http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2011/04/26/new-urban-thinking-led-to-bn-losses-in-sarawak-towns/
by Ronald Benjamin
The Malaysian Insider
April 25, 2011
APRIL 25 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s comments that the racist politics of DAP has been exported to Sarawak clearly reveal his ethnic prejudice and insecurity.
His simplistic comments fail to consider the current political and cultural trends among the urban population whose political sense and approach to issues is increasingly rooted in universal justice, equality and pragmatism.
Ethnic issues are minimal in this paradigm of thinking.
The Barisan National coalition of ethnic-based parties is still finding it difficult to come to terms with this new political paradigm that goes beyond mere ethnic accommodation. The urban middle-class is basically connected to a global world, where a sense of equality, meritocracy and democratic expression is the norm in any enlightened civil society.
For example, some of these educated middle class tell me that the Malaysian political scenario has similarities with the ancient imperial kingdoms, where the king would always keep his close trusted associates or cronies loyal by presenting them with goodies.
The wealth of the nation was basically controlled by powerful elites linked to the king while the commoners went hungry. If there was a possibility for the king to visit the countryside, there would be disbursements of money to make the subjects temporally happy while conditions that create poverty or widen the gap between the rich and poor were ignored.
In other words, the king would continue to create a sense of dependency among his subjects so that they would not question his opulence and authority. Is this ancient story not similar to our Malaysian situation when it comes to dealing with the rural population?
It is in this context that the BN’s poor showing in the urban constituencies in Sarawak should be analysed. The chief minister had been accused of enriching his family and cronies but the political leadership in KL and investigative institutions such as the MACC have not yet taken action.
The selective attitude towards corruption especially if involves the highest levels has alienated the educated middle class. While a slew of issues contributed to the BN’s defeat in the urban areas, the failure to investigate Taib Mahmud following allegations of abuse of power is the major cause of the Barisan’s defeat in urban constituencies in Sarawak.
The political old guard like Dr Mahathir and Umno have to come to terms with the present situation, where universal values such as equality, justice and pluralism hold sway, instead of pinning the blame for the defeat in urban areas on “racism” by a political party. — aliran.com
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Ibans storm SUPP office asking ‘election reward’
http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2011/04/26/ibans-storm-supp-office-asking-election-reward/
Malaysiakini
Apr 26, 11
More than 100 Ibans stormed the Sibu headquarters of the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) yesterday, demanding the balance of RM400 a person as their reward promised for backing a party candidate who won in the recent state election, an election watchdog has revealed.
Sibu Election Watch (SEW) in a press statement released in the Sarawak town late yesterday evening said the Ibans were upset that they did not get the “balance”, despite being promised by SUPP election agents as well as the tuai rumah (longhouse headman) before polling day.
The incident was first reported by the web portal Sarawak Indigenous Community News and tweeted by DAP Sarawak chairman and Bukit Assek assemblyperson Wong Ho Leng (left), who was present at the site yesterday.
Soon after the news broke out, SEW sent two representatives to the Sibu SUPP headquarters to check out the situation.
Its probe, SEW said, showed that the Ibans were promised an upfront payment of RM100 before voting day on April 16 and if the SUPP candidate won, they would each be paid another RM400 after the election.
SEW said its representatives have witnessed Ibans from at least two longhouses being paid the “balance” of RM400 each.
The election watch said the Ibans were from Rumah Chandi, Rumah Pasang and Rumah Ujang.
When the SEW representatives were leaving the scene, it said, only the residents from Rumah Chandi and Rumah Pasang had collected the money from SUPP.
“One of the residents from Rumah Chandi even distributed a stack of RM100 bills to the longhouse folk holding their identity cards in front of us,” SEW said.
Quarrel with tuai rumah
SEW said it interviewed one Iban voter from Rumah Ujang, who revealed that the Iban folk had a quarrel with their tuai rumah for not getting their RM400 even a week after polling day.
“However, the tuai rumah hit back that some people had voted for DAP and did not deserve to get the RM400 balance,” said the young Iban man SEW quoted in its press statement.
However, he blamed the tuai rumah for being unfair, since the BN had no way of proving which person did not vote for BN in the election.
SEW said another Iban man, who only wanted to be known as “Robin”, gave them a letter and expressed the residents’ anger against their tuai rumah, Mador Anak Rendah.
In the letter signed by ‘Disgruntled Voters’, the Sg Rasau voters said they felt deep regret that BN and SUPP failed to deliver their election promises.
“During the election eve, we were given RM100 each voter and later promised RM400 if the candidate wins in the election,” reads the letter.
However, when approached by SEW and Wong, these Iban voters refused to lodge police reports on the matter.
The reason they gave was “no point doing so”, since the police did not take any action despite some police reports lodged before.
BN retained its power in Sarawak in the April 16 state election with a two-thirds majority, while the opposition increased its seats from seven to 15. The Sarawak legislature has 71 seats.
Malaysiakini
Apr 26, 11
More than 100 Ibans stormed the Sibu headquarters of the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) yesterday, demanding the balance of RM400 a person as their reward promised for backing a party candidate who won in the recent state election, an election watchdog has revealed.
Sibu Election Watch (SEW) in a press statement released in the Sarawak town late yesterday evening said the Ibans were upset that they did not get the “balance”, despite being promised by SUPP election agents as well as the tuai rumah (longhouse headman) before polling day.
The incident was first reported by the web portal Sarawak Indigenous Community News and tweeted by DAP Sarawak chairman and Bukit Assek assemblyperson Wong Ho Leng (left), who was present at the site yesterday.
Soon after the news broke out, SEW sent two representatives to the Sibu SUPP headquarters to check out the situation.
Its probe, SEW said, showed that the Ibans were promised an upfront payment of RM100 before voting day on April 16 and if the SUPP candidate won, they would each be paid another RM400 after the election.
SEW said its representatives have witnessed Ibans from at least two longhouses being paid the “balance” of RM400 each.
The election watch said the Ibans were from Rumah Chandi, Rumah Pasang and Rumah Ujang.
When the SEW representatives were leaving the scene, it said, only the residents from Rumah Chandi and Rumah Pasang had collected the money from SUPP.
“One of the residents from Rumah Chandi even distributed a stack of RM100 bills to the longhouse folk holding their identity cards in front of us,” SEW said.
Quarrel with tuai rumah
SEW said it interviewed one Iban voter from Rumah Ujang, who revealed that the Iban folk had a quarrel with their tuai rumah for not getting their RM400 even a week after polling day.
“However, the tuai rumah hit back that some people had voted for DAP and did not deserve to get the RM400 balance,” said the young Iban man SEW quoted in its press statement.
However, he blamed the tuai rumah for being unfair, since the BN had no way of proving which person did not vote for BN in the election.
SEW said another Iban man, who only wanted to be known as “Robin”, gave them a letter and expressed the residents’ anger against their tuai rumah, Mador Anak Rendah.
In the letter signed by ‘Disgruntled Voters’, the Sg Rasau voters said they felt deep regret that BN and SUPP failed to deliver their election promises.
