The true colour of politics is grey

Malaysians must learn to notice the difference between political posturing and real championing of the people’s interests.

A LEARNED and articulate friend who’s a veteran in the legal fraternity did not contain his disgust towards the mainstream media during our last lunch meet.

Clearly distracted from the sumptuous spread on his banana leaf, he let it all fly, accusing newspapers of breaching new levels of banality and unfairness.

It was obvious that much of his tirade had something to do with reports on the ongoing Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II trial and coverage of stories about problems faced by PKR and DAP.

In a gist, his point was: There are so many things going wrong with the country – economic numbers are bad, FDIs are down and peoples’ problems are mounting, etc. – but the media are only focuses on making the Opposition look bad.

Never mind the fact that the topic of discussion during our previous lunch date was what made the headlines then: racist remarks by a former aide to the Prime Minister who has since resigned.

Of course, this comes from yet another of my friends who no longer reads the newspapers but “just skims through them” for the sake of knowing what it is being published.

Like him, many say that they now get all their reliable information on the Internet.

But not this well-travelled and learned friend of mine, though. He confesses to being not Net-savvy and admits to relying on what his friends read and tell him.

As such, he has full faith in highly reputable publications like The Washington Post, which ran a very presumptuous opinion piece titled Why the prosecution of Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim matters to the West.

He also rates another report about an Australian MP condemning the political persecution of PKR’s de facto leader.

Yes, this group of knowledgeable folk share their photocopied clippings to reaffirm what they already know, and verily and firmly believe.

Much to the amusement of our two other regular lunch partners – a retired film maker and a fellow journalist, my banter with my learned friend ended on the usual amicable note by both agreeing to disagree.

The only question that comes to this friend and several others who always seem to get angrier each time we meet, has always been this: When it comes to politics, why do so many academically brilliant and highly rated professionals choose to only see things in black and white?

Surely, they must know that it is mostly grey out there.

And that’s the reality for politics everywhere in the world, not just in this small and insignificant country of 27 million people.

Yes, we could have been a greater and much more respected nation by now, 53 years after independence, if our politicians in power had ensured that the country’s fundamental systems of justice and good governance remained strong, and had done more to unite rather than disunite our diverse ethnic groups.

Let’s be honest about the ills faced by the country. Are they really new problems and issues, much as many of us would like to trace them to the sacking of one man who was one step away from absolute power?
There are none so blind than they who will not see. If we care to look, the root causes of our problems can be traced back almost three decades.

Ironically, personalities who were creators of the problems or used the corrupt systems to their utmost benefits at the expense of the country are still around portraying themselves as saviours.

Racism? Religious extremism? Failed educational policies? Take your pick.

Those among us, who have always seen ruthless politicians for what they are know whom to point our fingers at.

It is tragic that Malaysians are increasingly being divided by political partisanship. On almost every issue we are being forced to take sides and choose which one to defend.

At the core of most issues, the two sides are not really different, but the players are letting us believe that we are looking at night and day. Are we really all that naive?

American writer Mary Beth Rogers said only two kinds of people can afford the luxury of acting on principle – those with absolute power and those with none and no desire to get any.

As she put it, everyone else who wants to be effective in politics “has to learn to be ‘unprincipled’ enough to compromise in order to see their principles succeed”.

That’s the reality of politics and it’s being played out before our eyes. There are no heroes and villains. They can be decent or vile as they come, and we must be able to accept them for what they are.

Politics, after all, is all about power plans and an extended exercise in ego. As long as there are followers, there will be leaders.

Ultimately, all Malaysians, especially the learned among us, need to do is to observe and notice the difference between political posturing and real championing of the people’s interests.

So, when the time comes, just vote wisely. There is no need to continuously rave and rant.

> Associate Editor M. Veera Pandiyan likes this observation of George Orwell: All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

Google Gmail tweak challenges Facebook, Twitter

MOUNTAIN VIEW, California (Reuters) - Google Inc is tapping its huge network of Gmail users and Web surfers to create a Buzz that it hopes will help it catch up with online social networking leaders Facebook and Twitter.


The world's No. 1 search engine on Tuesday launched Google Buzz, which allows users to quickly share messages, Web links and photos with friends and colleagues directly within Gmail, the company's popular email product.

