My half-arsed opinions...

2008-10-22T15:09:00.003+10:00

Left-Back: Liverpool's Achilles Heel

Once again, it was a lucky comeback, and an unlucky Wigan go home pointless. I wonder how much longer we can ride our luck? One thing is for sure, with Chelsea playing us on the weekend it is time to get rid of our slow starts once and for all, for if there has been any more impressive team than them in all of Europe so far this season, I have yet to see them play.

If I were Scolari, I'd be telling Bosingwa to get forward as much as he can to take advantage of the weakness of Dossena/Aurelio. The latter has had time and it is probably fair to call him a failure, but Dossena has just arrived and I will suspend judgement on him till later in the season. Unfortunately, Liverpool do not have other options to utilise in the meantime. Thus far, Rafa has shown that he is aware of his frailties by not playing Dossena in the 'bigger' matches but it's not like Aurelio has cut it against the top sides as well. Teams are scoring from our weak left flank-Middlesbrough, Wigan, Man Utd spring to mind very easily.

This is a major conundrum and I have no suggestions to offer as to how we can fix it up against Chelsea. One thing is for sure, I'll be a religious man for 90 minutes when we visit Stamford Bridge!

2008-10-22T10:56:00.001+10:00

Re-Post:Education Black hole in Sabah

From my siter's website: http://dreamyborneo.blog.com/4049746/

Cheated of Future

Last Friday, a news report highlighted by The Breakfast Show on NTV7 caught my eye. The hosts were discussing a story my colleague Julia had written in the NST on the plight of Pilatus Sahajiman and Malccolm Edvin who were "talked out" of sitting for their Year 6 compulsory exams three years ago by their principal. Their parents are now claiming that they were called for a meeting with the principal, who was not named in the report.

The parents say the principal told them the boys were academically weak and that if they sit for the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR), they would pull down the school's performance and "humiliate" the school as well. Pilatus' father accepted what the principal said, thinking that perhaps it was government policy. Pilatus went on to Form 1 but soon lost interest and now does odd jobs cleaning heavy machinery and washing tractors when he should actually be in Form 3. Malccolm has stayed on in school, but his father says the boy has low-self esteem because of what happened three years ago.

The parents have since, with the assistance of Inanam Assemblyman Johnny Goh, filed a complaint with the Sabah Education Department. According to the newspaper report, the department has promised that "investigations are under way."

I sincerely hope the Education Department and its director, who was just last week conferred with the second highest honour by the Head of State, will actually take action and not just offer lip service.

I also hope the department will go to the ground to gather feedback from parents, especially in rural areas, on problems they face in making sure their children get quality education. I remember visiting a rural school in northern Sabah on a Thursday ... and everyone had left for the weekend. It is no wonder that today we see hundreds of children (not immigrants) working at shops, car wash outlets and in restaurants. Two weeks ago, I bought vegetables from a boy opposite the secondary school I attended. The only reason I stopped to buy vege was because I wanted to speak to the boy. He shared that he is 11, from a northern district in Sabah, and doesnt go to school because his family has no money. Then I entered a nearby shop, and saw another boy about 11 as well, carrying a box of sundry items on his tiny frame. A few months back, a colleague and I stopped at a car wash outlet in Ranau, and there were 5 boys there aged 12-13. All of them come from the same village, and say they would rather work because their parents are just too poor.

Is it just poverty that is keeping these children out of school, or are those entrusted with the responsibility of encouraging these potential future leaders to stay in school turning them away? Caring society? I dont think so.

2008-10-18T16:32:00.004+10:00

Poverty in Sabah-Re-post of My sister's Blog Article

After years of independence in a country now ranked as developed following the Human Developed Index....

Go to: http://dreamyborneo.blog.com/4039664/ for the original source. I'll re-print it below. Never asked my sister...plagiarism ah?

Remembering Baby Lanora

In January 2008, I visited several villages in northern Sabah with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Unsealed dusty roads and homes built from plywood and zinc greeted us in Kanibongan, Pitas. I was not shocked as I had seen worse. But I was shocked and sad to the bone when we met a young mother who had to feed her baby with a mixture of rice and water because the family cannot afford to buy milk.

I have no idea how baby Lanora is today, 10 months after our visit. She suffers from epilepsy and though her parents have taken her to see the doctor, travelling to the nearby district hospital is a costly affair and when she has fits in the middle of the night, there is nothing much the family can do. Baby Lanora's story is just one of many in remote parts of Sabah, and I believe in other parts of Borneo too. Her mother, Isrin, is 20 and looks under-nourished, her father John is 50 and she has an older sister aged 5 years who thankfully is healthy. Her step-brother, who is 25 lives with the family in their one room hut is mentally ill. (John's son from his first marriage, his wife has passed away).

I wrote a feature published the same month in the New Sunday Times, titled "Empty Pockets on Rich Soil." How true. Sabah is a rich state, yet we have Baby Lanoras among us. I was told that a Sabah State agency disputed my piece, saying that John was crazy and that is why his family was in that condition. Well, from what I observed, the officers from the government agencies refused to even get near the house, so the question of claiming Baby Lanora's father is mad doesnt even rise.

The fact is: 42 per cent of children in Sabah are living in poverty based on latest findings by the UNDP. In other words, more than 4 in 10 children.

The fact is: The government has "spent" billions of ringgit to help these people. I wonder where the money has gone. Several billions more have been pledged. Either funding is being planned without taking into consideration the needs of poor people (what they need instead of imposing programmes on them), or some people have become very rich.

The question is: When will the talk stop? When will we see action?

Mum Isrin feeding Baby Lanora on 6th Jan 2008 at Kanibongan, Pitas, Sabah.

Isrin, Baby Lanora, John and the baby's older sister at their one-room home

2008-10-18T10:27:00.005+10:00

Aaah, The Social Contract Rears Its Ugly Head Again....

Every now and then, the so-called protectors of Malays and Islam, whomever they seem to be (usually UMNO and the Sultans) come out with statements to make those of us who believe in equality shudder in fear. DO NOT QUESTION THE SOCIAL CONTRACT!!!

Well, I have had it....ask Ungku Aziz, what social contract exactly? The one about about safeguarding special Malay rights, the use of the Malay language or the one that says Malays must be privileged in all facets of social, political and economic life that seems to be applicable post-May 13?

People need to understand that the NEP is not the social contract!

Where does the constitution say that a Malay is superior to a non-Malay? Where does it say we must all shut up and bow down to the 'protectors' of the Malays? UMNO certainly is no legal protectors of the Malays. The Sultans are, and my oh my, how wonderfully well have they defended their bangsa and agama...

Under their benevolent watch, we have seen the poor rural Malay villager get next to nothing over the years, but under their watch we have seen the Umnoputeras enrich themselves, gorging from a financial buffet paid for by poor Malays and the pendatangs. Under their watch, we have seen how these Umnoputeras go to Mecca and use the term Haji and yet continue their corrupt behaviour. Not only that, but these male, unelected protectors who find themselves so fortunate to be born into royalty are by and large also living off the largesse of the poor Malays and pendatangs while they 'concern' themselves about their subjects. Not too mention that they are also the protectors of Islam yet how many of them in their private lives choose to freely ignore the tenets of their religion?

The opposition got a bloody nose from them-yesterday the sultans told the opposition that they know who supplies them with their gravy train, and its not Anwar and Co. So much for looking at the royalty for support-for why should these unelected, unaccountable people support democracy and accountability? Why should they dilute their own power? Wake up people!!! Since when, in the history of humanity, have the interests of the people coincided with that of their unelected royalty?

The route to power lies in the hands of the people-March 8 was a powerful lesson for all vested interests. Masses of people voted for the opposition irrespective of race or religion. PAS supporters yelling makkal sakhti and Chinese waving PAS flags. This must have caused massive fear among the vested interests.

What we have seen in the last few months has been the use of the race card to once again divide and rule the populace, but as Permatang Pauh showed, and now BN's concession at Kulim magnifies, it has not worked. The more Teresa Kok is demonised, the more support she garners. The usual weapons have proven impotent in the face of people power.

It was time for the big guns-the sultans!!! Rightfully or wrongly, the much respected sultans. As usual, they have shown that they will act at the behest of those who provide them with their salaries-from the British and now to UMNO, what do they really care for protecting their bangsa and agama? Not too much, I daresay. They can hang their heads in shame in comparison with PAS who, whether I agree with their platform or not, do actually carry out their religious tenets and promote Malay rights as part of universal rights, not as a Machiavellian 'I-win-you-lose' mentality.

If this does not work, then I wonder whether it'll be time for the nuclear weapons-a repeat of May 13 that is. Probably not-a repeat of Operasi Lallang is more likely first.

Sometimes I wonder if I should not go back home. At times like this, I truly appreciate living in a country where I am judged by my character, not my bangsa and agama. All talk of a Bangsa Malaysia is just hot air, till we start treating people as equals and not as first or second class citizens. Part of that process would mean ignoring the sultans as well as UMNO. We've learnt to do the latter; the former however will be much harder to do. Hundreds of years of tradition, culture and brainwashing will ensure that.

True power lies in the hands of the people-do not be distracted by the divide and rule policies of the ruling classes.

Makkal Sakhti people, it should not just be a slogan. It should be practiced.

2008-10-09T11:19:00.003+10:00

Aaah, Cricket's Back-Who's The Racist Eh?

India v. Australia - the bitching, the sledging, the controversial umpiring decisions, the racism, and oh yes, a bit of cricket here and there. Summer's back in town innit?

Once again, we should prepare to witnes the Indian's 'we have done no wrong' cricketers in action while the Aussies have no doubt been prepped incessantly to do no sledge, or even give the enemy a funny look....all this cricketing $$$ floating in India you see...maybe we should make sure they win as well....

Inside Cricket had Harbhajan Singh's interview where he proclaimed he is proud to be Punjabi, proud to be Sikh. Accepted at face value by pretty much all and sundry, no one I know claims that to be supremacist or the like. But now imagine if Hayden proclaimed he is proud to be white, proud to be Catholic....

Aaaah, I cannot wait for the first ball to be delivered-bet it'll be a bouncer...let the games begin!!!

2008-10-07T14:32:00.002+10:00

My, My, Our Year Is It...?

Coming from two goals down to beat the new powerhouse to be (Man City), and one hears of the 'spirit of Istanbul....' It's a good result, but what can one make of it?

One thing is for sure-bar the MU match, the team has yet to play particularly well, yet has won 5 and drawn 2 matches thus far. A team that can pick up so many points while playing at less than their full capabilities is more than just a lucky team. Class teams do it, and if this carries on, then despite playing at less than its best, the team can probably be deemed a 'class' team rather than being a team with some 'class' players.

Scoring last minute goals a la MU is also telling. The team can heap huge pressure on the opposition, forcing them deeper and deeper into defense and yielding the ball back to players in red jerseys. More often than not, this results in late goals.

The self-belief is there as well now, and there is consistency in the line-up and tactics, though Rafa the Faka did alter it against Man City and it nearly killed us.

I don't know if I care to say 'this is our season' as I gave up on that a few years ago-as well, it is still early days and MU and Arsenal will get over their hiccups while Chelsea look super impressive, despite all their injuries. It is their title to lose, quite frankly. As well, our left-back spot looks so very weak and it is only a matter of time before it is cracked open for good, as Middlesbrough and Man City showed in flashes. A January signing there is imperative.

2008-10-03T14:17:00.004+10:00

Has The Fat Spanish Waiter Learnt His Lesson?

A cracking start to Liverpool's season, at least results-wise, if not quite performance-wise. One thing that became clear last season and one which has carried on this season is that Liverpool is well nigh tough to beat. They have now lost only 2 of their last 30 games (to MU & Chelsea) and lost less games than eventual champions MU last season.

This is of course, no reason to cheer, for this does not mean that the team will win anything just yet. Being tough to beat may just indicate a defensive mindset that leads to too many draws, and a serious aversion to risk, catapulting the fear of defeat ahead of the search for glory. Nevertheless, there does seem to be reason for optimism.

First, the central spine of the team is as good as any in the premiership. 4 very good central defenders (Carragher, Agger, Skrtel, Hyppia) and two top notch defensive midfielders (Alonso, Mascherano) ably assiated by two promising youngsters (Lucas, Plessis) even if Lucas is a headless chicken at times. Defensively then, the squad is as well equipped as Chelsea, MU and Arsenal, if not more so. And if one does not concede goals, one always has a chance of winning matches.

Second, which I consider vitally important, the massive rotation seems to have stopped. No more 5 changes a match and no more resting the big name match winners. Gerrard and Torres play pretty much every match, and Agger and Hyppia have to bide their time. Really only Alonso and Mascherano swap around among the big names. Keane starts with Torres, and Riera and Kuyt play out-wide with Arbeloa at right back, while Dossena and Aurelio are battling it out for the left-back slot. So minimal changes. Whether Riera should be selected ahead of Babel/Benayoun, or whether Dossena should be allowed near a red shirt, or whether Pennant should be given a look-in are secondary to the fact that the team now plays with cohesion.

Third, we have depth now, as noted with the central spine of the team. But also up front where once he gets going, Keane will show he knows where the back of the net is. Ngog looks promising and Kuyt can play up-front as well, as can Babel. It's not great, and it is an attack which cannot compete with Arsenal and MU, but one which matches Chelsea for depth. Out-wide, as long as he has the full-backs overlapping our weakness is minimised but even then Pennant can't get a game and Babel makes cameo appearences, while Benayoun continues to flitter in and out of the side.

But they are troubles of course. In the centre of midfield we have only one attack minded player in the indefatigable Steven Gerrard but no one else. Babel can probably fit in there if need be, as can Benayoun (and at a stretch Keane) but really there is no concrete fall-back option. Compare that to Chelsea and Arsenal and the team falls flat.

The full-back positions are the most problematic. Aurelio has never really convinced and Dossena needs to start playing like a defender. Arbeloa I don't mind, but why oh why force Finnan away? Ok, to get Riera in but even then...Deggen I have no idea about, but we'll see when he is fit. The fullbacks do not even begin to approximate the quality possessed by MU, Chelsea and Arsenal.

Still, more reason to be optimistic than not. It's certainly not our year seeing we don't do too well going behind opposing defences and the fullback weakness will eventually come to the fore, but bloody hell, at least the team should be right up there with the best come the end of April!

2008-09-28T12:31:00.003+10:00

Anwar's 2nd Wind & The Dictatorship Within UMNO

Is Anwar really bluffing, or is there at least some truth to his bravado? After 16 September he seemed to have had egg on his face. Then there was the 23 September story, Tian Chua's big mouth, & Anwar's declaration that deadlines don't matter. Neither did SAPP join the Pakatan Rakyat preferring to stand as independents. It all seemed like he was finished, but for 3 main developments in the last few days.

1. Badawi's refusal to call Anwar's bluff. This really perplexes me. Why not accede to Anwar's request for an extraordinary parliamentary sitting & destroy Anwar once and for all? The fact that he did not is not for me, proof that he is fed up with Anwar's sandiwara and that he is getting on with the job of governing. Instead it shows to me that he is not 100% sure (though pretty sure probably) that Anwar was talking out of his rear. Why wait till 13 October? Is it so he can launch a counter-attack? If so, then we have to consider the possibility that Anwar's not bluffing, and Badawi feels he needs time to ameliorate the threat.

2. Following on form that, the suspension of UMNO election's in order to pass the throne to Najib only shows that he is trying to nullify instability in UMNO. Nevertheless, all he is doing is increasing instability in UMNO. It looks like he has given up on holding on to power, & by handing it over to Najib can at least strike some back-door deals to keep his and his family's dirty laundry out of the public eye. This may make the anti-Najib, anti-Badawi camps within UMNO more likely to leave should they feel they cannot take over power since the election is postponed. This makes the likelihood of a power transfer more, and not less likely. The winds of change in favour of free speech has taken root across the nation, including within UMNO. Gagging the expression of free speech will only alienate significant chunks of UMNO members.

3. UPKO's ramblings suggest to me that Sabah's BN parties are beginning to make the move leading up to October 13. Whatever the realpolitik of SAPP's decision, it was clearly very popular with the people of Sabah. Given PBS' emasculation and SAPP's popularity, UPKO can either try and claim the support of the KDM people or lose them to SAPP. BN Sabah is hotly divided, which can be seen by Shafie Apdal's role in urging Badawi to go and maintain some stability within UMNO (but which I argue is actually counter-productive to UMNO's stability).

There has been false dawns, but October 13 must be the end of it all. If Anwar cannot get it done then, he must apologise, and Pakatan Rakyat must get back to governing their states, strengthening their 'coalition' & be a responsible opposition. While I still maintain that the political and economic uncertainty is largely due to a lack of governance at the federal level, clearly the opposition has played a role in it as well. Ultimately what we need is functioning governments, federal and state though clearly it is more important federally. Both parties need to start doing that, and soon.

2008-09-25T14:38:00.003+10:00

When Do We Abandon Our Principles?

The issue of principles, and holding on to them, is confusing me. I used to think of it as a rather straightforward beast-you have principles and you hold on to them. Simple. Now I wonder how black and white the issue of principles is. One question in particular concerns me-must principles be rules governed, or can principles be discretionary?

I ask because until about 3-4 weeks ago, I held one principle dear-any member of parliament wishing to jump parties should first resign his/her seat. We should not countenance the defection based on the assertion that the original party being represented has changed its tune and no longer represents the electorate. I hold this view as I firmly believe that the majority of people vote for a party and not an individual candidate (in the main).

I abandoned this principle for Anwar's possible (now certainly near impossible) heroic promise to form government based on defections, despite initially being very critical of such a thing. Why? Because:

*IMO, the government had stopped governing. The government's job is to govern, and not just sit there, inert. And IMO, that is exactly what happened. In such a scenario, one cannot claim the right to form government despite winning the election if one then, upon forming government, not actually govern.

*Anwar's promise to hold free and fair elections within 12 months of forming government after fixing up the electoral roles and getting rid of draconian legislation such as the ISA. To me, this was the decisive point that made me support his aim of toppling the government by using 'jumping' parliamentarians. If the government has stopped governing, and he can not only get elections to be held again, but make them 'freer and fairer' then it is worth pursuing especially when:

*The government continued to use state apparatus to suppress the people.

The last of this is the most subjective of all, and where my decision to abandon my principle is at its weakest, and can be safely disregarded. I got ahead of myself there but the arrest of the Sin Chew journalist really got my goat.

But the first two deserve closer scrutiny and can be analysed via two separate prisms:

*Should principles be universally applied (be rules based)? Or,
*Should principles be contextual (discretionary)?

Should principles be universal, then my decision to support the defections is wrong. I cannot abrograte my principle 'just this once.' It is a non-issue. But does this then imply that the world is static, and not dynamic, for why should it be just my principle that is static? In a static world, nothing changes and the principle of not supporting defections will apply as governments govern and express the will of the people. How realistic is that?

If, on the other hand, principles be placed into set contexts, then discretion applies. The principle of not supporting defections applies to situations where governments actually govern and express the wish of the majority of voters. When that does not occur, the principle is untenable. This unfortunately, opens up a can of worms. Who decides that the government is not performing? Who decides that it no longer represents the majority? Are they rules to follow, in which case why am I using rules to apply discretion? Why the hypocracy?

I wonder if economics can help us out here with its concept of 'constrained discretion' with regards to the independence of central banks in setting monetary policy. When monetary policy was in the hands of politicians, we often witnessed opportunistic behaviour close to elections, with adverse long-term consequences for an economy. It was argued that governments with discretion in the use of monetary policy could not be credible, and that it would be better to use rules instead. Central banks were made independent and targets (rules) were set for them to follow. So in Australia, inflation must be contained within a 2-3% band. Failure to do so will result in penalties. Sticking to this, over time, creates credibility.

But there has been an understanding that such rules must be abandoned should the 'landscape' significantly alter. For example, imagine a scenario whereby Australia falls headlong into recession due to a collapse of the Chinese economy but inflation remains high due to cost-push inflation led by high oil and agricultural prices. In this scenario, say that GDP = -3% but inflation = 5%.

Now, the RBA, following its rules would attempt to lower inflation by running contractionary monetary policy. In other words, it would raise interest rates to contain inflation. This would only further prolong the Australian recession. In such an unlikely scenario, we all know that the RBA would be allowed to abandon the band 'just this once' as the rule was set in place to reflect an ideal scenario in a fairly static landscape. When that landscape suddenly shifts, a change in rules, or an abandonment of rules in order to return to the original landscape is pretty much accepted as being valid. The credibility it has built over time would not be compromised when it abandons the rules due to severe unforseen impacts on the Australian economy.

So it is that I return to my conundrum. Can principles be universal? I think only in a static world, or to be clearer, in a world where the paradigm in which the principles were formulated still remain strong. It can change if the paradigm shifts, and there can be times when the principles can be abrograted while we attempt to return the paradigm to its initial starting point. If so, then we should not be fixated with always standing our ground, but neither should we change our point of view willy-nilly. We need credibility in order to be able to ignore our principles in exceptional circumstances and still be taken seriously after the fact. That is 'constrained discretion.'

It still leaves open the question of when, where, how and why the 'exception' occurs though. And that is surely subjective.

I was initially uncomfortable with supporting the possibility of defections but not anymore. Under the circumstances, I thought the situation was 'exceptional' and thought that by supporting a defection-led change of government I would be able to see the landscape change back to a scenario whereby I will once again be able to state my principle of non-defection. It did not occur in any event, and now we'll see if UMNO can reform itself and get on with the job of governing. Till then, I hold dear that I can, and will, continue to support a defection-led change of government that will end the tenure of a non-governing government (should it not start governing) and bring forth 'freer and fairer' elections where the will of the people can be heard louder and clearer.

Or so I tell myself anyway....

2008-09-13T16:25:00.003+10:00

Post-BN Malaysia: A Land of Milk and Honey?

If one takes a heroic leap of faith and assumes that within days a new post-BN government will be formed, then innumerable conjectures arise. Allow me to pen a few thoughts of my own on this matter.

*Pakatan Rakyat has promised to hold elections soon after taking over power (6-12 months), at least once it has managed to repeal 'evil' laws such as the Sedition Act and our infamous ISA. Of all PR promises, this is the one I worry about the most-once in power with the help of all the frogs, what on earth would possess Anwar and his people to call snap elections, especially if this means that he, Awang Hadi and Lim Kit Siang have to tell members of their party to not challenge the frogs in their constituencies? Lest we forget, a lot of these frogs will have plenty of skeletons in their closet (well, so does Anwar...). I fail to see why they would jump in the first place if they would have to face re-election very soon after jumping anyway. Better stay with BN and enjoy 5 more years of easy money, swindling the people.

*Forgiving the swindling of the people. These frogs are not jumping out of the goodness of their hearts. It may well be the case that they feel BN will collapse anyway and the early frogs will get whatever it is that frogs eat sans Sabah 1994. First come, first serve. The incentives to jump must be simple-prime among them that the new government turn a blind eye to their past misdeeds. Maybe that is a price worth paying (though I think not) but what worries me more is an implicit understanding that the man with the famous black eye will continue to turn a blind eye for future swindling, especially if it guarantees East M'sian seats. Hopefully PKR won't have to change the design of their logo from an open to a closed eye...

The Machiavellian Anwar is perfectly capable of doing this if it means achieving power-once in power and faced with tough decisions (which he bottled when he was both education & finance minister) and in need of support from MPs he will certainly cut whatever deal is deemed necessary to keep him in power.

*The fracturing of the Pakatan Rakyat. Inasmuch as the PR leadership seem to suggest that theirs is a strong coalition, the proof will be in the pudding. Once the devil is defeated, the common cause (i.e. get rid of the BN government) is also gone. PAS & DAP in particular, will almost certainly come to political blows-the role of PKR will be instrumental here, as will be the hotchpot of East M'sian politicians who seem more likely to be in parties other than these 3 PR parties. In this regard, I hope the new BN opposition is a strong one. If definitely would be if PAS quits in a huff and joins up with them. I will be neither surprised nor dissapointed if that occurs because we need (a) a government that is not too disparate in the policies of their constituent parties (PKR & DAP are closer than PAS in this regard) and (b) a strong, principled party in opposition.

*Citizen dissatisfaction will arise due to a lack of structural change. Promises have been made; how many can be kept? Governing is tough, and compromises will have to be made. As long as the system remains largely unchanged, the people will be dissatisfied. The initial euphoria of new governance, the abolition of draconian legislation etc... will be quickly tempered by everyday realities as the people realise that global economic conditions render the government limited in their response to adverse economic shocks, and that some promises turn out to be 'non-core' promises that can be forgotten or postponed till later (but later, of course never comes...). Yes BN was bad, but apparently a significant amount of poor economic outcomes was due to external, and not internal pressures. And all those promises...well, that was before we knew the true state of our finances/before we knew that syariah courts still override non-Muslim rights/before we knew that secular courts could override syariah courts/before we knew how many dangerous terrorists populated Malaysia/before we knew that our promises on equality actually contravened the constitution...blah, blah, blah...

Abolishing the NEP will dissatisfy some Malays, especially if the MEA takes time to bear fruit, or is poorly implemented.If the MEA is slowly initiated, the non-Malays will complain. Race politics will probably still be important-which one of the 5 DPMs will take over as PM? Will the Malay states still insist that the Menteri Besar be a Malay-Muslim? Will meritocracy be implemented in schools and in the public service (at least to the extent that does not disadvantage agreements made upon the formation of the country)? Will Sabah and Sarawak be allowed to declare that Islam is not their state religion (as in the 20 Points agreement)?