“During the election eve, we were given RM100 each voter and later promised RM400 if the candidate wins in the election,” reads the letter.
However, when approached by SEW and Wong, these Iban voters refused to lodge police reports on the matter.
The reason they gave was “no point doing so”, since the police did not take any action despite some police reports lodged before.
BN retained its power in Sarawak in the April 16 state election with a two-thirds majority, while the opposition increased its seats from seven to 15. The Sarawak legislature has 71 seats.
不满国阵代理胜选后扣钱不发 逾百伊班人涌至人联总部讨钱
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/162429
2011年4月25日 傍晚 7点48分
虽然砂州选举早已落幕一周余，但却爆发疑似选民向胜选候选人讨取金钱的事件。选举监督组织诗巫选举监察员（Sibu Election Watchers）今日揭露，由于国阵代理人在胜选后扣钱不发，导致逾百名伊班选民今早蜂拥至人联党诗巫总部，以索取某候选人承诺中选后给予的“余款”。结果数个长屋的居民当场获得400令吉。
长屋代表当场派钱
此事最早是由《砂拉越原住民社区新闻》网站所揭露。
行动党砂州主席黄和联随后也到现场了解实况。他并在推特上表示，当时有大约100名来自拉骚（Sg Rasau）和峇旺阿山的伊班选民涌到人联党诗巫总部，要求领取400令吉的“余款”。
这些选民声称国阵代理人之前承诺给他们100令吉加400令吉，即选前该区的注册选民都可以获得100令吉，一旦国阵候选人获胜，便可以再获得400令吉。
诗巫选举监察员组织则在晚上发表文告，揭露事情的更多详情。
该组织是接获一名在报馆工作的朋友捎来消息，有很多土著聚集在人联党诗巫总部办公楼下面，并声称此事可能与刚过的选举承诺有关。
于是，该组织就派员到位于诗巫市区甘榜拿督路的人联党诗巫办公室查看，结果发现至少两个长屋，即Rumah Chandi与Rumah Pasang的居民已经领到每人400令吉的“余款”。
文告说，其中一名来自Rumah Chandi的代表，更是手里拿着好几张身份证，并当着众人面前取出多张100令吉的钞票，当场分给Rumah Chandi的居民。
附近咖啡店都爆满
文告表示，该组织两名监察员最初到场时，发现办公楼楼梯口确实有7、8名貌似土著的男性站着。虽然没有人群围聚，不过附近的多家咖啡店却人潮爆满，几乎都是土著，而且有数名警察混杂在当中。
文告说，两名监察员接着向现场的人潮查询，其中一名年轻人告诉他们，正在等着人联党发钱。
文告说，这名年轻男子是峇旺阿山的选民，来自Sg Rasau区的Rumah Ujang长屋。他向监察员揭露“昨天他们那一区的长屋居民发生争执，因为国阵代理人指某些居民把票投给行动党，所以不该获得400令吉（余款）。”
没投国阵拒发余款
诗巫选举监察员组织表示，这名拒绝透露姓名的男子不满地说，国阵没有证据证明哪一名选民没把票投给国阵，所以如此扣押不派钱，很不公平。
“他也说，国阵在竞选期间承诺会让砂拉越电供公司（Sesco）为长屋牵电，但目前他们还在使用发电机。”
文告也说，其中一名监察员接着走到二楼的人联党办公室，看到有6、7名土著正在办公室的大厅坐着。当监察员上前询问时，有两人回答说，他们等着领钱，其中一位表示其长屋屋主身体不适，所以他代表出席。
文告说，监察员也在楼下的咖啡店，访问到一名自称叫罗宾（Robin）的伊班男子。该名男子以为监察员是记者，于是主动交出一封署名“不满的选民”（Disgruntled Voters）的英文信件给他们。
屋主拒发钱引发争执
该封信函（左图）只有4段，内容是投诉国阵及人联党的代理人，即一名长屋屋主Mador Anak Rendah处事不公，也要求有关单位彻查选举的金钱政治。
文告说，监察员随后也访问一名来自Rumah Pasang长屋的男子Saoh Marong。他也是峇旺阿山的选民，他投诉该名代理人指他们把票投给行动党，以致100多人全部拿不到“余款”。
“据Saoh Marong所说，好几个长屋居民都来了，包括Rumah Pasang和Rumah Chand的居民。”
“当问到是谁通知他们来人联党诗巫支部等派钱时，他说是Mador叫他们来的。昨天，拉骚长屋区里有争吵，结果Mador终于在今早答应发还剩下的400令吉。”
毫无下文而拒绝报警
诗巫选举监察员组织文告指出，这名男子质问，发生这样的事情，谁该负责？是代理人还是该名人联党的候选人？
文告表示，这名男子相信扣钱不发并非国阵上头的命令，而是代理人自行决定。当进一步问起钱的来源时，他四两拨千斤地说，这他并不知道。
文告也说，这些人以曾经报警，但毫无下文为由，拒绝再次报警。
文告表示，在上午11点左右，行动党武吉阿瑟州议员黄和联曾到现场了解。当他获悉所有人都没有意愿向反贪污委员会报案，也没有记者在场时，便说“那是白费力气”。
文告说，在大约上午11点半，两名监察员准备离开之际，虽然Rumah Ujang的居民还没领到钱，不过来自Rumah Pasang 的Saoh Marong证实已经拿到相关的“余款”。
常青集团曾发生讨钱
较早前，《砂拉越原住民社区新闻》网站指出，这次的事情与多年前，数百名伊班选民涌到常青集团总部讨钱的情况类似。当时，一些未拿到钱的选民甚至跟公司职员打起来。
该网站强调，贿选双方都是有罪的，因此警方应该秉持法律对付涉嫌贿选的两方面人士。它也指出，警方没有义务协助涉及非法活动的任何一方。
在4月16日投票的砂州选举中，人联党的峇旺阿山候选人黄顺舸以1808张多数票，或7316张得票，击败来势汹汹的行动党候选人刘强燕。黄顺舸也是诗巫人联党唯一在州选中突围的华裔候选人。
2011年4月25日 傍晚 7点48分
虽然砂州选举早已落幕一周余，但却爆发疑似选民向胜选候选人讨取金钱的事件。选举监督组织诗巫选举监察员（Sibu Election Watchers）今日揭露，由于国阵代理人在胜选后扣钱不发，导致逾百名伊班选民今早蜂拥至人联党诗巫总部，以索取某候选人承诺中选后给予的“余款”。结果数个长屋的居民当场获得400令吉。
长屋代表当场派钱
此事最早是由《砂拉越原住民社区新闻》网站所揭露。
行动党砂州主席黄和联随后也到现场了解实况。他并在推特上表示，当时有大约100名来自拉骚（Sg Rasau）和峇旺阿山的伊班选民涌到人联党诗巫总部，要求领取400令吉的“余款”。
这些选民声称国阵代理人之前承诺给他们100令吉加400令吉，即选前该区的注册选民都可以获得100令吉，一旦国阵候选人获胜，便可以再获得400令吉。
诗巫选举监察员组织则在晚上发表文告，揭露事情的更多详情。
该组织是接获一名在报馆工作的朋友捎来消息，有很多土著聚集在人联党诗巫总部办公楼下面，并声称此事可能与刚过的选举承诺有关。
于是，该组织就派员到位于诗巫市区甘榜拿督路的人联党诗巫办公室查看，结果发现至少两个长屋，即Rumah Chandi与Rumah Pasang的居民已经领到每人400令吉的“余款”。
文告说，其中一名来自Rumah Chandi的代表，更是手里拿着好几张身份证，并当着众人面前取出多张100令吉的钞票，当场分给Rumah Chandi的居民。
附近咖啡店都爆满
文告表示，该组织两名监察员最初到场时，发现办公楼楼梯口确实有7、8名貌似土著的男性站着。虽然没有人群围聚，不过附近的多家咖啡店却人潮爆满，几乎都是土著，而且有数名警察混杂在当中。
文告说，两名监察员接着向现场的人潮查询，其中一名年轻人告诉他们，正在等着人联党发钱。
文告说，这名年轻男子是峇旺阿山的选民，来自Sg Rasau区的Rumah Ujang长屋。他向监察员揭露“昨天他们那一区的长屋居民发生争执，因为国阵代理人指某些居民把票投给行动党，所以不该获得400令吉（余款）。”
没投国阵拒发余款
诗巫选举监察员组织表示，这名拒绝透露姓名的男子不满地说，国阵没有证据证明哪一名选民没把票投给国阵，所以如此扣押不派钱，很不公平。
“他也说，国阵在竞选期间承诺会让砂拉越电供公司（Sesco）为长屋牵电，但目前他们还在使用发电机。”
文告也说，其中一名监察员接着走到二楼的人联党办公室，看到有6、7名土著正在办公室的大厅坐着。当监察员上前询问时，有两人回答说，他们等着领钱，其中一位表示其长屋屋主身体不适，所以他代表出席。
文告说，监察员也在楼下的咖啡店，访问到一名自称叫罗宾（Robin）的伊班男子。该名男子以为监察员是记者，于是主动交出一封署名“不满的选民”（Disgruntled Voters）的英文信件给他们。
屋主拒发钱引发争执
该封信函（左图）只有4段，内容是投诉国阵及人联党的代理人，即一名长屋屋主Mador Anak Rendah处事不公，也要求有关单位彻查选举的金钱政治。
