We all have seen atrocities committed by the Israelis on the Palestinians for more than sixty years now. And we have also seen how America and the United Nations have been closing both eyes to them. The first question, which I would like the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) to ask America and the Israelis is: What does Israel really want? Is it lasting peace for the Jews or just Palestinian and Arab land? Or if they want to dominate the whole of the Middle East?
What?
And for that matter, does the American public, including the Jewish-Americans and their political leaders, too, know what does the Zionist leaders of Israel really want, so that they will not go on supporting them blindly, to the detriment of their own interests and that of the rest of the world? If they want to be America’s strongest ally in the Middle East, they have got it. But is it good for both America and Israel that this is so?
OIC leaders must drive the point to the American leaders that the strong ties that the country has with Israel has not produced much good to their own stability. America had to forgo their own basic liberties and go against their own Constitution and international law to allow Israeli transgression on the Palestinians.
If indeed America truly wants a better ally in the Middle East, they are the Arabs including the Palestinians and no others. America must be told that the Cold War had ended and they do not have to have presence to check the Soviet Union which is now defunct. They can start to establish more cordial ties with the Arab countries like civilized people instead of continuing to strangle them and get one or two confused Arab country to counter check their position there. America must also be told again and again that it is Arab OIL that is what moves the American economy, not support from the Jews in Israel or America.
Many elder Americans will still remember how the Jews in America was called, ‘Jew Boy’ when they first started to infiltrate the country; and they were despised upon by the Anglo-Saxons. On the other hand, the handouts to Israel that comes from the American taxpayers are what are bankrupting the American economy.
Another point that the OIC leaders ought to point to the Americans is that there are only 12 million Jews in the world, most of who are in America with a smaller number in Israel. This is against the 1.5 billion Muslims who are in the 57 Muslim countries with a sizeable number in all other countries. It won’t be long before the Muslim population in America overtakes the Jewish population. And if the Zionists think they can export Zionism, they are wrong. Zionism is not a religion; it is just a political belief. The world has already decided on which political believes they want to embrace -- either Islamic democracy or western democracy. More and more are choosing the former, as the later had shown its true colours in its persecution of Muslims and more Muslims.
Islamic democracy brings with it the Islamic system including the Islamic banking system which is spreading widely throughout the world and it has also been embraced by western democratic countries including Singapore. There can never be a Zionist banking system.
As it is there are more mosques in America than Jewish house of prayers called synagogues. Whereas the mosques are well attended by Muslims, the synagogues are not. All of these synagogues were built after the Second World War with no new ones being built. Many church buildings had been converted to discos and even mosques. If America is really trying to seek permanent peace in the world particularly the Middle East, they have to start reassessing their position vis-à-vis Israel and the Palestine.
The Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are better allies of America than America had ever acknowledged.
If political solution cannot be taken by the Americans, than the solution will come with the population boom of Muslims in America whose population will become as large as the Jewish population in forty years' time.
America has been making a big mistake by not acknowledging this fact. On the other hand, by cohabiting with Israel, America suffers.
America does not need Israel because Israel has not given America peace in all the time the country began to exist from 1948, in a land that was forcefully carved out of Palestine by the imperialists. Or do the Israeli Zionist leaders want to convert everybody in the Middle East and the world into Judaism? I doubt this can be achieved. Worse, the number of people who believe in Judaism as a religion is shrinking in size, even in America and amongst the Israelis, too. God has a way of punishing the Jews by not allowing them to procreate and spread their religion.
Imagine Judaism came before Christianity and Islam. But despite that only Christianity and Islam have grown by leaps and bounds and became a multiracial religion, whereas Judaism is strictly for the small number of Jews, and represent a fraction of the population of the world.
Even amongst the Jews in Israel and America there are groups who are opposed to the creation of the Zionist state of Israel. (Please visit: www.nkusa.org to know more about them and their hatred of the Israeli state and their Zionist leaders) And these are not ordinary Jews, but the orthodox that subscribes to the true teachings of the Jewish holy book called the Torah and Talmud. They showed their full support to the Iranian president when he visited Columbia late last year to give a speech. Whereas, the Israeli leaders do subscribe to their Zionist ideology that runs counter to the aspirations of the Children of Israel.
This ideology was created by wealthy European and American Jews who seek to find a state for it’s people so that all the Jews could return to their ‘homeland’ based on their wrong interpretation of the Torah, the Jewish holy book which the Muslims call Al-Taurah. Ironically, this plan fails. After more than sixty years, not many Jews from Europe and America have returned even despite the introduction of the Law of the Return that in effect allow any Jew from acquiring Israeli citizenship on his or her return to Israel, including those who are willing to convert to the religion.
On the other hand, Palestinians who were born in what is now Israel are forbidden to return to their ancestral land; or if they marry Arabs who are Israeli citizens, they will not be given Israeli citizenship.
The Arab population in Israel is expanding fast, whereas the Jewish population is shrinking. This is another proof that the creation of the state of Israel is not popular even amongst the international Jews, because they know the state cannot offer then happiness or permanent peace, but despair.
Many of the Jews who live outside of Israel may support the creation of the state financially and morally, but none are willing to take up Israeli citizenship, because they know that such a status will render them as pariahs in the world. They can never go anywhere in the world using Israeli passport, so they would rather remain where they are in Europe or America. So, what is baffling me is: What is the true goal of Israel in wanting to grab more Palestinian land and the Holy Sanctuary called Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, otherwise known to the Muslims as Baitulmukaddis?
Killing Palestinians, demolishing their homes and grabbing their land can make the Zionist leaders, especially Ariel Sharon and his ilk score points, but it will also make them despicable and increase the hatred of all the Jews who are already living in misery in Israel, from the handout from Uncle Sam. Even if they have managed to grab all Palestinian land and the mosque, I doubt it if the Israelis can live in permanent peace.
They have to acknowledge that the Arab world is too large; and they are all around Israel. So, there is no point for the Israeli leaders to pretend that they a powerful force, just because they possess nuclear arms and are supported by America. Israel and America must stop thinking that the whole world must live with them. It’s them who should start to think on how to live with the rest of the world.
The Zionist claim to follow to the letter what is written in their Torah, that says that they should create a land for themselves called Israel. They say they follow the Torah. But the Torah also says that the Jews are not to have their own state and they ought to live amongst the Arabs and Muslims, as what the Naturei Karta Orthodox Jews insist all the time.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Malaysia in reverse gear: Proton to make Kereta Lembu
Its time for our leaders to become readers. But sadly it is not part of the budaya for our people to read books, especially in the English language. Kalau baca pun, its ghost stories, buku agama, Mangga magazine, Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian and Harakah – stuff that can make you brain-dead.
