Blogosphere and the Mainstream Media: Any Difference?

May 24, 2011

Umapagan Ampikaipakan @http://www.nst.com.my

INDEPENDENT journalism has always been considered the last bastion of the free press. With the mass media increasingly conglomerated — each with its social biases and political affiliations — many Malaysians have long given ground and have since sought sanctuary in that fortress, that stronghold, that fastness, that Thermopylae, that Agincourt, that Alamo for a billion souls that is the Internet.

And within that webbed sphere we have those self-proclaimed defenders of free expression, some the Village Voice of a new generation, others merely a subversion in a subculture of wannabes and attention seekers.

Like so many things on the World Wide Web, the blogosphere has evolved tremendously over the last half decade. From an outlet of self-expression into our last best hope for the honest word into media watchdogs and instruments of social and political pressure.

The evolution of the blog has, through Facebook and Twitter and Tumblr, led to the further democratisation of journalism. What was once purely sermon is now conversation.

Now we don’t just read the news, we get to share it, comment on it, and if it’s in error, we can venture so far as to correct it. By allowing us control of our history, this new journalism has in essence become an even greater social experience.

It is no longer the purview of an elite few because now anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can break the news as and when it happens.

We live in a state of impending information, where the voice of the individual is paramount. It is an exercise in democracy by its most basic component. It is raw and unedited, and possesses an unpolished authenticity. It is fractured, and therein lies its beauty.

And for a while, it was incredibly exciting. The digital chronicling. The asynchronous colloquy. It could not be ignored. So much so that all of us felt the need to join in the conversation.

Clay Shirky, the swami of all things social and online once said: “So forget about blogs and bloggers and blogging and focus on this — the cost and difficulty of publishing absolutely anything, by anyone, into a global medium, just got a whole lot lower. And the effects of that increased pool of potential producers is going to be vast.” And he was right. For the most part. Because while the effect of this new movement has been overwhelmingly positive for both the writer, and the wannabe writer, it has left the reader a little worse for wear.

Because what was once a breath of fresh air in both our public and private discourses has long gone stale. The revolution was short-lived and the blogosphere has been reduced to nothing more than the mainstream in microcosm. Much like their old school brethren, there are those blogs that are reliable sources of information, there are those that aren’t, and there are those that just don’t care to be.

The blogosphere has long descended into what Steve Rubel called “The Lazysphere”. Which he defined as a group of bloggers who, rather than create new ideas or pen thoughtful essays, simply glom on to the latest news with another “me too” post.

By holding them to embarrassingly low standards we, the people, have invariably created a monster. We embraced the merchants of misinformation and the purveyors of doom as wholeheartedly as all those reasoned and rational. We gave them credibility by acknowledging them. We fell under their spell so completely that we got carried away.

We began to turn our backs on the mainstream. Why? Initially, it was to seek out an alternative view. We felt that it was something deprived from us for far too long. We felt it an outlet for our frustrations, for our long lost voices. We felt that the more information we had, the better and more informed decisions we could make. We had, for all intents and purposes, rather noble motivations.

The devolution of our intentions, however, happened quickly. We were enticed by the sordid and secret. We exercised the power that came with anonymity. We got lost in our darker desires, our voyeuristic nature, our love of gossip and conspiracy theories.

So much so that we forgot those fundamental rules of being a reader. That we should consider any and all information in the same way, regardless of its source, with pause and contemplation. With reflection. With the proper consideration of all the facts. That we should embrace the credible and reject the incredible. That we should accept all that is accurate and evidenced, adding it to that which we consider knowledge. That we should regard the far-fetched the same way we would an epidemic of aliens fathering babies in the American southwest.

Idris Jala: Pemandu not bothered by racial rhetoric

May 23, 2011

by Regina Lee@www.malaysiakini.com

INTERVIEW When the New Economic Model (NEM) was first unveiled back in March 2010, possibly the loudest debate was centred around its affirmative action policies.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak (left) had called to do away with race-based affirmative action and to replace it with a needs-based one instead, undoing 40 years of the New Economic Policy.

