Left-Back: Liverpool's Achilles Heel
Once again, it was a lucky comeback, and an unlucky Wigan go home pointless. I wonder how much longer we can ride our luck? One thing is for sure, with Chelsea playing us on the weekend it is time to get rid of our slow starts once and for all, for if there has been any more impressive team than them in all of Europe so far this season, I have yet to see them play.
If I were Scolari, I'd be telling Bosingwa to get forward as much as he can to take advantage of the weakness of Dossena/Aurelio. The latter has had time and it is probably fair to call him a failure, but Dossena has just arrived and I will suspend judgement on him till later in the season. Unfortunately, Liverpool do not have other options to utilise in the meantime. Thus far, Rafa has shown that he is aware of his frailties by not playing Dossena in the 'bigger' matches but it's not like Aurelio has cut it against the top sides as well. Teams are scoring from our weak left flank-Middlesbrough, Wigan, Man Utd spring to mind very easily.
This is a major conundrum and I have no suggestions to offer as to how we can fix it up against Chelsea. One thing is for sure, I'll be a religious man for 90 minutes when we visit Stamford Bridge!
22.10.08
Re-Post:Education Black hole in Sabah
From my siter's website: http://dreamyborneo.blog.com/4049746/
Cheated of Future
Last Friday, a news report highlighted by The Breakfast Show on NTV7 caught my eye. The hosts were discussing a story my colleague Julia had written in the NST on the plight of Pilatus Sahajiman and Malccolm Edvin who were "talked out" of sitting for their Year 6 compulsory exams three years ago by their principal. Their parents are now claiming that they were called for a meeting with the principal, who was not named in the report.
The parents say the principal told them the boys were academically weak and that if they sit for the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR), they would pull down the school's performance and "humiliate" the school as well. Pilatus' father accepted what the principal said, thinking that perhaps it was government policy. Pilatus went on to Form 1 but soon lost interest and now does odd jobs cleaning heavy machinery and washing tractors when he should actually be in Form 3. Malccolm has stayed on in school, but his father says the boy has low-self esteem because of what happened three years ago.
The parents have since, with the assistance of Inanam Assemblyman Johnny Goh, filed a complaint with the Sabah Education Department. According to the newspaper report, the department has promised that "investigations are under way."
I sincerely hope the Education Department and its director, who was just last week conferred with the second highest honour by the Head of State, will actually take action and not just offer lip service.
I also hope the department will go to the ground to gather feedback from parents, especially in rural areas, on problems they face in making sure their children get quality education. I remember visiting a rural school in northern Sabah on a Thursday ... and everyone had left for the weekend. It is no wonder that today we see hundreds of children (not immigrants) working at shops, car wash outlets and in restaurants. Two weeks ago, I bought vegetables from a boy opposite the secondary school I attended. The only reason I stopped to buy vege was because I wanted to speak to the boy. He shared that he is 11, from a northern district in Sabah, and doesnt go to school because his family has no money. Then I entered a nearby shop, and saw another boy about 11 as well, carrying a box of sundry items on his tiny frame. A few months back, a colleague and I stopped at a car wash outlet in Ranau, and there were 5 boys there aged 12-13. All of them come from the same village, and say they would rather work because their parents are just too poor.
Is it just poverty that is keeping these children out of school, or are those entrusted with the responsibility of encouraging these potential future leaders to stay in school turning them away? Caring society? I dont think so.
From my siter's website: http://dreamyborneo.blog.com/4049746/
Cheated of Future
Last Friday, a news report highlighted by The Breakfast Show on NTV7 caught my eye. The hosts were discussing a story my colleague Julia had written in the NST on the plight of Pilatus Sahajiman and Malccolm Edvin who were "talked out" of sitting for their Year 6 compulsory exams three years ago by their principal. Their parents are now claiming that they were called for a meeting with the principal, who was not named in the report.
The parents say the principal told them the boys were academically weak and that if they sit for the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR), they would pull down the school's performance and "humiliate" the school as well. Pilatus' father accepted what the principal said, thinking that perhaps it was government policy. Pilatus went on to Form 1 but soon lost interest and now does odd jobs cleaning heavy machinery and washing tractors when he should actually be in Form 3. Malccolm has stayed on in school, but his father says the boy has low-self esteem because of what happened three years ago.
The parents have since, with the assistance of Inanam Assemblyman Johnny Goh, filed a complaint with the Sabah Education Department. According to the newspaper report, the department has promised that "investigations are under way."
I sincerely hope the Education Department and its director, who was just last week conferred with the second highest honour by the Head of State, will actually take action and not just offer lip service.
I also hope the department will go to the ground to gather feedback from parents, especially in rural areas, on problems they face in making sure their children get quality education. I remember visiting a rural school in northern Sabah on a Thursday ... and everyone had left for the weekend. It is no wonder that today we see hundreds of children (not immigrants) working at shops, car wash outlets and in restaurants. Two weeks ago, I bought vegetables from a boy opposite the secondary school I attended. The only reason I stopped to buy vege was because I wanted to speak to the boy. He shared that he is 11, from a northern district in Sabah, and doesnt go to school because his family has no money. Then I entered a nearby shop, and saw another boy about 11 as well, carrying a box of sundry items on his tiny frame. A few months back, a colleague and I stopped at a car wash outlet in Ranau, and there were 5 boys there aged 12-13. All of them come from the same village, and say they would rather work because their parents are just too poor.