Our leaders should read real books. To make it easy for them our leaders can start reading books that are more than 20 years old. Then maybe after that they can progress to more contemporary and modern books. One 28 year old book that I strongly recommend is Michael E. Porter’s book on Competitive Strategy (1980). Another good book that Porter wrote 23 years ago is Competitive Advantage (1985). In these two books Porter explains why the Italians are so good at design, at making leather shoes and belts, racing cars and so on. Each country or community has certain competitive advantages. We should be aware of these advantages and how to formulate competitive strategies.
Porter’s books are not pie in the sky speculations but observations of reality. To ignore reality is to be bodoh. If we choose to ignore reality then surely it is bodoh sombong.
Which brings us to today’s topic. A businessman was saying recently that it is difficult to buy small diesel lorries. The choices are getting limited. There are tens if not hundreds of diesel lorries available in the market worldwide but in Malaysia the choices available are narrowing. There is a simple reason for this.
Diesel technology has now evolved very quickly. Diesel is now being developed as the ‘clean and green fuel’ of the future. This is largely due to technological advancement in diesel refining which produces a much cleaner fuel with much lesser impurities. As a result of this cleaner diesel two things have happened. Many countries (including India, Singapore, Thailand, etc.) plus of course the US, Europe, Japan and Korea have made it mandatory that only the new cleaner diesel be sold in their countries. This reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But Malaysia still sells the old ‘dirtier’ diesel fuel.
Secondly, based on this high-tech diesel fuels, more efficient diesel engines have been developed especially by the Germans. Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz and Audi of Germany are leading the charge in newer, more efficient, cleaner diesel engines. The sad news is, none of these engines can run well on the old diesel fuel that is sold in Malaysia. New diesel truck engines are also being made to use the new diesel fuel only. They cannot run well on the old diesel. That is why the choice of diesel trucks is narrowing in Malaysia because we are still using the old diesel fuel.
Newer ‘common rail’ fuel injection engines are getting common. Fuel is pumped into a solid tube or 'common rail' which is located above the cylinders. The fuel in the tube is kept at a constant high pressure and is then injected directly into the cylinder through electronic timing. Because of the cleaner fuel, the fuel injector nozzle can be made very fine to achieve better efficiency. But if you use the older, dirtier diesel fuel that we have in Malaysia then these nozzles can clog up. That is why people who buy the new Mercedes Benz diesel cars (including the new luxury R series) will face engine problems. These cars 'choke' on the old diesel.
We need to change to the newer diesel yesterday. All diesel cars and trucks, including old ones, can use the new diesel without any problem. But the new diesel engines cannot use the old diesel fuel.
Now lets get back to Michael Porter and competitive advantage in the motor industry. India has produced the Tata Nano, a 54 miles per gallon five seater car priced at RM8,500. Today we read that Volkswagen has developed a new technology called Bluemotion to meet new EU emissions requirements and higher fuel costs. Bluemotion combines engine design, body shape and low kerb weight to give better fuel efficiency. Now hold on to your seats. The new VW Polo 1.4 litre three cylinder TDI diesel engine car already gives 74.3 miles per gallon (mpg). The VW Golf 1.6 litre diesel already gives 62.8 mpg and the Passat 2.0 litre diesel gives 55.3 mpg.
These are fantastic numbers. We must understand that these advances are possible because of new technologies in composite materials, rubber technologies, light weight metals and engine design. Even the Tata Nano is made of light-weight composite materials developed by high-tech firms in India. So gone are the days when car manufacturers closely guarded engines and body designs. Nowadays car makers also invest in electronics, engine computers, composite materials and light weight metals. These are their competitive advantages to reduce weight and meet stricter emissions requirements and neutralize ever higher fuel costs.
Now lets look at some more numbers. By 2012, the EU’s emissions standards require a 2.0 litre car weighing up to 1400 kg to produce not more than 130gm of CO2 / km. The new 2.0 litre VW Passat at 1348 kg only produces 136 gm of CO2 per km. The 74.3 mpg VW Polo produces 102 gm of CO2 / km. They have beaten EU standards five years ahead of schedule.
Soon Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot, Volvo, Skoda, Jaguar, Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Ford, GM and every other car maker who wants to sell cars in Europe will be following suit. Where does Proton fit into all this ? Well Proton can export their cars to Zimbabwe, the Islamic car to Iran and other such bodoh sombong options.
This takes us back to competitive advantage. You must develop your competitive advantage. Proton’s competitive advantage is very simple. The gomen will raise the trade barriers higher and higher to protect Proton. Imported cars like the 73 mpg VW Polo wondermobile will be taxed to the sky. Then we cannot drive it anyway because our diesel is 'dirty'. Bodoh sombong Malaysians will have no choice except buy Proton. This is Proton’s competitive advantage and their competitive strategy.
If VW develops a 73 mpg car, Proton will just run to the Gomen and cry ‘Boo hoo, boo hoo hoo their car gives 73 mpg. Raise the duties, raise the duties’. And this is what the Gomen will do. It will also preserve the status quo in the AP sweepstakes. The Menteri MITI and in-laws plus all the other hangers on and cronies will still get to ‘shop at Naza’.
According to the AFTA agreement which we signed, by 2003 we could only impose 5% tax on cars made within Asean and APs should not be required. But Malaysia has delayed this under CEPT (Common Effective Preferential Tariff). So the car dealers can tell you today, five years later that when they import Nissans and Toyotas from Thailand, the Customs still asks for APs. They also have to pay import duties. You can get the APs from the MITI Minister’s in laws. Other cronies may also have APs.
The Asean countries have agreed that by 2010 even the CEPT must go but that is not likely for Malaysia. Why? Because Proton is in no position to develop composite technologies for automobiles (or much else). That by itself is a multi billion Ringgit investment. Also Proton does not have Tun Dr Mahathir who read all the books and scientific journals and knew exactly what to do (well technically). Minus Dr Mahathir, maybe Proton will still make the cleanest and greenest car of all time – a kereta lembu = a cow car .
Proton is bungling along. They burned a chance at a merger with VW. Just how bodoh sombong can you get? How many times in Malay history since Hang Tuah do you get an offer for marriage from a major world class German car maker? Kenapa lah bodoh sangat? On the one hand we open ‘Iskandar’ for colonization by foreigners from Singapore but on the other hand we do not want to lose a ‘strategic asset’ to foreigners from VW? If Proton becomes a rust bucket, will it still be considered a ‘strategic asset’?
