revealed. According to reports, as many as 19 police officers stood in a hallway outside the classroom where the gunman was hiding for nearly an hour before they opened the door. One of the young victims bled to death while waiting for police to come, media reported. The New York Times released an opinion piece titled "Don't Talk to Me About 'Civility.' On Tuesday Morning Those Children Were Alive," denouncing the hypocrisy of the so-called "civility" hyped by the American elites. Biden also asked: "These kinds of mass shootings rarely happen anywhere else in the world. Why are we willing to live with this carnage? Why do we keep letting this happen?"

But in a country that prides itself on being a "beacon of light," the clamor of public opinion as well as the condemnation from celebrities and politicians are not enough for the US system to reform its gun laws. The number of shootings in the US is increasing, like black ants gathering around rotting flesh. 2022 is not even halfway over, and more than 17,000 Americans, including 650 children, have already died from gun violence. Some Western media believe that US society has become "numb" in one shooting incident after another. Living a normal life after the gunfire should be called "American characteristics." And the American people can only dodge the bullets that come at any time by luck.

Such tragedies are exacerbated by the division of American politics. One can see that "rituals" are replacing real reflection as the standard procedure for each tragic incident. Flags were lowered at half-mast when a million Americans died due to epidemic control failure. The flags were lowered for the slow search and rescue of people trapped in collapsed houses, and for the mass casualties by shootings.

After the president and politicians made mournful rhetoric, saying "enough" and calling for "change," and gun ownership showed "a glimpse of regret" at charity dinners, the country can move on. Then the two parties will put their own spin on it. These tragedies have turned into weapons against opponents in a partisan struggle. When it comes to the problem itself, it has become a ball to be kicked around.

In addition to the weak gun control, the shootings also reflect the intensification of various social contradictions in the US, such as the wealth gap, racial discrimination, drug abuse, and public security. The US system is equally incapable, or lacks interest, motivation, and courage, to address these problems thoroughly. Behind the opposition to gun control are powerful interest groups and the inertia of the traditional understanding of guns in US society. The huge influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in American politics daunts every politician. People's rights are always giving way to political interests or "political correctness." This is the inherent logic of the US system.

It is worth noting that when the US' internal problems have become increasingly prominent, it has intensified its external aggression, which is a vicious circle at another level. US Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday spoke at a memorial service for Ruth Whitfield, a victim of the Buffalo supermarket shooting, that the US "is experiencing an epidemic of hate." Another fact that she was reluctant and inconvenient to say is that the US is undergoing "an epidemic of hostility" externally. In recent days, Washington was still obsessed with fabricating a lie of the century over "the human rights in Xinjiang" and has been recklessly attacking and smearing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet's visit to China. They probably did not expect Bachelet to reserve her longest answer for the US shootings and the racism at the press conference at the end of her visit. She said that "people believe that they are superior to others and feel they have the right to kill other people, but they are not.

Facts have proven once again that the "darkness under the lights," including the shooting cases, is a chronic human rights disease that the US, the so-called "beacon of light," neither dares nor is willing to illuminate. To solve this problem, one cannot rely on self-touching "ceremonies," or use "human rights" as a weapon to attack other countries. We urge the US government to take concrete actions to solve its own severe human rights problems, and stop being a negative example of double standards in terms of human rights. We call on the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to launch an investigation into human rights problems in the US as soon as possible, so that the US-style hegemony cannot cover up its bad deeds.

Source link

RELATED ARTICLES
 
 

Related posts

 

    Michelle Bachelet Photo: Courtesy of Embassy of Chile in Beijing Western human rights groups are trying to make UN Human Rights Of.\

 

    US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Photo: VCG US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Photo: VCG  US Secretary of State Antony Bli...

 

COVID-19 in the US - a tragedy ignored, Four COVID-death peaks: the failure of the US anti-epidemic policy; WHO okayed vaccines including CanSinoBIO jab

 Photo: VCG

Sunday, May 29, 2022

By trying to pressure Bachelet, the US and West are unable to create an ‘iron curtain’ of human rights: Global Times editorial

 
 

Michelle Bachelet Photo: Courtesy of Embassy of Chile in Beijing

Western human rights groups are trying to make UN Human Rights Office their puppet

What Bachelet actually has seen and heard in Xinjiang is definitely quite different from how the Western media portray it. China has shown respect for Bachelet's visit, but human rights groups in the West have refused to do so.

Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrapped up her six-day visit to China on Saturday. This is the first visit by a UN high commissioner for human rights in 17 years. On Saturday night, Bachelet briefed reporters about her visit online, saying, "The visit was an opportunity to hold direct discussions - with China's most senior leaders - on human rights, to listen to each other" and "poverty alleviation as well as the eradication of extreme poverty, 10 years ahead of its target date, are tremendous achievements of China."

Regarding Xinjiang-related topics that have attracted much attention from the outside world, Bachelet visited Kashi, Urumqi and other places, walked into the cotton fields, and watched an exhibition on the theme of anti-terrorism and de-radicalization. During her Xinjiang visit, she also had discussions and exchanges with people from all walks of life such as ethnic minorities, experts and scholars. At the press conference, Bachelet specifically pointed out that her talks were conducted without supervision.

This development euphemistically responds to the conspiracy theories that have been deliberately created by US and Western public opinion for quite some time. Before Bachelet's visit to China began, the US, the UK and other countries threw out "questions" based on the presumption of guilt, asserting that the high commissioner's visit was "a mistake." After Bachelet honestly and objectively told the press conference her experience and details of her stay in China, some stubborn Westerners still turned a blind eye to all this. The US State Department even takes the lead by expressing its "concerns" and its feeling of being "troubled," and it accused China of restricting and manipulating Bachelet's visit. It also put forward its previous tailor-made lies about Xinjiang region again.

It is noticed that at first, it was the US-led Western countries that had kept pushing Bachelet to visit China, and now they have made a turnabout to attack Bachelet for no reason. Their ulterior political purpose is becoming more and more explicit.

In previous years, Xinjiang region was deeply affected by terrorism and religious extremism. But China has cracked down on terrorist activities in accordance with the law, safeguarded the lives and properties of people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang, and effectively protected their human rights. After unremitting efforts, Xinjiang has become free of violent terrorism for more than five years in a row, with social security and stability, development continuing to improve, and people living and working in peace and happiness. However, some people in the US and the West stubbornly refuse to believe the reality in Xinjiang, and insist on imagining Xinjiang as a big theater with 25 million "extras," which is an insult to the intelligence of those who have seen the reality of the region.

Realities have proven time and again that the "iron curtain of human rights" created by those extremist forces trying to exploit the Xinjiang-related affairs is vulnerable. In recent years, the US-led West made up the so-called missing person list, and by invoking the rhetoric of "concentration camps" and other historical memories of the people of Western countries, they had forcibly imposed the labels of "genocide" and "forced labor" on Xinjiang. The more exaggerated their lies, the easier they will be exposed. Actually, anyone who has been to Xinjiang can see the absurdity of the US and the West in demonizing the region.

People attend a culture and tourism festival themed on Dolan and Qiuci culture in Awat County of Aksu Prefecture, northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous region, Oct. 25, 2019. The festival kicked off recently in Aksu Prefecture. (Xinhua/Sadat)

People attend a culture and tourism festival themed on Dolan and Qiuci culture in Awat County of Aksu Prefecture, northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous region, Oct. 25, 2019. The festival kicked off recently in Aksu Prefecture. (Xinhua/Sadat)

It should be said that by visiting China under the pressure of the US and Western forces, Bachelet showed her efforts to learn the truth beyond the Western public opinion poisoned by these extremist forces. As Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that the high commissioner for human rights' trip to China would help enhance understanding and cooperation and clarify misinformation. We also expect that Bachelet would bring her comprehensive experience of a true Xinjiang to more people in the West who are willing to know the truth.

Of course, some people who pretend to be asleep may never be waken up. While Bachelet's visit was still underway, some so-called anonymous senior diplomats told media that the visit "is a victory to China." As human rights progress is endless, how can it be said to win or lose? Such rhetoric just reveals the genuine intent of the US and the West, which is to regard the normal exchanges and interactions between the UN high commissioner for human rights and China as part of a geopolitical game. They are trying so hard to "convict" China. As to the real situation in Xinjiang region, it doesn't matter to them at all.

