December 21, 2024

Parliament Asks Murdoch to Discuss Hacking

On Tuesday, the British Parliament called on Mr. Murdoch “to give evidence to discuss his comments” about the culture of paying off police that he made on March 6 to nearly two dozen journalists and newspaper executives from The Sun. A tape of the 45-minute conversation first emerged on the British investigative journalism Web site Exaro News on July 4.

On the audiotape, Mr. Murdoch listens to the journalists, nearly all of whom had been questioned for hacking and other illegal news-gathering practices, talk about the impact of the scandal on their lives. He told them, “I’m just as annoyed as you are at the police, and you’re directing it at me instead.” Through the conversation, Mr. Murdoch spoke in a gravelly and often indignant voice about how The News of the World, now defunct, was targeted for practices that were largely commonplace in British journalism.

“One of our high-priced lawyers would say it’s our fault, but that situation existed at every newspaper in Fleet Street,” Mr. Murdoch said.

He also promised to continue to provide support to journalists even if they are found guilty.

“I will do everything in my power to give you total support, even if you’re convicted or get six months or whatever. I think it’s just outrageous,” he said, adding, “I don’t know of anybody or anything that did anything that wasn’t being done across Fleet Street and wasn’t the culture.”

Mr. Murdoch was invited back to appear before Parliament, according to a government official who would not be named under standard parliamentary rules. At this point, members of Parliament have not officially sent Mr. Murdoch an invitation and an interview is not expected to take place until after the House of Commons returns from its summer break. Because Mr. Murdoch has been invited and not summoned, the meeting will take place when Mr. Murdoch is in Britain.

Ashley Huston, a spokeswoman for News Corporation, said in a statement that “Mr. Murdoch welcomes the opportunity to return to the Select Committee and answer their questions. He looks forward to clearing up any misconceptions as soon as possible.”

Mr. Murdoch’s voice on the tapes sounds notably different from the more subdued tone he took when he spoke before Parliament about the hacking scandal that closed The Sun, forced the company to withdraw its takeover bid of British Sky Broadcasting, also known as BSkyB, and helped lead to the split of News Corporation into two separate companies. In July 2011, he appeared with his son James before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, then in April 2012, he appeared before a judicial panel.

In the past, Richard Greenfield, a media analyst at BTIG Research, predicted that the problems presented by the hacking scandal would ultimately benefit shareholders because of the eventual split into two companies. Last month, he wrote on his blog that News Corporation had made strides and that “shares have rebounded from fears tied to the phone hacking scandal.”

Stephen Castle contributed reporting.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/business/media/parliament-asks-murdoch-to-discuss-hacking.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

European Parliament Moves to Limit Scope of Eventual U.S. Trade Deal

BRUSSELS — The European Parliament passed a resolution on Thursday demanding that the free-trade pact now under discussion with the United States exempt “audiovisual” industries so that countries like France could shelter their movie businesses from foreign competition.

The resolution, which also called for similar protections to be granted for online media, underlined the sensitivity in parts of Europe to the encroachment of American culture. It also represented a reality check for trade talks that in their early stages had generated enormous optimism but could still bog down in trans-Atlantic acrimony.

“This vote shows the honeymoon phase is over,” said Marietje Schaake, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the free-market D66 party. She was referring to the excitement that many trade advocates had felt since February, when President Barack Obama endorsed U.S. efforts to reach a trade deal with the European Union that would create a partnership between the biggest markets in the world.

While the resolution is not binding on the Union’s governments, which still must agree on a mandate for the European Commission to begin negotiating with Washington, the vote was a signal that the Parliament was prepared to use newly acquired powers to block any eventual agreement with the United States that it disliked. And ultimately, the Parliament’s consent would be necessary as part of any final passage.

Trade officials from various E.U. member states planned to meet in Brussels on Friday to discuss the mandate, which members of Parliament said Thursday that they expected to be approved by mid-June. A similar process is under way in the United States, where Congress is in a 90-day consulting period with the Obama administration.

The British government immediately signaled frustration with the European Parliament for demanding so-called carve-outs, which could make bargaining more difficult for concessions in areas that the Americans consider sensitive.

“We want to realize all the potential benefits of this deal for businesses and consumers,” a British government spokesman said, on condition that he not be named, as is customary. “That’s why we believe that we should put all sectors on the table at the start of negotiations,” the spokesman said.

The resolution that passed Thursday did broadly welcome the prospect of trade talks with the United States.

But the inclusion of the paragraph about cultural industries that passed Thursday “summarizes how challenging it will be to reconcile the goal of raising growth by breaking down barriers with the tensions and political demands that crop up at the more local level,” said Ms. Schaake, who advocates a far-reaching deal between Europe and the United States.