文告说，监察员随后也访问一名来自Rumah Pasang长屋的男子Saoh Marong。他也是峇旺阿山的选民，他投诉该名代理人指他们把票投给行动党，以致100多人全部拿不到“余款”。
“据Saoh Marong所说，好几个长屋居民都来了，包括Rumah Pasang和Rumah Chand的居民。”
“当问到是谁通知他们来人联党诗巫支部等派钱时，他说是Mador叫他们来的。昨天，拉骚长屋区里有争吵，结果Mador终于在今早答应发还剩下的400令吉。”
毫无下文而拒绝报警
诗巫选举监察员组织文告指出，这名男子质问，发生这样的事情，谁该负责？是代理人还是该名人联党的候选人？
文告表示，这名男子相信扣钱不发并非国阵上头的命令，而是代理人自行决定。当进一步问起钱的来源时，他四两拨千斤地说，这他并不知道。
文告也说，这些人以曾经报警，但毫无下文为由，拒绝再次报警。
文告表示，在上午11点左右，行动党武吉阿瑟州议员黄和联曾到现场了解。当他获悉所有人都没有意愿向反贪污委员会报案，也没有记者在场时，便说“那是白费力气”。
文告说，在大约上午11点半，两名监察员准备离开之际，虽然Rumah Ujang的居民还没领到钱，不过来自Rumah Pasang 的Saoh Marong证实已经拿到相关的“余款”。
常青集团曾发生讨钱
较早前，《砂拉越原住民社区新闻》网站指出，这次的事情与多年前，数百名伊班选民涌到常青集团总部讨钱的情况类似。当时，一些未拿到钱的选民甚至跟公司职员打起来。
该网站强调，贿选双方都是有罪的，因此警方应该秉持法律对付涉嫌贿选的两方面人士。它也指出，警方没有义务协助涉及非法活动的任何一方。
在4月16日投票的砂州选举中，人联党的峇旺阿山候选人黄顺舸以1808张多数票，或7316张得票，击败来势汹汹的行动党候选人刘强燕。黄顺舸也是诗巫人联党唯一在州选中突围的华裔候选人。
Monday, April 25, 2011
Rafael Benítez ready to step into Carlo Ancelotti's Chelsea boots
Dominic Fifield
guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 April 2011 22.30 BST
Article history
It may be time for Rafael Benítez to return to Premier League managership - with Chelsea. Photograph: Matthew Childs/Action Images
Rafael Benítez will express an interest in managing Chelsea if Roman Abramovich, as anticipated, opts to part company with Carlo Ancelotti this summer.
The Spaniard, who spent six years at Liverpool and claimed the 2005 European Cup, has been out of work since being sacked by Internazionale in December after a disappointing six-month spell at San Siro. He has since returned to live on Merseyside and last week publicly expressed an interest in returning to management in the Premier League.
Chelsea would offer him an attractive opportunity at a club competing in the Champions League – the Londoners still harbour some hopes of retaining their league title – and the 51-year-old is understood to be keen to be considered should Ancelotti's two-year period in charge end next month. Abramovich and the club's chief executive, Ron Gourlay, will be aware of his interest but will not make a decision on the Italian's future before the end of the current campaign.
Benítez would represent a high-calibre candidate for the position given his availability and desire to work in England – "If I have good offers from abroad it will be OK, but my priority is to return to the Premier league," he said earlier this month – with his relationship with Fernando Torres, whom he originally signed for Liverpool from Atlético Madrid, being a further attraction. The pair remain in contact, with Benítez having suggested recently that the £50m forward, who has yet to score for Chelsea, would benefit from working with a Spanish manager.
Whether the Londoners' supporters would take as keenly to Benítez's potential candidature is more open to question given the fractious nature of games between Chelsea, particularly under José Mourinho, and Liverpool during his time on Merseyside. Yet Abramovich may consider the Spaniard's record in Europe – he also won a Uefa Cup with Valencia and lost to Ancelotti's Milan in the final of the 2007 Champions League – as compelling.
The lack of credible candidates to replace Ancelotti, particularly with Guus Hiddink unlikely to be considered for the managerial position, could yet lead to the Italian seeing out the final year of his contract at Stamford Bridge. The incumbent would like to remain at the club and his prospects would be enhanced should Chelsea extend their recent form.
Ancelotti, whose team entertain West Ham United tomorrow evening, remains only cautiously optimistic that the Premier League title can still be retained despite a run of six wins in seven matches that has seen Chelsea vault Arsenal into second place, albeit still six points from the summit. The Londoners are still to visit Old Trafford and will hope that United may yet be distracted by their imminent participation in the Champion League semi-finals against Schalke, and potentially a subsequent final, though Ancelotti is realistic.