Also, a new arsenal of products make the new social networking features compatible with mobile devices such as smartphones based on Google's Android operating system.

Google's new technology mimics some of the key features of popular social networking services like Twitter and Facebook, which are increasingly challenging Google for Web surfers' online time.

By integrating Buzz directly into Gmail, Google hopes to jumpstart its social networking push by leveraging the large pool of Gmail users.

"There's always been a giant social network underneath Gmail," said Google Product Manager Todd Jackson at a press event at Google's Mountain View, California headquarters on Tuesday.

Gmail is the third most popular Web-based email in the world, with 176.5 million unique visitors in December, according to comScore. Microsoft Corp's Windows Live Hotmail and Yahoo Inc's Mail were No. 1 and No. 2, with 369.2 million and 303.7 million unique visitors, respectively.

Google will roll out Buzz to Gmail users over the next few days, it said.

Status messages that users publish on Buzz and flag as viewable to everyone will be automatically indexed by Google's search engine and be available within Google's recently launched real-time search results. Google said users can also keep messages private by sharing only with customized groups of friends and colleagues.

Executives said users can easily share content from various Google online properties like photo-sharing service Picasa and video site YouTube.

Content from certain third-party services such as Twitter can also be shared, although users can only view Twitter messages -- or Tweets -- within Buzz and cannot publish new messages to Twitter's service.

Executives said that Buzz is not currently able to display messages that originated on Facebook, the world's No. 1 social network with 400 million active users.

"The fact that Gmail did not connect and allow broadcasts out to Twitter and Facebook could be a real challenge to them," said Forrester Research social media analyst Augie Ray. But he noted that Google's experience serving Web surfers' relevant search results could be a strength for the company in the social media segment as users are increasingly inundated with status messages.

Google has tried to ride the social networking wave before, launching the Orkut social network in 2004. But while Orkut is big in certain overseas markets like Brazil, it has failed to attract as many users as social giants like Facebook and MySpace in the United States.

In building a social network on top of an email product, Google is following in the footsteps of Yahoo, which has taken a similar approach in efforts to keep up with Facebook but has seen lackluster results according to analysts.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin said he was not deterred by other companies' experiences in melding email and social networking.

"I wouldn't discount something because it's similar in the one sense ... to something else in the past that may not be that successful," Brin said on the sideline of the event following the main presentations.

Google appears to be putting a heavy emphasis on mobile and location-based capabilities, weaving Buzz technology into the mobile versions of its flagship website and its online maps products. The company also announced a special mobile application for Buzz that will run on smartphones based on Google's Android software, Windows Mobile and the Symbian operating system.

Google shares rose $2.97 to close at $536.44 on Nasdaq.

(Additional reporting by Ian Sherr; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Richard Chang)

Google Enters Social Networking With Buzz

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (TheStreet) -- Google(GOOG Quote) entered the turf of Facebook and other social media sites by launching a new service named Google Buzz that brings social updates such as photos and Web links into Gmail and some Google mobile products.

 Buzz is built into Gmail so the user is automatically following the people he emails and chats with the most.
In order to make the sharing experience really rich, Google has focused on integrating photos, videos and links, wrote Edward Ho, tech lead of Google Buzz, on a company blog.

Todd Jackson, the product manager for Buzz, described the service as "a new world inside of Gmail."
"There has always been a giant social network beneath Gmail," he told the Wall Street Journal.

To ensure the user doesn't miss out on the best part of sharing, Buzz sends responses to posts straight to the Gmail inbox. Unlike static email messages, Buzz messages in the user's inbox are live conversations where comments appear in real time, Google said.

Facebook, the social networking giant, told the Journal it hadn't used Google Buzz but was "supportive of technologies that help make the Web more social and the world more open," adding it's "interested to see how Google Buzz progresses over time."

Microsoft's director of product management for Windows Live, Dharmesh Mehta, told the Journal: "Busy people don't want another social network, what they want is the convenience of aggregation. We've done that. Hotmail customers have benefited from Microsoft working with Flickr, Facebook, Twitter and 75 other partners since 2008."

