To be taken at: Public and Private Universities in Malaysia
Accepted Subject Areas? Field of studies is in the following priority areas:
Candidates may choose any related course within the field/areas mentioned below
About Scholarships:
Malaysia International Scholarship (MIS) is an initiative by the Malaysian Government to attract brilliant minds from around the world to pursue postgraduate studies in Malaysia. This scholarship is parallel with Malaysia’s aspiration to emerge as one of the global centres of academic excellence by attracting, motivating and retaining talented human capital from abroad.
The Malaysian Technical Cooperation Program (MTCP) was established in 1980 as Malaysia’s commitment to South-South Cooperation by sharing Malaysia’s development experiences and expertise with other developing countries.
Type: Masters degree
Selection Criteria: Applications will be considered according to the following selection criteria:-
High-level academic achievement
The quality of the research proposal and its potential contribution towards advancing technology and human well-being.
Excellent communication, writing, and reading skills in English Language
Eligibility: Malaysia International Scholarship (MIS) applicants must COMPLY to the following criteria
Interested international graduates with outstanding academic and co-curricular backgrounds are welcome to apply for this scholarship to further their studies in leading Malaysian universities and higher education institutions with the opportunity to enjoy Malaysian hospitality and a world-class higher education experience.
Malaysian Technical Cooperation Programme (MTCP) Scholarship applicants must COMPLY to the following criteria:
Not more than 45 years old at the time of application.
For Master’s Degree Program, applicants should obtain a minimum of Second Class Upper (Honours) or a minimum CGPA of 3.0 at Undergraduate Degree level.
Proof of English Language Proficiency:
Scanned copy of the original proof of English Language Proficiency such as IELTS (minimum total score 6.0); or TOEFL paper-based test with a score of 500 or an internet-based test with a score of 60; or
Applicants obtaining Degrees with English as medium of instruction may also be accepted (evidence is a prerequisite).
Has an excellent level of health certified by a doctor/physician. The applicant shall fully bear the cost of the medical check-up.
Scholars must undertake full-time study for postgraduate programs at the selected Higher Learning Institutions (Please refer List of Universities).
Applications are only open to candidates who have received offer letters from universities in Malaysia but have not yet started their studies or those who have registered for no more than one semester for a Master’s Degree.
How Many Scholarships are available? Several
What are the benefits?
This scholarship covers:
Cost of Living Allowance
Book Allowance
Tools Allowance
House Rental Allowance
Family Assistance Allowance
Placement Allowance
Thesis Allowance
Travel Allowance
Practical Training Allowance
End of Study Allowance
Tuition Fees
Medical Claims
Visa Fee
Method of Payment: Participants will receive allowances and other benefits from the Scholarship Division, Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, through their individual savings accounts. Students are advised to open a Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad account.
How long will sponsorship last? For the duration of the programme of study
About the Ireland Africa Agri-foodAward: The Objective of the AADP is to develop partnerships between the Irish Agri-Food Sector and African countries to support sustainable growth of the local food industry, build markets for local produce and support mutual trade between Ireland and Africa.
It is intended that any investment by the AADP will be catalytic support with co-funding from the private sector. The fund is designed to leverage greater expertise, experience and investment from the Irish agri-food sector and projects should demonstrate results with a long-term developmental impact that will ultimately lead to sustainable benefits through investment by the private sector.
Irish agri-food expertise is extremely wide-ranging and examples of suitable AADP projects include:
Business development
Production system
Technology Transfer
R & D
Project Management
Type: Entrepreneurship/Grants
Eligibility for Ireland Africa Agri-food:
The partners involved must include one Irish registered agri food company and one local commercial entity in Africa;
All proposed projects must be commercial in nature and focus. Funding will only be awarded to Irish registered agri food companies.
AADP funding is up to a maximum of €250,000 per company for a full project or €100,000 for a feasibility study.
AADP funding will not exceed 50% of the costs of the project;
The funds contributed by the Irish registered agri food company must not comprise funding received from any other Irish Public funding source.
If an applicant company was previously successful in applying for AADP funding, it must explain clearly (in the application form) the new project goals/outcomes and how they differ from those in the initial funding round.
