Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Learning from Steve Jobs: from Garage to World Power!

Learning from Steve Jobs

Ceritalah by KARIM RASLAN

Before we can start talking about the need for innovation or speak of the need to create geniuses, we have to learn that creativity and innovation are first and foremost cultural phenomena.

STEVE Jobs is dead. Apple’s co-founder did more than anyone – and this includes his arch-rival Microsoft’s Bill Gates – to make computing manageable for everyone. Indeed, even my seventy-something mother owns a well-used iPad2.

Jobs’ brilliance lay in his ability to look at technology from the viewpoint of the user, stripping down the complexity and jargon until a machine became a tool in the hand of the user.

He asked straight forward but critical questions: what do consumers want and need? How can I meet these demands?

Instead of producing computers that flaunt their sophistication, Jobs made his devices ever more accessible and simple.

Apple products were the perfect marriage of form and function. They were sleek, intuitive and useful – objects that we enjoy touching and holding so much so that we develop a strange emotional link with them.

In order to achieve this aim, Jobs also upended the way we’ve traditionally thought of music, books and films – freeing them from their analogue formats. He discarded the old-fashioned ways of receiving entertainment and placed his products – the iPod, the iPhone and iPad at the heart of future solutions.

His success was prodigious and extraordinary. At one stage last year, Apple briefly eclipsed ExxonMobil in terms of market capitalisation.

Indeed, it’s estimated that well over 100 million iPhones and 25 million iPads have been sold to date. That the Indian government, on the day he died, rolled out its own tablet computer, called the Aakash (or “Sky”) is a greater tribute than the legions of obituaries.

The global outpouring of grief on Jobs’ death is hence a measure of the man’s reach even in death. It’s also a testament to his iconoclastic style as well as his breath-taking ability to think unconventionally.

Furthermore, Jobs executed his ideas with flamboyance and flair, disregarding the consequences as his various inspirational ideas wrought havoc with long established industries.

Standing back from the man’s achievements, it’s hard to deny that all entrepreneurs have a little bit of Steve Jobs in them.

They all possess a modicum of his verve, dynamism and, yes, madness. Wouldn’t they have become bank managers or civil servants otherwise?

However, we can’t deny the element of luck either: had Jobs died in the 90s, he would probably have been consigned to history’s footnotes, yet another businessman ousted from a company he had founded.

Also, as the son of a Syrian emigrant, Jobs was lucky he was born in America, where the opportunities to succeed were more pronounced than anywhere else.

Indeed, it’s hard to see where else a college dropout could turn a company that he started in his parent’s garage into a multinational with a market capitalisation of US$222.12bil (RM694.78bil).

This is not to say he was some kind of secular saint. His paranoia and abuse of friends and subordinates alike were well-documented. Neither was he a flag-waving patriot either.

Unlike Henry Ford, most of Apple’s products were contracted out to East Asian manufacturers, particularly China, where allegations of sweatshop labour and poor working conditions continue to haunt the tech-giant even today.

Nevertheless, no one can deny that Jobs displayed the individualism and entrepreneurial spirit that are the hallmarks of the American character.

Indeed, if we shift the discussion from Jobs to the idea of entrepreneurialism, we have to acknowledge that we are all shaped by the environment we are born into.

We can separate ourselves from the world that surrounds us on our birth.

So as we start talking about the need for “innovation” in Malaysia’s economy or speak piously of the need to “create” geniuses we have to address the national condition.

Let me ask a question then: what if Steve Jobs were born in Malaysia? Could he have reached the same dizzying heights or would he have been consigned, like so many others, to dead-end jobs.

Alternatively, would he have directed his prodigious talents to chasing after government contracts? I’m not joking.

If Malaysia is to compete in the future, we have got to learn that creativity and innovation are first and foremost cultural phenomena. These are things that you cannot pay for or legislate into existence.

Creativity cannot thrive in an environment where the balance between risk and reward is skewered. Can we truly say we’re allowing people to reach their fullest potential when our obsessions with race and religion are so dominant?

Innovation in Malaysia is hampered by our Government’s constant interventions: protecting and bailing-out businesses and individuals that ought to have gone bust ages ago.

There’s absolutely no incentive for people to think unconventionally if the most important criteria for creating wealth is your “know who” rather than “know how”.

How many Malaysian Jobs’ or Gates’ or Zuckerberg’s have we smothered because they lacked connections or were born in the “wrong” community?

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has declared 2012 to be the “National Innovation Movement” year, but it won’t count for much unless we start really rewarding hard work and genius rather than mediocrity or mindless conformity.

Related Posts:

Internet Mourns Steve Jobs' Death: From garage to world power, Life and times!
Steve Jobs' Legacy To Democracy
Apple’s Iconic Steve Jobs passes on

Monday, 10 October 2011

Occupy Wall Street/DC: Change-mongering U.S. needs change too, backed Democrats!

The group included protesters affiliated with Occupy DC, to make a point about the massive military spending and the use of deadly drones - AP

"Occupy DC" protesters comprise various groups and have split up to protest and meet later in the square [Reuters

Change-mongering U.S. needs change too

(Xinhua)

BEIJING, Oct. 9 (Xinhua) -- The Occupy Wall Street protests have grown over the past three weeks into a coast-to-coast movement targeting corporate greed and money influence in the United States.

