They needed no reason . They came simply because he was Jewish descent . The NAZIs stormed into his home , arresting him and his entire family . Soon , they were herded like cattle , packed into a train , and then sent to a death camp in Krakow . His most disturbing nightmares were seeing his family shot before his eyes .
Somehow he continued . One day he looked at the nightmare around him and confronted a truth – if he stayed there even one more day , he would surely die . He decided he must escape , it must be done immediately !!!
He didn’t know how , but he simply know he must escape at all cost . For weeks , he asked other prisoners , “How can we escape from this horrible place ?”
The answers other prisoners gave usually were , “Don’t be a fool ! Just accept ur fate !” , some other said , “Asking such questions will only torture ur soul …. Just do like the others and pray u’ll survive !” All of the others were too scared to think anything outside the box . However , this man became obsessed with escape , and even when his answers didn’t make any sense , he pushed himself and kept asking over and over again , “How can escape ? There must be away !”
Maybe it was the result of intensity he asked the question . Or maybe just the natural instinct of continually focusing on one burning question – the giant power of human mind and spirit awakened in this man . One day , he saw a huge piles of dead bodies thrown into a truck . Other prisoners , after seeing those might scream , “Why God make something so evil !” , or “Why God has done this to me ?” , or “I will be like them !” . He could ask the same question like others , but this man , Stanislavski Lech , asked different question .He ask himself , “How to use this to escape ?” , and he got his answer .
He got into the pile of bodies and pretended he was dead . He kept patient even when his body was almost crushed as more and more bodies were put on top of him . The horrible smell of rotting flesh of dead bodies , surrounded him for hours . He waited and waited , risking and hoping no one will notice him , a living man under the dead bodies , hoping sooner or later , the truck will start moving – although he didn’t know where he will be brought to .
Then , he heard sound of engine . The truck seem to move . After insanely long hours , the truck stopped . The dead bodies and him were dumped into a big open grave . He patiently waited for hours until his body become numb . When night came , he pushed and pushed his nearly paralyzed body . His spirit was so strong . He managed to get up and ran naked more than twenty-miles away for freedom .
What was the difference between Stavinski Lech and other prisoners ? Of course , he was brave , he took risk , he was stubborn – that helped him escape . But one critical difference between him and normal prisoners , was HE ASKED A DIFFERENT QUESTION ….. THINKS OUT OF THE BOX …..
He asked different question , and his brain came up with a solution that saved his life !
What is that all about ?
GUTS …. KeBERANIan dan RISK TAKING
These 2 are basic part of ECONOMY
Benda2 ni tak diajar di kolej dan sekolah .
Gates , Dell , diorang ni ambil risiko dan jadilah company besar2 yg beri pekerjaan kpd jutaan pekerja .
Graham Bell , pencita lamu dan banyak lagi berani dan degil , that’s why u get those kind of tech in front of ur eyes 2day .
Tak yah jauh2 . Kat Malaysia pun dah cukup . Proton dan PETRONAS , pembekal utama kerja2 utk rakyat Malaysia yg sepatutnya takde kerja –
Proton ni tertubuh sbb Dr Mahathir tahan malu kena gelak oleh org .
Petronas – sbb Dr Mahathir , Ku Li , berani sangat . Ya lah sebelum ni yg pegang hak menggali petrol di Laut China Selatan ialah Exxon Mobile – the threat came directly from USA , why because EXON-MOBILE was nationally-owned by US govn .
FIkir2 kan lah !
Friday, December 7, 2007
Advertising Is Dying !
Advertising was based on a foundation which turns out to be a house of cards. Since the first days of newspaper advertising, it’s been accepted by everyone that advertising is non-accountable. Advertising works, based on logic that if you put an ad in front of enough people enough times, they spend money (?). but if u ask real businessmen or USAHAWAN around , they will tell u this logic is unacceptable . even some of my friends who work in promotion n marketing department always make joke like this ,
“I know half of my advertising budget is wasted , but I don’t know which half (Ha!ha!)”
Well , actually , this joke is not a joke . in fact , I bet more than 80% money that all companies spend on advertising (TV,radio,magazine,newspaper,tec) is doing no good . Trillions of dollars or RM a year are spent on advertising and it’s been generally accepted that half of that money (and likely more) is wasted .
What if you could actually find which dollars were going to be a waste before you spent them? That’s what’s happening in the world of advertising. New techniques for measuring the effectiveness of advertising (a movement cleverly called “accountability”) are appearing every day. dozens of advanced companies had methods to track and measure whether every dollar spent on an ad turned into a sale. All of a sudden, we can now start to see which ads are working and which ones are waste. And, as we predicted, most of them are waste. If you watch users interact with web sites containing advertising, you quickly notice how the users develop techniques to avoid looking at the ads. We’re not the only ones seeing this. Anybody who watches users with an eye tracker on pages with advertising can see how users avoid looking at the ads. Others have seen how users even avoid looking at the innocuous Ad-sense ads that populate many sites. This isn’t just on the Internet. People buy DVRs so they can skip ads on TV. They rent movies and TV show DVD collections to avoid sitting through ads. And now they download shows from iTunes so they can watch a 1-hour show in 42 minutes. So, with these new tools for accountability, we can see where the waste is happening. And, from what we’ve seen in our research, it’s happening practically everywhere.
Why advertise ? because we are all made to believe advertising , whatever medium it is , is the only way . But now, we have new tools. We have methods to say which ads are working and which ones aren’t doing anything. As a result of those analysis , they conclude that advertising is near to useless to many companies , in other words , we can just say they are tricked by the advertising companies , n maybe the marketing managers .
Anyway , after the logic kind of people discover this , they will say :
-We wont spend on something that is not working . or , when these managers become more intelligent , they will say :
-We wont spend on something that cannot be measured .
When that happens , we can officially declare ADVERTISING is dead .
So, where will those trillions of dollars go? Into a better marketing investment, I believe. And that investment will be improving the customer experience.
If you look at any study in the last ten years about how people are influenced to make purchases, u’ll see the biggest contributor isn’t television or radio advertising. It’s not the animated ads that float across your screen when you’re trying to do something else. It’s not billboards or direct mail. It’s not celebrity endorsements like Mawi or Rosyam Nor , or having a logo featured on a Formula One race car.
A friend spent a couple of thousand hours over the last few years analysing website visitor behaviour and he believes ADVERTISING is dying , except that he doesn’t think the situation will change very fast in the Internet space even though this is the most accountable and measurable of all advertising media . How many online ads are counted as viewed when they are blocked by an ad blocker? Yet advertisers still spend money on this.How many online ads are counted as served when a website visitor closes the ad down before it has even completely appeared on their screen? Yet advertisers still spend their money on this?How many online ads annoy website visitors and create a negative brand experience the opposite effect to that the advertiser intends? Yet advertisers still spend their money.How many companies undertake Search Engine Optimisation only to direct customers to useless or ineffective landing pages? Yet advertisers are spending increasing amounts of money on this activity.I quote this from TIME magazine , Internet Advertising is set to grow globally to $51.6 billion by 2010 at a rate of 18.1% . We live in a consumer world where black is marketed as white, the Emperor has no clothes and truth and logic have little place.
I don’t believe the myth that users expect everything for free. I think HBO, the Wall Street Journal, EUROSPORTS , and, yes, ASTRO have all proved, among others, that people will pay for quality content and services. People will pay for value. The trick is understanding what that value is.
Now many do advertising sponsorships of content, the content producer focuses less on the value to the consumer and, instead, focuses on delivering value to the advertiser. Sometimes, they can deliver that value by producing high-quality audiences for the advertisers. But, more times than not, they don’t. Since advertisers can’t tell if their spend is working for them, it wasn’t worth the effort to make something people really want. The result is advertiser-sponsored content bends to the mediocre.
Those relationships have to be direct, and human , like mouth to mouth marketing , or SALESMAN-ship – some call this method as Viral Marketing . On both the vendor and the customer side. Yes, this will be tunggang-terbalik . Much falling apart will happen before something that works comes together. But it's better to get ahead of this curve than behind it .
There are new skills to develop here. We can't tell customers to read the bug lists and check the man pages.
We'll have help from technology, specifically social software. Wikis, blogs and IM are three obvious ones. But we need more. Especially around corporate websites. We need to get marketing out of the website construction game. Company websites should provide the shortest possible routes between customers and useful information. Period. That goes for both prospective and existing customers. There should also be some linkage outside to other sites that are useful to customers. A site that's "sticky" , spam-like is busy failing.
“I know half of my advertising budget is wasted , but I don’t know which half (Ha!ha!)”
Well , actually , this joke is not a joke . in fact , I bet more than 80% money that all companies spend on advertising (TV,radio,magazine,newspaper,tec) is doing no good . Trillions of dollars or RM a year are spent on advertising and it’s been generally accepted that half of that money (and likely more) is wasted .
What if you could actually find which dollars were going to be a waste before you spent them? That’s what’s happening in the world of advertising. New techniques for measuring the effectiveness of advertising (a movement cleverly called “accountability”) are appearing every day. dozens of advanced companies had methods to track and measure whether every dollar spent on an ad turned into a sale. All of a sudden, we can now start to see which ads are working and which ones are waste. And, as we predicted, most of them are waste. If you watch users interact with web sites containing advertising, you quickly notice how the users develop techniques to avoid looking at the ads. We’re not the only ones seeing this. Anybody who watches users with an eye tracker on pages with advertising can see how users avoid looking at the ads. Others have seen how users even avoid looking at the innocuous Ad-sense ads that populate many sites. This isn’t just on the Internet. People buy DVRs so they can skip ads on TV. They rent movies and TV show DVD collections to avoid sitting through ads. And now they download shows from iTunes so they can watch a 1-hour show in 42 minutes. So, with these new tools for accountability, we can see where the waste is happening. And, from what we’ve seen in our research, it’s happening practically everywhere.
Why advertise ? because we are all made to believe advertising , whatever medium it is , is the only way . But now, we have new tools. We have methods to say which ads are working and which ones aren’t doing anything. As a result of those analysis , they conclude that advertising is near to useless to many companies , in other words , we can just say they are tricked by the advertising companies , n maybe the marketing managers .
Anyway , after the logic kind of people discover this , they will say :
-We wont spend on something that is not working . or , when these managers become more intelligent , they will say :
-We wont spend on something that cannot be measured .
When that happens , we can officially declare ADVERTISING is dead .
So, where will those trillions of dollars go? Into a better marketing investment, I believe. And that investment will be improving the customer experience.
If you look at any study in the last ten years about how people are influenced to make purchases, u’ll see the biggest contributor isn’t television or radio advertising. It’s not the animated ads that float across your screen when you’re trying to do something else. It’s not billboards or direct mail. It’s not celebrity endorsements like Mawi or Rosyam Nor , or having a logo featured on a Formula One race car.
