Monday, August 29, 2011

Kenny Has LFC Back At Rafa’s Level


Kenny Dalglish – the man who, along with Damien Comolli, ‘wasted millions of pounds’ this summer – has put the smile back on our faces.
Aside from those of us who thought it, who’d have thought it?
As one pundit on Sky’s Sunday Supplement put it just a couple of weeks ago, the Reds ‘collapsed’ under Dalglish at the end of last season (losing two games; the world’s smallest ever collapse?), and the club overpaid on a load of average players this summer. And remember, preseason results were sure to have us doomed.
So to have seven points in August – when it took until the end of October last season to reach that mark – is a sign of the club being back on track. And to my mind, that means being back at the level that Rafa Benítez had the club for the majority of his time at the helm.
As ever, some vindictive things were said in the media in relation to Liverpool’s recent history. A fine win against Bolton was used by the ESPN commentator John Champion to criticise Benítez; in reference to a woman in the crowd who was caught yawning near the end of the game, he said “under Rafa, she’d have been asleep 60 minutes ago”.
Benítez was also criticised for failing to get the best out of Lucas, never mind that he bought him as a 20-year-old for just £6m and persisted with him when those too blind to see his quality (i.e. not most of this site’s members) had it in for the lad; not to mention that – funnily enough – young players get better with time and experience (and with the exit of players with bigger reputations, out of whose shadow they can emerge).
Had a player Arsene Wenger bought evolved in the same way, then even had the manager left the club, Wenger would be labelled a genius for finding and helping to develop that talent. Lucas is now some player, and Rafa deserves a large chunk of credit.
By contrast, to the mass media, when it comes to Liverpool’s recent history, Roy Hodgson simply never existed; at least as far as criticism is concerned. He worked miracles at West Brom last season in a short space of time, and fully deserved all the plaudits he got for a remarkable turnaround; but he managed Liverpool for a longer period of time, and yet that gets brushed under the carpet as ‘too little time to make a difference’. Except he did make a difference, for all the wrong reasons.
A more obvious comparison for John Champion to make would have been thelast home game against Bolton, less than nine months ago, to show the dramatic change. On New Year’s Day, at the same late stage in the game, Liverpool were only drawing 1-1 against the Trotters, in front of 10,000 empty seats on one of the traditionally best-attended days in the football calendar. Joe Cole nudged the ball an inch over the line at the death, but it was only papering over the cracks. People weren’t yawning; they simply weren’t attending.
Interestingly, it’s like Hodgson never existed at Liverpool, either. Not one of his six summer 2010 signings has made the starting XI in the Premier League, with most either up for sale, or already sold. Only Raul Meireles – now a squad player – remains part of Kenny’s plans, although he was his only relatively expensive signing. (That said, he did try to get Joe Cole, Paul Konchesky and Christian Poulsen into his first XI.)
This season’s side – and indeed, the match-day 18 – has been comprised of roughly a 50-50 mix of Benítez and Dalglish purchases. Bought by the former were Reina, Agger, Kuyt, Lucas, Skrtel, Maxi, Shelvey, with Spearing and Kelly given debuts by the Spaniard a few years ago. When fit, Glen Johnson will slot back into the XI.
That said, this is clearly becoming Kenny’s team. In have come Suarez, Carroll, Adam, Downing, Enrique, Doni and Henderson.
All the good results since January, and we’ve yet to see Steven Gerrard beyond a handful of the manager’s games. If he can find his old form, then how he links with the incredible Suarez will be fascinating to watch.
Jamie ‘Literally, Top Top Top Literally’ Redknapp is another whose first post-match words of analysis about Liverpool almost always refer back to Benítez; he “overcomplicated” the game, said a man who gives the impression that a lot of things (including finding trousers that fit) are too complicated for him. (Note: it may be that, as a bald 40-year-old, I’m just jealous of his looks. This is true. Of his intelligence, not so much.)