Almost immediately, Malay rights NGOs leapt into action, hurling criticisms and potshots at the model, with the second part of the model even labelled as ‘watered down‘ and even ‘hijacked by Perkasa’ by one of the men in the National Economic Action Council who drew up the NEM.

Needless to say, all eyes were on the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu), with its Chief Executive Officer and Minister in Prime Minister’s department Idris Jala bearing the brunt of the criticisms.

Some said that the needs-based affirmative action would neglect the Malays while some said it was downright ‘unconstitutional’ because it would go against the article 153 which preserves the special position of the Malays.

On the other end of the spectrum, oppositionists have reserved their scepticism over the model, raising questions over the Najib administration’s sincerity in following through with it.After all, the Equal Opportunities Commission was dropped from the later parts of the New Economic Model although it is uncertain if it was due to ‘political pressure‘. While the effects may not be immediately felt, Idris said that race-based affirmative action is already slowly being done away with.

In a recent exclusive interview with Malaysiakini, the former corporate figure who had helmed Malaysia Airlines and Shell Malaysia, said that current government policies are becoming merit-based.

‘GTP does not care about race’

Citing the policies under the Government Transformation Programme, called the National Key Result Areas, he said that none of them have anything to do with the race of the recipient.
“None of our programmes use race. If they are poor, they will get help. We don’t look at their skin colour. Like our pre-school programme, they’re definitely not race-based,” continued Idris (right).

Armed with Powerpoint slides in his office in Putrajaya, he said that 54,569 children from hardcore poor families have been enrolled into pre-school classes while two million people in the rural poor category have been connected with newly-built roads.

“Like the announcement that anyone who gets 8A+ will get a Public Service Department scholarship. If we keep on debating it on the high level, it will never see implementation. We did it and it came out very good,” he said.

(Incidentally on the same day as the interview, deputy education minister Wee Ka Siong lamented over civil servants who ignored Cabinet directives in giving out PSD scholarships to top scorers).

More action, less talk

But being the only cabinet minister who is not a political party member, Idris probably has more reason than anyone else in not wanting to dwell on occasional racial rhetoric hurled against him and his team in Pemandu. In fact, avoiding racial debate and polemics has become somewhat of a deliberate strategy for him in an effort to be non-partisan.

“The issue is not to get bogged down by the debate. Like the prime minister, he just gets on and does it… It is just better to do it, rather than just talk about it. Instead of talk, talk, talk, we just want to do, do, do.If we just keep on discussing this at policy level, there will just be a lot of agro (slang for ‘aggression’),” he said.

“When we help the poor, we help all the hardcore poor. Who can argue with us and say that we didn’t help a particular family because they are Chinese or Indian or Dayak? “We are action-biased rather than talk-biased,” he said.

Good News: University of Malaya is 39 out of 200 Asian Universities

May 23, 2011

University of Malaya (UM) is 39 out of 200 Asian Universities

By Boo Su-Lyn@http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

Six out of seven Malaysian universities improved their ranking on the QS Asian University Rankings this year, with Universiti Malaya (UM) climbing three spots to 39th.Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) also jumped 20 slots to 57th out of 200 Asian universities.

No Malaysian university entered the top 10 ranks while the National University of Singapore (NUS) retained its third place.QS also said in a statement the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology (HKUST) knocked the University of Hong Kong down to the second spot.

The global higher education information specialist noted that Malaysia had seven universities in the top 200 Asian universities compared to Thailand’s nine and Indonesia’s eight. Japan was the best-represented nation with five universities in the top 10 ranks and 57 in the top 200.

In contrast, China had 40, South Korea 35, Taiwan 16, India 11, and Hong Kong had seven universities in the top 200 Asian institutions.