Popular protests are not uncommon these days. From the Arab world to debt-ridden European countries, people are taking to the streets to make their voices heard for different reasons.

For Washington, the irony is that the United States, which has long branded itself as a staunch defender of human rights and a force for change across the world, is suddenly confronted by its people defending their own rights from the greedy Wall Street and demanding to change the status quo.

Young people, many unemployed or under-employed, compose the bulk of the protesters. Their frustration has exposed some fundamental problems with the economic and political system of the world's sole superpower.

Unbiased eyes can see through these anti-Wall Street protests a clear need for Washington, which habitually rushes to demand other governments to change when there are popular protests in their countries, to put its own house in order.

First of all, Washington should rein in its runaway financial sector. The Wall Street, as the global financial center, has its role to play in allocating resources more efficiently not only for the United States but also for the world economy.

But when more and more people on the Wall Street are trying to make quick money by pure speculation or by creating complex derivatives that no one really understands, there are legitimate reasons for concern.

Simon Johnson, former chief economist with the International Monetary Fund, once blasted the "overgrown" financial service industry in the United States for creating the global financial crisis.

In a speech at Peking University of China in June 2010, he said the U.S. financial industry, which was getting bigger each day, not only was the cause of the latest financial wipeout, but also could bring about other crises in the future.

Besides bringing the Wall Street back to its original purpose of better allocating resources, Washington should also face up to its own problem of income gap.

Over the years, the gap between the rich and the poor in the United States has kept widening.

According to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, the protesters' "We are the 99 percent" slogan refers to the fact that the top 1 percent of Americans own more than 40 percent of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 80 percent only have 7 percent of the wealth.

Meanwhile, the top 1 percent "is taking in more of the nation's income than at any other time since the 1920s," said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a U.S. premier policy organization working on fiscal policy and public programs.

Moreover, such an inequality in social wealth distribution has been exacerbated by the global financial crisis.

Equally painful to the protesters is the fact that these days politicians in Washington appear more interested in political wrangling for personal and partisan gains rather than working together to solve the fundamental problems facing their country.

The U.S. officials have urged their European counterparts to work together to solve the sovereign debt crisis, but the country itself has chronic fiscal shortfalls and trade deficits that are just as grave.

And there is another somber fact: In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, the chance of the Democrats and Republicans working together to bring the U.S. fiscal house into order is rather slim.

While the protests have garnered support from more and more students, unions, small business owners, celebrities and elected officials, no one wants to see the Occupy Wall Street movement evolve into violent demonstrations or spin out of control.

The rationale is clear: Political chaos in the world's largest economy is the last thing investors need at this time of renewed tensions in the global markets.

But if Washington fails to heed the calls of the protesters and address its fundamental problems, its messy house could become a headache for others in the world as well.

by Liu Qu, Ming Jinwei
Newscribe : get free news in real time

Democrats back 'Occupy' protesters

Eric Lichtblau, Washington,October 12, 2011

LEADING Democratic figures, including party fundraisers and a top ally of US President Barack Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party's House fundraising arm, is circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to declare: ''I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests.''

The Centre for American Progress, a liberal body run by John Podesta, who helped lead Mr Obama's 2008 transition, credits the protests with tapping into pent-up anger over a political system that it says rewards the rich over the working class - a populist theme now being emphasised by the White House and the party.

Leading Democratic figures are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests. Photo: Getty Images

Judd Legum, a spokesman for the centre, said that its direct contacts with the protests have been limited, but that ''we've definitely been publicising it and supporting it''.

He said Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilise protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012.
But while some Democrats see the movement as providing a political boost, the party's alignment with the eclectic mix of protesters makes others nervous.

They see the prospect of the protesters pushing the party dangerously to the left - just as the Tea Party has often pushed Republicans further to the right and made for intra-party conflict.

Mr Obama has spoken sympathetically of the Wall Street protests, saying they reflect ''the frustration'' that many struggling Americans are feeling. Vice-President Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, have sounded similar themes.

The role of groups like the Democratic campaign committee and Mr Podesta's group, sometimes working with labour unions, moves support from just talk to the realm of organisational guidance.

It is not clear whether the leaders of the amorphous movement actually want the support of the Democratic establishment, given that some of the protesters' complaints are directed at the Obama administration.

Among their grievances, the protesters say they want to see steps taken to ensure that the rich pay what they see as a fairer share of their income in taxes, that banks are held accountable for reckless practices, and that more attention is paid to finding jobs for the unemployed.

The protests also provide yet another dividing line between Democrats and Republicans in Washington - one that seems likely to help shape the competing themes of the 2012 presidential election.

Leading Republicans have grown increasingly critical of the protests.

Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, called the protesters ''a growing mob'', and Herman Cain, a Republican presidential candidate, said the protests are the work of ''jealous'' anti-capitalists.

Robert Reich, the former labour secretary under president Bill Clinton, wrote in a blog post last week that the protesters' demands on taxes dovetail with Democrats' themes, but that the protests should still make the party wary - not least because the Democratic Party relies on Wall Street for significant campaign contributions.

NEW YORK TIMES Newscribe : get free news in real time

Related Posts:

Why 'Occupy Wall Street'? Job growth fails to dent US unemployment rate!
Wall Street protest grows to "occupy" Washington against corporate greed

China bashing not the solution !