I fully agree that we need to constantly refer back to the recent past to make comparisons. But surely it’s only right to do so with accuracy and fairness? – after all, we’ll never know how far we’ve come if we cannot work out our starting point.
This notion that Liverpool fans were bored by Benítez continues to irritate me. At times, yes, the team could be below par, just as any team can be, and clearly not every fan bought into his approach. (Those who believed the mass media, mostly.)
However, the idea of negativity at home – as espoused by Champion and Redknapp – is belied by the fact that the Reds hold the record winning margin in the Champions League (8-0), and also put four past Real Madrid and Arsenal at Anfield in the same competition. Do dull, methodical teams really do that?
Of course, this was in the Champions League; Benítez ‘wasn’t very good at the domestic stuff’. (Never mind that he averaged 72 points a season, an improvement of seven points a season on his predecessor.)
At times Rafa’s teams took their foot off the gas in league games when winning, but with tough midweek European games coming thick and fast, the need was to balance resources that were not as deep as those of the richer big clubs. That was never going to be a concern against Bolton this weekend, although, of course, Luis Suarez needed removing for his own good (as part of not overdoing it post-Copa America).
Having researched Liverpool’s home goalscoring record since 1998, it’s interesting to see patterns that totally correlate with my preconceived ideas, and, surprise surprise, seem to go against those of the mass media: that Benítez and Dalglish had/have the team scoring lots of goals at home, and that Houllier and Hodgson (whose approaches were similar to one another) performed far worse in this regard.
The samples are still quite low for Hodgson (10 home league games) and Dalglish (11). But as 10 games is more than half a season’s worth of home matches, it’s not insignificant.
It’s fascinating to see that Hodgson and Houllier have identical records: an average of just 1.7 goals per game at home. (Houllier’s record starts from 1999/00, his first full season in charge.)
Another identical record is that of Benítez from 2006 to 2010 (his last four seasons) and Dalglish since his return: 2.18 goals per game.
Both men took over teams that were averaging 1.7 goals a game and improved the scoring rate by a massive 30%.
If most managers improved their team’s home scoring record by 30%, you’d expect them to be lauded. Dalglish is receiving a lot of praise, and quite rightly so.
Of course, this is just 2006-2010 for Benítez; add his first two seasons (in which the Champions League and FA Cups were won) and the home league goals tally drops; his full six-year average is 2.01 goals per game. (Still a 20% improvement on Houllier’s record.)
(As a quick aside, Benítez lost key goalscorer Michael Owen before his first league game, and inherited Djibril Cissé and Milan Baros, two unpredictable strikers. His first expensive striker signing was Torres in 2007, three years into the job. Houllier made his first expensive striker signing in 2000 – Heskey – and Dalglish made two in his first transfer window. In his defence, Hodgson did not get to buy an expensive striker, but did inherit Fernando Torres, who up until then had a terrific scoring record. In today’s money (TPI©), Heskey, Cissé and Torres cost in between the £22.8m paid for Suarez and the £35m paid for Carroll.)
What’s also interesting is that the home league goalscoring record in all six of Benítez’s seasons is identical to Arsenal’s in their five most recent seasons.
Arsenal are seen by all and sundry as the paragons of attacking football, and although they were not at their pre-2004 best in that time, they continued to gain plaudits for their style.
As both Liverpool and Arsenal had squads of similar value – well below those of Chelsea and Manchester United – then the comparison seems valid. (Of course, when Benítez pitched up, Arsenal were miles ahead of the Reds. Liverpool scored just 31 home games in Houllier’s final season, at 1.63 per game, and just 32 the season before that.)
Right now, Liverpool are back in the goalscoring groove at home. My overriding sense that the Reds were in fact far more tedious under Houllier and Hodgson is borne out by the stats. They were the managers whose style was too cautious.