"If we want to have a chance we have to think that we have to win every game," Ancelotti said. "We have to be honest with ourselves. I would like to be in United's position, six points ahead, because if they do not lose total control they will win [the title]. The title is in their hands – we have to be honest about that – but we also have to believe that we can win every game left, including at Old Trafford like we did last year.
"And our moment is good. It has been in the league, but also in the last 16 of the Champions League against Copenhagen it was good. We could have done better against United (in the quarter-finals), and we were close to doing better. But the team started to play well when we recovered our important players. When they came back to be fit, the team has started playing well again."
guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 April 2011 22.30 BST
Article history
It may be time for Rafael Benítez to return to Premier League managership - with Chelsea. Photograph: Matthew Childs/Action Images
Rafael Benítez will express an interest in managing Chelsea if Roman Abramovich, as anticipated, opts to part company with Carlo Ancelotti this summer.
The Spaniard, who spent six years at Liverpool and claimed the 2005 European Cup, has been out of work since being sacked by Internazionale in December after a disappointing six-month spell at San Siro. He has since returned to live on Merseyside and last week publicly expressed an interest in returning to management in the Premier League.
Chelsea would offer him an attractive opportunity at a club competing in the Champions League – the Londoners still harbour some hopes of retaining their league title – and the 51-year-old is understood to be keen to be considered should Ancelotti's two-year period in charge end next month. Abramovich and the club's chief executive, Ron Gourlay, will be aware of his interest but will not make a decision on the Italian's future before the end of the current campaign.
Benítez would represent a high-calibre candidate for the position given his availability and desire to work in England – "If I have good offers from abroad it will be OK, but my priority is to return to the Premier league," he said earlier this month – with his relationship with Fernando Torres, whom he originally signed for Liverpool from Atlético Madrid, being a further attraction. The pair remain in contact, with Benítez having suggested recently that the £50m forward, who has yet to score for Chelsea, would benefit from working with a Spanish manager.
Whether the Londoners' supporters would take as keenly to Benítez's potential candidature is more open to question given the fractious nature of games between Chelsea, particularly under José Mourinho, and Liverpool during his time on Merseyside. Yet Abramovich may consider the Spaniard's record in Europe – he also won a Uefa Cup with Valencia and lost to Ancelotti's Milan in the final of the 2007 Champions League – as compelling.
The lack of credible candidates to replace Ancelotti, particularly with Guus Hiddink unlikely to be considered for the managerial position, could yet lead to the Italian seeing out the final year of his contract at Stamford Bridge. The incumbent would like to remain at the club and his prospects would be enhanced should Chelsea extend their recent form.
Ancelotti, whose team entertain West Ham United tomorrow evening, remains only cautiously optimistic that the Premier League title can still be retained despite a run of six wins in seven matches that has seen Chelsea vault Arsenal into second place, albeit still six points from the summit. The Londoners are still to visit Old Trafford and will hope that United may yet be distracted by their imminent participation in the Champion League semi-finals against Schalke, and potentially a subsequent final, though Ancelotti is realistic.
"If we want to have a chance we have to think that we have to win every game," Ancelotti said. "We have to be honest with ourselves. I would like to be in United's position, six points ahead, because if they do not lose total control they will win [the title]. The title is in their hands – we have to be honest about that – but we also have to believe that we can win every game left, including at Old Trafford like we did last year.
"And our moment is good. It has been in the league, but also in the last 16 of the Champions League against Copenhagen it was good. We could have done better against United (in the quarter-finals), and we were close to doing better. But the team started to play well when we recovered our important players. When they came back to be fit, the team has started playing well again."
你是甚麼人？
http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/19072?tid=17
鄭丁賢‧你是甚麼人？
2011-04-25 09:05
在“一個馬來人，一個土著”，以及“以華制華”的破銅鑼聲中，發生了這起事件。
52歲的運輸業者王金根，兩星期前的一個深夜，開車經過吉隆坡中環公路安邦路段，目睹一起車禍；一輛小轎車翻覆，車內一對馬來夫婦，再納和羅莎米雅身受重傷，挾在車內。
他即刻下車，把再納移到路基，回身準備救羅莎米雅。
就在這時，一輛休旅車高速駛來，撞上王金根，拖行數公尺停下；司機眼見肇禍，踩油離去。
王金根和再納夫婦一起被送進醫院。
再納夫婦傷勢穩定，等候康復；王金根則昏迷不醒，右腳截肢。
撞後逃的休旅車司機，被確認是一名華裔。
兩星期來，王金根在死亡邊緣掙扎；他剩下的左腳遭細菌感染，也必須截除。
就在上星期五，他病況惡化，不治離世。
這是一個平凡人的偉大故事，或許，類似事件曾經出現其它車禍、火災、水災等事件，通常不會成為重大新聞，也不一定會引起注意。
但是，在有人鼓吹“一個馬來人，一個土著”，另一些人搬出“以華制華”的論調時，王金根的事件，不禁使我產生特別感觸，準確來說，是傷感和憤怒交陳。
王金根停車的時候，沒有先看挾在車內的是華人或馬來人；他看到的是危急中的兩個性命。
王金根救人的時候，沒有考慮傷者是華人或馬來人；他想到的是趕緊把他們移出車內。
不管是甚麼人，都是寶貴的生命；對生命一視同仁，同樣重視，那是人性的光輝。
我不知道《馬來西亞前鋒報》有沒有報導這條新聞，我也不清楚鼓吹種族論的阿旺士拉末和再尼哈山，若是讀到這條新聞，是否會有一丁點的感受。
但我想問，在再尼“一個馬來人，一個土著”的種族論調下，王金根下車時發現傷者是馬來人，他是否應該調頭而走？
而阿旺士拉末說“不應該照顧華人”，王金根有沒有想過，他不須要救再納夫婦，因為他們是馬來人？
王金根當然不會這麼做，因為他是一個有人性的馬來西亞人，他看的不是膚色，而是生命。
有一天，阿旺或再尼發生甚麼事故，有人來救他們時，他們會不會問說：“你是馬來人還是華人？”
同樣的，蔡細歷的“以華制華”論如果成立，那位休旅車華裔司機，當發現王金根是同膚色，基於同胞愛，應該即刻把王金根送入醫院，然後懺悔道歉，而不是撞後逃。
愚蠢的種族論調，愧對王金根偉大的精神。
星洲日報／馬荷加尼‧作者：鄭丁賢‧《星洲日報》副總編輯‧2011.04.25
鄭丁賢‧你是甚麼人？
2011-04-25 09:05
在“一個馬來人，一個土著”，以及“以華制華”的破銅鑼聲中，發生了這起事件。
52歲的運輸業者王金根，兩星期前的一個深夜，開車經過吉隆坡中環公路安邦路段，目睹一起車禍；一輛小轎車翻覆，車內一對馬來夫婦，再納和羅莎米雅身受重傷，挾在車內。
他即刻下車，把再納移到路基，回身準備救羅莎米雅。
就在這時，一輛休旅車高速駛來，撞上王金根，拖行數公尺停下；司機眼見肇禍，踩油離去。
王金根和再納夫婦一起被送進醫院。
再納夫婦傷勢穩定，等候康復；王金根則昏迷不醒，右腳截肢。
撞後逃的休旅車司機，被確認是一名華裔。
兩星期來，王金根在死亡邊緣掙扎；他剩下的左腳遭細菌感染，也必須截除。
就在上星期五，他病況惡化，不治離世。
這是一個平凡人的偉大故事，或許，類似事件曾經出現其它車禍、火災、水災等事件，通常不會成為重大新聞，也不一定會引起注意。
但是，在有人鼓吹“一個馬來人，一個土著”，另一些人搬出“以華制華”的論調時，王金根的事件，不禁使我產生特別感觸，準確來說，是傷感和憤怒交陳。
王金根停車的時候，沒有先看挾在車內的是華人或馬來人；他看到的是危急中的兩個性命。
王金根救人的時候，沒有考慮傷者是華人或馬來人；他想到的是趕緊把他們移出車內。
不管是甚麼人，都是寶貴的生命；對生命一視同仁，同樣重視，那是人性的光輝。
我不知道《馬來西亞前鋒報》有沒有報導這條新聞，我也不清楚鼓吹種族論的阿旺士拉末和再尼哈山，若是讀到這條新聞，是否會有一丁點的感受。
