
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Xiangshan Defence Forum: Regional military chiefs hail Beijing's security proposal

Friday, November 21, 2014
China's revival of 600-year-old links in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas
Maritime trade between China and other countries dates back to the Qin and Han dynasties.
Merchant ships that departed from China sailed into the South China Sea carrying silk, porcelain ware, tea and other commodities.
The ancient trade route reached as far as Europe and the Americas, forging friendships and exchanges.
Today, China has a grand vision: to revive a 21st century version of this ancient maritime corridor by inviting countries from Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe to come on board the present-day route.
According to an article in the Asia Weekly of China Daily, an English-language newspaper, the proposed 21st century Maritime Silk Road (MSR) begins in Quanzhou in Fujian province, moves on to Guangzhou in Guangdong province and Beihai in Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region, and then heads south to Hanoi, Vietnam.
Continuing south to Kuala Lumpur on the Strait of Malacca, the MSR joins Jakarta, Indonesia, crosses the Indian Ocean to Nairobi, Kenya, and then links with Colombo, Sri Lanka and Male, the Maldives.
China has taken many initiatives to promote the 21st century MSR since its president Xi Jinping first brought up the idea during his visit to Indonesia in October last year.
One of the most recent efforts was the Guangdong 21st Century Maritime Silk Road International Expo, which brought together more than 40 countries and regions to seek cooperation in the fields of economy, trade, tourism and culture.
Guangdong party secretary Hu Chunhua, during the opening ceremony of the expo in Dongguan, touted the 21st century MSR as a road of peace and friendship that brings about mutual cooperation and benefits.
He said Guangdong is a convenient transportation hub linking China with countries along the MSR.
“The inland provinces join the MSR and venture out to the world through Guangdong, while Guangdong is also the entry point for resources to come into China from the outside world,” he said of the strategic location of Guangdong.
In the past, Guangzhou, the capital of the southern province, was a major stop on the ancient trade route. Records show that close to 90 per cent of the merchant ships from the West docked at its Huangpu Port from 1685 to 1757.
The glory remains today, with Guangdong ranking first among all provinces in China in terms of economic output, trade volume and population.
Last year, both its gross domestic product and total imports and exports exceeded US$1 trillion.
Trade between Guangdong and Malaysia, China’s largest trading partner in Asean, stood at US$26.81 billion.
Tourism Malaysia chairman Dr Ng Yen Yen said Malaysia’s participation at the expo, the largest among all countries, reflected our readiness for greater collaboration and cooperation with countries along the MSR.
In her speech at a forum held during the expo, she said ties between both countries can be traced back to 600 years ago when Admiral Cheng Ho visited Malacca during his seven naval expeditions to the Western Ocean.
On the tourism front, Dr Ng proposed a multiple-destination cruise route along the 21st-MSR that will provide vast opportunities for multilateral economic cooperation.
Meanwhile, an Institute of Maritime Silk Road Tourism and Culture was established during the expo.
A collaboration between the Guangdong Tourism Board and the South China Normal University, the institute will be a platform for academic research and exchange on topics related to the Maritime Silk Road, such as tourism, culture, education and regional development.


