I once asked DS Rafidah Aziz during a meet up with student leaders in Sydney about 6-7 years ago, it went something like: what do you think of today's opposition & do you wish we had a more credible & stronger opposition?
Tha answer that I got was a typical politician's answer which was not really an answer but my question reflected what I thought, at that time, Malaysian needed: a more credible & stronger opposition.
It might be a stupid question for me to ask a politician but I expected an answer of the stateswoman within the Iron Lady, if there was one. One strong enough to say a credible & strong opposition is important in a democracy system so no one party have the right to be too comfortable with the title 'government', so there is a functioning check & balance system in the country.
As I recalled, this was pre-2008 & there were little opposition representation in the Dewan Rakyat as Pak Lah had won a landslide during his 1st GE as PM. I thought the opposition was a joke as they were not focused & it was more like a few small opposing party vs the giant that is BN vs themselves.
Fast forward to 2 sleeps before arguably the most important day in Malaysia's history: GE13. How times have changed & we now have a strong & functioning opposition within our system.
One that can mobilise the rakyat significantly enough to tell the govt "look, we gave you your power, we can take it back". A united opposition, despite unification under the term 'Pakatan Rakyat' imho merely due to the common need to remain competitive & to have the adequate numbers to mount any sort of challenge against BN. But hey, as they say, politics is 'a game of numbers'.
I think, this is the real 'ubah' or 'change' that we need.
However, as any clever opposition would do, PR had adopted 'Ubah' as their slogan. The theme of change rarely suits governments anyway. And today we see 'Ubah' everywhere. Through every means possible, PR had adopted a campaign method that targets the people's emotions so that people become angry, fed up, dissapointed, etc, at the current government.
Emotional people are less rational people & it is like a lighted charcoal where you simply pour petrol to make it burn brighter. Stories that are so far fetched, so remotely possible, can be easily believed as truth without much questioning, granted the story is about how bad the government is.
'Ubah' now simply means 'change the bloody government'. And I now ask, is that the change we need?
In my humble opinion, as said earlier, we already have the real change that we need within our political system. We have, give & take, a strong 2 party system where via either PR or BN as opposition, the rakyat knows they both can be strong enough opposition to any govt that does not honour the people's mandate.
And I apologize for dissapointing some of you, but I don't think a change of government is the change we need now.
I don't think PR has proven enough that it is ready to be government. While BN has stuck to its philosophy & ideology of power sharing between races, one that to me suits a majority racist (not in a bad way) society; PR is too young a coalition for me to trust to run the country well. It is like comparing a group of friends who grew up together & a working group formed at work.
And I want PR to prove that it is a sincere coalition for the people by serving another term as the strong opposition that we need, but not yet the government that we can afford. If they can't last another term as a coalition in the opposition, they probably were never good enough to be government.
I do not want to be hasty in bringing in a change in govt as that would be an important milestone for our country, much like deciding to get married & enter a new phase of life. You've got to trust that you've found the right person before you say 'I do'.
In the same tone that people tell me to not be afraid of having PR in charge, I believe we can survive another 5 years of BN. We'ved survived 55, why be afraid? I also believe Najib's long term transformation plans (that are only 4 yrs old) deserves momentum as they are, objectively, not that bad really.
Besides, I believe in the change that we really need, change we already have, ie, a strong opposition. If PR is sincere as a coalition for the rakyat, with the power it has, even as an opposition, BN will be kept in check.
Having said all that, the above are opinions of only one man. I'm happy I've got the change that I want via PR as a strong opposition. Whatever the outcome of the election, to me, is a result of this change & I shall embrace it, as you should too, no matter what the outcome.
Saturday, May 04, 2013
Monday, November 28, 2011
My 2 cents on Malaysia 2 - Bahrain 3 (Olympic Qualifiers)
Hey, wassup? Been awhile. Yeah. Anyway, I saw a news article online bout the game last night and thought I'd commented..turns out my comment went blog-length..hehe.. (I usually microblog. See @sunnymst). So what the heck, here it is:
I am not gonna make excuses for the lads. We lost because late on we lost control in midfield, lost collective concentration to defend, was over-excited to attack when they pulled one back, and totally lost shape when they equalised.
But guys, put things in perspective. This is a very young side and are clearly overstretched by injuries and fatigue. They lost control of midfield when 3 main midfielders went out injured, one key midfielder was only 17 years old! Oh, not to mention another defensive midfielder being forced to stay on the pitch injured as no extra subs allowed?
Besides, Bahrain are clearly the better team that night and our goals came from 1) Individual brilliance of a 17 year old, and 2) Error from the Bahrain keeper. Did I realistically expect our team to win? Not really. I think the nation itself got a little too ahead of itself. I just wanted them to play as good as they can and they've duly done so. A draw would've been a bonus.
