Malaysia's General Election 13 to be survival of the fittest

It’s all a matter of endurance. Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose. 

WE are entering the final straight. Whether the date of the actual polling day is in June, July, September or even next year, the finishing line is fast approaching.

It’s all a matter of endurance. Who can best manage their own resources and minimise their weaknesses? Whose “messaging” is the most focused and sustained?

Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose.

As Tun Daim Zainuddin said a few months ago, the contest between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional is much like an extended game of tennis – with victory going to the side that commits the least unforced errors.

In this respect Barisan would appear to be gaining the lead. Pakatan’s lack of access to the mainstream media further undermines the challenger’s chances.

Last week’s resignation of DAP Senator and vice-president Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim and PAS’ continued call for the introduction of the syariah have raised doubts about Pakatan’s ability to hold the middle-ground.

But there are also real dangers in trying to “read” the election outcome from the mainstream media. Official controls will always tend to magnify Pakatan’s mistakes whilst minimising Barisan’s missteps and only a fool would ignore the Internet’s ubiquitous presence.

At the same time, the vast numbers of new voters have injected an enormous degree of uncertainty into the game.

It is as if Tun Daim’s tennis game had been crossed with a Sony Wii as well as a Pentagon battle-ground simulator: permutations are the new “norm”.

No one knows for certain where these young people will cast their ballots. As Ben Suffian of Merdeka Centre explains: “They lack the loyalty of their parents. They are better informed and more sceptical: arbitraging on news and events.”

But when all is said and done, the voters are faced with four fundamental decisions when they’re dealing with Barisan, which are as follows:

> Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak: Should the Malaysians reward or punish him? Have his reforms satisfied the voting public? Conversely, has he been too weak in the face of non-Malay demands? Does Bersih 3.0 accurately reflect popular sentiment? Does he deserve to better Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s 2008 result? Will we reward him with the constitutional majority? Can his personal popularity (much like Abdullah’s at the same stage of the 2008 scenario) strengthen his hold on power?

> Umno: For over five decades – the United Malays National Organisation has been the parti kerajaan – the party of Government with its supreme council meetings surpassing Cabinet in terms of “real” authority? Is the automatic identification of party and government (along with all the attendant patronage) coming to an end? Or is it merely a case of the parti kerajaan becoming a parti politik no different from PAS and PKR? Is Umno’s supremacy finished?

> Barisan Nasional: Can the alliance remain intact if the country’s second largest community, the Chinese, remove their support? Is an Umno-dominated coalition sustainable? Are we witnessing the end of the so-called unwritten consensus that has brought us thus far? What will be the substitute?

> Malaysia: Will the 13th General Election see the firming up of the two-coalition system or its demise? Are we Malaysians comfortable with the level of checks and balances that have entered our political lexicon since 2008 or do we wish to return to the past – entrusting the Barisan, unreservedly with our future?

March 8, 2008 was a surprise result. It upset our (and especially my) lazy assumptions.

Will the upcoming polls see this becoming the new normal or will we return to the status quo ante? I will try my best to cover these dilemmas. But then again, if we refer to Tun Daim’s tennis analogy and the doubts raised by Bersih, another major question surrounds the “rules of the game” – who determines the players, especially the millions of new voters?

CERITALAH  By KARIM RASLAN

Thiel's college dropout plan in bubble education

Thiel's college dropout plan scrutinized by '60 Minutes'

Investor and entrepreneur tells the CBS news magazine that a college degree is unnecessary for financial success, but critics call his program an elitist ploy. 

Billionaire investor Peter Thiel.

Peter Thiel's plan to pay college students to develop their promising concepts instead of attending to school is attracting students as well as critics.

Best known as a co-founder of PayPal, the Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur has also made early-stage investments in companies such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Yelp. Now he's investing in college students, awarding fellowships of $100,000 each to youth under 20 years old, essentially encouraging them to drop out of college to become entrepreneurs.

In an interview for tonight's "60 Minutes," Thiel tells Morley Safer that his program is a viable alternative to what he sees as a largely ineffective university system in which costs far outweigh benefits.

"We have a bubble in education, like we had a bubble in housing...everybody believed you had to have a house, they'd pay whatever it took," says Thiel. "Today, everybody believes that we need to go to college, and people will pay -- whatever it takes."

He also notes that a college degree is not necessary to land a high-paying job.

"There are all sorts of vocational careers that pay extremely well today, so the average plumber makes as much as the average doctor," Thiel tells Safer.

Critics call Thiel's plan an elitist ploy that only encourages others to drop out or not attend college at all.

"Peter Thiel has made so much money that he is out of touch with the real world," Vivek Wadhwa, an entrepreneur who teaches at Duke and Stanford, told Safer. "He doesn't understand how important education is for the masses."

"What I worry about is a message that's getting out there to America that it's okay to drop out of school, that you don't have to get college. Absolutely dead wrong."

"60 Minutes" airs at 7 p.m. PT/ET on CBS stations. Full segment embedded below.

by Steven Musil
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers.  

Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Related posts:

US student Loan Crisis, an Education Bubble? 

American mounting student loans a 'debt bomb' waiting to explode! Inside America’s Student Loan Bubble!