World Trade Organization accession and membership

Image via Wikipedia

GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR

The US Senate is scheduled to vote this week on a “currency Bill” to allow actions against China’s imports. But blaming China may unleash a trade war without solving America’s problems.

IS China’s currency and trade performance a threat to the United States? Or are American politicians using China as a scapegoat for the country’s economic problems?

“China bashing” has been on the rise in the United States. It is widely thought that politicians of both parties are doing it to gain popularity in view of the coming elections.

For some years, Congress members have threatened to take action against Chinese imports to retaliate against what they see as China’s manipulation of its currency level.

The politicians say that the Chinese yuan is lower than what it should be if there were no government intervention.

They charge that the undervalued currency enables China to have a large trade surplus vis-a-vis the United States, and that this has caused the loss of American jobs.

These charges are refuted by the Chinese government, which argues that the US trade deficit is due to domestic factors and not Chinese policy. It also points to the 7% appreciation of the yuan versus the dollar in recent months.

This issue has been a central economic policy issue between the two major countries. It could escalate into a major battle on the ground.

The US Senate is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a Bill aimed at enabling import tariffs to be placed on Chinese imports as a retaliation against the alleged currency manipulation.

In a first step, the Senate on Oct 3 voted 79-19 to allow a week-long debate on the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011. The Bill mandates a process for imposing tariffs on imports of a country with allegedly “misaligned currencies”.

Though China is not named, it is obviously the target. The Bill would in effect require the US Treasury Department to determine if China was manipulating the yuan. If it finds this to be the case, extra tariffs can be placed on some imported Chinese goods.

The Bill is expected to pass in the Senate. But a similar Bill has to also go through the House of Representatives, and be approved by US President Barack Obama, before trade measures can be taken.

These two steps are far from assured. Although it seems the majority of the House are in favour, Speaker John Boehner said last week it was dangerous to be moving legislation through Congress to force “someone to deal with the value of their currency ... while I’ve got concerns about how the Chinese have dealt with their currency, I’m not sure this is the way to fix it”.

Obama last Thursday accused China of “gaming” the trade system to the disadvantage of other countries, especially the United States. But he also expressed concern that the Senate Bill “may not actually work … as it may be only ‘symbolic’, and would probably not be upheld by the World Trade Organisation (WTO)”.

Nevertheless, the probability of the passage of the Senate Bill has heightened US-China tensions and raised the potential of a serious trade war.

As could be expected, Chinese government agencies and think tanks are reacting strongly to what they perceive as a protectionist move.

The People’s Bank of China (its central bank) said the Senate Bill would not help resolve the United States’ domestic issues such as the trade deficit, low level of savings and high unemployment, but could potentially affect the economy and market confidence.

It added: “The passage of the Bill may seriously affect China’s currency reforms, potentially leading to a trade war between the two sides.”

Xu Mingqi, deputy director of the Institute of the World Economy at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, had this to say: “It is easy for the US to make China a scapegoat of its domestic problems at a time when its economy remains weak with a high unemployment rate and the next general election only 13 months away.”

In the event the Senate Bill makes its way into actual law, a dispute case will most likely be taken against the United States at the WTO.

WTO rules do not allow countries to impose punitive duties on the basis that a certain country’s currency is undervalued. That this is so is appropriate. Valuing currencies to see if they are “manipulated” is very complex and difficult.

For example, the United States has also been accused of pushing its currency down through its controversial policy of “quantitative easing” (central bank pumping of funds into the banking system).

And is Switzerland “manipulating” its currency by announcing it will not tolerate further appreciation of the franc?

Allowing the currency issue to be a subject of possible unfair practice open to trade sanctions will open the road to many other issues being similarly recognised, such as a country’s tax rates, interest rates, and labour and environmental standards. There will be no end to having reasons for new trade protectionism.

A US law based on the Senate Bill will probably be found to be inconsistent with US obligations in the WTO. But by the time the WTO dispute system panel makes a final ruling (this may take years), some damage may already be done should the United States act against Chinese imports in the meantime.

China may not take the US actions lying down, and can come up with retaliatory action on US goods. Thus, a trade war may be unleashed.

Interestingly, although some well known American economists like Paul Krugman and Fred Bergsten advocate US action against Chinese imports, some business associations as well as important newspapers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Financial Times have come out strongly against the Senate Bill for its protectionism and trade war potential.

The high-pitched attack on China because of its large trade surplus with the United States is misplaced. Little of the gross surplus actually accrues to China.

A 2010 paper by the South Centre shows that only a small part of China’s exports to the United States is actually retained as income in China.

For example, in 2005, China’s gross trade surplus with the United States was US$172bil (RM543bil), but in value-added terms (what is earned by the respective countries after deducting the import content of their exports), it was only US$40bil (RM126bil).

Further, a large part of the Chinese trade surplus in value-added terms was earned by foreign firms in China and thus, does not belong to China. As a result, income left in China was no more than 30% of the total value of exports to the United States.

Therefore, the criticism that China enjoys extraordinarily high trade surpluses with the United States is misplaced.

Also, even if US trade measures reduce Chinese imports into the United States, this does not mean that the US import bill will be reduced.

Goods from other developing countries such as Vietnam or Indonesia may just replace the Chinese goods.

Therefore, US actions based on the Senate Bill would hardly help the United States get rid of its trade deficit.

