China rejects claims of cyber attacks on Google

BBC

China has denied any state involvement in alleged cyber attacks on Google and accused the US of double standards.

A Chinese industry ministry spokesman told the state-run Xinhua news agency that claims that Beijing was behind recent cyber attacks were "groundless".

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week asked China to investigate claims by Google that it had been targeted by China-based hackers.

The US search giant has threatened to withdraw from China.

"The accusation that the Chinese government participated in [any] cyber attack, either in an explicit or inexplicit way, is groundless. We [are] firmly opposed to that," the unnamed spokesman of China's ministry of industry and information technology told Xinhua.

"Isn't it true that even in the United States, the homeland of Google, certain government agencies are also reported of often entering a massive number of personal e-mail accounts with certain excuses?"
China Daily newspaper

"China's policy on internet safety is transparent and consistent," he added.

Separately, China's state-run China Daily newspaper said America's internet strategy was "to exploit its advantages in internet funds, technology and marketing and export its politics, commerce and culture to other nations for political, commercial and cultural interests of the world's only superpower".

It also described the US government as being hypocritical, saying the country's "certain government agencies" had reportedly illegally checked a massive number of personal e-mail accounts.

On Thursday, Mrs Clinton urged Beijing to investigate the alleged cyber attacks on Google.

Hillary Clinton: "We look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review"

"We look to Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough investigation of the cyber intrusions," she said.

Mrs Clinton added that companies such as the US giant should refuse to support "politically motivated censorship".

Again in reference to China, she said that any country which restricted free access to information risked "walling themselves off from the progress of the next century".

Google said on 12 January that hackers had tried to infiltrate its software coding and the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, in a "highly sophisticated" attack.

The California-based company, which launched in China in 2006, said it would quit the country unless the government relaxed censorship.

On Tuesday, the Chinese government said Google and other foreign companies had to obey the country's laws and traditions.

The same day, Google said it was postponing the launch of two mobile phones in China.

When Google launched google.cn four years ago, it was criticised for agreeing to Beijing's demands to make certain search results off-limits - including those relating to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Tibetan independence or Falun Gong.

China has more internet users, about 350 million, than any other country and provides a lucrative search-engine market worth an estimated $1bn (£618m) last year.

Google holds about a third of the country's search market, with Chinese rival Baidu having more than 60%.

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Google Will Stay in China, Poll Says

Google Will Stay in China, Poll Says

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Despite the heated battle over censorship and security breaches, Google(GOOG Quote) is not expected to leave China, according to TheStreet users
An overwhelming 66.4% said Google would stick it out, while 33.6% said the company would cease doing business in the country.

Google's fourth-quarter earnings report, which raised some concern of future growth prospects, could be one reason why voters believe Google will stay in the country.

On Thursday, the company reported earnings of $1.97 billion, or $6.13 a share, compared with $382 million, or $1.21 a share, in the year-ago period. Excluding special items, Google would have earned $6.79 a share, better than the $6.48 analysts expected.

Revenue grew 17% to $4.95 billion. While this matched Wall Street's forecast, it disappointed investors who believed the company would significantly surpass estimates.

The other red flag came from search paid clicks, which were lower than last year.

While the amount of Google's business coming out of China is minimal (analysts estimate only about 3% of its revenue will come from the country in 2010), exiting the country could have severe consequences for the future growth of the company.

China boasts one of the world's fastest growing Internet markets. In 2008, the country outpaced the United States, and now claims the most Internet users in the world.

Google did not reveal any new developments in its plans with China during its earnings call, simply stating that it would like to continue to work with China, but intends to stop censoring search results in the country within "a reasonably short time."

The battle between Google and China arose after Google reported a cyber-attack that seemed to target human rights advocates in the country.

On Friday, Beijing shot down U.S. claims that China is hindering the free flow of information over the Internet. Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said regulations are in-line with Chinese law and do not hurt the cyber operations of the rest of the world.