Buzz plans to distinguish itself by helping people aggregate other social sites. To start, users can connect Buzz to other Google Web sites, along with Twitter and Yahoo!'s (YHOO Quote) Flickr.

Google's Jackson told the Journal that connecting the service to Facebook in the future was "something to think about." Follow TheStreet.com on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.
 

The Fable Of Market Meritocracy

Markets don't reward smart people, nor should they.

It's a good thing that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is brimming with amour propre because he certainly did not earn any amour from the business elite gathered in Davos last month. In a bombastic riposte--delivered, no doubt, in one of his fabulously expensive designer suits-- he proclaimed that the recent financial meltdown had demonstrated that letting markets decide executive compensation was "morally indefensible." "There are remuneration packages that will no longer be tolerated because they bear no relationship to merit," he said.

But here's some news for Mr. Sarkozy: Markets don't reward merit; they reward value--two very different things. If Mr. Sarkozy does not appreciate the difference, it's not his fault actually. Most advocates of markets have failed to fully make this distinction, perpetuating a cult of market meritocracy--something that has hindered, not helped, the cause of free markets.

With the notable exception of Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek, market theoreticians have to a large extent employed the equivalent of the Great Man theory of history to explain what makes markets tick. According to this theory, the course of history is shaped not by the convergence of multiple, unpredictable events but by the intervention of great men. Likewise, in the conventional thinking about markets, economic progress depends not on the labors of infinite economic actors but on the select few, the brainiacs, who rise to the top and generate innovations from which ordinary mortals benefit through a kind of trickle-down effect.

English sociologist Michael Young noted in his influential 1958 fable, The Rise of the Meritocracy: "Civilization does not depend on the stolid mass, the homme moyen sensuel, but upon the creative minority, the innovator ... the brilliant few … the restless elite who have made mutation a social as well as a biological fact." Less elegantly, Ayn Rand evinced a "pyramid of ability" in capitalism under which "the man at the top contributes the most to all those below him." What's more, this Nietzsche of capitalism opined: "Man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of their brain."

What's good about markets in this line of thinking is that they identify the incandescent geniuses among us and catapult them to the top where their innate brilliance is harnessed to improve the lot of mankind. At once, then, markets yield economic progress and what Rand (and others) regard as justice--the biggest rewards to the best.

The only problem with this neat little formulation is that it is wrong at every level. For starters, the idea that value creation is a one-way street from the top to the bottom is not just offensive, but it ignores the principle of comparative advantage, a key breakthrough in market theory. Put simply, this principle holds that everyone benefits by exchanging goods and services with everyone else, regardless of anyone's inherent capabilities. It's in the interest of even the most annoying "all-rounder" (as we say in India), who is better than me at everything, to specialize in those tasks in which our gap is the biggest and trade with me for those in which our gap is smaller. Under the elaborate division of labor that ensues, both the less-endowed and the better-endowed contribute to each others well being.

But is it the case that this division of labor necessarily directs the biggest rewards to the most gifted by putting them at the highest end of the value chain? No.

The beauty of the market, Hayek brilliantly pointed out, is that they allow people to use knowledge of their particular circumstances to generate something valuable for others. And circumstances, he emphasized, are a matter of chance--not of gift. Furthermore, since no two people's circumstances are ever identical, every producer potentially has something--some information, some skill or some resource--that no one else does, giving him a unique market edge. "[T]he shipper who earns his living from using otherwise empty or half-filled journeys of tramp-steamers, or the estate agent whose whole knowledge is almost exclusively one of temporary opportunities, or the arbitrageur who gains from local differences of commodity prices, are all performing eminently useful functions based on special knowledge of circumstances of the fleeting moment not known to others," noted Hayek.

In a functioning market, Hayek insisted, financial compensation depends not on someone's innate gifts or moral character. Nor even on the originality or technological brilliance of their products. Nor, for that matter, on the effort that goes into producing them. The sole and only issue is a product's value to others. Compare an innovation as incredibly mundane as a new plastic lid for paint cans with a whiz-bang, new computer chip. The painter could become just as rich as the computer whiz so long as the savings from spills that the lid offers are as great as the productivity gains from the chip. It matters not a whit that the lid maker is a drunk, wife-beating, out-of-work painter who stumbled upon this idea through pure serendipity when he tripped over a can of paint. Or that the computer whiz is a morally stellar Ph.D. who spent years perfecting his chip.

