PKR strategic director Rafizi Ramli has made banking history in Malaysia after a police report was lodged against him under the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 (BAFIA) by National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp) Sdn Bhd chairman Mohamad Salleh Ismail.

In his report, Salleh accused Rafizi of 21 breaches for revealing private and confidential banking details that were protected under Part XIII, Secrecy and Information.

Rafizi had distributed to the media the banking details and credit ratings of NFCorp, National Meat and Livestock Corporation Sdn Bhd, Real Food Company Sdn Bhd and Agroscience Industries Sdn Bhd as well as the personal banking details of the directors and shareholders, including Salleh’s.

Rafizi had further pointed out that Salleh had used NFCorp’s public funds to secure a personal loan to purchase eight shop office units at KL Eco City and that Salleh had been constantly defaulting on his loan repayments.

It is believed that this divulging of private banking details is the first time in Malaysia’s banking history, a violation that carries a penalty of three years imprisonment and a RM3 million fine.
Section 96 of the BAFIA stated that “Except as provided in section 43 (2), and without prejudice to the powers of inspection, examination, investigation or inquiry conferred on the Bank or on an investigating officer under this Act, nothing in thisAct shall — (a) authorise the Minister to direct the Bank; or (b) authorise the Bank, to inquire specifically into the affairs of any individual customer of any licensed institution.”

Section 97 of the Act provided that, “No director or officer of any licensed institution or of any external bureau established, or any agent appointed, by the licensed institution to undertake any part of its business, whether during his tenure of office, or during his employment, or thereafter, and no person who for any reason, has by any means access to any record, book, register, correspondence, or other document whatsoever, or material, relating to the affairs or, in particular, the account, of any particular customer of the institution, shall give, produce, divulge, reveal, publish or otherwise disclose, to any person, or make a record for any person, of any information or document whatsoever relating to the affairs or account of such customer.”

The same section also stated that, “No person who has any information or document which to his knowledge has been disclosed in contravention of subsection (1) shall in any manner howsoever disclose the same to any other person.”

In a statement today, NFCorp urged the police and Bank Negara to investigate these serious multiple contraventions of the BAFIA.

Maybe not, but at the very least, many people can sympathize for the dire economic motivations that have led Argentina to undertake such a decision.  From Win Thin, Global Head Of Emerging Markets Strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman, as quoted by Diverging Markets, I can’t help but feel very sorry for Argentina myself.

Basically, Fernandez is doubling down on its past policies that have done nothing but push Argentina closer to crisis. Put in the context of Latin America, Argentina is going further down the road traveled to some extent or another by Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. This group stands in sharp contrast to the orthodox-oriented core of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay.

A look at the fundamentals shows why Fernandez is engaging in such visible theatrics, which also includes recent vitriol regarding the Falkland Islands. Simply put, we think economic stresses are intensifying. How deep the stresses will get is yet to be determined. Economic growth is slowing sharply after years of robust growth driven by high prices of its grain exports. GDP rose 7.3% y/y in Q4 vs. 9.3% y/y in Q3. Monthly data so far are pointing to a further slowdown to around 5.3% y/y in Q1. On the external side, export growth was weakened to around 11% so far in Q1 vs. average of 20% y/y in Q4 and 26% y/y in Q3. The current account surplus has rapidly fallen and moved into deficit in Q3 and Q4. For 2012 as a whole, the gap is expected near -1% of GDP.

Despite high inflation, the central bank has kept the repo rate at 11.5% since October 2009, when it cut rates 25 bp. Instead, the bank has counted on price controls and other unorthodox measures (including changing the CPI basket) to keep official inflation low. Private sector economists estimate true inflation to be closer to 25% than to the official rate of 9.8% y/y posted in March. Fiscal policy remains too loose after the election, with generous wage agreements adding to upward price pressures.

The following was originally published in Education News, penned by Zimbabwe Minister of Education David Coltart:

Despite massive challenges including political interference and lack of human resource capacity, Zimbabwe has seen change in one of its most fundamentally-critical sectors, change that has come about as a direct result of international support. More must be done, but for the sake of our audiences acknowledging where assistance can go from root to fruit, it is imperative we keep them appraised as to the precedents set by the Education Transition Fund.

