Citizens' Issues
Government's Aadhaar-based direct cash transfer scheme anti-poor: CPI-M

The CPI(M) Politburo also objected to linking MNREGA wages to the Aadhaar number, saying experts have repeatedly pointed out that biometric identification for manual workers has a high 20% margin of error as fingerprints of such workers change 

 
New Delhi: The Union Government's direct cash transfer scheme is "anti-poor" as it would actually cut subsidies due to the high inflation rate and not cover the rising prices of foodgrains, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) -CPI(M) said on Wednesday opposing the move, reports PTI.
 
Observing that the government has declared that once the system was in place, the policy would be extended to food, kerosene and fertilisers, the Left party said, "In a period of high inflation, cash transfers to replace public goods such as these is to actually cut subsidies, since the cash to be transferred will not cover the increased costs of the same amount of subsidised foodgrains." 
 
In a statement, the CPI(M) Politburo said, "This will have an adverse impact on increasing malnutrition and hunger." 
 
Noting that the Congress had dubbed direct cash transfer as a "game changer", it said the scheme was "indeed a game changer whose rules are weighted against the poor, in favour of the UPA-II Government's obsessive commitment to cut subsidies to the working people".
 
Opposing the move, the CPI(M) said it was "a policy shift away from provision of foodgrains, kerosene and fertilisers instead of providing for a universal public distribution system (PDS) at controlled prices.
 
It also objected to linking MNREGA wages to the Aadhaar number, saying experts have repeatedly pointed out that biometric identification for manual workers has a high 20% margin of error as fingerprints of such workers change.
 
It was a similar problem for senior citizens.
 
"Without any discussion in Parliament on the proposed Bill for Unique Identity Cards to push through such changes, which will have far reaching implications for manual workers is unacceptable," the Politburo said.
 
As far as scholarships and pensions are concerned, most of these schemes were already cash transfer schemes through bank accounts and were fiscal neutral, the CPI(M) said, adding that the amounts and also the coverage should be increased and linked to the price index.
 

User

ET Wealth claims it ‘warned’ investors about Speak Asia scam. Really?

ET Wealth is claiming it saved its readers from Speak Asia in 2011? Here is a case of a mainline publication that was then running for the advertising buck and now pretending to hunt for the investors! 

 
After the recent arrest of scamster couple—the Khaires—who promoted StockguruIndia (first exposed by Moneylife) which promised 120% returns per annum, ET Wealth—an investment tabloid from the Times group—published an article warning investors not to fall for Ponzi schemes. The 26th November article claimed that it had alerted readers about Speak Asia, a Ponzi scam that duped lakhs of Indians in May 2011. In this article, it claimed that on 9th May 2011 it had pointed out that “Speak Asia’s model was suspiciously similar to a Ponzi scheme. In the weeks that followed, the Speak Asia bubble burst and top functionaries were taken into custody for financial irregularities.”  ET Wealth almost seems to claim its article led to Speak Asia’s downfall.
 
This claim appeared strange to Moneylife. While our persistent efforts at warning investors about Speak Asia had earned us a legal notice and a defamation threat from Speak Asia—why was ET Wealth rewarded with advertisements? We decided to investigate what was actually written on 9th May 2011 and whether it played any role in unraveling the Speak Asia fraud.
 
To our shock, far from openly calling Speak Asia a fraud, as Moneylife has done (see links below), the ET Wealth article on 9 May 2011 downplayed the fraud with tentative comments like “It is this feature of online survey companies that makes them appear similar to Ponzi schemes.” However, it provided generous space to Speak Asia Chief Marketing Officer making nonsensical claims like “These surveys are conducted on behalf of our corporate clients and very large market research agencies. The survey results are used in preparing commissioned industrial research reports which are priced at lakhs of dollars.” All these claims were patently false and could have been verified with a few calls or emails. Readers would recall the Speak Asia CMO claiming that Indian corporates who used its survey services were—ICICI Bank, Bharti Airtel, Bata and Nestle.
 