The idea that there is no god (or some secular version of him) meting out cosmic justice through the market's invisible hand is unsettling, even to market advocates, but it shouldn't be. It opens up the possibility of a defense of markets that is, as it were, more marketable.

Few would dispute that markets are fairer than the aristocratic order they replaced where privilege was a birthright, not something to be earned. But the view that the super-gifted or the super-smart deserve the biggest rewards doesn't seem a whole lot fairer given that these traits are arguably inherited, too. This conception, in fact, forces those who are less successful to internalize their failure--accept their second-class status as preordained--breeding alienation and resentment. Hard work or some quality of character would offer a more palatable basis for building a case for markets, except that all the lowlifes who routinely make it rich in markets offer too much evidence to the contrary.

Hayek's understanding of markets overcomes these problems by, first and foremost, democraticizing the concept of merit. If anything in your possession, no matter how trivial--some local knowledge, some quirky interest--can potentially be turned into something useful for others, then there is not any one formula for market success; there are a potentially infinite number. This means that success is possible for a far wider range of people in a market, making market societies inherently less hierarchical than more closed ones.

Take, for instance, India in its preliberalization days. Economic opportunities were exceedingly limited in its regulated and centrally planned economy. The most sought-after professions were engineering, medicine, accounting and--hang on to your fountain pens!--civil service, because they offered a path to secure jobs in government-approved sectors. Competition for professional colleges was fierce. The lucky few who made it into elite institutions such as the Indian Institute of Technology for engineering were regarded almost as a special breed. Even now, the unabashed elite-worshipping that IIT graduates command in India would make Zeus blush.

But free markets change all this. They close the talent-gap by allowing people to ferret out and market whatever they've got--even, regrettably, Paris Hilton. In America, for instance, there are opportunities galore for funny people--standup comedy, late-night talk shows, etc.--who may have no head for math or science. Their sense of humor is a prized commodity, a gateway to riches and fame, instead of social ridicule as it would have been in the India of yore.

But markets don't just expand and democratize the concept of merit; they render it moot. No longer does it matter what great qualities reside in you. What matters is if you can make them work for others. The concept of merit is replaced by that of value. Merit is intrinsic, concentrated and atomistic; value is relational, decentralized and social.

The need for embedding this Hayekian understanding of markets in the public consciousness cannot be overstated. And the first step in doing so might be purging the word "merit" from the vocabulary of markets and replacing it with value. This would make it much easier to explain how no functioning industry, absent access to taxpayers' pockets, can afford forever to pay its executives obscene salaries beyond the value they are generating. At once, then, it would be possible to oppose both the recent government bailouts and government regulations such as Sarkozy-style caps on executive salaries.

More importantly, it would become possible to counter the popular perception--the source of so much hostility against markets--that there is some body of super-elites, masters of the universe, who can sit in their plush offices on Wall Street and Silicon Valley and reign supreme through their sheer brain power. If value, not brain power, is the engine that drives markets, then the market's inherent nature militates against elite control.

Markets are a fundamentally antielitist social force. If this is not generally recognized, it is not so much because of what the enemies of markets say to attack them--but what their friends have said to defend them. To rescue markets, then, one has to rescue them from their friends first. Mr. Sarkozy is not the main problem here.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a writes a biweekly column for Forbes.

How to improve your investment skills

Personal Investing - By Ooi Kok Hwa

WE have been asked by many readers on ways to improve their investment skills. In fact, for all of us who invest, it is one of the essential skills that we need to acquire in our lifetime. Like it or not, we need to have it if we need to generate returns for our investment.

All investors want good returns from their investments. However, most of the times, instead of generating returns, retail investors are suffering from losses from their investments. We feel that one of the key differences between an intelligent investor versus a normal investor is that the intelligent investor will be aware that he may make mistakes in some of his investment decisions while a normal investor tend to overlook the fact that he will make wrong decisions no matter how good he thinks he is.

