Castro insists US go further, lift 'cruel' embargo

Fidel Castro says the Obama administration did not go far enough in softening sanctions, and criticized it for leaving in place the embargo that bars most trade and travel between the two countries.

The White House said Monday that Americans will now be able to make unlimited transfers of money and visits to relatives in Cuba. Under Bush administration rules, Cuban-Americans were eligible to travel here only every three years and send up to $300 to relatives every three months.

Monday's action eliminated those limits in the hope that less dependence on their government will lead Cubans to demand progress on political freedoms.

Castro responded in an online column Monday night. The ailing former president wrote that the U.S. had announced the repeal of "several hateful restrictions," but had stopped short of real change.

"Of the blockade, which is the cruelest of measures, not a word was uttered," he wrote.

Castro noted that several U.S. senators favor lifting the trade embargo and urged Obama to seize the opportunity.

"The conditions are in place for Obama to use his talent in a constructive policy that ends something that has failed for nearly half a century," he wrote.

While analysts say the U.S. policy change could usher in a new era of openness between the two countries, few here think it will mean the end of the trade embargo, which has choked off nearly all U.S. trade with the island for 47 years and counting.

"I'm not hoping for much more from Obama," said 43-year-old office worker Layna Rodriguez. "I don't know that he can do much more since to him, the important thing is what the Americans in his country do."

But many Cubans are happy that relatives in America will now be able to come whenever they want, stay as long as they want and send as much cash home as they can. About 1.5 million Americans have relatives in Cuba, which turned to communist rule after Fidel Castro seized control in 1959.

For Olguita Sierra, the shift in U.S. policy allowing Cuban-Americans to make unlimited trips and money transfers to the island came a month too late.

The 72-year-old's son Sergio lives in Miami and had not been eligible for a trip to Cuba until next year. His request for an emergency visa was pending in March when his father passed away.

"What hurts me most is that my husband died just a little while ago without seeing him," Sierra stammered, tears welling in her eyes. "If only Obama had made this decision sooner."

Jose Pilar Ramos, a 20-something looking for work in the Old Havana tourist district, said his cousin in Miami does not have enough money to visit Cuba — regardless of what U.S. law now allows.

"Obama can do what he wants, but the problem is here. People don't want to work for $4 a week, even if they get more money from family members over there," he said, nodding toward the waters of the Florida Straits, which lap at the Havana coastline.

Nearly all Cubans work for the government, earning an average of 414 pesos — just $19.70 — a month. Ramos said he lost his state job after trying to flee Cuba three times by small boat, most recently in February when he was picked up on the high seas by the U.S. Coast Guard and sent home.

As he spoke, a police officer approached, demanded his identification card and detained him for venturing outside of his neighborhood in East Havana. Police keep close watch on tourist areas, ensuring that foreigners and Cubans don't mix more than necessary. Nobody had bothered Ramos until he began speaking to a foreign journalist.

Other steps taken Monday by the White House include expanding items allowed in gift parcels sent to Cuba. The administration also will begin issuing licenses for companies to provide cellular and television services to Cubans, and letting family members pay for relatives on the island to get those services.

But for many, the moves are only a beginning. Alberto Sal, a 68-year-old retiree, said he had high hopes when Obama was elected but is still waiting for significant action.

For instance, the president said nothing Monday about bipartisan measures in both houses of Congress that would effectively allow all Americans to travel to Cuba.

"He should do more and lift travel restrictions for all Americans," Sal said. "Until he does that, I don't think he's doing much."

$80,000 for a Year Off? She’ll Take It!

This year may be a disastrous one for the global economy, but it’s shaping up to be one of the best that Heather Eisenlord has enjoyed in a good long while. Granted, that might not be saying much: For the past five years, Ms. Eisenlord has been an associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, a notably grueling place for a lawyer to work.

But even by more stringent standards of fun, the coming year looks pretty good. Ms. Eisenlord, 36, who works in Skadden’s banking group, will be buying a plane ticket that will take her around the world for a year, and she’s been stocking her apartment in Brooklyn with Lonely Planet travel guides.

Although she’s not yet sure exactly what she’ll be doing on her trip, she has some ideas. She would like to teach English to monks in Sri Lanka and possibly help bring solar power to remote parts of the Himalayas. She’ll probably hit 10 to 15 destinations around the world, most likely practicing not-for-profit law wherever she can be helpful.

