19 Oct
2020

Experts, activists call for heightened public scrutiny of COVID-19 policies, funding

first_imgExperts are encouraging increased public scrutiny of the government’s COVID-19 mitigation policies, as the House of Representatives and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) were less critical in their stances. Didin S. Damanhuri, founder of the Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (Indef), said that large-scale embezzlement could occur if COVID-19 response and spending were not monitored closely.“The public has to keep watch so that there is no the BLBI scandal volume 2,” Didin said on Tuesday during a public discussion held by the KPK.He was referring to the Bank Indonesia Liquidity Support (BLBI) that the central bank provided to help failing banks during the 1998 monetary crisis. The recipient banks largely misused the funds, with the KPK estimating in 2019 that Rp 4.58 trillion (US$309.87 million) in state losses remained unrecovered.Didin stressed that public scrutiny was needed, as the House had passed the regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) on COVID-19 mitigation with little resistance, forfeiting their chance to challenge the regulation.In addition to the implementing regulations the government has issued under the 2018 Health Quarantine Law, the controversial Perppu gives the government expanded authority to raise the deficit cap and reallocate funds from the state budget. The Perppu has drawn criticism for a clause that protects officials from legal liabilities, as long as they act “in good faith and in accordance with the law” in the implementation of related fiscal and monetary policies. Experts and activists have raised concerns that the regulation essentially gives carte blanche for officials to commit graft and embezzlement.Following the Perppu, the government announced it would roll out an economic recovery stimulus package worth Rp 641.17 trillion to support micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and state-owned enterprises (SOEs).Read also: Court summonses Jokowi, House to next hearing in COVID-19 response judicial reviewBivitri Susanti, a constitutional law expert at the Jentera School of Law in Jakarta, said during Tuesday’s discussion that she deplored the House for focusing on issues other than COVID-19 mitigation, including deliberating the revised 2009 Mining Law revision and insisting on passing contentious omnibus bill on job creation.“It’s like the House and the government are wearing blinders, while the people they represent are thinking about whether they will be able to eat tomorrow,” she said.Bivitri also urged the public to report any signs of embezzlement in COVID-19 mitigation to the relevant authorities, including the Indonesia Ombudsman and the KPK. She also called on the KPK to be more transparent in releasing public reports.Meanwhile, Indonesian Corruption Watch activist Kurnia Ramadhana suggested that the KPK might no longer be depended on to eradicate corruption. The revised KPK Law that came into effect in October 2019 has established a new hierarchical level above the KPK to install a supervisory council armed with veto powers, essentially stripping the commission its independence and its antigraft tools.Kurnia also noted that KPK chair Comr. Gen. Firli Bahuri, a police general whose appointment late last year prompted public debate, had recorded more controversies than achievements. He added that Firli had made fewer graft arrests while making more frequent visits to government agencies and the House compared to previous KPK leaders, who generally avoided meeting government officials.Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid said that the public should communicate any dissatisfaction with the COVID-19 regulations and policies through legal channels, such as by filing a judicial review with the Constitutional Court or filing a class-action lawsuit.Usman also said that the public should find new ways to exert political pressure on the government amid the current social restrictions. For example, he said, a car caravan protest was held in the United States so protesters could maintain physical distance while making their voices heard.Topics :last_img read more

Read More
23 Sep
2020

Seafood recall due to lack of inspection

first_imgWashington D.C.— Richwell Group, Inc., doing business as Maxfield Seafood, a City of Industry, Calif. firm and the importer of record, is recalling approximately 55,300 pounds of Siluriformes fish products that were not presented for import re-inspection into the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.The frozen Siluriformes items, specifically Sheat fish, were imported from Vietnam to the United States on various dates from April 2018 through December 2018. The products have a shelf life of two years. The following products are subject to recall: [View Labels (PDF only)]14-oz. clear bag packages containing “Maxfield Seafood SHEAT FISH CA TREN KET” with “EXPIRY DATE” of 200324, 200403, 201007, 201008, 201113, 201115, 201222 and 201227.14-oz. clear bag packages containing “Maxfield Seafood SHEAT FISH CA TREN RANG” with “EXPIRY DATE” (some labels don’t display an expiration date) of 200324, 200403, 201007, 201008, 201113, 201115, 201222 and 201227.These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide.The problem was discovered on Jan. 30, 2019 during FSIS surveillance activities of imported products at the distributor facility.There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.Consumers and members of the media with questions about the recall can contact Bradley Martin, General Manager/Vice President, Richwell Group, Inc., at (626) 964-8230.last_img read more

