Many people in Australia will remember Mahathir Mohamad, the former prime minister of Malaysia who was renowned for blaming all the ills of the world on the west - and in particular - his vitriolic spats with Australian prime ministers.
This man held office for twenty-two turbulent years and was a virtual dictator. Malaysia was a difficult place to do business because of government interference in the courts and with the administration of the law system. Long after his retirement and withdrawal from pubic life the spectre of corruption remains. Opposition leaders find themselves in prison on trumped up charges and the legitimacy of elections could only be termed " opaque " !
Mahathir Mohamad has taken to the public stage to air his views on Flight MH370, which disappeared with 239 people on board and has been the subject of probably the biggest and most costly search in aviation history. The plane was owned and operated by Malaysian Airlines, a Malaysian government instrumentality.
Without the slightest offer of any evidence, the former prime minister has stated that the blame for the accident should be sheeted home to Boeing, the manufacturer of the 777 aircraft. He absolves Malaysian Airlines from any guilt, despite clear indications that identification was turned off during flight and the plane travelled for six hours far from it's intended course. In true dictatorial style, he dismisses all local input and insists that these deaths are the result of inferior products from the countries of the west that he so roundly despises.
In most of the world, his rantings will be taken with a grain of salt. Those who remember his exchanges with Paul Keating may even be amused by the twisted logic applied to a tragic event, but the outburst will do little to help heal the feelings of the bereaved still mourning the loss of loved ones.
To say this statement is insensitive would be a gross understatement. Boeing would have every reason to sue for defamation but most likely they will ignore the outburst. The ex-prime minister is now a very old man and by the very nature of the claim and it's lack of substance, it seems a sad reminder of how age decays the human mind.
Wednesday, 30 April 2014
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
" Switcheroo ! "
The drug companies are adept at juggling their drug presentations to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ( PBS ) to maintain high profit margins and some of these scams are costing taxpayers $ 200 million a year. In particular, drug combinations are a ruse that prevents the benefits of generic drug versions reaching the public.
Often a drug manufacturer will combine the benefits of two totally different drugs to create a single pill that serves both purposes. While this drug is under patent protection profits from it's manufacture remain high, but when the patent expires competitors are free to make a copy and offer it as a generic alternative. They know that the patent holder will undoubtedly drop the price sharply to try and maintain market share and hence the copy will be priced to just undercut that reduced price.
The PBS compares the price of the patented drug with the price of the individual drugs that are combined in the new product and this becomes the base price mechanism. The generic drug industry offers copies under a host of new names, and the comparison swings away from the ingredients as a price comparison - and simply compares the price of the range of generics offered.
One of the drugs widely proscribed in Australia is an anti blood clotting drug that contains both clopidogral and aspirin. It's price structure is $ 15.02 more expensive than buying clopidogral and aspirin separately, because the price comparison no longer compares the base ingredients. In this way, the price of the generics is artificially high.
Drug prices fluctuate widely when compared across a mix of world countries. They are cheaper where the laws that govern prices are constantly reviewed and industry practice is taken into account. The drug administration needs to keep on top of the game to ensure that the price of it's pharmaceuticals is not artificially high - and a drag on the public purse.
It seems that there is scope for improvement in the area of Australian generic drug pricing !
Often a drug manufacturer will combine the benefits of two totally different drugs to create a single pill that serves both purposes. While this drug is under patent protection profits from it's manufacture remain high, but when the patent expires competitors are free to make a copy and offer it as a generic alternative. They know that the patent holder will undoubtedly drop the price sharply to try and maintain market share and hence the copy will be priced to just undercut that reduced price.
The PBS compares the price of the patented drug with the price of the individual drugs that are combined in the new product and this becomes the base price mechanism. The generic drug industry offers copies under a host of new names, and the comparison swings away from the ingredients as a price comparison - and simply compares the price of the range of generics offered.
One of the drugs widely proscribed in Australia is an anti blood clotting drug that contains both clopidogral and aspirin. It's price structure is $ 15.02 more expensive than buying clopidogral and aspirin separately, because the price comparison no longer compares the base ingredients. In this way, the price of the generics is artificially high.