It is all part of the learning curve and as a nation, this lesson will only benefit our national team in the long run. They will grow up and be better players because of this experience as long as they & the management remain steadfast on this development path.
And us as fans, I am happy that there are now more fans who are supportive of our team than those who just know how to condemn. Our team is playing better and had given their all - surely that is all we can ask for.
Have faith & keep on supporting so that the good players remain motivated knowing they fight for fans who are worth fighting for.
I am not gonna make excuses for the lads. We lost because late on we lost control in midfield, lost collective concentration to defend, was over-excited to attack when they pulled one back, and totally lost shape when they equalised.
But guys, put things in perspective. This is a very young side and are clearly overstretched by injuries and fatigue. They lost control of midfield when 3 main midfielders went out injured, one key midfielder was only 17 years old! Oh, not to mention another defensive midfielder being forced to stay on the pitch injured as no extra subs allowed?
Besides, Bahrain are clearly the better team that night and our goals came from 1) Individual brilliance of a 17 year old, and 2) Error from the Bahrain keeper. Did I realistically expect our team to win? Not really. I think the nation itself got a little too ahead of itself. I just wanted them to play as good as they can and they've duly done so. A draw would've been a bonus.
It is all part of the learning curve and as a nation, this lesson will only benefit our national team in the long run. They will grow up and be better players because of this experience as long as they & the management remain steadfast on this development path.
And us as fans, I am happy that there are now more fans who are supportive of our team than those who just know how to condemn. Our team is playing better and had given their all - surely that is all we can ask for.
Have faith & keep on supporting so that the good players remain motivated knowing they fight for fans who are worth fighting for.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Friday, April 01, 2011
Saturday, December 04, 2010
A lesson in credit card insurance & irresponsible marketing
A few days ago, I got a call from a guy from XYZ bank. He wanted to introduce me to an insurance product that settles my credit card balance in case of death or if im diagnosed with a critical illness. aside from settling my balance, there is also a certain sum to be paid out to me/a nominee if the above happens (about 50K-100K).
he said that if i die, my family would not have to bare the burden of settling my credit card debts. i just had to stop him there.
now when did my family or anyone else aside from me became liable for my credit card debt? a credit card is a 'clean' credit facility - meaning no security is offered in exchange for the facility given. there is no collateral nor did anyone formally promised to XYZ bank "if sunny defaults, i will be responsible".
he then started to mumble out some technical mumbo jumbo about the credit card form that i signed containing such clause and my family is legally obliged to pay off the card debt if i die. he also said the 'mother's maiden name' part that i filled up (which is standard in all credit card forms for security check purpose) is naming that person as liable for my debt. my mother?!
i was just giggling on the other end as he tried so hard to twist the facts. again, fact is, no one is going to be liable for my credit card debts when i die and they have no right to chase after anyone for payments. our country has strict laws protecting guarantors and banks actually have to adhere to strict guidelines before a guarantee is legally enforceable. credit card form?what a joke. there was never even another signature aside mine and only mine!
now, similar products such as mortgage insurance or housing loan insurance is fair as your house is offered to the bank. if you die and no one pays, your loan defaults and your house will be sold off to recover the loan. so there is a real burden on your family to continue servicing the loan. thus, an insurance for mortgage is actually an important thing an almost a necessity.
even so, if no family member gave a personal guarantee on the loan, the liability on them to pay if you cant pay due to disability or death is indirect. bank wont say "you pay because you are his wife, son, etc"..bank will say "if no one pays, bank will have to sell off the house so please pay or you would have to find elsewhere to stay"..
and so, back to the credit card case where there is no security offered and no guarantee given, it is wrong to sell this insurance saying if you die, your family wont be burdened etc because no, they are not legally binded. in practice, card companies usually would end up writing off your debt as a loss to them if you die and dont pay. so when you buy this insurance, you are paying premium to insure them from loss arising from risk of death!
of course, there is the pay out sum payable but that is actually just like a personal accident coverage and you could probably get it cheaper elsewhere. and if that guy marketed the insurance product as an accident/life policy, i would have spared him the lecture on the above. poor guy, he sounded agitated and probably just wanted to end the call at that moment.
well, there are cases where credit card debt could have a real effect on your family. firstly if the amount is large enough for the bank to sue for bankruptcy and exercise claim on your assets to recover the debt. i am not sure about the amount, probably minimum 30-50K. you probably would also have a housing loan that will default and thus the card company will have a claim on the sales proceeds, ie, less of the balance from sales of your asset after settling other loans would be left for your family (even so, im not sure if suing for bankuptcy in case of default due to death is legally possible)..