Instead, ET Wealth wrote: “If online survey companies are to be believed, millions of Indians are making bushels of money through this innovative multi-level marketing (MLM) model. That is almost 1% of the total Internet population in India. At least four other online survey companies are active in India right now, drawing all kinds of fortune hunters.” This careful doublespeak avoids saying that Speak Asia’s claims are mathematically unlikely and hence, probably false. Instead, the Speak Asia CMO was unquestioningly quoted as saying: "We have almost 1.3 million panelists (members) working for us.” (Readers would recall that each panelist had to pay Rs11,000 for the privilege of joining Speak Asia and getting access to fill out two surveys a week, for which they were offered an astonishing Rs1,000 each. They were also paid handsomely for enrolling new members, which was the key to spreading the Ponzi.)  Despite this, ET Wealth claims that it had warned investors about Speak Asia. 
 

Fact is, when the Speak Asia fraud was raging ET Wealth was happily printing full page advertisements about this dubious company and writing neutral articles about it. 
 

Here is something more startling. Even after Speak Asia’s COO Tarak Bajpai and other officials were arrested on 29 July 2011, ET Wealth continued to receive and publish the dubious advertisements. The pitch in these latter ones was, “Contrary to popular belief we are not going anywhere except forward. We reiterate that we are not here just to stay, we are here to grow.” 

 
On the other hand, in sharp contrast, Moneylife, which carried a series of articles on how the Speak Asia’s claimed tie-up with scores of blue chip corporates was fake and that there was no money to be made in filling out childish surveys, let alone an opportunity to earn stupendous returns. 
 
Here are some of Moneylife articles published much before May 2011, which exposed Speak Asia and were available on the internet for anyone who wanted another view. Moneylife was the first to expose the Speak Asia fraud in October 2010, a fact that was acknowledged by the mainstream media after it became clear that the promoters of this Singapore-registered company had transferred over Rs800 crore overseas and it could collapse. 
 
Read - Another MLM scam in the happening, this time under the pretext of an online survey
Competition heats up in online survey space with the entry of domestic MLM companies
http://www.moneylife.in/article/competition-heats-up-in-online-survey-space-with-the-entry-of-domestic-mlm-companies/15827.html
 
ET Wealth’s guarded language had a clear financial purpose. It was the happy recipient of full page advertisements from Speak Asia on 2nd May, 9th May, 16th May, 25th July and 1st August in 2011. The first three pitched son versus father, daughter-in-law versus mother-in-law and husband versus wife with the claim of the younger ones claiming they had made the right investment by joining the Ponzi. We now know who was right after all!
 
What is intriguing is that the Times group, which publishes ET Wealth, makes no bones about the fact that it is a vehicle for advertisements first and a source of quality information later. That could be the corporate policy, but when it claims that it played a role in warning investors, while in fact it was only grabbing revenues from the advertisements and attached editorial coverage, that is certainly hypocritical. 
 

 

User

COMMENTS

240p FLV

4 years ago

Too bad you some people like Pattabhi don\'t like the self-congratulaory tone of the article. Are you people at least Moneylife subscribers or a freeloaders?

As long as your subscription and all the advertisement money goes to the mainstream media, please learn to be a bit tolerant of the other voices, especially when such people are consistently fighting against all odds.

Siddarth

4 years ago

Times Group Chairman has gone on record saying they are an advertising company .News is just an byproduct so it is not fair to expect them to have any sort of integrity anyways. Shysters of the first order.

P M Ravindran

4 years ago

Well, I forgot one more thing. Whether what we refer to as government in this country itself isn't a Ponzi scheme and possibly the biggest of 'em all?

P M Ravindran

4 years ago

Kudos to Sucheta Dalal for taking on the Moghul of the media, long notorious for its mercenary activities! Anyhow, their successful model has certainly reduced the space for honest, reliable media. Wish Moneylife can continue undaunted and lead the charge in the interest of the gullible citizens of this country. While gullibility may be an inadequate term, the question arises whether they are also the greedy and never say learn types also!

Madhur Kotharay

4 years ago

It will be interesting to find out if the Times group had a 'Private Treaty' with SpeakAsia.

Merchant M S

4 years ago

Time has arrived to expose the links between stock brokers, promoters and financial magazines.

