.jpg)
Unknown commented on "PORTRAITS (by Myra Rudin)"
13 mins ago
Totally agree with Horst Max Cerni
In Response to a comment by Horst Max Cerni
Unknown commented on "Stand with Francesca Albanese : Ellen Tolmie / Niloufar Pourzand"
20 hours ago
France and Germany are absolutely right. Shame on Albanese!
20 hours ago
After Venezuela, a blockade of Cuba, and warships surrounding Iran, perhaps we should stop calling it the 'Board of Peace' — it's becoming increasingly clear that Trump is simply "Bored of Peace".
Rob Carr commented on "Think Spring (Myra Rudin)"
23 hours ago
Excellent images of spring - fresh air in the midst of rather dark news.
Ramesh Shrestha commented on "Think Spring (Myra Rudin)"
Yesterday
Thanks for sharing beautiful pictures of flowers. I collect pictures of flowers. With your permission I will add these pictures to my album. Thank you.
Yesterday
Sree,
Your optimism at 80 is admirable, and, being of much the same vintage, I share your calm. At our stage of life, the horizon is mercifully finite. Even if markets wobble, the probability that the Fund evaporates before we do is modest.
But the comfort of octogenarians is not the relevant benchmark.
Those who retired last year may be eligible to draw benefits for 25 or 30 years. For them, sustainability is not an abstract debating point; it is arithmetic stretched over decades. A market value of USD 108 billion sounds splendid, but market values fluctuate. Liabilities compound.
And since we are among friends, perhaps a small dose of institutional honesty is not out of place.
UNICEF was particularly creative in its late-career generosity. Many cherished National Officers were given a few final years in international posts. It was a dignified send-off, a gesture of appreciation, and, incidentally, a significant boost to their pension base.
A colleague who spent decades contributing at national scales, then accrued a short spell at international salary levels just before retirement, could, within months of retirement, receive more in benefits than they had ever contributed over an entire career.
At the time, it felt generous. Whether it was financially sound is another question.
Perhaps I have spoken the unspeakable. But sustainability debates may benefit from memory as well as optimism. The Fund will likely outlive us. The question is whether it will treat the next generation as comfortably as it has treated ours.
Your optimism at 80 is admirable, and, being of much the same vintage, I share your calm. At our stage of life, the horizon is mercifully finite. Even if markets wobble, the probability that the Fund evaporates before we do is modest.
But the comfort of octogenarians is not the relevant benchmark.
Those who retired last year may be eligible to draw benefits for 25 or 30 years. For them, sustainability is not an abstract debating point; it is arithmetic stretched over decades. A market value of USD 108 billion sounds splendid, but market values fluctuate. Liabilities compound.
And since we are among friends, perhaps a small dose of institutional honesty is not out of place.
UNICEF was particularly creative in its late-career generosity. Many cherished National Officers were given a few final years in international posts. It was a dignified send-off, a gesture of appreciation, and, incidentally, a significant boost to their pension base.
A colleague who spent decades contributing at national scales, then accrued a short spell at international salary levels just before retirement, could, within months of retirement, receive more in benefits than they had ever contributed over an entire career.
At the time, it felt generous. Whether it was financially sound is another question.
Perhaps I have spoken the unspeakable. But sustainability debates may benefit from memory as well as optimism. The Fund will likely outlive us. The question is whether it will treat the next generation as comfortably as it has treated ours.
In Response to a comment by Sree Gururaja
Sree Gururaja commented on "UNJSPF claims record-breaking performance in 2025 : Shared by Tom McDermott"
Yesterday
Googled for present status-
Quote: As of 19 January 2026, “ The current reported market value of the UN pension fund is $108.2 billion.”
Being an optimist and 80 years old, I believe the pension fund will last my lifetime whatever the arguments!
Sree
Quote: As of 19 January 2026, “ The current reported market value of the UN pension fund is $108.2 billion.”
Being an optimist and 80 years old, I believe the pension fund will last my lifetime whatever the arguments!
Sree
2 days ago
True, more than seven billion people manage to live on less. Many also manage without running water, functioning healthcare, or a predictable income. That, however, has never been the benchmark for sound pension policy.
The question is not whether retirees could survive on less. Most people can survive on very little. The question is whether a contributory, actuarially designed pension system should aim merely at survival, or at delivering the benefits it promised, on the assumptions under which contributions were made.