A friend spent a couple of thousand hours over the last few years analysing website visitor behaviour and he believes ADVERTISING is dying , except that he doesn’t think the situation will change very fast in the Internet space even though this is the most accountable and measurable of all advertising media . How many online ads are counted as viewed when they are blocked by an ad blocker? Yet advertisers still spend money on this.How many online ads are counted as served when a website visitor closes the ad down before it has even completely appeared on their screen? Yet advertisers still spend their money on this?How many online ads annoy website visitors and create a negative brand experience the opposite effect to that the advertiser intends? Yet advertisers still spend their money.How many companies undertake Search Engine Optimisation only to direct customers to useless or ineffective landing pages? Yet advertisers are spending increasing amounts of money on this activity.I quote this from TIME magazine , Internet Advertising is set to grow globally to $51.6 billion by 2010 at a rate of 18.1% . We live in a consumer world where black is marketed as white, the Emperor has no clothes and truth and logic have little place.
I don’t believe the myth that users expect everything for free. I think HBO, the Wall Street Journal, EUROSPORTS , and, yes, ASTRO have all proved, among others, that people will pay for quality content and services. People will pay for value. The trick is understanding what that value is.
Now many do advertising sponsorships of content, the content producer focuses less on the value to the consumer and, instead, focuses on delivering value to the advertiser. Sometimes, they can deliver that value by producing high-quality audiences for the advertisers. But, more times than not, they don’t. Since advertisers can’t tell if their spend is working for them, it wasn’t worth the effort to make something people really want. The result is advertiser-sponsored content bends to the mediocre.
Those relationships have to be direct, and human , like mouth to mouth marketing , or SALESMAN-ship – some call this method as Viral Marketing . On both the vendor and the customer side. Yes, this will be tunggang-terbalik . Much falling apart will happen before something that works comes together. But it's better to get ahead of this curve than behind it .
There are new skills to develop here. We can't tell customers to read the bug lists and check the man pages.
We'll have help from technology, specifically social software. Wikis, blogs and IM are three obvious ones. But we need more. Especially around corporate websites. We need to get marketing out of the website construction game. Company websites should provide the shortest possible routes between customers and useful information. Period. That goes for both prospective and existing customers. There should also be some linkage outside to other sites that are useful to customers. A site that's "sticky" , spam-like is busy failing.
Marketing Vs Sales - 2 Different thing , stupid !
If traditional advertising still works for you, I bet you aren't really advertising. You're persuading. Persuading is what matters , n that’s what advertisement n marketing campaign don’t do , or may I say , it is just the nature of advertisement n marketing people , who unlike salesman , advertisement n marketing works by going around the bush . The target of a business is to increase sales , but what they do is decorate , playing with words n colours , rhetoric , dancing around to make people feel good , but the problem advertisement / marketing effort whatsoever , don’t turn people to buy the goods / services .
Before I explain, let me ask u ,what is the difference between SALES n MARKETING ?
Truth is, they're almost identical. Or they should be. The only true difference between the two is the ability to accurately measure cause and effect. It's easier to fire an ineffective salesman than an ineffective ad firm. At least, it used to be. Ineffective advertising has finally been exposed, n , like a vampire, it's withering away under the rays of sunlight.
Where does the light come from? Web analytics. Web analytics is a cure for not only bad advertising but also bad sales. We can now measure the effects of offsite ads and online conversion. We can measure what actually happens rather than speculate. We see when email or banners are working but the site is failing. We know more about our customers, what they do, and in some cases why they do it.
Slowly, companies are getting wise to this ability to measure the buying and selling processes. Online, READ-ability is built in at every turn . Result of marketing n advertisement can be read . Companies are posing questions about their offline campaigns. They're losing patience with advertising and all its promises. It's not that advertising is getting worse. Actually, it seems better n more relevant. It's just too little, too late.
Sure, the Internet has a hand in taking advertising down , showing their terrible ineffectiveness . But there are other factors:
Media fragmentation. TiVo, iPods, hundreds of cable channels, satellite TV n radio, podcasting, Web sites, even PS2 n computer games cut people's time and attention into thousands of teeny fragments. Advertisers have a harder time reaching large population segments. They spend more to reach fewer people. They used to reach the masses with buys on three TV networks; now, they must buy on 92 stations to get the same reach.
Communication acceleration/information availability. Word-of-mouth advertising and
SALESMAN-ship move faster than ever. Bad news about your business or a failure to live up to advertising claims cancel out any image-control advertising. Even great advertising can't serve as a smokescreen for poor selection, an inferior product, and dismal customer service. Slick catalogs n marketing claims can't detract from Dell's CRM's failing or help customer lifetime value, for example. You can fool a lot of people once, but it's much harder to do it twice.
Overemphasized demographics. Demographic targeting has long been the focus of marketing efforts. Problem is, it only tells you where customers might be, not what messages they might respond to.
Creative, rather than persuasive, ad firms. It's revealing only one exec brought up the term MEASURE-able. Also, no one mentioned "results." Clearly, many ad firms still don't get it. If they don't consider MEASURE-ability n results, their advertising are the same as internet spam.
Old-school advertising can't be resuscitated. The landscape has changed. Advertising must morph into something different. Advertising alone isn't enough. Architect a persuasive experience as opposed to broadcasting only what a company wants people to know. u'll inject relevance into every customer touch point no matter where the customer experiences the company or where he is in the buying process.
Companies that best manage and coordinate the customer experience from first touch to post-sale are the ones that will succeed in the future:
They'll learn how to persuade customers in a manner they prefer.
They'll be able to demonstrate relevance to many different buyer types in all stages of the buying cycle by infusing relevance into every touch point.
They'll be able to transform one-time buyers into enthusiastic repeat buyers.
I take website advertising for example . most of the work focuses on what happens when people arrive at their Web sites. Yet we find online persuasive efforts have a back-reaching effect on advertising efforts and a forward-reaching effect on offline sales efforts.
Online persuasion is a great breeding ground for relevant messaging and experiences. It can be used across advertising and sales efforts. In this respect, online marketers have a leg up over their traditional counterparts.
Do you persuade customers or shout advertising messages at them, hoping you can drag them kicking and screaming to your cash register.
Developers, designers, and marketers -- however talented and dedicated -- simply do not know enough about professional selling. It's not where their expertise lies. Yet building and promoting a site that doesn't "know" how to sell is like building a beautiful brick-and-mortar store with a confusing layout, stocking it with great stuff, but then not hiring any salespeople.
For all that's being written about various marketing strategies, success in business – trading-corporate whatsoever, as in any business, isn't about marketing or about design; it's about sales , I repeat can u sell ur stuff .
Ultimately, it's about the conversion rate: ,say, the percentage of visitors your site can turn into buyers. Lots of dot-coms have turned into dot-bombs because even though they spent tons of money on "sexy" designs and tons more driving traffic to their sites, they overlooked the tiny fact that they needed to sell to visitors once they arrived at the site. The sad thing is, many of those visitors would have bought happily and could have left delighted.
Now, imagine pulling these circles apart, so sales moves farther and farther away from marketing. How much buying do you have left? (Hint: Less and less until you have none. Zero. Nada.) Now imagine pushing these circles together, so sales and marketing increasingly overlap. What are you seeing? How much your buying will increase!
Before your potential customers arrive at your web site, they are exposed to a lot of external messages and compare those messages to their internal desires and values. This is where marketing plays an important role in creating the propensity to buy. But as soon as a visitor begins to interact with your "digital store," all the marketing in the world isn't going to save you if your site doesn't know how to sell.
Think of it this way. You see an advertisement on TV in which a car manufacturer tells you it makes the safest car out there, and the ad prominently displays lots of images of an adorable, safe baby and happy parents enjoying their worry-free car ride. Suppose you've got a baby. You want him or her riding in the safest car. You think maybe you should look into buying this car. So you and your baby head to the nearest dealership that sells this car.
You walk in with the propensity to buy, but you still need to be sold on the product. You have questions about options, service, and which model would best suit your needs. You want to be treated like you matter. You want to feel good about the decision to buy. Without a salesperson holding your hand throughout the sales process, treating you the way you want to be treated, and selling to you the way you want to be sold to, you probably aren't going to buy a thing from this dealership, even if it does sell the safest car in the world.
Think of a smaller-ticket item. I wanted to buy a photo-quality printer because I'm playing around with digital cameras these days. I came across an advertisement that promised the product would give me "superior quality at the incredible price of $175." I enthusiastically trotted off to that store and found myself standing in a huge aisle filled with printers.
All of a sudden, I started wondering if maybe there wasn't an even better printer for my needs. I pushed a few of the test buttons and got some test printouts. Holding them in my hand, I looked for a salesperson. There was no one around. I read some of the fact sheets but had more questions. There was still no salesperson in sight. I now have the printouts on my desk, but I didn't buy a printer.
Marketing got me to the store, but it didn't result in a sale. Had someone bothered to help me, I might have bought that RM450 printer. If this same person were good at selling, he or she might even have been able to make me feel good about buying the next model up (up-selling) or adding a cable, an extra toner cartridge, and some paper to my order (cross-selling). Or he or she might have helped me figure out that I really would be better off with a different brand.
It just as easily could have gone another way, but one that would have been just as bad: Even without the benefit of a salesperson, I might have bought that RM450 printer, carted it home, installed it, and then been dissatisfied with my purchase. And if I'd bought it and it worked fine? I would still be wondering if I'd gotten the best deal for my needs, which still leaves me somewhere short of being completely delighted. So, the end result in that case is that I'm not likely to return (customer retention) to that store because it hasn't shown that it acknowledges and values the role of sales -- which is another way of saying that it doesn't acknowledge and value me!
Are u getting the idea? Shoppers want to buy, and they do want to be sold to. They don't, however, want to be "pushed." Yet the average conversion rate on the web is only 2 percent, while the average conversion rate in the brick-and-mortar world is approximately 50 percent.
Do you think just maybe there's something big that's lacking in the way e-commerce sites function?
By all means, drive traffic to your site. But look at the Venn diagram, and you can clearly see that marketing alone must fail. In order to sell more of anything, you need to do more selling. It is that simple.
Before I explain, let me ask u ,what is the difference between SALES n MARKETING ?
Truth is, they're almost identical. Or they should be. The only true difference between the two is the ability to accurately measure cause and effect. It's easier to fire an ineffective salesman than an ineffective ad firm. At least, it used to be. Ineffective advertising has finally been exposed, n , like a vampire, it's withering away under the rays of sunlight.
Where does the light come from? Web analytics. Web analytics is a cure for not only bad advertising but also bad sales. We can now measure the effects of offsite ads and online conversion. We can measure what actually happens rather than speculate. We see when email or banners are working but the site is failing. We know more about our customers, what they do, and in some cases why they do it.