*It's the economy stupid!!! BN collapsed because post-1997 crisis it never quite managed to get to grips with a post-strong economic growth situation. There was not enough money left to share among the umnoputeras, everyday bumiputeras and everyday non-bumiputeras. The pie shrunk and this caused dissatisfaction. All the window dressing in the world (e.g. feelgood measures like abolishing the ISA) will not paper over the cracks of a weaker than usual economy that fails to uplift the standard of EVERYONE in the country. Yet if increasing growth means abandoning the precepts of the NEP too quickly without adequate reassurances or compensation (which seems quite likely) Malay support will quickly diminish (I am too realistic to believe that racial politics will disappear overnight). Let us not forget that it is they who will be sacrificing for the greater good-it is not easy to give up privileges and I often wonder if other groups would be generous enough to concede the same privileges as the Malays now seem wont to do.

*The citizenry must keep fighting for freedom and justice. Pakatan Rakyat is just a vehicle to achieve us these goals. Power corrupts and we must keep guarding our freedoms jealously. Very many will feel the job is done when Anwar takes the oath of office-we must not be so idealistic. The battle for freedom, accountability and justice must continues irrespective of who is in charge, especially when the system will remain largely unchanged.

So....not so rosy a picture I'm afraid, once all the bluster and initial optimism disappears. But at least the fascist dogs are gone (for now anyway)....

2008-09-13T09:27:00.004+10:00

Topple This Disgraceful Government!

There comes a time when decisions have to be made and set in stone; when battle lines are drawn. Today (or last night rather) such lines have been drawn. Malaysia's version of the phoney war is over; and the fascists in charge of the government have launched their blitzkrieg. They must be opposed, but opposed peacefully. Violent protests will only play into their hands, and they have shown in the past their predilection to resort to violence. A violent opposition cannot win.

It is time for people like myself, forever suspicious and half-hearted towards Anwar Ibrahim and certain other members of the Pakatan Rakyat to link up with them in broad opposition to the bastardisation of Malaysia. This is no time for what now seem like petty squabbles or insignificant distractions. The enemy is clear-it is the fascist, racist, morally and ethically corrupt UMNO. This party must be distinguished from the face of the planet in its current form. I fail to see how even moderates like Tengku Razaleigh can now save UMNO from itself.

The sheer abuse of the New Economic Policy to enrich the umnoputeras, and the zeal to which they will defend their cash cow means this is now a battle to the bitter end. They have dug in to battle-our response should not be to flee. Stand our ground. Of course we must choose our battles wisely, but sometimes battles choose us. If we run we lose our freedoms. The country will become even more beholden to these fascist dogs; this country will be ruined.

Remember the stirring words of (Mexican freedom fighter) Emiliano Zapata: 'It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.'

In such troubling times-such quotes come to life. Oppose UMNO, oppose the fascist dogs, and in the aftermath of our success, do not seek revenge. 'Forgive, but do not forget.' If we fail to do the former, we'll end up like them. If we fail to do the latter, we are consigned to repeating history.

Remember, this is no time to be Malay, Chinese Indian, Sabahan or Sarawakian. That is exactly what these fascist dogs want us to feel. This is time to save Malaysia.

2008-09-10T15:10:00.004+10:00

Of Nations, States, nation-States & the Malaysian 'Nations-Nonstate'

The world comprises of many more nations than states. This distinction deserves some definitional context. Nations (to me) are a group that share an affinity to the exclusion of others that can be clearly articulated. Thus for example, we have the Navajo nation, the Basque nation, the Orang Asli nation etc...These nations may well be found within state borders (e.g. Navajos in the USA), across borders (e.g. Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq), or at a stretch perhaps as a diaspora across the world (e.g. the Romas of Europe, but what about the Chinese of South East Asia?). What sets nations apart from states is that nations lack sovereignty.

States, on the other hand, fit into the Westphalian mould. States are sovereign. States have borders, enforceable rules, and are fully fledged member of the international community. If you're in the UN you're a state. Kosovo and Taiwan are not states by this definition.

Nation-states are what we call most independent countries. It tends to suggest a level of homogeneity within borders of states. During the Westphalian era that created the modern day 'nation-state' most states were largely homogenous. The French lived in the state of France for example. Now of course, most developed countries are states with many nations (i.e. ethnicities) but the majority culture still remain in place as the backbone of the state.

In the de-colonised world however, the creation of artificial borders coupled with colonial interest led migration ended, post-colonisation, to the creation of the idea that a new nation-state had to be created where no one 'nation' had a long history with other 'nations.' This was not an issue for the homogenous nations of Japan and the two Koreas, but it was an issue for the Singapores and South Africas of this world. The politicians had to ponder how to get the citizens to think as 'citizens of the state' as opposed to 'members of a nation.'

Of course both are not mutually exclusive of the other, but the idea that one had to give up a certain amount of one's 'nationhood' in order to embrace one's 'statehood' did not come easy. In some cases, a happy medium has been found. The citizens of Singapore are happy to be both Singaporeans and a 'nation'-both can co-exist peacefully enough. In other situations, it is not so easy. Thailand and Indonesia attempted to assimilate the Chinese; Idi Amin in Uganda simply threw the Indians out. Both the former and latter are now less driven by the need to create a 'nation-state.' The sands of time have seen to that.

I wonder where Malaysia lies in all this. It seems to me that Malaysia, with its non-assimilation policy quickly did create a 'nation-state.' One was allowed to be both a citizen of the state and a citizen of a 'nation' (where the nation is anything that forms racial, geographic, religious and cultural affinities). Nevertheless, post-1969, we have slowly seen the disenfranchisement of the non-Malay Muslims from the state apparatus. This has created a schism between certain 'nations' and the state. As well, the nation-state is weakened even within the Malay Muslim group, as this group (as I so simplistically put it) is actually made up of many smaller groups. The more religious grouping also considers its 'nation' (Islam) to be ahead in importance to its state.

It is one thing to categorically posit that one must place the 'state' ahead of one's 'nation.' One must disavow such simplistic understandings of the world, and indeed the mechanisms of the human's brain to handle such inner contradictions. Nevertheless, when the mass of the citizenry begin to elevate their 'nation' further and further in importance relative to their 'state' we may well end up with a failed state (pessimistic view), or more likely a nonstate full of nations.

It seems to me that the concept of being Malaysian has been heavily diluted-we are now Malays, Muslims, Malay-Muslims, Indians, Chinese, Bumiputeras, Secularists, Capitalists, Socialists etc. far earlier than we are Malaysian. In this situation, does the state truly exist anymore? In a realist/rationalist context, clearly it does as Malaysia remains a sovereign state, but such perspectives ignore domestic considerations. Domestically, the state is withering away, creating gaps for various 'nations' to stake a claim for their sovereignty.

Where this takes us, only time will tell. The concept of the 'nation-state' is an enduring concept and I doubt we'll see the demise of the Malaysian state as such, at least as long as the varius 'nations' that make up the sum of the state agree to a new 'state' that enfranchisement all the 'nations' together. Otherwise, Malaysia will be a state only by orthodox definition; but a nonstate by the exclusivity of the 'nations' within it.

2008-08-13T16:10:00.002+10:00

Kosovo Comes Home to Roost

I noted months ago that the West's hypocrisy over Kosovo will lead to trouble, and so it is that we see a battle developing between Georgia and Russia. Russia's response to Georgia's wish for re-unification with South Ossetia (and ultimately Abkhazia) cannot be separated from the Kosovo issue. Yet neither protagonists, or the EU or the USA dare mention the word Kosovo. The hypocrisy of all parties is breathtaking.

I take the view that it is better to co-exist than to separate into different states, but if one is to be subjugated as a 2nd class citizen, then I sympathise with the route to separation (if I don't necessarily agree it should occur except as a last resort).

Kosovars are adamant they want nothing to do with Serbia-the West agrees and agrees to independence much to Serbian and Russian annoyance. Russia warned of 'repercussions.' But this western stance was not uniform. First, the west noted that this was a 'one-off.' Why? Because the primacy of the nation-state; the sovereignty of a nation-state is sacrosant in the Westpahlian world order in which we still live, depsite the ravages of globalisation to such sovereignty. Second, the western response was not uniform-nation states with separatist issues such as Spain and Turkey did not recognise Kosovo. For Turks this must be particularly galling, being unable to recognise their cultural allies for obvious domestic political reasons.

I did not hear those countries who fought for their freedoms necessarily cheer Kosovan freedom-Georgia was quiet was it not, lest South Ossetians and Abkhazians get ideas above their stations.

I have often wondered about the hypocrisy of nations; in particular how quick the European colonialists were to re-occupy Asia and Africa Post-WWII. Did the yolk of foreign occupation not teach them anything?

So it is that I have precious little sympathy for the Georgian government which for all its talk of freedom wishes to subjugate the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia into Georgia. If I am not mistaken these areas are undisputed Georgian territories by international law, but it is inhabited by people who wish to have nothing to do with Georgia. Surely what is good for the goose is also good for the gander? It may well be the case that Russia was simply waiting for a reason to avenge the Kosovo debacle and bloody NATO's nose in the Caucasus but Georgia's headlong fall into Russia's well-crafted plan was obvious quite some time ago. The strategic miscalculation of the Georgian government was massive. Just what were they thinking? That the US and NATO would back them? That Russia would do nothing to retaliate in what they consider to be their backyard (nevermind international law-it is power I am talking about here).

Russia has not mentioned Kosovo as it deems that nation-state sovereignty cannot be compromised-in this manner it cannot claim South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and I fail to see how it can recognise their independence without Georgia agreeing to it (though they just might). Most likely they will remain de facto autonomous regions of RUSSIA, NOT GEORGIA (as they have been for years now). Any chance of reunification left with Georgia's attack on South Ossetia much as the Argentina's attack on the Falklands means reunification there will never occur either.

Russia means business behaving like Hitler in the 1930s while the west dithers. Not that Georgia deserves much sympathy by their actions.

So back to Kosovo-questions will be asked why South Ossetia and Abkhazia cannot be independent seeing that Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Parallels to Serbia's attack on Kosovo. Yes, why not?

Answers on a postcard please.

2008-08-13T11:38:00.004+10:00

The Spectre of Malay-Muslim Fascism in Malaysia

Every so often, whenever I feel positive about Malaysian politics, I'm soon brought back to earth, ususally by non other than my favorite sub-human species; the Malay-Muslim fascist.

First, let's be clear: I'm not talking about all Malays, Muslims or in this specific case, Malay-Muslims. I'm talking about a sub-sample of them who have a vile and narrow view of the world. A view whereby they sit proudly up top, subjugating others with their vision of what is right and what is wrong. Their world is not one where contrary opinions can be freely heard; their world is one where only their view can be heard. It is inherently anti-democratic.

PAS itself is not immune to this spectre-claims that it is a Muslim party can surely now be blown clear out of the water. Make no mistake, Islam is only part of its agenda. Its on-going discussions with UMNO make clear that Malay unity is also paramount to its interests. Just which part of Islam places one race on a higher pedestal over others I cannot find-probably because it does not exist. Perhaps I am being harsh on PAS; perhaps it is just engaging in realpolitik in order to remind PKR and DAP not to forget them, but the damage has been done. When next will non-Muslims or non-Malays vote for PAS again? When PAS decides to talk with the Malay-Muslim fascists in UMNO, it has bitten off more than it can chew. PAS must decide if it is a Muslim or a Malay party; it cannot be a Malay-Muslim party if it thinks itself an Islamic party. The religion does not allow for racial discrimination.

The uneasy mix of Malay nationalism couched in terms of religion can also be seen by the behaviour of the protestors against the Bar Council meeting about the uneasy meeting together of secular and syariah laws. The bar council were denounced as questioning the supremacy of Islam in Malaysia-make no mistake, while some protestors were indeed angry about what they perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a slight to the religion, they were plenty there mixing the notion of Malay supremacy with Islam. That is why plenty of racial slights against the Chinese and Indians were uttered-this was not simply an issue of religion; race also had a lot to do with it. In other words: anti-Islam = anti-Malay.

Now UiTM students are angry that the MB of Selangor proposes that 10 (just ten...) percent of spots at the university be allocated to non-bumiputeras, when a good third (if not more) of the population is made up of non-bumiputeras (the bulk of which are BORN and BRED in MALAYSIA but are apparently not 'sons and daughters of the soil...'). Apparently this university is not theirs. So who are the 'owners' of this university (one where I believe foreign students are present, just not non-bumiputera Malaysians....)? Surely the 'taxpayers' own it? And these taxpayers consist of non-bumiputeras, not just bumiputeras. In fact non-bumiputeras tax payment is greater than that of the bumipuetras. But they cannot share in UiTM-it is only for a select few-selected on the basis of race (and let's not kid ourselves, religion). Neither should we pretend for a second that this notion of a bumiputera university has anything to do with non-Muslim bumiputeras. Perish the thought. No, they are even worse than the second class non-bumiputeras. They are traitors. Sure, the odd non-Muslim bumiputera is paraded around here and there, now and then, just for show. No, the protests against Khalid Ibrahim is led by certain sections of Malay-Muslims who continue to preach their apartheid view of the world.

If he were alive I wonder how Edward Said would view this. He argued that Palestinians and Israelis should co-exist in a nation where diversity can still be valued; one where we can vive le difference (if you pardon my dodgy French). He said what we should avoid is a separation of peoples (i.e. a two-state solution) or one where we have one state with first and second class citizens, like in present day Israel).

I wonder where he thinks Malaysia is today. To a certain extent there is no doubt we co-exist and live and let live. We co-exist peacefully enough, but I fear that space of 'freedom and tolerance' is being steadily eroded by the inexorable hold on power of the Malay-Muslim fascists. The shocking election result only served to generate optimism among fair-minded Malaysians, one now being steadily eroded by the Malay-Muslim fascists' counter-attack, led also by certain quarters among the Pakatan Rakyat.

The parallels between Israel and Malaysia are frightening. How many countries define race in their constitution? I know of three: Apartheid South Africa, Israel and Malaysia. And in the last two, the concept of race and religion intermesh spectacularly. Is a Jew a race of a person of Jewish faith? Apparently it is both. Once I embrace Judaism, I can move to Israel as a Jew. In Malaysia a Malay is a Muslim, and thus we have the concept of a Malay-Muslim; no separation there. Thus, to push for Islamic rights is tantamount to pushing for Malay rights. This is why some people embrace Islam-in order to be seen as being a 'Malay' for once you're a Malay, the doors of wealth and opportunity await you if you're lucky enough to be a 'chosen' Malay (and to hell to all those working hard in the paddy fields or fishing boats in the villages). But one still has to be seen as becoming 'Malay.' A Chinese-Muslim convert who continues to speak Chinese, keep a Chinese name and wear traditional Chinese styled clothes can be Muslim but not Malay. That's obvious-but all those Pakistanis who in next to no time have become 'Malay' and obtained bumiputera status is frightening indeed.

It is unfortunately the second of Said's observations that is becoming the new Malaysian reality. An Israeli-Arab is a 2nd class citizen excluded from certain national institutions. A non-bumiputera Malaysian faces the same barriers (only thing being that the Malay-Muslim fascist has to allow some non-Muslim bumiputeras to share in the spoils to keep up appearances). A newly arrived Jew to Israel (even a recent convert) can share in these institutions; as can recently arrived Muslims in Malaysia once they 'Malay-ise' themselves (like the Pakistanis). Hence Khir Toyo being a former MB with a recent family background from Java (I believe, could be wrong). Hence Mahathir becoming PM for so many years despite his father being from India! Why, because their religion was only part of the story-they also had to become Malay, and this they managed to do.

If indeed, Islam is what is being fought for, then why is it so difficult for Chinese-Muslims to get mosques built to proselytise in Chinese? Why are certain sections of Indian-Muslims fighting to be given bumiputera status? Because while Islam may well be a pre-condition for attaining power and domination over others, it is on its own, an insufficient condition. More to the point, one must also be seen as being a Malay (which automatically confers Islam). Thus we have the Malay-Muslim being; not quite a race, not quite a religion but a mismash of sorts, exactly like the Israeli Jew.

Israel and Malaysia are one and the same. 2 Nations ruled with a concept of a racial-religious supremacy which allows for the subjugation and the closing of 'space' of those who do not 'belong'. An enfranchisement of some at the expense (disenfranchisement) of others written in law, or if silent in law, carried out in practice by various means, be it power persuasion, fear or sheer brute force (the last specifically an Israeli tool, but one which may be unleashed in Malaysia, as on May 13 1969).

The power of the Malay-Muslim fascist is strong, and can only be broken by the opposition of other Malay-Muslims with help from non-Malay-Muslims, and non-Muslims together. This is where I am somewhat optimistic. Malays are human beings like everyone else. As a group who in Malaysia are politically privileged, we should not expect them to simply give up their privileges. Who among us will freely give up power? That is why the Malay-Muslim fascist is powerful-he feeds on the fears of this loss of privilege. Nevertheless, I am confident that the majority of Malays will eventually see that their interests are best served by fighting these Malay-Muslim fascists and aligning theselves with forces that believe in the equality of humanity irrespective of race and religion. It won't happen anytime soon, that is for sure. But the longer we wait, the worse the eventual outcome for this country for if we continue down this path, I foresee the a significant fall in social relations and a fracturing of the country with negative social and economic repercussions-and how is that beneficial to the Malay-Muslim?

2008-04-25T13:42:00.002+10:00

On What Basis Should We Respect the Monarchy?

Bloggers like Raja Petra Kamaruddin seem to think that the DAP is being disrespectful to the various monarchies-that they are stuck with a vision of Chinese chauvinism, even if this is due to some of them stating they will not wear a songkok when in parliament. But why should we show respect to the monarchies of Malaysia?

1. Because the Sultans are head of states?
In this scenario we are hence respecting the office of the sultan on the basis that the sultan of a state is the head of state. Granted, but then let any show of disrespect be argued as being against the state and not the royal family, as after all the sultan is representing the state, and is not the state. As well, this is an office that many have no chance of achieving. Not just if you are female or non-Muslim, but because of your birth right. Not much of a legitimate office, in my eyes.

2. Because he is the Sultan
On this one, I vehemently disagree. On what basis should we show respect to a person, who due to their good fortune find themselves BORN into a family of privilege supported by taxpayers money? I will respect someone who deserves respect for their character and what they have achieved, not by their titles and family connections. Sure, some sultans are very capable people who have done a lot to help those less fortunate-I respect them, but not their unelected office. Gautama Bhuddha left his royal family did he not? Edward VIII abdicated so he could marry an American divorcee. They pursued their interests and gave up unelected, privileged office - that in my opinion, deserves RESPECT! If I have to meet the Sultan of Johore, rest assured I will not go on the basis that I have no respect for his past actions. Songkok or no songkok.

3. Due to Culture and History
We do not live in a time vacuum, so fair enough that most people show reverence to offices that stand the test of time. But time moves on; democracy has been embraced. Do these offices remain unadulterated? Believe it or not, there are some among us, including those in the DAP who believe we are all created equal. We should then show respect to someone who gained office due to birthright?! I think not, but we must be conscious of tradition-sometimes we think too much. Respecting culture that does not impinge on our fundamental human rights might just be something we have to swallow. The palace protocols have been in place for long before us, and will probably remain long after we are gone. For better or for worse. But traditions evolve over time, and maybe this will happen in this situation as well. In the meantime sit tight and I think, accept it with misgivings.

At the end of the day, irrespective of what anyone of us think, people do ultimately respect those who deserve respect. The Sultan of Perak is hugely respected; I suspect the Sultan of Johore is hugely feared. any member of the DAP who is behaving in a 'chinese chauvinistic' manner is an idiotic bigot-if they do not want to wear a songkok when meeting the Sultan because that is being 'Malay' or 'Islamic' then there are a right-royal jackass. But if it is due to them feeling that it is a question of equality, then I respect that, and I agree with that, for I feel that as well.

But are these people in DAP missing the point? Surely the songkok issue is neither about Malayness or Islam, or even equality. Surely it is about culture and history. It is done because that is how it has always been done-does not make it right but it is an issue of protocol. If it is just protocol, then WHO CARES? Agassi boycotted Wimbledon for 4 years because he felt their 'white-only' dress code was silly, but is that discriminatory? No, it is a silly rule, but it is their silly rule-if we want to play at Wimbledon, we have to follow their silly rules. Agassi soon realised that.

The songkok rule is an accident of culture and history-it is no more than that. People need to get over it. The world is full of symbolisms that have lost all their original meanings. It just is-as long as it does not impinge upon our civil right or fundamental human rights-WHO CARES?

However, I understand though that some foreign dignitaries do not wear the songkok when granted audiences with the sultans; if so there is no brouhaha-if what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, then surely it is either compulsory or not compulsory? We can't then have our own cake and eat it too. When people meet the British queen, some follow the traditional protocol. Others do not bow or curtsie however, and that is accepted. It seems that is also accepted in Malaysia but only if you are a foreign dignitary. And that is inconsistent....

2008-03-25T11:32:00.002+10:00

The Monarchial Conundrum

It happened in Perlis, Perak (a much different scenario thrown at him admittedly), Selangor and now has reached a crescendo in Terengganu-the meddling of royal families (in states with Sultans) in the composition of state parliaments, especially the appointments of the Menteri Besar/Chief Ministers is a sign of the weakening stability in Malaysian politics. They may well see themselves as guardians of stability, but no one voted them into office!

The situation regarding the role of the Sultans in appointing and meddling into parliamentary appointments must be reviewed and clarified. First, it is clearly not enough for us to expect that (unelected) Sultans will act in within the spirit of the constitution in appointing CMs and meddling in the composition of state cabinets. Clearly, it is time to spell out exactly what they CAN and CANNOT do.

Second, the archaic rules that state that the Sultans are the head of Islam at state level and that the CM advises them on religious matters means that the CM must be Muslim needs to be looked into. I am no expert on Islamic affairs but I assume this is a point that is more historical/cultural than Islamic. After all, should the 'head' of Islam at state level not be a learned Muslim? Should there even be a head? The Catholics and Shia Muslims have a hierarchy, but I'm not convinced Sunni Muslims do, or do they (I don't know)?

Nevertheless, I doubt this will ever change (Sultans being the head of Islam), but surely the notion that the CM must be Muslim in order to advise the Sultan on Islamic matters can and must be challenged. If the Sultan is the head of Islam at state level, then why is he taking advise on Islamic matters from the CM, unless it is clear that he is no Islamic expert? Neither is it clear that the CM will be an Islamic expert-hence it is clear that the CM is actually receiving advise from an Islamic 'expert' (however defined). It is this 'expert' who should be advising the Sultans directly-either in a cabinet capacity (Minister for Islamic Affairs) or non-political office (State Mufti).

Let the CM be the best person for the job-do not let the position be restricted only to Muslims-at this juncture, the various state constitutions do seem to allow the Sultans to exercise discretion on this matter-once again, this should be taken out of their hands. Let the constitutional monarchs be beholden to the people, and not vice-versa. If they do indeed want to influence policy, I suggest they run for political office like everyone else.

2008-03-13T11:27:00.002+10:00

The Counter-Revolution Begins!

The Sultan of Perak appoints a PAS man to be Menteri Besar of Perak-they have 6 seats, PKR 7 and DAP 18! Admittedly it was always going to be safe to appoint a Malay Muslim and all 3 parties did agree to abide by his decision but surely this was just talk-surely everyone thought the MB would come from PKR, a coalition partner of DAP and PAS. DAP & PAS do not actually form part of a coalition. What is the Sultan up to? Is he playing politics and purposely wants to weaken the new state government, or has he just made a mistake? The mistake was PKR & DAP agreeing to abide by his decision-they should have just decided among themselves to get a PKR MB. They have been outmanouvred-at least Perak DAP did not boycott the swearing-in (or we'll see - it's in a few hours) as Lim Kit Siang has demanded. Already MCA is making noises, saying the electorate has been cheated-it is hard to argue with them-voters who voted for DAP & PKR certainly would not have favoured a PAS MB.

Now Badawi has told Lim Guan Eng (CM of Penang) not to play with fire by abandoning the New Economic Policy (NEP); unbelievably for me, PAS has now stated it would like to see the 'positive' aspects of the NEP kept-just what does business does an Islamic party have supporting race-base economic models? Is it not haram?

Early days but the hard yards start now-Perak is a big problem, and the NEP issue must be led by PKR. DAP needs to take a back seat here. Realpolitik must take its course. I strongly believe in affirmative action-but let it be based on wealth-if indeed all bumiputeras are poor and all non-bumiputeras are not, then there's no need for the former to be worried-speaking of which, plenty bumiputeras voted for the PKR which would do away with the NEP anyway (or so they say)....interesting days ahead!

2008-03-10T14:53:00.004+10:00

Malaysia's Election-Surveying the Aftermath

Well, well, well, who would have thought it? Not in my wildest dreams that is for sure. Lots of thoughts are swirling in my mind, stopping me from doing any work, so I thought I better get some off my chest (or mind as it may be).

1. Is this the start of a genuine opposition at a national level?

Not since the Barisan Sosialis has there been a concerted national level opposition, and even then it did not include the depth and breadth of this one. But is it sustainable? In a sense, yes, because Pandora's Box has been unleashed. A psychological barrier (the 2/3rds majority and fall of key states) has been breached. As well. PKR has successfully established itself as a bulwark between PAS and DAP, a conundrum for the opposition since the days of Semangat 46. But perhaps more importantly, the opposition now has the resources of state across the western coast of Peninsular Malaysia, including the rich, educated and industrialised states of Selangor, Perak and Penang. State authority can act as a bulwark against the federal government, as PAS in Kelantan and PBS in Sabah showed. PAS has yet to be defeated since re-attaining power, and contrary to historical revisionism, PBS never lost to the BN in all the elections between 1985-94, and were undone only by the katak phenomenon.