Zimbabwe’s Education Transition Fund (ETF) has dramatically altered for the better the futures of children throughout the nation, children once disillusioned from having no teachers at school, from sharing a textbook amongst thirty of their fellow students, from a lack of administrative oversight and from crumpling infrastructure. The Fund, now in its second phase, has been an innovative boost, founded as a multi-donor mechanism in 2009 by the Ministry of Education, Sports, Arts and Culture in partnership with UNICEF and the international donor community. Its aim was and continues to be to bridge the sponsorship gap in the education sector during a transition period to notable recovery from what was an absolute state of emergency.

During hyperinflation, the declining economic situation of families in Zimbabwe had a direct affect on the ability of parents to send their children to school. This, in addition to a massive exodus of teachers and a resultant decline in teaching standards, resulted in an increase in the number of children dropping out. The drop-out rates were at one point cataclysmic. Where they went and what was learned tragically fell by the wayside. This plight resonated globally and action was taken to reverse the trajectory of the sector to foster potential talent and provide it with the tools to flourish here at home, re-starting a cyclical process inherent to sustainable growth. Direct partnerships in support of the ETF have accomplished this and through an increase in donor and partner support today, we have the ability to see before us tomorrow evenhanded access to quality education through the implementation of the fund’s second stage.

This begs the question, “what has the ETF, like so many ‘aid to Africa’ initiatives, truly accomplished?” Notably, that would be the largest book program in Zimbabwean history, wherein 3 million students received textbooks, allowing the student to textbook ratio to hit the 1:1 mark. Indeed with full knowledge that a sizeable proportion of levies paid by parents was put towards the learning materials themselves, the ETF in practice pivoted funding towards incentives to teachers to enable them to survive and remain in the classroom. It is critically important that in this, the second stage, government takes the reigns of full responsibility for payment of teachers’ salaries.

Indeed our second phase looks to spotlight access and quality education for all Zimbabwean children. Stronger support from the west to the fund, like that which we have seen from our friends in the United Kingdom as of late, passes through no alternative filters, despite popular belief, and can have a direct impact.

It is in this light disheartening then that editorials like these tend to name and shame the efforts of those skeptical of the progress being made or simply uninterested in supporting a once-bountiful trading partner. One cannot help but be appalled by the lack of support and general wariness emanating from the United States and Canada, especially when their governments are acutely aware of how efforts to grow domestically can be stifled from stalemates within a united government and only through external support can a nation pull itself up from its proverbial bootstraps.

Swedish Ambassador Anders Liden recently spoke about the collective effort behind the Education Transition Fund. He noted that the initiative is ‘a clear demonstration of different groups working together to contribute to the attainment of quality education that Zimbabwe’s children much deserve’. And he’s right. The future of the Zimbabwean nation and indeed the whole of Southern Africa is at stake. We applaud the work done and with cautious optimism but unbridled anticipation, look forward to our political and non-political partners taking that next step forward and tangibly working to ensure that Zimbabwe sees a new dawn rooted in a new vibrant generation of well educated young Zimbabweans.

While shale could help Poland lessen dependence on Russian supplies and cut its gas bill, a government proposal for a levy on production threatens to curtail investment. Europe’s best hope for a shale-gas boom is indeed fading as explorers in Poland confront rising taxes, political concerns focused on environmental degradation, a lack of rigs and rocks that are harder to drill than expected.

The National Post and BusinessWeek report that failed wells by Exxon Mobil curbed the optimism that led two dozen companies to grab licenses. Shale-gas reserves may be lower than estimated, and well drilling costs almost three times as much in Poland as in the U.S.

“The growth of shale in Poland will also be slower than in the U.S. because it would need to build the infrastructure the U.S. already had available,” said Laura Loppacher, an oil and gas analyst at Jefferies International Ltd. in London. “We know the gas in place is there, but it’s unclear if it can be extracted at a rate that’s commercial.”

“Another negative factor is uncertainty concerning EU pressure to tender exploration and production licenses separately, unlike now where exploration companies have certainty over control of output,” according to Marek Matraszek, Warsaw-based head of CEC Government Relations, which advises companies dealing with the government.

“It has been decided that rights acquired by investors will be honored,” Piotr Wozniak, the country’s deputy environment minister and chief geologist, said last week.