It's precisely because of this that they must conduct an "investigation" on China with the presumption of guilt - whoever draws the conclusion of "genocide" and "forced labor" is "reliable." Such presumption of guilt is almost insane. In their eyes, a lunatic who claims that "people will be cut off their hands and feet when they arrive in Xinjiang," and "people will be shot dead if they refuse to eat pork" may appear to be "more credible" than the UN human rights chief. It has to be said that in order to smear and attack China, some people in the US and West have already broken the bottom line of common sense in their evil narratives against Xinjiang.

China's progress itself is a mirror. This is also true in the field of human rights. Bachelet's visit to China once again sends a message to the US and Western forces who engage in the manipulation of "using Xinjiang to contain China": Dark clouds cannot cover the sun and will only make people more appreciate the blue sky behind them.

Source link

 

Xinjiang visit 'unsupervised' and 'open,' UN human rights chief says as she wraps up China trip

By stressing her trip is not an investigation, UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet ended her six-day visit in China and its Xinjiang region with a statement on Saturday night and said her mission had wide and open discussions with ...

MOST VIEWED
 

Saturday, May 28, 2022

World needs more than ‘beautiful words’ from the US: Global Times editorial

 
 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Photo: VCG US Secretary of State Antony Blinken Photo: VCG 


US Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered a speech on US' China policy at George Washington University on Thursday, which is so far the most comprehensive and systematic policy exposition by the Biden administration on the relations between the two countries.

In a speech that lasted about an hour, Blinken outlined the Biden administration's China strategy as "invest, align and compete." That is, invest in US competitiveness, align with allies and partners, and compete with China, in an attempt to form the so-called "comprehensive deterrence" against China.

In general, this speech appears to be relatively "restrained," especially compared with the "new iron curtain speech" by former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo in 2020, with a posture that is less aggressive and bellicose. It even contained some "beautiful words."

For example, Blinken expressed the willingness to strengthen direct "communication across a full range of issues" with China, adding that Washington "does not seek to transform China's political system," and "does not seek to stop China from growing their economy," the US "does not want a new Cold War," "does not want to sever China's economy from the global economy" and "does not support Taiwan independence." However, as an old Chinese saying goes: "We do not only listen to what one says but also watch what one does." We will wait and see.

Of course, that is not the whole content of Blinken's speech. Those "beautiful words" often come with a following sentence, like stating that Beijing poses the "most serious long-term challenge" to the international order, and it is necessary to ensure that China complies with international rules while the US "will shape the strategic environment around Beijing" and "call for change, not to stand against China, but to stand up for peace, security, and human dignity." The US policy toward Taiwan island remains unchanged, but "what has changed is Beijing's growing coercion."

The diplomatic rhetoric still requests Beijing to submit to Washington's hegemonic demands and this speech on China policy follows Washington's inconsistency between minds and words. It wants to be in the international moral high ground while putting the interests of the US first.

We certainly hope that Washington is serious about not falling into a "new Cold War" with China, but the biggest problem is that it always says one thing and does another. US President Joe Biden announced the launch of the "Indo-Pacific Economic Framework" during his just-concluded Asian trip, which is considered to be a "clique" to exclude China, and issued a joint statement with many parts of the content targeting China after the Quad summit. On many occasions, the US has talked a lot about "avoiding a new Cold War," but in practice, it has divided the camp with ideology, put the pluralistic world into a battle between "democracy" and "autocracy" and arbitrarily asked other countries to choose sides. Isn't this paving the way for a "new Cold War?"

Even in Blinken's latest policy speech declaring "no new Cold War," many of his words reflect ideological prejudice and Cold War mindset, which is consistent with the characteristics of the US' current behavior. For example, China is described as a "challenge", while the US' response is a kind of "deterrence," as if China is the aggressor and the US is the defender. On the Taiwan question, the Chinese mainland is accused of unilaterally changing the status quo, which actually should be blamed on the Taiwan secessionist force. These are all discourse traps that turn black into white.

In addition, Blinken continued the practice of the Pompeo era of trying to separate the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government from the Chinese people, which not only is an attack on the country's system but also is arrogant to the Chinese people.