Drug prices fluctuate widely when compared across a mix of world countries. They are cheaper where the laws that govern prices are constantly reviewed and industry practice is taken into account. The drug administration needs to keep on top of the game to ensure that the price of it's pharmaceuticals is not artificially high - and a drag on the public purse.
It seems that there is scope for improvement in the area of Australian generic drug pricing !
Monday, 28 April 2014
The " Au Pair " Solution !
It is a fact of life that many working women with a family can not find a vacancy in a child care facility and that costs are rising rapidly while wages remain stagnant. For some strange reason, a solution that is common in Europe seems to be a lost opportunity in Australia.
Hiring an " Au Pair " delivers a benefit to both parties. A young woman from a foreign country gets bed and board and pocket money in return for looking after a working woman's children and doing household chores. The usual arrangement is at least one full day off each week, hence there is a great opportunity to perfect use of the English language and see the sights and experience travel at low cost.
Young women looking for au pair work can gain entry to Australia by way of a " working holiday visa " and this is part of our youth exchange programme - but it is strictly limited to those under the age of thirty. It is suggested that we should widen this opportunity to accept a " Granny Au Pair " answer by way of introducing an appropriate visa category.
Extension to mature age au pairs delivers many benefits. They are less likely to want to " party " than young people and they bring a world of experience from rearing their own children - and retired people are equally keen to travel and experience the lifestyle of other countries. There are certainly mutual benefits in opening child care to mature people who have the ability to deliver wisdom and experience, but who otherwise may not be able to afford the benefits of travel.
Not only would this ease pressure on child care places. Many retirees are much more affluent than the young and we could expect their spending to improve our economy. There seems no valid reason why it could not be used to resolve a problem that is denying many Australian women the opportunity to return to the workforce because of child care problems.
There will be the usual down side of those over staying visas and personality clashes, but it is a completely new concept to the Australian way of thinking. We will solve the problems of the twenty-first century with new answers to old problems - and mature au pairs breaks new ground. It certainly deserves at least a fair trial !
Hiring an " Au Pair " delivers a benefit to both parties. A young woman from a foreign country gets bed and board and pocket money in return for looking after a working woman's children and doing household chores. The usual arrangement is at least one full day off each week, hence there is a great opportunity to perfect use of the English language and see the sights and experience travel at low cost.
Young women looking for au pair work can gain entry to Australia by way of a " working holiday visa " and this is part of our youth exchange programme - but it is strictly limited to those under the age of thirty. It is suggested that we should widen this opportunity to accept a " Granny Au Pair " answer by way of introducing an appropriate visa category.
Extension to mature age au pairs delivers many benefits. They are less likely to want to " party " than young people and they bring a world of experience from rearing their own children - and retired people are equally keen to travel and experience the lifestyle of other countries. There are certainly mutual benefits in opening child care to mature people who have the ability to deliver wisdom and experience, but who otherwise may not be able to afford the benefits of travel.
Not only would this ease pressure on child care places. Many retirees are much more affluent than the young and we could expect their spending to improve our economy. There seems no valid reason why it could not be used to resolve a problem that is denying many Australian women the opportunity to return to the workforce because of child care problems.
There will be the usual down side of those over staying visas and personality clashes, but it is a completely new concept to the Australian way of thinking. We will solve the problems of the twenty-first century with new answers to old problems - and mature au pairs breaks new ground. It certainly deserves at least a fair trial !
Sunday, 27 April 2014
Common planning laws !
Sydney can be a frustrating place to get almost any sort of planning decision approved. The problem is that the city is divided into a mix of individual councils and they all have their own laws and by-laws that are often in sharp contrast to one another. Council decisions are needed to decide matters of transport policy, policing, economic development and housing standards - and what is permissible in one council area may be totally rejected in another - just a few streets away.
This situation is a hangover from the days when Sydney suburbs were little more than distant villages from the city centre. It was the job of the local council to set aside somewhere for the locals to dump their rubbish, fix the pot holes in the street system - and before sewerage - organise the " night soil " removal. Each council was a valuable source of jobs for their residents.