It is best that the United States take domestic actions to address its domestic economic problems, rather than make a scapegoat of other countries and potentially unleash new trade wars.

Sunday, 9 October 2011

Youngsters restless for change

By AMY CHEW sunday@thestar.com.my

The New Deal proposals for Malaysians have caught the attention of some young people who hope they will become a reality.

The Federal Star on the Malaysian Chinese Asso...

THE youths of today are a generation in a hurry. Born into the digital age, the pace in which their world spins often leaves their parents and the establishment struggling to keep up with their expectations.

They sometimes lament that established institutions are out of tune with their needs and aspirations, whether politically, economically or socially.

The young generation is also much bolder and articulate in expressing their needs and dissatisfaction.

Deal for all: In the New Deal, Dr Chua is believed to be speaking for a 1Malaysia and is bent on pushing for equal rights for all Malaysians.

When the MCA announced a New Deal for Malaysia based on fairness and bravery last week, where affirmative action must be based on needs and merits, as well as others, it drew both plaudits and scepticism from the young.

Even as they welcomed party president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek's speech on the New Deal, they expressed scepticism over whether it would receive the necessary support from other Barisan Nasional partners to be realised.

“Reading the speech, I was filled with great hope for the future, my future and the future of the youth today,” says 25-year-old Vince Chong, deputy chairman of the National Young Lawyers' Committee of the Bar Council.

“That is essentially the crux of Dr Chua's speech he was selling hope. And the reforms that he proposed as key points for the New Deal are exceptionally appealing.

It is about time the MCA speaks up so that they are part of the making of policy proposals. - WAN SAIFUL WAN JAN

“But I am also alive to (the fact) that reality may not allow it. The road to realise all key points of the New Deal is exceptionally tough. And there must be the political will to back it, not only from Barisan members but also members of the Opposition,” adds Wong.

The Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas), a non-profit think tank, has described MCA's call as a “very bold move” even though there is nothing “radical” in the New Deal.

“The announcement (New Deal) was very exciting, not because of the content but because MCA as one of the senior partners of Barisan National is beginning to speak out,” Ideas chief executive Wan Saiful Wan Jan says.

“And it is about time that the party speaks up so that they are part of the making of policy proposals,” adds Wan Saiful.

Under the New Deal proposal, affirmative action must be based on needs and merits. If any particular group is poor, it must continue to receive help.

Last month, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak reportedly said that any affirmative action to help bumiputras should be based on meritocracy to ensure only the deserving ones are promoted,
“Hopefully, with MCA speaking out, the PM will feel he has the political support to implement it,” says Wan Saiful.

As a Malay, Wan Saiful, 36, personally believes it is “unfair” to have policies based on race.

“Malays are beginning to speak out against affirmative action,” Wan Saiful observes.

“There will always be extremist elements from all races. But there are also unifying forces from progressive elements of many parties,” he says, adding that his organisation is “more than willing” to talk to people from all races who need help or to listen to their concerns.

Political scientist Ong Kian Ming of UCSI University describes the New Deal as “bold” and, in some ways, beyond what Najib has proposed as part of the political transformation programme.

“For example, Dr Chua called for the abolition of the restriction in the AUKU (University and University Colleges Act) which prevents students from being members of political parties,” says Ong.

“His outreach to young voters and the emphasis on demands beyond that of the immediate concerns of the Chinese community show that he is in touch with political reality post 2008,” he says.

However, Dr Chua faces challenges in making the New Deal a reality as much would depend on the votes MCA can recapture in the next general election as well as how much support the party will get from Umno.

“The New Deal has many good aspirations but the larger electorate will quickly move on to focus on Najib's transformational agenda rather than the MCA's own transformational agenda,” adds Ong.

Najib appears not to be relying on MCA and MIC to reach out to the Chinese and Indian voters but is instead relying on his own popularity, according to Ong.

“This may not be sufficient in swinging enough votes to win back some of the seats which MCA lost in 2008 especially in areas with strong PR incumbents and relatively weak MCA candidates,” he says.

For Chew Hoong Ling, 31, the most important part of the New Deal is the economic proposal.

“People will not complain and will even close an eye when they have enough to eat. But when people struggle while the leaders are seen to be lavish and corrupt, the people will turn the tables (against them),” says Chew, a member of the National Youth Consultative Council.

Chew is calling for the empowerment of youths to give them the opportunity to be entrepreneurs and not just employees.

“We have babies born every year but the leadership hoards positions for over 10 years. How can young people climb up the (corporate) ladder in their lifetime?

“There should be policies to empower youths in other sectors and facilitate youth groups to be entrepreneurs,” she says.

For the young who are well educated, they have no patience to wait for changes as their education affords them the mobility to move to places with better opportunities. This mobility also gives them the ability to effect changes to their lives without intervention from the state.

“Brain drain will continue to happen until major reforms are made by the ruling government where there is meritocracy, where contracts are given out based on merit,” says William Lee, 27, a web designer.

Lee, who graduated from Monash University, Melbourne with a degree in electrical and computer systems engineering, is planning to leave for Australia.

“I plan to leave the country as a back-up plan', in case things don't work out here,” he says.

Lee says he and his friends started their own businesses with their own efforts.

“We did it ourself. Nobody helped us.”

Ann, a financial executive, believes Dr Chua speaks for all Malaysians in his New Deal.