American Student Loan Debt: $1 Trillion and Counting

America, a "Generation of Sissies"

Debt crisis in Europe will affect rest of the world

The economic crisis in Europe is deepening and may get worse, with worrisome effects on the rest of the world.

Eurozone crisis: high-stakes gamble as David Cameron warns Greek voters.

David Cameron and European Commission president José Manuel Barroso talk before a session at the Nato summit in Chicago. Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

THE economic situation in Europe has worsened considerably in the past week, giving rise to a very worrisome situation.

The ramifications of a full-blown crisis are serious not only for Europe but also the rest of the world.

The recent Greek elections saw the citizens proclaiming their anger towards the austerity policies tied to the European-IMF bail-out package, by repudiating the two major parties and giving the small anti-austerity Syriza party second place.

The elections came in the midst of a greatly deteriorating condition. Greece has 22% unemployment, 50% youth unemployment, GNP is falling steeply, and public debt will remain high at 160% of GDP next year despite the recent bailout and debt-restructuring measures.

The leader of Syriza, Alexis Tsipras, who swept to the forefront of Greek politics on the wind of protest against the austerity measures imposed by creditors, wants to re-negotiate the terms of the bailout.

He thinks his insistence on this will eventually force the creditors to change the terms, with Greece remaining in the Eurozone.

But many analysts think that the response to this demand from the EU and IMF would be to stop further loans and force Greece to exit the Euro. In a second election in mid-June, Syriza is expected to do even better and a messy Greek loan default and Euro exit are now seen as more than just possible.

In a Eurozone exit, Greece would re-introduce a local currency, and after Greeks change from their Euros, a depreciation of the new currency is expected to happen.

News report indicate that some capital flight from Greece is already taking place, as Greeks fear that their present Euro-denominated assets would lose value after conversion to the local currency.

Meanwhile, Spain was last week desperately trying to avoid a run on banks after the government was forced to partly nationalise Bankia, the second largest bank, followed by rumours of such a run.

The value of bad loans held by the banking sector rose one third in the past year to 148 billion Euro and Moody’s downgraded the credit rating of many Spanish banks.

The Spanish finance minister Luis de Guindos said the battle for the Euro is going to be waged in Spain, implying his country is now in front in trying to prevent the Greek crisis from infecting other European countries and bringing down the Euro.

The spreading crisis throws into doubt the policies in most European countries that have in recent years focused on drastically cutting government spending to reduce the budget deficit in an attempt to pacify investors and enable a continued flow of loans.

This reversed the coordinated policy of fiscal reflation that the G20 leaders agreed on in 2009 to counter the global crisis. It contributed to the rapid recovery.

Since then economists and politicians alike have been debating the merits of Keynesian reflationary policies versus a resumption of IMF-type fiscal austerity.

The movement towards recession in Europe as a whole and deep falls in GNP in bail-out countries like Greece has boosted the arguments of the Keynesians.

But key leaders such as Angela Merkel of Germany and David Cameron of Britain are still convinced of the need to stick to austerity.

The victory of the new French President Francois Hollande and the stunning polls performance of the Syriza party in Greece indicate that the public wind has shifted radically against austerity, and that a change may be on the cards.

The stopping of loans to Greece would lead to an economic collapse, with government debt default, bank runs, re-denomination of local contracts to local currency and default on external contracts denominated in euro, in a scenario painted by Wolf.

A Greek exit could trigger bank runs and capital flight in Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain and beyond, causing collapse in asset prices and large GNP falls.



A decisive European response is needed, such as the European Central Bank providing unlimited loans to replace money taken out in bank runs, capping of interest rates on sovereign debt, Eurobonds and abandoning austerity-centred policies.

But if these policies are not taken, the Eurozone may disintegrate, with one study suggesting GNP falls on 7% to 13% in various countries, and if a full Eurozone break up takes place there could be a freeze in the financial system, a collapse in spending and trade, many lawsuits and Europe facing a situation of political limbo.

The impact on the world would be worse than the Lehman collapse. Though the implication is that this should not be allowed, a Greek exit would greatly increase the likelihood of these dangers.

If Greece leaves, the Eurozone will have to change fundamentally but if that is impossible, large crises will be repeated in a nightmare.

There would have to be a choice between a stronger union of European countries (which many do not like) or endless crises in future, or a break up now. No good choices exist, concludes Wolf.

The scenarios and predictions detailed above in the Wolf article are pessimistic, but may also be realistic not only because of the current economic situation, but also the apparent lack of conditions for a political solution.

Watching from the sidelines, with no ability to influence developments, many in the developing countries are disturbed by the turn of events. It will likely lead to a weakening of the global economy at best and a full blown crisis at worst, with the developing countries at the receiving end in terms of trade downturn, financial reverberations, and declining incomes and jobs.

It is apparent, once again, that a global forum should exist where all countries can discuss developments in the global economy and contribute their views on what needs to be done.

In the inter-connected world, policies and events in one part (especially in the core countries) affect all others.

 

 Global Trends By MARTIN KHOR

Related posts:

UK bank governor warns of eurozone crisis 'storm' 

The euro crisis just got a whole lot worse 

Unemployment Fuels Debt Crisis
Stop the banks from gambling!