2. Can the opposition govern effectively in their states?

Ultimately, this issue will decide if the first issue occurs. I am optimistic, if only because the opposition is well aware of their golden opportunity. As well, they have, in their desperation to being elected, gone to the masses as never before via the internet no less, and hence are going to be held to account by the people. If they fail, the people will probably despondently return to the devil they already know. PKR is essential in this process, being the bulwark of DAP-PAS antagonisms. Realpolitik has already set in, which is no bad thing in itself in establishing themselves. As I understand it, the Menteri Besar of Selangor will be a Malay, while the PAS Menteri Besar of Kedah has stated that while they will look at Kelantan, they will chart their own course. In the former DAP is being sensible, and in the latter PAS is being realistic. All of PKR, DAP and PAS understand full-well that they require each other's support base.

3. What will UMNO do?

For one thing let's not forget who won the election. It only seems like a defeat, but will become one if they don't shake themselves off the ground. Parallels with India and Japan are striking-in both cases the Congress and LDP ruled unchallenged for a long time, then grew complacent and the opposition made headway-in both cases both parties did not respond well and eventually lost office. However, a combination of re-generation and failure of the new governments have brought tham back into power. Which way UMNO goes depends on how they respond. In this sense, if Badawi remains PM only till the next UMNO election, the change and regeneration may well be orderly-otherwise there will be political bloodshed. In any case, I have always found UMNO a pragmatic organisation-watch them backtrack from their increasingly extreme form of Malay nationalism (Hishamuddin-put that keris down, my man!)

4. What will MCA and MIC do?

God knows-but their policy of acquiescense of UMNO's Malay nationalist agenda has cost them dear. MIC for one, seems doomed, if only because Samy Vellu's dictatorial regime destroyed the party's dynamics to serve his whims and fancies. MCA is a good welfare organisation-perhaps it should become an NGO!

5. Will Sabah & Sarawak finally get their due?

The dynamics of politics in East M'sia is vastly different than on the peninsular, and I won't go into it here but years of imperialism forced upon Sabah in particular by federal authorities can now be halted-KL needs us, but will our politicians have the guts to demand power? I find the Sarawak politicians very savvy-my problem lies with the decision makers in Sabah BN-will they have the guts to fight for our rights and re-introduce the 20 Points? I doubt it.

6. Is this the first election in the world to be decided by the internet?

There will be many Ph.Ds written on this topic, and Malaysia will, in many cases, be a case study. The opposition swooped on this media like never before, and totally outmanouvred the government; ironic when one considers how the government championed the internet. Careful what you wish for boys!

2008-02-25T16:38:00.004+10:00

Subsidising Fuel-Anwar's Weapon of Choice?

So Anwar Ibrahim chooses to make clear to the masses that he cares about them-that should PKR form government, the price of fuel will go down. Is it feasible, irresponsible, responsible, populist, or something else altogether?

For those not in the know the price of fuel in Malaysia is fixed and subsidised by the federal government. Malaysia is both an importer and exporter of oil with the flagship PETRONAS being the government-linked company (GLC) that holds most oil concessions. The increase in world oil prices has seen the Malaysian government progressively reduce the subsidy, arguing that maintaining the subsidy will ultimately bankrupt its financial resources-a fine argument economically. The government also argues that the opposition's promise to increase the subsidy is both economically irresponsible and unsustainable. Anwar begs to differ.

Anwar makes the point that during his tenure as Finance Minister (1991-98) the price of oil was RM1.10 in Peninsular Malaysia, and when he raised it by 3c the public's unease saw him backtrack. He says it is possible to reduce the price of fuel in Malaysia for the following reasons:

*Malaysia is an oil exporting country hence we need not be pressured by world prices. Comparing our fuel price to Singapore is misleading as Singapore has no access to domestic fuel. Instead, we should compare our prices to other oil producing nations.

*We can bastardise PETRONAS-he says that when he was FM, PETRONAS was making RM25bil in profit, and it is now making RM80bil. Just remove some of that, thank you very much, to subsidise the price of fuel.

He makes both good and poor points, befitting his populist rhetoric. The question is can Anwar have his own cake and eat it too? First, from an Economics point-of-view, subsidising a product is inefficient as we consume too much of it, so in this case we probably use to much fuel, and too little non-petroleum sources of energy. On the other hand, international relations theory can argue that efficiency should not be the end all of a nation but the welfare of its citizens should be maximised. But is subsidising fuel really maximising the welfare of the people? The rich can afford to pay more, so should the price be the same for all Malaysians? Would a price-dicrimination system not be a better outcome, both in terms of welfare and efficiency?

After all, comparing our prices to other oil-exporting countries renders his argument inconclusive. The Middle Eastern nations subsidise fuel even more, it is true, but they are also using the money to build infrastructure and are investing
in the future. Our oil-revenue is less; should we blow it all on a subsidy? As well, countries like Norway actually have among the highest fuel prices in the world despite having huge reserves-this is important, as they are using the revenue to invest in the country's future. Anwar needs to think about this.

If Anwar got his way, he will dip into PETRONAS' funds (as the present government does anyway for its own irresponsible purposes) and use it to subsidise the price of fuel further. Is this irresponsible? In the sense that PETRONAS' largesse could be bastardised for more productive purposes (building hospitals, schools etc) yes it is irresponsible. From a populist stand-point however, it is perfectly rational as it builds his power base while making the people think that the government can deal with issues like globalisation that the present-day government argues it cannot do much about. It creates calm, and some degree of certainty, and puts confidence back in the nation-state in the eyes of the people. And at the end of the day, lower fuel reduces the cost of living, and helps everyone, but especially the poor. This should never be discounted, even if it is just short-term relief.

I don't for one second believe Anwar actually believes that this is the right thing to do, but in the system we live in, it seems that changes can really only be brought about from the seat of power. If that means bribing voters in order to get power then so be it. Anwar is neither the first nor the last politician to attempt such a move. In Australai's recent election, both parties tried hard to bribe and counter-bribe voters to the extent that the present government is doing all it can to fight inflation while introducing $30bil in tax-cuts come 1 July. But if the price of getting into power means doing some silly things, then so be it-after all, more pertinent and fundamental changes can be made while disbursing the necessary bribes to the public.

Anwar likes -to portray himself as the 'special one'; the Jose Mourinho of politics. He is a democrat, a socialist, a tolerant Islamist, all roled into one-pity he forgets to mention that he is also a hypocrite (witness his very significant role in cheating the Sabah electorate in 1994). He speaks good things-all politicians do, but be wary, for he cares only about power. The reason he speaks in small ceramahs across Malaysia rather than from the pulpit of the Prime Minister's office is that he was too impatient to wait his turn. He mis-calculated, took on Mahathir and lost.

Anwar was poorly treated, and we should all fight to clear his name once and for all, but until he himself publicly tells us what he was doing as part of Mahathir's cabal for 17 years when statements about democracy were somehow absent leaves a hole in his feelgood story. Only one thing has been consistent throughout, and that has been his undying urge to hold sway across the country. Even at the cost of making irresponsible decisions about the price of fuel, for the fuel that drives him is not oil, but power....

Nevertheless, I may be too cycnical-perhaps he does care about the citizens of the country; perhaps he does believe that increasing the subsidy is the right thing to do, but then the billions he takes from PETRONAS to burn fuel takes away the billions that he could use for schools and hospitals. Perhaps that is the argument he should be making, but he knows now what it takes to get to power, and I for one do not blame him. If I were walking in his shoes, I'd like to think I would be more principled, but I think in the cold, hard reality of politics, I'll be at a ceramah too, preaching the benefits of increasing fuel subsidies...

2008-02-18T13:55:00.002+10:00

Kosovo-Test Tube Baby

So Kosovo declares its independence supported by much of the West and not recognised by much of Eastern Europe. There's been a lot said about this matter, and in truth time will tell whether this proves to be a defining moment in world history for what makes an independent country today?

Why can Kosovo-an Albanian majority territory in Serbia declare independence when Chechnya (a Muslim majority territory in Russia) cannot? Why can't the Kurdish areas of Turkey, Iran and Iraq declare independence? Why won't the world recognise Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia or South Ossetia? What about those in Nagorno-Karabakh?

There are clear inconsistencies in the way these matters are handled in the aforementioned territories. The Turkish majority portion of Cyprus aside, the vast majority of people in those areas would like their independence (I think the Turks in Cyprus would like re-unification, but I'll stand corrected), but the world will not recognise it, primarily due to 'territorial integrity.' If Country X recognised a breakaway region of Country Y, what's to stop an autonomous region in Country X from declaring independence and being recognised by Country Y? Its all self-preservation really. The maintenance of the status quo.

The maintenance of the status quo is one reason countries with recalcitrant regions will not recognise Kosovo. Otherwise, they'll have to give up their territorial integrity. Spain and Cyprus are two such democratic countries who probably sympathise greatly with the Kosovars and what they have gone through, but if they recognise its independence, will have no foot to stand on when Northern Cyprus, Catalonia and the Basque Country decide to go their own way.

Pandora's Box is now open. Present-day belligerent Russia is already threatening to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia-will the West recognise the will of the people there to be independent from Georgia? Georgia is a friend of the West, as is Kosovo, and the parallels between Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo is startling in that their de facto rulers (Serbia and Georgia) have no control, and can have no control over these regions. The EU/UN (Kosovo) and Russia (in Abkhazia/South Ossetia) have the power there, so why not? Fair's fair, innit?

The Serbs in Bosnia, the Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey, the Turks in Northern Cyprus and the less obvious case of separatists in Spain do have to contend with a smaller power base-like the case of Chechnya, independence for them is a case of an unrealised dream in the long-run, for as long as they cannot be the powerful force in their own territory or have the unconditional backing of a large regional or superpower.

Independence for small territories is all about the self-interest of the larger powers. The oppressed Kurds of Turkey, Iran and Iraq will not get their homeland because the powers that be will never allow it-including the so-called democracies of the West. But Kosovo fitted in beautifully with their self-interest. Back in 1999 Russia was a basket case, and could be safely ignored. The toppling of Slobodan Milosevic became a reality, and Serbia was ruined. The West was able to tell the media that peace and stability and justice will reign supreme in the Balkans. But the fundamental issues governing the economy and jobs, democracy and human rights, and the fundamental workings of the principle of 'territorial integrity' were never really addressed. And so we find ourselves in a conundrum-if Kosovo can be independent, where do we draw the line? Do we behave consistently, or inconsistently? Do we write and re-write the rules as we go along? Do we just ignore the rules?

Maybe what we need is an international charter of human rights that is both enforceable and inviolable. One that says that the basic rights of minorities must not just be stated but applied, with swift punishment taken against intransigent countries. Then The Albanians in Serbia (based mainly in Kosovo) would not have been marginalised, leaving a festering sore that led to independence. In a sense, Serbia has every right to complain about how this has occurred; in another sense, Serbia is the mastermind of its own undoing.

Minorities everywhere must be respected-even then it may not be possible to avoid breaking up a country (Czech/Slovakia for example, and maybe one day Quebec/Canada). But we need a fire-proof, transparent legal document that makes clear what a sovereign country must do to keep minorities part of the wider community-failure to carry out these tasks should lead to a breakaway being recognised.

Then again, pigs may fly...

2008-02-14T12:08:00.002+10:00

Election Time - Badawi Running Scared?

So the phoney war is over and the games may begin in earnest-parliament wasn't due to be dissolved till May 2009 and BN holds 90% of the seats, so what's the big rush? It's hard to tell from outside looking in (Australia is just a touch too far away and checking Malaysian political blogs means not doing work...).

It is clear Badawi wants a mandate renewal now-but why exactly now?

*Impending economic slowdown - could it be that the world economy is slowing and Badawi wants to jump the gun before jobs are shed and people blame him? Highly unlikely in my opinion as speculation of an early election has been rife for months now, since the UMNO elections were set aside anyway.

*The Anwar Ibrahim factor - after April Anwar can take part in elections, but while this may have been at the back of Badawi's mind, it can't really be the trigger. PKR is a shadow of its former self, and Anwar is not the man he was (or so it seems to me). A cheap populist who latches onto anything that makes him look good only shows Anwar to be the opportunist that he is-17 years in Mahathir's cabinet and what exactly did he do for democracy? I can see him for the naked emperor that he is, hoepfully others will to. Still, with a lot of unhappy Malays (where's the contracts sir?) about, Anwar's gift of the gab and egolomaniac tendencies (reminds me of Obama...) could swing a lot of votes PKR's way, but anyway near enough? Which brings me to...

*The dissolution of Chinese/Indian Support - By all accounts they have had it-Hishamuddin can raise his keris all he likes from now on end, the damage has been done. Hindraf's crazy antics may leave them looking extereme, and they probably are, but they showed Indian disillusionment with the government to be true and strong. Samy Vellu has no leg to stand on. If they desert BN en masse, and PKR gets some Malay votes, well then a small 2/3rds majority for BN is akin to a defeat and the end of Badawi's tenure.

But Badawi is nothing if not a smart operator-the timing is good if all the above are true as the economy may start dipping, Anwar may still be 'the man', and Chinese/Indian support may start to falter even more-still with BN set to win practically all seats in Sabah, Sarawak and Johor, what hope is there for the opposition really? Only to produce a thousand small cuts to fell the elephant, eventually...A good showing in Malacca, Perak and Penang for DAP, coupled with a sizeable vote (but probably no seats) for the PKR might just do the trick-PAS seems finished from where I am standing. But will the DAP and PKR stop fighting amongst themselves? can't see it-they are as inherently undemocratic as the BN. The opposition is useless, and the people know it-BN gets the vote half the time because they are in power and somehow things continue chugging along-the mental asylum on the outside looking in just don't seem credible enough. Stability, at the end of the day may well be preferable to the masses compared to a strong protest vote which leads to uncertainty and bloodletting within BN, if not even on the streets if doomsayers are right.

Nonetheless, don't kid yourself that this an election about change in the country as we know it-it is an election about change all right, but about changing or keeping Badawi. Not about changing teh government, but government policies. It'll be a comfortable win by Western terminology, but a loss of 20 seats will spell the end of Badawi as UMNO's president-watch the knives (or keris with Hishamuddin) come out...Najib must be licking his lips...

2008-02-07T11:24:00.000+10:00

Australia v Qatar

Just what did we learn from that 3-0 trouncing? Not too much unfortunately as Qatar were that bad Malaysia would have given them a run for their money.

*For all the Dutch niceties, the high ball into the box is still an effective tool against most Asian teams.

*Score early and Middle East teams will stop diving.

*The European based players can put on a show for 60 minutes after travelling across the world with little rest and even less preparation time. Fatigue in the last 30 minutes is problematic-what if we do not score by then?

*Verbeek is good enough

*The Euroroos are committed enough

What we did not learn:

*The counter-factual: could a largely A-League squad have won that match? Probably playing a more orthodox style but not with a Dutch style.

*How we'd perform when fatigued if we had to.

*How we'd perform against an opposition that played well.

The match against China at altidute in March will be a killer-not a FIFA date so again the Euroroos will have minimal time to go and prepare-the A-League boys will be out of season. A win there will be a great result, but I'll take a draw right now!

2008-01-30T14:58:00.000+10:00

The Racist White Man

The 'white man's burden' was the term used to colonise the uncivilised people of the world-to teach them proper religion (Christianity of any form, and cover up them wimmin, for God's sake!!!) while the white man took away all their lovely resources and built up their empires. Ok, a bit of a crass generalisation, but in the post-colonial era only staunch conservatives (I'm looking at you Little Johnny...) can still defend it.

The thing is this mentality still burns bright in Asia. What mentality? The mentality that only the white man can be racist. Now, while in Asia people of all different ethnic backgrounds bicker and call each other racist, we can all surprisingly unite to condemn the white man. And Australia, as the big white man in Asia, is a very easy target.

So it is that the Australian cricket team has come under racist attack from certain groups in Asia. So it is that it is okay for a significant minority (I'm being kind) to make monkey chants at Andrew Symonds (a black player) but for the Indian's to deny anything untoward took place. So it is okay for Harbhajan Singh to lay into Symonds again (come on-it's pretty clear what happened) and get away with it. Because only the white man can be racist. Imagine if Ponting called Laxman a curry-muncher...

Like when some students from Asia come here to study and decide to live with their fellow citizens, and eat their home cooked food-they'll also to to class together and when group assignments are set up, the od Aussie in the group sits there, out of place, as the 'group' chat away in their mother tongue. This group of course, never tire of telling me how racists Australians are.

Like when Pauline Hanson (and she is a racist, an appalling one at that) formulated her immigration policy that had Asia up in arms. Great. I totally agree that the people of the world should take a stand against an immigration policy that is racist by stealth. But if she got elected and the policy became reality, that policy would still be far less racist than that practised by many an Asian country like Japan and Malaysia for example. But I never heard a peep from any of my fellow Asian friends condemning theor own country's racist immigration policies. Charity starts at home people....

Like when even my own girlfriend feels an Australian is being racist when they are being rude to her-it does not occur to her that maybe that person is just, well, rude...?

Like when people from Asia never tire of telling me how lazy Australains are-yet what are they doing studying at Australian universities? How did lazy people build this institutions, pray tell? And the Opera House, or host two Olympic games....

It's fine and dandy for us to be racist because in Asia we are brought up to worship race. Even if it is subliminal, it is there. Race, race, race....so it is Indonesian Chinese seem so integrated into Indonesian society to the extent that they have Indonesian names and speak no Chinese language, but where's the inter-marriage people? Not there, because of RACE!!! I could go on and on and on, but this is a blog, not a thesis....

I should know racism-I've been a minority my whole life wherever I have been. I have learnt to distinguish ignorance from venomous hate. It is better to educate than to hate back. But hate is easy, and hating the white man is easy, because then we don't have to look at our own shortcomings ourselves. Mind you, there are plenty of racists in Australia too-but they don't often form government as they do in Asia!

All you need is one racist white person and the whole race is tarnished. One racist Indian, and that's okay...Really, I pity the white man-he's on a hiding to nothing.

2008-01-30T14:25:00.000+10:00

Back After a Long Lay-Off

Who says lecturers don't do any work? Mind you I'm not saying we are always very busy-this is work time, and I am blogging, but September-December was hell, and then came the long awaited holiday.

Plenty has changed since I last blogged-bit like Billy Joel's 'we didn't start the fire' song....Bhutto's gone, Kenya's in strife, election campaigning in Malaysia, Pakistan and now the USA (and within my school...), Howard's gone (!!!) and of course, Benitez and Hicks managing to take Liverpool down the drain. All in all, more bad than good so far, but variety is the spice of life.

While the fire continues burning, we seem to be ready, as usual, to jump out of the frying pan and into the, well, fire. Bickering politicians have led Kenya to the brink of no return, even if Odinga is right in saying Kibaki manipulated the election results. At moments like this, perhaps he is right in not backing down to a dictator wannabe, but at what cost? In Pakistan, Benazir's son takes over the PPP, and promptly returns to England to finish his studies-once again proving that the PPP is no solution to Pakistan's woes. Dictatorial the Bhutto's might not be, but nepotistic they sure are. Woe to democracy, and more blood will be spilt after Musharraf no doubt manages to do a Kibaki and hang on to power.

Yeah, and did I mention Howard is gone...? YEAH!!! The last remnants of the White Australia Policy have been put in the rubbish bin, where it deserves to be. Rudd will no doubt prove to be an incarnation of Tony Blair so expect a honeymoon period to last longer than normal, but he will at least apologise for the Stolen Generation (but compensate them exactly $0). Otherwise, business as usual as we suck up to China, though at least the Kyoto protocol has been signed. He can't be totally useless though, having used and abused Peter Garrett. Word to the wise, Peter dear boy-sell your soul to the devil and....well, you know....Rudd may look like Tintin, but his heart beats a Thatcherite beat.

Hindraf did Malaysia both a service and a disservice-they seem mightily mad; no one in their right mind can accuse the Malaysian government of genocide. The federal government is many negative things, but let's not get carried away boys!!! Nonetheless, they forced the issue of minority marginalisation to the fore, yet showed the limitations of how they themselves can help the Indian minority out of their poor state. Perhaps once the community itself decides that strongman characters (i.e. Samy Vellu) should make way for proper representation, they'll be better off. As it stands, one can bitch and cry as much as one wants, yet the truth remains that the biggest obstacle to prosperity for the marginalised Indians in their community remain their own community, and how it sees itself, rather than Badawi and Co., who mind you, should do something to help rubber tappers at least earn a monthly salary!!!

Now the election beckons, and as usual the opposition continue to squabble-the fact is that Keadilan and DAP are as bad as the BN coalition-power crazy bastards. When the opposition is just as corrupt, why vote for the imitation? Mind you, their populist message (keeping it simple-we'll reduce the cost of living, no worries) might get them some votes, as will BN excesses the last few years. Pity the opposition in Sabah is even more useless.

Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney-for once we have a different election campaign; choose between a black man (black-white-indonesian really), a woman (who might well have been president between 1992-2000 already), a Vietnam war POW with a quite liberal streak and a Mormon. Really, what happened to the Christian fundamentalists? Anyway, it's these fundamentalist who might still vote in a block for one of these candidates, and that spells trouble for the Democrats as Obama is pro-abortion, Hillary is well, Hillary....The Republicans might be at a low ebb, but don't be surprised to see President McCain (with vice-president Lieberman!!!!) come into office. Aaah, all this talk of blacks, women and Mormons-watch the Jew sneak into the White House....at least Al-Qaeda and the KKK will be happy with their increased membership when that occurs...

And Liverpool? Well, deary me....for once I am totally speechless.....

2007-09-13T19:39:00.000+10:00

Australia v Argentina - The Aftermath

What is it with Australia always raising its game against quality opposition, and then scratching its arse against the likes of Oman and Thailand? That was a bloody good show, even if it was a 1-0 loss. Given that the team was missing some of the Olyroo boys (Burns, Djite, Milligan, Vukovic spring to mind) and some senior players (Chipperfield, Sterjovski, Emerton, Kewell, Aloisi, Cahill, Viduka) they did quite well, especially when you consider the limited ability of Graham Arnold as a coach at the international level.

Of course the current system (so called 4-3-3) leads to us lacking goalscoring threat but leaves us very organised and competitive in the middle of the park, and quite safe at the back (pity about rubbish defending at set pieces though). We were competent but were always going to lose that game. Our more 'quality' attacking players were after all missing (Kewell, Viduka, Aloisi). Even when you consider that Viduka and Kewell may very well play little no more part in future matches, and that Aloisi is almost certainly on his way out, the future is bright precisely because we have the new dynamic duo of Bruce Djite (via Togo and the US I believe....) and Nathan Burns to fill the breach. If McDonald ever bothers to play for the national he might prove himself too. Plus Jesus Christ up front looks useful in that Peter Crouch sort of way....

Still, the strikers need to receive a steady supply of passes and crosses and for that Chipperfield and Emerton need to stay involved with the national team, even if the former is getting on. Whomever takes over the helm (and perhaps it is not Advoccat after all) need not worry too much about conceding goals once they sort out lapses at set pieces but will have serious work to do in order to get the team scoring goals. And isn't that always the hardest bit...?

2007-09-13T19:25:00.000+10:00

Canadian Meddling in Australia's Domestic Politics?!

WTF...???!!! Aren't these people too busy clubbing baby seals to death and persuading people on foreign trains that despite popular opinion, it is Americans who speak like Canadians, and not the other way around...?

Have they suddenly picked up a trait of their southern neighbour, and decided to tell other countries how to run their affairs? Well, probably not, but Canadian PM Harper ended up falling slam bang in the middle of our phoney election campaigning. So poor old Harper finds himself hanging around Canberra after the APEC meeting to give a speech to the Australian parliament just when good old Ausie PM Little Rodent Johnny Howard is fighting his own conservative colleagues about his and his parties political future.

And so we go to the press conference where Harper and Howard answer 2 questions each from the journalists from both countries. Howard is immediately bombarded about his future and Harper perhaps feeling left out (apparently no journo cares about Aussie-Canadian relations) decides to defend his conservative colleague (or mentor as he called him...good God Canada, lock up your daughters....) and says the great citizens of Australia should not risk the future by jumping ship when things are going so swimmingly well. WTF...? Even good old Dubya refrained from backing Howard in such terms and there are the best of friends!!!

Perhaps Harper owes Howard something hidden in some dark corner somewhere because the recently released UN declaration on indigenous rights has not been accepted by a number of countries including Australia, NZ, US and Canada (see the connection between white colonisation, suppression of the indigenous community and continued denials of the truth here...?). The thing is Canada was initially supportive of it (in its draft form at least) and changed its mind after extensive lobbying from the Australian government.

Maybe it is good old Australia meddling in Canadian affairs then...? Back to the seals boys, I have a few shrimps to put on the barbie before I grab a ride on my kangaroo to work...

2007-08-28T19:20:00.000+10:00

Repost: National Day & Independence Day - Any Significant Difference?