Slowly, companies are getting wise to this ability to measure the buying and selling processes. Online, READ-ability is built in at every turn . Result of marketing n advertisement can be read . Companies are posing questions about their offline campaigns. They're losing patience with advertising and all its promises. It's not that advertising is getting worse. Actually, it seems better n more relevant. It's just too little, too late.
Sure, the Internet has a hand in taking advertising down , showing their terrible ineffectiveness . But there are other factors:
Media fragmentation. TiVo, iPods, hundreds of cable channels, satellite TV n radio, podcasting, Web sites, even PS2 n computer games cut people's time and attention into thousands of teeny fragments. Advertisers have a harder time reaching large population segments. They spend more to reach fewer people. They used to reach the masses with buys on three TV networks; now, they must buy on 92 stations to get the same reach.
Communication acceleration/information availability. Word-of-mouth advertising and
SALESMAN-ship move faster than ever. Bad news about your business or a failure to live up to advertising claims cancel out any image-control advertising. Even great advertising can't serve as a smokescreen for poor selection, an inferior product, and dismal customer service. Slick catalogs n marketing claims can't detract from Dell's CRM's failing or help customer lifetime value, for example. You can fool a lot of people once, but it's much harder to do it twice.
Overemphasized demographics. Demographic targeting has long been the focus of marketing efforts. Problem is, it only tells you where customers might be, not what messages they might respond to.
Creative, rather than persuasive, ad firms. It's revealing only one exec brought up the term MEASURE-able. Also, no one mentioned "results." Clearly, many ad firms still don't get it. If they don't consider MEASURE-ability n results, their advertising are the same as internet spam.
Old-school advertising can't be resuscitated. The landscape has changed. Advertising must morph into something different. Advertising alone isn't enough. Architect a persuasive experience as opposed to broadcasting only what a company wants people to know. u'll inject relevance into every customer touch point no matter where the customer experiences the company or where he is in the buying process.
Companies that best manage and coordinate the customer experience from first touch to post-sale are the ones that will succeed in the future:
They'll learn how to persuade customers in a manner they prefer.
They'll be able to demonstrate relevance to many different buyer types in all stages of the buying cycle by infusing relevance into every touch point.
They'll be able to transform one-time buyers into enthusiastic repeat buyers.
I take website advertising for example . most of the work focuses on what happens when people arrive at their Web sites. Yet we find online persuasive efforts have a back-reaching effect on advertising efforts and a forward-reaching effect on offline sales efforts.
Online persuasion is a great breeding ground for relevant messaging and experiences. It can be used across advertising and sales efforts. In this respect, online marketers have a leg up over their traditional counterparts.
Do you persuade customers or shout advertising messages at them, hoping you can drag them kicking and screaming to your cash register.
Developers, designers, and marketers -- however talented and dedicated -- simply do not know enough about professional selling. It's not where their expertise lies. Yet building and promoting a site that doesn't "know" how to sell is like building a beautiful brick-and-mortar store with a confusing layout, stocking it with great stuff, but then not hiring any salespeople.
For all that's being written about various marketing strategies, success in business – trading-corporate whatsoever, as in any business, isn't about marketing or about design; it's about sales , I repeat can u sell ur stuff .
Ultimately, it's about the conversion rate: ,say, the percentage of visitors your site can turn into buyers. Lots of dot-coms have turned into dot-bombs because even though they spent tons of money on "sexy" designs and tons more driving traffic to their sites, they overlooked the tiny fact that they needed to sell to visitors once they arrived at the site. The sad thing is, many of those visitors would have bought happily and could have left delighted.
Now, imagine pulling these circles apart, so sales moves farther and farther away from marketing. How much buying do you have left? (Hint: Less and less until you have none. Zero. Nada.) Now imagine pushing these circles together, so sales and marketing increasingly overlap. What are you seeing? How much your buying will increase!
Before your potential customers arrive at your web site, they are exposed to a lot of external messages and compare those messages to their internal desires and values. This is where marketing plays an important role in creating the propensity to buy. But as soon as a visitor begins to interact with your "digital store," all the marketing in the world isn't going to save you if your site doesn't know how to sell.
Think of it this way. You see an advertisement on TV in which a car manufacturer tells you it makes the safest car out there, and the ad prominently displays lots of images of an adorable, safe baby and happy parents enjoying their worry-free car ride. Suppose you've got a baby. You want him or her riding in the safest car. You think maybe you should look into buying this car. So you and your baby head to the nearest dealership that sells this car.
You walk in with the propensity to buy, but you still need to be sold on the product. You have questions about options, service, and which model would best suit your needs. You want to be treated like you matter. You want to feel good about the decision to buy. Without a salesperson holding your hand throughout the sales process, treating you the way you want to be treated, and selling to you the way you want to be sold to, you probably aren't going to buy a thing from this dealership, even if it does sell the safest car in the world.
Think of a smaller-ticket item. I wanted to buy a photo-quality printer because I'm playing around with digital cameras these days. I came across an advertisement that promised the product would give me "superior quality at the incredible price of $175." I enthusiastically trotted off to that store and found myself standing in a huge aisle filled with printers.
All of a sudden, I started wondering if maybe there wasn't an even better printer for my needs. I pushed a few of the test buttons and got some test printouts. Holding them in my hand, I looked for a salesperson. There was no one around. I read some of the fact sheets but had more questions. There was still no salesperson in sight. I now have the printouts on my desk, but I didn't buy a printer.
Marketing got me to the store, but it didn't result in a sale. Had someone bothered to help me, I might have bought that RM450 printer. If this same person were good at selling, he or she might even have been able to make me feel good about buying the next model up (up-selling) or adding a cable, an extra toner cartridge, and some paper to my order (cross-selling). Or he or she might have helped me figure out that I really would be better off with a different brand.
It just as easily could have gone another way, but one that would have been just as bad: Even without the benefit of a salesperson, I might have bought that RM450 printer, carted it home, installed it, and then been dissatisfied with my purchase. And if I'd bought it and it worked fine? I would still be wondering if I'd gotten the best deal for my needs, which still leaves me somewhere short of being completely delighted. So, the end result in that case is that I'm not likely to return (customer retention) to that store because it hasn't shown that it acknowledges and values the role of sales -- which is another way of saying that it doesn't acknowledge and value me!
Are u getting the idea? Shoppers want to buy, and they do want to be sold to. They don't, however, want to be "pushed." Yet the average conversion rate on the web is only 2 percent, while the average conversion rate in the brick-and-mortar world is approximately 50 percent.
Do you think just maybe there's something big that's lacking in the way e-commerce sites function?
By all means, drive traffic to your site. But look at the Venn diagram, and you can clearly see that marketing alone must fail. In order to sell more of anything, you need to do more selling. It is that simple.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The real crap are Economic Corridors, stupid!
Early of this December , we have been shocked by large demostration by Indian people at Kuala Lumpur . The people called themselves as HINDRAF voiced up their disatisfaction of how the Indian people has been discriminated economically and their standard of living is very poor compared to Malay(landlord race) and Chinese(same as Indian minority immigrant) . Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and the leading party , UMNO has used this sudden issue to run away from of government's well-known weaknesses since the old man replace Dr Mahathir as Prime Minister .
The Hindraf issue has swayed public and online attention from the true crap faced by the nation under the current administration. There is likely to be more than meet the eyes. "Could it be distraction to grab the attention of the public away?", asked conspirasy theoreticians are sayingIf there are poor Indians being given a crap deal in the estate, deal with it. For the other demands which are crap, screw them!
If the claim that Indian grievances have been given crap attention by certain Government officials and politicians, every Malaysians are getting that same crap! Crap to those officials and politicians. Yes, crap the oppositions too for not properly delivering the issues in the Houses.For that there is no any reason for Malays to lose their head over this. Let not our attention be swayed by some extremist Hindraf nutheads or Malay hotheads. Violence and vigilante-ism will only make things worse and worst.The economic corridors launched are craps that the public should focus their attentions and it is outcry worth shouting out. Much has been said in this and other blogs. There are few blog postings on the Internet that highlighted few pertinent issues and developments on the Economic Corridors. Extracts of the postings are edited and reproduced below.Infringement Against the Federalism SpiritThe Penang Watch blog wrote an article entitled "Anti-NCER/PGCC movements a reflection of rejection of federalising powers?".
After five Economic Corridor announced and launched, some patterns can be discerned as a shift of power to the Federal Government from the State Government. Increasingly, the State Governments, who rely on Federal Government on development allocations, can only exchange these funds by giving up control over development.Some relevant characteristics of the Economic Corridors:1. It is based on real estate or land speculations.2. It is run by Federal Agencies through implementation Agencies chaired by Federal Ministers or Politicians or GLCs representatives.3. The Local Councils may lose oversight or approval power over such projects, thus making them redundant. Council rules on densities and land use are altered to suit federal needs.4. State governments can only watch with bewilderment on what goes on in their own land, even though land is about the only things left in their hand.5. This Federal juggernaut need to be stopped. Otherwise, they may be waiting for the day when the redundant State Government is disposed off or made into symbolic, titular state reps.These are genuine craps because the direction the Economic Corridors are heading is against the spirit of the Federation of Malaya Agreement in 1948. The basis of the Federation of Malaya is the sovereign Malay states in Semenanjung Tanah Melayu combined to become the Federation.
Lets be reminded that this Agreement was the replacement to the historical dispute of Malayan Union of 1946. UMNO was formed to struggle against the termination of the State sovereignty and advancing the British colonialisation process .
The presence of Singapore in Malaysia in 1963 revived a 1920s "Malaya for Malayan" political slogan of Tun Tan Cheng Lok as "Malaysian Malaysia" slogan. Tun Tan had in fact made a significant contribution to the British towards the centralisation Malayan Union idea during his exile from Japanese Occupation in India.Singapore was eventually "kicked" out of the Federation. In their exuberance to campaign this similar "centralisation" idea to a fragile race relation Malaya, it had resulted in racial clashes. Their absence did not do tide down the situation as racial strife continued and culminated into the tragic May 13, 1969 incident."Malaysian Malaysia" promotes "equality" without "fair" consideration for the economic condition of the Bumiputera. Malaysian Malaysia is Malayan Union II which UMNO had fought against to preserve the sovereignty.
It was Tun Abdul Razak's wisdom to reform the nation towards the proper path of racial unity.The current Economic Corridors can hereby be summed up as an indirect attempt to dismantle the Federation. The Economic Corridors will reduce the relevance of the state and ultimately lead to the dissolution of the states. Perhaps the unity state could be a Republic practising laisse fairre economy with no social or welfare consideration for the people.There are those that believed the greater relevance of Khazanah was a consolidation of economic power for the convenience of a certain "invisible hands". The Economic Corridors seemed to be a political power consolidation exercise disguised as centralisation of economic management. Thus the Economic Corridors could have wider implication to the political, economic, legal and security spectre of the nation.The scary reality of sleepy Abdullah Badawi as an incompetent yet powerful Prime Minister is that the true power lies within the instruction of his advisers. It is a hypothesis accepted widely by the public that he is now at the behest of Western powers and he doesn't know it. By the time the whole power consolidation and societal restructuring exercise is comleted, thats likely to include a review of the Social Agreement, the next Prime Minister will be an extremely powerful leader.