The Internet company also said that it will no longer adhere to China's censorship demands. Since 2006, Google has filtered its search results on its Google.cn, in compliance with the country's wishes.

Earlier this week, Google announced that it will delay the launch of two phones in China that use its Android operating system. The devices are from Samsung and Motorola(MOT Quote) and were set to launch on Wednesday.

-- Reported by Jeanine Poggi in New York.

Newspaper ads still the most effective

Newspaper ads still the most effective

By EUGENE MAHALINGAM
eugenicz@thestar.com

ADVANCES in technology may have spurred the growth of various forms of media, but newspapers are still a staple of our society and they continue to grab the lion’s share of advertising expenditure, says Omnicom Media Group (OMG) managing director Andreas Vogiatzakis.
Andreas Vogiatzakis ... ‘Habits don’t change dramatically.’

In its latest Optimum Impression 2009 study, OMG reveals that 57% of newspaper ads got noticed – which has been the trend since 2003.

“From the study, we found that habits don’t change dramatically. Newspapers continue to dominate in the ad spend despite the decline in ad spend,” says Vogiatzakis.

OMG director of communication insights for Asia Pacific, Guy Hearn, says the fact that the majority of ads were noticed by readers was proof of the continued relevance and importance of newspapers to advertisers.

He says that ad relevance picked up especially during a global economic downturn. In the study, it was revealed that readership of print newspapers in Malaysia rose 32% in 2009.

“Last year was the recession and the trend is that people spent more time at home. With the news that was going on in the marketplace, people wanted to be more informed about what was going on,” he explains.

Held in August last year, the study covered 2,452 different ads in 15 main newspapers and 1,023 readers aged 15 to 54 in Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, Penang, Ipoh and Johor Baru. Overall, there was a total of 14,522 ad exposures.
Guy Hearn ... ‘People wanted to be more informed about what was going on.’

The newspapers surveyed comprised five English newspapers (The Star, The Sun, New Straits Times, The Malay Mail, The Edge), six Chinese dailies (Sin Chew Daily, China Press, Kwong Wah, Guang Ming, Nanyang Siang Pau, Oriental Daily) and four Malay dailies (Utusan Malaysia, Kosmo, Harian Metro and Berita Harian).

OMG research manager Yong Shel Vei, in presenting the results of the study, says that ad noting among Malay language readers was the highest.

“More than two thirds (68%) of ads were noticed by these readers and this is probably due to the lower ad clutter in Malay language titles. On average, Malay language newspaper readers are exposed to 15% less ads than the Chinese language newspaper readers,” she adds.

Vogiatzakis says it is immaterial whether an advertiser chooses to place an ad in a paid or free newspaper.

“From my professional experience in Malaysia, once the decision is made to pick up the free paper and flip through the pages, whether it’s paid or free, it doesn’t matter,” he argues.

“If your creative is strong and is of substantial importance, like targeting a housewife with a shopping coupon, I guarantee you she will pick it (the newspaper) up. The fundamentals don’t change. You have to have a great product and an idea that captures the heart and mind of the consumer.”
Yong Shel Vei says ad noting among Malay language readers was the highest.

Overall, the study revealed that ad noting on Saturdays was highest due to lower ad clutter. The study also revealed that newspaper circulation had surged to 4.8 million currently from 800,000 in 2003.

“The higher ad noting on Saturdays is also possible because people have more time to read the newspapers on that day,” says Yong. She adds that ads that are larger have a higher chance of being noticed.

“Bigger ads are not only more likely to get the reader’s attention, they also enhanced the brand recall and increase the chances of readers reading the ad and absorbing its message. A full-page ad yields 21% higher ad noting than a quarter page,” she says.

Coloured ads were also revealed to attract attention. According to the study, 59% of coloured ads were noticed compared to 53% of black and white ones. Ads placed on right-hand pages were also more likely to be noticed, especially in tabloids.

Yong also says ads that were creative were better recalled by readers. “Media creativity enhances ad noting by 15%, ad read by 30% and brand recall by 25%.”