但我想問，在再尼“一個馬來人，一個土著”的種族論調下，王金根下車時發現傷者是馬來人，他是否應該調頭而走？
而阿旺士拉末說“不應該照顧華人”，王金根有沒有想過，他不須要救再納夫婦，因為他們是馬來人？
王金根當然不會這麼做，因為他是一個有人性的馬來西亞人，他看的不是膚色，而是生命。
有一天，阿旺或再尼發生甚麼事故，有人來救他們時，他們會不會問說：“你是馬來人還是華人？”
同樣的，蔡細歷的“以華制華”論如果成立，那位休旅車華裔司機，當發現王金根是同膚色，基於同胞愛，應該即刻把王金根送入醫院，然後懺悔道歉，而不是撞後逃。
愚蠢的種族論調，愧對王金根偉大的精神。
星洲日報／馬荷加尼‧作者：鄭丁賢‧《星洲日報》副總編輯‧2011.04.25
Kenny For Good?
http://tomkinstimes.com/2011/04/kenny-for-good/
Like most people, I expected Kenny Dalglish to give Liverpool a lift. While he wouldn’t have been my first choice last summer (due to his time out of the game), such was the depression surrounding the team by the autumn that it was crying out for someone inspirational and in touch with the club. If a caretaker was needed, he had to be the man.
But I probably didn’t expect such a positive impact, given he inherited a team lacking confidence and, as the season has progressed, a high number of injuries.
In just 14 league games Dalglish has easily surpassed Roy Hodgson’s points tally from his 20 (27 points compared with 25). In those 14 games, more goals have been scored than in the 20 under the predecessor. Ironically, clean sheets are occurring far more regularly than under the more defensive Hodgson. All this means that the goal difference has swung from a ghastly -3 to a very encouraging +12 since January.
But is it enough to secure a full-time return?
Managers need several things going for them. Few will have everything on their side; almost all will have weaknesses, because they are human beings. And as with most things in life, even good qualities will have a flip side; nothing is ever 100% right or wrong. If you’re a nice guy, some players may take advantage of you; if you’re a no-nonsense boss, it may lead to mutiny. No-one can be all things to all men, and modern squads tend to consist of every type of personality and nationality.
But if you look at several important categories, Kenny Dalglish ticks the boxes.
Experience
Logic tells us that experience helps with decision making. The more situations you’ve faced, the more of a memory bank you have to draw from, and recall what worked and what flunked. This leads to better instant judgements; see the excellent book ‘Blink’ by Malcolm Gladwell for how this works.
The experience of simply being an ex-player is not enough, though, because managers think differently to players. They have to think about the overall project, not simply their own part within it. It’s a holistic approach, and requires so many different strengths that even people who have never played the game can succeed to incredible levels. (Arrigo Saachi, a former shoe salesman, being the most famous example, having created one of the game’s great sides at AC Milan in the late ‘80s. “I never realised that in order to become a jockey you have to have been a horse first”, he once noted.)
Managers have to stake their reputations on buying and selling players; judgements footballers don’t have to make. They have to take responsibility for tactics, motivation and, of course, the results themselves. You need a feel for the game, which players obviously have, but there’s a lot more to it than simply that. You need communication skills and an analytical mind, which plenty of footballers lack.
Dalglish was one of the few successful player-managers when he first started out, and in the minority of world-class players who were just as successful in the dugout. But he was also aided by perhaps the most experienced back-room staff in football at the time, with the masterful Bob Paisley also on hand for advice. The squad was full of the ultimate winning experience – most had league titles and European Cup medals – and they knew Kenny well.
His initial problems related more to now being seen as their boss; but he was almost certainly the most revered player in the dressing room anyway. Mark Lawrenson noted that he soon felt put in his place by Dalglish when he was late for training. Phil Neal, overlooked for the role, sulked, and was quickly despatched. Dalglish was boss.
Now, 26 years later, Dalglish is brimming with experience. Despite a decade out of the dugout, he is the wise old head; particularly when compared with the other name that’s been bandied about in connection with the job, that of the precocious Andre Villas Boas.
Villas Boas is the 33-year-old Jose Mourinho/Bobby Robson protégé with an absolutely jaw-dropping 87% win percentage with Porto this season, and this after the club sold two of its best players (one being Raul Meireles). The club have already won the Portuguese league, and are into the Europa League semi-finals, having put 10 past Spartak Moscow over two legs (five home, five away). This comes just a year after his first managerial role, with second-tier Académica, who were bottom and winless when he took over in October last season, and ended up escaping relegation by ten points.
Of course, with 35 years in management, Roy Hodgson was the apotheosis of the ‘experience’ candidate in 2010. But it seems that the right kind of experience is just as vital. Different clubs come with different pressures; at Liverpool, it’s about living up to an incredible history, dealing with heavy expectation and appeasing one of the globe’s biggest sporting fan-bases. Coping with that weight is necessary.
It’s also about winning more than five out of every ten league games: something Shankly, Paisley, Fagan, Dalglish (first time around), Evans, Houllier and Benítez managed to do, and what Kenny is currently doing once more (for this seaso he equals Benítez’s overall average of 57%).
Souness and Hodgson, however, fell well short. Avoiding defeat is not enough. Hodgson had experience, but not a lot of it was with similar kinds of club; he had 35 years of needing to win a lower percentage of games each season to satisfy expectations. But the ‘35’ he gave us was his league win percentage.
With all this in mind, the dynamic Villas Boas demands serious consideration. To have achieved what he has, at such a young age, in two very different situations, shows a real gift. But it’s still hard to see anyone fitting in quite as well as Kenny Dalglish.
Symbiosis
In this context, symbiosis is the meeting of minds between the club, its fans and the manager. Perhaps this is an even bigger deal at Liverpool than most clubs, because of the legendary relationship between Bill Shankly and the Kop. The goodwill needs to flow from one to the other, and back again.