Of late, the Economic Corridors has been dubbed "Kerry-dor" by political pundits (It comes from the name Kyari Jamaludin,Prime Minister beloved son-in-low) . It is implying of Khairy Jamaluddin's hand in this manipulation of power to build himself into a powerful Prime Minister-by-40. In reality, it is plain jane Malayan Union III.The sad reality the proud UMNO members have to live with the guilt that it is the few top UMNO leadership that conjured and forced this idea on the reluctant people, particularly of Johor.Thats Crap! Crap! Crap! When will the members have the crap to throw that nincompoop crap out?
The Hindraf issue has swayed public and online attention from the true crap faced by the nation under the current administration. There is likely to be more than meet the eyes. "Could it be distraction to grab the attention of the public away?", asked conspirasy theoreticians are sayingIf there are poor Indians being given a crap deal in the estate, deal with it. For the other demands which are crap, screw them!
If the claim that Indian grievances have been given crap attention by certain Government officials and politicians, every Malaysians are getting that same crap! Crap to those officials and politicians. Yes, crap the oppositions too for not properly delivering the issues in the Houses.For that there is no any reason for Malays to lose their head over this. Let not our attention be swayed by some extremist Hindraf nutheads or Malay hotheads. Violence and vigilante-ism will only make things worse and worst.The economic corridors launched are craps that the public should focus their attentions and it is outcry worth shouting out. Much has been said in this and other blogs. There are few blog postings on the Internet that highlighted few pertinent issues and developments on the Economic Corridors. Extracts of the postings are edited and reproduced below.Infringement Against the Federalism SpiritThe Penang Watch blog wrote an article entitled "Anti-NCER/PGCC movements a reflection of rejection of federalising powers?".
After five Economic Corridor announced and launched, some patterns can be discerned as a shift of power to the Federal Government from the State Government. Increasingly, the State Governments, who rely on Federal Government on development allocations, can only exchange these funds by giving up control over development.Some relevant characteristics of the Economic Corridors:1. It is based on real estate or land speculations.2. It is run by Federal Agencies through implementation Agencies chaired by Federal Ministers or Politicians or GLCs representatives.3. The Local Councils may lose oversight or approval power over such projects, thus making them redundant. Council rules on densities and land use are altered to suit federal needs.4. State governments can only watch with bewilderment on what goes on in their own land, even though land is about the only things left in their hand.5. This Federal juggernaut need to be stopped. Otherwise, they may be waiting for the day when the redundant State Government is disposed off or made into symbolic, titular state reps.These are genuine craps because the direction the Economic Corridors are heading is against the spirit of the Federation of Malaya Agreement in 1948. The basis of the Federation of Malaya is the sovereign Malay states in Semenanjung Tanah Melayu combined to become the Federation.
Lets be reminded that this Agreement was the replacement to the historical dispute of Malayan Union of 1946. UMNO was formed to struggle against the termination of the State sovereignty and advancing the British colonialisation process .
The presence of Singapore in Malaysia in 1963 revived a 1920s "Malaya for Malayan" political slogan of Tun Tan Cheng Lok as "Malaysian Malaysia" slogan. Tun Tan had in fact made a significant contribution to the British towards the centralisation Malayan Union idea during his exile from Japanese Occupation in India.Singapore was eventually "kicked" out of the Federation. In their exuberance to campaign this similar "centralisation" idea to a fragile race relation Malaya, it had resulted in racial clashes. Their absence did not do tide down the situation as racial strife continued and culminated into the tragic May 13, 1969 incident."Malaysian Malaysia" promotes "equality" without "fair" consideration for the economic condition of the Bumiputera. Malaysian Malaysia is Malayan Union II which UMNO had fought against to preserve the sovereignty.
It was Tun Abdul Razak's wisdom to reform the nation towards the proper path of racial unity.The current Economic Corridors can hereby be summed up as an indirect attempt to dismantle the Federation. The Economic Corridors will reduce the relevance of the state and ultimately lead to the dissolution of the states. Perhaps the unity state could be a Republic practising laisse fairre economy with no social or welfare consideration for the people.There are those that believed the greater relevance of Khazanah was a consolidation of economic power for the convenience of a certain "invisible hands". The Economic Corridors seemed to be a political power consolidation exercise disguised as centralisation of economic management. Thus the Economic Corridors could have wider implication to the political, economic, legal and security spectre of the nation.The scary reality of sleepy Abdullah Badawi as an incompetent yet powerful Prime Minister is that the true power lies within the instruction of his advisers. It is a hypothesis accepted widely by the public that he is now at the behest of Western powers and he doesn't know it. By the time the whole power consolidation and societal restructuring exercise is comleted, thats likely to include a review of the Social Agreement, the next Prime Minister will be an extremely powerful leader.
Of late, the Economic Corridors has been dubbed "Kerry-dor" by political pundits (It comes from the name Kyari Jamaludin,Prime Minister beloved son-in-low) . It is implying of Khairy Jamaluddin's hand in this manipulation of power to build himself into a powerful Prime Minister-by-40. In reality, it is plain jane Malayan Union III.The sad reality the proud UMNO members have to live with the guilt that it is the few top UMNO leadership that conjured and forced this idea on the reluctant people, particularly of Johor.Thats Crap! Crap! Crap! When will the members have the crap to throw that nincompoop crap out?
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Malaysia Is Not Sri Lanka . Podah !
A gentleman (I hope I am right) by the name of Sudhir Chadda wrote in India Daily that the situation (ill-treatment of ethnic Indians in Malaysia) is far graver than understood. He was responding to the so-called 'ill-treatment and ethnic cleansing' of Indians in Malaysia as claimed by Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force)."India faces another erupting 'Sri Lanka' in Malaysia. The problem in Sri Lanka is the manifestation of a majority ethnic community continuing centuries of human rights abuse and discrimination on a minority ethnic group. India as a country did little to support the Tamils that want justice. Now it is too late. The civil war in Sri Lanka is real," Chadda added.
He claimed that a similar situation "is arising in Malaysia."
"The Indian communities in Malaysia are abused for centuries. The human rights abuse goes well beyond a few cases. It is an attempt by the majority ethnic groups to literally exterminate the Indian ethnicity in Malaysia," Chadda wrote.
He said India must rise and tell the Malaysian authorities that human rights of Indian ethnic communities will not be tolerated.
"India should threaten militarily and economically. Fiscal, trade and diplomatic boycott is the first step.
"Indian Navy should be authorised to use all means including serious blockades to make the Malaysian authorities know that India will not tolerate ethnic abuse of Indians in Malaysia," he said.
Chadda added that "Malaysian authorities do not understand the slogan of decency. They do understand the tone of military threat. It is time India moves for the Indians. It is time India tells the world stop abusing Indians.
Now, who is this Chadda fellow trying to scare with military threats and naval blockades? Podah!
Well for his information, since he is misinformed and confused and hopefully not insane person, you cannot compare Malaysia with the situation in Sri Lanka. By claiming that 'a similar situation is arising in Malaysia' clearly indicates that you are 'nuts'.
Malaysians in general, Indian-Malaysians included, were fed up and annoyed with the wild accusations hurled by Hindraf especially on the ethnic cleansing.
There are Indian-Malaysian ministers, deputy-ministers, parliamentary secretaries, senior civil servants, senior military and police officers, senior judiciary officers, business tycoons, multi-millionaires and even billionaires, there are Tamil schools (which one cannot find in Singapore) and Hindu temples constructed legally in all Malaysian states.
In Batu Caves, Kuala Lumpur you can see the tallest standing statue of the popular (especially in Tamil Nadu) Hindu God, Murugan, which you cannot find such a majestic statue in other non-Hindu countries outside India (Tamil Nadu).
As for calling on the Indian government to 'intervene' including with military threat, Chadda must be reminded that we are not living in the stone age or the era when powerful empires went on world conquest. The United States had done that and now they are suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are not talking about Indian nationals living or working in Malaysia. We are talking of Indian-Malaysians. They are not citizens of India. They are Malaysian citizens.
India has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country unless it is a security or economic threat to India. New Delhi should mind it's own business and refrain from meddling in another country's internal affairs. In the past, India had one way or the other interfered in their regional neighbours' internal affairs such as in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tibet and even China.
For the record, the majority of Indian-Malaysians are loyal, dedicated and good citizens of Malaysia. They had and continue to contribute to the economic and social developments of Malaysia. Hindraf, I believed, did not represent the majority but a minority voice of Malaysian Hindus, not even Malaysian Indians in general bearing in mind there are Tamil Muslims, Gujerati Hindus and Muslims, Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims and the Malayalee Hindus and Muslims.
He claimed that a similar situation "is arising in Malaysia."
"The Indian communities in Malaysia are abused for centuries. The human rights abuse goes well beyond a few cases. It is an attempt by the majority ethnic groups to literally exterminate the Indian ethnicity in Malaysia," Chadda wrote.
He said India must rise and tell the Malaysian authorities that human rights of Indian ethnic communities will not be tolerated.
"India should threaten militarily and economically. Fiscal, trade and diplomatic boycott is the first step.
"Indian Navy should be authorised to use all means including serious blockades to make the Malaysian authorities know that India will not tolerate ethnic abuse of Indians in Malaysia," he said.
Chadda added that "Malaysian authorities do not understand the slogan of decency. They do understand the tone of military threat. It is time India moves for the Indians. It is time India tells the world stop abusing Indians.
Now, who is this Chadda fellow trying to scare with military threats and naval blockades? Podah!
Well for his information, since he is misinformed and confused and hopefully not insane person, you cannot compare Malaysia with the situation in Sri Lanka. By claiming that 'a similar situation is arising in Malaysia' clearly indicates that you are 'nuts'.
Malaysians in general, Indian-Malaysians included, were fed up and annoyed with the wild accusations hurled by Hindraf especially on the ethnic cleansing.
There are Indian-Malaysian ministers, deputy-ministers, parliamentary secretaries, senior civil servants, senior military and police officers, senior judiciary officers, business tycoons, multi-millionaires and even billionaires, there are Tamil schools (which one cannot find in Singapore) and Hindu temples constructed legally in all Malaysian states.
In Batu Caves, Kuala Lumpur you can see the tallest standing statue of the popular (especially in Tamil Nadu) Hindu God, Murugan, which you cannot find such a majestic statue in other non-Hindu countries outside India (Tamil Nadu).
As for calling on the Indian government to 'intervene' including with military threat, Chadda must be reminded that we are not living in the stone age or the era when powerful empires went on world conquest. The United States had done that and now they are suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are not talking about Indian nationals living or working in Malaysia. We are talking of Indian-Malaysians. They are not citizens of India. They are Malaysian citizens.