If an applicant company proposes to undertake a feasibility study, it should include a list of ‘potential’ partners with the application.
Projects will be supported in the following countries – Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria Malawi, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia;
Funding from the AADF must bring about additionality and not replace existing funding;
Successful AADF funding applicants will be encouraged to engage with Irish NGOs where possible on various aspects of the projects i.e. Mechanical and Engineering, Project design, etc.
Evaluation Criteria: Applications will be evaluated against the following criteria:
Development Impact
Company expertise (Technical, financial etc)
Commercial viability
Risk Analysis
Monitoring and Expenditure
It is intended that any investment by the AADP will be catalytic support with co-funding from the private sector. The fund is designed to leverage greater expertise, experience and investment from the Irish agri-food sector and projects should demonstrate results with a long-term developmental impact that will ultimately lead to sustainable benefits through investment by the private sector.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Ireland Africa Agri-food Development Program: Possible funding of up to €250,000 in total per company
How to Apply:
The AADP is now open for submissions.
Submissions will only be accepted through the official AADP application form.
The application form for a full project or a feasibility study can be downloaded below. Please return the completed application form to aadp@dfa.ie before the deadline (close of business, Friday, 5 July 2024). Please monitor this website and the department’s social media accounts for updates.
For any questions or queries on the application process, please contact aadp@dfa.ie .
Award Providers: The Ireland Africa Agri-Food Development Programme (AADP) is a joint initiative between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
If anyone is perplexed or surprised why Americans are so upset about the economy, they should look no further than the Income Distribution and Dynamics in America (IDDA) recent report by the Federal Reserve Board of Minneapolis and its data site that looks at the stagnation of American income and economic mobility in America. It unfortunately confirms what we already know—the neoliberal state benefits unevenly and in ways that confound an ability to challenge it..
America is built upon two myths, the myth of equality and the myth of the American dream. The myth of equality is the idea that we all have an equal opportunity to succeed. The American dream is the idea that by hard work, perseverance, and a little bit of luck, anybody can work themselves out of poverty and potentially become rich. Yet we already knew from previous studies that neo-liberal economic policies have produced a gap between the rich and poor in America from the 1970s to the present that has largely benefited upper-income levels. We also knew that economic mobility has largely stagnated.
Drawing upon IRS and Census Bureau records the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Board was able to construct a portrait regarding the status of income and mobility in America between 2005 and 2019. It does so across gender, race, and geography (state). The importance of this intersectionality is to highlight how inequality and mobility in America is not just about race, it is not just about class, but also how the two intersect in terms of the state where one lives, offering a picture perhaps regarding how specific state policies may impact one’s life prospects.
Generally the IDDA study confirms other reports of the growing income gap. Between 2005 and 2019 those in the bottom ten percent saw their adjusted gross income increase by 5%, whereas those in the top two percent saw a 23% increase. One of the most startling conclusions of the report according to the Federal Reserve Board was that a “household in the bottom 20 percent of the distribution now makes exactly the same as it was making 50 years ago, in real terms.” Regardless of race and gender, unless you are at an upper income level, earnings have stagnated. This can explain both the angry Trump voters who feel they have been left out economically, and the disappointment in Obama-Biden policies that have left most Americans behind. Across the presidencies from the second Bush to Biden, neo-liberal economics has benefitted only few, but even across class there is a skewing.
For example, across the board women continue to lag in income compared to men. In 2005 women generally earned 69% of what men earned, while in 2019 it was 74%. But the gap varies across income levels. At the 10th percentile (lowest income level) in 2005 women earned 61%, by 2019 It was merely 70.8%. At the 50th percentile in 2005 women earned 68% of what men earned, in 2019 it was 74%. But then by the time one gets to the 99.999 percentile in 2005, it was 26% compared to 29% in 2019 Over time, depending on your income level women made modest at best improvements in bridging the gap between their income and those of men.
But when we look at different states for example, as well as break it down by gender and race we find, for example, that in Texas, Hispanic women make 43% of white males, white women make 63% compared to white males, and Hispanic men make. 67%. Whereas in California Hispanic women make 46%, white women 69%, and Hispanic men 62%. Despite two different political cultures and different political party domination, the difference in income between California and Texas is modest at best.