The following is a post I put up on 17 February 2007 complaining about the re-writing of Malaysian history. Now that the my main bone of contention is approaching (31 August) it is time for a re-read. I brought thsi issue up with a journalist at the New Straits Times as they run Merdeka (independence) special stories everyday to commemorate the event, but clearly they cannot even be bothered to at least put up an article that speaks of the truth-but why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

A brief historical run down. The Federation of Malaya was formed on 31 August 1957. The Federation of Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963 incorporating 4 entities (Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak). Singapore subsequently left in 1965. The original plan was to have the federation formed on 31 August 1963 but due to objections by Indonesia and the Philippines it was delayed 17 days. Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak became self-governing entities on 31 August 1963 as the British ceded control, and became part of the NEW country called Malaysia on 16 September 1963.

Ok, here's the original post.

Once again, for the umpteenth time I read a newpaper article about 50 years of independence-once again based on the false premise of 31 August 1957. First I need to make clear two points:

(a) The press freely trumpets Malaysia's impending 50th year of independence when that is clearly false-Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963, and,
(b) that, at the very least, in the spirit of compromise and understanding the concept of independence and national days need to be distinguised, as far as Malaysia is concerned.

History is very clear on one thing blatantly ignored by practically all and sundry: that the Federation of Malaya was formed on 31 August 1957 upon being granted independence by the British. The Federation of Malaya than joined forces with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah (then North Borneo) to form the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963.

Obviously, Malayan independence remains an important facet of Malaysian history. This is due to a number of reasons, not least the pride many have for the successes Malaysia has achieved in its short history as an independent nation. But it is also important because it is presented in school history textbooks in a manner that implies that Malayan history is the default Malaysian history. This is clear when we witness the paucity of history pertaining to both Sabah and Sarawak in our high school history textbooks.

I'm not going to attack those who couldn't be bothered about this matter-certainly, there are more important issues afflicting the country than the supposed day of celebration to denote one of two events (independence and/or national day). However, until such time as the nation's citizens understand the proper history of the country, we cannot pretend to know our country. History needs to be painted accurately, as much as possible, a position historians Herodotus onwards endeavour to make clear despite continuous attempts by politicians and parties with vested interests to skew history in their favour.

At a time when Malaysia Day is not even a public holiday (except in Sabah where it is shared with the Governor's official birthday) it is imperative that a more accurate depiction of the nation is presented without throwing out the recent past. By this I mean that 31 August is now firmly etched in the minds of the people to the extent that 16 September simply is not going to raise the same level of unity. As well, the vested powers will no doubt oppose such a change-it would be an admission of guilt of the continuing chauvinism shown by the federal government towards Sabah and Sarawak. And to be fair, the misrepresentation of history has already made many Sabahans (I don't know about Sarawakians) ambivalent about such issues.

Tunku Abdul Rahman wanted Malaysia to come into being on 31 August 1963 and everything was going as planned until Indonesian and Filipino objections forced the UN to send the Cobbold Commission to ascertain the views of Sabahan and Sarawakians. They found in favour of the formation of Malaysia which eventually occurred on 16 September 1963. However, in the interim the British vacated Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore and these three territories governed themselves in this period. In a sense, independence arrived in these 3 territories on 31 August 1963.

Now, why can't we celebrate independence day on 31 August but without a reference year? Who cares if it is 1957 or 1963?; at least it is a true reflection of independence. National day then need no longer be on 31 August as well, for it is clearly not the national day. Malaysia Day is the national day, and must remain on the 16th of September, and be played up more in the national psyche as opposed to 31 August.

This is not even a debate, except when Pairin brought it up during his tenure in opposition. Now that he's back in government, he shuts up. It is a pity that 44 (and not 50!) years since the country has come into being that it cannot even celebrate on the right day. Perhaps a compromise on 31 August is a fair way to make things right. But I wouldn't bother holding my breath. If it ever occurs at all, it'll be a long time from now when Malaysians can truly be free to debate such issues without the overriding caveat (in the hands of the government) that we are disrupting national unity and hence, an excuse to shut the debate down. A debate that will embarass the government no end.

2007-08-28T19:02:00.000+10:00

Australia v Argentina 11 September

So the Argies name a squad strong enough to win the WC to play at the MCG-what about us?

1. We have a lame duck coach (Arnold) who's effectively been sacked pending a new replacement (Advocaat) coming in.

2. We also give the lame duck the Olyroos role, and they have two important qualifiers close to September 11 (on either side of the match) so what will he concentrate on?

3. He can't be asked surely to use some Olyroos due to fatigue and possible injury, but if he does not give them a go, he'll get roasted. If he plays the best side, he'll get attacked for not giving youth. If he gives youth a go, he'll be attacked when they get smashed and/or an Olyroo gets injured. If he selects a mismash of European based and local league players a go (missing locally based Olyroos) he'll probably be criticised for selecting some players that actually have little chance of future selection anyway?

4. We win and he's still sacked. We lose and he's a goose. Who wants to be Graham Arnold?

2007-08-28T18:50:00.000+10:00

Does Liverpool Need to Dip into the Transfer market Again?

I thought the fat Spanish waiter said the squad was strong enough already, then when both Hyppia and Carragher get crocked (leaving Agger on his own), we apparently do not have a 4th central defender!!! Wassup with that Rafa? If indeed Palletta was so poor then why sell him without getting a replacement? As we saw with Chelsea last season a 4th CD is essential, even if he's not a specialist but one that has, and does occasionally, play there. Not just Chelsea but MU were crocked against Milan last season when they had Vidic, Ferdinand, Brown (?!) and Silvestre all out - ok, that was really BAD luck to have all 4 out...

We see now that Mourinho has ensured that bar a disaster they have able back-ups in CD. At this stage of the season, if Rafa does decide he needs back-up where does he plan to find one who good enough and happy enough to warm the bench without paying a fortune, since everyone knows we need a CD?

Not very smart of the newly goateed one-if we don't get one who's the 4th choice CD? Sissoko slotted in there against Sunderland but he's too much of a psycho to be trusted in that role. Mascherano maybe but he does not seem the tallest. Arbeloa and Risse at a stretch but that's what Chelsea had to do with Essien and/or Ferreira last season and MU with Heinze and O'Shea-it just won't do!!

Here's hoping they'll be no gaping holes in the middle of defence this season...I just got the sinking feeling however that we'll be well and truly roasted there...

BTW, WTF is Wenger thinking loaning Djorou to Birmingham? Now Gallas is out till October and Senderos got injured so poor old Gilberto has to slot in there, yet again. Not very smart either.

2007-08-21T11:24:00.000+10:00

Teflon Rudd-Does Anything Ever Stick on Him?

Kevin Rudd, it seems, can do no wrong and this is infuriating Little Johnny and his ertswhile sidekicks. Well, it's not strictly true-he can do wrong; it's just that the electorate seems not too care one iota!!! Personally, I think his policy to project himself as a younger version of Little Johnny Howard has worked a treat-there's not much that the govt can attack him with except say that if he wants to behave like the govt itself ('echo-nomics') then stick with us, the mob that have delivered the economic goodies....

Problem is, it does not matter what they say, it is evidently clear to me that change is in the air. The Coalition might still win (I think they will) but will limp home dangerously injured, and maybe without Little Johnny if Macine McKew pulls off the improbable. It'll be a lame duck govt waiting for annihilation in the next federal election. No one trusts that Howard will stay on another full term (if he gets re-elected), the rats will try to desert the sinking ship (off to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry....) and those staying on will have ambitions of forming govt after a spell in the opposition.

Of course, Rudd can't fool all the people all the time, and after a while, he will be seen as an the opportunistic snivelling bastard that he really is...actually I think people do know that, they just don't want Little Johnny anymore....

Is there no one better than Rudd to take the helm?

2007-08-14T15:42:00.000+10:00

Malaysia's Great Footballing Opportunity

M'sia's disastrous showing at the AFC Championship is exactly what we deserved. I feel really vindicated having written in my first blog here about the problems afflicting Malaysian footbll and how they can be solved-at least on the administrative part, the government is going down the same direction I am thinking (and indeed, practically everyone else thinks the same as me on that one).

Hopefully the politicians will truly leave Malaysian football alone, but let's wait and see. The good showing of the juniors (U20 runner-up in the SE Asian Championship to host Vietnam, 2nd year running we've been 2nd; runner-up for the U15 side at the Arsenal compe, and our U19's drawing Chelsea, and just losing to PSV and Bayern Munich) shows that all is not lost yet.

We beat Thailand, Indonesia and Vietname as often as they beat us-they took the AFC Championship seriously and that made all the difference. Now, the talk is on nutrition-clearly ours is a team bereft of fitness-I bet half the squad smokes and eat all the local delicacies all the time. Others are becoming more professional as we become more lackadaisical.

I seriously believe we have reached the lowest ebb at 155 in the world-we aren't that bad, and now we must prove it. But if even Claude Le Roy (Cameroon coach at past WC) and Jorvan Vieira (Iraqi coach at ths AFC championship) can't change our players attitudes, then all the best coaches in the world can't help our team. At least our juniors are showing some fight.

2007-08-14T15:29:00.000+10:00

A New Direction?

The decision to get Advocaat as the new socceroos coach from January 2008 heralds a new direction in thinking at the FFA. In one fell swoop, they have answered a lot of nagging questions (well, to me anyway).

(a) Are they looking for a Hiddink-like figure?
*No, Advocaat ('Aussie Dick' anyone?) is no Guus. He's gruff, opinionated, and by all accounts, a bit of an asshole. He's not the wonderful man manager Guus is (but Guus started out life as a child psychologist, perfect for coaching footballers....).
We'll never replace Hiddink-time to move on. He's a no-nonsense man so Lucas Neill will learn to shut his trap...

(b) They have a set system in mind
*I think so, with Baan the technical director and now Advocaat in charge of the national team. The Dutch style might suit future generations of Australians once it immerses itself into the grassroots. It is after all a system that meshes together a physcal approach with skills and movement, and here we have physique and movement.

(c) Will they take the WC2010 qualifying campaign seriously?
*This was no doubt answered by the dismal performance oat the AFC championship. Rumour had it that a big name coach will join up later in the piece-now we'll have one for rounds 3 and 4 of the qualifying campaign.

I doubt he's the best candidate but he's the one on the shortlist that can start in January 2008 and has experience in Asia with Korea. And Korea did not do too badly in Germany, and don't forget Hiddink had the Korean team in camp for months before their semi-final performance in 2002. He's not useless.

Will Arnold have a role? I suspect so, at the start anyway-it'll be interesting to see if Verbeek joins up with him again as his assistant. If so, I expect Australia to have a rather inflexible system as Verbeek showed little interest in making tactical alterations at the AFC Championships. The Dutch under Advocaat also showed little flexibility (certainly no total football) at Euro 2004.

2007-08-14T14:59:00.000+10:00

Premier league is Back!!

And so are my half-arsed opinions, foregone the last few months due to a combination of work, laziness, and no English football....

Looks like a good start to the season vis-a-vis attacking football. Judging after 1 round, at least both Liverpool and Chelsea will attack this season, making the top 4 very watchable sides. Spurs will continue to infuriate, and the battle at the bottom will be very watachable I think, because Keano led Sunderland can play a bit, Derby look like a side that can pass the ball around (if Giles Barnes stays put and fit with Howard winning the high balls in the opposition box), and Steve Bruce would have learnt a lot about Birmingham's last relegation. They already look like they can score. Fulham's strengthened, but is it a strong Championship side? Boro always look to struggle but eventually stay up. Interesting to see how Wigan goes but their demise is probably set in stone given that they got good old Titus Bramble signed.

My predictions:

1. MU
2. Chelsea (African Nations Cup will kill them)
3. Liverpool (but only just behind the other 2 clowns)
4. Arsenal (also running very close)
5. Spurs (a distant 5th)
6. Newcastle (fit Owen and Fat Sam will propel them to a UEFA Cup spot)
7. Blackburn (very solid, I'm assuming they get knocked out early in the UEFA Cup)
8. Villa
9. Everton (good UEFA Cup run will take its toll)
10. Man City (Eriksson's no goose)
11. Portsmouth (can't defend as well as they did last season surely)
12. West Ham (after Curbishley gets sacked they'll get on a fine run)
13. Bolton (difficult season ahead)
14. Reading (can't buy players)
15. Sunderland (Keano's a bastard, but looking the goods)
16. Boro (Gibson bails them out yet again with his dosh)
17. Fulham (Healy and McBride with Niemi in goals will keep them up)
18. Birmingham (should be Boro but I think they'll stay up, by hook or by crook)
19. Derby (Steve Howard to keep them going till the bitter end)
20. Wigan (time's up with Heskey up front and Bramble at the back)

Best Players This Season By Club:
MU-Hardgreaves is all class-Canadians can play too!!!
Chelsea-Malouda/Essien
Liverpool-Gerrard in the centre will be hard to stop
Arsenal-Adebayor will step up to the plate
Spurs-Lennon's injury already shows how important he is to the team
Newcastle-a fit Owen
Blackburn-Ryan Nelson at the back
Villa-Agbonlahor to take the step up
Everton-Arteta, as usual....
Man City-tough one, don't know half of them but that Elano looks real class
Portsmouth-finally consistent, David James will edge out Gary O'Neil
West Ham-huge season for Scott Parker and Dean Ashton. The former will succeed.
Bolton-Anelka if he does not sulk, who else?
Reading-Kevin Doyle must step up once again. Lita's strikes me as an idiot.
Sunderland-big season for Craig Brown
Boro-Downing cares and will do well.
Fulham-if he's fit-Antti Niemi
Birmingham-after watching just 1 match, Olivier Kapo looks the goods.
Derby-Steve Howard
Wigan-a very busy Chris Kirkland

2007-05-15T17:39:00.000+10:00

The Manchester United - AFC Schmozzle...Malaysian Idiocy

So the Malaysian government's huff and puff strategy looks to have finally blown the AFC house down...MU will come to Malaysia during the Asian Championship-after all, as MU proudly declare, Malaysia is its 2nd home, and Malaysia is proud to have MU over to help celebrate its ...wait for it...50TH YEAR OF INDEPENDENCE!!!

Aaah, the nationalist Malay dominated Malaysian government-the same one which won't allow the Singaporean airforce to use its airspace, the same one which disallows dual citizenship, the same one that insists that its citizens not ape foreign cultures but follow its own, the same one that continues to pursue rent-seeking, urban middle-class Malay welfare, the same one that rants and raves against Western imperialism despite their silent support of the Sudanese government (ask Petronas what it is doing there)...yes them, they need MU over to celebrate Malaysian independence (nevermind that it'll actually be 44 years, not 50, but who are we to quibble over 6 years, eh?).

Upon becoming the Asian Championship co-host Malaysia (via the Football Association of Malaysia [FAM]) agreed not to anything detrimental to the cause of supporting the showpiece of Asian football, and this included not organising any high profile matches on its shores during the duration of the championship. But of course $$ talks, and MU can bring lots of money to Malaysian shores, not least with all the MU fans heading in from Singapore, Bangkok, Jakarta and probably Khartoum. It's Visit Malaysia Year 2007, if you haven't noticed already, with all the advertising on the Old Trafford hoardings this season. So why not sideline a binding agreement then? Why not indeed...

Malaysian football is now a joke-everything's a mess and nothing will improve till the administration gets a shake-up. The FAM is as unaccountable to the AFC as Mugabe is to his parliament. It cares not a jot what the AFC thinks, it will do the bidding of the government. I cannot wait till FIFA decides that governmental interference has occurred and suspends FAM before the championships get underway. Imagine the national shame and humiliation when the co-host is barred from participating in the event. But any news is good news, so I assume bad news will only draw more tourists to the beaches of Malaysia then?

This is truly the death of football in Malaysia-we got it all; governmental interference, administrative incompetence, an angry rising giant willing to show its claws (no, not China, but the AFC). For this Malaysia will pay the ultimate price. The AFC will not forget this slight in a hurry...but nevermind, clear the decks, MU's in town!!! They will happily help Malaysia celebrate National Day on 27 July...yahoo!!! Nevermind that the country is planning to do the same...on 31 August...

Visit malaysia Year-come one, come all, watch how the asylum conducts itself when the doctors are out...

2007-05-15T17:20:00.000+10:00

The West Ham Scenario - The Moral Bankruptcy of Modern Day Football?

The scenario surrounding West Ham football club over the signing of Tevez and Mascherano stinks-at the top, not with the club necessarily, though their conduct has hardly been exemplary. There is a serious lack of accountability within the top echelons of the game, no thanks to FIFA's insistence that all matters related to its footballing members be kept out of civil courts.

The problem lies with the almighty $$$. The fact that the independent panel found West Ham guilty but decided not to dock them points as it would have been unfair on their fans, new owners, and that it was late in the season is ludicrous. Middlesborough were deducted 3 points for not turning up to play Blackburn in the 1996-97 season because their team was struck down with illness-those 3 precious points saw them relegated!! Think of even the more modest clubs-small time teams with no money to hire full-time administration staff get murdered everytime they field ineligible players. This decision is indeed disgraceful, but should we be surprised?

Those who say that points would have been deducted had it been Sheffield United, Wigan or Watford are dead right-it's one rule for the big boys, another for the rest. West Ham have the money now, a good fan base in London, and a proud history. Just off the top of my head I can think of other exceptions granted to big teams-Liverpool being allowed in the 2005-06 CL as England's 'fifth' team, Real Zaragosa being dropped by the Spanish FA in favour of Real Madrid for entry to the CL's season 1997-98 (having won the bloody thing in 1997 mind you, and missing out on qualification for the next season), Manchester United being allowed to skip the FA Cup to play in that crazy Brazilian edition of the World Club Cup, Beckham having his yellow card rescinded recently so he could play in the next game after collecting 10 yellows after Real Madrid make some 'noise,' Barcelona never having to play behind closed doors (as ordered) after the treatment Luis Figo got upon his return to the Nou Camp. The list goes on with AC Milan playing in the CL's final this season-a team guilty of match fixing the season before (at least)!!! To their credit, UEFA tried to stop them but legally were not allowed to.

Money talks, and bullshit walks...if FIFA was really serious about avoiding civil courts, they must ensure their members have accountable systems in place that make the threat of civil action sound ludicruous, but they won't as they themselves are rather unaccountable. The English FA for one, having always capitulated to the big clubs continue to serve the interests of the Premier League at the expense of its other member clubs, need to find it's long missing backbone. But really, what do they really care about football-it's just another business, innit?

2007-05-02T17:06:00.000+10:00

Final Here We Come!!

So Benitez isn't as stubborn as he looks-he actually came to the conclusion that he needed to set the team out to attack against Chelsea; a traditional 4-4-2 with two (pretty poor on the day) wingers but at least the idea was there. I never did believe he would actually dare put Gerrard in as a CM; of course the end result was Alonso on the bench to allow a deep lying CM to protect the defense.

My initial surprise was deepened when Zenden kept his spot as I assumed Risse would play LM with Arbeloa at LB but there you go. A turgid match, where both sides played not too lose, rather than win once Liverpool levelled the tie (despite Mourinho's post-match comments). The neutrals must have fallen asleep watching it, but I was on the edge of my seat.

Perhaps more could have been done out wide given the poor service Crouch received but at the end of the day, we won the lottery. Chelsea were much better in the first leg and I thought Liverpool were slightly better at Anfield in a pretty even match. Mourinho says the best team lost, but surely they were only marginally better. A far superior team would surely have won it over the 210 minutes.

Still, Chelsea have a wonderful side with a fighting spirit that was encapsulted by their pre-penalty huddle. What they have done this year with all the injuries and off-pitch rumblings was almost magnificent, but they still have the FA Cup to play. Hopefully Mourinho will leave and the price of oil takes a huge tumble so Abramovich will follow him out the exits!!!

Liverpool must learn to match them and MU over an entire season, not over 90 minutes. It's nice to do well in the CL, but the bread and butter is domestic football, and it's about time Benitez gets that right after 3 years in charge-not winning the league is one thing, but not even challenging is just unacceptable.

2007-05-01T17:24:00.000+10:00

Chance at Redemption

In a few hours we'll know if Liverpool or Chelsea make the CL final. It's redemption time for both. The FA Cup is not a measure of success for Mourinho surely. He sets his sights high, and when you've won 2 league titles already, the 2 League Cup successes are nice accompaniments, as surely the FA Cup will be. But for him, it must be about the league and CL. But the league must surely be gone now, partially due to his decision to rest too many regular starters against Bolton to save them for the Liverpool game. He's put all his eggs in one basket-has he risked too much?

Liverpool will grab FA Cup success with 2 grateful hands, but we're not in it. The league has not been seriously threatened by us either in many years. CL glory is now the only target now re-qualification is guaranteed (3rd round anyway). So it's all or nothing for both. It'll be a hell of a tie.

The news is that apart from Ballack, Schevchenko & Carvalho are also out. Can't always tell with Mourinho's tricks but if so, that's a good sign. Carvalho's a hell of a CB and set up the only goal so far. Schevchenko is still a top striker & surely he'll come good sometime (though Morientes did not...).

Benitez must take the game to them. If indeed Carvalho is out I expect Mourinho to be more adventurous as he might expect Liverpool to score so it might well be an open game. But if he sets the stall out to defend, it'll be a chess game, and a very tight affair. Chelsea should attack, even without Carvalho, will Liverpool score 3? I doubt it.

Will Benitez be more attacking to begin with? Surely now that Finnan's back, Arbeloa can start at LF with Risse at LM but almost certainly Gerrard will be at RM. Mascherano and Alonso at CM with Crouch and Kuyt as strikers. Or perhaps he'll spring a surprise, play Pennant at RM, pushing Gerrard in as the 2nd striker and starting with either Crouch or Kuyt.

Time for me to sacrifice a chicken in the hope that Drogba breaks his legs...

2007-04-26T14:01:00.000+10:00

Liverpool V Chelsea - Lucky Reds

I breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the match-only a 1-0 loss is a good result when one considers the gulf in class evident today. It should be all over by now, but somehow or other the tie is still alive, but perhaps only to delay the inevitable?

The line-ups had me worried sick. As well as Arbeloa has done so far, Finnan's the first choice right back and the decision to play Bolo Zenden had me almost having a cardiac arrest. I think he's pretty good, but having hardly played any football for 2 years with injuries, and now being reduced to a bit part player, it was shocking to see his name on the team sheet, at left midfield to boot, a position he has barely played for some years now. Bellamy for Crouch was a 50-50 proposition, and Gerrard on the right no longer makes me mad; I have accepted that he is the fifth choice central midfielder at the club. Chelsea's line-up was full of attacking intent, and suddenly, much to my dissapointment, Carvalho was back at CB, and Ashley Cole at right back; plus Boulahrouz and Geremi (and Bridge?) were on the bench. Of course Ferreira played like it was 2005 again when he was fantastic.

It was too defensive a line-up but so be it; surely we can keep the ball then...yeah right. For all the criticism of English players' poor technique, Arbeloa and Mascherano kept giving the ball away and then gave stupid fouls to make up for it. Mascherano in particular seemed incapable of passing the ball 5 yards to a man in red, and Risse at times was also guilty of this. Chelsea were superb though the goal came from poor defending. Not quite Agger (Drogba was maginificent) but Arbeloa who started 5 yards ahead of Joe Cole but ended up 3 yards behind him leaving Cole to blast the ball in.

It was about time Arbeloa had a poor match; he's been very good-unfortunately it had to be this one. He wasn't the only one though. Risse, Mascherano, Gerrard and Bellamy were quite poor too though I'll defend Gerrard given he was on the right but never getting the ball (partially due to Arbeloa being so poor). Reina kept us in it, and Zenden was very useful indeed, surprisingly.

We were only as good as Chelsea let us be, and it surprised me that at 1-0 Chelsea didn't go for the kill while Liverpool did not make more of an effort going forwards. This in part is due to both coaches being too concerned about safety. Mourinho backs him team to win 1-0 and rarely concede. As far as he's concerned 1-0 is much better than risking losing one by pressing too much to kill the game off. Benitez also feels it's better to lose 1-0 than press to hard for an equalizer and risk losing 2-0. I think that's more Chelsea's loss though; at home, when so superior, Mourinho could have been more daring.

Still an open tie, but advantage Chelsea-a second chance for Liverpool really, will we take it?

2007-04-24T17:05:00.000+10:00

The Long Limp Home to Success....

Which one of the defensively diseased evil empires - Chelsea or MU - will limp home to win the league title?

Methinks MU because they have decided to outscore the opposition in the face of having to play Wes Brown, Fletcher and occasionally Kieran Richardson. More often than not, it's enough in the league (bet Milan cannot wait to kill Wes Brown though...).

Chelsea's poor showing against Newcastle suggests to me a team that struggles to get out of a safety first mentality. The attacking players are all there, but Mourinho's tactics in the face of a crippled (central) defence is to protect it, not attack the opposition and keep the ball in their half of the field. Against Newcastle, when they knew a win would take them to within a point of MU, Mourinho attacked too late and they dropped 2 points. A safe tactic might well work if Chelsea were 3 points ahead, but at this juncture a few more risk taking decisions might be in order. Did Mourinho get it wrong or is he confident MU is going to drop more points along the way?

He might well be over-confident what with Chelsea still to play Arsenal. A Chelsea win over MU might still then not be enough. The Newcastle match was a huge opportunity gone begging-I really couldn't believe Chelsea's performance...

2007-04-24T16:53:00.000+10:00

The Sweet Smell of Failure...

So off we go marching into the final four of the Champions League. Dreams of glory begin to sweep into our minds as we sleep. But when we wake, fear seems to have taken over both myself and other Liverpool fans I know-the fear of reaching the final and losing to the now 'not-so evil' empire-the dastardly Manchester United....

Don't get me wrong-I want the team to win, but should we lose let us get knocked out in the semis, even if it is to the new evil empire. Finishing 2nd is always a lot worse than losing a semi. Yet, one must be prepared for it if one desires to win.