or if you have other loans, e.g mortgage, at your card issuing bank, you would probably be binded by a 'consolidation clause' whereby all your loans at the bank will be consolidated as one amount for recovery in case of default and thus, your credit card debt, regardless of amount, makes this figure higher.thus less of the balance from proceeds from sale of asset will be given back to your family.
finally, the bigger point in all this is that many times, especially when dealing with insurance products, marketers will try to create a need for a product so that you feel that it is necessary to have it. sometimes the need is real but sometimes, like the example above, it is fictional. fear is another thing that marketers, especially insurance agents, would try to put in customers as people dont like fear and would buy something if it reduces that fear.
i feel that we are very third world when it comes to marketing financial products. we need more people who don't just sell at all cost, but instead advise on product features and needs. people who dare to say "oh, i think my product is not suitable for you" if that's the truth.
p/s: the guy from XYZ bank apologized and claimed that he was taught that way by the training ppl to market the product.tsk tsk tsk...
he said that if i die, my family would not have to bare the burden of settling my credit card debts. i just had to stop him there.
now when did my family or anyone else aside from me became liable for my credit card debt? a credit card is a 'clean' credit facility - meaning no security is offered in exchange for the facility given. there is no collateral nor did anyone formally promised to XYZ bank "if sunny defaults, i will be responsible".
he then started to mumble out some technical mumbo jumbo about the credit card form that i signed containing such clause and my family is legally obliged to pay off the card debt if i die. he also said the 'mother's maiden name' part that i filled up (which is standard in all credit card forms for security check purpose) is naming that person as liable for my debt. my mother?!
i was just giggling on the other end as he tried so hard to twist the facts. again, fact is, no one is going to be liable for my credit card debts when i die and they have no right to chase after anyone for payments. our country has strict laws protecting guarantors and banks actually have to adhere to strict guidelines before a guarantee is legally enforceable. credit card form?what a joke. there was never even another signature aside mine and only mine!
now, similar products such as mortgage insurance or housing loan insurance is fair as your house is offered to the bank. if you die and no one pays, your loan defaults and your house will be sold off to recover the loan. so there is a real burden on your family to continue servicing the loan. thus, an insurance for mortgage is actually an important thing an almost a necessity.
even so, if no family member gave a personal guarantee on the loan, the liability on them to pay if you cant pay due to disability or death is indirect. bank wont say "you pay because you are his wife, son, etc"..bank will say "if no one pays, bank will have to sell off the house so please pay or you would have to find elsewhere to stay"..
and so, back to the credit card case where there is no security offered and no guarantee given, it is wrong to sell this insurance saying if you die, your family wont be burdened etc because no, they are not legally binded. in practice, card companies usually would end up writing off your debt as a loss to them if you die and dont pay. so when you buy this insurance, you are paying premium to insure them from loss arising from risk of death!
of course, there is the pay out sum payable but that is actually just like a personal accident coverage and you could probably get it cheaper elsewhere. and if that guy marketed the insurance product as an accident/life policy, i would have spared him the lecture on the above. poor guy, he sounded agitated and probably just wanted to end the call at that moment.
well, there are cases where credit card debt could have a real effect on your family. firstly if the amount is large enough for the bank to sue for bankruptcy and exercise claim on your assets to recover the debt. i am not sure about the amount, probably minimum 30-50K. you probably would also have a housing loan that will default and thus the card company will have a claim on the sales proceeds, ie, less of the balance from sales of your asset after settling other loans would be left for your family (even so, im not sure if suing for bankuptcy in case of default due to death is legally possible)..
or if you have other loans, e.g mortgage, at your card issuing bank, you would probably be binded by a 'consolidation clause' whereby all your loans at the bank will be consolidated as one amount for recovery in case of default and thus, your credit card debt, regardless of amount, makes this figure higher.thus less of the balance from proceeds from sale of asset will be given back to your family.
finally, the bigger point in all this is that many times, especially when dealing with insurance products, marketers will try to create a need for a product so that you feel that it is necessary to have it. sometimes the need is real but sometimes, like the example above, it is fictional. fear is another thing that marketers, especially insurance agents, would try to put in customers as people dont like fear and would buy something if it reduces that fear.
i feel that we are very third world when it comes to marketing financial products. we need more people who don't just sell at all cost, but instead advise on product features and needs. people who dare to say "oh, i think my product is not suitable for you" if that's the truth.
p/s: the guy from XYZ bank apologized and claimed that he was taught that way by the training ppl to market the product.tsk tsk tsk...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)