India has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of another country unless it is a security or economic threat to India. New Delhi should mind it's own business and refrain from meddling in another country's internal affairs. In the past, India had one way or the other interfered in their regional neighbours' internal affairs such as in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tibet and even China.
For the record, the majority of Indian-Malaysians are loyal, dedicated and good citizens of Malaysia. They had and continue to contribute to the economic and social developments of Malaysia. Hindraf, I believed, did not represent the majority but a minority voice of Malaysian Hindus, not even Malaysian Indians in general bearing in mind there are Tamil Muslims, Gujerati Hindus and Muslims, Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims and the Malayalee Hindus and Muslims.
Monday, December 3, 2007
What we give , we can take back !!!
Everything that got to do with the good thing about Malay can be linked in one way or another to , Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) . Being a Malay , being a son of ex-banker , and staff of national industry player , I sometime attend so-called CORPORATE funcions or mix with so-called BUSINESS-men (who actually not sell , but just Malay rent-seekers) . This industry and malay community represents an example of "What we give , we can takeback!" . Almost all players in this industry are beneficiaries or sometimes VICTIMs of "What we give we can take back!" .
In the business of power generation ,only few malay are the owner , but probably none ( I think) . A famous state conglomerate , Johor Corp , they introduced thing like Intrapreneur concept , some choosen malay are given business to handle deal that originally handled by state owned companies . No need to find to struggle to find new market , no need to breakthrough to sell . Just untung atas angin , and of course , the Johor corp can take back the contract , the right anytime . They held many dinners and seminars . At these dinners , the table talk is seldomly about the business , the engineering , the gas supply issue , or technology in power generation industry .Why ? This is just another common sense . If you are not the real owner or real player , and your money comes from "What we give , we can take back!" , you dont really need to talk shop . You need not know your business very well at all . The front and back end of your business are already signed and sealed - all you need to do is just collect the in-between your revenue and cost - in what we usually call as PROFIT . But once , when I sit beside a young chinese executive , all he talked about is business , and the real issues - about power output from different gas turbines and gas supply issues that affect his business .
To get back to subject , the politic of "What we give , we can take back !" has resulted in corporate malay and contractors , not developing enough sense of propriety over the asset their control . It is given to them on silver plate . They dont earn . And also dont forget , it can also be taken away from them anytime . That's why there is no need to talk shop in dinners .
Some smart people do take advantage of this "What we give , we can take back!" policy . A certain association of women entrepreneurs , sometimes organize lunches and dinners for its members . But it may cost alot just to attend those functions . Why their food so damn expensive ? Why alot people come even the food are expensive ? The menu are not that great . The attractions are ministers and VIP who are going to attend them . If the VIP are from authorities that greatly involve in "What we give , we can take back!" business , then the result can be very big .
Entrepreneurs who depend on the Government for loan , but also sell their good and services back to government , and those who hunt only government contracts and projects frequently run into mess . The are rarely go to the market to find solution for their problems . The are not trained to adjust and to think , as normal market oriented businesses usually do . The problems and solutions only lies in the government . Sometimes they didnt get projects or contracts . Sometimes they didnt get enough money from the government . Sometimes they sell their good and services to government , but are not paid enough and on time . So they will pay for the dinner or lunches just to meet or pose a question to the VIP , hoping that their money problem will be solved . The front and back of their businesses are taken care of by government . "What we give , we can take back !" . Other academics , intellectuals , and critics have used the term "RENTAL ECONOMY" to call this lazy polizy . The one gain benefit from the system are called RENTAL SEEKERs .
If we look at Malaysia's well-known non malay bilionaires like Vincent Tan , Lim Goh Tong , Ananda Krishnan and Yeoh family (YTL) , they are all actually beneficiaries of RENTAL ECONOMY too . Vincent Tan's fortune comes from sole franchise license on his Sports Toto . This is obvious monopoly because no other such license will ever be issueds . Monopoly on gaming and gambling (what is the difference?) also what made billions for Lim Goh Tong's Genting casino . Ananda Krishnan made his fortune through monopoly is horse gambling , then monopoly on ASTRO .
The Kuok family made fortune when they control monopoly over sugar . Such RENTAL ECONOMY gave them initial millions to be used in later monopoly . YTL Group were also successful without fair competition . Among the independent power providers , everyone in Malaysia already knows YTL got the juiciest deal from government through TNB . TNB @ government pays highest tariff to YTL . YTL's monopoly over high tariff is YTL's money spinner . It is unlikely TNB will enter any of such deal anymore , or at least revise them .
But if you are not within the right circles , then you may become a case of "I cant get anything !" .
In the business of power generation ,only few malay are the owner , but probably none ( I think) . A famous state conglomerate , Johor Corp , they introduced thing like Intrapreneur concept , some choosen malay are given business to handle deal that originally handled by state owned companies . No need to find to struggle to find new market , no need to breakthrough to sell . Just untung atas angin , and of course , the Johor corp can take back the contract , the right anytime . They held many dinners and seminars . At these dinners , the table talk is seldomly about the business , the engineering , the gas supply issue , or technology in power generation industry .Why ? This is just another common sense . If you are not the real owner or real player , and your money comes from "What we give , we can take back!" , you dont really need to talk shop . You need not know your business very well at all . The front and back end of your business are already signed and sealed - all you need to do is just collect the in-between your revenue and cost - in what we usually call as PROFIT . But once , when I sit beside a young chinese executive , all he talked about is business , and the real issues - about power output from different gas turbines and gas supply issues that affect his business .
To get back to subject , the politic of "What we give , we can take back !" has resulted in corporate malay and contractors , not developing enough sense of propriety over the asset their control . It is given to them on silver plate . They dont earn . And also dont forget , it can also be taken away from them anytime . That's why there is no need to talk shop in dinners .
Some smart people do take advantage of this "What we give , we can take back!" policy . A certain association of women entrepreneurs , sometimes organize lunches and dinners for its members . But it may cost alot just to attend those functions . Why their food so damn expensive ? Why alot people come even the food are expensive ? The menu are not that great . The attractions are ministers and VIP who are going to attend them . If the VIP are from authorities that greatly involve in "What we give , we can take back!" business , then the result can be very big .
Entrepreneurs who depend on the Government for loan , but also sell their good and services back to government , and those who hunt only government contracts and projects frequently run into mess . The are rarely go to the market to find solution for their problems . The are not trained to adjust and to think , as normal market oriented businesses usually do . The problems and solutions only lies in the government . Sometimes they didnt get projects or contracts . Sometimes they didnt get enough money from the government . Sometimes they sell their good and services to government , but are not paid enough and on time . So they will pay for the dinner or lunches just to meet or pose a question to the VIP , hoping that their money problem will be solved . The front and back of their businesses are taken care of by government . "What we give , we can take back !" . Other academics , intellectuals , and critics have used the term "RENTAL ECONOMY" to call this lazy polizy . The one gain benefit from the system are called RENTAL SEEKERs .
If we look at Malaysia's well-known non malay bilionaires like Vincent Tan , Lim Goh Tong , Ananda Krishnan and Yeoh family (YTL) , they are all actually beneficiaries of RENTAL ECONOMY too . Vincent Tan's fortune comes from sole franchise license on his Sports Toto . This is obvious monopoly because no other such license will ever be issueds . Monopoly on gaming and gambling (what is the difference?) also what made billions for Lim Goh Tong's Genting casino . Ananda Krishnan made his fortune through monopoly is horse gambling , then monopoly on ASTRO .
The Kuok family made fortune when they control monopoly over sugar . Such RENTAL ECONOMY gave them initial millions to be used in later monopoly . YTL Group were also successful without fair competition . Among the independent power providers , everyone in Malaysia already knows YTL got the juiciest deal from government through TNB . TNB @ government pays highest tariff to YTL . YTL's monopoly over high tariff is YTL's money spinner . It is unlikely TNB will enter any of such deal anymore , or at least revise them .
But if you are not within the right circles , then you may become a case of "I cant get anything !" .
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Intuition ???
"I KNEW that was going to happen!" How many times have you heard those words come out of your own mouth? Probably plenty, if you're like most people.We all possess something called "intuition". It's an inner "knowing' which, when paid attention to, will help us make decisions and even prevent us from making mistakes!Do you remember when you were in school and you had to take those dreaded multiple choice tests? How many times did you get an answer wrong because you had changed it from your original answer?
I'll bet it didn't take long before you figured out you should always go with your FIRST instinct. That's because you really did know the correct answer, and your intuition provided it for you. Then, perhaps you doubted your insight and changed the answer.Did you know that your brain, like a giant computer, stores all the data that is ever put into it? The problem is that most of us can only RECALL about 10% of that data at any given time. But, on occasion, your intuition kicks in and digs deep into the file cabinet of your mind to pull out a stored-away answer.I'm sure you've experienced having a piece of information "right on the tip of your tongue". The data is in your head somewhere but you can't quite get it out. Sometimes it just takes a while and the answer will come to you a few hours later. It just sort of "pops in" when you're not even trying to remember it anymore.Well, sometimes information will "pop in" as a warning or in answer to an unasked question. You get a "feeling" about something. Maybe it's just a "gut feeling" or maybe it's more like a premonition. Do you listen to it or ignore it?It's very easy, in hindsight, to see where you could have prevented a problem or mistake by listening to your hunches. But how can you learn to use your intuition to give you answers or even evoke warnings BEFORE it's too late to do something about them?
1. Learn to listen to your own intuition. The voice within you speaks to you constantly, and you are usually just too busy to listen to it. When making major decisions, make a conscious effort to take some quiet time alone to hear what your inner voice is saying.
2. Never doubt your own intelligence and common sense. When your inner voice says, "watch out", learn to take heed.
3. Never feel (because you don't have a PhD or other fancy degree), that you are less capable than the next guy. The so-called gurus and experts don't have all the answers and don't always know what they're talking about. Just remember how many stock EXPERTS told people to buy Yahoo at $150 a share.
4. Remember that nobody knows you like YOU do. Your intuition is YOU talking to you.5. Keep your own counsel. There's a reason your intuition gives you advice. Don't ignore it. You are your own best advisor.Some people intentionally ignore their intuition. They doubt their own inner wisdom. They do things even though their intuition tells them otherwise. They make the same mistakes over and over again. Then they find themselves always saying, "I KNEW that was going to happen!"
ENDp.s How many wrong decisions you've made because you over analyse things when you should have trust your own intuition?