If we get through it's either MU or Milan-now Milan will be thirsting for revenge for that day in Istanbul when the cosmic forces of nature (and Didi Hamann)conspired to rip the trophy from them. It was the collective praying from all Liverpool fans that day to God/Satan/[add religious figure here] that took the trophy from the Milanese. We all swore to never ask for another CL victory ever again-yet here we are, too greedy for our own good. Has the proverbial god got the best punishment for us greedy souls...?

Losing to Milan will not be a just punishment; just a reward for Milan. No, the best punishment would be to lose to the evil MU much akin to that day at Anfield not so long ago when we contrived not to score then let John O'Shea (see, I told you there's an evil power up there somewhere) score the winner at the death. The clouds are getting darker; the thunder is rumbling....all we wait for now is for Cristiano Ronaldo to dive in the box in injury time to win the CL...

Is Chelsea that bad by comparison...?

2007-03-20T15:02:00.000+10:00

Maddening Benitez

A useless 0-0 draw against Aston Villa-few players seemed to care, even the Villa players oddly enough. Never have I seen a home team in England play so defensively. 1 real chance for both sides in the 89th minute for substitute Robbie Fowler and 1 penalty not given to Stilian Petrov in 1st half injury time-I wish it was given; might have made for an interesting game...

Benitez is maddening because he says the league matters, because he says he wants to catch Chelsea (what a joke). Fact is he only cares now about finishing 4th, so why lie? His team selection proved it-Fabio Aurelio and Mascherano in and Alonso out. Clearly he wants to give Mascherano every chance to get his match fitness-his performance suggests he needs it, and quick. He also needs to use his players where they are better suited-moving Gerrard to the centre was good, but not when it meant Kuyt going to the right. When Pennant came on, he took Bellamy off reducing us to 1 real striker. Hardly teh signs of a coach going for a win.

Tinker by all means in the league if finishing 4th is the real target while the main aim remains the CL. Just don't continue talking bullshit.

2007-03-10T16:15:00.000+10:00

The Liverpool CL Post-Mortem

Well, lahdeedah....a win (of sorts). Never quite seen a happier set of home supporters celebrating a 1-0 loss but hey, I'll take it!

It was actually quite a good performance, and really, how Liverpool lost I just don't know. Back-to back defeats at home against world class opposition (Barca and MU) whom we outplayed - I find myself rather pleased despite the results because surely this is the way forward. Play well and the goals will eventually come (play Fowler please...).

Arbeloa has played twice against Barca now and has been fabulous. Sissoko still can't pass to a player in a red shirt but has been quite outstanding in the tackle though he needs to cool it somewhat. Pennant is starting to look like a footballer and Bellamy is playing as well as he has ever been. Carragher and Agger are really looking like a unit and Finnan is also playing at his best. Now we need Gerrard and especially Alonso to fire.

PSV looks like the easiest tie, but all sides left in the QFs deserve respect-this time, the favourite tag (noose?) lie with the mighty Liverpool Reds-lets see how the team handles it. We just haven't handled the favourites tag well in the recent past. Also, let's start scoring again.

Gazing into the crystal ball, I foresee Liverpool getting past PSV (just), Bayern edging a toothless AC Milan, MU over an overly-exuberant Roma and a real 50-50 between Chelsea and Valencia. A lot will depend on Terry's fitness, Valencia suspensions after the Inter brawl, and probably a huge dose of luck to one side. I'd rather meet Chelsea in the SF if we get there rather than Valencia-I can just see Morientes scoring the winner deep in injury time to take them through....

2007-03-04T14:56:00.000+10:00

Liverpool v. Barca Preview

After a weird first leg, I simply cannot wait for this match-hopefully Barca's indifferent form continues and we can bounce back against them after the MU sucker punch. It'll be a fantastic match I'm sure and a real 50-50 battle.

Being my pessimistic self, I still have Barca as slight favourites, even if only because they have to go for it, and that is when they are at their best. We lack pace at the back, and surely that is what Barca will attempt to take advantage of. I expect Giuly to play at least some part in the match out on the right to get behind what would surely be two blocks of defensive lines.

No Mascherano and Arbeloa for the MU match suggests that they have some role to play in this match. Arbeloa I thought performed brilliantly against Barca at the Nou Camp and Mascherano, match fitness aside, is a very good player who can hold up the ball well. I think the former will start and the latter will come off the bench.

It'll be interesting to see how the team shapes up-I couldn't decipher the shape in the Nou Camp match-just where was Arbeloa, Risse and Bellamy playing? Seemed like 3 on the left to me!! I think we won't be too defensive but will be cautious enough and in that sense it'll be a 4-4-1-1 probably. I'm not guessing the line-up because I can see Arbeloa playing but not where he will play. Will Finnan or Gerrard start on the right? If the former then will Gerrard play in the hole with Bellamy on the bench or the left?

We'll soon find out.

2007-03-04T14:48:00.000+10:00

Liverpool v. MU - I just knew it!!!

Call me pessimistic but I just knew we would lose 1-0 to an injury time goal. I suppose low expectations reduce disappointment levels but the fact is, till we get a 20 goal a season striker we're not going to challenge for the league much less win the bloody thing!! A good performance; one of the best of the season, and to a certain extent we were unlucky but the ball must be put away, pure and simple.

Chances need to be taken and we don't do it often enough. Not since Owen have we had a 20 goal a season striker. Kuyt is too profligate, Bellamy's no finisher, Crouch is nuisance value and only Le God can score efficiently, as long as we have Beckham crossing the ball to his feet in the 6 yard box. Now we have signed a Ukrainian striker for next season-in Rafa we trust? Nunez, Josemi, Pellegrino, Palletta suggests he is a real 50-50 proposition; no more than that.

Congrats to MU-lucky sure, but over the season they've earned it-if only they didn't do it at Anfield!! At least this may piss Abramovich enough to pack his bags and go on home.

2007-02-17T22:01:00.000+10:00

National Day & Independence Day - Any Significant Difference?

Once again, for the umpteenth time I read a newpaper article about independence-once again based on the false premise of 31 August 1957. First I need to make clear two points:

(a) The press freely trumpets Malaysia's impending 50th year of independence when that is clearly false-Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963, and,
(b) that, at the very least, in the spirit of compromise and understanding the concept of independence and national days need to be distinguised, as far as Malaysia is concerned.

History is very clear on one thing blatantly ignored by practically all and sundry: that the Federation of Malaya was formed on 31 August 1957 upon being granted independence by the British. The Federation of Malaya than joined forces with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah (then North Borneo) to form the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963.

Obviously, Malayan independence remains an important facet of Malaysian history. This is due to a number of reasons, not least the pride many have for the successes Malaysia has achieved in its short history as an independent nation. But it is also important because it is presented in school history textbooks in a manner that implies that Malayan history is the default Malaysian history. This is clear when we witness the paucity of history pertaining to both Sabah and Sarawak in our high school history textbooks.

I'm not going to attack those who couldn't be bothered about this matter-certainly, there are more important issues afflicting the country than the supposed day of celebration to denote one of two events (independence and/or national day). However, until such time as the nation's citizens understand the proper history of the country, we cannot pretend to know our country. History needs to be painted accurately, as much as possible, a position historians Herodotus onwards endeavour to make clear despite continuous attempts by politicians and parties with vested interests to skew history in their favour.

At a time when Malaysia Day is not even a public holiday (except in Sabah where it is shared with the Governor's official birthday) it is imperative that a more accurate depiction of the nation is presented without throwing out the recent past. By this I mean that 31 August is now firmly etched in the minds of the people to the extent that 16 September simply is not going to raise the same level of unity. As well, the vested powers will no doubt oppose such a change-it would be an admission of guilt of the continuing chauvinism shown by the federal government towards Sabah and Sarawak. And to be fair, the misrepresentation of history has already made many Sabahans (I don't know about Sarawakians) ambivalent about such issues.

Tunku Abdul Rahman wanted Malaysia to come into being on 31 August 1963 and everything was going as planned until Indonesian and Filipino objections forced the UN to send the Cobbold Commission to ascertain the views of Sabahan and Sarawakians. They found in favour of the formation of Malaysia which eventually occurred on 16 September 1963. However, in the interim the British vacated Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore and these three territories governed themselves in this period. In a sense, independence arrived in these 3 territories on 31 August 1963.

Now, why can't we celebrate independence day on 31 August but without a reference year? Who cares if it is 1957 or 1963?; at least it is a true reflection of independence. National day then need no longer be on 31 August as well, for it is clearly not the national day. Malaysia Day is the national day, and must remain on the 16th of September, and be played up more in the national psyche as opposed to 31 August.

This is not even a debate, except when Pairin brought it up during his tenure in opposition. Now he shuts up. It is a pity that 44 (and not 50!) years since the country has come into being that it cannot even celebrate on the right day. Perhaps a compromise on 31 August is a fair way to make things right. But I wouldn't bother holding my breath. If it ever occurs at all, it'll be a long time from now when Malaysians can truly be free to debate such issues without the overriding caveat (in the hands of the government) that we are disrupting national unity and hence, an excuse to shut the debate down. A debate that will embarass the government no end.

2007-02-11T15:36:00.000+10:00

Liverpool v Newcastle: Squad Limitations

A dissapointing 2-1 defeat against an injury ravaged Newcastle is very hard to swallow indeed, especially when we were all over them in the first half and should have had it all wrapped up by then. The two problems that hampered the team was squad limitation and Benitez's continuing incomprehensible substitutions.

First, as poor as he has been this season, I must re-evaluate my criticism of Xabi Alonso. We dearly missed his quality passing, especially given the very wet pitch that almost caused the game to be called off. We had to play both Sissoko and Zenden for their first matches in quite a while and with Zenden playing out wide on the left he was never going to last 90 minutes. Sissoko also looked just a touch slower than usual and it's a wonder he escaped a booking from a very lenient Mark Clattenburg.

We were 2-1 down when Benitez decided to apply his black magic. Removing Zenden was no real surprise given his lack of match fitness but our limitations were exposed when 19 year old Danny Guthrie came on for him. First time I've seen him, but it seems a case of him getting a run due to injuries (Kewell, Garcia, Aurelio, Gonzalez) rather than forcing his way through the squad. The big surprise was removing Pennant for our new right back Arbeola when we're chasing the game!! Befitting his inconsistent season, Pennant's been up and down all season but in this match was quite good, repeatedly taking Babayaro to the cleaners and setting up Bellamy's goal. Removing him to push Finnan up was flabbergasting as Finnan does not beat players-he's a fine overlapping right back and an adequate right sided midfielder when need be, not when we need to score a goal.

Then, lo and behold, we bring on Crouch for Finnan with a few minutes left. So no more crosses from the right for the big man to win, epecially with Gerrard playing all over the park by this point and Guthrie totally annonymous on the left. Truly a breath-taking range of substitutions from a man who continues to frustrate me.

Overall, this reminded me of our last defeat away to Blackburn when we totally dominated the 1st half and should have cantered home. Then, as now, we wasted too many chances. We need a 20 goal a season striker, and that we don't have. Perhaps Kuyt maybe, but he was a hell of a culprit too. Agger finally had a poor game, but that's part of the learning curve, and hopefully he'll learn well from this experience.

It was frustrating, but as with the Blackburn game, stil very promising. We simply must be more clinical in front of goal and maximise Bellamy's pace. Love him or hate him, Kewell's impending return cannot come soon enough-we're stretched to the limit on the left.

Finally, kudos for Babayaro playing despite his brother dying the night before-not just that, but it was his first game back from injury suffered in December. He might well have been their weak link all night, but didn't he show some guts and determination?

2007-02-09T16:16:00.000+10:00

Yankeepool!!!

So no more calling MU ManUSA then....

Still, the newly renamed Liverpool Reds 'franchise' will now have $$$ to move into a new stadium, probably named after some multinational fast food joint...the KFC stadium anyone?

2007-02-04T16:15:00.000+10:00

Getting Rid of the Malay Stereotype

Well done to the Deputy PM, Najib Tun Razak for coming out and attacking the perception of Malays as being a lazy race. This perception has now long been in place, for a century or so I'd suggest.

The fact is the Malay archipelago was a trade centre. We have witnessed any number of ancient and middle-age trade centres like that of Aceh, Srivijaya and Malacca, not to mention the Brunei Sultanate. Malays were not just farmers; they traded as well, and did it well.

The problematic stereotype probably began to manifest itself by the arrival of the British colonialists in Malaysia at least, who, first of all, removed the role of trade from the Malays, no thanks to the subserviance of the Malay sultans. This led to the Malay economic role being reduced to agriculture and petty administration. They also imposed racial segregation between industries, and Malays were excluded from the modern industries, which went to the Chinese (primarily in the Straits Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore). Here we also see the Chinese stereoptype; that they are all traders, yet a fair chunk of those who arrived worked in the mining industry. The Chinese are not naturally traders; the Malays are not naturally lazy. This is all perception.

The big problem now is probably due to the policies of the Malaysian government. While it clearly had to impose policies to alleviate the economic lot of the Malays it has now become a political tool and the Malays are becoming very used to it. This, plus the agreement that 80% of all public sector jobs must go to Bumiputeras has led to the lazy and hand-out perception of the Malays. It is highly ironic that the government perpetuated the industry-race segregation, but given the race based politics of Malaysia we should not be too surprised. UMNO is a significant contributor to the stereotype by perpetuating the hand-out mentality, despite the attempts of some of its reformist leaders.

One might point out to Malays in Singapore being so far behind the other races and the general perception that they are lazy might seem to hold some credibility there but I'd argue otherwise. First, Singapore was a backwater till Raffles decided to develop it, and the Malays there were not really traders anyway. I could be wrong, but I believe the Malays there were fishermen. Singapore was a rural area; trade was conducted in neighbouring Aceh, Malacca and Johor. The British then brought in the Chinese to do the trade and marginalised the Malays-simply put, they never stood a chance. Present day Singapore practises theoretical meritocracy, but in effect this means perpetuating the political and economic hold of the Chinese populace. The Malays need a leg-up there, but they'll never get it.

Ultimately, the perception might well come true if UMNO continues to lack the guts to seriously reform their pro-Bumiputera (essentially pro-Malay) policies. As Josef Goebbels said; 'repeat a lie often enough and it soon becomes the truth'. The greatest threat to Malays becoming a lazy race lie within themselves. Will their leaders have the guts to get rid of their own self-defeating policies? I doubt it, not while the feudalistic tendencies of their leaders remain. The Malays need a revolution, from below (the grassroots)-their leaders (apart from a few at the top) seem to scared of speaking the truth and doing what needs to be done. The future does not look bright, but it is not too late.

2007-02-04T15:56:00.000+10:00

The Islam-Malay Conundrum

It's been a very interesting last few days in Malaysia with the whole issue of mosques for Chinese Muslims. Clearly we are witnessing what I have always long felt; that Malay nationalism has taken a dangerous turn by marrying itself to Islam. The ethnic-religious distinction is now so sufficiently blurred that Malay means Islam and Islam means Malay. This non-Muslims Bumiputeras have long understood.

In this regard, calls for greater Islamisation of Malaysia means different things to different people. To Malay nationalists, it means greater Malay-isation of the nation. This is well manifested by their reluctance to agree to Chinese mosques, including Chinese architecture. They see themselves as Muslims and Malays equally; there is no difference to them. There can be no inconsistencies. Then we have what I term the 'true' Islamists-those in PAS for example. They are almost certainly Malays, but are Islamists, not nationalists. They want to propagate Islam, not nationalism. They see the use for Chinese mosques as a tool of propagating Islam to Chinese people.

I've often talked about the dangers of modern day Malay nationalism. It is almost fascist in nature these days. It takes the fold of Islam to deflect away criticism and gain moral authority but Islam does not discriminate between ethnicities (ask PAS, they'll confirm that). But clearly Malay nationalists do-these Chinese Muslims might be their religious brothers, but unless they attend sermons in Malay in Malay mosques they are not their equals. They must assimilate; they must accept Malay supremacy. They must become Malay-till then they are not really their 'true' brothers.

Islam came to China a long time before it came to Malaysia. China has more Muslims than Malaysia. The Arabs may have brought Islam to Malaysia but Cheng Ho's arrival before Malacca turned into an Islamic state clearly shows the paucity of the nationalists argument. There are just simply racists and I think truly believe they are better and superior to others in Malaysia. They'll always accept others as long as we defer to them. Question their authority and watch their fascists tendencies come out. At least since the pathetic UMNO general assembly, the forces of moderation have begun a concerted fightback. That gives us all hope.

2007-02-04T00:46:00.000+10:00

The Derby-Shit Game, Shit Management

Luis Garcia might be the most frustrating player on our books, but Benitez must be the most frustrating manager in our history. Just when it looks like he's got no clue he pulls a rabbit out of his arse and just when it seems he's on the right track, he pulls a turnip out of the same orifice.

His 4-4-2 line-up with Bellamy on the left (or as shown by the commentary team) looked like a risk worth taking but the countless aimless balls in the air that landed on the heads of very content and competent blue heads for 93 minutes was a classic example of why I feel Benitez isn't they guy for the job. Unlike Mourinho, Wenger or Ferguson who don't die wondering, this frustrating man continued to twiddle his thumbs when it was obvious to all and sundry that the problem was that (a)there was no width on the left and (b) the crosses weren't working. He signed Gonzalez who was on the bench; use him then!!! He backs him through the whole transfer saga but what kind of vote of confidence is this for them young man? No, he takes Bellamy (our best player) out for Fowler. We already lacked pace, and he decides to pretty much reduce the Everton workload in the last few minutes with that substitution.

Useless management was at the fore today; this probably means he'll pull that rabbit out next match-hopefully without that lumbering jackass Alonso. Well, I'm being harsh on Alonso, but what has he done this season really? He needs a break, it'll do him good. Title challenge my arse.

2007-02-01T21:11:00.000+10:00

The Failed DIC Bid

Well, well, well, Moores decides against it, and Rick Parry probably choked on his cereal when he heard. I'm glad, very glad, as DIC owes better to its real investors, the people of Dubai. Football fans they might be, but they've no right IMO to spend hundreds of millions on a football team-just what sort of return were they expecting?

But what about Liverpool now? Looks like it's this Gillett guy but will he stick to his offer (I think it's there on the table in some more or less concrete form). The thing is we'll need to have the funding for Stanley Park in place by March or the city council will withdraw their share of the funding (if I believe right-haven't really been following the story too much). The stadium is very important; the extra bums on seats eases the pressure financially and allows more fans entry.

A decision is needed sooner rather than later. I just hope Moores called it off because there's something better out there, not because he can't let go of the umbilical cord.

2007-01-31T21:31:00.000+10:00

West Ham V Liverpool

A 2-1 win...comfortable most of the time but for the last 15 minutes. The highlight of a forgettable first 45 minutes was Benitez's fall on the mud but the 2nd half was quite entertaining with 2 fabulous strikes from Kuyt and Crouch. Pennant continues to frustrate though...

A 3-4-3 as in the game against Watford. I'm unsure what to make of it. It's hardly ever used and I'm ignorant as to how teams approach it or indeed, use it. Benitez seems to play it safely from what I saw anyway. Finnan on the right is competent but hardly an attacking option and Risse is still more useful rushing up from left back than left midfield. Gerrard seemed to be deployed as a more defending force alongside Alonso pretty much leaving the front three to their own devices. If I'm right then its a case of everyone more defensive than offensive bar the front three. Then again perhaps Gerrard just had a quiet game, or perhaps I'm not giving West Ham enough credit.

Pennant's the worry though the goal conceded was hardly his fault alone-mind you, he lost the ball too easy in the lead up to their goal then spends his little time arguing with an admittedly crazy Boa Morte. He needs to toughen up mentally.

Oh well, it's a win-why can't I ever be happy with the team?

2007-01-21T16:22:00.000+10:00

Chavez's Imperialist Dreams

Once again we see a hijacking of Socialism by professional revolutionaries. From Lenin onwards to Castro we continuously witness the lack of respect Socialist leaders show towards those they purportedly represent. They would today cringe at an equivalent Paris Commune. We shouldn't be surprised with Chavez though-he has long said Castro is his hero and just when did Castro ever involve the workers in his struggle? He led a guerilla army from the jungle and emerged victorious into the cities. The trade unions were never really active participants in his revolution to overthrow the American puppets that ruled Cuba (though of course they did have a role, though secondary in nature).

Of course, we should take little credence when Venezuela's landed classes speak of democracy. The democracy they speak of has done nothing for the masses. The rich and upper-classes took all the oil riches and milions live in abject poverty. Now somewhat disenfranchised, they suddenly speak of democracy. I have no time for them, but I also feel Chavez has ended up the other side of the coin.

Democracy at grass roots level is essential in socialism. Theory is clear on this, but history has shown how the masses are disregarded by the powers that be. Now Chavez feels he can rule by decree. He forgets that he should rule for all Venezuelans, rich or poor. Some will never accept him (witness their attempted coup) but they are still citizens. He should win by doing good, by showing that his actions are for the good of the majority but he is corrupt, power crazy and makes friends with war-mongers and fundamentalists like Ahmadinejad. If he lived in Iran, Chavez would have long been executed for being an enemy of Islam, but they put their differences aside because of their common enemy, the Great Satan....mind you if he made friends with war-mongers and fundamentalsts like Bush I'll be complaining just as much. He should disavow all such bastards, but he is proving to be one as well.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure Castro never intended to be a dictator, and I think Chavez is the same, but both felt the burden of responsibility and both feel they know better than anyone else. They have become deities, the Dalai Lama's of Socialism. Both are actually the best friends of unfettered capitalism, and enemies of the workers. After all, when capitalist argue about the evils of Socialism, they need show no further than Havana, and in the near future, Caracas.

Chavez must be opposed by the very people he purports to represent. I don't know about aligning themselves with his ideological opponents for they will use the poor as they have always done. However, such a grassroots movement will weaken the socialist arguments as we end up in the usual socialist scenario-endless bickering and arguing. But so be it, never forget that the real enemy are those who ignore the workers, and Chavez will surely do that sooner rather than later. A Socialist he might well be, but the devil lies within.

2007-01-21T15:45:00.000+10:00

The $$$ Dilemma-What Do Professional Footballers Want?

Should Lucas Neill have gone to liverpool for a measly 35000 quid a week or West Ham for 60000? Most attacked him for going for the $$$, but there's more to it than that surely? Go for $$$ or glory?

Ultimately, unless we are in their position we can only conjecture. I'll attempt to do just that.

(a)Go for glory?
Surely that's why players turn professional-to win things. Neill is a super competitive player, and he wants to win things. He's more likely to do it at Liverpool, but maybe it'll be from the bench. He wants to play as well. Benitez apparently refused to guarantee him a starting spot, and he didn't like that, but what does he expect? Competition improves performances, and I'll be surprised that's the reason he turned Liverpool down.

Neill says West Ham have an ambitious plan, but many clubs do. Perhaps he does truly believe them; perhaps it's just him justifying his move. Overall, I think it's the latter. The $$$'s too good to turn down, and he's being attacked for something 99% of the attackers will do as well and feels he needs to defend himself.

(b) Respect
I really think Cashley Cole left due to a perceived lack of respect. He feels he was promised 60000 and was offered 55000. Many have attacked him; what is 5000 quid anyway when you earn so much but it's all about relative, and not absolute wages. Footballers compare salaries among themselves; they don't compare it with garbage collectors or financial controllers. Arsenal went all out to keep Henry but not Cole. It doesn't matter if he was right or wrong-perception is everything.

Lucas Neill seems to think Benitez disrespected him and took him for granted, and I don't blame him. Benitez seems to think all players are like Fowler who'll walk on glass to play for Liverpool. You pay peanuts and you'll end up hiring monkeys. You want a quality player, you'll need to pay more. I'm unsure how worried Benitez was with dressing room unrest if Neill, a squad player, earns more than other squad players, but he is on an almost free transfer and can play right-back where we really have no back-up bar moving Carragher there if Finnan can't play.

(c)Financial Pay-offs
Almost all people will say $$$ isn't everything but almost all of us will take a salary almost double that offered by another party, even if the lower salary option is from our preferred employer. Let's not be hypocritical here.

Still, I can't help but feel this is Neill's loss. He'll look back at his career very well paid (as opposed to just well paid) but probably with no trophies, and only then will he know if he made the right or wrong choice.

2007-01-21T15:31:00.000+10:00

Liverpool V Chelsea - well, well, well!!!!

After a month's holiday, I get to finally watch a full match without interruption-and well, it's a happy return for me!!! I really don't know how good we were because Chelsea was so poor but surely we did more right than wrong. The line-up was as I expected, with Agger finally being preferred to Hyppia for games against tough opposition due to his and Carragher's collective lack of pace. My only query was Bellamy's pace being kept on the bench in favour of two players while not slow, aren't quick either. But they combined well throughout, Kuyt and Crouch.

This piece is really more about Chelsea than Liverpool because their performance was so out of character. Any team can have a bad match, but Chelsea's lack of fight and low morale was so unlike them. It was almost as if they were resigned to defeat. At 2-0 down they played to keep the score down rather than go for a draw or win, and that says it all really. They really have big problems, and Mourinho can finally show what he's made of now he's facing a problem he has never had before; a crisis at a top club. Ballack and Lampard were truly awful and only Drogba showed his true spirit. still, I was never confident until Drogba nutmegged Ballack for that atrocious set-piece move!