Despite extensive research on certain listed companies, due to some unforeseen changes in certain fundamental factors, even good value companies may suffer losses. Under such circumstances, an intelligent investor will admit that he had made a mistake in his investment decision and will cut losses fast.

However, the problem with most investors is that they refuse to face their mistakes; some are not willing to cut their losses even though they are aware of their mistakes.

Hence, rule number one in investing is that we must be fully aware that regardless of whether you are an investment guru or an average investor, everyone will make mistake in his investment decisions. That’s why some experts say: “When somebody mentions that they have more experience than you, they mean that they have incurred more losses than you in stock market.” The key is to learn from our mistakes.

In order to avoid incurring losses in stock market, we need to develop our own investing system that suit our needs, skills, knowledge and risk tolerance level. The investing system can be adopted from the fundamental analysis, technical analysis or combination of both. If we ask some remisiers, they will most likely tell you that they need two to three years to develop their own investing system that can help them to generate returns from stock market.

One of the fastest ways to acquire investing knowledge is through reading books relating to investment. There are many good investment books in the market. However, since every investor has different preferences, the best way is to visit bookstores and look for investment books that he or she can understand and can offer the skills needed. For beginners, always start with some basic investment books that explain well on key investment concepts.

Here are some good investment book titles for consideration: The Intelligent Investors (by Benjamin Graham), The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America (Warren Buffett and Lawrence A. Cunningham) and Rule #1 (Phil Town). For advanced investors, you may consider Security Analysis (by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd), which is still one of the best investment books in the world.

Apart from reading books, investors need to read more business news in newspapers and magazines to keep themselves updated on the latest happenings. In addition, many newspapers, magazines and websites also publish good articles for the purpose of educating general public on investment. For example, investors can get good investment knowledge from website like www.min.com.my, by Securities Industry Development Corp.

Reading analysts’ research reports will enhance our understanding on some issues and factors in valuation as well as comments on some corporate strategies and developments. This knowledge is crucial in helping us making better investment decisions. Besides, for those serious fundamental investors, they may consider buying books like Stock Performance Guide (by Dynaquest Sdn Bhd) and Shares (Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd), which will provide all the essential investment information like companies’ background and some key critical investment information.

Another way to acquire investing knowledge is through attending investment training classes. There are many types of investment training classes, for example, classes on fundamental investment, technical analysis, currency trading or option trading. Given that a lot of these classes are quite expensive, we need to check whether investment training suits our needs. We believe some of those classes may be able to help investors generating returns, however, they require higher level of discipline and commitment.

Before we start investing with “real” money, one of the ways to gain experience and at the same time test out our skills is by building up a “virtual” portfolio and investing using “virtual” money. We can always try out our investment skills through playing a simulated investment game and monitor the investment returns before putting the real money into the stock market. Besides, we should also start young. If we acquire these investment skills at younger age, the losses that we may incur will be much lower than trying them when we are getting nearer to our retirement age.

● Ooi Kok Hwa is an investment adviser and managing partner of MRR Consulting

How to Improve Your Property Investment Buying Skills

Investing in real estate is your first step towards a productive life. So if you want to rack up large sums of money without having to face big risks, the first thing you should do is to go on a property investment
buying spree.

Despite the current economic crisis, real estate investing has never lost its appeal among many people. In fact, the number of real estate investors continues to grow and it looks like this trend is likely to last for the next few years. However, because more and more people are seeking to invest in real estate, you should learn how to outsmart the competition for you to succeed in this business.

One way to boost your knowledge of real estate investing is to do some research. As we all know, education is important in our lives because it teaches people new things and boosts their skills. So if you want to become a great real estate investor, you shouldn’t stop educating yourself just because you have managed to land a great deal on your first try.

A good strategy to improve your knowledge of property investment buying is to join the local real estate investing association or club. Setting the competition aside, befriending your fellow real estate investor can do a lot for your career. By surrounding yourself with individuals who share the same interests as yours, you will be able to obtain valuable information that you wouldn’t learn in books.

If you are truly interested in investing in real estate, then you should know the latest happenings in the housing business. Browse newspaper or surf the Internet to keep yourself informed of the latest market trends. This will help you make better decisions when buying investment properties.