She says sandwich ads, namely those placed in the middle of a page between news articles, could generate as much as 40% higher ad noting.

Becoming a realistic investor

Becoming a realistic investor
Review by ERROL OH
errol@thestar.com.my

Even Buffett Isn’t Perfect: What You Can – and Can’t – Learn from the World’s Greatest Investor
Author: Vahan Janjigian
Publisher: Portfolio

THE title invites an instant retort: “C’mon, nobody really thinks Warren Buffett is perfect.”

Thus is the shakiness of the book’s apparent premise; that people are so wowed by Buffett’s extraordinary track record as an investor that they are somehow blind to the fact that he has made his share of missteps and that his investment philosophy and strategy are not for everybody.

Referring to many Buffett-watchers, Vahan Janjigian writes: “They believe he has become successful by simply implementing the same basic strategies over and over again. They also like to believe that anyone can be a tremendously successful investor just by learning some of Buffett’s favourite tricks and doing what he has done in the past. If only things were that simple.”

Of course, it’s up to the author to uncover Buffett’s feet of clay and the areas of incompatibility between the Buffett way and what most investors can do, given the latter’s more slender resources.

Some of these points are patently obvious. Do we need to be reminded, for example, that unlike Berkshire Hathaway and Buffett, most investors can’t afford to buy a significant stake in a listed company, let alone entire companies?

Nevertheless, it’s an important distinction. Buffett’s deep pockets and stellar reputation mean he can typically exert influence over the businesses he has invested in, thus improving his chances of getting good returns. Other investors can only hope they have made the right bets or that fellow shareholders with the same kind of clout that Buffett has, will step in when things go wrong.

Also, Buffett doesn’t need to spend much time sniffing out potential investments. Instead, he cherry-picks from the tonnes of deal proposals that he receives regularly.

This book is actually yet another analysis of the Oracle of Omaha’s moves that doubles up as an investment manual. “By studying Buffett you can learn what works and what does not work in most circumstances,” the author writes in the introduction.

“By learning everything you can about Buffett’s strategies, you will ensure that you have the information you need to maximise the probability of success no matter what your investment horizon.

“You will also develop an understanding of and an appreciation for the risks involved in the various kinds of investment strategies that are available to you. And you will make yourself a more realistic investor.”

Even Buffett Isn’t Perfect’s unique selling proposition is that Janjigian, chief investment strategist at Forbes, tackles the job by adopting a less-than-awed stance on some of the things the Berkshire Hathaway CEO has said and done.

The author highlights inconsistencies and mistakes, debunks common misconceptions, and offers alternative opinions, often backed by research findings.

For one thing, our fondness for convenient labels – plus, the man himself cultivates a certain public image – breeds inaccurate notions about Buffett’s approach to investment. Many people see him as strictly a value investor, but he also buys growth stocks. He is famous for his insistence on long-term holdings, but he also trades.

Janjigian takes up a few chapters to pick apart Buffett’s well-known views on corporate governance, succession planning, stock options, taxes and earnings guidance.

The author provides some sturdy arguments against Buffett’s positions, but when you consider the basis of the book, the question has to be asked: Since when is it an imperfection to have opinions that are open to debate?

Again, this exposes the flimsiness of Even Buffett Isn’t Perfect’s gimmicky framing device. But if you look past that, the book is a useful addition to the library of publications about Buffett. Its main value is that it promotes critical thinking over adulation.

And mind you, the book is not meant to put a dent in the Buffett legend. In the last chapter – indeed, the book’s subtitle is already a dead giveaway – Janjigian gives a tip of the hat to Buffett, pointing out that the man has made many of the other Berkshire Hathaway shareholders rich as well.

“Perhaps no other single individual has created more millionaires. Based on the evidence, it is certainly fair to conclude that Buffett is one of the greatest investors – if not the greatest investor – of all time.”