Whatever the size of Poland’s reserves, the industry isn’t yet giving up.

“We need dozens if not hundreds of wells before we can estimate Poland’s shale gas potential,” said Tom Maj, Poland manager for Talisman Energy Inc. (TLM), the Calgary-based oil and gas explorer. “Wells must be kilometers rather than dozens of kilometers apart, as they are now, to fully assess the reserves.”

Pressure group Sokwanele posted an alert on its website saying Chizuze “Allegedly left his home around 8 pm on 8th February, and what happened after this remains a mystery. He may have been murdered, hijacked or abducted by parties unknown.” It is noted that his car, a white twin cab Nissan Hardbody (registration ACJ 3446) is also missing.

Ten organizations led by the Christian group Churches in Bulawayo and the Solidarity Peace Trust also recently issued an appeal saying they feared Chizuze may have been ‘murdered’.

Paul Chizuze is a paralegal who worked with civic organizations including the Amani Trust. Chizuze worked closely with Education Minister David Coltart, who wrote on the social microblogging site Twitter: “I am very distressed about the disappearance of a good friend and colleague.”

Fellow activists has been quoted as stating that Chizuze was one of the many volunteers who led efforts to search for Coltart’s election agent, Patrick Nabanyama who disappeared at the height of political violence in 2000, and has never been found. He has since been declared dead.

In light of the recent death of former military chief Gen. Solomon Mujuru (husband of the vice-president) at a farm outside Harare, Chizuze’s disappearance has sent shock waves through the human rights community.

“He has been documenting human rights violations over the years, and obviously he would have probably inconvenienced one or two people who may not have been happy with the kind of work he was doing,” Chief Executive Officer Dumisani Nkomo of Habakkuk Trust said. “So yes, somebody may have caused him harm.”

Elsewhere, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network said the country has made very little progress over the past three years in increasing the respect for human rights which it says is essential for the nation to hold new elections.

A ZESN report entitled “Analysis of the Human Rights Situation in Zimbabwe and Implications for Free and Fair Elections,” based on observations by 210 observers, said power sharing since 2009 “has not resulted in a change in… respect for human rights.”

ZESN Director Rindai Chipfunde-Vava added that substantial political reform is still needed to be carried out as the country heads uncertainly toward a constitutional referendum (likely this year) followed by a general election.

The Dziennik Gazeta Prawna daily added that it has seen the report prepared for the Ministry of Environment which concludes that apart from the noise from drilling, ‘fracking‘ shale gas in Poland will not have negative environmental consequences.

Experts studied the environmental impact of the ‘fracking process’ performed in 2011 on one of the boreholes in the village ?ebie? in Pomerania, northern Poland.

From 2014, Warsaw wants to tap an estimated 5.3 trillion cubic meters of shale gas reserves. According to the US Energy Information Administration, Poland is sitting on more than 300 years of its domestic energy needs.

Poland looks to break its reliance on Russian energy and potentially reduce Moscow’s overall ‘power’ over Europe. That is one reason why Warsaw has welcomed U.S. oil majors such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Conoco and Marathon, even though it risks igniting tensions with Russia.

Nonetheless, environmentalists and researchers at Cornell University have raised the alarm that the fracking process of retrieving the energy supply could increase greenhouse has emissions. France has already banned the process.

A poll taken in late 2011 found however that 73 percent of Poles backed developing shale gas mining.

In an interview with the Moscow Times, Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Beata Stelmach said the next step is to enact legislation needed to attract investors and give them assurances that they will see returns for exploration that can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

“If we move to the production level, then Poland’s international position can change from a gas importer, to producer, or maybe eventually even exporter,” Stelmach said. “This changes not only the domestic situation by improving energy security, but also strengthens the competitiveness of our country“.

In this exclusive interview, German businessman Franz J. Sedelmayer discusses his decades-long dispute with the Russian government, challenging Russia’s sovereign immunity, and the link between state corruption and the current environment of civil unrest in Russia.

Q: Looking at the very long history of your dispute with the Kremlin, no one could say that you lack resilience in seeking recovery of your stolen property. So where did this all begin?