APs, trade barriers, duty protection, high import taxes etc will nail the fate of our country. Proton cannot compete in the face of such rapid and super charged advances in automotive technology outside the country. The Audi Q7 has a radar that will soon become standard fixture in European cars. GPS is already a standard feature in most European cars. Automotive Speed Reduction or ASR (which saves human lives) first appeared in high end German cars a dozen years ago. Now they are quite standard features even in low end Toyota Corrollas, Toyota Vios and Korean cars too. But even our ‘premium’ Proton Perdana does not have ASR. Proton does not even provide air bags in all its models.
As you are reading this the Europeans, Japanese and Koreans are making even more advances in their automotive engineering. But Proton will never develop the ancillary technologies needed to make a 74 miles per gallon car. Oil prices will go past USD100 per barrel. Petrol subsidies will cost more and more taxpayers money. Our bodoh sombong Finance Minister 2 has said that this year tax payers need only fork out RM35 billion in oil subsidies. This is also part of Proton’s competitive advantage. Get the taxpayers to pay higher oil subsidies so that Proton can make and sell outdated, inefficient and Flintstone type automobiles. If we can drive 74 mpg cars, we may not need so much oil subsidies. But if you want a 74 mpg car from Proton well they can make you a kereta lembu. And if you want Automatic Speed Reduction you can squeeze the lembu’s kohones.
Our leaders should read real books. To make it easy for them our leaders can start reading books that are more than 20 years old. Then maybe after that they can progress to more contemporary and modern books. One 28 year old book that I strongly recommend is Michael E. Porter’s book on Competitive Strategy (1980). Another good book that Porter wrote 23 years ago is Competitive Advantage (1985). In these two books Porter explains why the Italians are so good at design, at making leather shoes and belts, racing cars and so on. Each country or community has certain competitive advantages. We should be aware of these advantages and how to formulate competitive strategies.
Porter’s books are not pie in the sky speculations but observations of reality. To ignore reality is to be bodoh. If we choose to ignore reality then surely it is bodoh sombong.
Which brings us to today’s topic. A businessman was saying recently that it is difficult to buy small diesel lorries. The choices are getting limited. There are tens if not hundreds of diesel lorries available in the market worldwide but in Malaysia the choices available are narrowing. There is a simple reason for this.
Diesel technology has now evolved very quickly. Diesel is now being developed as the ‘clean and green fuel’ of the future. This is largely due to technological advancement in diesel refining which produces a much cleaner fuel with much lesser impurities. As a result of this cleaner diesel two things have happened. Many countries (including India, Singapore, Thailand, etc.) plus of course the US, Europe, Japan and Korea have made it mandatory that only the new cleaner diesel be sold in their countries. This reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But Malaysia still sells the old ‘dirtier’ diesel fuel.
Secondly, based on this high-tech diesel fuels, more efficient diesel engines have been developed especially by the Germans. Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz and Audi of Germany are leading the charge in newer, more efficient, cleaner diesel engines. The sad news is, none of these engines can run well on the old diesel fuel that is sold in Malaysia. New diesel truck engines are also being made to use the new diesel fuel only. They cannot run well on the old diesel. That is why the choice of diesel trucks is narrowing in Malaysia because we are still using the old diesel fuel.
Newer ‘common rail’ fuel injection engines are getting common. Fuel is pumped into a solid tube or 'common rail' which is located above the cylinders. The fuel in the tube is kept at a constant high pressure and is then injected directly into the cylinder through electronic timing. Because of the cleaner fuel, the fuel injector nozzle can be made very fine to achieve better efficiency. But if you use the older, dirtier diesel fuel that we have in Malaysia then these nozzles can clog up. That is why people who buy the new Mercedes Benz diesel cars (including the new luxury R series) will face engine problems. These cars 'choke' on the old diesel.
We need to change to the newer diesel yesterday. All diesel cars and trucks, including old ones, can use the new diesel without any problem. But the new diesel engines cannot use the old diesel fuel.
Now lets get back to Michael Porter and competitive advantage in the motor industry. India has produced the Tata Nano, a 54 miles per gallon five seater car priced at RM8,500. Today we read that Volkswagen has developed a new technology called Bluemotion to meet new EU emissions requirements and higher fuel costs. Bluemotion combines engine design, body shape and low kerb weight to give better fuel efficiency. Now hold on to your seats. The new VW Polo 1.4 litre three cylinder TDI diesel engine car already gives 74.3 miles per gallon (mpg). The VW Golf 1.6 litre diesel already gives 62.8 mpg and the Passat 2.0 litre diesel gives 55.3 mpg.
These are fantastic numbers. We must understand that these advances are possible because of new technologies in composite materials, rubber technologies, light weight metals and engine design. Even the Tata Nano is made of light-weight composite materials developed by high-tech firms in India. So gone are the days when car manufacturers closely guarded engines and body designs. Nowadays car makers also invest in electronics, engine computers, composite materials and light weight metals. These are their competitive advantages to reduce weight and meet stricter emissions requirements and neutralize ever higher fuel costs.
Now lets look at some more numbers. By 2012, the EU’s emissions standards require a 2.0 litre car weighing up to 1400 kg to produce not more than 130gm of CO2 / km. The new 2.0 litre VW Passat at 1348 kg only produces 136 gm of CO2 per km. The 74.3 mpg VW Polo produces 102 gm of CO2 / km. They have beaten EU standards five years ahead of schedule.
Soon Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Citroen, Renault, Peugeot, Volvo, Skoda, Jaguar, Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Ford, GM and every other car maker who wants to sell cars in Europe will be following suit. Where does Proton fit into all this ? Well Proton can export their cars to Zimbabwe, the Islamic car to Iran and other such bodoh sombong options.
This takes us back to competitive advantage. You must develop your competitive advantage. Proton’s competitive advantage is very simple. The gomen will raise the trade barriers higher and higher to protect Proton. Imported cars like the 73 mpg VW Polo wondermobile will be taxed to the sky. Then we cannot drive it anyway because our diesel is 'dirty'. Bodoh sombong Malaysians will have no choice except buy Proton. This is Proton’s competitive advantage and their competitive strategy.
If VW develops a 73 mpg car, Proton will just run to the Gomen and cry ‘Boo hoo, boo hoo hoo their car gives 73 mpg. Raise the duties, raise the duties’. And this is what the Gomen will do. It will also preserve the status quo in the AP sweepstakes. The Menteri MITI and in-laws plus all the other hangers on and cronies will still get to ‘shop at Naza’.