(1) Federal Court closes loophole on land fraud (2) Adorna Error Righted (3) A 10-year legal wrong finally righted

(1) Federal Court closes loophole on land fraud
Tan Yi Liang

PUTRAJAYA (Jan 21, 2010): The Federal Court has plugged a legal loophole in Malaysian land law which allowed unscrupulous individuals to transfer land titles to third parties with legal immunity.

In a landmark decision today, a five-man bench led by Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi unanimously decided to reverse the ruling in the Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd vs Boonsom Boonyanit case in 2000.

The other four on the panel were Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court judges Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Datuk James Foong Cheng Yuen.

In deciding on the case of Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & two others, the court ruled that transfers of property by fraudulent or forged documents were no longer legally valid under Section 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965.

This defeated the application of Section 340(3) of the National Land Code to Section 340(2) as was done in the Boonyanit case by the Federal Court sitting then.

Section 340(2) states that the title or interest of any such person or body shall not be indefeasible:

> in any case of fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or body, or any agent of the person or body, was a party or privy; or

> where registration was obtained by forgery, or by means of an insufficient or void instrument; or

> where the title or interest was unlawfully acquired by the person or body in the purported exercise of any power or authority conferred by any written law.

Zaki said with the closing of the "blatant and obvious" error made by the Federal Court in the Boonyanit case, it would prevent further exploitation of the loophole created by the 2000 decision.

"It is quite well-known that some unscrupulous people had taken advantage (of this loophole) to transfer land to themselves. I hope the land authorities will be extra careful when they register transfers of land," said Zaki.

He added that he was "legally obligated" to correct the problem created for landowners by that decision.

The Federal Court also directed RHB to pay RM75,000 in legal costs to Ying Hong, who is still living in Kuantan, as it held that he had fought for the matter in his personal interest and did not bring the case to court as a public interest case.

The apex court decision, which follows on from a 2009 Court of Appeal decision, marks the end of Ying Hong's long legal battle.

In 1976, the Pahang government alienated and issued a land title for a nine-acre plot in Kuantan in Tan's name without his knowledge. However, in 1985, he received a letter from United Malayan Banking Corporation (UMBC, now RHB) which directed him to pay back RM300,000 for an outstanding loan paid by the bank to Cini Timber Industries.

Ying Hong later discovered that one Tan Sian San had forged his signature in 1977 to obtain a power of attorney acknowledging that Sian San was acting on behalf of Yin Hong.

In 1984, Sian San charged the land to UMBC as security for a loan to Cini Timber Industries, and subsequently disappeared, prompting Ying Hong to file a suit against the then-UMBC.

Ying Hong lost his case in the High Court in 2003, and subsequently in the Court of Appeal last year.

The Federal Court was asked on Oct 29 last year to determine a question of law arising from its decision which was delivered by then-Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin in his four-page Boonyanit decision in 2000.

The Federal Court had ruled then that a person who acquires a title to land either through legal means or by a forged or fraudulent title, had a legal claim to the property.

The Boonyanit case began in 1998, when an impostor claiming to be Mrs Boonsom Boonyanit made a statutory declaration claiming that she had lost the original titles to two plots owned by the real Boonsom Boonyanit in Tanjung Bungah, Penang.

She was able to convince the Land Office to issue certified copies of the title, which were then sold to Adorna Properties for RM12 million, which prompted the suit when Boonyanit, a Thai national, discovered the sale.

She lost her case in the Penang High Court in 1995, but won in the Court of Appeal in 1997. She however lost in the Federal Court appeal which was brought by Adorna Properties in 2000.

The Federal Court also directed RHB to pay RM75,000 in legal costs to Tan, who is still living in Kuantan, as it held that he had fought for the matter in his personal interest and did not bring the case to court as a public interest case. -- theSun

(2) Adorna Error Righted
Extract from The Star (22/01/2010)

PUTRA JAYA: A decade old decision by the Federal Court has finally been corrected in a rare joint effort by the entire legal fraternity including the four highest ranking judges - leading to a landmark decision by the apex court.