It's always dangerous having a sugar-daddy running a club. if indeed Abramovich has been playing Championship Manager and now thinks he knows better than Mourinho then Chelsea will be in some strife. I always thought they should forget the league anyway and go for the Champions League and if MU win tonight I won't be surprised to see Mourinho do just that.

Interesting times for the evil empire...

2006-12-11T22:36:00.000+10:00

Pinochet-Death of a Bastard

I hope it was slow and painful. Here's a man who overthrew, with American backing, a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Socialist government. Saddam and he had a lot in common. Both had firm American backing. Both silenced the opposition. Both tortured political prisoners. Both killed political prisoners. Both created mass graves.

But Pinochet was smarter. He rarely miscalculated, and not only was his anti-Communist ideology panacea to Washington's ears in the 1970s but he also embraced Milton Friedman's free market philosophy. And capitalism is something Washington likes to see overseas, so their MNCs can extract huge pofits from compliant governments. Friedman was happy to deal with the butcher so as to test his Economic philosophies. Ironic that they both died so close to each other. I hope they both burn rather slowly in Hell together. The triumvirate will be complete soon-Margaret Thatcher can't be hanging around for too much longer.

But the threat of the 'Red tide' in Latin America receeded in the 80s; this coupled with Glasnost and Perestroika made Pinochet redundant and when he allowed a 2nd referendum to have him stay in power for another 8 years (in 1988 I believe) he was shocked to see his plan rejected by the people. Over the years he has become increasingly marginalised, and his arrest in England on Garzon's now infamous international warrant has created a new climate of respect for international law, despite Blair government's shameful cheating of the system to get him back to Chile.

He never had to answer his accusers, and sometimes that might look like a case of him getting away scot-free but since 1988 he has increasingly lost power, friends and influence. The bigger you are, the harder you fall. I am sure he died a beaten man. May his last few breaths have been terribly constricted. I really hope he was begging to die. There are at least 3000 people who died at his power crazy hands. Perhaps Musharraf, the Thai military and Bainimarama should take note of this as well.

2006-12-11T22:29:00.000+10:00

Wenger the Ultimate Hypocrite

So Mr. Jogo Bonito plays defensively against Chelsea, just like he did against Porto, and MU this season, and oh, in quite a few matches in the Champions League last season including the final. Oh, and what about the FA Cup final of 2005 against MU? It seemed at times that even Henry was ordered to play behind the ball.

He should just shut up. There is so much to like about him. He uses youth, he spots bargains, he is a master tactician, and 99% of the time, his team plays a game that puts a stereotypical Brazilian side to shame. IMO, the best manager in England since he arrived. It's a pity he is so bloody myopic.

He defended the style of play as he has many young players and have played many 'physical games' recently. Whatever. I think he was right to play a safety first styled 4-5-1 against all the sides he has this season, and the results in the games have been good. But please shut up about Bolton, you hypocrite!!!

2006-12-11T22:21:00.000+10:00

Liverpool v Fulham

A thumping 4-0 win but should we be jumping up and down in delight? I am an eternal pessimist and certainly Fulham is a team capable of collapse so I do think we should temper our 2nd straight thumping win with some reflection.

Pennant having a good game finally might be good for his confidence but how much can be read into it given Fulham's poor showing? As well, how many more penalties must Gerrard miss before we give the responsibility to someone else? Mind you, it is a poisoned chalice, the position of Liverpool penalty taker-maybe no one else wants it!!!

For me Benitez hit the nail on the coffin when he said the more important thing was not that it was our 2nd straight win but that both wins came with clean sheets. Far too often this season we've lacked concentration at the back and now the players seem to be more consistent, especially Reina who seems to be back to his best.

4-0 & I'm bitching!!! Long may it continue but knowing this team, it probably won't...

2006-12-09T15:38:00.000+10:00

The Fijian Coup

So the inevtable has occurred. Bainimarama has done as he has threatened. The world has reacted as we all expected. No surprises whatsoever. It is now abundantly clear in the post-cold War era that military dictatorships have found a new calling-that of 'democracy.' This all harks back from Musharraf's brilliant coup d'etat.

The process is simple, but requires two characteristics. One, a country with historically unstable and corrupt governments and two, a history of military intervention. In the past military intervention tended to lead to unstable governments, but these days the reverse seems to apply.

As mentioned before, modern day coups seem to take the Musharraf example. Take into account corrupt and unstable governments, and act in the 'national interest.' So far this is no different from past coups except now, claim that this is being done in the interest of democracy. Kiss American ass, promise stability and allow for 'window-dressing' democracy. This is enough to satisfy Western morality. So today Musharraf still remains the president of Pakistan, with a puppet PM. The Thai military has done the same citing political uncertainty and appointed a cabinet and now Bainimaraman has done so citing the need to act to remove a racist and corrupt government.

In all three cases I fear to say that the governments gave the military ample opportunity to act. All three thumbed their noses at the citizenry (at least sizeable sections of them). In all cases it is not hard to justify removing these corrupt leaders but unfortunately it is done by the military with their own agenda rather than by the people in a democratic movement.

Bainimarama has simply strengthened the hand of the racists by his coup. He has only further driven a wedge between indigenous and Indian Fijians. I see no hope for a proper democracy in Fiji in the near future. Military governments are notorious for failing to yield power to the people. It is easy for someone like me who thing Qarase is a racist prick to defend the military but that is the wrong thing to do. What we must support is for grassroots democracy in Fiji, not the military or the deposed government. Qarase is guilty of a massive miscalculation, and Bainimarama is guilty for being a power hungry military commander who thinks he knows better than the people. Really, they both deserve each other. There are no winners here-everyone is a loser.

2006-12-05T14:21:00.000+10:00

The Proposed Liverpool Takeover

Well, well, well - looks like Dubai International Capital (DIC) owned by Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum are close to taking over the club. I don't like it one little bit, though I think I'm in the minority here. It is said he is a fan like Randy Lerner is a Villa fan-good, but what about the soul of the club? The beauty of Arsenal and Liverpool is that it is still owned by locals. Of course, it is now a global game, and I hate how some English people have a go at the foreign fans as if we know nothing about the game-how many of them will stay up till 3am to watch a match, or when it is not shown, stare at the computer at some ungodly hour to catch the minute-by-minute highlights?

But make no mistake, this is an investment opportunity by a man who uses public funds in the UAE, a nation where democracy has a flimsy outlook. True, they are travelling well and as far as I can make out the locals are largely content with their leaders who have done well to diversify the UAE economy so as not be as reliant on oil as their immediate neighbours. But 450m pounds of their money to be plowed into a football team? 80m of that to retire debt!! What sort of return will the people receive over time? Football clubs are not cash cows that pay out huge dividends. This is a disgrace. Just as Abramovich used his connections to buy public companies in Russia for a pittance and played his part in robbing the citizenry, so I fear the DIC are doing the same by foolishly putting all this money into a football club. What will the people of the UAE get out of it? Maybe the stadium at Stanley Park with be renamed the UAE stadium, maybe the front of the shirts will advertise Dubai. Does that justify a 450m pound investment? I pity the MU fans among their citizenry....

As far as the club is concerned, I don't think we should cheer on this invetsment. A bad turn of events in the Middle East (a war in neighbouring Iran or instability in Saudi Arabia) and the UAE economy can quickly go down the drain. The DIC can quickly pull the plug and leave. Perhaps the DIC will have to show it has long term plans to involve the locals. It would be nice if the local fans could buy say 10% of the shares in the club, or that the bulk of the current board will stay on in an executive capacity (though admittedly with significant input form the new owners). I have always felt that Abramovich's arrival at Chelsea would herald their demise. A quick downturn in oil prices and instability in Russia and he could well disappear and Chelsea could quickly find itself bankrupt and financially relegated to the Championship. The DIC venture sails a bit too close to the wind for my liking in this regard.

Also, let's not be hypocritical-we have all had a go at Chelsea's sugar daddy; let's not then embrace ours as a saviour. Let's not sell the club's soul if the DIC decides to do as it pleases. I hope (against hope) that this sale will not go through because I doubt it is in Liverpool's best interest in the long run. After all, has anyone really found the fabled pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Let's not lose our heads here. There are plenty of investors with more stable and ethical funds, poorer certainly, but I for one prefer stability to speculating for fools gold.

2006-12-05T14:11:00.000+10:00

Wigan V Liverpool - Finally an Away Win!!!

And 4-0 to boot. The arrival of Alonso back into the 1st team so Gerrard shunted back to the right with Carragher his central mdfield partner. I was somewhat surprised with that I must say as my first thought upon hearing of the win (Foxtel showed Portsmouth v Villa) was that Gerrard must have been in the centre. In the highlights show I saw Gerrard set up the 2nd and 3rd goals from the centre though, and the 4th (own goal) arose from Gerrard's cross from the right.

Perhaps this is the rub of the green that we need; perhaps it is just a fortunate aberration. Who cares?! I'll take it any day of the week. Bellamy scores as does Kuyt and Crouch is a useful player to have on the bench, and as far as I'm concerned Fowler is still God but these 4 will have to try and be more consistent. As for Gerrard's best position - I think the argument is as good as over as shown by Benitez preferring Carra to him alongside Alonso. Those of us who prefer him in the centre can bleat all we want; Benitez has made clear now that Gerrard will play out wide for the forseable future. I think that has a lot to do with Pennant's disappointing form too, but if we are as dominant as we were against Wigan then Gerrard can and will come inside from time to time and hopefully inject some drive in central midfield that Alonso seems to be failing to provide so far this season.

For now, let me enjoy the moment....

2006-11-30T09:27:00.000+10:00

Oi!! Liverpool v Portsmouth

So we blow a chance to go 4th. Given our dismal away form this was the perfect match to win-up against a team with an injury record worse then ours, one that hasn't won at Anfield in 55 years, and one which David James aside showed precious little against Newcastle on the weekend. But we draw 0-0.

I don't care that the news report said Portsmouth spent all their time coming up with ingenious tricks to break up play and waste precious minutes. That's their prerogative. Our midfield still had Garcia, Pennant and Gerrard (Carragher the holding player) with Crouch and Kuyt up-front. That's enough fire power to win at home. Face it, MU and Chelsea would have blown Portsmouth away despite their defensive structure. In fact both already have, 3-0 and 2-0 (or was it 2-1?)respectively when Portsmouth were both defensive and with more fit players on board. We struggled to create too many against Man City either on the weekend. People might bleat about the Gunners being unable to break down stacked defences but ours is no different a problem with theirs at home.

I say all this however, without watching the game - Foxtel had MU - Everton on. And MU won 3-0 without Scholes, Giggs and Saha - they showed us how football should be played, with a mix of attacking play and defensive solidity. Mind you, Red Nose Ferguson has in the recent past had rotten luck with injuries. He didn't complain; just got on with the job and they never slipped out of the top 3. Our turn to stop bitching. Despite a rubbish start 3rd is still achievable, and you never know if MU slip up given their lack of depth. In that sense even 2nd could be achievable though that is the drunkard in me talking. It's already a two horse race and the Gunners will still be favourite for 3rd. I hope Spurs don't get their act together...

2006-11-26T14:59:00.000+10:00

The Race Debate - The Voices of Moderation Fight Back

I've been very happy with the fightback from moderates of all colour and creed about the race debate in Malaysia. I've often said I don't know what to make of Badawi but I'm starting to come around to thinking that he isn't as cynical as I seem to think he was. That even the New Straits Times have attacked mercilessly the racists makes me very happy indeed given that they are largely a governmental organ and unlike the Star, is a Malay owned paper, and hence, a real voice of Malays who do not wish to be lumped as religious and nationalist zealots.

As well, it's not just been secularists and liberals counter-attacking. Religious Muslims who are not happy with being lumped with these narrow minded bigots are also making themselves heard-certainly it helps that Badawi is quite a religious individual, so really the whole country has come together to voice their dissatsfaction with the going-ons at the UMNO general asembly.

There is a maturity in Malaysia I did not expect, and to a certain extent I have been too pessimistic. Just like in the US, the Bush and the religious right couldn't quite influence policies and the people as much as they would have liked (though they certainly do or did wield a strong influence) so the Malay-Muslim chauvinists are finding that society will not bow down to them without question.

Long may this opposition continue. We need to marginalise these idiots, and ony socity in general have the real power to do that.

2006-11-26T14:48:00.000+10:00

Liverpool v Man City

A 3-5-2 start for a team shorn of midfielders and left backs wasn't a bad move I thought, but Man City's 5-4-1 dealt very well with it, and looked nothing like a side with an away record worse than ours. I have defended Zenden before but I must say he does look underdone-a few more matches and I've no doubt his quality will shine through though. I'm not sure Garcia was 100% fit but he was a bit up and down, though his magic is what we need so he must always play a part in every match at the moment. We did look short of ideas but at the end of the day Gerrard made the difference from the centre of the park.

Benitez has to keep him there-surely he realises that now. Of course yesterday he accommodated Gerrard's perceived lack of defensive cover by playing 5 in midfield, but whatever the case he must for now start in the centre.

Portsmouth at home next-a good side with a brilliant coach and if we continue to sputter as we have been lately I fancy a draw but hopefully a couple of players will return to fitness. At home we are a quality side, though we do seem too one-dimensional at the moment.

On another note, I think Man City will do just fine this season-their team is solid without being spectacular and Barton is a hell of a player to have in the centre.

2006-11-19T13:59:00.000+10:00

Middlesborough V Liverpool - Oh Dear...

A match neither party really deserved to win though we did have the better chances-mind you Boro had the best chance of all. What I'll say is Gerrard in the centre looks a better player than Gerrard on the right. Benitez can defend playing him on the right till Spain finally wins the World Cup, saying he's explained it a 100 times. I don't care if he says it a 1000 times, last season is last season, isn't it about time Benitez focuses on this season? Things change, and this season last season's set-up has not worked out well. Just get over it mate!!! After a third of the season you're tactics have failed miserably, now concentrate on fixing it without pouting so much. It's your responsibility, we haven't been unlucky away from home, we've generally just been useless, and ultimately you're the one who has to wear it.

2006-11-19T13:20:00.000+10:00

The Issue of Islamic Apostasy in Malaysia - What Say the Law?

Recently the issue of Muslims leaving the faith has become a big story in Malaysia. The recent hoo-haa about a supposed mass baptism of Muslims at a church caused a huge uproar, and proved to be just a vicious rumour. At the recent UMNO assembly one delegate even called for Malays who leave Islam to be stripped of their Bumiputera guaranteed privileges, as if Bumiputera privileges are denoted by religion rather than race. Other times, we hear that Muslims can't even convert. So what exactly is going on?

First, we need to look at the constitution. It says two things of interest to this topic. One is that Islam is the official religion; second that freedom of religion is guaranteed. Some are now interpreting that to mean that Muslims can't convert but surely the first says nothing about that. I know the Pope has never been allowed to visit Malaysia (in his professional capacity anyway); I know foreign non-Islamic priests find it hard to get visas to work in Malaysia; I know that (whether it is the law or not, I'm unsure) that one cannot preach a non-Islamic religion to a Muslim. But what if a Muslim wants to leave the faith? After all they can decide Islam is not for them out of their own free will. Can they do so?

The big problem at the moment is that they need to go through the Islamic Syariah system to get the Islamic court to approve of their leaving the faith before the government will recognise it. Those who want to leave say that since they are no longer Muslims (in their eyes anyway) why should they require permission from the Syariah court? After all the syariah court can say, 'no, sorry mate, we aren't granting it. You're Muslim, like it or not.' One case (The Lina Joy affair) is currently at the High Court-their judgement is anticipated by all. While I must admit to know little about the case, I must say that a fair reading of the constitution should give her the right to convert without obtaining permission from the Syariah courts, but I have my doubts about the High Court being free of political pressure. Malay-Muslims chauvinists will almost certainly take to the streets should the verdict not satisfy them and that Badawi wants to avoid at all costs.

There is, in my opinion, a legislative way out of this conundrum that can satisfy all parties and is already working in the state of Negeri Sembilan. It reduces the right of a Muslim to immediately renounce the faith but does not stop them from doing so, once they have attended couselling with a relevant Islamic authority. One determined to leave the faith will leave anyway (officially or in their hearts); if they have to jump through a few hoops to do so, perhaps that is best for for keeping Malaysian society free from too much turmoil. As well, some may well decide after counselling that 'hang on, I don't want to leave after all,' and that surely should satisfy most Muslims. At the moment Syariah courts are state controlled and one can go to jail for doing so in some states (including my very secular state of Sabah), and even get whipped in Pahang!! Surely this is against the constitution, and might well get wiped out by the impending High court decision (though I'm unsure what secular legislation can do with respect to Syariah Courts).

A lot of Muslims in Malaysia may not like it that one should be allowed to leave the faith, just as many non-Muslims in Malaysia do not like the premacy of Islam in Malaysia but maybe, just maybe, we can all find a healthy compromise to satisfy all parties. Surely only the extremists on all sides will disagree?

One should read the article in the New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/Sunday/National/20061119093155/Article/local1_html) by P. Selvarani about this issue, where an expert, Dr Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil is interviewed about the topic. It certainly shed a lot of light on the issue for me, and maybe for you as well.

2006-11-18T12:19:00.000+10:00

The Race Card Again...

Ah, thank god the UMNO general assembly has ended. I've had it with the endless Malay nationalism and Islamic imperialism coupled with thinly veiled threats at non-Malays and non-Muslims. I wonder what the Christians in Sabah UMNO were thinking listening to all that? Joined the wrong party eh? But contracts are contracts, aren't they mate...? Sell your soul to the highest bidder, and you often find that the devil has bottomless pockets.

Time and again Malaysians have to put up with the racist rhetoric of UMNO. Every single general assembly, they bleat of the threat against Malays, against Islam, about how the rest of Malaysia wants to destroy their special rights and privileges. It is said the same occurs in MCA and MIC meestings. God bless them all-what a beautiful partnership made in heaven....

At the end of the day Badawi makes a speech talking about tolerance. The message is clear. Put the genie back in the bottle for we have already told the rest we are the big boss, and if they don't shut up, we'll show them who's boss. As I said before, I don't really know what to make of him, but as usual he has shown me that he has little interest in seriously tackling fundamental issues at the heart of problems afflicting Malaysia, and Malay-Muslim chauvinism is surely one of the most serious issues. He just tinkers around the edges, but if and when push comes to shove, I doubt very much he's the knight in shining armour that moderate Malays, Muslims and the rest seem to think (or rather, blindly hope against hope) that he is.

The main political party in Malaysia remains a racist organisation, and if anything shows signs of becoming more so. If we choose to ignore this fact, then only we can blame ourselves when the Malay chauvinists seize power. What was it said by a Catholic priest about keeping silent against the Nazis-something along the lines of 'when they went after the Jews, we kept quiet. When the went after the Communists, we kept quiet. When they went after the liberals, we kept quiet. When they finally went after us, there was no one else left to shout for us.'

2006-11-18T12:12:00.000+10:00

Who's The Boss?

So Gerrard says he's had a discussion with Benitez and will play in the centre more frequently. Now Benitez has come out and said hang on guys, I'm the boss-I had the discussion with Gerrard, not the other way around.

Do we care? Should we care? For one thing, as long as Gerrard plays where he can contribute best, I don't care if Mahathir himself made the decision. On the flip-side, barring a Gerrard misquote, does it say something about possible tensions simmering away below the surface? Does Benitez truly have Gerrard's full 100% confidence? Gerrard is an arrogant git. His statement after his backflip about moving to Chelsea, that the club and fans almost lost their best player had me in stitches. Most influential and loved, granted, but Alonso is IMO, a better player. Also Garcia and dare I say it, Kewell, could do things with the ball with their legs tied that Gerrard could never do. It goes to show the enormous amount of self-delusion required to compete at the highest level (including Benitez's seemingly self-delusion...), but also goes to show how Gerrard can miscontrue a discussion initiated by Benitez and think it was his idea and decision.

Maybe it was...

2006-11-15T14:23:00.000+10:00

Who's A Racist Then?

There's been a big hue and cry in the press about some guy in the stands calling the English cricketer Monty Panesar (Sikh, beard, turban and all) a 'stupid Indian.' Some say that's not racist, because calling someone an 'Indian' is not racist, but the guy is English, not Indian and bringing up his ethnic roots is surely an attempt to separate him from the rest of the squad and then mock him with the 'stupid' remark. In that context, separating him based on his ethnicity, it is a racist statement. In actual fact the guy went on further claiming Monty can't speak English, so he would need to say it in Indian (mind you, there's no such language as Indian, just as there's no such language as Iraqi, or Australian).

What is an acceptable insult at a sporting event? If Monty was called a 'stupid poofter' I doubt we'll hear much about it. We can still bash gays. We can call him a 'stupid prick' but certainly we'll get dirty looks if we call him a 'stupid cunt.' The male genitalia is open for insult, but not the females. I recall a few years ago an Aboriginal player in the AFL complained being called a 'black cunt.' The perpetrator denied calling him black-I fail to recollect what he claimed, but some women wrote in asking why denigrating a skin colour is considered bad, but calling someone a 'cunt' acceptable? We often make fun of women at sporting events - 'he's a big girl's blouse' might be acceptable on account of it being a depiction, but what about 'he runs like a girl' or 'at this rate we should all wear skirts and play in high heels' (Steve Bruce). Is that acceptable?

I'm starting to think that everything in this regard is contextual. I can happily call my friend from KL a 'west malaysian imperialist pig' and he can counter that I should live on the ground rather than a tree and we'll just have a laugh, just as a lot of Black (African-American should 'Black' now start becoming offensive) rappers call each other 'niggers.' But I grew up going to matches calling the ref a 'pukima punya semenanjung' and while there's no doubt the refs were a bunch of 'pukimas' I really should not be referring to their place of birth. Ultimately, I should not insult a person's origins as I would not like it heaped upon me. Yet the 'pukima' statement would be considered offensive by some women (not least by the refs' mums)but I consider passable as I would calling Heskey a donkey, lest the RSPCA complain. We all have our standards, but what is acceptable?

Most will agree racist statements are out, so no black so-and-so, but say Indian and Nigerian so-and-so and it starts getting a bit less clear. Though certainly calling someone a French so-and so is these days clearly an insult in football as it intimates that they are soft, whingers, and divers, no thanks to the generalisations of people like Pires (Spanish mum, Portuguese dad!!).

Women, gays, fat people, dumb people? Can I call Frank Lampard fat without offending some fat guy next to me? Or say that Ade Akinbiyi is 'fucking blind' when he misses another sitter - will a blind person take umbrage to my assertion that blind people can't score open goals? Can I continue calling Van Nistelroy 'horse-face?' or intimate that Graeme Le Saux might prefer the company of men?

Context is everything, isn't it? Tough call to make sometimes....

2006-11-13T22:24:00.000+10:00

Arsenal v Liverpool...Bloody Hell!!!

A 3-0 loss...just where do we go from here? We can't go much lower surely? Didn't watch the match (kickoff 2am Monday so work beckoned) but I saw the highlights show and read the reports. Did not seem as bad as the shocking MU performance thankfully.
I won't atatck Benitez really. In the past few matches he's minimised the rotation system and shown a willingness to listen to others, if not publicly then at least by his selections.

A 4-4-2 against Arsenal was a positive move. It showed a willingness and a belief to go for broke, which we have to if we are to make a most unlikely challenge, one definitely gone now. Sissoko would have been indispensible for this match given the collective lack of pace of Carragher and Hyppia and his injury is not Benitez's fault. I only question playing Zenden rather than Gerrard in the centre not because I don't think Zenden's up to it but because 2 years ago Gerrard and Alonso did make quite a good combination in the centre and I would have been willing to take the chance that Pennant would have been fired up to play well on the right against his former side.

The goals conceded was poor. All 3 were defensive errors and for the 1st 2 that's the players collective fault; the 3rd harks to Benitez's zonal marking system, which surely has been studied ad nauseum by the opposition.

I was happy to read Benitez say that he's going to concentrate on the Boro game-that's right; just move on. I was not so happy to see his post-match interview on the highlights show. It reminded me of 'Comical Ali,' Saddam's Information Minister during the 2nd Gulf war. Very selective indeed...

We've played away and lost to our 4 nemesis-Everton, MU, the Gunners and Chelsea plus a very tough Bolton. Done and dusted. Can't possibly be any harder than that. Don't feel sad and sorry. Don't make excuses. We must finish 4th, no less, so let's not over-analyse and just play some good and tough football away from home.

2006-11-10T19:55:00.000+10:00

Should the Fijian Military Overthrow The Govt?

The success of the Thai coup seems to have emboldened Commodore Bainimarama in his quest to get Qarase's govt to back down on their contentious legislation to pardon George Speight and his fellow conspiracists of the 2000 coup plot.

First, a brief backdrop of this piece. Fiji's Indian minority is sizeable, exceeding 40% of the population and they largely control the economy. They also pretty much ran the nation until Sitiveni Rabuka initiated a coup in 1988 to address the gross imbalance of power and wealth between the indigenous and Indian communities. Since then the constitution has been re-written to better reflect Fijian society and things largely went back to normal. But in 2000 Speight attempted a coup to overthrow the Choudary govt (Indian PM). At the end of the day he lost but it also spelt the end of 'democracy' (as tenuous as it is in Fiji) in that it is now clear only an indigenous Fijian can ever be PM (sounding more and more like Malaysia...).

Now Bainimarama says the govt is racist (they have another land proposal that favours the indigenous community) and pardoning Speight is unacceptable to the military. Do they have the right to do so?