According to the AFTA agreement which we signed, by 2003 we could only impose 5% tax on cars made within Asean and APs should not be required. But Malaysia has delayed this under CEPT (Common Effective Preferential Tariff). So the car dealers can tell you today, five years later that when they import Nissans and Toyotas from Thailand, the Customs still asks for APs. They also have to pay import duties. You can get the APs from the MITI Minister’s in laws. Other cronies may also have APs.
The Asean countries have agreed that by 2010 even the CEPT must go but that is not likely for Malaysia. Why? Because Proton is in no position to develop composite technologies for automobiles (or much else). That by itself is a multi billion Ringgit investment. Also Proton does not have Tun Dr Mahathir who read all the books and scientific journals and knew exactly what to do (well technically). Minus Dr Mahathir, maybe Proton will still make the cleanest and greenest car of all time – a kereta lembu = a cow car .
Proton is bungling along. They burned a chance at a merger with VW. Just how bodoh sombong can you get? How many times in Malay history since Hang Tuah do you get an offer for marriage from a major world class German car maker? Kenapa lah bodoh sangat? On the one hand we open ‘Iskandar’ for colonization by foreigners from Singapore but on the other hand we do not want to lose a ‘strategic asset’ to foreigners from VW? If Proton becomes a rust bucket, will it still be considered a ‘strategic asset’?
APs, trade barriers, duty protection, high import taxes etc will nail the fate of our country. Proton cannot compete in the face of such rapid and super charged advances in automotive technology outside the country. The Audi Q7 has a radar that will soon become standard fixture in European cars. GPS is already a standard feature in most European cars. Automotive Speed Reduction or ASR (which saves human lives) first appeared in high end German cars a dozen years ago. Now they are quite standard features even in low end Toyota Corrollas, Toyota Vios and Korean cars too. But even our ‘premium’ Proton Perdana does not have ASR. Proton does not even provide air bags in all its models.
As you are reading this the Europeans, Japanese and Koreans are making even more advances in their automotive engineering. But Proton will never develop the ancillary technologies needed to make a 74 miles per gallon car. Oil prices will go past USD100 per barrel. Petrol subsidies will cost more and more taxpayers money. Our bodoh sombong Finance Minister 2 has said that this year tax payers need only fork out RM35 billion in oil subsidies. This is also part of Proton’s competitive advantage. Get the taxpayers to pay higher oil subsidies so that Proton can make and sell outdated, inefficient and Flintstone type automobiles. If we can drive 74 mpg cars, we may not need so much oil subsidies. But if you want a 74 mpg car from Proton well they can make you a kereta lembu. And if you want Automatic Speed Reduction you can squeeze the lembu’s kohones.
10 Year Mood Swing
They say the economy works in ten-year cycles. I can't remember what happened before Merdeka because I was not born yet then, but by the time my late father went out into the world to make my living in 1978 he became conscious of these economic down-turns. Last year, the world struggled to keep its head above water. The expected crash did not happen only because governments took pains to keep banks and countries from collapsing. It is no secret that when America sneezes, the rest of the world, in particular the developing part of the world, catches a cold. So America needed to be saved just so that the rest of the world could save itself.
China and the Middle Eastern countries in particular had invested a lot in the United States Dollar so they could not afford for the Dollar to crash. It is said that between them they hold an estimated three to five trillion Dollars. So, if the Dollar crashes, they have as much to lose as does the United States. It is therefore prudent to keep the Dollar alive just so that they themselves would not crash alongside a crashing Dollar. This is no charity. They do not have the interest of the United States at heart. It is merely a matter of survival, their own survival, so keeping the Dollar going was to keep themselves safe and a way of preventing their investments from getting wiped out.
But what is the real worth of the United States Dollar? Is the Dollar worth a Dollar? No one knows expect maybe those who walk in the corridors of power in Washington, Beijing, Riyadh, and so on. The rest of us lesser mortals can only hope and pray that what we may be trading in or holding onto by way of the Dollar is worth the paper it is printed on. It is clearly understood that the Dollar, as are all paper money, is merely a promissory note. It is a promise by the issuer of the note that they would pay on demand the figure printed on that paper. But what if they don't? What if they dishonour their promise? There is very little you can do, really, except to 'blacklist' their paper from thereon and refuse to accept it any longer in future. But the damage would have already been done. The three or five trillion Dollars that you hold would be worthless scraps of paper and refusing to further accept that paper would not help you recoup your loses but would instead guarantee that the paper you hold would become like the Japanese 'banana' money, if any of you still remember the Malayan currency of the Second World War.
Anyway, for all intents and purposes, 2007 could be said to be a critical year for the world economy. The only thing is the economy was artificially propped-up so many of us did not realise it. What we saw were just the bells and whistles, which was what we were meant to see. Ten years ago, in 1997, we again suffered an economic downturn -- at least our part of the world did -- due to what is now infamously known as the Asian Financial Crisis. In 1987, ten years before that, again, the entire world went through an economic slump that saw some tycoons suffering jail terms when they attempted to prop up their ailing companies through fair or foul means and many chose the easier foul means alternative. And ten years before that, in the 1970s, yet another economic crisis.
Yes, every ten years expect an economic crash and if the ten-year theory is correct then this year, 2008, we are due for yet another economic downturn. Of course, predictions are just that, predictions, but predictions are based on signs and the signs seem to indicate that we may not be too far off the mark. In fact, as I said, it should have happened last year rather than this year if not for the propping-up by the Chinese and Middle Eastern countries which had more to lose than the Americans if the Dollar collapses. But the economy can still be saved, and if the United States attacks Iran, which many think may happen this year, then we may be seeing better days ahead of us -- at least as far as the economy is concerned though I can't say the same for the Iranians. Yes, wars are good for the economy and an American-Iranian war will see the economy strengthen. But people will have to die, many people of course, so that the capitalists can see a healthy return on their investments.
This ten-year cycle theory holds true for politics as well, at least as far as Malaysia is concerned. Every ten years or so we see a shift in voters' sentiments. Sometimes the shift is large enough to make an impact like in 1969 and 1999. Sometimes it is a minor shift but only because the Malays shift one way with the non-Malays going the opposite direction one election, and then the non-Malays reverse direction with the non-Malays again moving in the opposite direction the following election. Now, if only the Malays and non-Malays both shift the same direction then the election results would have been totally different. But the Malays and non-Malays love playing see-saw. When one goes up the other goes down, and vice versa. Maybe they should start playing swings instead so that both can swing up and down at the same time. But such are the mood swings of the Malays and non-Malays. When one is in the mood, the other is not, and then when the other finally gets into the mood, the mood of the first moves the opposite direction. It's like when tonight your wife has a headache and is not in the mood and tomorrow night when she is in the mood you in turn get a headache. If only you can both get your headaches at the same time so that you can synchronise your moods.