“Given his ideology of the New Deal, I would say he is really speaking 1Malaysia and pushing for equal rights for all Malaysians.”

In the following weeks, Sunday Star will explore the key points of the New Deal articulated by Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

Recent Related Articles:

Budget 2012 to ride Malaysia Election, a wake up call!

Good handouts before election

Comment By Baradan Kuppusamy

The Prime Minister is hoping to draw support with the goodies promised under the Budget as the battle in the next general election looms large.

THE Budget 2012 announced by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in Parliament on Friday specifically targets selected groups like civil servants, retired military personnel, other pensioners, students, policemen and even taxi drivers who are all crucial to Barisan Nasional in the coming general election.

They form a large chunk of Malaysian voters and with their support, Najib is hoping to ride the 13th general election in style in the “do or die” battle ahead.

Najib has spread out the budget's largesse with care across the political spectrum, making every ringgit count and for the first time, also to Chinese, Tamil, mission and madrasah schools to upgrade their facilities.

Najib hopes to shore up support from these groups or win back some that were lost to the Pakatan Rakyat coalition which has been promising assistance to marginalised communities with its alternative budget as read out by its leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim at a press conference three days earlier.

The Treasury-bursting Budget is generous with civil servants about 1.3 million of them who are expected to be the backbone of support for Barisan Nasional.

(See next: The best civil servants in the world-MALAYSIA BOLEH)

They get the retirement age raised to 60, a half-month bonus or RM500 minimum, and a new salary scheme that would see quick promotion and wage rise.

The populist measure to abolish school fees, although small by middle-class standards, would be a big, annual sum for the poor and well received. A universal and free education is the dream of most democracies.

In addition, RM100 to each student from Year 1 to Form 5 and a RM200 book voucher for students in Form Six and tertiary institutions would bring cheer to many school goers living in the lower income brackets.

For the first time too, the Government is specially addressing Tamil, Chinese and madrasah schools with RM100mil each to upgrade facilities.

Whereas help was doled out on an ad-hoc basis before, now these schools can plan and upgrade their facilities, classrooms and other amenities with money available. This allocation buys both MIC and MCA bragging rights with the people.

Business, environment and other special groups, usually targeted under previous budgets, were largely ignored or given token assistance.

The assistance given to taxi drivers is extraordinary and come several months after those in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor gathered and met Anwar at the Civic Centre here to highlight their plight.

Anwar had promised them a better deal when Pakatan Rakyat comes to power.

In this budget, Najib is seeking to wean taxi drivers off from Pakatan Rakyat. The budget has many goodies for them, abolishing exercise duties and sale tax for their taxis.

Additionally, road tax has been abolished and a payment of RM3,000 announced for disposing of old taxies. BSN will also have cheap loans at 2% interest for acquiring new taxis.

Taxi drivers are important during general election as they are used to ferry voters to and from polling booths by both coalitions. Having them behind you is opportune. Besides, they also talk with passengers and woo them.

Rural Malaysia, especially Sabah and Sarawak, will get the lion's share of the rural allocation of RM5bil to upgrade basic facilities, provide clean water and electricity, which alone has been given RM3.2bil.

It is a recognition that the rural vote in Sabah and Sarawak saved Barisan in 2008 and heavy emphasis is given to them to keep the rural votes.

Najib is laying out the red carpet to the rural voters, even the estates have been included this time with a RM100mil allocation for clean water supply. No longer do they have to depend on dirty ponds for their water supply.

Najib's emphasis is on the Barisan mainstay groups rural folk, civil servants, retired military personnel and others to shore up support for the ruling coalition.

Najib hopes to undercut the Pakatan appeal with these populist measures in the big battle that is shaping up soon.
About 60,000 long neglected armed forces retirees also stand to benefit with a one-off RM3,000 payment in “recognition of their sacrifices” but this is really to shore up support after the “Mohamed Sabu” debacle when the PAS deputy president likened soldiers and police as stooges of the colonial regime.

The RM300mil to construct a new outpatient wing is another well-earned populist measure because many people, usually the poor and retirees, flock to the overcrowded outpatient clinics in HKL.

The crucial Felda voters are also not left out with its listing in the offing that would create, in Najib's word, durian runtuh for settlers.

With these selective populists' measures, Najib is preparing the political ground to make it favourable for a general election expected to be called sometime early next year.

His forecast for 2012 growth is on the high side of 5% to 6% because the world, on which we depend to sell our products, is in a downturn and probably heading for a recession.

But Najib is optimistic that domestic demand and commodities export will keep Malaysia afloat.

The Budget then is the last ace in Najib's sleeve before he faces the people and he has assiduously spread the available cash to people who matter for the ruling coalition civil servants, retirees, armed forces staff, the rural folks, a big chunk of Malaysia expected to deliver when the time comes.

Goodies with polls in mind

On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai

The challenge would be to take advantage of the momentum that now favours the ruling coalition.
IT’S clear that Budget 2012, which was unveiled by the Prime Minister last week, is the strongest build-up to the next general election.

More money was given to civil servants and pensioners, and there were plans to list the Felda Global Group’s commercial unit, Felda Global Ventures Holdings Sdn Bhd, on Bursa Malaysia, which would bring the settlers a windfall. All of this would surely lock in a huge chunk of voters.

There was more – the government offered a one-off RM500 cash handout to households with a monthly income of RM3,000 and below, as well as a RM100 cash aid for primary and secondary pupils (Year 1 to Form 5) and RM200 book vouchers for students.