A 111% funding ratio in 2023 is reassuring. But funding ratios are snapshots, not guarantees. Markets move. Return assumptions matter. Currency exposure matters, particularly when liabilities are effectively global, but assets are predominantly dollar-based. And demographics remain stubbornly arithmetic rather than philosophical.
After all, “others have less” is a moral observation. Sustainability is a financial one. Pension funds, fortunately, operate on the latter.
The question is not whether retirees could survive on less. Most people can survive on very little. The question is whether a contributory, actuarially designed pension system should aim merely at survival, or at delivering the benefits it promised, on the assumptions under which contributions were made.
A 111% funding ratio in 2023 is reassuring. But funding ratios are snapshots, not guarantees. Markets move. Return assumptions matter. Currency exposure matters, particularly when liabilities are effectively global, but assets are predominantly dollar-based. And demographics remain stubbornly arithmetic rather than philosophical.
After all, “others have less” is a moral observation. Sustainability is a financial one. Pension funds, fortunately, operate on the latter.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
2 days ago
Not to worry, even if UN pensions get cut by half. More than seven billion people manage to live on less.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
2 days ago
You are right, a 111% funding ratio at the end of 2023 is, on the face of it, reassuring. More assets than liabilities is a good place to start.
But three caveats remain.
First, 2023 is already some distance away in market terms. A snapshot funding ratio tells us what the picture looked like then. It says nothing about how resilient the Fund is under less friendly return assumptions, weaker equity performance, or persistent inflation.
Second, most assets are dollar-denominated, while most beneficiaries live outside the dollar zone. Over the past decade, EUR/USD has swung dramatically. For those drawing in USD but spending in other currencies, exchange-rate movements materially affect real purchasing power. A healthy funding ratio does not remove currency risk.
Third, demographics are arithmetic, not opinion. Record separations mean fewer contributors and more beneficiaries. Over a multi-decade liability horizon, sustainability depends on conservative return assumptions, not just on one favourable valuation point.
Measured confidence is welcome. Prudence is healthier still.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Feb 19, 2026
@ Thomas: You can relax. As of 31 December 2023, the assets of the Pension Fund were ~US$92.3 billion vs. liabilities of ~US$83.2 billion. It means the funding ratio was about 111 %. And that means there were more assets than promised benefits (on this closed-group view).
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Feb 19, 2026
The five-year COLA figures are noted.
They demonstrate that during a period of elevated global inflation and extraordinary monetary conditions, nominal adjustments broadly tracked consumer prices in selected jurisdictions. That is welcome.
It does not follow that the Fund’s long-term sustainability has been demonstrated.
Record separations imply a structural shift: fewer contributors, more beneficiaries, and longer payout durations. This is not a matter of interpretation but of demographic arithmetic.
Operational efficiency, client satisfaction scores, and timely processing are indicators of administrative competence. They are not indicators of actuarial resilience.
A pension fund is a multi-decade liability structure. Five favourable years are insufficient evidence of robustness.
The appropriate metric is the funding ratio under conservative return assumptions, stress-tested against demographic and market volatility.
Until that analysis is presented, confidence should remain measured.
They demonstrate that during a period of elevated global inflation and extraordinary monetary conditions, nominal adjustments broadly tracked consumer prices in selected jurisdictions. That is welcome.
It does not follow that the Fund’s long-term sustainability has been demonstrated.
Record separations imply a structural shift: fewer contributors, more beneficiaries, and longer payout durations. This is not a matter of interpretation but of demographic arithmetic.
Operational efficiency, client satisfaction scores, and timely processing are indicators of administrative competence. They are not indicators of actuarial resilience.
A pension fund is a multi-decade liability structure. Five favourable years are insufficient evidence of robustness.
The appropriate metric is the funding ratio under conservative return assumptions, stress-tested against demographic and market volatility.
Until that analysis is presented, confidence should remain measured.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Feb 19, 2026
@ Thomas: I don't agree.
Five years ago, one euro was worth $1.21; today it's worth $1.17 (which is more advantageous for European UN pensioners).
Over the past five years, the cumulative inflation rate in the Eurozone has been 23%. At the same time, my COLA statements show a 27% increase in benefits.