The government is almost certainly racist (Malaysian style) and pardoning Speight spells of political influence. But the Qarase govt also won the election; it is not illegitimate, and unlike Thailand there's little support among the masses for a coup. Even the Indian community don't want one as it will heavily affect the tourist trade.

Parliamentary democracy in Fiji is hardly representative of the people, just as it is in most countries-once the election is over the people are forgotten, but is even that better than a benevolent military dictatorship? Musharraf used governmental incompetence to take over power and never left; now the Thai military holds power in Bangkok. Are Thais and Pakistanis better off with this? I'd argue so but only because the govts prior to the coups were dysfunctional. There is now better governance in these 2 countries, at least for now anyway. But does that make it right?

I'd argue the credibility of benevolent military dictatorships is ebbing away. They always promise to temporarily stay in power but rarely give it up completely. In this case, they are no better off then the corrupt politicians they overthrew. What these societies need are proper political institutions that are stronger than the political opportunists who take advantage of the people. The people don't need the military thinking they know better than the rest, even when the govt is dysfunctional or derelict. In any case, where in Pakistan are there now stronger political institutions? I certainly don't see it but I see an impotent parliament beholden to Musharraf. Benevolent maybe, but democratic never. At least there's always some hope for democratic change when the corrupt politicians are in power...

The Fiji military need to stay in their barracks, but the whole episode has weakened Qarase. Australia and the council of chiefs have also had their say. Speight will certainly not get his pardon now. Is that compromise enough for the people's benefit? It seems everyone but the people have a say in this matter.

2006-11-10T10:53:00.000+10:00

Sissoko's Injury - Manna from Heaven?

Now that it has been confirmed that Sissoko is out for 3 months, we might finally see a different Liverpool. Mind you, I'm not celebrating; he is a useful player, but now, Benitez surely has to play Gerrard in the centre. We pray Pennant finally comes good. Then again, perhaps the under-utilised Zenden will get more time in the centre with Gerrard on the right; as long as it's not the norm, I don't worry about that.

I wonder if the run of victories at home and Birmingham away (with many reserves) meant that confidence was high and Benitez's insistence of playing Gerrard on the right with Sissoko in the centre was starting to bear fruit. We wouldn't have known till a few more away matches were played, and now we will not know at all. Also, all the people demanding Gerrard play in the centre will get their wish. If anything, this means a more attacking Liverpool so even if our away form remains patchy, at least we'll be losing with more style!

2006-11-06T23:19:00.000+10:00

Race Based Politics - A Vile Malaysian Characteristic

Well, here we go again. The Johor Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) saying we cannot have a Malaysian race without Malays at the forefront. To quote the racist son of a bitch, "Even if the term Bangsa Malaysia is to be used, it must only be applied in the context of all the peoples of Malaysia with the Malays as the pivotal race."

When people ask me why I left, I often point to racists like these who are in powerful positions. They perpetuate race to maintain their power by dividing the people. This man is not a nobody; he is the leader of the most powerful UMNO state in Malaysia.

To be fair, whenever the government has (half-heartedly) tried to integrate, it has come up with opposition from all races. The plan to build National, Tamil and Chinese type schools in unified campuses met with huge opposition from Chinese groups hell-bent on conspiracist theories, crazy enough to make Agent Mulder blush.

The British plan to create the Union of Malaya in 1946 fell to pieces because they planned to give everyone equal rights; this was partly to deflect Chinese support away from Chin Peng China inspired Communism, but it only created Malay nationalism, and rightly so. They would have been eaten up alive economically and marginalised, probably forever, especially at a time when the Chinese and Indian people looked at their mother countries, and not Malaya as their 'real home.' By 1957 (Malayan independence) a racist consensus was unfortunately reached by race leaders at the expense of long term national unity. It was a short-term effort to achieve independence, and by the late 1960s race was again a big issue in Malaysia. Onn Jaafar's brave effort to open up UMNO to everyone was defeated by the much respected Tunku Abdul Rahman (who is quite the Machiavellian himself, but history in Malaysia is not free, is it now?). If only he succeeded, Malaysia might well truly be a beacon for all countries, rather than just Fiji and their indigenous political parties plans to marginalise their sizeable Indian minorities like Malaysia did their sizeable Chinese minority.

All the talk of a Malaysian race by the govt makes me laugh, when the largest component parties are race based (UMNO, MCA, and the Sarawakian parties). only Gerakan and PBS of the lot are sizeable non-race BN parties and even they are viewed as Chinese and Kadazan-Dusun parties. Interestingly Gerakan are the ones that have started to show some degree of independence; indeed, it was to them that Abdul Ghani was responding too. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Keadilan (open to everyone but viewed as Malay), DAP and Gerakan got together and put up a united front. After all May 13 1969 saw Gerakan on the other side of the political fence; perhaps it could occur again. In 1990(?) Semangat 46, DAP, and PBS plus other opposition parties stood united and won half the national vote but BN still got a two-thirds majority (something wrong with the allocation of electoral boundaries...?)

Careful this poisonous bile. The constant statements that meritocracy will kill the poor rural Malay is just that. 35 years of affirmative action and they are still marginalised because the rich Malays continue to prosper at their expense; and then use them as an excuse to justify continuing their unislamic rent-seeking behaviour of race based economic preferencing (go on, ask PAS if they agree favouring one race over another is Islamic).

Sometimes I just hate Malaysia. What a racist nation it can be.

2006-11-06T23:04:00.000+10:00

Arsenal - The Worst of All EPL Sore Losers?

Now, in recent years, Chelsea and Arsenal have gone through seasons where they rarely lose, and a bit earlier MU. All 3 have shown a certain lack of class when they have occasionally lost (though not always). Now, those might be wondering why I fail to attack Liverpool-nothing to do with bias; we simply lose too many matches to suddenly be surprised at defeat (except against Bolton; Benitez always feels we get robbed against them....). Just not good enough-there's a consistent big 3, not a cosistent big 4. We only sometimes make it a big 4, sometimes not.

Keano-led MU were probably they quickest to get over things and somewhat admit their shortcomings, and indeed their rage subsides very quickly. These days they are a very good example of a top team that plays and loses (when they bother losing, the bastards) with class. Chelsea have been worse, but they do put their hand up occasionally, like how Mourinho did yesterday.

But the Wenger-led Arsenal are shameless. It's always someone elses fault. Rooney dived (nevermind that they lost by 2 goals and have dived plenty themselves), Barcelona were lucky the referee was biased (good one Thierry!!!), Everton, Boro and Villa just don't want to play football (well, draws but as good as losses). Nevermind finishing that would make Ade Akinbiyi blush...Yesterday they raged about the West Ham defeat after the final whistle. Were they unlucky? Yes. Were they denied a clear penalty? Yes. Should they be angry? Yes. Happens to every team; do they all pout, weep and cry? No. Everton (against Fulham) 24 hours earlier were probably even unluckier. But they walked off the pitch heads held up high.

Arsenal just walk off looking like arses...

2006-11-05T21:10:00.000+10:00

Liverpool v Reading - Things Looking Up?

All seems to be fine and dandy now-4 straight wins, minimal rotation, and Kuyt starting to score consistently with Gerrard getting his first. Obviously it'll mean nothing if our away form continues to be poor but things seem to be coming together-thanks to Benitez coming to his senses and getting back to basics. Long may it continue!!

2006-11-01T15:53:00.000+10:00

Barcelona v Chelsea - A Disgrace of a Game

Anyone not a Barca or Chelsea fan (and probably them too) must have been embarrassed at what transpired as an excuse for a football match early this morning. What a disgrace watching multi-millionaires cheating, diving, and whingeing at every given opportunity. As early as the 3rd minute we have Cashley Cole diving, and near the end I thought Terry should have been applauded for kicking the ball at Deco rather than been booked after his 'fall' from a Ballack 'tackle'.

Fantastic players and all we witnessed was petulant behaviour-what a joke!!! I'm sure the ref will be blamed by all and sundry (the coaches already have) but what can he do when everyone around him have no intentions of playing fair? Messi already made clear of that when he said players will do everything to win, and it's up to refs to police that. The real culprits are Rijkaard and Mourinho - and both teams should be kicked out of the competition just for being jackasses. if that's football, god help us all.

Mind you, 4 great goals when both sides bothered to play football, and I thought a very fair result at the end of the day. The only postive from this is that surely Barca v Werder Bremen will be a clasisc encounter between 2 sides that can play wonderful football. I hope it doesn't end up like this disgraceful match though.

2006-11-01T15:43:00.000+10:00

Liverpool v Bordeaux - Cometh the Hour, Cometh the Man?

No, not Gerrard, but the Fat Spanish Waiter. Finally, an unchanged squad!!! He might say he is not changing his philosophy, and some of his blind supporters will say his critics are not real fans, but surely his actions speak louder than his words now.

Actually, he played close to his best squad against MU though not playing Crouch when utilising just one striker was puzzling, and the players must take their share of the blame for that pathetic performance. The change since should not be overstated-3 straight wins at home to Reading in the League Cup, a Villan side that has looked like losing for 2 or 3 matches now, and a Bordeaux outfit struggling in their league and yet to score in the CL. Plus, we almost always win at home anyway. The issue is our away form, and whether that has been addressed remains to be seen.

Still, three straight wins and a Gerrard goal does at the very least engender confidence, which is perhaps all that we have been lacking, if you are an optimist. It does seem like the season might finally get off the ground now though-hopefully it's not a false dawn. Congratulations to Benitez for doing what's right-rotating can come back (tinkering at the edges only please!!) when the team is flying again. Then again, what odds that he makes 5 changes for the league match on the weekend?

2006-10-31T22:04:00.000+10:00

Ripping off Students?

I've just finished marking my post-graduate Macroeconomics for Managers course assignments. It can be a trying experience at times, when you come up with a paper with rubbish English, or one with incoherent arguments, or worse, both!! But it can also be a real pleasure when you see a great effort or a huge improvement from a student who was initially struggling.

It is a class almost UN in character, and I get very interesting questions, so I posed an open ended assignment question for them to search and wander in the dark. These are people with undergraduate degrees; they are not wet behind the ears when it comes to assignments and the like. But some of them are clearly way off the pace, and is that their fault or those who accepted their applications?

I always took the view that universities can be under too much pressure to raise revenues due to governmental budget cuts and thus accept students who might ultimately struggle but still pay the fees. I'm glad to report to myself that at least as far as my university is concerned I am fairly certain that is not the case (after 1 year lecturing experience). Most have shown great aptitude to learn a subject quite alien to them, and showed that their analytical skills (hopefully sharpened during their first degree) is well formed. Some struggle somewhat due to their level of English competency, and here I feel my university can take a second look at English proficiency entry requirements. It is painful to see a bright student not get the marks they deserve because they don't quite fully understand the question or express themselves well enough. If their answer is somewhat obscure, what can I do? It's not my job to simplify the English in the course just for them. I already try hard to use simpler terms, but if they cannot even understand the word 'endeavour' perhaps they should have spent a bit more time studying English before being allowed to do such a course.

A few are meandering along, and should do better. Perhaps they need time to adjust to the Australian system, or perhaps they need to try harder. I don't know, but to be fair one semester is not enough to make judgements. They seem quite bright too, but maybe their expectations of what they need to do at this level is too low. One or two look like failing, not because the university has taken them in when they should not have, but because they are just not trying. Father's $$$ I assume.

So, no I don't think students are being ripped off, in terms of being taken into courses they cannot do for the sake of university income, and that I am pleased to find out for myself. Whether fees are too high is another matter entirely, and again hardly the fault of the universities-Little Johnny and his short-sighted views can take the blame for that!

2006-10-29T21:10:00.000+10:00

Daylight Savings - Democracy v Elitism?

So the daylight savings debate begins again in Queensland and WA. Once again it's the urban south v the countryside. I for one have been very disturbed by the nature of this current debate.

What worries me is the spin that the supporters (Perth and Brisbane majority) has put on this debate-basically by calling their opponents dumb country hicks. The usual arguments come up; that these people are scared their curtains will fade, that they fear their cows will get confused etc...Their perceived superior intelligentsia only comes up as arrogant, and rightly so. More worrying is in WA, where 3 referenda in 31 years has seen daylight savings defeated, so now the vote will go to parliament on a 3 year trial. Yes, the country hicks don't want it, so let's ignore them and get on with it anyway. In Queensland it was defeated once, so perhaps another referendum is overdue.

The argument put forward in Queensland in favour of daylight savings is simple; it'll allow for better trade with the business centres of Sydney and Melbourne, and that Brisbanites can enjoy the twilight better. Both are debatable and easily refutable IMO. First, different time zones have not managed to halt the march of globalisation. The world has not adopted the same time zone as NY city. Second, Queensland has yet to declare bankruptcy upon the dearth of business dealings due to daylight savings in the southern states for half the year. WA (3 hours behind half the year) is yet to turn into a banana republic. Also, the twilight in Brisbane is a myth-what twilight? It's also too hot and humid most of the time for us to enjoy it. We'll stay indoors an hour longer and use more electricity.

Of course, a simple solution can be found, in that the Greater Perth region and SE Queensland can adopt it without forcing the other regions to go along. British Columbia in Canada has it, and that province has yet to turn into a banana republic either. But to do so would destroy one of the arguments of the 'inteligentsia,' that of possible trade dislocation. Now Cairns and Townsville will suffer as Brisbane moves its clock forward an hour, and after all shouldn't Brisbane be beholden to the rest of the state as the capital city rather than to Sydney and Melbourne as trading centres?

It's the arrogance of the city that causes country folk to back extremists like Hanson and Katter. We need to learn to treat them with respect. Also, I don't want to watch my English football an hour later!! I'm too old to handle that these days...

2006-10-29T11:25:00.000+10:00

The Mahathir Badawi Stoush

Ah, the sun is shining again!!! Precious few things in life make me happier than watching BN politicians throwing handbags at 20 paces. What makes me even happier is watching Mahathir finally getting his just desserts.

Everytime he opens his mouth, Mahathir further shows his hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy. Badawi does not preside over a police state; in fact he has somewhat dismantled Mahathir's police state. Mahathir also made clear he chose Badawi over Najib because he thought he could be his yes-man, yet accuses Badawi to be surrounded by yes-men.

The fact of the matter is Badawi won a huge mandate from the public at the last general election, whether or not Mahathir or I like it. He is hugely popular and shrewd. He knew full well why he was appointed PM; because he had no strong power base within UMNO unlike Najib and could be manipulated by the great dictator. I think he surprised everyone by going to the people to get their support and by doing so, became the most powerful man in Malaysia very quickly. He has only tinkered around the edges-only given limited concessions to democracy but so starved are the people of freedom that they lap him up as a messiah. He is no great democrat (though I agree he could well be given more time), but a pragmatist. He wants to remain in power, and did what he had to do in order to remain at the helm. If that means giving concessions to the people, so be it. Do you really think it is from the goodness of his heart?

Nonetheless, we would be foolish to dismiss Mahathir's accusations as a ramblings of an old coot. The man is well acquainted with the inner going-ons of the government. His repeated accusations about the power of Badawi's son-in-law and son should not go unchecked. As well, the whole AP scandal is still shrouded in mystery; there is enough smoke to suggest open burning somewhere at MITI, and Badawi did not sack Rafidah. Why? Suspending UMNO's elections till the next general election-dictatorship!!! Who does he think he is to do such a thing?

Also, let's not forget Badawi's statement rebuttal about his son's company getting government contracts was that Mahathir's sons also get government contracts!!! That's not a sign of democratic but nepotistic behaviour. Best not appear to be corrupt in democratic societies, methinks, and if that means telling your kids to go fend for themselves, then so be it. But Malaysians in general are so used to these political family hand-outs that they consider it perfectly acceptable.

Also, Badawi's consensus making plan at the top is hardly conducive to producing long term changes in the structure of power at the top. It's one thing to reform the judiciary and police (and well done to him) but he shies away from confronting the dirty truths of Malaysian politics. Whether because he thinks he lacks the power or because he is part of the problem is debatable. For example, he won't touch the 30% bumiputera quota when it is patently not working because too many bumiputera politicians have made their fortunes over it and will easily pander to the disaffected bumiputeras should it be altered in any way, shape or form, so the rich bumiputeras will continue to make their fortune while the fishermen and farmers in rural areas continue to live like dogs.

His inability or unwillingness to tackle extremist Islam worries me too. He basically allowed them to force the NGOs on inter-faith dialogues to abandon their fora. This is a disgrace, and we increasingly witness Malaysia falling into the hands of the extreme Islamist who seem to consider non-believers as second class citizens. He needs to stand up to them and show another face of Islam-it's not enough to just talk about it; action is essential. Not addressing the issue out of political considerations might be understandable in order to maintain his power but the cost of destroying the fabric of Malaysian society is greater. Whenever the going gets tough with these core political issues, I'm afraid he tends to back down. With all the support he has, he should fear no one.

I really wonder what to make of him but with Mahathir, it's good to see all that I have said in the past come true and many Malaysians can now see it for themselves. Good to see his dignity destroyed, and his legacy diminished. The man was no good-he was a dictator who set Malaysian democracy back 20 years. He destroyed the judiciary, curtailed press freedom, and created political fear and persecution and oversaw a rise in corruption. Long may he continue to make a fool of himself. Perhaps there is a God after all?

2006-10-29T11:18:00.000+10:00

Liverpool V Aston Villa

Well, a rousing 3-1 victory by all accounts. Wasn't shown on Foxtel so I'll have to rely on Soccernet and Football365's report. Good to see Benitez dump the rotation system for now (I hope). Unfortunately we again conceded which is very worrying. However, I wonder how much can be read into this victory given that our home form is not the worry. Ours is currently a Jeckyll and Hyde outfit; brilliant at home, pathetic away.

I think nothing can be read into this result. Just as the gloom descended a few days ago, the rainbow is apparently out today. What a fickle world we live in. Those who think Benitez has answered his critics are crazy, because part of the reason for the good victory had to be due to the stinging criticism of the past few days. The critics played their part in this improved performance and plus our usual good home form, Benitez hasn't answered anyone just as yet.

2006-10-28T14:59:00.000+10:00

The Calls for Benitez's Head

Well, the call for the 'fat Spanish waiter's head' have begun. A bit earlier than I expected, but a sign of grave disappointment among fans, after the Houllier era false dawn. Is it too early, or about time he goes?

The problem with replacing coaches is that we'll never know how they would have done had they stayed on. It becomes a moot point. Replacing a coach almost always brings about immediate improved results, but is certainly not always sustainable as the core issues are hard to deal with in the short and medium term. Liverpool is a place where coaches are given time, and Benitez is lucky in that regard.

It is said that Red Nose Ferguson (Sir my f*cking foot...) was only a match away from getting the sack after a few years of only achieving cup successes, but he managed to hold on and look at the scum now-a wonderful team still, overshadowed only by Abramovich's $$$ and Mourinho's brilliance.

Houllier was replaced after 6 years, where cup successes were aplenty. I certainly called for his head early, after a shocking match against Sheffield United in the League Cup finally saw me throw a tantrum, hitting my sofa at about 6am a few years back. I was immediately attacked by those 'true fans' who would also have been the first to volunteer for the SS had they been of age in Germany in 1933. But ultimately go he did, after he was given more than enough time. The fact is, the days of immediate success these days breed shorter time-frames to get things right. Had red nose taken over MU in 1996 rather than 1986 when football was different he would almost certainly have been sacked after not winning the league after 5 years. Houllier got 6.

These days not winning titles or qualifying for the CL leads to huge financial losses and coaches are now CEOs. Fail to produce the stated goal and the shareholders vote you out, irrespective of the reasons why the goals were unachievable. It doesn't matter if it was due to matters outside the coaches control. This Benitez must quickly understand. He cannot just be a coach, but a publicist as well. He needs to persuade/con/lie to/explain why he should be given time. He needs to win the media and propaganda war to be allowed to get more time to work his magic/witchcraft. Parry already showed he is patient but even he pulled the plug on Houllier. Will he be as patient this time around?

Personally I think he should be free of pressure till season's end, and then we need to review the situation. The league is gone, but if indeed the team he's building now shows it can win next season by the end of this season he must be applauded for standing his ground. I think he's not the right guy to get us there, but must be given every reasonable chance to show what he is made of. Will he get that chance?

2006-10-23T13:49:00.000+10:00

Liverpool v MU

Pathetic is the only word I can come up with to describe the team's performance yesterday. Well, embarrassing is another word. This is just not acceptable.

A loss at Old Trafford is one thing; a loss with a performance that was less than 100% commitment (or so it seemed at times) is quite another. I have no doubt that playing for Liverpool is an honour, as it it to play for MU, or Real Madrid or Boca Juniors and clubs of that ilk. Yet the (seemingly) less than 100% effort requires all eyes to be gazed to the man described by Bolton fans as 'a fat Spanish waiter.'

To be fair, it is not his fault that both Alonso and Gerrard are off colour at the moment, just as it is not his fault that Gerrard was not 100% fit yesterday. Any team will suffer when their 2 most influential players are not going great guns, even Chelsea. It is however, all his fault and no one else that the team are travelling as poorly as they are at the moment.

In his first season, when we finished 5th, 37 points behind Chelsea, the many pathetic away performances could be laid at the door of Houllier purchased players that he did not fancy. Last season the pathetic performances diminished greatly to the extent we only finished a point behind MU (though the 9 point gap with Chelsea flatters us given they slowed down once they wrapped up the league). Now with his own stable of players the pathetic performances are back. He says this is one of the most disspointing days of his time at Liverpool, but it is mainly his own doing.

In 2 seasons out of three he has been in charge we have performed very poorly away from home - that's his responsibility. I have previously criticised his rotation policy (especially of key players) and he has to his credit stopped resting Alonso and Gerrard though the latter still finds himself playing in his less preferred positions. But has the horse already bolted?

Playing with 1 striker who is not a target man (to hold up the ball for willing runners like Gerrard, Gonzalez and Garcia) is tantamount to sabotage IMO. Surely Crouch is the best suited player for that role, not Kuyt who needs to calm down and learn to settle into games. I assume Gonzalez picked up a knock, otherwise I question the decision to take him off for Pennant when he looked the most likely source to worry MU despite shooting like an American Marine in Fallujah.

It would be foolish to call for Benitez's head. Obviously the man is a very good coach and his record speaks for itself. These great coaches are both stubborn and confident, and he certainly is, but his recent vociferous defense of his rotation policy's success at Valencia smells to me as an act of a desperate man. Perhaps he needs to consider that it does not work as well for him in England. I certainly don't pretend to know if a more settled lineup will work better but surely it is worth a try? In his 2 previous seasons Liverpool have finished strongly and won 2 cup competitions so the policy tends to keep players fresh at the tail-end of seasons, but each time, as far as the league is concerned, we start from too far back to challenge for the title. Even red-nose acknowledges as much and now understands the need for MU to keep up the pace early in the season as even he has seen their usual post-Xmas points rush come up short against Chelsea's consistency.

We want to win the league Rafa!!! The CL is great, the FA Cup is nice, even the League Cup is a positive chance at glory but it's the bread and butter that counts for the average fan, be they in Liverpool or Timbuktu. Right now, you have a mighty job on your hands, and I'm not convinced you know what you're doing just at this juncture of the season. I don't think a points rush from March to May will get us back to the top 3. I hope there's no outsider pushing hard or even 4th spot might well be a long hard slog this time around.

2006-10-17T17:55:00.000+10:00

The Australian Nuclear Energy Debate - 50 Years Too Late?

Well, no surprises that Little Johnny throws his weight behind nuclear energy. He states the need to consider it in the wake of high oil prices and as a non-polluting energy source. Nevermind the former, but he has never given a hoot about the environment. He justs wants to go nuclear to boost the uranium industry (selling to India too, the non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and split the environmental lobby, just like he did the Republican movement. He simply wants to control the agenda so Australia will do as his donors wish.

Having said that, some environmentalists are also talking about re-engaging constructively in the nuclear debate as a non-polluting energy source while renewable energy becomes better and cheaper, and this has led to quite a split within the movement. Social and environmentally progressive nations like Finland use nuclear energy; why shouldn't an energy inefficient nation like Australia do so?

I have 2 issues with going down the nuclear path. One is that despite being non-polluting, we don't know how to dispose of nuclear wastes properly. Not yet anyway. If we can in the future then that is another matter altogether.

Second, the argument for using nuclear energy in the interim worries me because of the prohibitive sunk and fixed costs in creating a nuclear power plant. No government in their right mind will withdraw their plant after 3 years of operations once alternative renewable energy becomes viable after spending hundreds of millions, if not more on nuclear power. As well, the time, energy and money spent on nuclear energy will only take away from investments in alternative renewable energy, and that will ensure nuclear energy continues in the long term at the detriment of renewable energy.

As well, there is something to be said that the international nuclear lobby wants Australia to go down this path as the Aussie desert is a good spot to store nuclear waste. I don't know how accurate that is but I wouldn't discount it.

At the end of the day we do need a healthy debate about nuclear energy. I believe that in a free and fair debate the nuclear lobby will lose, but I have no doubt it will be manipulated by the powers that be in order to ensure debate is stifled and twisted in their favour. By the same token, those opposed to nuclear energy shouldn't try to silence those looking for a debate. Don't act like the nuclear lobby-win the argument at the grassroots and then take on the lobby as a powerful unified movement from below.

2006-10-16T16:03:00.000+10:00

Liverpool v Blackburn

Damn!!! Yet more points dropped. I can hardly blame Benitez though as he played close to my idea of the best 11 given injuries. We're still shaky at the back and also, not to make excuses, but sometimes things aren't falling our way.