Is it just poverty that is keeping these children out of school, or are those entrusted with the responsibility of encouraging these potential future leaders to stay in school turning them away? Caring society? I dont think so.
18.10.08
Poverty in Sabah-Re-post of My sister's Blog Article
After years of independence in a country now ranked as developed following the Human Developed Index....
Go to: http://dreamyborneo.blog.com/4039664/ for the original source. I'll re-print it below. Never asked my sister...plagiarism ah?
Remembering Baby Lanora
In January 2008, I visited several villages in northern Sabah with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Unsealed dusty roads and homes built from plywood and zinc greeted us in Kanibongan, Pitas. I was not shocked as I had seen worse. But I was shocked and sad to the bone when we met a young mother who had to feed her baby with a mixture of rice and water because the family cannot afford to buy milk.
I have no idea how baby Lanora is today, 10 months after our visit. She suffers from epilepsy and though her parents have taken her to see the doctor, travelling to the nearby district hospital is a costly affair and when she has fits in the middle of the night, there is nothing much the family can do. Baby Lanora's story is just one of many in remote parts of Sabah, and I believe in other parts of Borneo too. Her mother, Isrin, is 20 and looks under-nourished, her father John is 50 and she has an older sister aged 5 years who thankfully is healthy. Her step-brother, who is 25 lives with the family in their one room hut is mentally ill. (John's son from his first marriage, his wife has passed away).
I wrote a feature published the same month in the New Sunday Times, titled "Empty Pockets on Rich Soil." How true. Sabah is a rich state, yet we have Baby Lanoras among us. I was told that a Sabah State agency disputed my piece, saying that John was crazy and that is why his family was in that condition. Well, from what I observed, the officers from the government agencies refused to even get near the house, so the question of claiming Baby Lanora's father is mad doesnt even rise.
The fact is: 42 per cent of children in Sabah are living in poverty based on latest findings by the UNDP. In other words, more than 4 in 10 children.
The fact is: The government has "spent" billions of ringgit to help these people. I wonder where the money has gone. Several billions more have been pledged. Either funding is being planned without taking into consideration the needs of poor people (what they need instead of imposing programmes on them), or some people have become very rich.
The question is: When will the talk stop? When will we see action?
Mum Isrin feeding Baby Lanora on 6th Jan 2008 at Kanibongan, Pitas, Sabah.
Isrin, Baby Lanora, John and the baby's older sister at their one-room home
After years of independence in a country now ranked as developed following the Human Developed Index....
Go to: http://dreamyborneo.blog.com/4039664/ for the original source. I'll re-print it below. Never asked my sister...plagiarism ah?
Remembering Baby Lanora
In January 2008, I visited several villages in northern Sabah with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Unsealed dusty roads and homes built from plywood and zinc greeted us in Kanibongan, Pitas. I was not shocked as I had seen worse. But I was shocked and sad to the bone when we met a young mother who had to feed her baby with a mixture of rice and water because the family cannot afford to buy milk.
I have no idea how baby Lanora is today, 10 months after our visit. She suffers from epilepsy and though her parents have taken her to see the doctor, travelling to the nearby district hospital is a costly affair and when she has fits in the middle of the night, there is nothing much the family can do. Baby Lanora's story is just one of many in remote parts of Sabah, and I believe in other parts of Borneo too. Her mother, Isrin, is 20 and looks under-nourished, her father John is 50 and she has an older sister aged 5 years who thankfully is healthy. Her step-brother, who is 25 lives with the family in their one room hut is mentally ill. (John's son from his first marriage, his wife has passed away).
I wrote a feature published the same month in the New Sunday Times, titled "Empty Pockets on Rich Soil." How true. Sabah is a rich state, yet we have Baby Lanoras among us. I was told that a Sabah State agency disputed my piece, saying that John was crazy and that is why his family was in that condition. Well, from what I observed, the officers from the government agencies refused to even get near the house, so the question of claiming Baby Lanora's father is mad doesnt even rise.
The fact is: 42 per cent of children in Sabah are living in poverty based on latest findings by the UNDP. In other words, more than 4 in 10 children.
The fact is: The government has "spent" billions of ringgit to help these people. I wonder where the money has gone. Several billions more have been pledged. Either funding is being planned without taking into consideration the needs of poor people (what they need instead of imposing programmes on them), or some people have become very rich.
The question is: When will the talk stop? When will we see action?
Mum Isrin feeding Baby Lanora on 6th Jan 2008 at Kanibongan, Pitas, Sabah.
Isrin, Baby Lanora, John and the baby's older sister at their one-room home
Aaah, The Social Contract Rears Its Ugly Head Again....
Every now and then, the so-called protectors of Malays and Islam, whomever they seem to be (usually UMNO and the Sultans) come out with statements to make those of us who believe in equality shudder in fear. DO NOT QUESTION THE SOCIAL CONTRACT!!!
Well, I have had it....ask Ungku Aziz, what social contract exactly? The one about about safeguarding special Malay rights, the use of the Malay language or the one that says Malays must be privileged in all facets of social, political and economic life that seems to be applicable post-May 13?
People need to understand that the NEP is not the social contract!