In terms of mobility, while the statistics in the IDDA project break it up by state and by income in general from 2005 to 2018 a portrait of stagnation also appears. For men in general, there is a 62% chance of moving from the lowest income quartile to the next quartile for women 57% Hispanic 63%, Whites 59%. Blacks 54%. At best, slightly better than even chances of moving up from that lowest income quartile to the next quartile, with the probabilities of moving even further up even more significantly diminished.
The IDDA report provides perhaps the best detail we have so far on the economic and social consequences of neo-liberal economic policies in America. It demonstrates uneven distributions of benefits in ways that nearly everyone can claim to be a loser while also pointing to relative winners, thereby thwarting efforts to form any solidarity to fight these policies.
Yet despite this socio-economic news, voters this November will face a rematch of two neo-liberal presidential candidates, with little hope that the pattern of inequality and frozen mobility will change.
Amid the complete blackout by governments and public health officials on the true state of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, a study just published in the journal Nature Medicine by Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly and colleagues reaffirms in the negative the detriments to our health posed by allowing SARS-CoV-2 to infect and re-infect populations under the stated policy of “forever COVID.”
One of the most pernicious lies about COVID-19 is that mild or asymptomatic infections cause no damage to the body and are therefore of little concern. Following up on their prior groundbreaking studies, Al-Aly and colleagues address this fallacy head-on and, in distinction to the laissez-faire attitude of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Biden administration, make a cogent warning on the significant long-term damage COVID-19 can wreak on the body.
Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly [Photo by Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly]
Regardless of how mild the acute course of the disease may be, the sustained impact to numerous organ systems may greatly impede our long-term well-being. The studies led by Al-Aly force the medical sciences to rethink the genesis of chronic diseases and for stewards of public health to accept prevention as a necessary first measure in defending societies from these pathogens.
In attempting to understand the chronicity of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), the authors of the study explained, “Addressing this knowledge gap is important to deepen understanding of the post-acute and long-term health trajectories of people who had SARS-CoV-2 infection and will inform care of people with these conditions.”
As with their prior studies, the authors utilize the expansive databases of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. The participants of the present study included a cohort of 135,161 US veterans (114,864 non-hospitalized (NH) and 20,297 hospitalized (H)) who survived the first 30 days of their COVID-19 infections and were followed for three full years to estimate their risk of death and incident of PASC throughout the follow-up period. The comparison group consisted of more than 5 million users of the VA healthcare system without any evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Results of death and PASC in NH and H participants
With respect to death, NH participants only saw an increased risk of death in the first year after the acute phase of their infection compared to controls. This amounted to an excess mortality burden of 16.2 per 1,000 persons.
However, H participants continued to see their risk of death climb even into the third year from their initial infection. In the first year, these participants saw an excess mortality burden of 58.85 per 1,000 persons compared to non-infected people. That rate continued climbing with an additional 14.15 excess deaths per 1,000 persons in the second year and then 8.16 excess deaths per 1,000 persons in the third year, for a cumulative rate of over 80 excess deaths per 1,000 persons.
The solid lines at the center of shaded bands were adjusted cumulative excess death rate per 1,000 persons in non-hospitalized COVID-19 (n = 114,864) and hospitalized COVID-19 (n = 20,297) groups compared to the control group without infection (n = 5,206,835), and the shaded bands present the 95% CIs for cumulative excess rates. [Photo by Cai, M., Xie, Y., Topol, E.J. et al. / CC BY 4.0]
Translating this, H participants with just one prior infection compared to non-infected controls can expect to see 8 percent more die after three years. Given that estimates place the number of people hospitalized from May 2020 to April 2021 at between 3.25 to 3.95 million people, that would lead to a considerable undercounting of COVID deaths.
With respect to PASC (Long COVID), among NH participants the three-year cumulative number reached 378.7 per 1,000 persons. The highest rate occurred in the first year at 212.3, then 125.0 in the second year and 41.2 in the third year. Additionally, the authors found that the cumulative burden of disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYs) due to PASC reached 91.2 per 1,000 persons. Although declining each year, it remained statistically significant and elevated.