The QS Asian University Rankings last year showed that the top Malaysian university was UM at the 42nd spot while Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) was the second best university here at 58th.

The ranking of public institutions in Malaysia has dived throughout the past years to the point of dropping out of the top 200 universities in the QS World University Rankings last year.

QS noted that the “dynamism” of the Asian region was bolstered by the fact that one out of five universities in the top 50 universities was less than 50 years old.

The rankings were based on the following factors: academic peer review (30 per cent), recruiter review (10 per cent), student/ faculty ratio (20 per cent), papers per faculty (15 per cent), citations per paper (15 per cent), and 2.5 per cent each for international faculty review, international student review, and inbound and outbound student exchanges.

UM Vice-Chancellor Dr Ghauth Jasmon had reportedly urged Malaysia’s oldest university last year to take world rankings seriously if it wanted to remain globally competitive.

Avoid Blaming Dumb Cows!

May 23, 2011

by Dr. Bakri Musa

Culture, far from being an impediment to progress, can be harnessed and made into an agent for change. Many are calling for a cultural revolution among Malays, but having seen the disastrous consequences of the Chinese Cultural Revolution and other social upheavals, I am not too enthused.

Today’s Malay armchair “revolutionaries” are calling for a revolusi mental (“mental revolution”). They would have Malays give up our cherished traditions and become kurang ajar (uncouth or crude) in order to compete effectively in a globalized world. Some are calling for Malays to colonize others!

I disavow such radical steps. Revolutions are by nature brutal and crude; there would be just as many losers as winners in the end. We have seen the negative consequences of the reformasi (reform) movement. Instead of bringing much needed reform, it further divided and polarized the Malays. Reformasi’s other legacy, somewhat more mundane but still very disruptive, is the bitter aftertaste of rowdy street demonstrations, vandalized roadside businesses, and massive traffic jams.

A more effective strategy would be to use elements of our present culture and modify them appropriately to suit modern conditions. In this way our existing culture and traditions would provide the anchoring stability as we explore new paths. I advocate evolutionary, not revolutionary change. My principle is best illustrated with an example.

A Latin American government commissioned an American consultant to study why its leather handbags were not competitive in New York. American consumers are among the most sophisticated and fussy, and if a manufacturer could compete there he could compete anywhere.

First the consultant asked the handbag makers why their prices were so high and the quality low. They immediately blamed the tanneries for the poor and high-priced leather. They used harsh chemicals and were rough on the hides, the handbag makers complained. We could improve our products considerably if only we could buy the cheaper and better quality imported Australian leather, but was prevented in doing so by the severe tariff.

The consultant then went to the tanners and asked why their leather was of poor quality. Blame the slaughterhouses, they replied, for not taking care of the hides and for being careless in cutting and handling them. They had to use those expensive chemicals and harsh treatment otherwise the hides would be useless. Off to the slaughterhouses the consultant went. “Look at those cows with their large ugly brand marks and scars,” replied the butchers, “that damage the skin and make it difficult to handle.” For good measure they added, “Blame the ranchers for putting those mutilating large brands on the animals!”

The ranchers had their own ready explanation. They had to use those huge brands so thieves would not steal their cows. Besides, they added, those cows rub themselves against barb wires and infect their skin. Blame those dumb cows! So in the end it was those dumb cows that caused the nation’s leather handbags for not being competitive in New York! In Malaysia, when I hear the leaders blame the failure of their policies on “lazy farmers” or “dumb Malays,” I immediately think of this “blame the dumb cow” episode.

In the above case one does not need a high-priced consultant to find the solution; the chain of blame could be broken at many points. First, the government could allow manufacturers to use their business judgment to get the best material at the best price even if that meant using imported materials. Imagine if the tariff for leather were to be removed. The positive effect would be seen immediately in better quality handbag at lower prices. But there would be other improvements down the chain.