Where does the constitution say that a Malay is superior to a non-Malay? Where does it say we must all shut up and bow down to the 'protectors' of the Malays? UMNO certainly is no legal protectors of the Malays. The Sultans are, and my oh my, how wonderfully well have they defended their bangsa and agama...
Under their benevolent watch, we have seen the poor rural Malay villager get next to nothing over the years, but under their watch we have seen the Umnoputeras enrich themselves, gorging from a financial buffet paid for by poor Malays and the pendatangs. Under their watch, we have seen how these Umnoputeras go to Mecca and use the term Haji and yet continue their corrupt behaviour. Not only that, but these male, unelected protectors who find themselves so fortunate to be born into royalty are by and large also living off the largesse of the poor Malays and pendatangs while they 'concern' themselves about their subjects. Not too mention that they are also the protectors of Islam yet how many of them in their private lives choose to freely ignore the tenets of their religion?
The opposition got a bloody nose from them-yesterday the sultans told the opposition that they know who supplies them with their gravy train, and its not Anwar and Co. So much for looking at the royalty for support-for why should these unelected, unaccountable people support democracy and accountability? Why should they dilute their own power? Wake up people!!! Since when, in the history of humanity, have the interests of the people coincided with that of their unelected royalty?
The route to power lies in the hands of the people-March 8 was a powerful lesson for all vested interests. Masses of people voted for the opposition irrespective of race or religion. PAS supporters yelling makkal sakhti and Chinese waving PAS flags. This must have caused massive fear among the vested interests.
What we have seen in the last few months has been the use of the race card to once again divide and rule the populace, but as Permatang Pauh showed, and now BN's concession at Kulim magnifies, it has not worked. The more Teresa Kok is demonised, the more support she garners. The usual weapons have proven impotent in the face of people power.
It was time for the big guns-the sultans!!! Rightfully or wrongly, the much respected sultans. As usual, they have shown that they will act at the behest of those who provide them with their salaries-from the British and now to UMNO, what do they really care for protecting their bangsa and agama? Not too much, I daresay. They can hang their heads in shame in comparison with PAS who, whether I agree with their platform or not, do actually carry out their religious tenets and promote Malay rights as part of universal rights, not as a Machiavellian 'I-win-you-lose' mentality.
If this does not work, then I wonder whether it'll be time for the nuclear weapons-a repeat of May 13 that is. Probably not-a repeat of Operasi Lallang is more likely first.
Sometimes I wonder if I should not go back home. At times like this, I truly appreciate living in a country where I am judged by my character, not my bangsa and agama. All talk of a Bangsa Malaysia is just hot air, till we start treating people as equals and not as first or second class citizens. Part of that process would mean ignoring the sultans as well as UMNO. We've learnt to do the latter; the former however will be much harder to do. Hundreds of years of tradition, culture and brainwashing will ensure that.
True power lies in the hands of the people-do not be distracted by the divide and rule policies of the ruling classes.
Makkal Sakhti people, it should not just be a slogan. It should be practiced.
Every now and then, the so-called protectors of Malays and Islam, whomever they seem to be (usually UMNO and the Sultans) come out with statements to make those of us who believe in equality shudder in fear. DO NOT QUESTION THE SOCIAL CONTRACT!!!
Well, I have had it....ask Ungku Aziz, what social contract exactly? The one about about safeguarding special Malay rights, the use of the Malay language or the one that says Malays must be privileged in all facets of social, political and economic life that seems to be applicable post-May 13?
People need to understand that the NEP is not the social contract!
Where does the constitution say that a Malay is superior to a non-Malay? Where does it say we must all shut up and bow down to the 'protectors' of the Malays? UMNO certainly is no legal protectors of the Malays. The Sultans are, and my oh my, how wonderfully well have they defended their bangsa and agama...
Under their benevolent watch, we have seen the poor rural Malay villager get next to nothing over the years, but under their watch we have seen the Umnoputeras enrich themselves, gorging from a financial buffet paid for by poor Malays and the pendatangs. Under their watch, we have seen how these Umnoputeras go to Mecca and use the term Haji and yet continue their corrupt behaviour. Not only that, but these male, unelected protectors who find themselves so fortunate to be born into royalty are by and large also living off the largesse of the poor Malays and pendatangs while they 'concern' themselves about their subjects. Not too mention that they are also the protectors of Islam yet how many of them in their private lives choose to freely ignore the tenets of their religion?
The opposition got a bloody nose from them-yesterday the sultans told the opposition that they know who supplies them with their gravy train, and its not Anwar and Co. So much for looking at the royalty for support-for why should these unelected, unaccountable people support democracy and accountability? Why should they dilute their own power? Wake up people!!! Since when, in the history of humanity, have the interests of the people coincided with that of their unelected royalty?
The route to power lies in the hands of the people-March 8 was a powerful lesson for all vested interests. Masses of people voted for the opposition irrespective of race or religion. PAS supporters yelling makkal sakhti and Chinese waving PAS flags. This must have caused massive fear among the vested interests.
What we have seen in the last few months has been the use of the race card to once again divide and rule the populace, but as Permatang Pauh showed, and now BN's concession at Kulim magnifies, it has not worked. The more Teresa Kok is demonised, the more support she garners. The usual weapons have proven impotent in the face of people power.