Read More
26 Aug
2020

March Madness bracket projections: Kentucky, UNC shoot up to 2-seed line

first_imgMORE: Grant Williams, once overlooked, on verge of history with TennesseeAutomatic bids (in parenthesis) go to the team with the fewest conference losses. In case of a tie, the bid is given to the team with the best NET rating.Projected No. 1 seedsVirginia (ACC), Tennessee (SEC), Duke, Michigan (Big Ten)Virginia (20-1): NET/Pom/KPI: 1/1/3. vs. Q1: 6-1. vs. Q2: 5-0. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Tennessee (20-1): NET/Pom/KPI: 4/5/7. vs. Q1: 4-1. vs. Q2: 6-0. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Duke (20-2): NET/Pom/KPI: 3/2/1. vs. Q1: 5-1. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Michigan (21-2): NET/Pom/KPI: 6/6/4. vs. Q1: 5-2. vs. Q2: 7-0. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Projected No. 2 seedsGonzaga (WCC), Kentucky, North Carolina, Michigan StateGonzaga (21-2): NET/Pom/KPI: 2/3/11. vs. Q1: 4-2. vs. Q2: 3-0. vs. Q3/4: 14-0Kentucky (19-3): NET/Pom/KPI: 5/8/6. vs. Q1: 6-2. vs. Q2: 3-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-0North Carolina (18-4): NET/Pom/KPI: 8/7/5. vs. Q1: 5-4. vs. Q2: 6-0. vs. Q3/4: 7-0Michigan State (18-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 9/4/10. vs. Q1: 8-3. vs. Q2: 4-2. vs. Q3/4: 6-0Projected No. 3 seedsKansas, Purdue, Marquette, Houston (American)Kansas (17-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 17/16/2. vs. Q1: 8-5. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 4-0Purdue (16-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 11/10/9. vs. Q1: 5-5. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 6-0Marquette (19-4): NET/Pom/KPI: 21/28/15. vs. Q1: 6-3. vs. Q2: 3-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Houston (21-1): NET/Pom/KPI: 7/19/8. vs. Q1: 2-1. vs. Q2: 8-0. vs. Q3/4: 11-0MORE: Zion Williamson the runaway favorite for POYProjected No. 4 seedsLouisville, Virginia Tech, Iowa State, Texas TechLouisville (17-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 15/13/14. vs. Q1: 4-5. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Virginia Tech (18-4): NET/Pom/KPI: 10/9/25. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Iowa State (18-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 13/12/17. vs. Q1: 4-4. vs. Q2: 3-1. vs. Q3/4: 11-0Texas Tech (18-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 16/15/21. vs. Q1: 3-5. vs. Q2: 6-0. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Projected No. 5 seedsNevada (MWC), Villanova (Big East), Wisconsin, IowaNevada (21-1): NET/Pom/KPI: 14/17/18. vs. Q1: 0-0. vs. Q2: 8-0. vs. Q3/4: 13-1Villanova (18-4): NET/Pom/KPI: 18/18/13. vs. Q1: 3-2. vs. Q2: 7-2. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Wisconsin (16-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 12/11/20. vs. Q1: 5-4. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 6-0Iowa (17-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 23/23/32. vs. Q1: 3-5. vs. Q2: 5-0. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Projected No. 6 seedsKansas State (Big 12), Maryland, LSU, Florida StateKansas State (17-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 30/35/12. vs. Q1: 4-2. vs. Q2: 4-3. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Maryland (17-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 24/20/23. vs. Q1: 3-4. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 9-0LSU (17-4): NET/Pom/KPI: 19/24/16. vs. Q1: 3-2. vs. Q2: 6-2. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Florida State (17-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 29/21/24. vs. Q1: 3-3. vs. Q2: 4-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Projected No. 7 seedsBaylor, Mississippi State, Auburn, St. John’sBaylor (15-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 31/26/27. vs. Q1: 4-3. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 6-2Mississippi State (16-5): NET/Pom/KPI: 26/25/19. vs. Q1: 6-2. vs. Q2: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 7-0Auburn (15-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 20/14/35. vs. Q1: 1-5. vs. Q2: 6-1. vs. Q3/4: 8-0St. John’s (17-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 40/47/28. vs. Q1: 4-4. vs. Q2: 4-0. vs. Q3/4: 9-2Projected No. 8 seedsWashington (Pac-12), Cincinnati, Oklahoma, SyracuseWashington (18-4): NET/Pom/KPI: 27/33/29. vs. Q1: 2-3. vs. Q2: 2-1. vs. Q3/4: 14-0Cincinnati (19-3): NET/Pom/KPI: 25/29/26. vs. Q1: 2-1. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 13-1Oklahoma (15-8): NET/Pom/KPI: 38/40/22. vs. Q1: 3-6. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 7-0Syracuse (16-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 47/33/33. vs. Q1: 2-3. vs. Q2: 4-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-2MORE: February could be month to remember in college basketballProjected No. 9 seedsMinnesota, TCU, Ohio State, Ole MissMinnesota (16-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 52/51/38. vs. Q1: 3-4. vs. Q2: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 22-0TCU (15-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 37/37/34. vs. Q1: 0-5. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Ohio State (14-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 36/32/39. vs. Q1: 3-5. vs. Q2: 3-2. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Ole Miss (14-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 39/46/42. vs. Q1: 3-7. vs. Q2: 2-0. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Projected No. 10 seedsN.C. State, Buffalo, Arizona State, IndianaN.C. State (16-7): NET/Pom/KPI: 35/41/76. vs. Q1: 1-6. vs. Q2: 4-0. vs. Q3/4: 11-1Buffalo (18-3): NET/Pom/KPI: 22/22/31. vs. Q1: 2-1. vs. Q2: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 14-0Arizona State (15-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 60/54/36. vs. Q1: 3-1. vs. Q2: 5-3. vs. Q3/4: 7-2Indiana (13-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 44/44/49. vs. Q1: 3-7. vs. Q2: 3-2. vs. Q3/4: 7-0Projected No. 11 seedsSeton Hall, Alabama, VCU, Temple, Texas, Wofford (Southern)Seton Hall (13-9): NET/Pom/KPI: 67/63/44. vs. Q1: 2-5. vs. Q2: 4-2. vs. Q3/4: 7-2*Alabama (13-8): NET/Pom/KPI: 45/48/37. vs. Q1: 2-5. vs. Q2: 6-1. vs. Q3/4: 5-2*VCU (15-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 49/53/40. vs. Q1: 1-3. vs. Q2: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 12-1*Temple (16-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 53/76/43. vs. Q1: 1-5. vs. Q2: 5-0. vs. Q3/4: 10-1*Texas (12-10): NET/Pom/KPI: 41/30/30. vs. Q1: 4-5. vs. Q2: 2-3. vs. Q3/4: 6-2* First Four teams As we inch nearer to March Madness, we here at Sporting News are here to offer our best projections for the NCAA Tournament.As always with our Field of 68 bracket projection, we’re here to do our best to help you decide for yourself how your favorite team’s resume stacks up. This isn’t a projection of what the seed lines will look like on Selection Sunday, but it’s an educated guess at how the bracket would look if the season ended yesterday. MORE: Inside the minds of college basketball’s top scorersNo. 12 seeds: Davidson (A-10), Lipscomb (Atlantic Sun), Belmont (Ohio Valley), Hofstra (Colonial)No. 13 seeds: New Mexico State (WAC), Vermont (America East), South Dakota State (Summit), Old Dominion (C-USA)No. 14 seeds: Montana (Big Sky), Northern Kentucky (Horizon), Bowling Green (MAC) Loyola-Chicago (Missouri Valley)No. 15 seeds: Georgia State (Sun Belt), Radford (Big South), Princeton (Ivy), UC Irvine (Big West)No. 16 seeds: Bucknell (Patriot), Rider (MAAC) *Robert Morris (Northeast), *Sam Houston State (Southland), *Norfolk State (MEAC), *Prairie View A&M (SWAC)*First Four teamsNewbies: Belmont, Bowling Green, Bucknell, Davidson, Lipscomb, Montana, New Mexico State, Norfolk State, Old Dominion, Princeton, Robert MorrisDropped out: Lehigh, Liberty, Marshall, Murray State, North Carolina A&T, Saint Louis, UCF, UMKC, UNLV, Wagner, Weber State, YaleBubble boys (in alphabetical order): Arizona, Arkansas, Butler, Clemson, Creighton, Florida, Nebraska, San Francisco, UCF, UNCG, Utah Statelast_img read more

Read More