By comparison, for H participants, the three-year cumulative number of post-acute sequelae reached 2,392 per 1,000 persons and the burden of DALYs due to PASC had reached 766.2 per 1,000 persons or 8.4 times higher than among NH participants.
DALYs are used by researchers to capture the impact a disease has on people’s lives above and beyond mortality rates. These are time-based measures that combine years of life lost due to premature death (Years of Life Lost—YLL) and years of life lost due to time lived in states of less than full health, or years of healthy life lost due to disability (YLD). Statistically, one DALY represents the loss of the equivalent of one year of full health.
Dr. Al-Aly wrote to the World Socialist Web Site,
Risk of new onset sequelae (PASC/Long Covid) declines over time in both non-hospitalized and hospitalized patients. But risk remains in the third year after infection causing 10 DALYs per 1000 persons in non-hospitalized and 90 DALYs per 1000 persons who were hospitalized during acute COVID.
The organ systems where the risk persists in non-hospitalized include neurologic, gastro-intestinal (GI), and pulmonary. Viruses are known to have long-term neurologic impacts (e.g. Epstein-Barr Virus/Multiple Sclerosis) and the gut may serve as a long-term reservoir for the virus. Cumulatively, at three years, Long Covid contributes 91.2 DALYs per 1000 persons – higher than cancer and heart disease. For context heart disease and cancer cause about 50 DALYs per 1000 persons in the population. Stroke generates about 10 DALYs per 1000 persons.
Mechanisms for Long COVID need to be further elucidated but are thought to include viral persistence, chronic inflammation, immune dysregulation or a combination of these.
When the PASC data were analyzed by organ systems, among NH participants compared to controls without infection, there was an increased risk of organ damage in all 10 “organ systems”—cardiovascular, coagulation, fatigue, gastrointestinal, kidney, mental, metabolic, musculoskeletal, neurologic and pulmonary—in the first year after infection, nine in the second year (all except kidney), and three in the third year that include the three organ systems mentioned above by Dr. Al-Aly.
For H participants, all ten organ systems reviewed were at risk in years one and two, while seven (all except kidney, metabolic, and musculoskeletal) exhibited increased risks in the third year.
When these were further subcategorized by actual disease states [See figure 2 below from the study], the real impact of Long COVID on the health of these participants became obviously evident. Using the statistical term incidence rate ratio (IRR) to demonstrate the increased burden of disease, one quickly observes that H participants have significantly higher rates of acute coronary disease. Rates of pulmonary embolism remain elevated for these patients throughout the study period. Risk of acute kidney injury persists. The rates of loss of smell are astronomical. They are also at higher risk of opioid abuse, sleep disorders, and suicidal ideations. These issues, although at lower rates, also impact NH participants.
Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of PASC up to 3 years after SARS-CoV-2 infection by care setting of the acute phase. Heatmaps include non-hospitalized COVID-19 (n = 114,864; top rows) and hospitalized COVID-19 (n = 20,297; bottom rows) groups. IRRs were estimated in comparison to a control group without infection (n = 5,206,835). ACD, acute coronary disease; AKI, acute kidney injury; CKD, chronic kidney disease; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; GAD, general anxiety disorder; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; ILD, interstitial lung disease; NA, not applicable; NCD, neurocognitive decline; NICM, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy; PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder; TIA, transient ischemic attack; VTE, venous thromboembolism. If potential risk horizon (non-significant (NS) cell with a numeric IRR estimate) for an outcome was reached in a previous period, the IRRs for that outcome in all subsequent periods will not be estimated and are indicated by gray cells with NAs (not applicable) inside. [Photo by Cai, M., Xie, Y., Topol, E.J. et al. / CC BY 4.0]
The authors warned that even though those with severe COVID face the harshest long-term consequences, the absolute burden of Long COVID remains highest among those with mild disease, writing,
According to an analysis by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) collaborators, about 90 percent of people with PASC had mild COVID-19, suggesting that, although preventing severe disease is important, strategies to reduce the risk of post-acute and long-term health loss in people with mild COVID-19 are also needed.