It is now no longer legal for anyone to buy a piece of land from another person who got hold of the property through fraudulent means.

Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria, one of the five-man Bench presiding over the case, said it was "highly regrettable that it had some time before this contentious issue was put to rest".

The Bench ruled yesterday that the decision in the contentious Adorna Properties case was wrong. In that case, the then Chief Justice Tun Eusoffe Chin had ruled that the person whose property was "stolen" via forged documents could not take legal action against the third party who bought the land from the "thief".

http://thinkproperty.com.my/realestate/images/stories/Image/adarna.jpg

(3) A 10-year legal wrong finally righted — Business Times Singapore

JAN 22 — Ten years ago, Malaysia’s apex court made a decision that many considered bizarre and introduced much uncertainty into investors’ decisions.

In the case of Adorna Properties vs Boonsom Boonyanit, a buyer who had bought a piece of land without knowing it had been fraudulently transferred was allowed to keep it, thus depriving the person who had been defrauded of his rights. Thus, for 10 years, the registered (and therefore rightful) owner of a property who suddenly discovers that his title has been fraudulently transferred to someone else had no legal recourse to reclaim his property. That decision, which had been made by a three-man panel headed by then Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin, had set a binding precedent for disputes over land ownership.

Happily, all that changed yesterday when the current Federal Court, now with different judges, reversed what it called the “blatant and obvious” mistake of the Adorna ruling. This time, a five-man bench led by current Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi unanimously ruled that the rightful owner of a property title can set aside the second man’s claim even after the title has been transferred to the latter. It was based on Section 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965, which states unequivocally that a title would not be defensible if it had been subject to fraud in any way. What the Federal Court did yesterday was to right a decade-old wrong. CJ Zaki noted that it is “quite well known that some unscrupulous people had taken advantage (of the mistaken Adorna ruling) to transfer land to themselves”.

The Federal Court’s ruling followed submissions last October for Pahang landowner Tan Yin Hong, who was appealing against a Court of Appeal decision in 2009. Tan’s case dates back to 1976, when the Pahang state government mysteriously issued a land title for a 3.6-hectare piece of land in Kuantan in his name and without his knowledge. Land matters come under the ambit of state governments in Malaysia. In 1985, Tan received a letter from RHB Bank telling him to pay back RM300,000 as an outstanding loan given by the bank to a timber company. Upon investigation, Tan found out that a person named Tan Sian San had in 1977 forged his signature and obtained power of attorney to represent Tan. In 1984, Tan Sian San charged the land to RHB as security for a loan to Cini Timber Industries, and subsequently disappeared. Tan sued the bank. In 2003, the High Court dismissed his application and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

But yesterday, the Federal Court decided the bank’s charges against Tan were invalid because of the forgery. And, in doing so, it threw the Adorna decision onto the scrapheap of history. It will go a long way in reassuring both Malaysians and foreigners interested in buying land in the country — either for residential or for industrial purposes — that their rights will be protected.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

Comments (7)Add Comment
min/maxShow/Hide comments
...
written by AuntyG, January 22, 2010
Pity its too late to redress the blatant and obvious mistake of the Adorna ruling. EUSOFF CHIN OWES BOONSOM BOONYANIT BIG TIME !!

written by PH Chin, January 22, 2010
Kudos to the Federal Court judges !

Thank God that justice prevailed in these cases albeit years of delay.

written by Tan, January 22, 2010
The Court is the last avenue for distress parties to seek justice. If the decision so made cast the doubt of the distress parties on its fairness, then it makes a mockery of the whole legal process.

written by onenight4, January 22, 2010
This Eusoff Chin after meeting a close lawyer friend of his in Singapore airport accidentally on their flight to New Zealand to spend holiday together fishing trout in a river stream, forget everything on the ethic of law after retunring from the holiday.

written by NoCowSense, January 22, 2010
This case brings into question the integrity of the judges headed by Eusoff Chin. A lot of questions need to be answered.
Comment smaller | bigger
I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.