The 2010 Politics: Who Will Fall? According To Awang Selamat.

The 2010 politics: Who will fall?

In just a few days the closing curtain will fall on 2009 and we will be stepping into the new year of 2010. During the whole of this year, there are many events both sad and happy, that give colour to the life of the nation.
Awang is thankful that 2009 has seen the improvement in many fields especially under the administration of the Prime Minister, Mohd. Najib Tun Razak. The support to the government which was at one time considered as critical has changed for the better.
At the same time, the opposition is confronted with many internal problem and studies has shown that the support for the opposition including from youngsters has been dwindling. Political issues will continue to be the focus for next year.
Barisan Nasional (BN) is now facing accumulated issues that need to be overcome including the storm in MCA and PPP. The best formula for MCA is that its President, Ong Tee Keat should make an exit and there is a need a new lineup.
Awang also hopes that the stupor in Gerakan following the defeat of the party in the last general elections can be deal with. The sign for the party’s revival is not there yet. This brings the question, what has its President Koh Tsu Koon been doing? If he is not aggressive, it’s better for him to give way to the next echelon of leaders.
The most awaited event is the change in the MIC leadership from S. Samy Velly to his successor. Samy had helmed the MIC for far too long and there is no reason for BN to compromise in retaining him.
Awang believes that without Samy, the potential for MIC to attract the support of the Indian community is far more substantial. The party itself should feel embarrass if it failed to effect change as if they can’t do anything without Samy.
At a glance, UMNO seems to be strong but there is no guarantee that the party is in the comfort zone. This is because the effectiveness of many UMNO divisions in endearing themselves to the people is still questionable.
Speculations about minor cabinet reshuffle of ministerial and deputy ministerial posts involving some UMNO leadership is still creeping and might be a reality next year.
Among the name mention to be appointed is UMNO Youth Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin. His current position outside the government is giving him the edge to push forward the party’s mission. But if appointed, Awang feels it is the right an appropriate move. Either we like it or not, Khairy has the capacity and can be relied on.

To the opposition, 2009 is actually a very challenging year. The Anwar Ibrahim sodomy case on his former aide, Saiful Azlan Bukhari had made big headline.
Based on the latest indication, Anwar has not been receiving solid support from the opposition. Some of the Pas leaders are no longer keen in defending Anwar because it doesn’t want to be embroiled in his moral issue. His tactic in delaying the hearing of the court case has led many to ask, including the opposition – why is there a need to be afraid of?
Many have speculated that the disunity in Pas will “explode” next year. The position of Pas spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat, is getting shaky. The issue of his son-in-law, the haj sponsorship and his stance on the pro-Erdogan group and the DAP, has dragged him down the ebb never experienced before.

PKR is struggling to protect the party from falling due to various damaging issues especially the weakness and shortcoming of the Selangor State government under the leadership of Khalid Ibrahim.
The suspicion against the Vice President, Azmin Ali has reached the top and the friction in PKR has weakened the party.
Besides that, the DAP is being push to the corner in the defending the momentum of support from the Chinese by playing a lot on racial issues and matters related to the Constitution.
To Awang,the DAP continue to hold the record as the most racialist party not only in Malaysia, but also in the world.
But the most destructive issue besieging the opposition is its failure to build a solid opposition pact because of their fight for dominance.
With the myriad of shortfalls, the opposition pact needs to devise a strategy by manipulating certain issues against the government including on the missing RMAF fighter jet engines.
Awang is relieved that the government is committed to a full investigation to determine the culprits behind the scam.
Whatever it is, next year seems to be dominated by many political issues. Will the opposition especially the PKR continue to make a deep political dive is a matter for everyone to see?
The main focus will be, which politician will make a fall? What is the prayer and hope of Awang for the year 2010? Hopefully the country will be spared from politicians behaving like a fox in chicken feathers – with ill-intention, a tool to foreign elements and intends on destroying the national Constitution.

BAN PRESENTS. GIVE MONEY INSTEAD

Scroogenomics

Give gold, not myrrh

Dec 21st 2009
From Economist.com

DECEMBER dismays Joel Waldfogel, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and the author of a new book called “Scroogenomics”. Mr Waldfogel objects to the ritualised frenzy of shopping for gifts that precedes the enormous meals and awkward family reunions that are the other hallmarks of Christmas in the Western world.
Such complaints are hardly new. Harriet Beecher Stowe, an American abolitionist, grumbled in 1850 about “worlds of money wasted, at this time of year, in getting things that nobody wants and nobody cares for after they are got”. But unlike most criticisms of festive wastefulness, Mr Waldfogel’s objections are based on economic theory rather than morality or taste. When people buy something for themselves, they believe that their purchase is worth at least the price paid. But most gift-givers are only dimly aware of the desires and tastes of the beneficiaries of their largesse. As a result, they often give people presents that are worth far less to the person getting them than the gift-giver paid for them.

Presents? Humbug!