It was time for the big guns-the sultans!!! Rightfully or wrongly, the much respected sultans. As usual, they have shown that they will act at the behest of those who provide them with their salaries-from the British and now to UMNO, what do they really care for protecting their bangsa and agama? Not too much, I daresay. They can hang their heads in shame in comparison with PAS who, whether I agree with their platform or not, do actually carry out their religious tenets and promote Malay rights as part of universal rights, not as a Machiavellian 'I-win-you-lose' mentality.
If this does not work, then I wonder whether it'll be time for the nuclear weapons-a repeat of May 13 that is. Probably not-a repeat of Operasi Lallang is more likely first.
Sometimes I wonder if I should not go back home. At times like this, I truly appreciate living in a country where I am judged by my character, not my bangsa and agama. All talk of a Bangsa Malaysia is just hot air, till we start treating people as equals and not as first or second class citizens. Part of that process would mean ignoring the sultans as well as UMNO. We've learnt to do the latter; the former however will be much harder to do. Hundreds of years of tradition, culture and brainwashing will ensure that.
True power lies in the hands of the people-do not be distracted by the divide and rule policies of the ruling classes.
Makkal Sakhti people, it should not just be a slogan. It should be practiced.
9.10.08
Aaah, Cricket's Back-Who's The Racist Eh?
India v. Australia - the bitching, the sledging, the controversial umpiring decisions, the racism, and oh yes, a bit of cricket here and there. Summer's back in town innit?
Once again, we should prepare to witnes the Indian's 'we have done no wrong' cricketers in action while the Aussies have no doubt been prepped incessantly to do no sledge, or even give the enemy a funny look....all this cricketing $$$ floating in India you see...maybe we should make sure they win as well....
Inside Cricket had Harbhajan Singh's interview where he proclaimed he is proud to be Punjabi, proud to be Sikh. Accepted at face value by pretty much all and sundry, no one I know claims that to be supremacist or the like. But now imagine if Hayden proclaimed he is proud to be white, proud to be Catholic....
Aaaah, I cannot wait for the first ball to be delivered-bet it'll be a bouncer...let the games begin!!!
India v. Australia - the bitching, the sledging, the controversial umpiring decisions, the racism, and oh yes, a bit of cricket here and there. Summer's back in town innit?
Once again, we should prepare to witnes the Indian's 'we have done no wrong' cricketers in action while the Aussies have no doubt been prepped incessantly to do no sledge, or even give the enemy a funny look....all this cricketing $$$ floating in India you see...maybe we should make sure they win as well....
Inside Cricket had Harbhajan Singh's interview where he proclaimed he is proud to be Punjabi, proud to be Sikh. Accepted at face value by pretty much all and sundry, no one I know claims that to be supremacist or the like. But now imagine if Hayden proclaimed he is proud to be white, proud to be Catholic....
Aaaah, I cannot wait for the first ball to be delivered-bet it'll be a bouncer...let the games begin!!!
7.10.08
My, My, Our Year Is It...?
Coming from two goals down to beat the new powerhouse to be (Man City), and one hears of the 'spirit of Istanbul....' It's a good result, but what can one make of it?
One thing is for sure-bar the MU match, the team has yet to play particularly well, yet has won 5 and drawn 2 matches thus far. A team that can pick up so many points while playing at less than their full capabilities is more than just a lucky team. Class teams do it, and if this carries on, then despite playing at less than its best, the team can probably be deemed a 'class' team rather than being a team with some 'class' players.
Scoring last minute goals a la MU is also telling. The team can heap huge pressure on the opposition, forcing them deeper and deeper into defense and yielding the ball back to players in red jerseys. More often than not, this results in late goals.
The self-belief is there as well now, and there is consistency in the line-up and tactics, though Rafa the Faka did alter it against Man City and it nearly killed us.
I don't know if I care to say 'this is our season' as I gave up on that a few years ago-as well, it is still early days and MU and Arsenal will get over their hiccups while Chelsea look super impressive, despite all their injuries. It is their title to lose, quite frankly. As well, our left-back spot looks so very weak and it is only a matter of time before it is cracked open for good, as Middlesbrough and Man City showed in flashes. A January signing there is imperative.
Coming from two goals down to beat the new powerhouse to be (Man City), and one hears of the 'spirit of Istanbul....' It's a good result, but what can one make of it?
One thing is for sure-bar the MU match, the team has yet to play particularly well, yet has won 5 and drawn 2 matches thus far. A team that can pick up so many points while playing at less than their full capabilities is more than just a lucky team. Class teams do it, and if this carries on, then despite playing at less than its best, the team can probably be deemed a 'class' team rather than being a team with some 'class' players.
Scoring last minute goals a la MU is also telling. The team can heap huge pressure on the opposition, forcing them deeper and deeper into defense and yielding the ball back to players in red jerseys. More often than not, this results in late goals.
The self-belief is there as well now, and there is consistency in the line-up and tactics, though Rafa the Faka did alter it against Man City and it nearly killed us.
I don't know if I care to say 'this is our season' as I gave up on that a few years ago-as well, it is still early days and MU and Arsenal will get over their hiccups while Chelsea look super impressive, despite all their injuries. It is their title to lose, quite frankly. As well, our left-back spot looks so very weak and it is only a matter of time before it is cracked open for good, as Middlesbrough and Man City showed in flashes. A January signing there is imperative.