Al-Aly wrote to the WSWS:
We are used to thinking about infections as acute events with health effects that manifest around the time of infection. The data shows that Covid can cause health effects even 3 years later. I think this challenges the classic notion of infections causing acute health events. I feel Covid continues to teach us, and this is an important new lesson.
He concluded,
The story in hospitalized people is starker – they have greater risk and longer risk horizon with resultant burden of disease that is astronomically much higher than non-infected people and higher than non-hospitalized individuals. This places emphasis on prevention of hospitalization via vaccination, antivirals, etc. Hospitalization can have huge and wide-ranging effects on people’s lives for years if not more. Preventing hospitalization is very important.
But as Al-Aly had noted in a January 2024 Congressional hearing on Long COVID, “The best way to prevent Long COVID is to prevent COVID in the first place. There is no Long COVID without COVID.”
The results of this latest study reaffirm the need to prevent the ongoing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 globally and underscore the malign neglect that has punctuated the response by the capitalist ruling elites to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The powers-that-be have inflicted this “mass disabling event” on the world’s population, with potential health ramifications for every life on this planet.
Tell Me About Government Of Kazakhstan Scholarships:
Ministry of education and science of the Republic of Kazakhstan calls for foreign applicants, including persons of Kazakh nationality who are not citizens of the Republic of Kazakhstan for full-time studying under Bachelor, Master and PhD educational programs.
Application form can be submitted in Kazakh or Russian or English.
The applicants, when filling out the application form should attach the scanned copies of the following documents:
Bachelor degree:
Passport;
A document on the previous level of education with a transcript and supplement (if available) and a notarized translation into Kazakh or Russian or English (for applicants for a bachelor’s degree – the average score of the document confirming secondary education with a grade of at least “good” );
Motivational essay in Kazakh or Russian or English;
A letter of recommendation in Kazakh or Russian or English from the educational organization in which the applicant studied, or from the employer;
A medical certificate for study abroad, as well as a medical certificate confirming the absence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV infection) and AIDS, issued by official health authority of the applicant’s country of residence;
Letter of invitation from the Kazakhstan university (if available).
Master degree:
Passport;
A document on the previous level of education with a transcript and an appendix (if available) and a notarized translation into Kazakh or Russian or English (bachelor’s or specialist diploma with an average score of at least 3.0 (out of 4.0) GPA or its equivalent obtained in educational institutions;
Motivational essay in Kazakh or Russian or English;
2 letters of recommendation in Kazakh or Russian or English from the educational organization in which the applicant studied, or from the employer;
A medical certificate for study abroad, as well as a medical certificate confirming the absence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV infection) and AIDS, issued by official health authority of the applicant’s country of residence;
Letter of invitation from the Kazakhstan university (if available).
An international certificate confirming knowledge of a foreign language:
English: IELTS Academic (International English Language Testing System Academic) threshold score – at least 5.5;
TOEFL IBT (Test of English as a Foreign Language Internet-based test), threshold score – at least 46;
TOEFL PBT (Test of English as a Foreign Language Paper-based test), threshold score – at least 453;
German: Deutsche Sprachpruefung fuer den Hochschulzugang (DSH, Niveau B2/level B2), TestDaF-Prufung (Niveau B2/level B2);
French: TFI (Test de Français International™) – not lower than B2 level in reading and listening sections), DELF (Diplome d’Etudes en Langue française) – level B2, DALF (Diplome Approfondi de Langue française) – level B2, TCF (Test de connaissance du français) – at least 50 points.