The reason why it appears less "bellicose" is that - Blinken himself actually touched on - the US has limited ability to directly influence China's "intentions" and "ambitions." It is worth mentioning that what Blinken did not express in his speech is precisely the reality that the US has to face. For example, he emphasized that the US is still a diverse and dynamic society, but the backdrop is the rampant racism in the country, repeated gun violence and other chronic problems that are hard to eradicate. He talked a lot about allies and partnerships, but reality is that the US is experiencing a credibility crisis globally. The areas where Blinken said in a very positive tone are precisely the dilemmas the country is facing.

In any case, compared to his predecessor, Blinken's China policy speech seemed "more prudent" and it at least touched on many areas where China and the US could cooperate. He said the US will cooperate with China when it should.

In recent years, US' choice to confront China hasn't made the US great again. China's policy toward the US is consistent and clear, and it always fulfills its commitment. The key point is whether the US can walk the talk. The mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation between China and the US are good news for China and the US and good news for the whole world.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Honesty is the best policy." Although Washington is stronger in discourse power, yet the world expects the US to keep its words and deeds in carrying out cooperation and managing differences, not just say "beautiful words" to move itself.

  Source link

MOST VIEWED
 

 

  llustration: Chen Xia/Global Times    What is U.S. President Joe Biden's Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) all ab...
 
China’s search for technological mastery will succeed because it is essentially replicating the actual history of the economi...
 

  Unmasking the superpower: Human rights destroyer Native Americans, refugees from US-initiated wars, Floyds and child...

LETHAL LURE OF JOBS ABROAD, Baited and trapped

Malaysians fail for offers of lucrative jobs overseas only to end up scrammed 

Families seek help from authorities to rescue job scam victims abroad

 

KUALA LUMPUR: Desperate for work after the Covid-19 pandemic left them jobless, hundreds of Malaysians pounced on offers of high-paying jobs abroad when borders reopened.

They were in for an ugly surprise.

They soon found out they had become victims of job scams and, with their travel documents taken away, are now stranded in several Indochinese countries.

Police said initial investigations showed the scams are run by human trafficking syndicates in Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar.

Bukit Aman CID director Comm Datuk Seri Abd Jalil Hassan (pic) told The Star that 115 Malaysians were still stranded in these countries, desperate to return home.

Statistics from the federal police showed as at May 23, 100 men and 15 women aged between 17 and 41, were still stuck in various countries including Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos.

“We have received a total of 110 police reports on Malaysians stranded abroad after being victims of job scams.

“We believe the victims have been stranded there for at least six months. We are actively pursuing all cases to assist the victims,” he added.

Police reports were lodged by the victims’ families after they managed to call home, he said.

“In most cases, the victims managed to inform their family members of their predicament.

“We believe the number of police reports increased after the recent successful rescue of Malaysians abroad, with such cases being highlighted in the media,” he added.

Last month, the Malaysian Embassy in Cambodia said it had rescued more than 60 Malaysians coerced into working for scam call centres over the past few years.

On April 6, 16 Malaysians held captive in Sihanoukville on the south coast of Cambodia were also rescued.

The victims claimed they were duped by offers of jobs as customer service representatives with lucrative salaries for a Cambodian company.

Once in Cambodia, their personal documents were seized and their movements restricted.

Since the reopening of the country’s borders, more dubious job offers were being uploaded on social media, Comm Abd Jalil said.

“Some people are desperate due to a lack of jobs because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Among the main factors that enticed victims to such job scams are lucrative salary offers and benefits.

“We believe the convenience of finding a job overseas is also a factor that influenced the victims’ decisions,” he added.

Comm Abd Jallil said initial investigations showed the syndicates were forcing these Malaysians into working in scams and gambling dens.

“We are building more intelligence on the human trafficking syndicates to effectively clamp down on such job scams.

“We are working hard with the Interpol and Aseanapol to track down and rescue victims.

“We are also collaborating with the Foreign Ministry to expedite efforts in rescuing the victims overseas,” he added.

He also appealed for more awareness to prevent others from falling victims.