The tanneries, finding that they could not sell their poor quality local leather, would no longer accept poor hides from the butchers. The butchers, unable to sell their mangled hides would now charge the ranchers extra for the added expense of disposing the useless skin. The ranchers in turn, finding that the extra charge would eat into their profits, would now find other ways to ward off poachers, like getting extra guard dogs and hiring more guards. Imagine the ripple effect of improved productivity and quality all along the production line just by introducing competition at one level. Mind you, the cows are still dumb, only now the people involved in the industry are not as dumb as the cows!

The solution may be easy and obvious; alas adopting it requires a strong political will that is so often lacking in many leaders. Imagine the intense lobbying by the tanneries, butchers, and ranchers to removing the tariff on imported leather. But unless local industries are forced to compete globally, there will be no impetus for them to improve and innovate. The positive effect of globalization is this one world standard. Handbag manufacturers simply want good leather to make good handbags; they do not care where the ingredients come from. To them, the prime considerations are price and quality, the very same concerns of their consumers.

My earlier example of the fishermen and their diesel motors is a dramatic example of “blaming the dumb cow” syndrome that is so prevalent in Malaysia. Another was the program in the 1980s of sending thousands of young Malays abroad for further studies at a cost of billions. For all the money spent, there was very little to show for the expensive effort. Most of them ended up at marginal universities.

The authorities had the mindset that since they had selected the students and spent so much money preparing them, they were to be kept abroad until they graduated even if that took years. None of the failing students were recalled; instead they kept transferring from one mediocre university to another. Even when the students dropped out, they still collected their stipends. When the officials were queried, yep, they blamed the lazy and ungrateful students!

But had the officials been more rigorous in their selection process and insisted on funding only the most capable and industrious students, they would have elevated the bar considerably and the students would have responded accordingly, and in the process saved the nation a bundle of money. By tolerating mediocrity, they encouraged it. The truth is, Malaysian civil servants are not a terribly bright bunch. They in turn had low expectations of the students.

President Bush (George W), in his criticism of liberals in their “soft” treatment of failing minority students, warned of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” There is no bigotry here; rather, dumb civil servants selecting dumb students. It takes talent to recognize one, and the civil service is sorely lacking in that. Nor has the government learned its lesson.

In 2001 in an attempt to increase computer ownership, it allowed workers to withdraw part of their pension savings to buy computers. But the red tape was, as usual, a major hassle. Additionally, the government forced workers to buy their computers from only one vendor. He was no doubt awarded the contract without any competitive bidding, a manifestation of Malaysia’s crony capitalism.

As a result, entry-level computers were overpriced to the tune of 10-15%, or about RM400 per unit. The inflated price ensured a hefty profit for the lucky vendor but at the expense of thousands of would-be consumers. When workers balked at paying such steep prices and the program failed, the government blamed the workers. Again, blaming the dumb cow!

The government should have trusted the workers and just gave them their money directly and let them do their own shopping. The workers would have the incentive to get the best deal. There would then be greater competition in the market and the prices would go down and the quality of service up. Sure, they will be a few who would use that money for other than computers, but that would be their loss.

Had Malaysian leaders avoided blaming the “dumb cows” with the failures of many of their programs aimed at helping Malays, and instead concentrated on correcting the deficiencies and weaknesses of the various programs, Malaysia and Malays would be much further ahead today.

*Dr. Bakri Musa is a Malaysian born surgeon in private practice in Silicon Valley, California. He and his wife Karen live on a ranch in Morgan Hill. He is a prolific writer and analyst with a number of books and numerous articles on political and socio-economic issues. His popular book is titled The Malay Dilemma Revisited.

 

The IMF needs a Woman’s touch

May 22, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com

By Liz Derman and Katrin Bennhold (May 21, 2011)

THE French finance minister, Christine Lagarde, was on a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January when her usual smile turned into a frown. Next to her, Robert E. Diamond Jr, chief executive of Barclays and one of the most powerful bankers in the world, thanked regulators and finance ministers for their role in shaping a better environment after the financial crisis.