Apparently it’s easy to forget how good Liverpool’s attacking play was with Torres, Gerrard, Alonso, Benayoun and Kuyt tearing holes in defences. Thankfully, while there are some differences in the style, it’s a joy to once again see footballers at the top of their game dragging centre-backs out of position and passes cutting right into the heart of the opposition back line.
It’s not just the scoring of goals. If Liverpool fans were yawning under Benítez, how did he improve the club’s home points haul so significantly? Unsurprisingly, the ability to score goals correlates quite nicely with the ability to win games, even though in theory you could need just 19 goals to win all 19 home games.
In fairness to Hodgson, he wasn’t that much of a disaster at Anfield; it was away where most of the horrors occurred, with just a single win (again, against Bolton).
But even so, Hodgson’s average of 2.oo was worse than Benítez’s poorest season (2.11), and nowhere near the Spaniard’s best (2.53). It was better than Houllier’s worst (1.79 in his final season), but yet again, the two H-men are virtually identical with their overall average: 2.00 of Hodgson to 1.97 of Houllier. Is this all coincidence?
At the moment, Dalglish is averaging 2.40 points per home game, which is not quite up with Rafa’s best of 2.53, but slightly better than his six-year average of 2.29.
The problem under Benítez was the away form, which was inconsistent. A couple of the seasons were poor, although another couple (2005/06 and 2008/09) were amongst the very best in the club’s history (2008/09 equalled the club record for number of wins, 13 games).
Resurgence
As has been documented, Dalglish has spent quite a lot of money to provide this resurgence, but it’s not been without losing good players, too, to help rebuild. If he’d spent £100m but been able to keep Torres as well (and had him scoring goals at the three-in-five rate the Spaniard briefly delivered under him), then you’d have more right to expect a title challenge.
As it is, Chelsea, Man United and Man City have been spending lots of moneywithout recouping much from sales. They’ve been strengthening without losing anything, although United did prune the squad of some older stars and lose their goalkeeper. I stagger to think what City’s wage bill is right now, but it’s something Liverpool cannot get remotely close to. In time, with the club now being better run, and the FFP rules due to arrive, things might level out a bit.
All Liverpool can do is look to improve, and that’s what the Reds are doing. The new signings are playing their part.
Despite apparently ‘overpaying for his services’, Stewart Downing has looked excellent in every game he’s played. Liverpool ‘needed the winger they lacked under Benítez’, but it’s been his ability to move infield that has caught the eye, rather than anything near the touchline. (Lee Dixon, one of the few pundits I tend to agree with, praised Downing for constantly drifting into areas the full-back hated to travel into. So, rather than supply width, he’s been an out-to-in winger.)
Downing has popped up in central or inside-left and right goalscoring positions on numerous occasions, and forced great saves against Arsenal and Bolton, and hit the bar against Sunderland. But in tandem with the equally impressive Enrique, it seems that one area where the Reds are now better than in recent memory is on the left flank.
(A major journalist, who just happens to have been one of Rafa’s biggest critics, labelled Enrique as slow when Dalglish purchased him. This is also someone who said that Hodgson would turn Liverpool into a great attacking team to banish the boredom seen under Benítez. For the record, Enrique chose football over becoming an Olympic sprinter.)
The good news is that, just as they were for almost all of Rafa’s tenure, the Reds are back in the top four, and look capable of putting up a good fight to stay there.
Liverpool had their faults under Benítez, just as they did under all of their managers (even Shankly). But being boring at home was surely not one of them.
In Rafa’s final three seasons the Reds averaged 2.23 goals a game at Anfield, scoring more than 40 in each campaign and never winning fewer than 42 points, and we’d all settle for that this season.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Economist: Malaysia’s Penang state Getting back its mojo