Ergo, rising egg prices in the United States work to the advantage of UN pensioners living in the rest of the world.
Five years ago, one euro was worth $1.21; today it's worth $1.17 (which is more advantageous for European UN pensioners).
Over the past five years, the cumulative inflation rate in the Eurozone has been 23%. At the same time, my COLA statements show a 27% increase in benefits.
Ergo, rising egg prices in the United States work to the advantage of UN pensioners living in the rest of the world.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Feb 19, 2026
Detlef is right to point out the nominal increases in USD terms. A compound adjustment of 22.8% over five years certainly looks reassuring at first glance.
However, two additional factors matter for those of us residing in the Euro area and other parts of the world taking their pensions in USD.
First, US cumulative inflation over roughly the same period has been around 20%. That means the real increase in purchasing power in the United States is modest at best, closer to statistical noise than to generosity.
Second, and more importantly for Euro-area-based retirees, the EUR has appreciated against the USD over this period by more than the combined effect of inflation and nominal increases. In practical terms, someone receiving a pension in dollars but spending in euros has experienced a decline in effective purchasing power, even if the USD amount on the payslip looks higher.
So while the pension may have kept pace in nominal USD terms, that does not necessarily translate into real value for those outside the United States. Currency exposure is not theoretical; it shows up every month when converting dollars into euros or other currencies to pay rent, utilities, or groceries.
This suggests that the situation is more nuanced than “the system knows how to look after itself.” For a globally distributed retiree population, sustainability and real purchasing power, not nominal growth percentages in USD, are the metrics that matter.
A fuller analysis, incorporating inflation differentials and exchange-rate movements, would give a clearer picture than headline compound figures alone.
However, two additional factors matter for those of us residing in the Euro area and other parts of the world taking their pensions in USD.
First, US cumulative inflation over roughly the same period has been around 20%. That means the real increase in purchasing power in the United States is modest at best, closer to statistical noise than to generosity.
Second, and more importantly for Euro-area-based retirees, the EUR has appreciated against the USD over this period by more than the combined effect of inflation and nominal increases. In practical terms, someone receiving a pension in dollars but spending in euros has experienced a decline in effective purchasing power, even if the USD amount on the payslip looks higher.
So while the pension may have kept pace in nominal USD terms, that does not necessarily translate into real value for those outside the United States. Currency exposure is not theoretical; it shows up every month when converting dollars into euros or other currencies to pay rent, utilities, or groceries.
This suggests that the situation is more nuanced than “the system knows how to look after itself.” For a globally distributed retiree population, sustainability and real purchasing power, not nominal growth percentages in USD, are the metrics that matter.
A fuller analysis, incorporating inflation differentials and exchange-rate movements, would give a clearer picture than headline compound figures alone.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Feb 19, 2026
@ anonymous: pension benefits in Dollar increased more than compensated for the inflation:
2022 +8.6% (effective 1 Apr 2022)
2023 +6.4% (effective 1 Apr 2023)
2024 +3.4% (effective 1 Apr 2024)
2025 +2.8% (effective 1 Apr 2025)
Compound adjustment over the past 5 years: 22.8%
Certainly, the UN system knows how to look after itself
2022 +8.6% (effective 1 Apr 2022)
2023 +6.4% (effective 1 Apr 2023)
2024 +3.4% (effective 1 Apr 2024)
2025 +2.8% (effective 1 Apr 2025)
Compound adjustment over the past 5 years: 22.8%
Certainly, the UN system knows how to look after itself
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Unknown commented on "UNJSPF claims record-breaking performance in 2025 : Shared by Tom McDermott"
Feb 19, 2026
Equally important is the fact that the US has experienced 20% inflation over the past 5 years, affecting those based in the US in particular, but others with pensions in USD are also affected by the dollar having lost 10% of its value vis-à-vis a basket of currencies. The pensions have not kept up with inflation or the loss of value of the dollar. That is a concern. Financial repression combined with infaltion are well tried and tested ways of dealing with overindebtedness, something most countries suffer from. That might be what we are experiencing over again, although no government or central bank would admit to it. An analysis of the impact of these phenomena would be welcome.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Feb 19, 2026
With record separations, the income to the pension fund will go down, while there will be additional payouts for many years to come. In other words, there will be no more contributions from the many staff who leave, while the number of recipients of pensions will go up. Surely that is not success. An analysis of the Pension Fund's sustainability would be more appropriate than bragging about process time and satisfaction ratings.