I'll bet it didn't take long before you figured out you should always go with your FIRST instinct. That's because you really did know the correct answer, and your intuition provided it for you. Then, perhaps you doubted your insight and changed the answer.Did you know that your brain, like a giant computer, stores all the data that is ever put into it? The problem is that most of us can only RECALL about 10% of that data at any given time. But, on occasion, your intuition kicks in and digs deep into the file cabinet of your mind to pull out a stored-away answer.I'm sure you've experienced having a piece of information "right on the tip of your tongue". The data is in your head somewhere but you can't quite get it out. Sometimes it just takes a while and the answer will come to you a few hours later. It just sort of "pops in" when you're not even trying to remember it anymore.Well, sometimes information will "pop in" as a warning or in answer to an unasked question. You get a "feeling" about something. Maybe it's just a "gut feeling" or maybe it's more like a premonition. Do you listen to it or ignore it?It's very easy, in hindsight, to see where you could have prevented a problem or mistake by listening to your hunches. But how can you learn to use your intuition to give you answers or even evoke warnings BEFORE it's too late to do something about them?
1. Learn to listen to your own intuition. The voice within you speaks to you constantly, and you are usually just too busy to listen to it. When making major decisions, make a conscious effort to take some quiet time alone to hear what your inner voice is saying.
2. Never doubt your own intelligence and common sense. When your inner voice says, "watch out", learn to take heed.
3. Never feel (because you don't have a PhD or other fancy degree), that you are less capable than the next guy. The so-called gurus and experts don't have all the answers and don't always know what they're talking about. Just remember how many stock EXPERTS told people to buy Yahoo at $150 a share.
4. Remember that nobody knows you like YOU do. Your intuition is YOU talking to you.5. Keep your own counsel. There's a reason your intuition gives you advice. Don't ignore it. You are your own best advisor.Some people intentionally ignore their intuition. They doubt their own inner wisdom. They do things even though their intuition tells them otherwise. They make the same mistakes over and over again. Then they find themselves always saying, "I KNEW that was going to happen!"
ENDp.s How many wrong decisions you've made because you over analyse things when you should have trust your own intuition?
Myth of Tanah Melayu
We are sustained by myths only as long as they are empowering, inspiring, instrumental, and serve our interests; yet when those very same myths provide us with little else than the false comfort of an unreconstructed nostalgia for a past that never existed, then they turn into cages that imprison us for life. The myth of a unique European ‘civilizational genius’ has only helped to parochialize Europe even more; the staid discourse of ‘Asian values’ merely denies the fact that Asian civilizations would not have developed as they did without contact with the outside world; and the myth of a pure and uninterrupted development of Indo-Aryan culture has only opened the way for the rise of right-wing Hindutva Fascists in the Indian subcontinent.
Notwithstanding their claims to standing proud and tall, the demagogues who utter such pedestrian nonsense remain stunted, as their logic, on the stage of global history: testimony to the claim that those whose confidence is founded in stilts can only remain handicapped for life.
A nation that is grown up is one that is mature enough to realize that it can dispense with such myths, particularly when the honeyed nectar of mythology reveals itself as nothing more than poison. Yet poison has become our draught, and this nation of ours is ailing to the core by now.
The symptoms of the malady are all around us these days and we see them readily enough: As the asinine debate over a rap rendition of the national anthem turns bilious and takes on an increasingly racialized mien, forcing all sides to retreat to the hallowed sanctuary of communal and racial identity, the nation’s attention has been diverted from truly pressing issues concerning the economy and the spate of potentially explosive legal cases currently being fought out in the courts of the land.
The vernacular press assumes the role of champions of each respective community, and racial overtones are clearly seen and felt in the language of national politics. Yet nobody points to the real issue at stake, even if we need to discuss the rap video rendered by the young Wee Meng Chee, which surely should be this: If a young Malaysian has seen fit to deliver his tirade against all that he sees wrong in the country in terms that are racially-determined, is this not a reflection of the racialised and divisive politics that already reigns in Malaysia, courtesy of the ruling National Front coalition led by UMNO in the first place? The racialised logic that rests in Meng Chee’s rap is only a mirror reflection of the racialised politics already at work in Malaysia already. So are we Malaysians so ashamed of ourselves that we can no longer look at ourselves squarely in the face and accept the monstrosity that stands before us today?
Yet the editorials in the vernacular press are baying for blood and Meng Chee, they insist, must be brought to book. Amidst this furore of chest-thumping theatrics and protestations of communal insult and outrage, we hear the communitarians among us blare out again and again: ‘Jangan tunduk’, ‘Defend our pride’, ‘kurang ajar’ and so forth. No, reason and rational debate are no longer welcomed in Malaysia that is ‘truly Asia’, and this homeland for some will demand its pound of flesh from others. Meng Chee is not the first and certainly will not be the last to suffer from the slighted sensitivities of those whose comfort zones and essentialized identities are sacrosanct and inviolable. Previously others have also been brought to the village tribunal of the mob for allegedly insulting race and religion as well. (Here I write from bitter experience myself.)
Yet the irony of ironies behind this tableau of flaring tempers and heated emotions is the skewered (and now silenced) appeal for us, as one nation, to remain united and to respect the diversity among us. The sonorous voice of the state trembles and falters as it mouths this language of double-speak that fails to convince: On the one hand we maintain the lie – and it is a lie, let us admit that at least – that this is a happy land of multiculturalism and diversity where every shade of colour in the pluralist rainbow is represented and has its place. On the other hand the very same mouth that utters these sweet platitudes tells us that not far beneath the diversity and pluralism that rests on the scratched surface of Malaysia is the understated understanding that some communities – or rather one in particular – deserves a better place in the sun; namely, the Bumiputeras.
Why?
Have we become a schizophrenic nation blissfully unaware of the contradictions that have become so heartbreakingly apparent to others? Meng Chee’s unpardonable ‘offence’ was to have slighted the pride and identity of one community that claims to be part of Malaysia and yet remains strangely aloof from the rest of us. The great act of treason he is accused of committing – offending the dignity of a specific community and its creed – rings hollow when we consider the bile and vitriol that has emanated from the leaders of that community itself, ranging from the drawing of daggers in public to the language of blood and belonging that has been repeated, time and again, by its leaders. The soapbox orators of UMNO and its Youth Wing in particular have demanded that others respect the special rights and privileges of the Malays, while forgetting the fact that for the past five decades we – Malaysians – have had to put up with their own brand of small town politics incessantly.
Yet this discourse of communal pride and identity is sustained by one crucial myth: that this land of ours is a competed and contested territory where two nations are in constant competition: The nation-state called ‘Malaysia’ and the mythical land called ‘Tanah Melayu’.
The skin of the demagogue is ever so sensitive, so fragile, in the face of the sound argument. As soon as the mention of a contrary idea is made, it bristles and reacts; the hand reaches for the keris; the foot steps on the soapbox; the mouth opens to utter the word ‘May’ to be followed by the cryptic number thirteen…
Perhaps the sensitivity we see can be accounted for by the fact that the corpus of postcolonial ethno-nationalist politics in this country is sustained by the singular myth that this patch of God’s earth was and is a land that ‘belongs’ to one community in particular. From that myth issues forth the other related claims to special privileges, special rights, special allocations and entitlements.
The myth is sustained by the idea put forth that prior to the coming-into-being of this nation called ‘Malaysia’ there was once this mythical land called ‘Tanah Melayu’. Yet the historian would be hard pressed indeed to find a source to back this claim, for the embarrassing thing about our epic histories and hikayats of old is that there is scarcely a mention of the word. For years – if not more than a decade by now – I have been looking for this mythical land so loved and cherished by the young bloods and hotspurs of UMNO, yet I have never discovered it. The Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa (written in stages between the late 17th to 18th centuries) does not mention it; nor does the Hikayat Patani, the Taj-us-Salatin (Mahkota Segala Raja-Raja), the Hikayat Shah Mardan, Hikayat Inderaputera, Silsilah Bugis, Hikayat Pasai, Hikayat Siak, etc.
And finally one day while trawling through the flea markets and antique bazaars of Europe I came across a dull and worn-out copper coin with the word ‘Tanah Melayu’ stamped on it, dating to the late 19th century.
Having taken it home, I looked it up in the reference books I had only to discover that it was one of those hybrid coins of dubious worth that were used in the trade between European colonial companies then stationed in Singapore and Malacca with Malay traders from the (then weakened) Malay sultanates on the Peninsula. Used as loose coinage in commercial transactions that were at best unequal and at worst exploitative to the Malay traders then, the coins had a decidedly counterfeit feel to them, and while registering the lightness of its weight in the palm of my hand, the thought came to me: That this coin, with the word ‘Tanah Melayu’ stamped on it in Jawi alphabet, sums up the irony of the past and the painful realities of colonialism then. The Malay kingdoms had been colonised, sidelined and diminished, and all that was given back to the Malays was a dull copper coin with the myth of ‘Tanah Melayu’ stamped on it in so casual a manner.
Colonialism had robbed the natives of Asia of their lands, their history and culture; introduced the divisive politics of race and ethnicity as part of the ideology of divide and rule, and had created a plural economy where the colonial masters reigned supreme. In the decades and centuries to come the colonized subjects would be doubly colonized again as they internalized the logic and epistemology of Empire, thereby completing the work of the colonial masters who had colonized their lands, stolen their resources, but not altered their minds.
Today, as race-based ethno-nationalist politics prevails in Malaysia and while our communities remain divided along sectarian race and religion-based lines, we lament the loss of the Malaysian ideal that was perhaps never there in the first place. The hounding of bloggers, activists and students like Meng Chee is a reminder that the frontiers of race, religion and ethnicity remain as permanent scars that have disfigured the landscape of our nation, apparently permanently.
And as the virulent voices in the vernacular editorials of the local press call for vengeance against Meng Chee, perhaps they should ask themselves this simple and honest question: For half a century now the so-called ‘non-Malays’ of Malaysia have been asked to attest their loyalty and commitment to the Malaysian idea and ideal; to relegate their cultural history to the background; to adopt the national language, culture and even dress in an attempt to assimilate to the reality of life in Malaysia.
But tell me, dear reader, how many Malays in Malaysia are truly Malaysian; and how many Malays think of themselves as Malaysian and are committed to that very same ideal of a Malaysian Malaysia? Are the Malays Malaysians who live in Malaysia? Or are the Malays still living in the mythological land of ‘Tanah Melayu’, an idea dreamt of by Orientalist scholars and administrators during the colonial era, as a worthless compensation to a people who had been colonized and whose pride was reduced to the worth of a copper coin?
Under A Shadow of KERAJAAN
We are often told that the Malay word for government is kerajaan. This, for those who are aware of the subtle semantic shifts and differences that are constantly at work in the Malay language, is of course a bad translation.
Kerajaan literally means “to be in a state of having a Raja”. The concept kerajaan harks back to the feudal era where Malay politics was very much centered in and around the court (istana or palace) and where power was concentrated in the office of the Raja himself.
During the feudal era, “politics” as we know it did not, in fact, exist. For there to be politics, there has to be what contemporary political theorists refer to as the moment of the “political” (ie the process of contesting, engagement and negotiation that is characteristic of the political process itself).