In 1968 , when Malaysians went through their first mood swing. Resentment against the government was high and both the Malays and non-Malays voted against the ruling party in the 1969 general election giving the opposition 55% of the votes. No doubt the ruling party still formed the government even though it had just 45% of the votes but it lost many states and ruled without a two-thirds majority. History was almost repeated 30 years later in 1998 but in the 1999 general election the Malays and non-Malays were not as united as in 1969 (though in 1969 the Malays and non-Malays were not really united in that sense but just that both wanted the government out without working in concert to achieve this).
Now, we must remember, 1969 was not long after Merdeka and not long after the ruling party swept almost all the seats in the first parliamentary elections in 1959. Ten years before that the voters gave the ruling party a landslide victory. Ten years later they took it back.
Let us look at the First Parliamentary General Election again. What really happened in that first election in 1959, merely two years after Merdeka? Did the ruling party do that well, only to lose it all again ten years later?
In the First Parliamentary General Election in 1959, the voter turnout was only 73.3% or 1.55 million voters. 600,000 people decided to just stay home and not bother to come out and vote. The Alliance Party, which had won the Municipal Elections four years before that in 1955, managed to garner only 51.8% of the votes. That's right, the Alliance Party won slightly over half the votes in the First Parliamentary General Election. And the Alliance Party was a coalition of three parties -- Umno, MCA and MIC. Therefore Umno, on its own, won less than half the votes.
In terms of seats, though, the Alliance Party won 74 out of the 104 seats or around 71% of the total seats contested. This means they managed to form the government with a comfortable two-thirds majority in spite of winning slightly over half the votes.
Five years on, in the Second Parliamentary General Election in 1964, the voter turnout increased slightly to 78.9%, a 5.6% increase. In this election the Alliance Party garnered 58.5% of the votes, an improvement of 6.7%, more or less corresponding with the increase in voter turnout. The increase in votes which the Alliance Party won can easily be attributed to the increase in the number of registered voters. The number of registered voters had increased by 28% but the Alliance Party saw an increase in votes of 50%. This means the Alliance Party saw a real increase and not just because there were more voters. In short, 500,000 'new' voters came out to vote in the 1964 general election and 80% or 400,000 of these votes went to the Alliance Party -- an impressive performance indeed. The number of seats the Alliance Party won increased to 86%, which more or less gave them a landslide victory.
Five years later, in 1969, the voter turnout dropped back to 73.6%. In this historic election (historic only because of the racial riots that followed) the Alliance Party managed a paltry 44.9% of the votes. Out of the 144 seats contested, the Alliance Party managed only 74 giving them slightly better than half (72 seats is 50%) and FAR SHORT of the two-thirds they needed to form an effective government.
That’s when all hell broke loose -- organised chaos if you wish -- infamously known as the May 13 incident.
The ruling party, by then called Barisan Nasional, performed better during the 1974 general election. They managed to garner 60.7% of the votes. But this is only because the old Alliance Party no longer existed and the new coalition called Barisan Nasional comprised all those opposition parties that, in the election before that, had denied the ruling party its two-thirds majority in Parliament.
In terms of seats it was almost a clean sweep for Barisan Nasional as the opposition managed to win only 19 out of the 144 seats contested. Something must be wrong with the system when the opposition won only 13% of the seats though 40% of the rakyat voted for them. In this election the voter turnout was only 75.1%. Again, 600,000 people did not come out to vote just like in the two elections before that.
The 1978 general election was not any better and was almost a repeat of 1974. Only 75.3% of the voters came out to vote. The ruling party won 57.2% of the votes, but this time their number of seats won dropped to 130. The opposition managed to win 24 seats on the now enlarged total of 154 seats -- a slightly better performance for the opposition.
The 1982 general election was, again, a duplicate of the election before that -- 74.39% voter turnout, 60.54% votes to the ruling party giving them 132 seats, and 22 seats to the opposition, which was almost status quo.
From thereon PAS seemed to be going downhill. The following general election in 1986 was a disaster for PAS when it won only one seat and lost Kelantan to UMNO. Ironically, DAP saw its best ever performance by winning 24 Parliament seats. Barisan Nasional, which got 57.28% of the votes, won 148 seats or 84% out of the total of 177 seats. This was the turning point for both PAS and DAP -- PAS its lowest point and DAP its highest.
One interesting point to note is that the voter turnout in 1986 was the worst in the history of our general elections. Only 69.97% of the voters came out to vote. It was said the low voter turnout was one factor that worked against the opposition. More than 2 million people stayed home in that election.
1990 was the most interesting year. In the general election held that year, the ruling party managed only 53.38% of the votes. Voter turnout was only slightly better at 72.7%. A 'record' 2.2 million people stayed home and did not bother to come out and vote. Considering the ruling party managed only around 3 million votes and the opposition obtained 2.6 million votes (giving the ruling party a mere 400,000 vote majority), the 2.2 million voters who stayed home was quite significant indeed. If 8% more people had come out to vote, and if they had voted for the opposition, the results would have been quite different. Of course, if they had voted for the ruling party instead then it would not have mattered much.
Anyway, DAP lost four seats and managed to retain only 20. PAS & Semangat 46 shared 15 seats between them from a mere one seat the election before that. PBS in Sabah got 14 seats and four independent candidates got in. Out of 180 seats contested, the ruling party still managed to win 127 or 70% of the seats on slightly more than HALF the votes they garnered. Again, this showed, in Malaysian elections, it is SEATS AND NOT VOTES THAT MATTER.
During the 1995 general election, PAS and Semangat 46 got one seat less each and, combined, managed to win only 13 seats. DAP did quite badly at nine seats while PBS got only eight seats this time around. There were nine million registered voters that year but, just like in 1990, more than two million people stayed home. The ruling party garnered 65.2% of the votes and won 162 out of the 192 seats contested giving it 85% of the seats.
In the 1999 general election, Barisan Nasional won 102 or 70.8% of the 144 seats it contested in Peninsular Malaysia. This gave it 4.2% more than what it needed to retain its two-thirds majority in Parliament. With the 46 seats it won in East Malaysia, Barisan Nasional sailed in comfortably with 148 seats, 20 more seats than what was required to maintain its two-thirds majority and 52 more seats than what it need to form the government with a simple majority.