A: As the Eastern Block began to break down in 1989, we saw an opportunity to set up a company supplying law enforcement equipment to Russian executive organs of state helping with their modernization and training their personnel. Later on I also founded a security service to assist new foreign investors in navigating in a rather risky economy. We set up our joint venture, JSC Kamenny Ostrov, together with the Leningrad (St. Petersburg) Police Department, which offered the use of facilities on Stone Island for a 25-year lease. We ended up bringing in cash, equipment and renovating our company facilities, investing upwards of $4,000,000.

We began having political problems right away as the law changed, banning the police from participation in commercial activities, and creating a heated competition for the other 50% of our company between organs of the new federal government and the old property fund ran by the Supreme Soviet.

It was at this point that I developed a close working relationship with Vladimir Putin, who at the time was the head of the foreign relations department of the Mayor of Leningrad (St. Petersburg), Anatoly Sobchak. He came up with a solution to our problem – that the city government, through an executive order by Anatoly Chubais, could take the share in the joint venture, but what would they get out of it?

We agreed that if the city would take the share, then our company would form, fund, equip and train a FSB counter-terrorist team free of charge as St. Petersburg had to host the Goodwill Games, but the City’s law enforcement agencies lacked any counter-terrorism capability.

Q: At what point did your good relationship with Putin break down?

A: Well, trouble started in 1994, when President Boris Yeltsin had decided to confiscate our facilities, where we had more than 150 employees working at the time. We were in an awkward situation because we had invested a lot of money in the facilities and we had no alternative replacement. On behalf of the city, Vladimir Putin wanted to provide us with new facilities owned by the City, but had no money to compensate for our leasehold improvements. So instead, what Putin and I decided to do was to write a letter to Pavel Borodin, who at the time was the head of the Managing Department of the President of the Russian Federation, asking him to compensate us for our leasehold improvements for around US$800,000.

To our surprise, Borodin wrote back to us stating that the company had been established illegally, and thereby the Russian state had no duty to pay us any compensation, and that they would simply expropriate everything we had without any payment. Putin was unable to do anything about this raid, and that’s where our legal dispute begins. We had our last conversation in early 1996.

Q: So what has been your strategy to recover the investment taken in the expropriation?

A: Well, our strategy is very simple – we are trying to make the Russian Federation pay its debt, and this is a government that never wants to pay anyone. With all the domestic courts being absolutely useless in arbitrating a dispute for foreign investors, the only thing that we can do is search for assets wherever we can find them and attach them to our case.

Russia’s obstinacy on paying debts is not unique to my case, but rather it is a widespread practice of state policy. In principle, it is like fighting with a schoolyard bully who refuses to give in, and all you can do is hit them where it hurts. In our fight against Russia’s abuses of sovereign immunity, in some cases we were not very fortunate, while in others we were able to create case law.

Q: What are some of the issues that come up when you go after Russian assets in the West?

A: Well, when it comes to sovereign immunity, the fine line is always about whether or not the assets in question are being used for a sovereign purpose or for a commercial purpose. The worst case scenario, which always comes up in our case, is when the asset is claimed to be used for both.

The problem is that no one, since we’ve been around, has been trying to execute against a foreign sovereign in the Western world, so we are the first ones to develop real precedent and case law. There are instances in which the courts disagree. For example, the Supreme Court of Sweden decided last July that as soon as a government is using a facility for a mixed purpose, “sovereign and commercial purposes,” it can no longer be protected under immunity. This case concerned the former USSR trade mission in Stockholm.

But Germany, with the most recent decision in December, decided exactly the other way around. The court concluded that if an asset is used for even a partial sovereign purpose, it cannot be attached.

Q: What was the reasoning for the German court’s ruling?

A: Well, first of all, the court did not examine the merit of the case, but rather issued a decision on the grounds of whether or not to accept the case. That means that the case subject will continue coming back to that German court until that question has been handled and is finally ruled upon! Basically, they have now concluded that it was OK for a foreign government to use commercial activities to fund sovereign activities in the same building– which is, quite simply, ridiculous. In practically any other country, a commercial activity is considered a commercial activity, full stop. It doesn’t matter what a government claims is going to be done with the money it earns from this business.

In our case, this concerned the Berlin-based House of Russian Science and Culture. Actually 90% of the building there is leased to companies and to retailers, and the Russians have claimed that this is not a commercial activity, as they use the profits from these leases to fund the representation of Russia in Germany.