Lagarde looked him in the eye. “The best way for the banking sector to say thank you would be to actually have, you know, good financing of the economy, sensible compensation systems in place and reinforcement of their capital,” she replied, to a burst of applause.

Her straight talk has helped burnish Lagarde’s reputation as one of the most influential European ambassadors in the world of international finance. And now, it is helping to make Lagarde, 55, perhaps the leading candidate to succeed her friend and colleague, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, as head of the International Monetary Fund.

Strauss-Kahn resigned from his post on Wednesday, four days after he was arrested by the New York police over accusations that he had sexually assaulted a housekeeper in his hotel suite.

Given the circumstances of Strauss-Kahn’s departure, one of Lagarde’s selling points as a possible successor may be one that is not listed on her resume.

“What’s happened with Strauss-Kahn underscores how great it would be to have a woman in the role,” said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a former IMF chief economist who is now a professor at Harvard University.

If she got the post, Lagarde would be the first woman to run the IMF — or any large international financial institution. But Rogoff indicated gender was only part of her appeal.

“She is enormously impressive, politically astute and a strong personality,” he said. “At finance meetings all over the world, she is treated practically like a rock star.”

European officials are frantically manoeuvring to keep one of their own in a post that Europe has controlled since the IMF and the World Bank were created in the late 1940s. It will not necessarily be easy.

Three years after financial excesses in the United States and Europe brought the world economy to the brink of catastrophe, Strauss-Kahn has become the latest symbol of what many see as the faults of the wealthy West. Appointing simply another European, particularly another white middle-age male, might not fly this time.

The world’s fast-growing emerging economies say they should now get a shot at running a big institution like the IMF — or the World Bank, traditionally headed by an American in a longstanding understanding between the two economic powers.

At the same time, China took the unusual step of reiterating its desire to see a leader representing an emerging market at the helm of the IMF.  A statement from Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the Chinese central bank, stressed the importance of “morality, ability and diligence” in the position.

“At the same time, the composition of senior management should better reflect changes in global economic patterns and represent emerging markets,” he said.

But with Europe facing a drawn-out financial crisis of its own, global leaders may consider it politic for a European to finish serving out Strauss-Kahn’s term, which would have ended next year.

That might then create an opening for a leader from one of the emerging markets whose economic heft and effect on global markets are starting to eclipse those of the West.

That is why Lagarde is seen as a lifeline for Europe.  Her main competition, analysts say, is another policy maker with an alternate profile, Kemal Dervis, a former finance minister of Turkey.

Dervis is credited with rescuing the Turkish economy after it was hit by a devastating financial crisis in 2001, in part by securing a multibillion-dollar loan from the IMF. But with the IMF overseeing E100 billion (RM426 billion) in loans to Greece, Portugal and Ireland, Lagarde may be the best person to steer a transition at the IMF, analysts say, even if President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has not, at least as of Thursday, moved to put her in the running.

Lagarde has kept quiet on the rumours circulating about her potential candidacy. As one French official put it: “She knows that whatever she says will only diminish her chances. It’s best to stay above the fray and see what happens.”

But French officials do not doubt her ambition to move to IMF headquarters in Washington if the opportunity arises. “She is without a doubt one of the top candidates people are talking about right now,” a French diplomat said.

Lagarde lived in the United States for 25 years, and is as connected and as respected in Washington and on Wall Street as in Europe.

Her lightly-accented English is almost flawless, a rarity among top French officials, which contributes to her reputation for sharp-tongued wit. She impressed American audiences during a 2009 appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, recounting how she pushed for the firing of incompetent managers at a French-Belgian bank that required a taxpayer bailout.

“I, for one, said, ‘Management is out. They did a crappy job. They have to go’,” she said. Lagarde is one of the few members of the French elite who so far have avoided scandal — although a French prosecutor recently asked the court of justice here to investigate whether she abused her authority in playing a role in a case that resulted in a lucrative payment to a showy French businessman, Bernard Tapie, in 2007.