The result of all these inappropriate presents—ranging from the sweaters that people will never wear to games they will never play—is what Mr Waldfogel calls a “deadweight loss” from Yuletide generosity. This is the difference between the satisfaction a person gets when she spends a dollar on herself and when a well-meaning benefactor spends that dollar on a present for her. Over a period of time, a series of surveys have led him to conclude that the average deadweight loss from gift-giving is around 18%. Given his estimate that Americans spent $66 billion on Christmas presents in 2007, this amounts to a whopping $12 billion of lost value. Where others see generosity, Mr Waldfogel sees an orgy of value destruction.
Of course, not all presents are such bad value for money. What matters is how good people are at anticipating what others want. People who are in close contact with recipients usually do a very good job when it comes to choosing presents. Gifts from siblings, Mr Waldfogel’s research has found, create only a tiny deadweight loss, creating $0.99 in satisfaction for every dollar spent. Partners are excellent gift-givers; parents, reassuringly, do better than average. Unfortunately, aunts and uncles (like others who are only in occasional contact with the beneficiaries of their festive largesse) tend to give gifts that create only about 75-86 cents in satisfaction per dollar spent.
So what should people, especially those obliged to bestow holiday gifts on those whose tastes they do not know well, do? Since the best a gift-giver can do is give the recipient exactly what he wants, economic theory has a simple solution: give cold, hard cash. However, social norms make it a bit awkward to give money to all but a small subset of (usually much younger) relations in most societies.
But there may yet be hope. Gift vouchers are close to cash in that they leave the choice of exactly what to buy in the hands of the recipient, and have increased in popularity in recent years. Unfortunately (except for the retailer), human forgetfulness and the propensity to procrastinate mean that about 10% of such vouchers are never actually redeemed.
So is there no escape from the wanton wastefulness of Christmas spending? Mr Waldfogel offers a proposal of his own—gift vouchers that are designed to expire after a set period of time, with unused balances going to a charity of the giver’s choice. People would give more to charity if they could afford to and it were made easier, he argues. His proposal also chimes well with the spirit of Christmas. Whether Scrooge would have approved of it is less clear.

SEA Games - Malaysia Won Football Gold After 20 years - Congratulations Malaysia!!!

The taste of success is sweet indeed.  Congratulations to the Malaysian team for a job well done!!!  1Malaysia!!!

Latest

Malaysia Won  SEA Fooball Gold

17/12/09

VIENTIANE: Malaysia wins the SEA Games football final after an own-goal by Vietnam in the 84th minute. It is the first gold in 20 years.

After Dubai : A Financial Sandstorm

The global consequences of Dubai's debt problems-ECONOMIST 30.11.2009

AFP

FOR years, Dubai strove to capture the imagination of the financial world, projecting its young financial centre as a “global gateway” for capital. Last week it succeeded in grabbing attention. Its announcement that it would delay repayment of the debts of Dubai World, a vast government-owned conglomerate, swept through global markets like one of the blinding sandstorms that occasionally afflict the emirate, obscuring the gleam of its skyscrapers.
Like those storms, Dubai’s announcement was so damaging because it reduced visibility. Investors had assumed that the Dubai government was willing to rescue the indebted conglomerates it sponsors, and that Abu Dhabi, its well-heeled neighbouring emirate, was willing, in turn, to rescue Dubai. In particular, they had looked forward to the full and timely repayment of a $3.5 billion Islamic bond issued by Nakheel, a Dubai World subsidiary, on December 14th.
Dubai’s failure re-awakened a number of dormant fears in investors. Some worried about banks that had lent heavily to the region. Others wondered if Dubai was carrying far more than the $80 billion or so in debt that it has owned up to. The announcement reminded investors that tacit sovereign guarantees may be worthless. Earlier in November, for example, Ukraine’s state railway firm, Ukrzaliznytsya, failed to repay part of a syndicated loan, and its energy firm, Naftogaz, restructured its debt.
More fundamentally, Dubai’s wobble raised the spectre of a sovereign default. Dubai’s government is not technically on the hook for Nakheel’s debts. But the government’s hesitation in saving its national champions nonetheless demonstrates its fiscal limits.
Elsewhere, governments have emerged from the crisis burdened by debt. Both Greece and Ireland are carrying heavy public liabilities denominated in a currency (the euro) that they cannot print. Doomsayers worry that the world has escaped from the financial frying pan into a fiscal fire.
These wider fears are easy to exaggerate. Despite its self-aggrandisement, Dubai is not yet important enough to bring down the global financial system. Its troubles moved markets last week partly because so many traders were on holiday. Other investors were looking for cues to sell after the long rally in markets since the spring. By Monday November 30th, the principal stock indices were shaking off the dust and venturing upwards again.
But the damage Dubai has done to itself is no passing storm. An emirate that has spent so much money and hired so many flaks to cultivate its image and inspire confidence saw much of that work undone in a single 200-word statement announcing the debt standstill.
Had it announced the restructuring a few months earlier, with the ground properly laid, investors might have taken it in their stride. Those who lent to Dubai World at a premium can have no complaints if the risks for which they were compensated turn out to be real. And a standstill may buy time for the deeper restructuring that Dubai World undoubtedly needs. It is better to weed out the bad businesses within the group rather than cross-subsidise them to save face.
But Dubai had led investors to expect that publicly traded instruments, such as sukuk, or Islamic bonds, would be honoured. And the government offered no satisfactory explanation for its sudden change of stance. Thus even as markets slumped, political speculation mounted. A week earlier, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Dubai’s ruler, had sidelined three of the men who ran “Dubai Inc” in the boom years. Perhaps, then, the standstill was the result either of a power struggle within the ruling circles of Dubai, or between Dubai and its neighbour, Abu Dhabi.
Abu Dhabi’s conservative rulers have mixed feelings about their brash, go-getting neighbour. They may have asked why they should rescue Dubai from the consequences of its own prodigality. Or why they should resuscitate bankrupt Dubai firms that will compete with Abu Dhabi’s own national champions? At the weekend, a senior Abu Dhabi official told Reuters that it would “pick and choose” which of Dubai’s entities to help.
But many investors in Abu Dhabi bought into the Dubai boom. They will lose money if the bust turns into a protracted slump. And of the banks most exposed to Dubai, several have headquarters in Abu Dhabi. Thus the central bank of the United Arab Emirates has made it clear that it will provide liquidity to any bank, foreign or domestic, operating in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai is not yet a gateway to the financial world. But it can open the door to all sorts of trouble in its neighbourhood.