Now, it must be noted that while Barisan Nasional won more than the two-thirds of the seats, it failed to win two-thirds of the votes. Out of a total of about 5.8 million voters in Peninsular Malaysia, Barisan Nasional managed to convince only 3.1 million voters to vote for it while 2.6 million voters voted for the opposition. This came to less than 54% of the total voters who cast their votes -- far short of the two-thirds it needed to legitimately claim that the people support the ruling party.
What is most interesting to note is that only 73% of the voters came out to vote. Perak was the lowest at 66% followed by the Federal Capital at 70%. Why this low turnout?
Thousands of complaints were received that voters who had voted in that same area for the last few elections suddenly found their names missing from the electoral list. Others complained that someone else had voted in their place. When they went to vote they found that their names had been 'cut off' from the register, which means they had already voted. Then there were cases where voters’ names had been transferred to another state so they could not vote as there was no way they could make it across the country in time to vote.
It was estimated that around 80% to 82% of the registered voters would have come out to vote this time around, if they had been allowed to. This would have made it one of the highest ever in Malaysian election history. Many did in fact come out but were sent home disappointed.
If these 7% to 9% had not been denied their right to vote, and if the 680,000 voters who had registered earlier but could not vote were included in the voters’ list, an additional one million people would have voted in the 1999 general election.
According to the Elections Commission, 95% of these 680,000 disenfranchised voters were below the age of 30. The Alternative Front or Barisan Alternatif claimed that more than 70% of these people barred from voting were their supporters. If this were true, then Barisan Nasional would have garnered 3.4 million votes while the opposition would have won 3.2 million. This would have changed the results drastically, probably even giving the opposition an additional 30 to 40 Parliamentary seats. Looking at the wafer-thin wins the Barisan Nasional candidates obtained, this assumption is more than possible.
A couple of years later, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted during the Umno General Assembly that if the 680,000 disenfranchised voters had been allowed to vote, Barisan Nasional would have been kicked out of office.
The opposition officially won 42 of the Parliament seats contested. They claim the number should have been between 70 to 80 if the elections had been free and fair. And all they needed was 65 seats to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Then came the 2004 general election, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's first general election, and the tide turned yet again in favour of the ruling party. Even with just roughly two-thirds of the votes, Barisan Nasional managed to win 92% of the seats, never before achieved in 50 years of election history. Now, what is 2008 going to look like?
Well, we have eleven previous general elections to look at so take your pick. But whatever it is, take note that:
1) even with 45% of the votes Barisan Nasional will still form the government;
2) they do not need two-thirds of the votes to win two-thirds of the seats;
3) and finally, in 1959 the ruling party garnered 51.8% of the votes, in 1969, 44.9% of the votes, in 1978 (which should have been held in 1979), 57.2% of the votes, in 1990 (they held elections every four years instead of five during this period so that is why there is an 'extra' two years), 53.38% of the votes, and in 1999, 54% of the votes.
Now, what is 2009, the next ten years (which may be 2008 rather than 2009 if they call an early election) going to look like? We have seen a voters' mood swing every ten years, just like we saw an economic downturn. Can we expect a downturn of the ruling party's performance as well?
Most likely. If the Malays and non-Malays unite under a united opposition we can see a 50-50 split in the votes. Of course, Barisan Nasional will still form the government. But it will be without a two-thirds majority and with the loss of a few states.
Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis may fall. Barisan Nasional may lose its majority in Penang, Perak, Selangor and Sabah. And 80 Members of Parliament will sit in the opposition aisle giving Barisan Nasional a mere 64% of the seats, slightly less than the two-thirds it needs to blatantly amend laws such as the recent one that allowed the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Chairman of the Elections Commission without seeking the approval of the Agong.
Yes, let us force the opposition to unite. And if they don't then let us boycott the opposition. Let us show them we mean business. As Lim Kit Siang said, “The people are the boss.” So let us show them that we really are the boss by telling them what we want and by rejecting them if they refuse to listen to the boss. We want 80 opposition members in Parliament. And we will get it even if we have to vote against the opposition or by not coming out to vote just to teach the opposition a lesson and to show them that if we can't have it our way then we do not want it any way.
The opposition is arrogant. The opposition has a large ego. They think we need them so they can do what they like. It is time they learned that we do not need them but it is they who need us. Malaysia Today will soon launch a campaign called ONE OPPOSITION OR NO OPPOSITION. The civil society movements and NGOs will soon launch a PEOPLES' DECLARATION or DEKLARASI RAKYAT. If the ruling party accepts this Declaration we shall support them. Whomsoever accepts it we shall support them, never mind which party they are from. It is time we took back the streets. It is time we took back the ballot box. It is time the Wakil Rakyat learnt the meaning of wakil rakyat. It means we are in charge and they are merely our wakil.
China and the Middle Eastern countries in particular had invested a lot in the United States Dollar so they could not afford for the Dollar to crash. It is said that between them they hold an estimated three to five trillion Dollars. So, if the Dollar crashes, they have as much to lose as does the United States. It is therefore prudent to keep the Dollar alive just so that they themselves would not crash alongside a crashing Dollar. This is no charity. They do not have the interest of the United States at heart. It is merely a matter of survival, their own survival, so keeping the Dollar going was to keep themselves safe and a way of preventing their investments from getting wiped out.
But what is the real worth of the United States Dollar? Is the Dollar worth a Dollar? No one knows expect maybe those who walk in the corridors of power in Washington, Beijing, Riyadh, and so on. The rest of us lesser mortals can only hope and pray that what we may be trading in or holding onto by way of the Dollar is worth the paper it is printed on. It is clearly understood that the Dollar, as are all paper money, is merely a promissory note. It is a promise by the issuer of the note that they would pay on demand the figure printed on that paper. But what if they don't? What if they dishonour their promise? There is very little you can do, really, except to 'blacklist' their paper from thereon and refuse to accept it any longer in future. But the damage would have already been done. The three or five trillion Dollars that you hold would be worthless scraps of paper and refusing to further accept that paper would not help you recoup your loses but would instead guarantee that the paper you hold would become like the Japanese 'banana' money, if any of you still remember the Malayan currency of the Second World War.
Anyway, for all intents and purposes, 2007 could be said to be a critical year for the world economy. The only thing is the economy was artificially propped-up so many of us did not realise it. What we saw were just the bells and whistles, which was what we were meant to see. Ten years ago, in 1997, we again suffered an economic downturn -- at least our part of the world did -- due to what is now infamously known as the Asian Financial Crisis. In 1987, ten years before that, again, the entire world went through an economic slump that saw some tycoons suffering jail terms when they attempted to prop up their ailing companies through fair or foul means and many chose the easier foul means alternative. And ten years before that, in the 1970s, yet another economic crisis.