3.10.08
Has The Fat Spanish Waiter Learnt His Lesson?
A cracking start to Liverpool's season, at least results-wise, if not quite performance-wise. One thing that became clear last season and one which has carried on this season is that Liverpool is well nigh tough to beat. They have now lost only 2 of their last 30 games (to MU & Chelsea) and lost less games than eventual champions MU last season.
This is of course, no reason to cheer, for this does not mean that the team will win anything just yet. Being tough to beat may just indicate a defensive mindset that leads to too many draws, and a serious aversion to risk, catapulting the fear of defeat ahead of the search for glory. Nevertheless, there does seem to be reason for optimism.
First, the central spine of the team is as good as any in the premiership. 4 very good central defenders (Carragher, Agger, Skrtel, Hyppia) and two top notch defensive midfielders (Alonso, Mascherano) ably assiated by two promising youngsters (Lucas, Plessis) even if Lucas is a headless chicken at times. Defensively then, the squad is as well equipped as Chelsea, MU and Arsenal, if not more so. And if one does not concede goals, one always has a chance of winning matches.
Second, which I consider vitally important, the massive rotation seems to have stopped. No more 5 changes a match and no more resting the big name match winners. Gerrard and Torres play pretty much every match, and Agger and Hyppia have to bide their time. Really only Alonso and Mascherano swap around among the big names. Keane starts with Torres, and Riera and Kuyt play out-wide with Arbeloa at right back, while Dossena and Aurelio are battling it out for the left-back slot. So minimal changes. Whether Riera should be selected ahead of Babel/Benayoun, or whether Dossena should be allowed near a red shirt, or whether Pennant should be given a look-in are secondary to the fact that the team now plays with cohesion.
Third, we have depth now, as noted with the central spine of the team. But also up front where once he gets going, Keane will show he knows where the back of the net is. Ngog looks promising and Kuyt can play up-front as well, as can Babel. It's not great, and it is an attack which cannot compete with Arsenal and MU, but one which matches Chelsea for depth. Out-wide, as long as he has the full-backs overlapping our weakness is minimised but even then Pennant can't get a game and Babel makes cameo appearences, while Benayoun continues to flitter in and out of the side.
But they are troubles of course. In the centre of midfield we have only one attack minded player in the indefatigable Steven Gerrard but no one else. Babel can probably fit in there if need be, as can Benayoun (and at a stretch Keane) but really there is no concrete fall-back option. Compare that to Chelsea and Arsenal and the team falls flat.
The full-back positions are the most problematic. Aurelio has never really convinced and Dossena needs to start playing like a defender. Arbeloa I don't mind, but why oh why force Finnan away? Ok, to get Riera in but even then...Deggen I have no idea about, but we'll see when he is fit. The fullbacks do not even begin to approximate the quality possessed by MU, Chelsea and Arsenal.
Still, more reason to be optimistic than not. It's certainly not our year seeing we don't do too well going behind opposing defences and the fullback weakness will eventually come to the fore, but bloody hell, at least the team should be right up there with the best come the end of April!
A cracking start to Liverpool's season, at least results-wise, if not quite performance-wise. One thing that became clear last season and one which has carried on this season is that Liverpool is well nigh tough to beat. They have now lost only 2 of their last 30 games (to MU & Chelsea) and lost less games than eventual champions MU last season.
This is of course, no reason to cheer, for this does not mean that the team will win anything just yet. Being tough to beat may just indicate a defensive mindset that leads to too many draws, and a serious aversion to risk, catapulting the fear of defeat ahead of the search for glory. Nevertheless, there does seem to be reason for optimism.
First, the central spine of the team is as good as any in the premiership. 4 very good central defenders (Carragher, Agger, Skrtel, Hyppia) and two top notch defensive midfielders (Alonso, Mascherano) ably assiated by two promising youngsters (Lucas, Plessis) even if Lucas is a headless chicken at times. Defensively then, the squad is as well equipped as Chelsea, MU and Arsenal, if not more so. And if one does not concede goals, one always has a chance of winning matches.
Second, which I consider vitally important, the massive rotation seems to have stopped. No more 5 changes a match and no more resting the big name match winners. Gerrard and Torres play pretty much every match, and Agger and Hyppia have to bide their time. Really only Alonso and Mascherano swap around among the big names. Keane starts with Torres, and Riera and Kuyt play out-wide with Arbeloa at right back, while Dossena and Aurelio are battling it out for the left-back slot. So minimal changes. Whether Riera should be selected ahead of Babel/Benayoun, or whether Dossena should be allowed near a red shirt, or whether Pennant should be given a look-in are secondary to the fact that the team now plays with cohesion.
Third, we have depth now, as noted with the central spine of the team. But also up front where once he gets going, Keane will show he knows where the back of the net is. Ngog looks promising and Kuyt can play up-front as well, as can Babel. It's not great, and it is an attack which cannot compete with Arsenal and MU, but one which matches Chelsea for depth. Out-wide, as long as he has the full-backs overlapping our weakness is minimised but even then Pennant can't get a game and Babel makes cameo appearences, while Benayoun continues to flitter in and out of the side.
But they are troubles of course. In the centre of midfield we have only one attack minded player in the indefatigable Steven Gerrard but no one else. Babel can probably fit in there if need be, as can Benayoun (and at a stretch Keane) but really there is no concrete fall-back option. Compare that to Chelsea and Arsenal and the team falls flat.