http://www.economist.com/node/21525968

After a slump, an early engine of globalisation is thriving again
IF YOU are going to have a heart attack, have it in Penang. So one might think, to the see the hospitals in George Town, the capital of this north-western Malaysian state. Patients are flocking in. Ted Mohr, the head of the venerable Penang Adventist Hospital says that he will admit 70,000 medical tourists this year. The hospital specialises in heart procedures and it will perform roughly 23,000 of them this year, including 550 open-heart operations. Such is the demand that the hospital is doubling its number of beds.
Mr Mohr gives two main reasons for Penang’s success with the coronary crowd. First, it is relatively cheap. Open-heart surgery that would set you back $100,000 in America costs only about $10,000 in Penang. Second, Penang’s hospitals are as well-equipped as many in the West.
The combination of low cost and high technology is the main reason why industries across the state of Penang, made up of the original island and a larger bit of the mainland, are prospering again after more than a decade of decline. Their revival is important to Malaysia’s economy—Penang and the surrounding region account for 21% of the country’s GDP. But the renaissance could also have important political consequences for the country. Since 2008 Penang has been one of only four states (out of 13) run by an opposition party. If its politicians can claim the credit for the recent success, that should greatly help the opposition in the next general election, expected within the year.
Penang was founded as a free port by the British in 1786. Occupying a position between India and East Asia, the island drew merchants and middlemen keen to make their fortunes. Chinese, Indians, Armenians, Arabs and more all traded alongside each other. With its racial and religious mix, and dedication to the pursuit of free trade, Penang was in many ways the first custom-made city of globalisation.
The island’s fortunes sank as it lost business to its arch-rival, Singapore. In the post-colonial period Penang fell victim to the rise of nationalism. The region’s freshly minted republics chose to develop their own ports. Penang enjoyed a revival during the 1970s with the setting-up of Malaysia’s first free-trade zone (a “free port” by another name); this attracted big names in electronics, like Intel and Bosch, which built some of the first offshore assembly lines. But this boom was founded on cheap labour, and as Malaysia became richer other emerging economies, such as China and Vietnam, drew the assembly work away.
To recover its prosperity, Penang has sought to reinvent itself. With the rise of India and China, Penang’s location again looks very handy to foreign companies as a place to invest, as in the 18th century. It is relatively close to both big markets—yet offers advantages that trump Asia’s giants’.
Penang’s own “Silicon Valley” companies know that the rule of law in Malaysia gives them the sort of protection for patents and intellectual property they would not enjoy in China, and an ease of doing business that they could not find in India. Wages are higher than they were, but no more so nowadays than on the Chinese seaboard. The federal government has also spent liberally on bridges and the airport, making Penang better connected to the rest of Asia. And old George Town has been smartened up, which helps to bring in foreigners to live, work—and have surgery.
The result is another boom. Last year more investment poured into the state than any other in Malaysia. Scores of new electronics firms have swooped in to join the pioneers, along with an expanding cluster of 20 or so medical-device manufacturers. Crucially, most of the new jobs are in research and development rather than assembly. An American chip-designer, Altera, has a new facility with 1,100 workers in Penang, 800 of them engineers. Its head says that almost all the engineers are locals—which is good for Malaysia.
Whom to thank?
When the Democratic Action Party won the state’s legislative assembly three years ago, it became the first opposition party to triumph in Penang in more than 40 years. The victory presented a direct challenge to the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition that has ruled the country continuously since independence in 1957. Penang’s new leader, Lim Guan Eng, says that the federal government has an “ambivalent” attitude towards him, cutting off some funding but not undermining his authority. “They don’t want us to get any credit, but they can’t afford to see us fail”.
The revival of Penang was already under way in 2008, but Mr Lim’s new policies have helped it along. He has become the first governor in Malaysia to open up all state tenders to competition. This has entailed dismantling the special preferences for ethnic Malays that have underpinned the BN’s rule since the early 1970s. That was when the Malay majority institutionalised affirmative action for themselves, to the disadvantage of ethnic Chinese (a majority in Penang), who were perceived to have got unduly rich. Mr Lim claims that by reforming the system he has ended the cronyism and corruption that wasted money under previous regimes.
Adapted to the national stage, such policies could transform the way that the Malaysian federal government conducts business. Mr Lim says that the savings he has made by ending the “old systems of patronage” allow him to spend money on new social programmes instead, such as modest handouts for the elderly. These policies are popular, and the assault on corruption pleases foreign investors. Little wonder, then, that Penang has become a political weathervane as much as a lesson in economic development.