Feb 19, 2026
There may be different ways of measuring success. A better way is to measure how much the pot has grown and how sustainable the growth is.
Mary Sidawi commented on "On the lighter side : Shared by Doreen Lobo"
Feb 15, 2026
Hilarious, we all need this kind of light stuff. Thanks for sharing
Rohini de silva commented on "On the lighter side : Shared by Doreen Lobo"
Feb 15, 2026
😂good laugh. Best to you doreen
Feb 15, 2026
Ram, you raise a fair concern. Money can distort democratic politics. But the degree of distortion varies enormously by political culture.
The very expensive, perpetual-campaign model of politics is largely an American phenomenon. In much of Europe, especially in the Nordic countries, political careers rarely depend on raising vast private funds. Campaign periods are short, party financing is more regulated, media access is less commercialised, and political advertising is often restricted. Becoming a minister in Oslo or Copenhagen typically does not require donor networks.
That does not eliminate ego, ambition, or political manoeuvring, universal features of public life, but it does reduce the risk that elections become investment opportunities.
In fact, one could argue that democracy becomes most vulnerable not when money exists in politics, but when money operates without transparency or limits. The problem is less democracy itself than campaign-finance design. Where financing is regulated, audited, and publicly disclosed, democracy tends to look less like a marketplace.
The Nordic experience suggests something slightly reassuring: corruption in democratic systems is not inevitable; it is often institutional. Change the incentives, and behaviour changes with them. But even in well-regulated democracies, influence does not disappear; it simply becomes more polite and harder to detect.
So perhaps the question is not “what alternative to democracy?” but “what kind of democracy?” Some versions are clearly more resistant to the pull of money than others.
The very expensive, perpetual-campaign model of politics is largely an American phenomenon. In much of Europe, especially in the Nordic countries, political careers rarely depend on raising vast private funds. Campaign periods are short, party financing is more regulated, media access is less commercialised, and political advertising is often restricted. Becoming a minister in Oslo or Copenhagen typically does not require donor networks.
That does not eliminate ego, ambition, or political manoeuvring, universal features of public life, but it does reduce the risk that elections become investment opportunities.
In fact, one could argue that democracy becomes most vulnerable not when money exists in politics, but when money operates without transparency or limits. The problem is less democracy itself than campaign-finance design. Where financing is regulated, audited, and publicly disclosed, democracy tends to look less like a marketplace.
The Nordic experience suggests something slightly reassuring: corruption in democratic systems is not inevitable; it is often institutional. Change the incentives, and behaviour changes with them. But even in well-regulated democracies, influence does not disappear; it simply becomes more polite and harder to detect.
So perhaps the question is not “what alternative to democracy?” but “what kind of democracy?” Some versions are clearly more resistant to the pull of money than others.
In Response to a comment by Ram Prasad Koirala
Unknown commented on "Francesca Albanese Again Under Fire : Tom McDermott"
Feb 15, 2026
Thank you, Tom, for sharing her full statement on YouTube and for giving us the context of the attacks against her.
Unknown commented on "Francesca Albanese Again Under Fire : Tom McDermott"
Feb 15, 2026
I stand squarely with Francesca Albanese.
Ram Prasad Koirala commented on "Democracy is very popular: Ramesh Shrestha"
Feb 15, 2026
The money required for proper functioning of democracy almost everywhere comes from the backdoor and therefore democracy becomes undemocratic from day 1. I am elected by the people ego overshadowes the principle of democracy and it becomes a political flaw straightaway as I understand. The million dollar question is what alternative we have to address the issue.
Feb 15, 2026
Watching this unfold, having worked on the lower slopes of the UN hierarchy, is educational. We all understood that sending a poorly phrased email, liking the wrong social-media post, or speaking at an unauthorised panel could trigger immediate institutional vigilance. But it is reassuring to learn that sustained correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein, allegedly involving official channels and sensitive Security Council briefings, falls into what might be called the UN extended reflection category.