Ex-members of the special constabulary and auxiliary police as well as widows and widowers would also receive a one-off payment of RM3,000.

The list was impressively long. Everyone got something, in the words of Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. In his parting shot, he reminded the Opposition bench that they too would get better allowances starting in January.

But to many analysts, the Budget was tilted in favour of the rural heartland wherein lies the traditional base of Umno and the votes would go strongly to the Barisan Nasional.

The urban middle class isn’t likely to be happy with Budget 2012. While there were provisions that would benefit the middle class, such as the first-time home scheme, tax exemption for contributions to missionary schools and houses of worship and tax incentives for private schools, they do not see direct benefits.

The middle class, which makes up the 2.4 million taxpayers and carries the burden for 27 million people in the country, deserves better.

Although there are 6.4 million registered taxpayers, only 2.4 million are paying up. The rest are ineligible because they are either retired, have stopped working or have incomes below the taxable bracket.

Until the Government has the political courage to impose the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which would be a broad-based consumption tax, there is no possibility of a reduction in personal and corporate taxes.

It would have been unrealistic to expect any such tax reduction, though, but increase in EPF contributions from employers for workers earning more than RM5,000 could have at least brought some cheer to the middle class.

Be that as it may, the middle class must not forget the benefits that they enjoy and which are sometimes taken for granted, such as subsidies for petrol and essential food items, for instance. Also, keeping the sin taxes at current levels would certainly benefit those who need the occasional mug of beer or a pack of cigarettes.

The general consensus is that the Budget has created a feel good factor, and even opposition politicians have conceded this. It is a strong follow-up to the slew of political reforms announced by Najib last month.

The question now is when the Barisan will call for the polls. The challenge would be to take advantage of the momentum that now favours the ruling coalition, especially with surveys showing that Malay voters have returned to the Barisan.

It has been said that one reason why PAS decided to abandon its welfare state plan in favour of an Islamic state was because the party found its share of the Malay votes sliding drastically. Even Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim came out to support the implementation of hudud laws, with an eye on Muslim votes.

The remarks made by PAS deputy president Mohamed Sabu, describing communist leaders as freedom fighters, also scarred the party badly.

There is speculation of a November polls but this writer does not think it will happen. Between Nov 14 and Dec 14, school halls have been booked for the SPM exams and many teachers will be acting as exam invigilators, not as election officials.

The PM is also scheduled to perform his Haj, along with 28,000 Malaysian Muslims, and would be away from November. The last chartered flight out of Mecca is Dec 12.

The much speculated Nov 11 date, which is said to be Najib’s favourite number, also does not hold water or make much political sense as it is a Friday, which is hardly the best day for polls.

From Nov 29 until Dec 3, the Umno general assembly will be held in Kuala Lumpur. Here, the Umno president would make the rallying call to the troops, remind them to close ranks, let him have the mandate to choose the candidates and tell them that losing is not an option.

The monsoon season, from the end of November until end of January, which hits the east coast states every year is also a factor that needs to be considered when setting the date for elections.

Many Malaysians would also be away at this time, taking advantage of the holiday season to clear their leave and to spend time with their families. No one would be in the mood to listen to politicians.

Finally, in January the Barisan would have its final opportunity to win over Chinese voters, many of whom still favour the opposition. Chinese New Year will be on Jan 23 and in the weeks before the celebrations, we can expect the political drums to be louder.

The window period for the polls could be between March and May. Given the uncertainties of the global economy and uncontrolled external forces, Najib has little time left to take advantage of the feel good factors.

Will you take the RM100?

Why Not By Wong Sai Wan , October 14, 2011

The 2012 Budget offered quite a number of cash handouts – a first in Malaysian history – and questions are already being asked about who deserves the financial aid.

TWO working mothers looked at each other when told that their two school-going children will each get RM100 from the Government next year under the 2012 Budget.

Almost together, the women, both professionals, said: “What can you get with RM100 these days.”
When told that if they had college-going kids, they would also be entitled to a book voucher of RM200 per child, they gave the bearer of the news the same “big deal” look.

This conversation was related by a friend who was appalled by the attitude of his two colleagues towards the welfare assistance that Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced last Friday.

I was not surprised by the reaction because I too heard similar comment from my friends.

After all, we are all in the same boat – we are all urban middle-class people who always claim that “we get nothing from the Government”.

The middle-class always feel that they have to bear the brunt of any taxation decision, including having to pay more than our Singaporean cousins for a not so fancy car.

They argue that they are among the 1.7 million out of the over 10 million workforce who pay income tax and, in some cases, pay more than their bosses, who get away by using all sorts of tax avoidance tactics.

The middle-class now cites Warren Buffett’s recent statement to justify the need to tax the rich.

As one of the world’s richest men, he acknowledged that his secretary paid more taxes than he did. (He said this when trying to justify US President Barack Obama’s plan to tax wealthy Americans.)

Buffet is the third richest man in the world and is worth US$47bil (RM147bil) at last count.

Some are even arguing for the immediate imposition of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) so that the personal income tax could be reduced.

The middle-class claims that the GST is a consumption tax that means one is only taxed if one buys something.

So if you are frugal as Buffett, who does not buy much for himself, then you will pay minimal tax.