The resolution comes as European filmmakers and governments in countries like France seek the right to preserve state subsidies for filmmakers and maintain requirements that television and radio stations broadcast at least a minimum number of European programs.

Karel De Gucht, the Union’s trade commissioner, has pledged in the trade talks to preserve the principle of cultural diversity, including allowing member states to set quotas for European movies and other cultural goods, and to subsidize European productions.

But he has also repeatedly warned that full-scale exclusion of media, including digital media, from the talks could significantly narrow the scope of any eventual deal.

“We are already streaming content without borders” and “we should also have the possibility to discuss about the audiovisual sector,” Mr. De Gucht said at a business conference in Brussels last week. “We should not carve out the audiovisual sector; it will be a mistake, and it’s also not good to start negotiations on the basis of carve-outs.”

The vote, held at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, passed by a wide margin, with 460 votes in favor, 105 against and 28 abstentions.

The resolution called for a comprehensive trade agreement and noted the many jobs that it could create, in principle at least. The lawmakers underlined some of their other priorities, including being kept “immediately and fully informed” at all stages of the talks.

“Parliament has teeth and can bite,” said Vital Moreira, a Socialist member of the European Parliament from Portugal who prepared the resolution and steered it through the chamber.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/business/global/european-parliament-moves-to-limit-scope-of-eventual-us-trade-deal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Canada Clears $15 Billion Chinese Takeover of an Energy Company

Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper, warned that it would be the last such sale.Chris Wattie/ReutersCanada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, warned that it would be the last such sale.

MONTREAL — Canada on Friday allowed a Chinese state-run oil giant to move forward with $15 billion takeover of a domestic energy company, but the government indicated that such deals might not pass muster in the future.

The deal — the acquisition of Nexen by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, or Cnooc — is the latest effort by the Chinese government to find new sources of oil and natural gas reserves to help drive the country’s growth. The state-run Cnooc has been active, striking several partnerships in Canada and the United States.

Canada, in part, has welcomed the alliances.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been trying to create new markets to export Canadian energy, which is largely dependent on the United States for its exports. He has been courting China since the United States stalled approval of the Keystone XL pipeline project, which would move more oil sands production to the Gulf Coast.

On Friday, the government also approved a $5 billion acquisition of Progress Energy Resources of Canada by Petronas, the Malaysian state-owned oil and gas company.

But the Nexen deal has also reignited the controversy over strategic assets ending up in the hands of foreign owners. Seven years ago, Cnooc gave up on an $18.5 billion bid for Unocal of the United States after political opposition. Two years ago, Sinochem, a Chinese chemicals maker, backed away from buying the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan for similar reasons.

A Nexen oil sands facility in Alberta. The company is being acquired by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation.Jeff Mcintosh/The Canadian Press, via Associated PressA Nexen oil sands facility in Alberta. The company is being acquired by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

The Nexen bid prompted nationalistic concerns in Canada. Some conservative members of Parliament worried about Cnooc, which is an arm of the Chinese government, gaining control over energy assets generally controlled by Canadian provinces.

Recognizing the sensitivity of the deal, Mr. Harper noted that foreign investment rules would be changed to block companies owned by foreign governments from acquiring properties in Alberta oil sands in all but “exceptional” circumstances.

“Canadians generally, and investors specifically, should understand that these decisions are not the beginning of a trend, but rather the end of a trend,” Mr. Harper said at a news conference. “When we say that Canada is open for business, we do not mean that Canada is for sale to foreign governments.”

It is not clear how the directive will play out on the deal-making front.

Gordon Houlden, director of the China Institute at the University of Alberta, said that the government’s new position might not be well received in China despite Canada’s approval of the Nexen transaction. “This will be a very mixed message for the Chinese,” Mr. Houlden said. “They had ambitions far beyond Nexen.”

He added that Canada’s new stance could also constrain several major state-owned oil companies, particularly Statoil of Norway, which has significant investments in North America. “This will create a major barrier to investors with some of the deepest pockets and who are prepared to think in terms of decades rather than quarters,” he said.

The government’s decision also did not necessarily quell criticism within Canada. Within seconds of the prime minister’s release, Peter Julian, a member of Parliament for the opposition New Democrats, condemned the Nexen approval as an act of “rubber stamping” that did not reflect the views of most Canadians.

The government’s shifting sentiments could curb the deal-making spirits of Chinese companies.

To help drive China’s growth, the government has been amassing natural resources in North America, and in riskier areas like Africa and Venezuela. In North America, Chinese companies have mainly focused on taking stakes in energy companies, rather than buying them.