One must admire the UN’s ability to operate simultaneously at two very different speeds: instantaneous when disciplining low-level staff, and geological when confronting awkward diplomatic entanglements involving well-connected and well-networked people. It is a management innovation that could only emerge from decades of procedural refinement, with equity shunted aside.
The practical takeaway for ordinary staff is clear. If you wish to avoid trouble, never tweet. Never improvise. And above all, never attempt to be significant. Accountability scales inversely with rank.
One must admire the UN’s ability to operate simultaneously at two very different speeds: instantaneous when disciplining low-level staff, and geological when confronting awkward diplomatic entanglements involving well-connected and well-networked people. It is a management innovation that could only emerge from decades of procedural refinement, with equity shunted aside.
The practical takeaway for ordinary staff is clear. If you wish to avoid trouble, never tweet. Never improvise. And above all, never attempt to be significant. Accountability scales inversely with rank.
Ken Gibbs commented on "Two trips out of Tehran : Ken Gibbs"
Feb 15, 2026
Erratum: The date was 1977, not 1987. An ex-colleague noticed that in 1987 I was in Pakistan, not Iran. Apologies
Feb 14, 2026
Thanks Doreen. Laughter is a good medicine.
Horst Max Cerni commented on "Two trips out of Tehran : Ken Gibbs"
Feb 14, 2026
Great stories. Thanks Ken.
Fred Spielberg commented on "Francesca Albanese Again Under Fire : Tom McDermott"
Feb 14, 2026
I stand squarely with Francesca Albanese, who has demonstrated extraordinary candour, intelligence and courage over the past few years. It is shameful that so many European governments have followed the lead of the current U.S. regime to heap false accusations and threats on this truly honorable public servant.
Feb 14, 2026
Perhaps the oldest footnote to this entire discussion comes from Thucydides, who observed, in what we would now call a refreshingly non-diplomatic policy brief, that “the powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
Democracy, at its best, is humanity’s ongoing attempt to interrupt that arrangement. Sometimes it succeeds; sometimes the powerful still do what they can, just with better public relations.
Progress lies in attempting to force power to follow the rules, and occasionally succeed. Not perfect justice, but historically speaking, an upgrade.
Democracy, at its best, is humanity’s ongoing attempt to interrupt that arrangement. Sometimes it succeeds; sometimes the powerful still do what they can, just with better public relations.
Progress lies in attempting to force power to follow the rules, and occasionally succeed. Not perfect justice, but historically speaking, an upgrade.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Ramesh Shrestha commented on "Democracy is very popular: Ramesh Shrestha"
Feb 14, 2026
Thomas, we are not quarrelling. We are looking at a common issue with different perspective and most of the time we are on the same pane too! By the way I missed a crucial word Clinton before the word President. The sentence was reduced after a call from Clinton to Lee Kwan Yu. How did he find time to intervene on such small issue, i.e. Americans can make any mistake anywhere and get away with it.
Namaste and have a good evening.
Namaste and have a good evening.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Feb 14, 2026
Ramesh, we’re quarrelling in the way only democrats can: at length, politely, nuanced and with footnotes.
You’re right, without the rule of law, democracy turns into performance art. Elections become seasonal festivals, constitutions decorative brochures, and accountability something discussed rather than practised.
Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew worked not because it discovered an exotic alternative to Western-style democracy, but because it treated corruption as a disease rather than a networking opportunity. “Law is law”, even when it involved Michael Fay and offended American talk show hosts. In Singapore, vandalise 18 cars, and you meet the law. In some parts of the democratic world, you might meet a book agent.
But here is the twist: democracy’s flaw is also its safeguard. It allows corruption to exist and to be exposed. It tolerates noisy journalists, irritable courts, and voters who periodically fire the management. That is not elegant governance, but it has worked rather well.
As Winston Churchill implied with a sigh, democracy is not a luxury suite. It’s plumbing. When it leaks, everyone complains. The alternative is often very quiet, until it isn’t.
So yes, corruption is democracy’s nemesis. The difference is that in a democracy, corruption often gets arrested. In other systems, it sometimes gets promoted.
You’re right, without the rule of law, democracy turns into performance art. Elections become seasonal festivals, constitutions decorative brochures, and accountability something discussed rather than practised.
Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew worked not because it discovered an exotic alternative to Western-style democracy, but because it treated corruption as a disease rather than a networking opportunity. “Law is law”, even when it involved Michael Fay and offended American talk show hosts. In Singapore, vandalise 18 cars, and you meet the law. In some parts of the democratic world, you might meet a book agent.
But here is the twist: democracy’s flaw is also its safeguard. It allows corruption to exist and to be exposed. It tolerates noisy journalists, irritable courts, and voters who periodically fire the management. That is not elegant governance, but it has worked rather well.
As Winston Churchill implied with a sigh, democracy is not a luxury suite. It’s plumbing. When it leaks, everyone complains. The alternative is often very quiet, until it isn’t.
So yes, corruption is democracy’s nemesis. The difference is that in a democracy, corruption often gets arrested. In other systems, it sometimes gets promoted.
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
Ramesh Shrestha commented on "Democracy is very popular: Ramesh Shrestha"
Feb 14, 2026
Thanks,Thomas, for your comment, which I very much appreciate. Not many people have patience to read anything longer than two short paragraphs.
My argument is not to drop democracy as an institution. My frustration is largely for not being able to control the political corruption in the democratic institution. You mentioned Singapore, which is the best example of a successful democracy but it is always in the spotlight for being dictatorial. Lee Kwan Yu governed Singapore from 1059 to1990 with his People’s Action Party by winning elections in every single free and fair general election. His son Lee Hsien Loong was also the third PM of Singapore. Lee Hsien Loong also has a military background, which might be frowned in western democracy. The success of Singapore is strict adherence to Rule of Law. Singapore is humorously known as a ‘fine’ city as every small mistake can have financial penalty such as smoking in public places, chewing gum sale, etc. You may recall an American youthMichael Fay was jailed for 4 months and fined $2230 for vandalising 18 cars with spray paint and stealing street signs in 1994. He was prisoned for four months(reduced from six months after the President intervened). After completing his jails sentence, he returned to the USA and had several TV interviews including on Larry King Live like a Hero. Singapore was criticized in the US media for its actions. But in SingaporeLaw is Law. This is what is missing in democracy. I do not know why I am lamenting this but my point is that the biggest problem in democracy is the lack of rule of law, which is bent like a jelly and who can do that – people with power or money. You mentioned towards the end that ‘West mistook favourable economic winds for proof of moral superiority’. This economic win is attached to too many unfair financial practices in banking, monopoly in major industries including pharmaceutical industries) supply procurement, etc. These are not the hallmarks of democracy. Anyways it is getting longer. The bottom line is that until political corruption is not controlled democracy will not succeed and we will continue to criticise Singapore and Vietnam for their success.Thanks
My argument is not to drop democracy as an institution. My frustration is largely for not being able to control the political corruption in the democratic institution. You mentioned Singapore, which is the best example of a successful democracy but it is always in the spotlight for being dictatorial. Lee Kwan Yu governed Singapore from 1059 to1990 with his People’s Action Party by winning elections in every single free and fair general election. His son Lee Hsien Loong was also the third PM of Singapore. Lee Hsien Loong also has a military background, which might be frowned in western democracy. The success of Singapore is strict adherence to Rule of Law. Singapore is humorously known as a ‘fine’ city as every small mistake can have financial penalty such as smoking in public places, chewing gum sale, etc. You may recall an American youthMichael Fay was jailed for 4 months and fined $2230 for vandalising 18 cars with spray paint and stealing street signs in 1994. He was prisoned for four months(reduced from six months after the President intervened). After completing his jails sentence, he returned to the USA and had several TV interviews including on Larry King Live like a Hero. Singapore was criticized in the US media for its actions. But in SingaporeLaw is Law. This is what is missing in democracy. I do not know why I am lamenting this but my point is that the biggest problem in democracy is the lack of rule of law, which is bent like a jelly and who can do that – people with power or money. You mentioned towards the end that ‘West mistook favourable economic winds for proof of moral superiority’. This economic win is attached to too many unfair financial practices in banking, monopoly in major industries including pharmaceutical industries) supply procurement, etc. These are not the hallmarks of democracy. Anyways it is getting longer. The bottom line is that until political corruption is not controlled democracy will not succeed and we will continue to criticise Singapore and Vietnam for their success.Thanks
In Response to a comment by Thomas Ekvall
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Labels
Comments
Labels:
Comments
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment
If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.