For almost 40 years, Liverpool fans knew for certain that the men managing their club got the institution. Every manager was either appointed from within, or an ex-player. Then arrived Frenchman Gérard Houllier. But even he had lived in Liverpool, and stood on the Kop as a young teacher. Upon arrival he said the right things.
Next up was Rafa Benítez, a Spaniard, but he understood the fans from day one (and continues to attend the Hillsborough memorial service); proving that you don’t have to be appointed from within, or from the city – just simply judge the situation correctly, and act to defend the club and its supporters whenever possible. He chose to join Liverpool after winning the Spanish title twice in three seasons – and added the Uefa Cup – and we felt honoured that someone so successful would wish to head our way. It felt like a good appointment.
The first man who failed to get onto the same wavelength as the fans was Roy Hodgson. There was some skepticism amongst the support at the outset, based on his lack of major achievements in the game, and his oft-noted desire to manage the English national side sooner rather than later. Many fans felt he was using the club as a stepping stone, although his allies described it as reward for years of hard work.
The initial press conferences were impressive, and skeptics (myself included) were being won over. But strange comments began appearing in pre-season, such as “I hope we don’t get beaten too heavily” before the friendly with Al Hilal, and “I hope we don’t get beaten 6-0” before the Premier League game at Man City in August. (I recently turned 40, and I’m not sure the Reds have lost by that margin in my lifetime. It also implies that losing 3-0 would be acceptable, and that was the final result.)
Red flags were everywhere, and I don’t mean on the Kop. Bottom-tier Northampton Town were described thus: “They’ll be a formidable challenge – there’s no question about that.” No wonder they arrived in good spirits. By all means don’t disrespect the opposition, but equally, don’t treat winnable games as missions impossible.
It wasn’t long before Hodgson criticised the fans protesting against the then-hated owners. He also seemed intent on putting his own reputation before that of the club. If it’s fair to say that the majority of fans were not exited by his appointment, he used up what goodwill there was by refusing to back his players in the face of criticism from Alex Ferguson, in amongst a succession of increasingly bizarre press conferences where the pressure appeared to be getting to him.
It’s easy to underestimate the importance of such comments, but fans are looking for leadership, and for a sense of symbiosis. Hodgson never endeared himself to the local press, or local-based national journalists. He gave his time to columnists at the nationals, who were his allies. In fact, if you were to write a set of rules of what not to do at a major football club, Hodgson provides a number of perfect examples. Hodgson demands mention, because he is the dark by which we now recognise the light.
And his comments about Kenny standing no chance of getting the job last summer because he himself was in the frame were never going to endear him to the Kop. He was the appointment of distrusted executives, who themselves were not in tune with the club and its supporters.
Perhaps most crucially, Hodgson also failed to understand how the fans expect the team to play, as evinced by a negative goal difference. No-one expected to finish in the top three, but as the club languished in the relegation zone in October, it was hard to argue, based on the quality seen on the pitch, that things were likely to improve to the required standard.
A manager has to be in tune with the supporters, and the club’s history and traditions. That doesn’t mean adhering to the tactics of 50 years ago, or matching improbable successes. But insulting the intelligence of fans by constantly lowering expectations beyond acceptable levels is not the act of someone in tune with his surroundings.
Instantly, Kenny Dalglish came in and spoke like a winner, even if no-one expected miracles. He said that the team was capable of going on a long winning run, but would be taking it one game at a time. There was no talk of hoping to avoid being thrashed. He spoke like a Liverpool manager.
The same ‘awful’ squad that Hodgson’s allies attacked was soon playing as well as any team in the country, and results dramatically improved. It wasn’t just that Dalglish was loved by the fans; he got what was required. It’s wrong to expect anyone else to be able to match what he offers in terms of his gravitas, but Houllier and Benítez proved that you don’t need to be from the boot room to get the fans on your side (for a fews years, at least).
Authority
I’ve written about this before, even going so far as to say that it’s possibly the most important aspect of management. It’s what leads players to believe in the man in the hot-seat, but it also relates to the situation above the manager; do the powers-that-be believe in him? It’s about credibility, trust, aura.
Players can sense lame duck managers, just as dogs can smell fear. They will exploit any weakness. Equally, they can respect those whose records demand it, and run through brick walls for them. Perhaps the most charismatic and authoritative manager is Jose Mourinho, yet his time at Chelsea faltered rapidly once he fell out with Roman Abramovich.
It doesn’t take much to lose that authority. Players will blame a manager before taking a good hard look at themselves. Rafa Benítez had a lot of authority at Liverpool between 2004 and 2009, but by 2010 a lot of it had evanesced.
Perhaps all relationships between players at managers reach a point of no return. As Jonathan Wilson notes, “The great Hungarian coach Bela Guttmann refused ever to spend longer than three years at a club because he felt that after that he could no longer motivate players.”
When Alex Ferguson sees his relationships break down – as seen with Beckham and Stam – he sells the player with impunity. His authority is such that no-one dare question him. But other managers – less embedded at a club, less successful, less powerful – would perhaps be the one to be shown the door ahead of a valuable star. The Manchester United players know who is boss, and that helps.
Imagine if Roy Hodgson had tried to sell Fernando Torres. There would have been mutiny amongst the fan base. And yet when it happened on Kenny Dalglish’s watch, we quickly got over the shock, and accepted that the striker was a bit of a fading force. There was not one iota of outrage directed at the new boss, or the owners (apart from a few of the cyberspace crazies).
Perhaps this shows double standards on our part. But it is a reflection of track records, not an arbitrary dislike of the Londoner.
In a recent Goal.com article, three of the worst 10 transfers of 2010/11 were Hodgson purchases: Joe Cole, Paul Konchesky and Christian Poulsen. Given that he only made six signings, this is some going. Brad Jones and Fabio Aurelio (due to injury) have also had little impact, although unlike the three selected, neither was bought for the first XI, and neither cost more than £2m. With all this in mind, no-one wanted to see who Hodgson would reinvest the £50m on, with visions of £20m spent on Carlton Cole.
The fact that Kenny could sell the star player – even if the decision may have been made for him (due to Torres wanting away, and FSG not wanting to keep unhappy assets) – and not suffer dissent shows the authority he holds in the eyes of the fans. And as the fans are less likely to get on his back, his authority is less likely to be diminished in the eyes of the players, who can tell from the crowd reaction how the boss is viewed. And none of the players need telling who Dalglish is, or what he means to the club.
Could any other manager have gained such a response in January? Had Dalglish gone back to work at Newcastle and sold Andy Carroll, he would probably have been castigated by the Toon army. But at Anfield he’s a protected species. This is not to say that he isn’t double-guessed and questioned, in the way that all supporters express doubts from time to time (even Ferguson gets it). But those doubts are left at the turnstiles.
And of course, if a manager is undermined from above, his authority is likewise weakened. In Benítez’s case, it was by Gillett, Hicks, Parry and Purslow.
In Hodgson’s case, such undermining was more inadvertent, when FSG appointed Damien Comolli as Director of Football.