After having to go through the 117 paragraphs of Najib’s speech twice, I feel that there are many things for everyone, even the middle-class.

Education is now absolutely free and according to the PM there is not supposed to be any other fees that are usually collected at the beginning of each term.

Textbooks have been free for quite a number of years thus the only expenditure at the start of school is for uniforms, shoes, exercise books and stationery.

The RM100 aid will not cover all of this but according to my better half it should cover one set of uniform (about RM60), a pair of shoes (RM30) and two pairs of socks (RM10).

While we middle-class urban folks may thumb our noses at the RM100, it is still a reasonable sum.

At the beginning of a school year, it becomes a useful amount, especially to the office boys, clerks, village folk or those living in the longhouses of Sarawak.

To them it is a lot of money. It will work out to be quite a sum if a family has three or more kids.
But there is so much more in the Budget.

There is the RM450mil women and children hospital to be built near the KL Hospital (HKL) and by many accounts it will be a fantastic facility.

Many middle-class families will not even think of going to a government hospital.

They would rather pay thousands of ringgit to seek treatment at expensive private hospitals, which we all presume provide better treatment.

A rich friend of mine called me about three months ago and insisted that we publish his account at the HKL where he sought treatment when his ulcer perforated.

Carl Chow, who suffered a stroke a few years ago, has been in and out of private hospitals for various ailments and considers himself an expert on hospitals.

“The service, treatment and care I received from the moment I was admitted have opened my eyes. It was much better than my regular private hospital, which was more interested in my wallet than my well-being,” he said.

Carl told me that from now on he will seek treatment for all his ailments at the HKL. “It’s a matter of perspective and once I went through what I did, HKL is the best hospital in the country,” said Carl.

However, I leave the final word on the Budget goodies to the Prime Minister who remarked: “For those who can afford it, you can decide not to accept the money.”

So will you take the RM100?

> Executive editor Wong Sai Wan has a feeling that the school cash aid and the book allowance will become an annual affair.

The best civil servants in the world-MALAYSIA BOLEH

Best bloated civil service

* With 1.3 million civil servants to a population of 26 million, Malaysia has one of the highest civil servants-to-population ratio in the world by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development standards.

* In 2009, Malaysia’s civil servants-to-population ratio was the highest in Asia Pacific. The ratio was 4.68 per cent, compared to Singapore’s 1.5 per cent, Indonesia’s 1.79 per cent, Korea’s 1.85 per cent and Thailand’s 2.06 per cent all of which have less than half our ratio.

Best way to bleed a budget dry

* Much of the budget (2011) continues to go into operating a bloated civil service. As much as three quarters of the national budget is spent on paying salaries and other benefits to over 1.3 million civil servants.

* A post-2011 Budget dialogue highlighted the massive amount (35 per cent of the total RM162.8 billion operating expenditure) to be spent on emoluments, pensions and gratuities of civil servants. A panelist, Ministry of Finance budget division director Datuk Dr Rahmat Bivi Yusuff admitted that there is a need to trim the civil service to reduce the budget deficit.

Best way to bankrupt this nation

* Whilst it is the growing trend of many countries to reduce their civil service, the PM’s Department in particular, has done the opposite. It more than doubled its number of civil servants from 21,000 to 43,554 this year. In stark contrast, the White House employs only 1,888 staff.

* The White House budget is US$394 million for 2011. The PM’s Department has been allocated a whopping RM18.14 billion for the year 2011, almost double the RM10.2 billion 2010.

* Pemandu, which stands for Performance, Management and Delivery Unit, was set up last year under the Najib administration as one of the pillars in his Government Transformation Plan… is a massive drain on resources. In a span of two months the government spent RM20 million just to pay 50 consultants,.

Best contradiction of 1Malaysia

* As at 31 December 2009, the racial breakdown of the Malaysian civil service comprising 1,247,894 employees was as follows: Malay (78.2 per cent); Other Bumiputras (7.7 per cent); Chinese (5.8 per cent), Indian (4.0 per cent); and Others (4.2 per cent).

* “This is the worst multi-racial composition of the government service, with the lowest Chinese and Indian representation in the public service in Malaysia’s 53-year history. This is clearly seen from the three sets of comparative figures of the racial breakdown of the civil service before the NEP (1971) and as compared to Dec. 2009 – Malays (60.80 per cent and 78.2 per cent); Chinese (20.2% and 5.8 per cent); Indians (17.4 per cent and 4.0 per cent); and Others (1.6 per cent and 4.2 per cent).

Best in corruption

* Last year two out of five civil servants were deemed corrupt by Cuepacs. It was described as a worrying trend that needed to be tackled urgently.

* Cuepacs President Omar Osman revealed that a total of 418,200 or 41 per cent of the 1.2 million civil servants in the country were suspected to be involved in corruption last year (Bernama, 2 June 2010).

Best “dumping ground”

Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz, a former state assembly member of Pahang who is a member of Umno and who uses the pen-name Sakmongkol AK47, in his blog entry wrote: “Government service shouldn’t be treated as a dumping ground for academic rejects and mediocre material. Let’s demand a certain high standard and ensure we bring in talent that supports the demand for high standards.

“What has the government done to improve the efficiency and competence of government servants? There isn’t really competition there if the service is dominated by one race. There isn’t sufficient quality if the entry-level qualifications are so-so.