Still with Gerrard back to the centre this was a match that had to be won, but he was rather quiet, and with Pennant still under-performing and Aurelio yet to truly convince Balckburn only really came under the kosh in the second half. Replacing Pennant with Garcia was expected but I was surprised Aurelio did not come off late on for Gonzalez as an attacking switch but perhaps given how well Blackburn played Benitez was a bit worried about losing all 3 points from a counter-attack. Also at that time, he had switched Risse (our best player I thought)to left midfield with Aurelio moving back. Still, would have been good to have gone for it-who cares about dropping a point when we try to win it at home against a team that should not unduly worry us in the table after 38 rounds? Surely keeping in touch with the other teams at the top requires going for it rather than playing things to safe.

Would also have been good if Fowler was on the bench-he still knows where the back of the net is. Overall, the 2nd half was very good, but we need to perform well over 90 minutes. Next week its Old Trafford and I'm not to optimistic, though surely things have to come together sooner rather than later?

2006-10-13T12:04:00.000+10:00

The French Parliament and the Armenian Genocide: A Stand for Human Rights or Political Opportunism?

The vexed issue of the massacre of the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman empire is not in question and most Turks readily acknowledge that a terrible misdeed did occur way back in 1915, when the Christian Orthodox Armenians were driven out of Ottoman Turkey, supposedly for sympathising with Tsarist Russia, then an immediate opponent during the First World War. Whether or not it should constitute a genocide is another matter altogether.

The mainstream argument runs that a policy to exterminate a race or people constitutes genocide. Hence Hitler's Final Solution and the massacre of Tutsi's in Rwanda. Turkey argues that no genocide took place as there was no official policy to exterminate the Armenians-it was basically a communal conflict. Armenia argues otherwise. Turkey views this matter very strongly indeed and has long and vigorously made plain its hurt and displeasure whenever the Armenian massacre is referred to as a genocide. The story on both sides run long and hard, and I did take quite an interest in the matter almost 10 years ago, reading material and watching documentaries on it. Since then I have continued to view the matter with interest whenever it pops up, as it does every now and again. My personal opinion is it was a genocide, but that is not the point of this piece. The point of this piece is to ask whether political opportunism or political necessity has hijacked the truth (as perceived by either party).

As previously noted, Turkey stands strongly against the genocide claim, to the extent that Orhan Pamuk, the recently announced 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature winner was charged with 'betraying Turkishness' (I fail to recall the exact phrase, so it might not be 100% accurate) for daring to call it a genocide. Nothing ever came of it, probably because of European Union pressure as Turkey strives to enter the EU. Neither the USA nor Israel accept the Armenian position, and I argue that this is due to political necessity and/or opportunism. The USA needs a firm Muslim ally and this it has in Turkey (though weakened in the last decade). As such, it has happily foregone human rights in publicly failing to acknowledge the genocide. It needs Turkey as an ally, and to hell with the victims of this terrible crime. Even Israel has said no genocide occurred, but Turkey is one of their closest military allies and is the only Muslim country that it can trust. So the nation built on the back of the Jewish genocide happily ignores the Armenian one, for its own expediency. For this we should not be too surprised as Israel also happily did business with Apartheid South Africa (including co-operating on weapons proliferation)and tightened its relationship with India during the rule of the Hindu fundamentalist (some would say fascist leaning) BJP party.

But is France claiming the moral high ground here? I hope so, but I think that is too optimistic a belief. In the first place, the majority of French (and Europeans as well it must be said) are opposed to Muslim Turkey entering the EU, and believe the EU should remain 'Christian,'at least in its cultural values. Angering Turkey greatly (as has certainly happened)is a perfect opportunity to either make Turkey feel even more unwelcome and re-consider its membership drive or to force Turkey to 'come to the table' and accept abandoning even their core beliefs in order to be accepted as a member of the EU. Could this be political opportunism from the French Socialists who introduced the bill in parliament, to garner votes ahead of the next presidential election?

But it could be less sinister than that. France has a sizeable Armenian minority(the brilliant attacking midfielder and 1998 World Cup winning player Youri Djorkaeff the most famous one of the lot), and votes from them in a tight election could tip the balance in favour of the Socialist Party. However, keep in mind that at the end of the day, this bill must also pass the senate and get presidential approval, so it might never become official anyway.

Those claiming the moral high ground out of political opportunism are no better than those denying the genocide also out of political opportunism. Both sides lack moral authority and care only about benefitting themselves. Whether Turkey or Armenia is right is open to debate, but at least both parties make their point based on their fundamental beliefs about the issue, rather than over political expediency. Hopefully the world can draw its own conclusion on this matter based on the truth, and not military, economic or political considerations. Those massacred 91 years ago demand and deserve their justice.

2006-10-12T10:58:00.000+10:00

The Hypocrisy of the Nuclear Club

Watching Sky News on the telly yesterday and I saw Tony Blair and Manmohan Singh together. Leaders of 2 nuclear powers. I'm told on the news that Tony Blair says India is not like North Korea and also that Australia is now considering following the Americans footsteps in selling uranium to India. The same India that secretly built up a nuclear weapons programme; the same India that is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPF)!!!

It's a crazy world we live in. The US and Australia will sell uranium to a nation that not only has a nuclear weapons programme, but one that has not signed up to a treaty that says we will take steps to non-proliferate, maybe even disarm altogether. But should we be surprised? The US is waxing lyrical about North Korea and Iran, but I hardly think a nuclear superpower with 27000 nuclear warheads should be pointing fingers, do you?

The fact is, no one questions the legitimacy of the big five (US, Russia, France, UK, China) and now the 2 up-starts (Pakistan, India) and of course we all know Israel has it too. So North Korea is number 9; why can't they have it too? Because they are evil? The other eight are saints right?

Has CNN or the BBC or even Al-Jazeera ever asked an American/British/French/[insert the rest] official why it is ok for the US/UK/France/[and so forth]to have a weapon that could destroy our planet while telling others they can't? Why is this hypocrisy, which is so blatant to anyone who takes 2 minutes to consider the issue not come up in the world media? Why is the 'free media' so cowed to even ask this question?

The fact is history has taught us the value of nuclear weapons as a powerful defensive tool, hardly as a powerful offensive tool. After the US very politely but firmly told Stalin to avert his gaze away from Iran's massive oilfields in 1945/6 or face the consequences, he ordered the acceleration of USSR's nuclear weapons programme. I can't speak for the UK or France but China's success in obtaining nuclear weapons were hardly to bomb Taiwan or Japan but to firmly tell the USA and the USSR to back off. Israel also can clearly argue that it obtained its nuclear arsenal (come on guys, everyone knows!!!) as a defensive measure so it's neighbours will think twice about attempting to destroy it. I doubt anyone in their right mind thinks Pyongyang decided to go nuclear to attack, but rather to survive. Corner a dog and watch it growl and fight. I fear policies like calling countries 'axis of evil' or making statements like 'either you're with us or against us' does the world more harm than good.

No country should have nuclear weapons, end of story, but while some do, why shouldn't the rest? Can the current nuclear powers see this, or are they just a bunch of hypocrites? Answers on a postcard please...

Post Cold War there is plenty we can do to combat the scourge of these weapons of Armageddon. A combination of 'carrots and sticks' can work-witness Libya, but when dealing with undoubted rogue regimes like North Korea it doesn't always work so perhaps lowering the rhetoric wouldn't hurt. I don't pretend to even remotely know what to do when dealing with Pyongyang, but I do know the current hardheaded policy has been a dismal failure.

We got to be credible. Everyone knows a nuclear weapon is a ticket to the ever-growing 'I'm a big boy now' club. Recall all the actions that were going to be taken against India and Pakistan? Now everyone is trying to woo them, and guess what, we'll sell them uranium too. The fact is, most nations can now safely conclude that getting nuclear weapons will guarantee their security.

The NNPF needs to be stronger. The hypocrites need to be shamed. Sure they will argue 'but we are civilised, we'll never use nuclear weapons except as a last resort.' Bull sh*t!! They just want to maintain their power. The UK, France and India clearly got nuclear weapons to flex their muscles-there were hardly on the brink of an immediate Armageddon type threat when they got theirs (the US nuclear weapons were a sufficient deterrent to the USSR to attack Europe surely). Let us not forget, in their self-interest, how close we came to the end with the Cuban missile crisis. Let us not forget how these nations have not seriously reduced their nuclear arsenal. I mean what does the US need with 27000 nuclear warheads? Let us also not forget that the US has used it before, twice. Sure it can be argued that they had to, but lots of people beg to differ, myself included. The fact is, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not the last resort, but it was decided that it was the quickest way to end the war while minimising American casualties. So, it is a military option, not a 'last resort' option only.

We live in a so called democratic world where the big 5 do as they please on the Security Council and undermined the original UN charter. Talk of democracy is cheap when the US and the UK won't even consider abandoning the veto power (nevermind the other three hardheads). Until we have true freedom, we are consigned to these petty political games, full of hypocrisy and we can only watch on by as we lurch from one crisis to another.

Until we, the world community get our act together, these bullies will continue trying to get their way, and CNN or the BBC will not even raise an eyebrow in question. If we are really serious about North Korea and Iran, perhaps we better start at our own doorsteps first.

2006-10-11T22:47:00.000+10:00

Australia v Bahrain

Had to lecture so missed a chunk of it but overall, there's very little to learn. Bahrains largely U23 side did what everyone expected and 2-0 or 20-0, it doesn't matter. Might have been good to see the team more deadly, but a win's a win. Craig Foster tried to say a few things but was struggling really since there was precious little pressure on the side.

2006-10-09T21:18:00.000+10:00

North Korea's nuclear test-Beijing's loss?

So they've done it-probably a failure of American misguided policy of containment but what now? IMO, this is a clear example of deterrence-Pyongyang has no expansionist agenda, but a survivalist one. The American hardline policy has been a dismal failure, though one must be clear not to condemn them when they have to deal with a brutal dictatorship with no regard for the welfare of its citizens. One does not get anywhere by being too soft with a brutal dictatorship (Munich anyone?)but burning bridges too easily hardly solves matters either. But is China the big loser in all this?

If Pyongyang has no expansionist agenda, then Beijing has dismally failed to persuade the Stalinists that they will guarantee their security. Partly this is due to a warming economic relationship between China and the US, partly because China is getting sick and tired of North Korea's brinkmanship and penchant for playing with fire. When China made it clear that it might not be so 'protective' of Pyongyang should it continue thumbing its nose at the world community, Beijing must have thought that that was enough of a message for Kim Jong-Il to pull his head in; instead it probably drove him to decide that not even China can be relied upon anymore.

At the end of the day, it is China that looks amateurish, and this it will not take lightly. China is nothing if not consistent and credible and Pyongyang may well have miscalculated should Beijing now actively agitate (sureptitiously naturally) for the removal of the regime. But will a North Korean collapse now lead to re-unification? Surely not without China's okay as there is no way Beijing will allow an American controlled Seoul government to possess a nuclear warhead at its border. What then? Persuade Seoul to give up the atomic bomb upon re-unification or rather annex the northern portion of Korea? This would not be unprecedented and Korea has experienced the imperialist tendencies of China and Japan. Annexing North Korea may well prove to be not a huge surprise, though still somewhat unlikely and far-off.

Should Japan and South Korea obtain nuclear weapons then China's loss would be even greater as it loses its military pre-eminence in the region, and should Taiwan then manage to get an ally with either country (highly unlikely given trade with Beijing) then China's political and military clout weakens even further. And what if Taipei gets a nuclear warhead of its own? Surely the lesson from Pakistan, India and now North Korea suggests that it is a great deterrence.

I wonder whether we should be talking about Korea and Japan here, as most people are. Surely it is all about China's loss? I for one will watch developments with great anticipation, for I doubt Beijing will take this slap in the face very lightly indeed....

2006-10-08T12:12:00.000+10:00

Australia v Paraguay 7 Oct 06

Another match showing the limitations of the national team. For far too long the bandwagon has rolled along, making the uninitiated think the Soccerroos are the best side in the universe. We struggle to break down massed defences, as shown in the Kuwaiti match as well. Perhaps Graham Arnold isn't good enough, as some suggest, but I think he is quite adequate for the job right now leading to the Asian Cup. The squad simply isn't as good as made out. A genius took us into the last 16 of the World Cup and Grosso's antics notwithstanding, could have gone even further.

But it's time to get over it. Junior world cup results lately indicate the pool of talent is a little bit drier today. The lack of a junior and/or reserve league in Australia has negative long term implications. We have quality midfielders but need to quickly find yound defenders and strikers who can step up-Patrick Kisnorbo in particular needs a call up. Let's see what he can do.

2006-10-08T11:50:00.000+10:00

Benitez's Rotation Policy

Benitez just does not get it!!! Continuously chopping and changing a squad that's supposed to be challenging for the title shows just how he fails to understand the English mentality when it comes to football.

Squad rotation is necessary these days, especially for the so-called 'big' teams, but must be used with caution. Both AC Milan and Chelsea have rotated well in the last few years mainly because they do not always rest their key players, especially their central defenders and midfielders. Under Ranieri, Chelsea chopped and changed like Benitez on Prozac and suffered accordingly. Ditto Ferguson the last few years.

There's rarely an easy game in the premiership either-small sides want to beat liverpool; it's a major game for them so FFS, keep your spine steady, and stop playing Gerrard everywhere. Versatility is one thing, but what about continuity?

1. Decide on your tactics-keep to 2 major ones and stick to them.
2. Settle on your central defensive combination and stop rotating Hyppia and Agger.
3. Decide once and for all about Sissoko, Alonso and Gerrard in a 4 man midfield. At least have Gerrard playing in 2 positions, centre or ONE OF left or right. Having him play 3 is killing the poor bastard. It's hard to mentally prepare.
4. Mix and match the attack based on the midfield. If we play 5 then a target man will do, if we stick with 4 and have quick wingers then drop bellamy and have him coming on as a quick, 100% effort impact player. If we have a fairly static midfield, start Bellamy with one of the other 3.
5. Decide what you want out of Luis Garcia-like Gerrard his versatility is like a noose around his neck.

Start prioritising the league, not the cups!!! 16 years is long enough. Stop blaming referees and attacking Bolton's tactics. Take a good look at yourself first. A great coach no doubt, but a re-think in approach is in order.

2006-08-26T16:52:00.001+10:00

The Problems Afflicting Malaysian Football.

So much too say, where to start?

Everyday we hear negative tales of Malaysian football-from the press, the pundits and the average joe on the street. Now I want to have a go.

I'll begin by dividing the issues as follows:

(a)Administration
(b)Finance
(c)Grassroots
(d)League

Rarely are these issues mutually exclusive of the other so let's have a go:

First, it's great to read today that the deputy president is going to quit FAM. It is about time that the entire council quit en masse. I've had enough of people saying that he cares greatly about the game. I'm sure he does but for all practical purposes he has been the de facto president and has overseen perhaps Malaysia's lowest ebb in football. He must go, and thankfully he has.

Malaysian football went semi-pro in 1989 and fully pro a few years ago. The first few years were an unqualified success. Local football grew in popularity, more $$$ flooded in and stadiums saw thousands stream through the gates. However, 2 matters soon came to a head to dent the popularity of the local game. First, match fixing destroyed any credibility in the game, and the suspension of over 50 players destroyed the backbone of the national team, of which we have still to recover. Second, the beaming of live matches from England, Spain and Italy compounded this problem as people choose to watch higher quality matches. Indeed, Peter Velappan has noted this to be an issue within the leagues in the AFC. Other reasons for the decline has been due to the expulsion of Singapore, constant mismanagement of the league structure, incompetent administartion and the ending of tobacco sponsorship.

Administratively, Malaysian sports have been historically run in a manner parallel to the feudalistic system of governance Malaysia has long followed. Presidents tend to be sultans or politicians, and a series of kow-towing vassals nod and agree with everything they say. There is precious little accountability, and leadership stability (especially with politicians) depends greatly on the power of the said politician. There is no inherent professional set-up in a so-called professional league. This is not to say that such a system cannot work under an effective 'strong-man' leadership. Elyas Omar showed that with KL in the league and BAM winning the Thomas Cup in 1992. To extend the analogy to an extreme, Malaysia did rather well with Mahathir in the helm for 20 odd years. Yet, the BAM is now a running joke as there's usually a vacuum once a strong man departs. The administrative institutions of Malaysian sports are fundamentally weak, are are generally incapable of handling the exit of effective leaders. In terms of the FAM, I feel the departure of the effective Paul Mony led to a decline in the administrative quality of the association.

We should look at squash as a good example of effective sports-management. Politicians are kept at an arms length and the administration of it is second to none. However, I'm not here to bash politicians. My overwhelming desire is to see improvements in the local game and if I thought the feudalistic system is the way to go, I'd say so. But it is clearly not working, not because the concept itself is wrong per se, but because it is not effective. The administration of football is fundamental to the development of the game itself in Malaysia, certainy as far as the local league is concerned. Having said this, banana republic-like administration in South America and Africa has hardly dented development of football there, but I counter by asking just how much better would they be with effective administration?

First, accountability is a must. The leadership group of a state association and the FAM must be directly electable and be able to give 100% to the job. Perhaps there is still a place for a ceremonial presidential role, but it is the 'CEO' post (so to speak) that is crucial. This person cannot possibly be a politician, because the job requires undivided attention. All politicians (even those who care about the game, and face it, I'm sure those involved are fans) must do right for the game and withdraw because depsite good attentions (like plowing their own money without any reward) they are an obstacle to good adminstration of football. When they lose out on the political front, their power ebbs away and a new politician takes over and we start anew again. Where the royal houses are involved, the situation is even worse, because no one dares raise their voice. Here, we have stability, but mediocre stability. Royalty in adminstrative roles must also make themselves accountable, and not expect their vassals to say so, as this they will never dare do. It's not enough to make these posts electable, because they'll be voted in everytime by the said vassals. There must be genuine choice, and so perhaps, if vassals aren't capable of asking for change, the royalty must do so themselves, in the interest of the game.

We cannot blame those at the top for all this because they are surrounded by yes-men who are more concerned with their power-little Napoleons, if you wish. However, those at the top must see above all this, must realise that the replies to their queries are at times, insincere. They cannot continue like this because football fans are well aware that they are like the emperor with no clothes-this isn't pointed out because unlike the innocent juvenile who points out the blatantly obvious, we, the fans, are not innocent by-standers in all of this. We have allowed this matter to fester for far too long, and now sit impotent, and are fearful to attack the fundamental issues afflicting local football. We attack the periphery issues (unprofessional player behaviour for example) and not the root cause of the problem. I sincerely doubt, given our historical perspective and sense of deferrence to authority that there will be a 'mass-uprising' of football fans overthrowing the FAM and hanging office-earers from the nearest coconut tree, so we need some 'self-enlightening' leadership to take care of this themselves, with some external pressure.

This external pressure is the federal government. Already, to a certain extent, we have seen this occur. We can learn a lot from Australia in this regard. Years of mismanagement and self-interest in the leadership of Soccer Australia had destroyed the domestic game, much like Malaysia, if not worse. Given that governmental funding is an important source of revenue to the game (as in Malaysia), the government initiated the Crawford Review which found the blatantly obvious. Their recommendations were clear and unambiguous, and made the then administration of Soccer Australia untenable. However, FIFA does not allow for government's to meddle with their FAs so the government merely threatened to withold funding if the recommendations were not carried out. The footballing people of Australia took note of this and overthrew the dictators and a few years later, you yourself can see what has happened to Australian soccer. We must have the same review, but then it is up to us, the football fraternity, to topple the leadership, as in Australia. An objective government review will surely give us all the ammunition we need-we merely need to pull the trigger, but will we have the guts to do so?

Doing nothing is not an option. For as long as we hear of bankrupt FAs, unpaid player salaries, foreign players living on sardines after being lied to, and Kelly Tham taking SAFAs assets, football will never get anywhere.

Finance is an issue of course, but perhaps not in the manner most people think. Money-wise, international football is naturally economically inefficient. Very few clubs are run on a profit motive, unlike franchise based American sports. For example, Real Madrid is millions in debt, but the debt will never be called because they also happen to be fans. Clubs like Chelsea live off a sugar-daddy, as do most Italian clubs. When Manchester United went public and became the richest club in the world, they found that transparency, and keeping profitable kept them from purchasing some of their targets. In this sense, we mustn't expect M-League teams to be profitable. We need accountability in administration of finances, but not a profit motive. This is not an argument for throwing money away but I doubt even during the glory years of the M-League that any team at any time turned a profit. The money provided must be used better, and accountability plays a part in that. A professional administration is a must. The ending of tobacco sponsorship hit a raw nerve as was the cutting of grants to state FAs but this period also coincided with the fall in popularity of the game (match fixing and live EPL), and it doesn't necessarily follow that it caused the downturn in the game. Proper administration can help find more money and sponsorship, and re-popularise the domestic game.

The game needs a capital injection, and annually a capital top-up. In this instance I believe we can follow by NOT following the Australian example. The recently formed A-League is based on a profit motive, but already after 1 year it is pretty clear it won't happen anytime soon, if ever. Should this prove true, will the investors pull the plug and once again destroy the dream of a vibrant domestic Australian league? I suppose one argument here is politicians can find money for teams, but as previously mentioned, they are also a big problem in our game, so perhaps we need to diversify our revenue sources. Use the money well, but make sure the tap doesn't run dry!

Both a good administration and financial source is necessary for developing the grassroots. The former is clear but the latter is also necessary as most money probably finds itself in the league or national team, where results are more immediate. Just as governments throw money at education to obtain skilled adult citizens so we must do it to kids to get good adult footballers. We need proper academies, proper maintained facilities, a youth league and proper coaching structures. Before anything else, we need to invest in coaching. Send them overseas, if necessary, to get proper training and experience. The cheaper option is to get good foreign coaches in along with good local coaches (the latter are often taken for granted)to help train the next generation of coaches. The next generation of players must know what studs to wear when it rains, what to eat, how to think tactically, in short - have a professional attitude. Let's put most of our money today here and not the league. The 'get-quick-rich' scheme of the M-league will never generate the same level of 'return' as putting money away into your EPF account, so to speak. Don't ignore the league, sure, but let's not forget that the long term improvement in the league will arise out of better quality players in the future.

Finally, we have the league. Again, we need good administration and financial injections. First, we need to be clear about the ultimate goal of the league-club success, player improvement, or the national team? Of course they need not be mutually exclusive of each other, but perhaps the M-League needs a constitution, just like a nation. Let's not keep making rules on the run, let's set them in stone. Stability and credibility is a must. I think two things need to happen in the short-run to make the league workable (above and beyond good administration and finance).

First, we need to take a backward step - we need to go semi-professional in terms of players (and certainly not administration). This is as salaries are not high enough for those with other options, and so we are facing a smaller pool of potential players than otherwise would be the case. I hazard a guess that the fall in the number of ethnic Chinese players in the league is caused by the lack of money players earn today compared to a few years ago. As an ethnicity, it is fair to say that the Chinese are the most economically successful and have more options in terms of employing their time monetarily. In the amateur era, the top players were akin the 'amateurs' of the Eastern Bloc communist states; officially they had other jobs, but the reality was during the season, they had enough 'leave' to be almost professional (though they had to work in their normal jobs off-season). To widen our pool of players, we probably need to give players an option. Historically, the great Dutch 'total-football' team had a few semi-pro players, as the Dutch league in the 1970s was a semi-pro one, unlike in neighbouring countries. I am unsure why this was so, but perhaps if it was fully professional, some of these players might have decided to forego playing football seriously. I really think this suggestion deserves some consideration.

Second, we need Singapore back, and Singapore needs us. Their league is watched by no one, and sometimes, so is ours. Together, we can recapture the glory days of the league. However, this needs to be done on an equal footing so Singapore does not feel like a pariah again, as it probably did earlier. Perhaps the M-League needs to be separate from the FAM. If the FAM, FAS and Brunei can get together and programme their international calendar uniformly, then the M-league can be run separately from the respective national administrations. This might, of course, lead to a divergence in league and national team interests, but perhaps this can be balanced properly.

As well, the league can contract some quality players (however defined) like the American MLS and loan them out to teams. This can help cut wage costs and guarantee salary payments to these star players. Perhaps these should be foreign players, or national players. The league should also have enough rivalries, and in this respect, a return to the states and Singapore allows for this. Don't forget, we need not create a rivalry, it is already historically evident (Selangor and Singapore for example). A two-tiered system need not be present in order to avoid mediocrity as a single division where the top 8 qualify for the Malaysia Cup proper will render only a few season ending matches meaningless, and help 'reduce' mediocrity somewhat in a system without relegation.

We can dream, and of course we do, but sometimes we dream too much, and achieve nothing, or initiate grandiose plans without even learning the basics. Ultimately, we must be realistic and take baby steps. We need to get the foundations right, and if that means another 20 years of mediocrity so be it. But at this rate we'll get an eternity of it, and how will that help us? So let's revolutionise our football administration, and most of the other issues affecting Malaysian football can be tackled effectively. This will be the hardest step, because this is where we need to overthrow heavily vested interests, but without tackling it, we can forget about dealing with finances, grassroots or the league. It will be largely ineffective and meaningless.

Oh well, my view anyway. If anyone actually reads it, let me know what you think.

2006-08-24T15:25:00.000+10:00

Hello everyone!!!

I thought I'd get into the technological wonder that is blogging so one day my grandkids can make fun of the 2050 equivalent of the typewriter and read the blabberings of their alzheimer riddled granddad...probably be a fair bit in here about soccer and politics, but maybe I'll try and say more than that. We'll see how it goes...