Monday, August 15, 2011

鄭丁賢‧真正的冠軍

http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20500
2011-08-15 09:06
已經是凌晨4點了,我還在電視機前,為在倫敦舉行的世界羽球錦標賽而不眠。
場內是林丹對彼德蓋特,兩人打了兩局,各贏一局,相持不下。
林丹依然是超級丹,那麼的強勢凌厲,像是草原上的獅王,準確的抓住每一個機會,無情的獵殺對手。
此刻的丹麥人彼德蓋特,就像是一隻被追擊的羚羊,只能奮力的搏鬥。
35歲的彼德蓋特,以一般運動員的年齡衡量,已經是老人家,早就應該退休,改坐在教練席或觀眾席。
但是,他還在球場上堅持,對抗年輕強悍的對手,對抗侵蝕體能的歲月。
在激烈的球場上,他用盡了每一分氣力,搶救每一個險球,抓緊每一個進攻的機會,抗衡超級丹狂風暴雨式的衝擊。
電視上出現彼德的特寫,臉露青筋,但是依然堅毅。
超級丹面對不放棄的彼德,一時無措,不再得心應手。
到了第三局下半,超級丹加快速度,球路更加詭異,逐漸把彼德甩開,最終贏了比賽。
敗下陣的彼德,露出微笑,高舉雙手向觀眾致謝。
再一次,他戛然而止,未能攀上最高峰。以運動員生涯計算,他或許再也上不了最高峰,而是逐漸從山峰上滑落下來。
但是,每一次,他依然堅持的要攀上去。
這一夜,我不在乎林丹或李宗偉誰能稱霸,心目中,彼德已經是冠軍。
是甚麼力量,讓他和歲月抗衡?
是哪來的意志,讓他在一次又一次的失敗之後,繼續走下去?
這應該是一種真正的運動員精神。
在丹麥,羽毛球不再是強項;民間追捧足球,冷落了羽球,企業熱衷贊助足球,忽略了羽球。
彼德和其他羽球員,並沒有獲得特別的照顧;有時候要集訓或出國比賽,還得自行找贊助商才能成行。
然而,彼德和他的同僚們,基於對羽球運動的熱愛,以及對本身選擇的堅持,而沒有後悔放棄。
球壇,一如人生。
如果害怕失敗,就會選擇放棄和逃避。像是彼德,乃至眾多沒沒無聞的選手,如果沒有他們的參與,羽壇上就只有林丹和李宗偉,那就不叫體育,而是競技。
同樣的,生活上,有很多永遠不可能成為冠軍的人,因為他們熱愛工作和生活,享受參與,積極努力,才有社會整體的進步。
彼德是冠軍運動員,在於他熱愛羽球,享受比賽,在球壇發出光和熱,而不是抱怨對手太強,埋怨國家不支持他,遺憾自己年齡漸高。
人生的真正冠軍,不在於擊敗對手,而在於能夠接受挑戰,超越自己,為家庭和社會付出心和力。

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

東姑阿都阿茲‧拜托,我們是大馬人!