The full-back positions are the most problematic. Aurelio has never really convinced and Dossena needs to start playing like a defender. Arbeloa I don't mind, but why oh why force Finnan away? Ok, to get Riera in but even then...Deggen I have no idea about, but we'll see when he is fit. The fullbacks do not even begin to approximate the quality possessed by MU, Chelsea and Arsenal.
Still, more reason to be optimistic than not. It's certainly not our year seeing we don't do too well going behind opposing defences and the fullback weakness will eventually come to the fore, but bloody hell, at least the team should be right up there with the best come the end of April!
28.9.08
Anwar's 2nd Wind & The Dictatorship Within UMNO
Is Anwar really bluffing, or is there at least some truth to his bravado? After 16 September he seemed to have had egg on his face. Then there was the 23 September story, Tian Chua's big mouth, & Anwar's declaration that deadlines don't matter. Neither did SAPP join the Pakatan Rakyat preferring to stand as independents. It all seemed like he was finished, but for 3 main developments in the last few days.
1. Badawi's refusal to call Anwar's bluff. This really perplexes me. Why not accede to Anwar's request for an extraordinary parliamentary sitting & destroy Anwar once and for all? The fact that he did not is not for me, proof that he is fed up with Anwar's sandiwara and that he is getting on with the job of governing. Instead it shows to me that he is not 100% sure (though pretty sure probably) that Anwar was talking out of his rear. Why wait till 13 October? Is it so he can launch a counter-attack? If so, then we have to consider the possibility that Anwar's not bluffing, and Badawi feels he needs time to ameliorate the threat.
2. Following on form that, the suspension of UMNO election's in order to pass the throne to Najib only shows that he is trying to nullify instability in UMNO. Nevertheless, all he is doing is increasing instability in UMNO. It looks like he has given up on holding on to power, & by handing it over to Najib can at least strike some back-door deals to keep his and his family's dirty laundry out of the public eye. This may make the anti-Najib, anti-Badawi camps within UMNO more likely to leave should they feel they cannot take over power since the election is postponed. This makes the likelihood of a power transfer more, and not less likely. The winds of change in favour of free speech has taken root across the nation, including within UMNO. Gagging the expression of free speech will only alienate significant chunks of UMNO members.
3. UPKO's ramblings suggest to me that Sabah's BN parties are beginning to make the move leading up to October 13. Whatever the realpolitik of SAPP's decision, it was clearly very popular with the people of Sabah. Given PBS' emasculation and SAPP's popularity, UPKO can either try and claim the support of the KDM people or lose them to SAPP. BN Sabah is hotly divided, which can be seen by Shafie Apdal's role in urging Badawi to go and maintain some stability within UMNO (but which I argue is actually counter-productive to UMNO's stability).
There has been false dawns, but October 13 must be the end of it all. If Anwar cannot get it done then, he must apologise, and Pakatan Rakyat must get back to governing their states, strengthening their 'coalition' & be a responsible opposition. While I still maintain that the political and economic uncertainty is largely due to a lack of governance at the federal level, clearly the opposition has played a role in it as well. Ultimately what we need is functioning governments, federal and state though clearly it is more important federally. Both parties need to start doing that, and soon.
Is Anwar really bluffing, or is there at least some truth to his bravado? After 16 September he seemed to have had egg on his face. Then there was the 23 September story, Tian Chua's big mouth, & Anwar's declaration that deadlines don't matter. Neither did SAPP join the Pakatan Rakyat preferring to stand as independents. It all seemed like he was finished, but for 3 main developments in the last few days.
1. Badawi's refusal to call Anwar's bluff. This really perplexes me. Why not accede to Anwar's request for an extraordinary parliamentary sitting & destroy Anwar once and for all? The fact that he did not is not for me, proof that he is fed up with Anwar's sandiwara and that he is getting on with the job of governing. Instead it shows to me that he is not 100% sure (though pretty sure probably) that Anwar was talking out of his rear. Why wait till 13 October? Is it so he can launch a counter-attack? If so, then we have to consider the possibility that Anwar's not bluffing, and Badawi feels he needs time to ameliorate the threat.
2. Following on form that, the suspension of UMNO election's in order to pass the throne to Najib only shows that he is trying to nullify instability in UMNO. Nevertheless, all he is doing is increasing instability in UMNO. It looks like he has given up on holding on to power, & by handing it over to Najib can at least strike some back-door deals to keep his and his family's dirty laundry out of the public eye. This may make the anti-Najib, anti-Badawi camps within UMNO more likely to leave should they feel they cannot take over power since the election is postponed. This makes the likelihood of a power transfer more, and not less likely. The winds of change in favour of free speech has taken root across the nation, including within UMNO. Gagging the expression of free speech will only alienate significant chunks of UMNO members.
3. UPKO's ramblings suggest to me that Sabah's BN parties are beginning to make the move leading up to October 13. Whatever the realpolitik of SAPP's decision, it was clearly very popular with the people of Sabah. Given PBS' emasculation and SAPP's popularity, UPKO can either try and claim the support of the KDM people or lose them to SAPP. BN Sabah is hotly divided, which can be seen by Shafie Apdal's role in urging Badawi to go and maintain some stability within UMNO (but which I argue is actually counter-productive to UMNO's stability).