London had the same problem and fourteen years ago it concentrated decisive powers in what became the GLA - the Greater London Authority. It was decided that if London was to be a world class capital it needed a degree of uniformity to replace the huge mish mash of rules and regulations that applied in each individual council area. There is consensus that the GLA has achieved that objective.
Now the same thinking is being focused on Sydney. It is an idea that will not be universally popular with many residents. It will mean a loss of identity - and sacrificing control of local decisions for the public good. Many restrictive by-laws intended to soothe local wishes will have to go and planning decisions on a city wide basis will introduce change that is not universally popular. Such is the price of achieving an efficient planning regime.
If the introduction of a GSA - a Greater Sydney Authority - is to happen it will only be a continuation of the passage of power from councils to the state government that has been in progress for years. Both the Federal and state governments have turned councils into instrumentality's to process functions that they no longer wish to administer - and at the same time - remove council power from areas which governments consider " essential services ".
Council amalgamations have been a long term objective, usually against the wishes of ratepayers who fear loss of control input. That same objection will cause many to oppose a GSA and it could become a pawn in the game of politics.
How this proceeds will depend on the skill with which it is " sold " to the public !
This situation is a hangover from the days when Sydney suburbs were little more than distant villages from the city centre. It was the job of the local council to set aside somewhere for the locals to dump their rubbish, fix the pot holes in the street system - and before sewerage - organise the " night soil " removal. Each council was a valuable source of jobs for their residents.
London had the same problem and fourteen years ago it concentrated decisive powers in what became the GLA - the Greater London Authority. It was decided that if London was to be a world class capital it needed a degree of uniformity to replace the huge mish mash of rules and regulations that applied in each individual council area. There is consensus that the GLA has achieved that objective.
Now the same thinking is being focused on Sydney. It is an idea that will not be universally popular with many residents. It will mean a loss of identity - and sacrificing control of local decisions for the public good. Many restrictive by-laws intended to soothe local wishes will have to go and planning decisions on a city wide basis will introduce change that is not universally popular. Such is the price of achieving an efficient planning regime.
If the introduction of a GSA - a Greater Sydney Authority - is to happen it will only be a continuation of the passage of power from councils to the state government that has been in progress for years. Both the Federal and state governments have turned councils into instrumentality's to process functions that they no longer wish to administer - and at the same time - remove council power from areas which governments consider " essential services ".
Council amalgamations have been a long term objective, usually against the wishes of ratepayers who fear loss of control input. That same objection will cause many to oppose a GSA and it could become a pawn in the game of politics.
How this proceeds will depend on the skill with which it is " sold " to the public !
Saturday, 26 April 2014
Sending a message !
Occasionally a film producer manages a great scene that sticks in the mind of viewers and becomes something of a legend. Many regard the final scene from " Thelma and Louise " as such a classic, depicting Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis holding hands as they deliberately gun their car over the edge of the Grand Canyon and choose death rather than prison.
Another classic generated a remark often quoted very tongue in cheek. In " The Godfather ", Mafia boss Don Corleone is angered at the refusal of his request and suggests he will " make an offer he can't refuse ". As a result, the offending person awakes to find the bloodied head of his champion racehorse sharing his bed.
The Sydney underworld either has a sense of humour - or someone is in very deep trouble. A resident of the western suburbs was startled to hear noises outside his home in the wee small hours and went to investigate. He found the windscreen and side windows of his vehicle smashed - and a bloodied horses head on the bonnet.
The police are investigating and media comment suggests that this may have been " a drug deal that went wrong ". It is certainly symptomatic of the unrelenting wave of crime washing over the Sydney drug scene and the involvement of criminal bikie gangs. The gun culture is very much alive and well in this twenty-first century and some compare it to the " bootlegger " days of Chicago during prohibition - back in the early days of the twentieth century.
Fortunately, the victims seem to be mainly mobsters eliminating competitors rather than members of the public suffering harm. It seems that the supply of guns comes from both illegal imports - and local gun factories that are even churning out automatic weapons. The problem is that drug profits are so huge that we are seeing the clash of virtual " armies " fighting for their share of the market.
Don't expect improvements anytime soon ! The first rule of commerce applies. Whenever their is demand, supply will inevitably follow. It is a fact of life that huge numbers of otherwise honest citizens crave drugs - and are prepared to break the law to gain supply.