The World Wide Web is also a treasure trove of ideas and information about real estate investing. There are numerous websites that offer valuable tips about buying investment properties. Many real estate gurus are also sharing their knowledge online with those who are just starting out in the business. So if you want to become better at what you do, just launch a browser and explore the Internet.

Meanwhile, there is a website the offers quality real estate education for those who want to learn more about property investment buying. REIWired.com is home to dozens of nifty articles, sound files, and videos that can bring out the great investor in you. So if you want to feed your brain with quality real estate content, visit REIWired.com.
Retrieved from "http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/how-to-improve-your-property-investment-buying-skills-1412870.html"

Different Colors Describe Happiness vs. Depression

By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Contributor

Color Wheel for mood:http://i.livescience.com/images/mood-color-wheel-100208-02.jpg
People tend to pick different colors to describe different moods, according to research published Feb. 8, 2010 in the journal BMC Medical Research Methodology.

Are you in a gray mood today? How about a blue funk? Maybe you're seeing red, because you're green with jealousy. The colors we use to describe emotions may be more useful than you think, according to new research.

The study found that people with depression or anxiety were more likely to associate their mood with the color gray, while happier people preferred yellow. The results, which are detailed today in the journal BMC Medical Research Methodology, could help doctors gauge the moods of children and other patients who have trouble communicating verbally.

"This is a way of measuring anxiety and depression which gets away from the use of language," study co-author and gastroenterologist Peter Whorwell of University Hospital South Manchester told LiveScience. "What is very interesting is that this might actually be a better way of capturing the patient's mood than questions."

Colors are often used as metaphors for moods, but no one had systematically researched color associations, Whorwell said. To investigate, he and his colleagues picked eight colors — red, orange, green, purple, blue, yellow, pink and brown — and split each into four shades. They then added white, black and four shades of gray for a total of 38 options. After meeting with focus groups, the researchers decided to display the colors in the form of a wheel.

Next, they recruited 105 healthy adults, 110 anxious adults and 108 depressed adults and mailed them printouts of the color wheel. Each person was asked to pick their favorite color, as well as the color they were most "drawn to." Finally, they were asked to pick a color that described their day-to-day mood over the last several months. Another group of 204 healthy volunteers classified each color as positive, negative or neutral.

Whether depressed, anxious or healthy, people liked blue and yellow. Blue 28 on the color wheel was the most popular favorite color among healthy people, while Blue 27 (which is a little darker than 28) got first place among people with anxiety and depression. Meanwhile, Yellow 14 was picked as the color most likely to catch the eye.

But when it came to mood, the groups diverged. Only 39 percent of healthy people associated their mood with a color at all. Of those who did, Yellow 14 was the most popular choice, with about 20 percent of the votes. Meanwhile, about 30 percent of people with anxiety picked a shade of gray, as did more than half of depressed volunteers. In comparison, healthy volunteers described their mood with a shade of gray only about 10 percent of the time.

The researchers also found that when assigning a mood to colors, saturation matters.

"A light blue is not associated with a poor mood, but a dark blue is," Whorwell said. "The shade of color is more important than the color itself."

Whorwell is now testing the wheel on patients with irritable bowel syndrome. He's hoping that color choices can reveal patients' attitudes and predict how well they will respond to treatments like hypnosis. Because people are embarrassed by gastroenterogical symptoms, Whorewell said, non-verbal methods of getting information are sometimes preferable to conversation. And, he said, with additional research, the wheel could be used in medical fields from pediatrics to surgery.

"You've got an instrument now," Whorwell said. "Now people have to play with it and find out the applications."

* What Color Fits Your Mood? http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?s=health&c=news&l=on&pic=mood-color-wheel-100208-02.jpg&cap=People+tend+to+pick+different+colors+to%0D+describe+different+moods%2C+according+to+research+published+Feb.+8%2C+2010+in%0D+the+journal+BMC+Medical+Research+Methodology.&title=

* 7 Thoughts That Are Bad for You: http://www.livescience.com/health/090911-7-bad-thoughts.html

* Top 5 Keys to Happiness: http://www.livescience.com/health/080822-top5-keys-happiness.html