There has been false dawns, but October 13 must be the end of it all. If Anwar cannot get it done then, he must apologise, and Pakatan Rakyat must get back to governing their states, strengthening their 'coalition' & be a responsible opposition. While I still maintain that the political and economic uncertainty is largely due to a lack of governance at the federal level, clearly the opposition has played a role in it as well. Ultimately what we need is functioning governments, federal and state though clearly it is more important federally. Both parties need to start doing that, and soon.
25.9.08
When Do We Abandon Our Principles?
The issue of principles, and holding on to them, is confusing me. I used to think of it as a rather straightforward beast-you have principles and you hold on to them. Simple. Now I wonder how black and white the issue of principles is. One question in particular concerns me-must principles be rules governed, or can principles be discretionary?
I ask because until about 3-4 weeks ago, I held one principle dear-any member of parliament wishing to jump parties should first resign his/her seat. We should not countenance the defection based on the assertion that the original party being represented has changed its tune and no longer represents the electorate. I hold this view as I firmly believe that the majority of people vote for a party and not an individual candidate (in the main).
I abandoned this principle for Anwar's possible (now certainly near impossible) heroic promise to form government based on defections, despite initially being very critical of such a thing. Why? Because:
*IMO, the government had stopped governing. The government's job is to govern, and not just sit there, inert. And IMO, that is exactly what happened. In such a scenario, one cannot claim the right to form government despite winning the election if one then, upon forming government, not actually govern.
*Anwar's promise to hold free and fair elections within 12 months of forming government after fixing up the electoral roles and getting rid of draconian legislation such as the ISA. To me, this was the decisive point that made me support his aim of toppling the government by using 'jumping' parliamentarians. If the government has stopped governing, and he can not only get elections to be held again, but make them 'freer and fairer' then it is worth pursuing especially when:
*The government continued to use state apparatus to suppress the people.
The last of this is the most subjective of all, and where my decision to abandon my principle is at its weakest, and can be safely disregarded. I got ahead of myself there but the arrest of the Sin Chew journalist really got my goat.
But the first two deserve closer scrutiny and can be analysed via two separate prisms:
*Should principles be universally applied (be rules based)? Or,
*Should principles be contextual (discretionary)?
Should principles be universal, then my decision to support the defections is wrong. I cannot abrograte my principle 'just this once.' It is a non-issue. But does this then imply that the world is static, and not dynamic, for why should it be just my principle that is static? In a static world, nothing changes and the principle of not supporting defections will apply as governments govern and express the will of the people. How realistic is that?
If, on the other hand, principles be placed into set contexts, then discretion applies. The principle of not supporting defections applies to situations where governments actually govern and express the wish of the majority of voters. When that does not occur, the principle is untenable. This unfortunately, opens up a can of worms. Who decides that the government is not performing? Who decides that it no longer represents the majority? Are they rules to follow, in which case why am I using rules to apply discretion? Why the hypocracy?
I wonder if economics can help us out here with its concept of 'constrained discretion' with regards to the independence of central banks in setting monetary policy. When monetary policy was in the hands of politicians, we often witnessed opportunistic behaviour close to elections, with adverse long-term consequences for an economy. It was argued that governments with discretion in the use of monetary policy could not be credible, and that it would be better to use rules instead. Central banks were made independent and targets (rules) were set for them to follow. So in Australia, inflation must be contained within a 2-3% band. Failure to do so will result in penalties. Sticking to this, over time, creates credibility.
But there has been an understanding that such rules must be abandoned should the 'landscape' significantly alter. For example, imagine a scenario whereby Australia falls headlong into recession due to a collapse of the Chinese economy but inflation remains high due to cost-push inflation led by high oil and agricultural prices. In this scenario, say that GDP = -3% but inflation = 5%.
Now, the RBA, following its rules would attempt to lower inflation by running contractionary monetary policy. In other words, it would raise interest rates to contain inflation. This would only further prolong the Australian recession. In such an unlikely scenario, we all know that the RBA would be allowed to abandon the band 'just this once' as the rule was set in place to reflect an ideal scenario in a fairly static landscape. When that landscape suddenly shifts, a change in rules, or an abandonment of rules in order to return to the original landscape is pretty much accepted as being valid. The credibility it has built over time would not be compromised when it abandons the rules due to severe unforseen impacts on the Australian economy.
So it is that I return to my conundrum. Can principles be universal? I think only in a static world, or to be clearer, in a world where the paradigm in which the principles were formulated still remain strong. It can change if the paradigm shifts, and there can be times when the principles can be abrograted while we attempt to return the paradigm to its initial starting point. If so, then we should not be fixated with always standing our ground, but neither should we change our point of view willy-nilly. We need credibility in order to be able to ignore our principles in exceptional circumstances and still be taken seriously after the fact. That is 'constrained discretion.'
It still leaves open the question of when, where, how and why the 'exception' occurs though. And that is surely subjective.
I was initially uncomfortable with supporting the possibility of defections but not anymore. Under the circumstances, I thought the situation was 'exceptional' and thought that by supporting a defection-led change of government I would be able to see the landscape change back to a scenario whereby I will once again be able to state my principle of non-defection. It did not occur in any event, and now we'll see if UMNO can reform itself and get on with the job of governing. Till then, I hold dear that I can, and will, continue to support a defection-led change of government that will end the tenure of a non-governing government (should it not start governing) and bring forth 'freer and fairer' elections where the will of the people can be heard louder and clearer.