However well-intended, the Director of Football position always undermines the in situ manager to at least some degree. It implies “I don’t trust you”, and British football folk are particularly distrusting of the role. The British management culture is sole control. But it’s understandable why FSG, as newcomers, would baulk at handing over tens of millions of transfer kitty to a man they didn’t appoint; or, indeed, to any single individual.
Their intention was to turn to the wisdom of crowds, and spread the responsibility in scouting and securing players, by bringing in an expert in the buying of players (or at least someone who shared their methodology in analysing performance). But it’s always a PR blow to the manager, and perhaps puts doubt into the minds of some players as to who is calling the shots. Given the innate ‘threatening’ nature of the DoF, the manager needs to be seen as strong and commanding in the eyes of the players, fans and media.
Kenny Dalglish, even as a mere caretaker, has that authority. It helps that he took the role knowing that Comolli was already in place; therefore, no-one could say that he was undermined. But even so, he has clout.
If anything, time has eased some doubts that surrounded the legend towards the end of his first spell in charge.
By 1991, his penchant for excluding top-scorer Peter Beardsley, along with his proclivity to play a number of ‘defenders’ in midfield – not to mention buying the aging David Speedie and the hapless Jimmy Carter – had plenty of fans scratching their heads. But this is a different beast: older, wiser, and not living under the cloud of Hillsborough.
Tactical acumen
Tactics clearly play an important part in modern football. But if a manager is a lame duck, it doesn’t matter what formation he plays; the players have to respond, and so does the crowd, and that becomes all the less likely if there is a lack of trust and a sense of uncertainty. Rafa Benítez didn’t become a worse tactician overnight, but some of the players had stopped responding in the way they once had. (Hodgson never really got some of them going to start with, and his tactics were horribly flawed to deal with the expectations.)
Next season, tactics will perhaps play a bigger part for Dalglish, if he gets the job on a full-time basis.
Team spirit and togetherness is perhaps the most vital component for getting out of a slump, and Dalglish engendered that. He has managed the players incredibly well, and that is far easier to do if you are a living legend. But tactical naivety can just as easily undo all that good work, and thankfully there’s been no sign of that.
From the moment he reclaimed his puffy manager’s jacket, Dalglish showed he understood the abilities of the players at the club better than his predecessor. He also showed far more versatility, switching from 4-2-3-1 to 3-5-2 and finally settling on a 4-4-1-1 that could easily be viewed as 4-3-3 with Suarez pulling left and Kuyt to the right, either side of Andy Carroll.
Where Hodgson tried to force things into his flat 4-4-2, Dalglish found success with players operating between the lines. Where Hodgson preferred pure defenders like Kyrgiakos, Skrtel and Konchesky, Dalglish knew that the likes of Agger, Johnson, Aurelio and Kelly were vital in order to dominate possession and take the game to the opposition.
The only criticism would be a couple of games in which Andy Carroll was targeted with long balls from the back, but on the whole, the football has been fluid and inventive, whatever the formation and whatever the personnel.
Carroll won’t be as effective as a goal threat until there’s better service from wide areas, although with Kuyt likely to keep his place on the right, where he guarantees double figures for the season, the team only needs one winger.
(In the modern game, full-backs often provide a lot of crosses, and this is something the likes of Johnson, Kelly and Aurelio can do.) And Carroll can bring others into the game; he’s not just there to get on the end of crosses. (I covered some of the tactical issues in more depth here, including how the addition of pace will alter how the team can set up.)
Of course, the credit for the revival must be shared with Steve Clarke. While Kenny is canny with a chalkboard, Clarke is seen by many to be the driving force behind the tactical side of things. But it doesn’t really matter who is the ideas man, so long as the manager is seen to be in charge, and everyone is seen to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Clarke behind by a less-commanding figure would not have the same effect.
The key is to have the entire skill-set covered by the management team, and that appears to be the case right now. Add the less quantifiable qualities, like symbiosis, respect and authority, and it’s hard to think of anyone better suited to the Liverpool job right now.
Like most people, I expected Kenny Dalglish to give Liverpool a lift. While he wouldn’t have been my first choice last summer (due to his time out of the game), such was the depression surrounding the team by the autumn that it was crying out for someone inspirational and in touch with the club. If a caretaker was needed, he had to be the man.
But I probably didn’t expect such a positive impact, given he inherited a team lacking confidence and, as the season has progressed, a high number of injuries.
In just 14 league games Dalglish has easily surpassed Roy Hodgson’s points tally from his 20 (27 points compared with 25). In those 14 games, more goals have been scored than in the 20 under the predecessor. Ironically, clean sheets are occurring far more regularly than under the more defensive Hodgson. All this means that the goal difference has swung from a ghastly -3 to a very encouraging +12 since January.
But is it enough to secure a full-time return?
Managers need several things going for them. Few will have everything on their side; almost all will have weaknesses, because they are human beings. And as with most things in life, even good qualities will have a flip side; nothing is ever 100% right or wrong. If you’re a nice guy, some players may take advantage of you; if you’re a no-nonsense boss, it may lead to mutiny. No-one can be all things to all men, and modern squads tend to consist of every type of personality and nationality.
But if you look at several important categories, Kenny Dalglish ticks the boxes.
Experience
Logic tells us that experience helps with decision making. The more situations you’ve faced, the more of a memory bank you have to draw from, and recall what worked and what flunked. This leads to better instant judgements; see the excellent book ‘Blink’ by Malcolm Gladwell for how this works.
The experience of simply being an ex-player is not enough, though, because managers think differently to players. They have to think about the overall project, not simply their own part within it. It’s a holistic approach, and requires so many different strengths that even people who have never played the game can succeed to incredible levels. (Arrigo Saachi, a former shoe salesman, being the most famous example, having created one of the game’s great sides at AC Milan in the late ‘80s. “I never realised that in order to become a jockey you have to have been a horse first”, he once noted.)
Managers have to stake their reputations on buying and selling players; judgements footballers don’t have to make. They have to take responsibility for tactics, motivation and, of course, the results themselves. You need a feel for the game, which players obviously have, but there’s a lot more to it than simply that. You need communication skills and an analytical mind, which plenty of footballers lack.
Dalglish was one of the few successful player-managers when he first started out, and in the minority of world-class players who were just as successful in the dugout. But he was also aided by perhaps the most experienced back-room staff in football at the time, with the masterful Bob Paisley also on hand for advice. The squad was full of the ultimate winning experience – most had league titles and European Cup medals – and they knew Kenny well.
His initial problems related more to now being seen as their boss; but he was almost certainly the most revered player in the dressing room anyway. Mark Lawrenson noted that he soon felt put in his place by Dalglish when he was late for training. Phil Neal, overlooked for the role, sulked, and was quickly despatched. Dalglish was boss.
Now, 26 years later, Dalglish is brimming with experience. Despite a decade out of the dugout, he is the wise old head; particularly when compared with the other name that’s been bandied about in connection with the job, that of the precocious Andre Villas Boas.