The best part of all: Skadden is paying her about $80,000 to do it.

For a sixth-year associate at a New York law firm, $80,000 isn’t exactly competitive pay. But for someone cruising around the world, doing good wherever she sees fit and, let’s face it, probably hitting a beach or two, the pay is excellent.

Only in a financial world turned upside down would an arrangement like this one make sense. Looking to cut costs like everyone else, but not prepared to lay off associates, Skadden has chosen instead to offer all of its associates — about 1,300 worldwide — the option of accepting a third of their base pay to not show up for work for a year. (So far, the partners have no equivalent arrangement.)

The company is helping associates find pro bono work, and is encouraging them to do so. But the lawyers could also spend the year catching up on every episode of “Top Chef” that they missed during the boom years, or traveling around the world, “all of which is O.K. by us,” said Matthew Mallow, a partner at the firm. Other firms have adopted similar strategies, but Skadden’s program is unusual in that it has no pro bono requirements.

As of Friday, about 125 associates had expressed interest. “I think it’s fair to say that the numbers are in excess of our expectations,” Mr. Mallow said.

Only at a corporate law firm would the managers underestimate employees’ interest in taking a year off from the grind for what most of America would consider a small fortune.

Not everyone could cover monthly living expenses on a third of one’s pay, and naturally some skeptical lawyers grilled the partners about job security. If there are layoffs in a year, they wondered, is it really possible that the lawyers who’d been defending trees in British Columbia wouldn’t be disadvantaged, compared with the lawyers who’d been slaving away on contracts in Midtown?

Not only were the lawyers assured that their time away wouldn’t hurt them; in some ways it would be protective: If there are layoffs while they are away, they will be immune.

So far, the majority of the lawyers are looking for worthwhile legal work, Skadden says, to keep them as competitive as possible; but yes, some will take the year off to spend time with their children or look after a sick relative. Someone’s planning to wrap up his Ph.D., someone else is looking into legal work for a news organization, and another associate will be joining Ms. Eisenlord on her round-the-world adventure.

Ms. Eisenlord says she fully intends to go back to Skadden after her trip, and will be eager to return to the work she loves and the co-workers she admires. It’s possible that after a year teaching monks English, installing solar panels in the Himalayas and working on human rights in developing nations, she will come to the conclusion that there is no more fulfilling life than the one she has spent in corporate law.

But maybe she will have some kind of revelation. If there is any silver lining to this financial catastrophe, it’s that business as usual has come to a grinding halt. Sometimes it takes getting thrown out of the office to notice there is a life outside.

Court frees Raja Petra

SHAH ALAM: Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin is to be freed Friday.

He succeeded Friday in his bid to obtain a release order from detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) via his habeas corpus application.

The judge ruled that the Home Minister had acted outside his jurisdiction when he issued the two-year detention order under Section 8(1) of the ISA.

The High Court here also allowed Raja Petra to be brought to court to be released today.

He was detained for a second time under the ISA on Sept 12.

On April 11, 2001, Raja Petra along with 10 other activists were detained under the ISA for allegedly plotting to overthrow former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Raja Petra was released 52 days later.

Razak cancels press conference

KUALA LUMPUR: Abdul Razak Baginda, acquitted last week of abetment in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, cancelled a press conference scheduled for yesterday.

Daughter Rowena later apologised for her “still adjusting” father.

In an e-mail sent yesterday to the press, Rowena said her father would be staying in Malaysia for the coming weeks owing to concerns about his health.

Local and international reporters had turned up at the hotel in anticipation of Razak breaking his silence since his acquittal.

Although several media organisations had received information on Wednesday night that the press conference had been cancelled, reporters and photographers still turned up at the hotel yesterday morning in case Razak changed his mind.

A retired couple living in Bangsar also made their way to the hotel because they wanted to personally hear what Razak had to say.

Apart from publicly expressing relief over the acquittal and about his daily fasting when under remand, Razak had not spoken to the press – despite the media occasionally gathering outside his house in Damansara Heights hoping for a chance to speak to him.

Rowena, in her e-mail, apologised for the inconvenience caused by the cancellation of the press conference.