Or so I tell myself anyway....
The issue of principles, and holding on to them, is confusing me. I used to think of it as a rather straightforward beast-you have principles and you hold on to them. Simple. Now I wonder how black and white the issue of principles is. One question in particular concerns me-must principles be rules governed, or can principles be discretionary?
I ask because until about 3-4 weeks ago, I held one principle dear-any member of parliament wishing to jump parties should first resign his/her seat. We should not countenance the defection based on the assertion that the original party being represented has changed its tune and no longer represents the electorate. I hold this view as I firmly believe that the majority of people vote for a party and not an individual candidate (in the main).
I abandoned this principle for Anwar's possible (now certainly near impossible) heroic promise to form government based on defections, despite initially being very critical of such a thing. Why? Because:
*IMO, the government had stopped governing. The government's job is to govern, and not just sit there, inert. And IMO, that is exactly what happened. In such a scenario, one cannot claim the right to form government despite winning the election if one then, upon forming government, not actually govern.
*Anwar's promise to hold free and fair elections within 12 months of forming government after fixing up the electoral roles and getting rid of draconian legislation such as the ISA. To me, this was the decisive point that made me support his aim of toppling the government by using 'jumping' parliamentarians. If the government has stopped governing, and he can not only get elections to be held again, but make them 'freer and fairer' then it is worth pursuing especially when:
*The government continued to use state apparatus to suppress the people.
The last of this is the most subjective of all, and where my decision to abandon my principle is at its weakest, and can be safely disregarded. I got ahead of myself there but the arrest of the Sin Chew journalist really got my goat.
But the first two deserve closer scrutiny and can be analysed via two separate prisms:
*Should principles be universally applied (be rules based)? Or,
*Should principles be contextual (discretionary)?
Should principles be universal, then my decision to support the defections is wrong. I cannot abrograte my principle 'just this once.' It is a non-issue. But does this then imply that the world is static, and not dynamic, for why should it be just my principle that is static? In a static world, nothing changes and the principle of not supporting defections will apply as governments govern and express the will of the people. How realistic is that?
If, on the other hand, principles be placed into set contexts, then discretion applies. The principle of not supporting defections applies to situations where governments actually govern and express the wish of the majority of voters. When that does not occur, the principle is untenable. This unfortunately, opens up a can of worms. Who decides that the government is not performing? Who decides that it no longer represents the majority? Are they rules to follow, in which case why am I using rules to apply discretion? Why the hypocracy?
I wonder if economics can help us out here with its concept of 'constrained discretion' with regards to the independence of central banks in setting monetary policy. When monetary policy was in the hands of politicians, we often witnessed opportunistic behaviour close to elections, with adverse long-term consequences for an economy. It was argued that governments with discretion in the use of monetary policy could not be credible, and that it would be better to use rules instead. Central banks were made independent and targets (rules) were set for them to follow. So in Australia, inflation must be contained within a 2-3% band. Failure to do so will result in penalties. Sticking to this, over time, creates credibility.
But there has been an understanding that such rules must be abandoned should the 'landscape' significantly alter. For example, imagine a scenario whereby Australia falls headlong into recession due to a collapse of the Chinese economy but inflation remains high due to cost-push inflation led by high oil and agricultural prices. In this scenario, say that GDP = -3% but inflation = 5%.
Now, the RBA, following its rules would attempt to lower inflation by running contractionary monetary policy. In other words, it would raise interest rates to contain inflation. This would only further prolong the Australian recession. In such an unlikely scenario, we all know that the RBA would be allowed to abandon the band 'just this once' as the rule was set in place to reflect an ideal scenario in a fairly static landscape. When that landscape suddenly shifts, a change in rules, or an abandonment of rules in order to return to the original landscape is pretty much accepted as being valid. The credibility it has built over time would not be compromised when it abandons the rules due to severe unforseen impacts on the Australian economy.
So it is that I return to my conundrum. Can principles be universal? I think only in a static world, or to be clearer, in a world where the paradigm in which the principles were formulated still remain strong. It can change if the paradigm shifts, and there can be times when the principles can be abrograted while we attempt to return the paradigm to its initial starting point. If so, then we should not be fixated with always standing our ground, but neither should we change our point of view willy-nilly. We need credibility in order to be able to ignore our principles in exceptional circumstances and still be taken seriously after the fact. That is 'constrained discretion.'
It still leaves open the question of when, where, how and why the 'exception' occurs though. And that is surely subjective.
I was initially uncomfortable with supporting the possibility of defections but not anymore. Under the circumstances, I thought the situation was 'exceptional' and thought that by supporting a defection-led change of government I would be able to see the landscape change back to a scenario whereby I will once again be able to state my principle of non-defection. It did not occur in any event, and now we'll see if UMNO can reform itself and get on with the job of governing. Till then, I hold dear that I can, and will, continue to support a defection-led change of government that will end the tenure of a non-governing government (should it not start governing) and bring forth 'freer and fairer' elections where the will of the people can be heard louder and clearer.
Or so I tell myself anyway....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