In July, Sinopec, a competitor to Cnooc, agreed to pay $1.5 billion for a piece of the North Sea operations of Talisman Energy, another Canadian oil company.

After agreeing to buy Nexen in July, Cnooc made several moves to gain the support of the Canadian government. The Chinese company announced plans to keep Nexen management and establish Calgary, Alberta, as its headquarters for North and Central America.

“The Chinese are likely not to look at the oil sands for a while,” said Oliver Borgers, a Toronto lawyer with McCarthy Tétrault who frequently represents companies seeking approval of takeovers under Canada’s foreign investment laws. “The policy is not directed at them specifically, but it’s going to have a major impact.”

But Canada may find it difficult to entirely rebuff the overtures of well-financed Chinese players. Major oil and gas deals require enormous financing, and Canada needs to further develop the oil sands. All of that takes money, which the Chinese government-owned companies have.

Nexen’s own financial struggles prompted its relationship with the deep-pocketed Cnooc. Nexen, which was formed by the merger of two Canadian units of Occidental Petroleum in 1971, has struggled with weak production and profits. One of its core sources of reserves, Yemen, has been plagued by political instability.

Nexen has also run into trouble in its own backyard. OPTI Canada, Nexen’s partner in an oil sands operation in Long Lake, Alberta, went bankrupt after a series of production delays. Cnooc then acquired OPTI Canada for $2.1 billion, giving the Chinese a 35 percent holding in the project.

“I’m not sure you can do without state-owned enterprises,” said Burkard Eberlein, a professor of public policy at the Schulich School of Business at York University in Toronto. “They’re saying, ‘We are open for business, but we are very suspicious of that kind of investor.’ ”

A version of this article appeared in print on 12/08/2012, on page B1 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Canada Clears $15 Billion Chinese Takeover of an Energy Company.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/canada-clears-15-billion-chinese-takeover-of-an-energy-company/?partner=rss&emc=rss

British Leader Faces Fight Over Europe Budget

Late Wednesday night, despite intense lobbying by Mr. Cameron, a large faction of euro-skeptic Conservative rebels joined forces with members of the Labour Party to defeat a proposal backed by the prime minister on the European Union’s pending 1 trillion euro, or $1.3 trillion, budget.

Although Mr. Cameron wants Europe to exert budgetary discipline, his measure would have supported allowing European Union spending to increase at the rate of inflation over the seven-year life of the budget.

Labour has traditionally been pro-European Union. But Labour members of Parliament, along with the Conservative renegades, argue that at a time of deep public-sector cuts in Britain, accepting less than similar spending reductions by the European Union would be intolerable.

The vote on Wednesday night was nonbinding. But the political significance for Mr. Cameron, who will start budget talks with his 26 European Union partners at a summit meeting on Nov. 22 in Brussels, could not be more significant.

Having had to curb his party’s vehement anti-Europe sentiments in deference to his coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, the most pro-Union of all the major British parties, Mr. Cameron now is facing an outright rebellion in his party.

It is most likely all the more galling to him that Labour, already far ahead in public opinion polls, is stoking dissent to further weaken the prime minister.

Mr. Cameron has threatened to veto the proposed European budget, which would cover the period from 2014 to 2020, if the Union does not meet his demands to hold spending increases at or below the inflation rate.

Britain is one of the few European Union member countries that is a net contributor to its budget. Last year it paid in about £10 billion, or $16 billion, more than it received back in benefits. But Britain is hugely outnumbered by member countries that are net recipients and that are pressing for an increase in European Union spending even beyond the inflation rate.

Europe’s richest country, Germany, also is pressing for spending cuts, though not as much as Britain. And Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is deep in talks over how to keep the fragile euro zone in one piece, has little appetite for a nasty fight on the issue.

If Mr. Cameron were to return from Brussels with a budget in which spending was not cut, his political position could become all the more precarious.

He is almost certainly aware that his predecessors, Margaret Thatcher and John Major, both were fatally weakened because they could not unite their Conservative Party over Europe.

As many European leaders use the economic crisis to push for a more federal Europe, British popular opinion is pulling in the opposite direction.

The most concrete example is the rapidly rising popularity of the United Kingdom Independence Party, which advocates Britain’s outright exit from the European Union.

Led by the volatile and media savvy Nigel Farage, the Independence Party is now threatening to overtake the Liberal Democrats to become the third-largest party in Britain, after the Conservatives and Labour.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/world/europe/british-leader-faces-fight-over-europe-budget.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Singapore Loosens Grip on Internet

BANGKOK — The ruling People’s Action Party led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was returned to power on Sunday with a two-thirds majority after a hard-fought parliamentary campaign in which opposition parties made their strongest inroads since Singapore’s independence in 1965.