“We are working with government agencies and NGOs especially the MCA Public Services and Complaints Department on creating more awareness on such job scams.

“We are focusing on the importance of being careful when considering jobs offered overseas via social media,” he said.

Comm Abd Jalil advised the public to know and adhere to local laws and regulations when accepting jobs overseas.

“Before accepting any job offers, do a thorough background check on the prospective employer or company,” he said.

Comm Abd Jalil added that the police welcome information on syndicates that duped Malaysians and forced them to conduct illegal activities overseas.

“Those with information can contact the nearest police station,” he said. 

  Source link

Related stories:

Duped by the promise of high salaries

Don't fall prey to foreign job scams: Bukit Aman

Related posts:

The telltale signs of a scam, Macau scams: Spot, avoid and report scammers; It’s all in the details

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Wednesday, May 25, 2022

Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) may just be an empty shell as US can offer nothing concrete

 

llustration: Chen Xia/Global Times 

 What is U.S. President Joe Biden's Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) all about? People involved in formulating IPEF admitted that "there's nothing particularly original" in the deal according to Emanuel Pastreich, president of the Asia Institute.

US President Joe Biden announced on Monday that its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) will start with 12 founding members - Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

The White House touted that those countries account for about 40 percent of the world's GDP, but the high-profile launch doesn't obscure the fact that the US economic scheme, which reportedly covers supply chains, digital trade, clean energy, and anticorruption efforts, lacks specific content.

The US might be able to attract some economies to the IPEF with its seemingly ambitious pledges about digital economy and a new supply chain. However, when it comes to specific negotiations of rules, if the US cannot provide countries with practical benefits to really push for the establishment of a win-win mechanism, the IPEF will not lead to any concrete results.

It is no secret that the IPEF will be used by the US as an important geopolitical tool to contain China in the Asia-Pacific region, but the participation of the other 12 founding countries doesn't necessarily mean they will be all sided with the US in "decoupling" from China. To a certain extent, their participation in the IPEF is largely because they want to be engaged in the establishment of the new economic and trade mechanism from the beginning so as to have a greater say in the rule-setting for their own interests.

For instance, from the perspective of the seven ASEAN members, it is understandable that they hope to benefit from bigger market access, tariff elimination and other preferential trade policies through the new economic scheme, with the view of further promoting the development of their economies and industrial chains. But it is also important to note that most of the ASEAN members are at a different development stage from that of developed countries such as the US and Japan, resulting in a sharp division when it comes their respective requirements for standards in areas like digital economy, labor rights, market regulation, environmental protection, and anti-corruption. And it remains to be seen how the voices and interests of these developing countries can be assured during the detailed negotiations.

In this sense, the game between the US and the other 12 countries may have just started. US Secretary of Commerce Raimondo stated that the IPEF is to "make Indo-Pacific countries beyond China more attractive as manufacturing hubs," according to the South China Morning Post. But that raises a new question: since China is the largest trading partner for more than 120 countries, how can the US ensure the stability of the regional supply chain without China? Maybe that's not the intention of the US at all, because supply chain chaos may actually create new opportunities for the US to bring back manufacturing companies.

However, most of the Asia-Pacific countries see the US as their major export market and China as their major supply chain partner, so they want to see their cooperation with the US under the IPEF could increase their chances of exporting their manufactured goods to the US - and not necessarily trying to hurt trade with China.

From the US' perspective, since Donald Trump's administration, many in Washington blame multilateral free trade for US economic problems, including unemployment and a weakening manufacturing sector. With that protectionist sentiment continuing, the Biden administration is unlikely to give Asian countries more access to the US market.

In fact, if the US opens its market wider to Asian countries, its imports will increase, especially from China, because the Asia-Pacific supply chain is essentially intertwined closely with the Chinese industrial chain. Moreover, China is becoming a major export market for these Asia-Pacific countries, with even stronger demand compared with the US in some fields.

The bottom line is that the decline of American manufacturing has deprived the US of the ability to dominate the regional industrial chain to achieve its strategic goals. The IPEF can offer nothing to make Asia-Pacific countries compromise their massive economic ties with China just to appease Washington. 

 Source link

RELATED ARTICLES
 

 Illustration: Liu Rui/GT