But bullied into the corner, the Germans have been excessively lenient with Russia on this ruling, requiring us to take the case to the final point before the European Court of Human Rights. It reminds me of the Yukos case before the ECHR, when the Tribunal seriously decided the persecution and expropriation conducted against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his partners was not politically motivated. Frankly, I really fail to see what we as Europeans stand to gain, if our courts permanently give in to Russian pressure. This practice must stop! Why would we even want Russia to remain a member in the Council of Europe, if today’s Russian administration willfully ignores the very human rights it once had promised to observe and to protect? Should we Europeans lower our standards?

Q: How much have you been able to recover so far?

A: So far we have recovered about 1.2 million euros, and we are owed about 4.5 million euros more, including all the legal fees – Russia has a very bad habit of refusing to pay legal fees when they lose. For example, we are engaged in at least 60 ongoing lawsuits as we speak, most of them connected with the execution of Russian assets.

What is interesting is that instead of just paying us the relatively small amount to make the problem go away, they instead allowed the case law to develop in court, and this is going to help anybody else in the future who has money to collect from Russia. And quite frankly, now they are standing there with these results, and they look actually pretty foolish, as what they have done was not at all necessary, and was not helpful to their image.

Q: So why have the Russians been so foolish when it would have been so much less damaging just to settle your case?

A: Well, back when I was working in Russia, we had this term we called “nachalnik syndrome”: if an official has reached a certain level in his career, he cannot ever be wrong again, so whatever decision he makes, it is like an edict from the pope. It cannot be reversed or reconsidered in light of new evidence.

And this is how they are pursuing their legal affairs – and I don’t see any way that they will change their attitudes, because at the moment they are surviving. Even though 50% of the country’s income coming from oil and gas and rare metals, and only 1 million people actually benefit from that by being employed in those sectors, I don’t think that they actually think they absolutely need the foreign investments.

Russia has a very short-term attitude, Putin himself included. They know that the system as it stands now cannot last more than 3-5 years, but they think, “who cares what happens after I am gone.”

Q: Do you think your experience represents a horror story for foreign investors in Russia, or a more unique experience?

A: Look, the truth is that Russia’s image as a destination for foreign investment is terrible, and I don’t care about all the positive things that any Western government, including the United States, has to say about how great the country is, how it is moving in the right direction, etc. And the American “reset policy” in particular has failed miserably in bringing any progress to Russia that continues to fail to protect people’s property and freedom.

A normal businessperson today would not invest a dime in Russia. The only companies that are able to invest are multinational corporations of the size that they don’t care if they lose their investment. On the one hand, the investment is either relatively small in the terms of the company’s overall portfolio, and on the other, they don’t care if they lose the money because it is not their money but rather that of the shareholders. These guys can go out there and take all the risks, and then worry about handling the disputes among shareholders and auctioneers in the event that they lose the investment, but in no case are they making any investment that would cause the end of company. It seems strange some shareholders have not woken up to that reality, yet! But when you talk about small and mid-sized companies, there is no way they would take the risk to invest in Russia when there is no way to recover debts.

Q: So given that you worked so closely with Putin in the past, what are your impressions of him now?

A: Well there is a nice phrase that describes what happened to Putin: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

When I worked with Putin, he was known for two things: being honest and being loyal to his boss, who at that time was Mayor Sobchak. Putin would do absolutely anything for Sobchak, including covering up his corruption – and it was incredible, he did a very good job at it. It was this type of display of loyalty that eventually landed him his first top job in Moscow, and I think essentially that was the role he was originally expected to play by Yeltsin and his family.

If Putin would really be reelected as president in March 2012 he will, in order to stay in control for the whole duration of his term, restrict the freedom of the Russian people even more harsh; possibly to rival the situation as it has existed under the communists in the 1970’s. The Russian people are fully aware of that danger!

Q: But if Putin were to exit the political scene, would foreign investors find an improved environment?

A: No, not right away. The crisis in Russia is not just limited to Putin the person, but the people who work around him. By nature, a dominant and charismatic personality like Putin is not going to surround himself with very capable people. That actually describes the whole situation in Russia today, whether you are talking about the FSB, the bureaucracy, or the nachalniki that control the cities and regions. These are not exactly the brain surgeons and rocket scientists of Russia – these are people who jumped on the bandwagon of Putin’s party, just like the same type of people who jumped on the bandwagon of the Communist Party for decades.