http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20187

2011-07-20 19:05
首先,我必須坦白承認一點,我並不認可我們將元首陛下牽扯進我們為爭取一個開放、民主社會而展開的鬥爭中。
無論我們的鬥爭打著甚麼名義,而且我也確信這項事業是合理、正當的,但我們得記住,由於我們是一個君主立憲制的國家,君王的權力往往受憲法所約束。我們一定要牢牢記住“君王統治,但不干政”的道理。而且,唯有如此,國家憲法的完整才得以保全。我們能做的是,不要糊裡糊涂地就讓王室制度陷入一個站不住腳的窘境,而且還有可能面臨群眾強烈抵制,遭遇政治危機的風險。陛下不應受到如此對待。
現時我國人民對於王室的愛戴與效忠之情猛地激增,教我看了極其感動,尤其是在眼下設法維護自身憲法權利,極需情感援助和安慰這個節骨眼上,我不禁要問,當肆意破壞國家大小機制的敦馬哈迪密謀策劃一場攻擊王室的運動時,我們人呢,都上哪兒去了?他編造了一個又一個的謊言,以便合理化他撤除記者不受起訴、擁有法定豁免權的舉措,難道不是嗎?然而,我們曾否在敦馬的官邸前發起過抗議遊行?
他徹底削弱了我國的司法體制,按照某愛說笑打趣的名人所言,敦馬的所作所為使大馬大量生產出“可以用金錢收買到的全球頂尖法官”。他進而設立了一個特別法庭,專門處理王室行為不端的問題,用以拉攏那些被嚇得目瞪口呆的統治者。說句公道話,而且秉持著公正、公平的精神,為免這位自封為國家救星的偉人突然被測出患有健忘症,當局應當設立一個特別的法庭,以徹查敦馬在長年執政期間,罄竹難書的違法、濫權行徑。他把國家的儲備金和雇員的公積金存款當作賭注,別有用心地涉足投機活動。他與整個統治者群體對抗,然而,沒人阻止得了他。
我認為,國家憲法是神聖而不可侵犯的。遺憾的是,政府立誓要維護和保衛憲法,但在貫徹實施憲法上,顯然更傾向於破壞而非奉行。要是當局像美國人那樣崇敬他們的國家憲法,視憲法為神聖而不容置疑的律法就好了;要是當局——從被已故拉惹阿茲(Raja Aziz Addruse)形容為“法盲”的敦馬開始——沒有把憲法當作政治玩物就好了;要是他們承認管理與托管原則,並且將職責建立在公眾利益的基礎上,那麼,我們完全不需要冒著被催淚彈及水炮攻擊的危險,要求舉行自由、公平的選舉。
基於憲法保障,及強化、深化我國民主制度和實踐的必要,按應有權利而論,警方應自動授予准證。為了確保交通流量井然有序並受到控制,主辦方必須依據警方的建議,策劃抗議遊行經過的路線,以免對廣大的民眾造成不必要的不便。伴隨權利而來的是責任,切記,我們必須和警方緊密合作,以確保雙方的利益在無需訴諸暴力對峙的情況下均被顧及到。
多年來,我長居在倫敦、紐約及香港,並在當地就業,曾見過和平示威活動最後演變成兇險事件,但這些城市的有關當局壓根兒從未有過禁止公眾集會的念頭。那些於7月9日參與和平遊行的大馬人,表現出值得學習的忍耐力、良好紀律及自制力。他們不是走上街頭要求民選政府下台。他們只不過是要求確保選舉制度的公平和自由。難道這也犯法了嗎?
我很納悶,阻撓淨選盟為爭取自由、公平的選舉而展開和平遊行活動,究竟是哪一群國際顧問研製出的對策?(譯:曾慧金)
(星洲日報/言路‧作者:東姑阿都阿茲‧國會上議員)

鄭丁賢‧從塗黑談起

http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20179

2011-07-20 09:05
拿到即期的英國《經濟學人》雜誌,先看目錄,噢,有一篇文章是寫大馬709大集會。
翻到這一頁,眼前出現幾團黑墨,當場啞然失笑。
原來,文章的幾段文字,已經用馬克筆塗黑,特別顯眼,額外引人注目。
訂閱外國雜誌的人都知道,這是當局的“安全”措施,一些不想讓人看到的內容,或是圖片,經常就被如此塗鴉。
有雜誌癖的讀者會很不高興,好端端的一本雜誌,就這樣被污了。
有時候,塗黑部份,正好是雜誌封面;後果如同一個輪廓和五官姣好的女士,臉上生了一顆大痣,令人遺憾不已。
我不算雜誌癖,沒有這種受傷害的感覺;不過,一看到任何被塗黑的部份,會更加勾起好奇心,要用盡一切辦法,探索被塗黑的部份,究竟隱藏了甚麼機密。
如果墨汁塗得不夠厚,可以透過強烈的光線,朦朧的找回這些失落的部份;如果不怕損壞紙張,可以用美容的溶劑,洗去黑墨。
最簡單的方法,上網找出真相。總有一種方法可以得逞,心中油然產生一股快感,彷如挑戰禁區,突破界限得到的一種精神勝利。
但是,往往一看內容,卻是悵然若失,大部份被塗的文字或圖片,內容不過爾爾,即不是甚麼石破天驚的秘密,也不是性感勾魂的艷照。
就好像這一期的《經濟學人》,被塗黑的部份,大約是指警方的行動過火,事件中死了一人。
當然不是秘密。以眾多709的相關報導,尤其是網上流傳的來比較,屬於溫和水平。
而以《經濟學人》讀者的分辨水平,以及取得訊息的主動能力,即使不塗黑,讀了也不會影響他們原有的判斷。
既然根本不必要,為何又愛做這種徒勞無功,還引起反效果的事?
同樣的動作,反映在對報章的監督,對顏色的敏感,對非政府組織的抨擊,對集會的忌諱……。
塗黑外國雜誌,讓讀者更加懷疑真相;限制報章自由報導,讓人民更加相信謠言和網絡片面之詞;對顏色太敏感,人們反而故意穿黃衣;對集會施壓,讓群眾更加同情集會,上街挑戰禁令。
如果當局有充份的信心,足夠的安全感,不至如此。
時代改變了,思維解放了,政治人物和官員卻抱著以前的思想,堅持過去的做法,難免碰壁。
【熱點新聞:709大集會】
(星洲日報/馬荷加尼‧作者:鄭丁賢‧《星洲日報》副總編輯)