An international certificate confirming the knowledge of a foreign language by a person for whom the indicated languages are native is not required;
PhD degree:
Passport;
A document on the previous level of education with a transcript and an appendix (if available) and a notarized translation into Kazakh or Russian or English (bachelor’s or specialist diploma with an average score of at least 3.0 (out of 4.0) GPA or its equivalent obtained in educational institutions;
Motivational essay in Kazakh or Russian or English;
2 letters of recommendation in Kazakh or Russian or English from the educational organization in which the applicant studied, or from the employer;
A medical certificate for study abroad, as well as a medical certificate confirming the absence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV infection) and AIDS, issued by official health authority of the applicant’s country of residence;
Letter of invitation from the Kazakhstan university (if any);
Substantiation of the topic of the dissertation research in the language of instruction (Kazakh or Russian or English);
An international certificate confirming knowledge of a foreign language:
English: IELTS Academic (International English Language Testing System Academic) threshold score – at least 5.5;
TOEFL IBT (Test of English as a Foreign Language Internet-based test), threshold score – at least 46;
TOEFL PBT (Test of English as a Foreign Language Paper-based test), threshold score – at least 453;
German: Deutsche Sprachpruefung fuer den Hochschulzugang (DSH, Niveau B2/level B2), TestDaF-Prufung (Niveau B2/level B2);
French: TFI (Test de Français International™) – not lower than B2 level in reading and listening sections), DELF (Diplome d’Etudes en Langue française) – level B2, DALF (Diplome Approfondi de Langue française) – level B2, TCF (Test de connaissance du français) – at least 50 points;
The logo for Boeing appears on a screen above a trading post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, July 13, 2021. [AP Photo/Richard Drew]
Aerospace giant Boeing is facing a cash shortfall, according to a May 23 article in the Wall Street Journal. The corporation suffered a loss of $4 billion in the first quarter of 2024 and faces a net loss for the year as a whole, according to Chief Financial Officer Brian West.
Boeing shares fell more than seven percent the day of the announcement and have fallen more than 30 percent since the beginning of the year, dropping to lows not seen since October of last year. As a result, the company has lost more than $50 billion of its market capitalization.
It is not yet clear what the full ramifications will be, both for the company and the national and world economy. Boeing is a major US exporter and a critical part of the US war machine. Its decline reverberates internationally. While the military component of Boeing’s business, the result of its merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, would no doubt be bailed out by the Pentagon, the future of Boeing’s commercial airliners is in question.
The proximate cause of the corporation’s financial woes is the slowdown in production of Boeing planes as a result of ongoing safety issues at the company. Boeing only delivered an average of 22 737 MAX jetliners per month in the first three months of the year, far short of its promise to deliver a monthly average of 38 of the planes.
The slowed production is the consequence of ongoing safety and quality issues, starting with a mid-flight door blowout on a 737 Max 9 on January 5. Fifty people were injured, some severely, and dozens of safety mishaps and failures have been reported since then.
This photo released by the National Transportation Safety Board shows the door plug from Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on Monday, Jan. 8, 2024, in Portland, Oregon. [AP Photo/National Transportation Safety Board]
The problems range from landing gears or wing panels falling off during takeoff or in flight to a recent fire on a Boeing 737-300 that forced the takeoff to be aborted and injured 10 people.
The number of problems across Boeing’s fleet was highlighted Friday when the company released its annual safety report. Among the issues raised is a six-fold increase in the number of concerns reported by Boeing employees since the January 5 door blowout.
The Journal also reported parts shortages faced by the airplane manufacturer and new disclosures showing that some of Boeing’s employees skipped and falsified inspections on new 787 Dreamliners.
Since January 5, the company has been under intense scrutiny concerning production practices that allowed such a catastrophic failure to take place. It turned out that the door panel on the Alaska Air jet that blew off as the plane was climbing, very nearly causing the loss of the plane and its 177 passengers and crew, had never been properly fastened with bolts. The Federal Aviation Administration has opened investigations into Boeing’s facilities, while aviation regulators around the world have opened their own investigations into issues that have occurred overseas.
There has also been testimony before the US Congress by Boeing whistleblowers on the safety, or lack thereof, of Boeing planes. Sam Salehpour, a quality manager of 40 years, warned that the Boeing 777 “Triple Seven” and 787 Dreamliner aircraft were “defective airplanes” with problems in production that are “a matter of life and death.”
In this March 11, 2019, file photo, Boeing 737 Max wreckage is piled up at the crash scene of Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 near Bishoftu, Ethiopia. [AP Photo/Mulugeta Ayene]
The US Department of Justice has opened a case as to whether Boeing has violated the terms of a $2.5 billion settlement agreement reached in 2021. The settlement with the US government came after separate 737 MAX 8 crashes in October 2018 and March 2019 that killed a total of 346 men, women and children. The settlement came with the stipulation that Boeing would no longer defraud the flying public about the safety of its planes.