Q: Do you see a connection between the hostile environment for foreign investment in Russia and the current wave of protests seizing Moscow?

A: Well the motivations of the protesters are complex – I think that if you interviewed ten different people demonstrating, you would get ten different answers. But it is precisely this diversity that indicates all the makings of a genuine popular movement, and that’s particularly dangerous for Russia’s current administration.

What started everything, I believe, were two core features of the current system in Russia: 1) the lack of fair distribution of wealth, and 2) the display of absolute power. You have this immense wealth generated from the oil, gas, and minerals sector going to a very select few, along with the immense wealth generated by corruption going to members of the bureaucracy, judiciary, and the executive organ of the state. Take this along with the brazen display of power during the last Duma election, when it was clear that nobody even took the vote seriously enough to even bother concealing the rigging of the elections, and you have a recipe for trouble. The lack of opportunities combined with the open gestures of power, and many Russian people finally understood that they were being treated as though they didn’t exist by their leaders.

Q: Putin’s main campaign slogan this year appeals to stability, arguing that without his guiding hand, Russia will fall into chaos. Do you buy it?

A: It’s a complete myth that Putin’s Russia is stable. The lack of control over the country is the same as back in the Czar’s days – “the heavens are high and Moscow is far.” It is sheer logistics that do not allow a vertical line of power from the Kremlin to all the cities and the villages in the faraway regions, requiring Moscow to relinquish wide ranging discretion to locals.

What Putin has done essentially is to strike a deal with anybody in the regions that doesn’t step on his feet and or on the feet of the federal government, and then this or that governor or mayor is allowed to fill his own pockets without any oversight from the federal government. But the moment that they mount an opposition to the center, no matter how small it might be, Putin and his people will do anything possible to break it up.

Back in the 1990s, one of my business activities was to help Western investors to deal with the local mobs who tried to take away their business or a chunk of the business. And one thing we learned is that mobsters don’t fight each other. They distribute their market share, making an agreement and they stick by it. And that’s exactly how Putin and his cronies have organized their arrangement with other people in the country that serve in public and bureaucratic functions.

Putin is not the reason for the corruption, but under Putin, corruption became an accepted structure, and if you don’t have ways to break up this structure, such as a fiercely independent judiciary, then nothing will change.

Q: If you were a Russian protester, what approach would you take?

A: Well, my advice, welcome or unwelcome, coming from a foreigner with some experience dealing with Putin, is that his biggest weak spot is that he hates comedy. If anybody wanted to destabilize Putin, comedy is the best weapon they have. You cannot insult the man, you cannot pressure the man, but you can ridicule the man.

Have you ever heard Putin tell a joke? The very first thing he did as Prime Minister was to cancel the most popular political satire show. I would describe these as delusions of grandeur, but he cannot live with the idea that people out there are not taking him seriously. Putin does not break out into rage unless it is issues like that – it’s his Achilles heel.

Q: Last time we spoke, you said that you saw Grigory Yavlinsky as the only candidate independent from Putin. Now he is not being allowed to run.

A: Well, it’s a great pity, because now all that leaves us with is Prokhorov and the Communists, who are both of course connected to Putin.

The banning of Yavlinsky’s candidacy illustrates Putin’s general fear of him and fear of risk, as no matter low the popularity of a competitor, his party is not going to be able to pull the same level of electoral fraud as last time, so almost anybody not under his control represents a risk in his eyes.

And we shouldn’t overestimate the appearance of people like Mironov and Kudrin at the protest rallies, because as far as Putin is concerned, the more the merrier. All that matters is that the only people actually allowed to run in the election pose no threat and are under control. So now, the problem is that the Russian opposition needs to decide whom to support – and that will be a choice of the lesser evil.

Q: So you believe Putin will become the next president and remain in power for many years to come?

A: Well, never forget that Russia can also surprise you, and no one can absolutely be sure of what happens from today to Election Day. But as I have said before, it is not a wise move for Putin to run for President, as he will be poison for the country. The people are disgruntled, and he knows that they are disgruntled, requiring an even heavier level of control over sources of influence. When Putin comes back as president, I believe we will see the flight of more people, more brains, and more money leaving the country without a return ticket.