歐陽文風‧窮人,富國

http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20154

2011-07-18 19:02
你可以說美國是一個富裕的國家,可是說美國富裕,不等於每一個美國人都有錢幸福。美國還是有不少窮人,貧富懸殊的問題在美國其實愈來愈嚴重。
美國福利政策不壞,人老了沒錢,不是大問題,國家會照顧你。但前提是,你不能有病。美國醫療科技第一流,醫院像大飯店,但如果沒有醫療保險,還未病死就被醫藥費嚇死。換言之,人老了,有病,又沒錢,在美國是最不幸的一件事。
美國最近有一個人,叫威榮(Verone),今年59歲。他在可口可樂公司擔任了17年的運貨員。3年前,經濟不景而失業。他再找到一份運貨工作。不久,公司又裁員,他再丟工作。後來,他在便利店找到一份打雜的工作。可是畢竟年紀大了,又有關節炎,行動不便,不能搬太重的東西,站太久也不行,彎腰也不可以,結果連這份工也做不成。學歷不高,又有病痛在身,59歲的人能夠做甚麼?
但一波未平一波又起,他後來又發現胸口長了一顆瘤。沒有工作,沒有醫療保險,醫藥費生活費,全靠自己,他一週吃的藥,恐怕比他一個月的三餐還貴。最後連房子也賣了,但還是解決不了問題。最後連租金也付不了,幾乎就要住宿街頭。
結果,他在極端痛苦的情況之下,終於想到一個方法解決困境。
他到一家銀行去,給員工遞上一張紙條,上面寫著“打鎗,我要一元,還有醫療”。他沒有鎗,也沒有刀,就站在那裡,等員工報警捉人。
警察來了。打搶銀行必須坐牢,不論你打搶一億還是一元,也不管你打搶成功或失敗。
他終於坐牢。不過,他至少不必住宿街頭,又解決了三餐,在牢裡還有免費醫療。
這起事件,給很多美國人帶來不小震撼。這是一個怎麼樣的國家,為何竟令一個一生奉公守法的老人,最後要出此一策以求生?這個國家肯定出了問題。
更諷刺的是,最近紐約有人在自動提款機領了400美元後,忘了拿收據,被後來的顧客檢到。一看之後,不得了,拿了400元,餘款竟高到9千986萬4千731元9角4分。這可是億萬富翁!結果這顧客把收據交送給財務花邊新聞的網站發表,轟動一時。
有人的現鈔可以多得如此驚人,有人卻窮得必須坐牢以求生。這是一個怎麼樣的國家?很多富人和共和黨人,還嚷著要給富人減稅,政府的節約政策只向窮人的福利政策開刀!(星洲日報/言路‧作者:歐陽文風‧自由撰稿人)