Yes, every ten years expect an economic crash and if the ten-year theory is correct then this year, 2008, we are due for yet another economic downturn. Of course, predictions are just that, predictions, but predictions are based on signs and the signs seem to indicate that we may not be too far off the mark. In fact, as I said, it should have happened last year rather than this year if not for the propping-up by the Chinese and Middle Eastern countries which had more to lose than the Americans if the Dollar collapses. But the economy can still be saved, and if the United States attacks Iran, which many think may happen this year, then we may be seeing better days ahead of us -- at least as far as the economy is concerned though I can't say the same for the Iranians. Yes, wars are good for the economy and an American-Iranian war will see the economy strengthen. But people will have to die, many people of course, so that the capitalists can see a healthy return on their investments.
This ten-year cycle theory holds true for politics as well, at least as far as Malaysia is concerned. Every ten years or so we see a shift in voters' sentiments. Sometimes the shift is large enough to make an impact like in 1969 and 1999. Sometimes it is a minor shift but only because the Malays shift one way with the non-Malays going the opposite direction one election, and then the non-Malays reverse direction with the non-Malays again moving in the opposite direction the following election. Now, if only the Malays and non-Malays both shift the same direction then the election results would have been totally different. But the Malays and non-Malays love playing see-saw. When one goes up the other goes down, and vice versa. Maybe they should start playing swings instead so that both can swing up and down at the same time. But such are the mood swings of the Malays and non-Malays. When one is in the mood, the other is not, and then when the other finally gets into the mood, the mood of the first moves the opposite direction. It's like when tonight your wife has a headache and is not in the mood and tomorrow night when she is in the mood you in turn get a headache. If only you can both get your headaches at the same time so that you can synchronise your moods.
In 1968 , when Malaysians went through their first mood swing. Resentment against the government was high and both the Malays and non-Malays voted against the ruling party in the 1969 general election giving the opposition 55% of the votes. No doubt the ruling party still formed the government even though it had just 45% of the votes but it lost many states and ruled without a two-thirds majority. History was almost repeated 30 years later in 1998 but in the 1999 general election the Malays and non-Malays were not as united as in 1969 (though in 1969 the Malays and non-Malays were not really united in that sense but just that both wanted the government out without working in concert to achieve this).
Now, we must remember, 1969 was not long after Merdeka and not long after the ruling party swept almost all the seats in the first parliamentary elections in 1959. Ten years before that the voters gave the ruling party a landslide victory. Ten years later they took it back.
Let us look at the First Parliamentary General Election again. What really happened in that first election in 1959, merely two years after Merdeka? Did the ruling party do that well, only to lose it all again ten years later?
In the First Parliamentary General Election in 1959, the voter turnout was only 73.3% or 1.55 million voters. 600,000 people decided to just stay home and not bother to come out and vote. The Alliance Party, which had won the Municipal Elections four years before that in 1955, managed to garner only 51.8% of the votes. That's right, the Alliance Party won slightly over half the votes in the First Parliamentary General Election. And the Alliance Party was a coalition of three parties -- Umno, MCA and MIC. Therefore Umno, on its own, won less than half the votes.
In terms of seats, though, the Alliance Party won 74 out of the 104 seats or around 71% of the total seats contested. This means they managed to form the government with a comfortable two-thirds majority in spite of winning slightly over half the votes.
Five years on, in the Second Parliamentary General Election in 1964, the voter turnout increased slightly to 78.9%, a 5.6% increase. In this election the Alliance Party garnered 58.5% of the votes, an improvement of 6.7%, more or less corresponding with the increase in voter turnout. The increase in votes which the Alliance Party won can easily be attributed to the increase in the number of registered voters. The number of registered voters had increased by 28% but the Alliance Party saw an increase in votes of 50%. This means the Alliance Party saw a real increase and not just because there were more voters. In short, 500,000 'new' voters came out to vote in the 1964 general election and 80% or 400,000 of these votes went to the Alliance Party -- an impressive performance indeed. The number of seats the Alliance Party won increased to 86%, which more or less gave them a landslide victory.
Five years later, in 1969, the voter turnout dropped back to 73.6%. In this historic election (historic only because of the racial riots that followed) the Alliance Party managed a paltry 44.9% of the votes. Out of the 144 seats contested, the Alliance Party managed only 74 giving them slightly better than half (72 seats is 50%) and FAR SHORT of the two-thirds they needed to form an effective government.
That’s when all hell broke loose -- organised chaos if you wish -- infamously known as the May 13 incident.
The ruling party, by then called Barisan Nasional, performed better during the 1974 general election. They managed to garner 60.7% of the votes. But this is only because the old Alliance Party no longer existed and the new coalition called Barisan Nasional comprised all those opposition parties that, in the election before that, had denied the ruling party its two-thirds majority in Parliament.
In terms of seats it was almost a clean sweep for Barisan Nasional as the opposition managed to win only 19 out of the 144 seats contested. Something must be wrong with the system when the opposition won only 13% of the seats though 40% of the rakyat voted for them. In this election the voter turnout was only 75.1%. Again, 600,000 people did not come out to vote just like in the two elections before that.
The 1978 general election was not any better and was almost a repeat of 1974. Only 75.3% of the voters came out to vote. The ruling party won 57.2% of the votes, but this time their number of seats won dropped to 130. The opposition managed to win 24 seats on the now enlarged total of 154 seats -- a slightly better performance for the opposition.
The 1982 general election was, again, a duplicate of the election before that -- 74.39% voter turnout, 60.54% votes to the ruling party giving them 132 seats, and 22 seats to the opposition, which was almost status quo.
From thereon PAS seemed to be going downhill. The following general election in 1986 was a disaster for PAS when it won only one seat and lost Kelantan to UMNO. Ironically, DAP saw its best ever performance by winning 24 Parliament seats. Barisan Nasional, which got 57.28% of the votes, won 148 seats or 84% out of the total of 177 seats. This was the turning point for both PAS and DAP -- PAS its lowest point and DAP its highest.
One interesting point to note is that the voter turnout in 1986 was the worst in the history of our general elections. Only 69.97% of the voters came out to vote. It was said the low voter turnout was one factor that worked against the opposition. More than 2 million people stayed home in that election.