But it is interesting: out of all the people that I continue to speak with, Russians both inside and outside the country, even the most pessimistic, all of them have plans. They are all planning for a future, a future without Putin.

It is common knowledge that education is a pillar of infrastructural stability, allowing a nation and its respective citizenry to develop and thrive. Education turns aspiration to talent, fosters it and allows it to give back through implementing an acquired skill at home, ultimately equating to a nation sustainably developing.

Yet after the turmoil of 2008, one would have all but written off the former breadbasket of Africa regarding its developmental potential. David Coltart is out to prove those naysayers wrong.

Aside from an unprecedented 15 million textbook initiative brought about with support of UNICEF to Zimbabwe’s students, allowing the ratio of student to textbook to hit 1:1, he champions the push to increase teacher salaries at the incremental level. This applies to a specific funding initiative for those working in remote areas of Zimbabwe, understanding that talent doesn’t necessary only reside in Harare, Bulawayo, Hwange or Victoria Falls and that one should honor their sacrifice to work in remote areas.

With regard to sport, it is understood to have a particularly profound ‘binding’ effect on a populous and to further promote pride and lure back those who seek greener pastures overseas, the Minister aims to return test cricket (particularly England v. Zim at home), soccer and rugby in full to the nation.

Minister Coltart will be speaking over the course of the next few days at the African Brains summit in Victoria Falls. We will be reporting live from the scene, as the event undoubtedly will shine a spotlight on a continent abundant with opportunity (7 out of the top 10 countries projected to grow significantly this year are in Africa) and even moreso on a generation that will turn opportunity in to tangible progression.

The following contains excerpts of a recent article published by Financial Times correspondent Joe Leahy, based in São Paulo:

The Brazilian ministry of development, trade and industry is investigating claims by Brazilian cellphone producers that their Chinese counterparts are dumping cheap handsets on the market. The intense rate of importation of what the Ministry believes are substandard telecommunications products is having adverse effect on the domestic opportunity for sustainable production.

“These are being sold here below the cost of production,” said Abinee, the Brazilian association of electrical and electronics industries. “We can’t compete.”

The move follows other measures by Brazil to curb cheap imports from China as one of the world’s newest and most important trading partnerships becomes more adversarial.

In one of its strongest moves, Brazil sharply increased a tax affecting imported cars produced outside of the South American Mercosur trade region and Mexico last year – a measure that followed a flood of Chinese-made vehicles into the country.

Abinee gave an interesting example when discussing the checks and balances coming in to place on said imports  – Brazil’s electrical and electronics sector expected sales last year to have reached nearly R$135bn (US$75bn) but about R$40bn of this was from imports, an increase of almost 15 per cent.

Imports of mobile phones were estimated to have more than doubled to 15m units last year and now comprised about 20 per cent of the market. These phones were entering Brazil with prices of between $10 and $15, a cost that the association described as “completely beyond reality” in Brazil.

For this reason, domestic production of cellphones had fallen since 2009 in spite of overall growth in the market.

According to a number of financial and political risk analysts interview by The Financial Times, the aggressive and “arrogant” moves by Anglo have prompted a certain level of “unquantifiable risk” that the company may have unleashed in their handling of the dispute with an unusually business-friendly like Chile.  The question remains:  was it worth $5.4 billion in value in terms of the heightened risk their operations will now face?

Institutional investors are also in favour of the sale on value grounds. “Nearly $6bn for a 25 per cent stake is a very big number,” says one investment executive. Chief executive Cynthia Carroll, another top investor adds, “is doing the right thing by her shareholders by trying to extract higher value; Mitsubishi is offering a 100 per cent premium”.

However, executives at rival mining companies have taken an opposite view that has little to do with valuation models.

Two senior executives have described Anglo’s move as “arrogant” in that it antagonises a powerful state company.

“[The mining industry’s] reputation through the 1980s was of arrogance, of doing whatever one liked with the resources under the ground,” says one executive at a leading multinational miner. “The whole industry has moved a lot since then to be more engaged with communities and politicians.”

“The problem now is that this stirs up all the worst memories of the mining industry at exactly the time when resource nationalism is on the rise,” he adds. “So, if next year we face more calls for tax increases, more strident labour demands, we cannot be surprised.”