PATTABHI

4 years ago

ET has really been caught on wrong foot .. Considerations of AD Revenues apparently overrides objective analysis, misleading readers..

However, is it necessary to show off the oneupmanship so openly? It could have been understated exposing the facts.. unless, of course, there is some earlier animosity.

REPLY

Sucheta Dalal

In Reply to PATTABHI 4 years ago

One upmanship? If David has something to say about Goliath... its one upmanship?

Here we are sticking our necks out to bring correct and true information to readers -- those of you who read it on the NET get it FREE. We dont get the advertising - we get abuse for our trouble. And when ET Wealth makes false claims, it is past animosity and we need to be understated?
I am shocked? What happens when you watch television channels making false claims everyday about stories they have allegedly broken? Do you swtich off? Or do you call them, write to them, email them and say - be "understated", dont indulge in "one upmanship"?? Sometimes our readers are so extraordinary, we wonder why we bother to remain on the straight path at all.
Fortunately for us, the majority are appreciative and you are an exception

MOHAN

4 years ago

ET claim is indeed hypocritical

Chandrasekaran

4 years ago

you are right. When read the article there I too felt the same.

Suiketu Shah

4 years ago

ET Wealth is so so so pathetically outdated.No surprise.

nagesh kini

4 years ago

Can not ET be hauled up at the Advertising Standards for the entire series of grossly mis-selling ads now that the wrong doings sand exposed?

nagesh kini

4 years ago

Can not ET be hauled up at the Advertising Standards for the entire series of grossly mis-selling ads now that the wrong doings sand exposed?

Noted RTI activists Shailesh Gandhi and Aruna Roy file Intervention Petition in the Supreme Court

In a landmark move to fight for citizens’ right and to preserve the sanctity of the Right to Information Act, noted activists Shailesh Gandhi and Aruna Roy have submitted their intervention petition to the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the controversial provisions for selecting Chief Information Commissioners

 
Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner and Ms Aruna Roy, member of the National Advisory Council which helped draft the RTI Act, have filed an intervention petition (in the matter of Union of India Vs Namit Sharma) seeking to review the regressive measures—that Chief Information Commissioners should have judicial background—which would otherwise harm the Right to Information (RTI) Act, make it redundant and subvert democracy in India. The intervention petition stated, “the direction that the Commission should work in benches where one of the Commissioners is a judicial member would create several problems that have the potential of defeating the objective of the Act itself”.
 
Ever since the pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgment for selection of candidates for the post of Chief Information Commissioner was announced, there had been a lot of hue and cry from not only the activists and RTI community but even some notable judges were appalled. The recent move to mandate candidates to have judicial background in order to become Chief Information Commissioner had citizens fearing of “judicial overreach”, which will eventually harm freedom of speech and democracy. 
 
Earlier, the Supreme Court entertained petitioner Namit Sharma’s stand against the Government of India for the need of Chief Information Commissioners to have judicial background, which would require the RTI Act be amended. The Supreme Court, in its controversial judgment, stated that, “Information Commissions at respective levels shall henceforth work in benches of two members each. One of them being a ‘judicial member’, while the other an ‘expert member’.” However, Mr Gandhi and Ms Roy argued that the RTI is not a court but a tribunal merely to seek ‘information’ and not ‘justice’. In their intervention petition, they stated, “The Information Commissions are not ‘judicial tribunals’ since they are not administering justice, but are only providing access to information to make administration transparent. The work being done by the Information Commissioners (ICs) do not require them to be judicially and legally trained, but only expects that they be persons of intelligence, common sense and integrity.”
 
Mr Gandhi had opined on Moneylife on this very issue and they can be accessed through the articles mentioned below:
 
 
 
The Supreme Court decision has also shocked the current Chief Information Commissioner, Satyanand Mishra, who recently said at the Commission’s annual convention on 12th October, “The approach of the Commissions in all these years has been to act like an umpire standing right on the field along with the players and not sitting on a pedestal and pronounce oracles. Openness of approach, informality in style and simplicity of systems has characterized the functioning of the Commissions. No robes, no lawyers, no liveried attendants because what the citizens seek does not go with so much of serious formality. Excessive judicialisation of the Information Commissions will rob these institutions of their flexibility. The society must decide if this is the right path.”
 