If Lagarde is respected in the United States, she also has the trust of German leaders — something of vital importance in the European debt crisis.  While her boss, Sarkozy, has had a tumultuous relationship with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Lagarde has nurtured a close relationship with Merkel.

The two are on first-name terms and have on several occasions found common ground on important policy decisions, officials say. Last May, when Europe was on the edge of disaster, Lagarde refused to start an important meeting before Germany had sent a replacement for its finance minister at the time, Wolfgang Schaeuble, who was ill.

According to an official who was present, Lagarde told the group, “There cannot be an agreement without the Germans.”

“She is a negotiator at heart,” said another official, who has accompanied her to dozens of such meetings.  “She knows how to identify the common denominator between different parties.” — NYT

Lest ” religion becomes the refuge of scoundrels”

May 22, 2011

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

Via e-mail from Syed Mohd Salim Syed Mohd Bakar (May 20, 2011)

Humans have always been beset by the existentialist questions: Where do I come from? Where am I going? Why am I here? Religions exist to provide the answers and comfort the beleaguered. The need for religion is so real that the propensity for religion is programmed in the human genes. Religion is also the basis for altruism, the critical factor in the evolution of humans as social animals. Religion is sacred.

Procreation is the sole mechanism for the evolution of the species. Since the advent of sexual reproduction as a means of procreation, organisms have striven to be the alpha male or the alpha female. This is the best strategy to ensure maximum opportunities for the replication of one’s genes. Procreation is a natural phenomenon and it is values-free. It is the drive to be the alpha male or female, “red in tooth and claw”, that is profane.

The line between the sacred and the profane is blurred in Malaysian politics today. Religion is readily abused in the quest to be the alpha-male, alpha-group, alpha-race. Religious issues are manipulated to gain or maintain power.

There are no qualms in oppressing one religion to get the support of the adherents of another. The various religions are kept apart and made to be wary of each other, even to the point of mounting “crusades” against another. The classic case of divide-and-rule.

Even more insidious than religion being used as a tool to maintain power but integral to that phenomenon is the role of religious charlatans in politics. These are politicians who use religious platforms to get support. In the Malaysian context, unscrupulous politicians use Islam to gain support from Muslims who form the majority population in the country.The epitome of such politicians is Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar rose to prominence through ABIM, an Islamic youth movement. He later joined UMNO and in a matter of eleven years became deputy president of the party, a sure-fire path to be the prime minister. While in the government, he engineered a radical Islamisation policy to politically outflank PAS. Since his ouster from the government in 1998, he maintains a group of Islamists as core supporters.

Anwar always portrays the image of a pious Muslim. He quotes Quranic verses in his speeches and draws analogies from the Islamic Traditions to sell his agenda. He gained recognition from the international community by grandstanding on Islamic issues.

The Islamic cloak worn by Anwar is getting thread-bare… Crying political conspiracy, Anwar refuses to take the initiative to prove that the sex video is a fake or that the perpetrator is not him. He could have used the latest face-recognition technology to prove his innocence, had he so wanted, but instead, he goes on a dog-and-pony show around the country crying political conspiracy.

The roadshows are basically religious gatherings with solat hajat (special prayers), tazkirah (sermons) and ceramahs (speeches) laced with quotes from the Quran and hadiths (sayings of the Prophet) where Anwar proclaims his innocence while guised in the Islamic cloak. He recruits ulamas (religious scholars), local and foreign, to prop up his Islamic stature.

Why enlist foreign ulamas who are ignorant of Malaysian politics to proclaim his innocence? Why not hire foreign video experts who are professional and impartial to prove his innocence? Why not sue the individuals responsible for the video for defamation if he was innocent of the act portrayed in it?

It is time Malaysians differentiate the sacred from the profane in Malaysian politics, lest “religion becomes the refuge of scoundrels”.