王健壯‧英國也出了一個伍華德

http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20155

2011-07-18 19:07
35年前,剛從牛津大學畢業的戴維斯(Nick Davies)本來計劃到拉丁美洲去打游擊搞革命,想要以推翻獨裁政權當作他的人生志業;但好萊塢的一部電影卻改變了他的決定,也改變了他的一生。
這部電影就是All the President’s Men(大陰謀),兩位《華盛頓郵報》記者因為揭發水門醜聞,最後逼得尼遜總統辭職下台;戴維斯在多年後回憶說:“原來要扳倒一個政府,並不一定非要跑到墨西哥或者學西班牙文”,筆桿子也可以推翻政權。
戴維斯於是決定放棄浪漫的革命夢,選擇當記者。35年的新聞生涯,不但讓他贏得了“英國現存最偉大調查記者”的稱號,許多人更因為他揭發《世界新聞報》的竊聽醜聞,形容他是英國版的伍華德與伯恩斯坦;當年他的偶像扳倒了一個總統,戴維斯現在也扳倒了一家報紙,甚至很可能扳倒一個媒體帝國。
戴維斯揭發竊聽醜聞,跟伍華德等人揭發水門醜聞,確有許多相像之處。水門案剛爆發時,華府記者都以闖空門的竊案新聞視之,祇有《華郵》持續追蹤報導,也祇有伍華德與伯恩斯坦認為其中必有蹊蹺。但更重要的是,如果他們不是在自由派的《華郵》當記者,如果沒有報社老闆與總編輯的信任與支持,水門醜聞很可能早就以懸案草草收場。
戴維斯像伍華德一樣幸運,也是因為在中間偏左的《衛報》當記者,也有一位一直支持他的總編輯羅斯布瑞吉(Alan Rusbridger),才讓他在5年調查採訪期間,不受政治壓力、梅鐸集團威嚇與同業抵制的影響,最後終於像剝洋蔥一樣,一層一層揭發了竊聽醜聞內幕。
另一點相像的是,《華郵》報導水門醜聞時是孤軍奮戰,其他媒體並未跟進,連《紐約時報》最初也不重視;同業對水門案的冷漠,曾讓《華郵》老闆也忍不住質疑:“如果這條新聞真像你們講的那麼天大地大,其他媒體都跑到哪去了?”
戴維斯的處境也一樣,艦隊街同業除《衛報》的姊妹報《觀察家報》與《獨立報》偶有聲援外,其他媒體不但“安靜得像墳墓一樣”,還動輒引述反《衛報》人士的話來打擊《衛報》。
而且,英國是全世界最大的小報王國,每家報紙幾乎都有竊聽電話、雇用偵探與賄賂警察的前科,艦隊街因此一向有“狗不咬狗”的傳統,狗如果咬狗,結果必然是傷人也傷己。更何況,艦隊街早已被梅鐸帝國攻陷,除了《衛報》,誰敢像大衛一樣挑戰巨人歌利亞?
《衛報》雖是英國最有影響力的質報,但發行量祇有二、三十萬份,大約是《世界新聞報》的十分之一:也因為報份少到尚不及《世界新聞》的尾數,在《衛報》追蹤竊聽醜聞那幾年,不但梅鐸集團不以為意,連西敏寺的政客也冷漠以對,直到戴維斯日前揭發《世界新聞報》冷血竊聽被謀殺少女的手機簡訊後,20多萬份的《衛報》才終於擊垮了兩百多萬份的《世界新聞報》,艦隊街的同業紛紛驚醒跟進,西敏寺政客也找回了他們的脊椎骨,不分朝野集體譴責讓他們恐懼多年的梅鐸老大哥。
更諷刺的是,戴維斯雖然沒得到英國同業的聲援,卻在他調查陷入低潮時,意外得到了來自大西洋對岸同業的聲援。《紐時》在竊聽醜聞爆發後,派了3位記者到倫敦跨洋採訪,並在去年底揭發卡梅倫首相的親信庫爾森(Andy Coulson),在他當《世界新聞報》總編輯任內,知悉並且授權竊聽電話,才讓竊聽從媒體醜聞向上發展成政治醜聞,也逼得一直保持沉默的卡梅倫不得不公開坦承錯誤,並且下令徹查。
“真實比虛構更離奇”,馬可吐溫講的這句話在水門醜聞中得到印證,在竊聽醜聞中更是如此。可以預料的是,戴維斯與《衛報》的故事,也會像伍華德與《華郵》的故事一樣,將來會出書也會搬上銀幕;水門醜聞改寫了美國政治史與新聞史,竊聽醜聞對英國當然也會有同樣的效果。
但伍華德曾經啟發過像戴維斯那樣的年輕人,在報業蕭條的年代中,有哪個年輕人會在看完戴維斯的故事後,也做出像他當年一樣的抉擇?
【熱點新聞:英報竊聽風暴】
(星洲日報/言路‧作者:王健壯‧台灣資深報人)