“Politics” only comes into being when we have introduced a system of institutions, norms and practices that facilitate and make possible the distribution, negotiation and exercise of power in a society. These institutions did not exist in the feudal setting.
The Raja was, in effect, the executive, legislature and judiciary, all rolled into one. While there was some delegation of power and authority to other actors and agents, no one was deluded enough to believe that power-sharing took place during the feudal era.
Even when the Raja delegated duties and responsibilities to others, it was clear that he was the one who was in charge. Thus when the Sultan of Melaka allowed the building of the great mosque in the city, he made sure that the imam of the mosque was one of his relatives. This was to ensure that there would be no alternative sites of political and discursive activity that would exist unchecked and outside the parameters of his control.
One may wonder what all this has to do with the present state of affairs in Malaysia. The answer is simple, depending on how we frame the question.
For years, many political analysts, journalists and civil society activists have been asking questions about the Malaysian political system. There have been many attempts to label the political system in Malaysia according to a specific category. Is it an authoritarian democracy? A liberal-capitalist dictatorship? A centralized federation?
The answer is quite straightforward. Malaysia, like many other developing countries in the South today, is a hybrid entity that shares both modern and pre-modern features.
In terms of its institutions and services, it is a highly developed (and some would say over-developed) country where the latest in hi-tech systems and technologies are used to govern the state and carry out the daily task of management. Malaysia’s success in the race for development is beyond doubt. It is one of the most developed and well-managed countries in the region.
But Malaysia is also a state that suffers from the social malaise of uneven development, and nowhere is this more evident than in its political culture that remains rooted in the pre-modern feudal past.
Malaysia therefore has the latest technology that it utilizes in the process of government and management of the state and its economy. But the authorities in the country also use this technology for decidedly un-modern or even anti-modern purposes.
Witness the way that the self-appointed “morality police” have used hi-tech surveillance technology to spy on young couples holding hands in the streets, meeting together in private, etc.
The state media also used the latest hi-tech facilities to spread its message to the national audience, thereby creating a “virtual nation” that is hooked up to a single mainstream culture that exists on television, radio and the Internet.
But the state media has also used this modern technology to build up a personality cult where the rulers of the country have been elevated to the status of modern-day icons, reminiscent of the feudal era where leaders were objects of veneration and worship.
The contradictions, however, do not stop there. The root of the problem lies in the feudal mindset and values that reside among the elite of the most dominant and powerful political party in the country, UMNO.
UMNO was, from the very beginning, a conservative-traditionalist party that was run and governed according to the values and worldview of the feudal era. The leaders of UMNO, from the Tunku onwards, have treated the office of government as if it was a tool for them to use at will.
Successive UMNO leaders have used the office of state and the bureaucracy to further their own political agendas, even when it came to settling scores between themselves in their own race for power within the party.
Attempts have been made to address and reverse this feudalist trend among the UMNO leadership itself, but to no avail. (Ironically, the most stringent and vocal critic of the feudal values and culture of Umno was the present Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad himself, who condemned the style of leadership of the party in his book “The Malay Dilemma” in 1970).
This tendency to see the bureaucratic machinery of the state as an appendage of UMNO and a tool of politics would be completely incomprehensible in the context of a modern liberal-democracy. But then again, a liberal-democracy is precisely what Malaysia is not.
Despite the trappings of modernity that dot the Malaysian landscape – from the tallest building in the world to the biggest dam – the country remains a modern neo-feudal state governed by elites whose values date back to the feudal era of 200 years ago.
This would also explain the developments we have witnessed in the country over the past two years. In the wake of the sacking of the ex-DPM Anwar Ibrahim and the protests that followed, many asked why the state had over-reacted to such an extent.
Was it necessary to arrest so many people? Was it necessary to use such force when dispersing protesters? Again the answer is a simple one if we know what kind of political system we are dealing with.
The devastating campaign to wipe out the supporters of Anwar and the reformasi movement might seem a tad over the top in a modern liberal-democracy, but not so in the context of the neo-feudal politics of UMNO. After all, Malay history is full of examples of palace coups and rebellions against unpopular Rajas.
In all these cases, the reaction has been the same: The ruler has responded to the challenge by wiping out all his opponents and challengers. Mercy has little space or room to flourish in the feudal environment, and the feudal era saw few prisoners being taken by the victors in the internecine struggles that tore apart the Malay world.
When UMNO used all the resources at its disposal to wipe out the challengers from within in 1987 and 1998, it was perfectly normal political behavior from a party whose values are rooted in the feudalist logic of zero-sum confrontation.
This neo-feudal drama has been played out again and again, and among the latest developments include the relatively light sentence meted out to the ex-Inspector General of Police, Rahim Noor and the statement by the Chief Minister of Melaka Ali Rustam who said that in future all doctors, lawyers, architects and professionals who are known to be supporters of the opposition will no longer be favored. He also warned government servants not to support the opposition.
Human rights activists, union members and proponents of civil society may lament these developments as further proof of the erosion of civil society and civil liberties in the country. But few have cared to recognize the simple fact that such a civil society has never really taken root in Malaysia anyway.
The relatively light sentence given to the ex-IGP and the blatant show of favoritism and partisanship on the part of the Melaka Chief Minister are all in keeping with how a feudal form of rule operates, where those who are on the winning side are allowed to benefit while those who oppose the status quo will feel the weight of the ruler’s power as it comes crashing down on them.
There is no consideration whatsoever given to ethics or propriety, as the whole purpose of the kerajaan system was to accumulate power and to maintain possession of it. Power, understood in the sense of the right to force and coerce, was in turn expressed publicly and with little reservation. After all, power would be useless and meaningless if the Raja did not use it in the most extravagant manner.
We are therefore back to where we started. Those who continue to wonder aloud about the state of the nation and who ask “what is this country coming to?” may themselves have been deluded all along.
From the day Malaysia became independent in 1957, the country has been living under the rule of a closed circle of political elites whose values and worldview remain firmly rooted in the feudal mentality of the past. It is therefore fitting that the Malay word for government remains kerajaan, for kerajaan is precisely what we have in Malaysia today.
Those who wish to struggle for a different kind of social and political order would do well by understanding what kind of order we have around us in the first place. The mistake of the opposition is that it has tried to introduce radical changes to a society which may not even be ready, able or willing to undertake such changes.
The enduring cult of personality and leadership, the highly personal and idiosyncratic form of government, the conflation of party and government, politicians and the bureaucracy: these are all symptoms of a state of confused and uneven development where material progress has shot ahead of intellectual, social and cultural development and maturation.
In the year 2000, we still live in the shadow of the feudal kerajaan of the past. We ignore this reality at our peril.
Kerajaan literally means “to be in a state of having a Raja”. The concept kerajaan harks back to the feudal era where Malay politics was very much centered in and around the court (istana or palace) and where power was concentrated in the office of the Raja himself.
During the feudal era, “politics” as we know it did not, in fact, exist. For there to be politics, there has to be what contemporary political theorists refer to as the moment of the “political” (ie the process of contesting, engagement and negotiation that is characteristic of the political process itself).
“Politics” only comes into being when we have introduced a system of institutions, norms and practices that facilitate and make possible the distribution, negotiation and exercise of power in a society. These institutions did not exist in the feudal setting.
The Raja was, in effect, the executive, legislature and judiciary, all rolled into one. While there was some delegation of power and authority to other actors and agents, no one was deluded enough to believe that power-sharing took place during the feudal era.
Even when the Raja delegated duties and responsibilities to others, it was clear that he was the one who was in charge. Thus when the Sultan of Melaka allowed the building of the great mosque in the city, he made sure that the imam of the mosque was one of his relatives. This was to ensure that there would be no alternative sites of political and discursive activity that would exist unchecked and outside the parameters of his control.
One may wonder what all this has to do with the present state of affairs in Malaysia. The answer is simple, depending on how we frame the question.
For years, many political analysts, journalists and civil society activists have been asking questions about the Malaysian political system. There have been many attempts to label the political system in Malaysia according to a specific category. Is it an authoritarian democracy? A liberal-capitalist dictatorship? A centralized federation?
The answer is quite straightforward. Malaysia, like many other developing countries in the South today, is a hybrid entity that shares both modern and pre-modern features.
In terms of its institutions and services, it is a highly developed (and some would say over-developed) country where the latest in hi-tech systems and technologies are used to govern the state and carry out the daily task of management. Malaysia’s success in the race for development is beyond doubt. It is one of the most developed and well-managed countries in the region.
But Malaysia is also a state that suffers from the social malaise of uneven development, and nowhere is this more evident than in its political culture that remains rooted in the pre-modern feudal past.
Malaysia therefore has the latest technology that it utilizes in the process of government and management of the state and its economy. But the authorities in the country also use this technology for decidedly un-modern or even anti-modern purposes.
Witness the way that the self-appointed “morality police” have used hi-tech surveillance technology to spy on young couples holding hands in the streets, meeting together in private, etc.
The state media also used the latest hi-tech facilities to spread its message to the national audience, thereby creating a “virtual nation” that is hooked up to a single mainstream culture that exists on television, radio and the Internet.
But the state media has also used this modern technology to build up a personality cult where the rulers of the country have been elevated to the status of modern-day icons, reminiscent of the feudal era where leaders were objects of veneration and worship.
The contradictions, however, do not stop there. The root of the problem lies in the feudal mindset and values that reside among the elite of the most dominant and powerful political party in the country, UMNO.
UMNO was, from the very beginning, a conservative-traditionalist party that was run and governed according to the values and worldview of the feudal era. The leaders of UMNO, from the Tunku onwards, have treated the office of government as if it was a tool for them to use at will.
Successive UMNO leaders have used the office of state and the bureaucracy to further their own political agendas, even when it came to settling scores between themselves in their own race for power within the party.
Attempts have been made to address and reverse this feudalist trend among the UMNO leadership itself, but to no avail. (Ironically, the most stringent and vocal critic of the feudal values and culture of Umno was the present Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad himself, who condemned the style of leadership of the party in his book “The Malay Dilemma” in 1970).
This tendency to see the bureaucratic machinery of the state as an appendage of UMNO and a tool of politics would be completely incomprehensible in the context of a modern liberal-democracy. But then again, a liberal-democracy is precisely what Malaysia is not.
Despite the trappings of modernity that dot the Malaysian landscape – from the tallest building in the world to the biggest dam – the country remains a modern neo-feudal state governed by elites whose values date back to the feudal era of 200 years ago.
This would also explain the developments we have witnessed in the country over the past two years. In the wake of the sacking of the ex-DPM Anwar Ibrahim and the protests that followed, many asked why the state had over-reacted to such an extent.
Was it necessary to arrest so many people? Was it necessary to use such force when dispersing protesters? Again the answer is a simple one if we know what kind of political system we are dealing with.