Related:
- Maritime Silk Road expo inaugurated, brings businesses...
- along the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road were mostly regions with abundant...said China could strengthen the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road concept by shortening the expression to "MSR," and promote organized structure...
Building the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road
All together now: Apec leaders posing for a
family picture at the International Convention Center at Yanqi Lake in
Beijing. Front row from...
The leaders of Asean have succeeded in
persuading their top trading partners to start negotiations on the
Regional Comprehensive Economic ...
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Startups vying for the attention of Venture capitalists (VCs) - part 4
OOI Boon Sheng, founder and chief executive officer of Web Bytes Sdn Bhd, was fortunate to have found a good match in Chok Kwee Bee, managing director of venture capital firm Teak Capital, when he set out to look for a partner to help his retail management services company grow to the next level.
Venture capitalists (VCs) play a unique role in the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
They provide startups with funding in exchange for equity in the company. In addition, VCs are often given a say in how the company will operate and grow.
Ultimately, the goal of such partnerships is for VCs to make a profitable exit at a later date either through the sale of their stakes or an initial public offering.
Chok, who sits on the board of Web Bytes following Teak Capital’s investment in the startup, takes an active interest in helping Ooi develop the company’s product.
As Web Bytes grow with the guidance of Chok, so does its value, allowing Teak Capital the chance to make a profitable exit in the future.
Somewhat like angel investors, VCs have a wealth of resources, expertise and network that startups can tap into.
However, VCs tend to fund early-stage startups that have already gained some traction in user base and revenue, but are still new enough to be considered a risky investment for traditional banks and debt funding.
In identifying suitable startups to invest in, VCs are naturally drawn to early-stage companies with technologies that have the potential to generate high returns. Ideally, products developed by these startups are not in overly saturated markets.
VCs also analyse the market to ensure that it is robust enough to support the entry and growth of a startup.
The startup’s management team is also taken into consideration as VCs typically look for a team that is passionate, persistent, experienced, dedicated and organised.
According to Chok, having the right people is as important as having the right idea as the right people would be needed to make the ideas work.
“We have seen more than 1,000 companies since our formation in 2008 and only invested in less than 10, with an average investment of RM2mil to RM3mil.
We look at the team, the product and the market potential,” she said.
Startups are encouraged to build a good working relationship with VCs, not just for the funding element but also because investee companies will be spending a lot of time with mentors from their VC partners.
Many startups, like Web Bytes, have indeed benefited from the active participation of their VC investors. Among Teak Capital’s portfolio of startups, Web Bytes has seen tremendous growth after a year of active mentoring.
But the venture capitalism in Malaysia is still in its early days.
Malaysia Venture Capital Management Bhd (Mavcap) chief executive officer Jamaludin Bujang noted that while there is an increase in demand for capital, there are only a handful of VCs in the market.
Currently, about 60% of VC funds come from Government sources, with only nine private VC firms in the country.
Jamaludin says VC firms should look at pushing out more Series-A funding. Series-A is the first significant round of funding for startups that have progressed beyond the seed-funding stage and have started generating revenue of between RM200,000 and RM1mil. With things heating up in the local startup scene, both Jamaludin and Chok agree that more needs to be done to encourage more entrants into the field of venture capitalism.
“The startup scene is picking up. And a lot of them are actually going to Singapore for funding. So I think we need more Malaysian VCs in the market,” said Chok.
By Lim Wing Hooi
Related post3:
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
China once again boasts world's fastest supercomputer

The Tianhe-2, a supercomputer developed by China's National University of Defense Technology, was named the world's top supercomputer for the fourth consecutive time by the TOP500 project.
The Tianhe-2 relegated the US-developed Titan to second spot with a performance of 33.86 petaflop (quadrillions of calculations per second) in a standardized test designed to measure computer performance.
IBM's Sequoia rounded out the top 3 in the TOP500 list.
The TOP500 project, started in 1993, issues a list twice a year that ranks supercomputers based on their performance.
There was little change in the top 10 in the latest list and the only new entry was at number 10 – the Cray CS-Storm, developed by Cray Inc, which also developed the Titan.
The United States was home to six of the top 10 supercomputers, while China, Japan, Switzerland and Germany had one entrant each.
The United States remained the top country in terms of overall systems with 231, down from 233 in June and falling near its historical low.
The number of Chinese systems on the list also dropped to 61 from 76 in June, while Japan increased its number of systems from 30 to 32.

Related:
- World's fastest supercomputer gets even faster
- China's Tianhe-2 remains fastest supercomputer for 3rd time
- Supercomputer technology to monitor smog
- The supercomputer race has no finish line in sight
- China's Tianhe-2 remains 'fastest' supercomputer
- Tianhe-2 retains title as world's fastest supercomputer
- China builds world's fastest supercomputer
- China regains No 1 supercomputer title
- Supercomputer super stars
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Who is responsible: developer, contractor, local council or house-owner for the damages?

