INTERVIEW: Raymond Li, Head of BBC Chinese Service
NYMPH()MANIAC Vol. I & II PartB p. 17
Features p. 23
Israeli Apartheid Week: The Debate Opinion p. 8-9
The
Beaver Tuesday February 25 2014 | www.thebeaveronline.com | No. 808
Robin Iversen Ronnlund
FREE Newspaper of the LSE Students’ Union
UGM introduces Community Voting and Society Funding BOTH THE MOTION to introduce community voting at LSE Students’ Union elections and the motion to increase the funding of LSESU societies were passed after online voting following last Thursday’s Union General Meeting (UGM). The former motion was passed by 193 votes (64 per cent) in favour to 95 against and 14 undecided while the latter was passed by 338 votes (91 per cent) in favour to 26 against and seven undecided. The motion to ‘Fund Our Societies’ was proposed by Jason Wong, a student representative on the LSE Court of Governors, and was seconded by the Activities and Development Officer, Hannah Rich-
mond. The motion seeks to make a further £15,000 available for societies to spend. This money would be broken down into: £5,500 to double the prize money given as STARS Awards to societies, £6,500 to provide free printing and web development support to societies and £3,000 of funding to be allocated between an estimated thirty new societies each year. This motion followed the one seeking a 15% increase to the budget of the LSE Athletics’ Union and this prompted Wong to make the case that the SU has ڔDV VLJQLஊFDQW D UHVSRQVLELOLW\ to the funding of societies as it does to the AU.” Wong felt that currently the Activities and Development Fund was not sufficient for societies as it did not provide “guaranteed
funding” and believed that new societies “starting with no money” were especially in need. Richmond followed by emphasising that money was not going to be simply given to societies but would be speFLஊFDOO\ WDUJHWHG WR ڔHQFRXUage development” through funds rewarding quality of activities and supporting sociHWLHV LQ WKHLU HGJOLQJ SHULRG However, an important point was raised by the opposer of the motion, second year BSc Mathematics and Economics student Mark Malik, who TXHVWLRQHG WKH RQH VL]H ஊWV DOO nature of the motion and who wanted the money to be “more targeted towards smaller societies.” Continued on Page 3
LSE SU
Hari Prabu
Jade Symonds and Sam Barnett speaking in favour of the Introduce Community Voting motion WIKIMEDIA
LSE Divest request reveals School’s indirect investments in fossil fuels, tobacco and alcohol Sophie Donszelmann, News Editor
The 150 companies include some of the following:
Tobacco companies : British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group.
Alcoholic beverage companies
including Diageo,
Anheuser-Busch and SabMiller breweries.
Multinational energy companies:
Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Tullow Oil and BHP Billiton
Pharmaceutical companies :
GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi, Bayer,
Other companies
include Harley Davidson, Amazon, Canon, Nestle, Woolworths, National Grid, and Apple The School also has indirect investments in smaller companies such as AKBANK TAS, a Turkish bank; Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited; and First Quantum Minerals in Zambia to name a few.
THE LSE DIVEST CAMPAIGN has obtained a list of some of the investment fund holdings held by the London School of Economics. The document, from the LSE’s Investment Committee, was provided to the LSE Divest Campaign and subsequently to the Beaver. The number of holdings of each category was listed but WKH VSHFLஊF TXDQWLW\ RI HDFK KROGLQJ ZDV QRW VSHFLஊHG The investments are managed by, amongst others, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager. The document is organized under titles such as ڔ%ODFN5RFN 3DFLஊF 5LP ,QGH[ 144 Holdings” and “BlackRock Ascent UK Real Return Bond Fund: 53 Holdings,” with distinctions made between A and B shares. Little information is made available to the public regarding the School’s investment holdings. Only the members of the Investment Sub-Commit-
tee, rather than the Investment Committee, are readily available on the LSE website. The Investment Sub-Committee is composed of eleven representatives who include alumni, current professors and a Sabbatical Officer representative, among other members of the School administration. This information has gained the attention from those who have questioned the ethical implications of such associations. The LSE Divest Campaign is one of those groups who cite a violation of the School’s published Ethics Code and Ethical Guidelines. The LSE Divest Campaign states its mission is to, among others, have the LSE “immediately freeze any new investment in fossil fuel companies” DQG ڔLPPHGLDWHO\ VWRS LWV ஊQDQFLDO VXSSRUW IRU WKH H[SORration of new hydrocarbons and instead shift its investment portfolio towards low carbon technology and clean energy companies.”
“LSE does not invest directly in companies: it invests in a range of investment funds,” an LSE spokesperson said. “As the [Socially Responsible investment] policy states: ‘The School is concerned to conduct investment management in a socially responsible and ethical manner that takes into account relevant environmental, social and governance issues.’ The School also has an investments sub-committee, as well as an ethics policy committee which can consider investments. Both of these committees include student representation. Decisions on investments in respect of ethical issues ultimately rest with the LSE Council, which also has student representation.” Continued on Page 4 See page 11 for an Opinion piece from the LSE Divest Campaign.