“Yet each year, to placate civil servants, the PM will appear on TV to say, we honour our civil servants because they have done a good job, blah blah. Which is not entirely true. The service is slow, the quality of officers is questionable.”

But Umno likes Muhyiddin’s make-believe. The next General Elections must be close at hand. Civil servants are made to believe that Umno is their (political) paymaster and they owe it to Umno. The party’s leaders would do or say anything to convince the government servant of this, even praising them as “the best civil servants in the world”!

S'pore's Budget 2011 made Malaysian's blood boil!

Makes my blood boils! WAKE UP!!!

I was in Spore when their 2011 budget was tabled. There were two items that impressed me most ..... can't remember all:

Growth and share concept: Spore govt will gives away cash amounting to SGD800.00 to individuals and between SGD5,000.00 - 2,000.00 per household. The estimated per household should average more than SGD3,000.00 or about RM10,000.00!!

How can they afford this? Simple-- the Spore govt owns all public utilities eg Electricity, water, MRT and investment arms like Tumasek and sovereign funds. Profits from these organisations are distributed back to their citizens, with the rich getting minimal and the lower income group getting the larger share.

How does that compare with BN govt? Cronies get richer by the days and subsidies are cut. Yes, for political expediencies the PM gives away RM200 to selected constituents for their votes!! Big joke!!

Employers CPF contributions are increased to ensure workers can have more money when they retire.

What goodies do we have for our 2011 budget? Spend more on arms and patrol crafts that costs RM 1 Billion EACH! Computers procured at RM 40,000 EACH, Costs overrun on almost all govt projects.

You are right (above message).....the following is the report of their 2011 Budget.

Makes me mad as hell.....with the imbeciles over here, both out & within government!!!

.....AND YES, (as the Singaporeans may accuse me of).....I AM JEALOUS!!!!.....andI AM SICK OF OUR OWN INCOMPETENCE & THE REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT COMPETITION BASED ON MERIT IS STILL THE ROUTE TO DEVELOPMENT & WEALTH.....in a Laissez Faire Capitalist Society.

What do you expect when we have a bunch of idiots running this country compared to S’pore who have the brains and that is why S’pore is developed and successful. As long as this bunch of idiots are still around Malaysia will continue to be where it started. They only know how to talk and bad mouth about others and refuse to accept their mistakes. This is BN so come the next election throw them out…….don’t worry if Pakatan can run this country because when the Egyptian went to the street to throw their President out they don’t even know what their future lies for them and whether if there is a leader to replace their current President. Their objective was to get rid of him and they stay focus…….in Malaysia we have capable leaders in Pakatan to rule this country so there is nothing to be afraid of voting them into power..

We have nothing to lose but more to gain because after 53 years – enough is enough…do it for the future generations. With BN there is no future because these idiots only look after their own future. Nothing for you and me, all
Malaysians, WAKE UP !!!!

Singapore Budget goodies unveiled
By Angela Lim – February 18th, 2011

Singaporeans will receive a total of S$6.6 billion of benefits in the 2011 Singapore Budget announced by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on Friday.

$3.2 billion Grow and Share Package: Theaverage Singaporean household will receive S$3,500 from this year’s Budget. This will come from the S$3..2 billion to be spent on the “Grow and Share Package” and S$3.4 billion in longer-term Social Investments for households this year.

All adult Singaporeans will also receive Growth Dividends to share the fruits of last year’s exceptional economic growth. The majority of Singaporeans – 80% – will get $600 to $800 each.

CPF rate revision: The Government will raise the employer contribution rate to CPF accounts by another 0.5 percentage points, from 15.5% to 16%, which will restore the total contribution, rate to 36%. The additional 0.5% will go into the Special Account.

The Government will also revise the CPF salary ceiling from $4,500 to $5,000 per month to keep pace with income growth in recent years. This will align the salary ceiling back to the 80th percentile income, and help middle-income Singaporeans.

Radio and TV licence fees removed permanently: The annual licence fee of S$110.00 for televisions and S$27.00 for vehicle radios will be removed with immediate effect. Those who have not paid this year’s fees will not have to make the payment, while a refund will be given to those who have already paid.

Mr Tharman said that’s because the fees are losing their relevance. He said televisions are no longer limited to middle and higher-income groups, with 99 per cent of lower-income households owning them today.

Tax cuts: Singaporeans will receive a personal income tax rebate of 20% for individual resident taxpayers for YA 2011. The rebate will be capped at $2,000.00 Taxes will be reduced significantly for middle and upper-middle income families. Marginal tax rates will be reduced for first S$120,000.00 of chargeable income.

Levy increase for foreign workers: The Government will also introduce more levy increases on foreign workers for all sectors this year. Most of the additional measures will be phased in at six-monthly intervals, starting only from 1 January 2012, and extending till 1 July 2013, one year beyond the previous schedule.

S$10 billion home upgrading: $10 billion will be spent to upgrade homes and rejuvenate estates over the next 10 years. This is a major effort to preserve the value of HDB flats and will go towards the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), it will invest up to $55,000.00 per flat.

Low-income groups will also receive additional housing subsidies to better afford their homes. The Government will set aside S$175 million each year for the new Special CPF Housing Grant to help the bottom 50% Singapore households own their homes.

For more details, refer to the speech summary below or read the full transcript here.

Recent Related Articles:

Pages

Share This

Tuesday, 11 October 2011