1990 was the most interesting year. In the general election held that year, the ruling party managed only 53.38% of the votes. Voter turnout was only slightly better at 72.7%. A 'record' 2.2 million people stayed home and did not bother to come out and vote. Considering the ruling party managed only around 3 million votes and the opposition obtained 2.6 million votes (giving the ruling party a mere 400,000 vote majority), the 2.2 million voters who stayed home was quite significant indeed. If 8% more people had come out to vote, and if they had voted for the opposition, the results would have been quite different. Of course, if they had voted for the ruling party instead then it would not have mattered much.
Anyway, DAP lost four seats and managed to retain only 20. PAS & Semangat 46 shared 15 seats between them from a mere one seat the election before that. PBS in Sabah got 14 seats and four independent candidates got in. Out of 180 seats contested, the ruling party still managed to win 127 or 70% of the seats on slightly more than HALF the votes they garnered. Again, this showed, in Malaysian elections, it is SEATS AND NOT VOTES THAT MATTER.
During the 1995 general election, PAS and Semangat 46 got one seat less each and, combined, managed to win only 13 seats. DAP did quite badly at nine seats while PBS got only eight seats this time around. There were nine million registered voters that year but, just like in 1990, more than two million people stayed home. The ruling party garnered 65.2% of the votes and won 162 out of the 192 seats contested giving it 85% of the seats.
In the 1999 general election, Barisan Nasional won 102 or 70.8% of the 144 seats it contested in Peninsular Malaysia. This gave it 4.2% more than what it needed to retain its two-thirds majority in Parliament. With the 46 seats it won in East Malaysia, Barisan Nasional sailed in comfortably with 148 seats, 20 more seats than what was required to maintain its two-thirds majority and 52 more seats than what it need to form the government with a simple majority.
Now, it must be noted that while Barisan Nasional won more than the two-thirds of the seats, it failed to win two-thirds of the votes. Out of a total of about 5.8 million voters in Peninsular Malaysia, Barisan Nasional managed to convince only 3.1 million voters to vote for it while 2.6 million voters voted for the opposition. This came to less than 54% of the total voters who cast their votes -- far short of the two-thirds it needed to legitimately claim that the people support the ruling party.
What is most interesting to note is that only 73% of the voters came out to vote. Perak was the lowest at 66% followed by the Federal Capital at 70%. Why this low turnout?
Thousands of complaints were received that voters who had voted in that same area for the last few elections suddenly found their names missing from the electoral list. Others complained that someone else had voted in their place. When they went to vote they found that their names had been 'cut off' from the register, which means they had already voted. Then there were cases where voters’ names had been transferred to another state so they could not vote as there was no way they could make it across the country in time to vote.
It was estimated that around 80% to 82% of the registered voters would have come out to vote this time around, if they had been allowed to. This would have made it one of the highest ever in Malaysian election history. Many did in fact come out but were sent home disappointed.
If these 7% to 9% had not been denied their right to vote, and if the 680,000 voters who had registered earlier but could not vote were included in the voters’ list, an additional one million people would have voted in the 1999 general election.
According to the Elections Commission, 95% of these 680,000 disenfranchised voters were below the age of 30. The Alternative Front or Barisan Alternatif claimed that more than 70% of these people barred from voting were their supporters. If this were true, then Barisan Nasional would have garnered 3.4 million votes while the opposition would have won 3.2 million. This would have changed the results drastically, probably even giving the opposition an additional 30 to 40 Parliamentary seats. Looking at the wafer-thin wins the Barisan Nasional candidates obtained, this assumption is more than possible.
A couple of years later, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted during the Umno General Assembly that if the 680,000 disenfranchised voters had been allowed to vote, Barisan Nasional would have been kicked out of office.
The opposition officially won 42 of the Parliament seats contested. They claim the number should have been between 70 to 80 if the elections had been free and fair. And all they needed was 65 seats to deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Then came the 2004 general election, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's first general election, and the tide turned yet again in favour of the ruling party. Even with just roughly two-thirds of the votes, Barisan Nasional managed to win 92% of the seats, never before achieved in 50 years of election history. Now, what is 2008 going to look like?
Well, we have eleven previous general elections to look at so take your pick. But whatever it is, take note that:
1) even with 45% of the votes Barisan Nasional will still form the government;
2) they do not need two-thirds of the votes to win two-thirds of the seats;
3) and finally, in 1959 the ruling party garnered 51.8% of the votes, in 1969, 44.9% of the votes, in 1978 (which should have been held in 1979), 57.2% of the votes, in 1990 (they held elections every four years instead of five during this period so that is why there is an 'extra' two years), 53.38% of the votes, and in 1999, 54% of the votes.
Now, what is 2009, the next ten years (which may be 2008 rather than 2009 if they call an early election) going to look like? We have seen a voters' mood swing every ten years, just like we saw an economic downturn. Can we expect a downturn of the ruling party's performance as well?
Most likely. If the Malays and non-Malays unite under a united opposition we can see a 50-50 split in the votes. Of course, Barisan Nasional will still form the government. But it will be without a two-thirds majority and with the loss of a few states.
Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis may fall. Barisan Nasional may lose its majority in Penang, Perak, Selangor and Sabah. And 80 Members of Parliament will sit in the opposition aisle giving Barisan Nasional a mere 64% of the seats, slightly less than the two-thirds it needs to blatantly amend laws such as the recent one that allowed the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Chairman of the Elections Commission without seeking the approval of the Agong.
Yes, let us force the opposition to unite. And if they don't then let us boycott the opposition. Let us show them we mean business. As Lim Kit Siang said, “The people are the boss.” So let us show them that we really are the boss by telling them what we want and by rejecting them if they refuse to listen to the boss. We want 80 opposition members in Parliament. And we will get it even if we have to vote against the opposition or by not coming out to vote just to teach the opposition a lesson and to show them that if we can't have it our way then we do not want it any way.
The opposition is arrogant. The opposition has a large ego. They think we need them so they can do what they like. It is time they learned that we do not need them but it is they who need us. Malaysia Today will soon launch a campaign called ONE OPPOSITION OR NO OPPOSITION. The civil society movements and NGOs will soon launch a PEOPLES' DECLARATION or DEKLARASI RAKYAT. If the ruling party accepts this Declaration we shall support them. Whomsoever accepts it we shall support them, never mind which party they are from. It is time we took back the streets. It is time we took back the ballot box. It is time the Wakil Rakyat learnt the meaning of wakil rakyat. It means we are in charge and they are merely our wakil.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Guts (Risk-Taking) & Economy
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 !
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 !
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