Federal prosecutors wrote earlier this month that Boeing “breached its obligations” in the 2021 settlement, as shown by the numerous issues that have come to light, and the company is liable for criminal prosecution.
Perhaps the most damning case against Boeing, however, is what has not emerged in public because two whistleblowers died suddenly in recent months. On March 9, John “Mitch” Barnett was found dead in a rental car in his hotel parking lot. The Charleston (South Carolina) County Coroner’s Office ruled that the death was the result of a “self-inflicted gunshot wound.”
Barnett was scheduled to appear for the third day of deposition testimony in a civil suit against Boeing’s retaliation for his warnings about a variety of safety and quality issues at Boeing’s 787 plant in Charleston. Barnett had been outspoken about Boeing’s unsafe practices since he was let go in 2017 by the company, where he had worked for nearly three decades.
A family friend quoted Barnett as telling her, “If anything happens to me, it’s not suicide.”
John Barnett in the 2022 Netflix documentary "Downfall: The Case Against Boeing." [Photo: Netflix]
Two months later, another whistleblower, Joshua Dean, suddenly died after having made public statements about “serious and gross misconduct by senior quality management of the 737 production line.” Dean found improperly made aircraft fuselages at Boeing supplier SpiritAerosystems and alleged that he was fired from Boeing for reporting the problems.
In an interview with National Public Radio (NPR) in February, Dean said he was fired as a warning to other whistleblowers that “If you are too loud, we will silence you.”
The deepening crisis of aerospace giant Boeing is a concentrated expression of the crisis of American capitalism as a whole. The guiding principles of airplane manufacture are not safety and the protection of human lives, but efficiency and profit for the benefit of the company’s major stockholders and creditors.
An article in the Seattle Times revealed that from 2014 to 2018, “Boeing diverted 92 percent of operating cash flow to dividends and share buybacks to benefit investors.”
In other words, while it was developing the deadly MAX 8, and while its own engineers were warning that the plane had exhibited “egregious” errors during simulations, Boeing executives were busy using the company’s funds to enrich themselves and their wealthy friends rather than investing in safety and quality checks.
Dennis Muilenberg, who was CEO when the MAX 8 was launched, made $80 million during his tenure, or more than $231,000 for each man, women and child who died in the two MAX 8 crashes. His successor, David Calhoun, who will step down this year, has made more than $76 million since 2021.
Such sums are, of course, also at the expense of Boeing’s workforce. The company is currently in contract talks with two different parts of its workforce—33,200 machinists and other workers in Washington and Oregon who are part of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and firefighters at locations in Auburn, Everett, Renton, Seattle and Moses Lake who are part of the International Association of Firefighters.
In both cases, Boeing is seeking new contracts that will drastically cut the real wages and benefits of the workers, shifting its losses onto them. The company is refusing to restore the pensions of its machinists and provide wage increases to make up for more than a decade of stagnation and decline because of inflation. One of the main demands of the workers is to restore the hundreds of positions related to quality and safety that Boeing has eliminated over the past decade.
The contract for the machinists expires on September 12 and a strike authorization vote is scheduled for July 17.
That one of the principle demands of the workers is for more safety inspections and quality control of Boeing aircraft speaks to the class nature of aviation. Workers know that it is their families, friends and co-workers who fly on poorly built and maintained mass-produced aircraft, while the executives and upper management soar on private jets with specialists to keep them at peak efficiency.
Boeing employees walk a Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner down towards the delivery ramp area at the company’s facility after conducting its first test flight at Charleston International Airport, Friday, March 31, 2017, in North Charleston, South Carolina. [AP Photo/Mic Smith]
It follows that for aircraft to be truly safe, there must be workers’ control over their production. Production lines across the industry must be slowed down in a coordinated fashion to ensure adequate time to fully check and re-check each plane as it is being assembled. New and more advanced testing and development facilities must be established to insure that inherently flawed designs like the MAX 8 never again see the light of day.
Above all else, the crisis at Boeing makes the case for the nationalization of the entire airline industry.