Perhaps the fact that the Americans closed down open gang warfare by repealing prohibition may be a point to ponder in tackling our crime problems !
Another classic generated a remark often quoted very tongue in cheek. In " The Godfather ", Mafia boss Don Corleone is angered at the refusal of his request and suggests he will " make an offer he can't refuse ". As a result, the offending person awakes to find the bloodied head of his champion racehorse sharing his bed.
The Sydney underworld either has a sense of humour - or someone is in very deep trouble. A resident of the western suburbs was startled to hear noises outside his home in the wee small hours and went to investigate. He found the windscreen and side windows of his vehicle smashed - and a bloodied horses head on the bonnet.
The police are investigating and media comment suggests that this may have been " a drug deal that went wrong ". It is certainly symptomatic of the unrelenting wave of crime washing over the Sydney drug scene and the involvement of criminal bikie gangs. The gun culture is very much alive and well in this twenty-first century and some compare it to the " bootlegger " days of Chicago during prohibition - back in the early days of the twentieth century.
Fortunately, the victims seem to be mainly mobsters eliminating competitors rather than members of the public suffering harm. It seems that the supply of guns comes from both illegal imports - and local gun factories that are even churning out automatic weapons. The problem is that drug profits are so huge that we are seeing the clash of virtual " armies " fighting for their share of the market.
Don't expect improvements anytime soon ! The first rule of commerce applies. Whenever their is demand, supply will inevitably follow. It is a fact of life that huge numbers of otherwise honest citizens crave drugs - and are prepared to break the law to gain supply.
Perhaps the fact that the Americans closed down open gang warfare by repealing prohibition may be a point to ponder in tackling our crime problems !
Friday, 25 April 2014
Remembering " The Great War " !
A century ago events in Europe spun out of control and the first shots were fired in what was called " the First World War ". It was a titanic clash that consumed millions - and it changed the world as we knew it. Today, visitors to the battlefields are numbed by the sheer magnitude of war cemeteries that stretch for miles. This was a slaughter that caused some to refer to it as " the Great War " , while others thought it would be the " War to end Wars ".
It didn't ! Twenty years on, we were at it again. This time we were more mechanised and far less men in uniform died, but war had moved onto a new front. Civilians died in their thousands as cities on both sides became bombing targets. Starvation became a weapon of war, and unspeakable acts of savagery were common in the quest for victory.
The only conclusions that can be drawn is that civilization is no more advanced now than it was back in the " Dark Ages ". When events lead to war, the veneer of reason and respectability peels away and we are capable of reverting to the baser instincts that some would describe as " savages ".
As we pause to remember the centenary of the Great War, events are inflicting death and destruction between living human beings in countless bloody conflicts around the globe. The killing is going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt - and the people of Ukraine are facing an army massing on their borders.
Many recent wars have concluded. The Rwandan genocide has ended and that country is slowly reverting to normal. Sri Lanka fought a war that lasted decades and the losers are still counting the cost - and leaving the country in droves to avoid reprisals. Anyone who thinks the world is at peace - must be an optimist !
The question in many people minds - is what does the future hold ? Australia is not looking to enlarge it's borders or seeking territorial conquest. We are a peaceful nation and pose no threat to our neighbours - but we live in a dangerous world.
If war threatens Australia it will be from the aspirations of others. A wise statesman once counselled that " if you hope for peace - prepare for war " - and that was sound advice. A strong defence structure deters aggression by others.
That provides logic for spending billions of dollars to ensure that our fighter aircraft are at the cutting edge of the technology needed to defend this nation - and hopefully - make a potential enemy think twice !
It didn't ! Twenty years on, we were at it again. This time we were more mechanised and far less men in uniform died, but war had moved onto a new front. Civilians died in their thousands as cities on both sides became bombing targets. Starvation became a weapon of war, and unspeakable acts of savagery were common in the quest for victory.
The only conclusions that can be drawn is that civilization is no more advanced now than it was back in the " Dark Ages ". When events lead to war, the veneer of reason and respectability peels away and we are capable of reverting to the baser instincts that some would describe as " savages ".