The devastating campaign to wipe out the supporters of Anwar and the reformasi movement might seem a tad over the top in a modern liberal-democracy, but not so in the context of the neo-feudal politics of UMNO. After all, Malay history is full of examples of palace coups and rebellions against unpopular Rajas.
In all these cases, the reaction has been the same: The ruler has responded to the challenge by wiping out all his opponents and challengers. Mercy has little space or room to flourish in the feudal environment, and the feudal era saw few prisoners being taken by the victors in the internecine struggles that tore apart the Malay world.
When UMNO used all the resources at its disposal to wipe out the challengers from within in 1987 and 1998, it was perfectly normal political behavior from a party whose values are rooted in the feudalist logic of zero-sum confrontation.
This neo-feudal drama has been played out again and again, and among the latest developments include the relatively light sentence meted out to the ex-Inspector General of Police, Rahim Noor and the statement by the Chief Minister of Melaka Ali Rustam who said that in future all doctors, lawyers, architects and professionals who are known to be supporters of the opposition will no longer be favored. He also warned government servants not to support the opposition.
Human rights activists, union members and proponents of civil society may lament these developments as further proof of the erosion of civil society and civil liberties in the country. But few have cared to recognize the simple fact that such a civil society has never really taken root in Malaysia anyway.
The relatively light sentence given to the ex-IGP and the blatant show of favoritism and partisanship on the part of the Melaka Chief Minister are all in keeping with how a feudal form of rule operates, where those who are on the winning side are allowed to benefit while those who oppose the status quo will feel the weight of the ruler’s power as it comes crashing down on them.
There is no consideration whatsoever given to ethics or propriety, as the whole purpose of the kerajaan system was to accumulate power and to maintain possession of it. Power, understood in the sense of the right to force and coerce, was in turn expressed publicly and with little reservation. After all, power would be useless and meaningless if the Raja did not use it in the most extravagant manner.
We are therefore back to where we started. Those who continue to wonder aloud about the state of the nation and who ask “what is this country coming to?” may themselves have been deluded all along.
From the day Malaysia became independent in 1957, the country has been living under the rule of a closed circle of political elites whose values and worldview remain firmly rooted in the feudal mentality of the past. It is therefore fitting that the Malay word for government remains kerajaan, for kerajaan is precisely what we have in Malaysia today.
Those who wish to struggle for a different kind of social and political order would do well by understanding what kind of order we have around us in the first place. The mistake of the opposition is that it has tried to introduce radical changes to a society which may not even be ready, able or willing to undertake such changes.
The enduring cult of personality and leadership, the highly personal and idiosyncratic form of government, the conflation of party and government, politicians and the bureaucracy: these are all symptoms of a state of confused and uneven development where material progress has shot ahead of intellectual, social and cultural development and maturation.
In the year 2000, we still live in the shadow of the feudal kerajaan of the past. We ignore this reality at our peril.
Workers and Coaching
Today’s workers, especially in the developed world, have far superior skills in language, science, and math. Many, especially in high-tech and biotech, are college grads. They are officer material, not raw recruits. The drill sergeants would have to give way to the officer candidate school’s instructors, with different sets of skills and means of motivation. Enter the coaching style of leadership.
Coaches decide which players to keep, and when or if they can play. Coaches bring the best out of their players and ensure that they fit well with the rest of the team. Coaches do not train players in the manner that head mechanics train novice technicians. They do not train but sharpen and develop the talent and ability of their players.
Coaches are themselves former players; however, the best players do not necessarily make the best coaches. The two require different sets of skills and talent. Coaches lead the team, yet in terms of pay and public recognition, they often play second fiddle to their star players. Even the most celebrated coaches are best remembered for their marquee players.
When the players shine, there is a sense of reflected glory on the part of their coaches. This after all is what they are trying to achieve, consequently they do not envy or resent their players’ achievements.
The coaching leadership style attracts many personality types, including authoritarian ones. This leadership style is not exclusive to sports but is seen in not-for-profit organizations, academic and research institutions, and in firms of professionals (lawyers and accountants). In the corporate world, CEOs are increasingly acting more as coaches rather than as military leaders.
Unlike the rigid pyramidal command-and-control structure of the military, with few generals and admirals, few more colonels and majors, and a whole lot of captains and lieutenants, the coaching model has a flattened hierarchy, basically only two or three layers—coaches, assistant coaches, and players; a block with a gentle-sloped roof rather than a pyramid.
Like platoon commanders, coaches exert their control on their followers directly. They are there on the sideline during practice and at games. The communications are direct, and so are the feedbacks.
Arsene Wenger, the winning coach of the Arsenal soccer club, related that the most important part of his coaching job was to recruit new talent, and when he found one, to develop it. A crucial aspect to developing new talent was to ensure that he was not being overshadowed by existing players, the mighty oak stunting new saplings. Wenger had to let go many seasoned players well before their time because he felt that their presence inhibited the development of new talent. It would take an extremely confident coach to do this; it is counterintuitive. The usual tendency is to stick with your proven players rather than to try the new and untried.
Tun Razak increasingly assumed the coaching style of leadership after he settled the 1969 riot. He was unique in that he successfully made the smooth transition from being a military leader in the aftermath of the riot to the coach-like prime minister of a democracy. Many leaders cannot successfully make such transitions.
Tun Razak exhibited other unique qualities. He inherited a tired and less-than-talented cabinet from his predecessor, so he actively sought new talent. The political structure in UMNO then (like today) did not encourage the emergence of new talent, so he bypassed the system. He went outside of politics; from the civil service he recruited such seasoned leaders as Ghazali Shafie and Chong Hon Nam; from the private sector, Tengku Razaleigh. Under his tutelage, they scaled even greater heights. Abdullah Ahmad, Tun’s Special Assistant, went on to complete his studies at Cambridge and later became Mahathir’s Special Ambassador to the United Nations.
Tun Razak demonstrated his coaching style in other ways. When the tradition-bound civil service stymied his ambitious development plans, he did two things. First he hired an American management consultant (Milton Esman) to revamp the service. He could not possibly fire the entire civil service, so he decided to enhance its professionalism through extensive training. He sent young officers who had not quite yet acquired the bad habits of the civil service to graduate schools abroad. He initiated formal in-house training for fresh recruits instead of letting them loose to be trained haphazardly on the job. He realized that the civil service was incapable of executing his policies; yet needless criticism would simply undermine the organization.
His other bold strategy was to bypass completely the civil service. When bureaucrats stalled his policies, he created extra-governmental bodies to effectively bypass obscurantist civil servants. Thus was born the Government-linked companies (GLCs).
Like a good coach, Tun Razak first recruited fresh talent, and then groomed them to be developed fully and not be overshadowed by the old timers, the same strategy that Arsene Wenger used so successfully a decade later with his Arsenal team.
Malaysians were ready for the Tun’s coaching style because they were becoming better educated and more confident. He was also sufficiently flexible to adapt to the changes he saw in his followers. In short, Tun Razak’s leadership style was flexible; it was equipped with the metaphorical adjustable flaps.
Coaches decide which players to keep, and when or if they can play. Coaches bring the best out of their players and ensure that they fit well with the rest of the team. Coaches do not train players in the manner that head mechanics train novice technicians. They do not train but sharpen and develop the talent and ability of their players.
Coaches are themselves former players; however, the best players do not necessarily make the best coaches. The two require different sets of skills and talent. Coaches lead the team, yet in terms of pay and public recognition, they often play second fiddle to their star players. Even the most celebrated coaches are best remembered for their marquee players.
When the players shine, there is a sense of reflected glory on the part of their coaches. This after all is what they are trying to achieve, consequently they do not envy or resent their players’ achievements.
The coaching leadership style attracts many personality types, including authoritarian ones. This leadership style is not exclusive to sports but is seen in not-for-profit organizations, academic and research institutions, and in firms of professionals (lawyers and accountants). In the corporate world, CEOs are increasingly acting more as coaches rather than as military leaders.
Unlike the rigid pyramidal command-and-control structure of the military, with few generals and admirals, few more colonels and majors, and a whole lot of captains and lieutenants, the coaching model has a flattened hierarchy, basically only two or three layers—coaches, assistant coaches, and players; a block with a gentle-sloped roof rather than a pyramid.
Like platoon commanders, coaches exert their control on their followers directly. They are there on the sideline during practice and at games. The communications are direct, and so are the feedbacks.
Arsene Wenger, the winning coach of the Arsenal soccer club, related that the most important part of his coaching job was to recruit new talent, and when he found one, to develop it. A crucial aspect to developing new talent was to ensure that he was not being overshadowed by existing players, the mighty oak stunting new saplings. Wenger had to let go many seasoned players well before their time because he felt that their presence inhibited the development of new talent. It would take an extremely confident coach to do this; it is counterintuitive. The usual tendency is to stick with your proven players rather than to try the new and untried.
Tun Razak increasingly assumed the coaching style of leadership after he settled the 1969 riot. He was unique in that he successfully made the smooth transition from being a military leader in the aftermath of the riot to the coach-like prime minister of a democracy. Many leaders cannot successfully make such transitions.
Tun Razak exhibited other unique qualities. He inherited a tired and less-than-talented cabinet from his predecessor, so he actively sought new talent. The political structure in UMNO then (like today) did not encourage the emergence of new talent, so he bypassed the system. He went outside of politics; from the civil service he recruited such seasoned leaders as Ghazali Shafie and Chong Hon Nam; from the private sector, Tengku Razaleigh. Under his tutelage, they scaled even greater heights. Abdullah Ahmad, Tun’s Special Assistant, went on to complete his studies at Cambridge and later became Mahathir’s Special Ambassador to the United Nations.
Tun Razak demonstrated his coaching style in other ways. When the tradition-bound civil service stymied his ambitious development plans, he did two things. First he hired an American management consultant (Milton Esman) to revamp the service. He could not possibly fire the entire civil service, so he decided to enhance its professionalism through extensive training. He sent young officers who had not quite yet acquired the bad habits of the civil service to graduate schools abroad. He initiated formal in-house training for fresh recruits instead of letting them loose to be trained haphazardly on the job. He realized that the civil service was incapable of executing his policies; yet needless criticism would simply undermine the organization.
His other bold strategy was to bypass completely the civil service. When bureaucrats stalled his policies, he created extra-governmental bodies to effectively bypass obscurantist civil servants. Thus was born the Government-linked companies (GLCs).
Like a good coach, Tun Razak first recruited fresh talent, and then groomed them to be developed fully and not be overshadowed by the old timers, the same strategy that Arsene Wenger used so successfully a decade later with his Arsenal team.
Malaysians were ready for the Tun’s coaching style because they were becoming better educated and more confident. He was also sufficiently flexible to adapt to the changes he saw in his followers. In short, Tun Razak’s leadership style was flexible; it was equipped with the metaphorical adjustable flaps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