The opposition was contesting all but one constituency for the first time, drawing enthusiastic crowds, many of them energized by Internet campaigning that opened the campaign to a clamor of voices and points of view in this tightly controlled city-state.

In a significant upset, a five-member Workers’ Party slate won a group-candidate constituency over a ruling party slate that included two cabinet ministers and assuring the largest opposition representation in Parliament in Singapore’s history.

One other member of the Workers’ Party was also elected, meaning that the ruling party will hold 81 seats to the opposition’s 6.

The People’s Action Party, or P.A.P., has never been out of power, and until 1981 there were no opposition members of Parliament. Until this election, there had never been more than four opposition members. The ruling party’s loss of seats was its biggest since independence.

“A new chapter has opened in Singapore’s history,” said the foreign minister, George Yeo, one of the cabinet ministers who lost his seat. “There was a tide we could not overcome.”

In the last election, in 2006, the opposition put up candidates in only about half the constituencies, winning just two parliamentary seats. This year, candidates for six opposition parties contested 82 of 87 seats.

As public counting of the votes ran deep into the night, constituency by constituency, it became evident that many opposition candidates had made strong challenges even in constituencies they lost and that the overall percentage of votes won by the ruling party was declining.

The ruling party faced voter discontent over inflation and a growing imbalance of wealth as well as resistance to an influx of foreign workers. The online campaigns gave new voice to public discontent over the P.A.P.’s monopoly on power.

In their victory statements, members of the ruling party, one after another, acknowledged the slip in their popularity and promised to try harder in the future.

In a step into the unknown, Singapore loosened its grip on political discourse in the unruly world of the Internet.

In a nation where government opponents are often sued over defamation and where carefully vetted public speech has been permitted only in a little park called Speakers’ Corner (which had been shut down during the campaign), experts say the new opening, if only in the virtual world, appears to be a redefinition of what are known here as “out-of-bounds markers.”

Following recent changes to the Constitution and election laws, campaigning is now permitted throughout cyberspace — in podcasts, videos, blogs, instant messaging, photo-sharing platforms like Flickr, social networking sites and electronic media applications like those found on cellphones.

For the first time, campaign recordings can be posted as long as they are not “dramatized” or published “out of context.” Video taken at an election rally can be uploaded onto the Web without being submitted to the Board of Film Censors.

“Social media have lowered the barriers of entry into political discourse everywhere,” said Mark Cenite, an assistant professor of communication and information at Nanyang Technological University. “But that’s particularly significant in Singapore because here the barriers to entry into political discourse and the accompanying risks have been so high.”

Rather than trying to suppress online political organizing, as China and Vietnam have done, Singapore is taking a gamble on making it part of the legal campaign system.

“I don’t think they had a choice,” said Kin Mun Lee, known on his blog as Mr. Brown, who said he skirted the law in the last campaign by avoiding explicitly political comments. “Before, it was a very limited kind of provision for online speech. Definitely they had to change the rules because of the proliferation and availability of options.”

Opposition Web sites and Twitter accounts were used to urge people to attend election rallies. They also set out streams of comments from rallies, hugely increasing their audience. The site Gothere plotted out the locations of rallies on a map.

The site Party Time aggregates conversations about the elections and graphically represents who is getting the most buzz online.

Facebook is estimated to have up to three million members in Singapore, whose population is more than five million. All seven competing parties have their own sites, as do many of the candidates.

By one estimate, there are 900,000 local users of Twitter.

Online coverage pushed the main pro-government newspaper, The Straits Times, to publish fuller and not always critical news and photographs of opposition campaigns, said Alex Au, a prominent blogger.

“In the present era, with the ubiquitous cellphone camera and rapid distribution channels that are well beyond blogs, the old editorial policy is no longer viable,” he said on his blog. “If the newspaper does not publish such pictures, others will, and its credibility can only suffer.”

The Straits Times has dedicated a portal on its Web site to extensive electronic election coverage, and it is now aggregating online comments from the social media on a page it calls Buzz, which gives a flavor of some of the newly energized online commentary:

“The opposition can make ferocious speeches, but can they deliver?”

“Is it true that civil servants will be ostracized if they vote for the opposition?”

“If the opposition is sincere in serving the people, it would have been on the ground in the last four years, not starting their engines only when the whistle is blown.”

“Why must we be so dogmatic about democracy and stability being mutually exclusive?”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/world/asia/08singapore.html?partner=rss&emc=rss