As we pause to remember the centenary of the Great War, events are inflicting death and destruction between living human beings in countless bloody conflicts around the globe. The killing is going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt - and the people of Ukraine are facing an army massing on their borders.
Many recent wars have concluded. The Rwandan genocide has ended and that country is slowly reverting to normal. Sri Lanka fought a war that lasted decades and the losers are still counting the cost - and leaving the country in droves to avoid reprisals. Anyone who thinks the world is at peace - must be an optimist !
The question in many people minds - is what does the future hold ? Australia is not looking to enlarge it's borders or seeking territorial conquest. We are a peaceful nation and pose no threat to our neighbours - but we live in a dangerous world.
If war threatens Australia it will be from the aspirations of others. A wise statesman once counselled that " if you hope for peace - prepare for war " - and that was sound advice. A strong defence structure deters aggression by others.
That provides logic for spending billions of dollars to ensure that our fighter aircraft are at the cutting edge of the technology needed to defend this nation - and hopefully - make a potential enemy think twice !
Thursday, 24 April 2014
Religious sensitivity !
Secular Australia is very open minded when it comes to matters of religion. Many Christians openly wear a crucifix and Islamic head scarves are common sights on our streets. It is not uncommon for Buddhist small businesses to have a religious offering displayed in their store. This religious sensitivity is not always reciprocated overseas.
A British woman arriving in Sri Lanka was arrested as she went through customs because she had a tattoo of the Buddha seated on a Lotus leaf on her right arm. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country and they take their religion so seriously that this tattoo was considered an insult. She was arrested - detained - and quickly deported.
Many Australians would consider such a tattoo as a normal form of adornment. In fact, some would see it as a mark of respect rather than a hostile challenge, but religious sensitivity is very much in the eye of the beholder and what is acceptable in Australia could be totally unacceptable elsewhere.
Australians considering overseas travel would be well advised to learn a little about the laws and customs of the countries they intend to visit. What is quite acceptable in Australia in the way of casual attire may be deemed insultingly immodest is many middle eastern countries and in many parts of the world a woman with uncovered hair breaks a local taboo.
It is far safer to " fit in " and observe local customs. To be aware of what is required is to avoid problems that can quickly spin out of control in countries with religious tensions. It requires sensitivity to judge that what is acceptable in the tourist district of some cities may not be so acceptable if that same tourist diverges into a visit to country regions. In some areas, there are sharp differences in the lifestyles that are separated by very short distances.
Holiday travel can be one of life's pleasures, but the reverse applies if a tourist gets into trouble far from home and lacks an understanding of what has offended his or her hosts. In most cases the problem could have been avoided by using sensitivity and common sense. That old saying of " When in Rome, do as the Romans do " - certainly applies.
A British woman arriving in Sri Lanka was arrested as she went through customs because she had a tattoo of the Buddha seated on a Lotus leaf on her right arm. Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country and they take their religion so seriously that this tattoo was considered an insult. She was arrested - detained - and quickly deported.
Many Australians would consider such a tattoo as a normal form of adornment. In fact, some would see it as a mark of respect rather than a hostile challenge, but religious sensitivity is very much in the eye of the beholder and what is acceptable in Australia could be totally unacceptable elsewhere.
Australians considering overseas travel would be well advised to learn a little about the laws and customs of the countries they intend to visit. What is quite acceptable in Australia in the way of casual attire may be deemed insultingly immodest is many middle eastern countries and in many parts of the world a woman with uncovered hair breaks a local taboo.
It is far safer to " fit in " and observe local customs. To be aware of what is required is to avoid problems that can quickly spin out of control in countries with religious tensions. It requires sensitivity to judge that what is acceptable in the tourist district of some cities may not be so acceptable if that same tourist diverges into a visit to country regions. In some areas, there are sharp differences in the lifestyles that are separated by very short distances.
Holiday travel can be one of life's pleasures, but the reverse applies if a tourist gets into trouble far from home and lacks an understanding of what has offended his or her hosts. In most cases the problem could have been avoided by using sensitivity and common sense. That old saying of " When in Rome, do as the Romans do " - certainly applies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)