“We apologise profusely for any inconvenience and confusion in this matter,” she wrote. “As you can imagine, there is much readjustment that my father has yet to do. He is still adjusting to life as a free man after being in prison for close to two years.”

She added that Razak had assumed he could readjust as soon as he was released.

“But it seems that it will take a little more time. He is also concerned with his health, and as such he will be staying on in Malaysia for the coming weeks,” she said.

Last night, Razak held thanksgiving prayers at his house.

His father, Datuk Abdullah Malim Baginda, said besides holding thanksgiving prayers for his son, a tahlil was also held for the late L/Kpl Othman Abdul Rahman, 47.

L/Kpl Othman died after complaining of breathing difficulties while accompanying Razak, and the other two accused in the murder case, C/Insp Azilah Hadri and Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar, at the Shah Alam High Court on July 25.

Parliament: Former judges paid RM10.5m

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and five supreme court judges were paid a total of RM10.5mil as ex-gratia payment.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abd Aziz said Tun Salleh was paid RM5mil; Supreme Court judges the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawan Teh and George Edward Seah Kim Seng RM2mil each; while Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohd Salleh, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader were paid RM500,000 each.

Nazri said this when he replied on behalf of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department during the committee stage.

Nazri said the six were also paid monthly pensions, of which Salleh received RM5,102, Wan Suleiman RM4,815, Seah RM5,917, Eusoffe (last pension received prior to his death) RM4,815, Wan Hamzah RM6,549 and Wan Azmi RM5,917.

“The payments do not consitute an admission of guilt on the part of the Government. I wish to clarify that their services were terminated, so they have been given pensions for the past 20 years.

“Does that mean that they were considered guilty?,” he said when queried by Wee Choo Keong (PKR-Wangsa Maju) on why the judges were given pensions.

Nazri said that there would be no end to arguments on whether the payments were too high or too low.

“The ex-gratia payments are not about closure (of the issue), they are about moving on.

“We cannot quantify the quantum that should be given to them based on their services,” he added.

On why the ex-judges were given pensions, Nazri said since it involved early retirement and not dismissal, the Pensions Department had to follow the law and give them their payments.

“They were not sacked, the Government told them to retire early. So they chose to retire and they received their pensions,” he said.

Nazri told the MPs to refer to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s speech during the Malaysian Bar dinner in April, in which Abdullah had said the Government wanted to recognise “the contributions of these six judges, their commitment towards upholding justice and to acknowledge the pain and loss they have endured.”

Khalid Abd Samad (PAS-Shah Alam) said there should be a proper closure of the issue.

“If we really want to clear their names, then the Government has to come clean.

“The Government should admit that there was abuse of power by the Executive against the judiciary. If not, the lesson from this experience would not have been learnt,” he said.

Nazri said MPs cannot bring media reports into the House and claimed that the judges were sacked, because the media had its own “slant” on the issue.

To a question from Datuk Kamaruddin Jaafar (PAS-Tumpat), Nazri said there would not be a judicial review of the case if no fresh evidence was found.

‘Many have gained from Shah Rukh’s work in Malaysia’

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has defended Malacca’s decision to confer a Datukship upon Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan.

However, he said local artistes deserving of awards should be rewarded as well.

In an Oct 23 posting in his blog chedet.com, Mahathir said he was embarrassed over the controversy arising from Malacca’s decision to confer Shah Rukh with a Datukship.

Dr Mahathir said such titles had been previously bestowed upon foreigners deemed to have contributed to the nation, and that some of them “even contributed less than Shah Rukh.”

He said Shah Rukh was among the handful of famous names willing to make films here.

“I had previously tried to encourage Bollywood filmmakers to shoot here, to introduce the country as a tourism draw.

“Shah Rukh responded to the invitation. Many of his films feature famous Malaysian attractions.

“Not only are we able to attract tourists, but filming here incurred huge expenses for the Bollywood companies. Locals and many others gained,” said Dr Mahathir.

He added Shah Rukh had also performed for free to help charities raise funds.

“His choosing to film here had encouraged other Bollywood film makers to do the same as well,” said Dr Mahathir.

Meanwhile, Bernama clarified that Shah Rukh will receive his Datukship on Nov 29, and not Oct 29 as was reported.

An officer from the Chief Minister’s office said the conferment ceremony at the Seri Negeri Hall in Malacca would be telecast live at 10am on that day.