THE collapse of a slope deep in the jungle does not concern house-owners, nor do landslides along our highways or roads. They just cause a bit of inconvenience to road users.
The Government deploys men, machinery and money to get the road cleared as quickly as possible so traffic can flow again.
It is different with the slope, which is (usually) at the back of a house. The house-owner did not build it. It came when he bought the house, designed by the developer with the approval of the local council. Because it is in his compound – or because he will be affected by it in the event of a collapse – the house-owner is responsible.
But in reality, is it as simple as that? It is more than a matter of money, it may also involve lives.
The Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) in collaboration with the Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry organised a seminar some months ago. Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, adviser to SlopeWatch, a community-based organisation, highlighted his personal and distressing experience with the slope in his house compound. He needed to have it repaired and he was driven from pillar to post by government officers, the contractor was dilatory and the cost was high.
But who is responsible?
House-purchaser dilemma
When a house-purchaser takes his house from the developer, the latter does not certify that the slope is safe in terms of design, and “as built”, except that it is understood to have been approved.
Victim: “It had been built at the bottom of a nearly-vertical slope formed by excising the toe of a hill. Though he had no need for it, the developer would not sell the house without a part of the bottom of the slope; not only did it add to the cost of the house, it made him responsible for the upkeep of the slope.
As expected the slope collapsed, not once but twice. You see the rubble-wall collapsed with the soil when the pressure became too strong. This time, a strong wall was built together with weep holes to remove rain water that seeped into the soil so that it did not become too heavy. It held up for us but the same slope running into the neighbour’s side, collapsed.
“Are they lucky compared with the buyers of houses built on top of Bukit Setiawangsa, while they were at the bottom of the slope? The developer had apparently removed the earth from it to form the bed of the highway, the Duta-Ulu Kelang Expressway (Duke). With the entire slope removed, the houses are perched precariously at the top, as the cliché goes, like a disaster waiting to happen.
So who is responsible? Is it the developer? Where will he be after six years or if available, will he argue that the purchaser bought the house fully aware of the risks? What are the rights of a subsequent owner? Does he has any recourse against the first owner? What about the local council and professionals who approved the slope – which to an untrained eye – seems to be an unsafe construction?”
House-owners are not only innocent victims of a developer’s recklessness or the developer’s appointed professionals, be it an architect or engineer.
They may also be liable through no fault of theirs because of the way developers have disturbed the lie of the land and left it in an unsafe state for the house–owner to take care of it.
The most enduring memory is the Highland Towers episode about 20 years ago, of which there is still no satisfactory closure. The disaster should have been a wake-up call on the process of approvals and accountability.
Only a draughtsman was convicted for the design of the drainage which caused water to flow un-channelled into the ground under the condominiums causing it to turn into mud which, of course, flowed against the piles causing them to move and knocking the building off its supports. The Ampang Municipal Council (MPAJ), which approved the diversion of the drainage, was excused because of the statutory immunity it enjoyed under the law.
So, should it be more careful and conscientious? Have we not learned the right lessons from it?
There are many questions for which there are no answers.
Slope management – overcoming challenges
The question with regard to slope management brings to mind a slope management seminar held earlier this year which attracted about 400 participants. The speakers held top posts in the Public Works Department, Urban WellBeing, Housing and Local Government Ministry, SlopeWatch, head of hillslope development in MPAJ and geotechnical engineer Datuk Dr Gue See Sew. Participants attentively asked the panelists pertinent questions.
As we forge ahead, we ask ourselves, have we done enough? If not, what can we do more? What are some of the issues and challenges we are facing as residents, owners, consultants, planners, financiers and enforcers of the guidelines, managers of slopes and public safety?
And whose responsibility is it anyway? There were proposals, suggestions and recommendations for an action plan that will be adopted for its intended implementation. Some were for immediate application, while some were medium and long term in nature. Unanimous resolutions were made at the end of the seminar.
Resolutions
Some of the pertinent resolutions were:
> Improve and simplify the current guidelines on hill-site development with safety enhancement.
> Increase awareness of contractors on good slope construction practices
> Strengthen the enforcement of authorities to penalise errant slope owners
> Review the planning policies and determine the height and density of buildings to blend with the environment
> To immediately do an inventory and to gazette all remaining hill-slopes, including those that are still on state land under the Land Conservation Act, National Land Code and the Town and Country Planning Act.
> Review slope-related designs not only confined within the boundaries of the project, but within the surrounding areas.
> Make it compulsory under the law for a geotechnical accredited checker, as an independent checker, to check and verify that slope design and construction are safe and done to the best engineering practices.
> Major earthworks and slope strengthening need to be done first before construction of any buildings and structures in the development takes place
> Local authorities to collaborate with community monitoring groups (to be the eyes and ears)
> To make it compulsory for slope owners to appoint professional engineers to inspect slopes on a regular basis on high-risk slopes and to rectify any defects for slopes of certain categories
> New engineered slopes to have a maintenance schedule and manual, including drainage systems. Old slopes, in particular, should be under a maintenance programme by the local authorities
> Introduce a fund to cover long-term infrastructure maintenance of certain slopes that require high maintenance and are handed over to local authorities
But the most important of them is to set up a centralised body to support the 154 local authorities on new hillside developments. It should be modelled after the geotechnical engineering office in Hong Kong.
The Government and public will be hearing more of this proposed “centralised body” in due course from the Expert Standing Committee on Slope Safety initiated under CIDB.

By CHANG KIM LOONG - Buyers Beware The Star Nov 15 2014

Chang Kim Loong is the honorary secretary-general of the National House Buyers Association.
Labels:
Acreline,
Architect,
Blasting work,
Cameron Highlands,
Contractor,
Damages,
Defects,
Developer,
Engineer,
Eva Bina,
Highland Towers,
Home,
House-owner,
IJM,
MPPP,
Penang,
property,
Slope and Hill management,
Soil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)