Furthermore, chief justice of Delhi High Court Justice AP Shah had written a critique of the judgement calling it ‘regressive’ and has hoped that the judgment will be reviewed. He had penned an article in The Times of India titled “Don’t Kill the RTI”, which said, “Namit Sharma is a regressive decision that only hampers the working of the information commissions by making it more legalistic and complex. It creates more problems while solving none.”
 
If the judgment is implemented it will make things a lot worse for the ordinary citizens, especially those who have already filed their second appeals. Due to the two-bench nature of the proposed structure, it will only prolong second appeals and the time taken to dispose them off will only skyrocket. This will discourage citizens seeking information from filing the RTI appeals when they know that the RTI will be subverted to suit the interest of the few who do not want information out in short time, or at all.
 
Rather than appoint Chief Information Commissioners based on judicial experience and background and stifling the disposal rate, Mr Gandhi and Ms Roy argued for a more pragmatic and common sense approach to increase transparency in selection process, as well as advocating for monitoring the performance levels of Chief Information Commissioners. Some of the steps he has suggested are below, which is open to debate, and requests Moneylife readers to pen down their thoughts.
 
The Information Commissions should set a target for disposals; say 5,000, per Commissioner per year. An attempt should be made to increase this target number.
Every six months they should review their actual performance per Commissioner and forecast the expected receipts and disposals for the next two years, factoring the retirements. This forecast would show the requirements for new Commissioners to be appointed.
The government should advertise its intention to appoint a certain number of Information Commissioners depending on the need, at least four months in advance. Eminent people could apply or be nominated by others.  
A search committee, perhaps, consisting of two members of Parliament, Chief Information Commissioner, one Vice Chancellor, one Supreme Court judge and two RTI activists could be formed to shortlist a panel which could be three times the number of Commissioners to be selected. These could be announced with the minutes of the meeting at which the short listing was done.
A public interview should be held to give citizens and groups the opportunity to hear the views and commitment to work of the candidates. After this the search committee could give its recommendation. Based on these inputs, the final decision to select the Commissioners could be taken by the Committee as per the Act consisting of the prime minister, leader of opposition and one minister.  
 
In the recent RTI workshop held at Moneylife Foundation for advanced users, Mr Gandhi said that “Freedom of expression without the Right to Information is meaningless”, citing the importance of information in a well-functioning democracy.
 
Here are some extra links in which you can read some of the pieces on Supreme Court’s controversial decision:
 
 
 
 

User

COMMENTS

jaideep shirali

4 years ago

Appointment of ex judges will kill the RTI Act, because judges are used to a certain type of functioning. Ordinary citizens may instead have to dig up case rulings and hire lawyers just to get information, which should be given easily. It would not be easy for ex judges to accept that the citizen should have access to data that bureaucrats and politicians stall even today by saying "go to the courts"

Vaibhav Dhoka

4 years ago

If Supreme court order is enforced in word and spirit,a person will file and RTI application and his next generation may probably get information.Same happened with Consumer protection act 1986. Wherever judiciary has stepped in they have killed that system.In fact JUSTICE has become SALABLE commodity i.e we are in era of Justice for sale.RTI should not be dumped in judicial grave.

NSriramamurty

4 years ago

Targetting 5000 cases disposal in a time period is Most Pragmatic.Even Judiciary,Govt.Departments Should have Targets in Disposing Cases/issues.Private Companies views MIS Reports as most essential and Useful.Govt. & all depatments should work with such Systems.
Eminent citizens have done Immence Social service,by approaching SC.

Babubhai Vaghela

4 years ago

Look at the scandalous
https://t.co/izrRvcMb manner in which Shailesh Gandhi was appointed as IC at CIC while he wants to be called CIC himself. All his Orders are as IC. His appointment being illegal, his salary during entire tenure as IC needs to be recovered. Prime Minister should act. References https://t.co/oPm4JrGy
https://t.co/OkfiD4D1
https://t.co/lPnIgBX2
Now, the Hero has become RTI Activist?

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)