Villas Boas is the 33-year-old Jose Mourinho/Bobby Robson protégé with an absolutely jaw-dropping 87% win percentage with Porto this season, and this after the club sold two of its best players (one being Raul Meireles). The club have already won the Portuguese league, and are into the Europa League semi-finals, having put 10 past Spartak Moscow over two legs (five home, five away). This comes just a year after his first managerial role, with second-tier Académica, who were bottom and winless when he took over in October last season, and ended up escaping relegation by ten points.
Of course, with 35 years in management, Roy Hodgson was the apotheosis of the ‘experience’ candidate in 2010. But it seems that the right kind of experience is just as vital. Different clubs come with different pressures; at Liverpool, it’s about living up to an incredible history, dealing with heavy expectation and appeasing one of the globe’s biggest sporting fan-bases. Coping with that weight is necessary.
It’s also about winning more than five out of every ten league games: something Shankly, Paisley, Fagan, Dalglish (first time around), Evans, Houllier and Benítez managed to do, and what Kenny is currently doing once more (for this seaso he equals Benítez’s overall average of 57%).
Souness and Hodgson, however, fell well short. Avoiding defeat is not enough. Hodgson had experience, but not a lot of it was with similar kinds of club; he had 35 years of needing to win a lower percentage of games each season to satisfy expectations. But the ‘35’ he gave us was his league win percentage.
With all this in mind, the dynamic Villas Boas demands serious consideration. To have achieved what he has, at such a young age, in two very different situations, shows a real gift. But it’s still hard to see anyone fitting in quite as well as Kenny Dalglish.
Symbiosis
In this context, symbiosis is the meeting of minds between the club, its fans and the manager. Perhaps this is an even bigger deal at Liverpool than most clubs, because of the legendary relationship between Bill Shankly and the Kop. The goodwill needs to flow from one to the other, and back again.
For almost 40 years, Liverpool fans knew for certain that the men managing their club got the institution. Every manager was either appointed from within, or an ex-player. Then arrived Frenchman Gérard Houllier. But even he had lived in Liverpool, and stood on the Kop as a young teacher. Upon arrival he said the right things.
Next up was Rafa Benítez, a Spaniard, but he understood the fans from day one (and continues to attend the Hillsborough memorial service); proving that you don’t have to be appointed from within, or from the city – just simply judge the situation correctly, and act to defend the club and its supporters whenever possible. He chose to join Liverpool after winning the Spanish title twice in three seasons – and added the Uefa Cup – and we felt honoured that someone so successful would wish to head our way. It felt like a good appointment.
The first man who failed to get onto the same wavelength as the fans was Roy Hodgson. There was some skepticism amongst the support at the outset, based on his lack of major achievements in the game, and his oft-noted desire to manage the English national side sooner rather than later. Many fans felt he was using the club as a stepping stone, although his allies described it as reward for years of hard work.
The initial press conferences were impressive, and skeptics (myself included) were being won over. But strange comments began appearing in pre-season, such as “I hope we don’t get beaten too heavily” before the friendly with Al Hilal, and “I hope we don’t get beaten 6-0” before the Premier League game at Man City in August. (I recently turned 40, and I’m not sure the Reds have lost by that margin in my lifetime. It also implies that losing 3-0 would be acceptable, and that was the final result.)
Red flags were everywhere, and I don’t mean on the Kop. Bottom-tier Northampton Town were described thus: “They’ll be a formidable challenge – there’s no question about that.” No wonder they arrived in good spirits. By all means don’t disrespect the opposition, but equally, don’t treat winnable games as missions impossible.
It wasn’t long before Hodgson criticised the fans protesting against the then-hated owners. He also seemed intent on putting his own reputation before that of the club. If it’s fair to say that the majority of fans were not exited by his appointment, he used up what goodwill there was by refusing to back his players in the face of criticism from Alex Ferguson, in amongst a succession of increasingly bizarre press conferences where the pressure appeared to be getting to him.
It’s easy to underestimate the importance of such comments, but fans are looking for leadership, and for a sense of symbiosis. Hodgson never endeared himself to the local press, or local-based national journalists. He gave his time to columnists at the nationals, who were his allies. In fact, if you were to write a set of rules of what not to do at a major football club, Hodgson provides a number of perfect examples. Hodgson demands mention, because he is the dark by which we now recognise the light.
And his comments about Kenny standing no chance of getting the job last summer because he himself was in the frame were never going to endear him to the Kop. He was the appointment of distrusted executives, who themselves were not in tune with the club and its supporters.
Perhaps most crucially, Hodgson also failed to understand how the fans expect the team to play, as evinced by a negative goal difference. No-one expected to finish in the top three, but as the club languished in the relegation zone in October, it was hard to argue, based on the quality seen on the pitch, that things were likely to improve to the required standard.
A manager has to be in tune with the supporters, and the club’s history and traditions. That doesn’t mean adhering to the tactics of 50 years ago, or matching improbable successes. But insulting the intelligence of fans by constantly lowering expectations beyond acceptable levels is not the act of someone in tune with his surroundings.
Instantly, Kenny Dalglish came in and spoke like a winner, even if no-one expected miracles. He said that the team was capable of going on a long winning run, but would be taking it one game at a time. There was no talk of hoping to avoid being thrashed. He spoke like a Liverpool manager.
The same ‘awful’ squad that Hodgson’s allies attacked was soon playing as well as any team in the country, and results dramatically improved. It wasn’t just that Dalglish was loved by the fans; he got what was required. It’s wrong to expect anyone else to be able to match what he offers in terms of his gravitas, but Houllier and Benítez proved that you don’t need to be from the boot room to get the fans on your side (for a fews years, at least).
Authority
I’ve written about this before, even going so far as to say that it’s possibly the most important aspect of management. It’s what leads players to believe in the man in the hot-seat, but it also relates to the situation above the manager; do the powers-that-be believe in him? It’s about credibility, trust, aura.
Players can sense lame duck managers, just as dogs can smell fear. They will exploit any weakness. Equally, they can respect those whose records demand it, and run through brick walls for them. Perhaps the most charismatic and authoritative manager is Jose Mourinho, yet his time at Chelsea faltered rapidly once he fell out with Roman Abramovich.
It doesn’t take much to lose that authority. Players will blame a manager before taking a good hard look at themselves. Rafa Benítez had a lot of authority at Liverpool between 2004 and 2009, but by 2010 a lot of it had evanesced.
Perhaps all relationships between players at managers reach a point of no return. As Jonathan Wilson notes, “The great Hungarian coach Bela Guttmann refused ever to spend longer than three years at a club because he felt that after that he could no longer motivate players.”
When Alex Ferguson sees his relationships break down – as seen with Beckham and Stam – he sells the player with impunity. His authority is such that no-one dare question him. But other managers – less embedded at a club, less successful, less powerful – would perhaps be the one to be shown the door ahead of a valuable star. The Manchester United players know who is boss, and that helps.
Imagine if Roy Hodgson had tried to sell Fernando Torres. There would have been mutiny amongst the fan base. And yet when it happened on Kenny Dalglish’s watch, we quickly got over the shock, and accepted that the striker was a bit of a fading force. There was not one iota of outrage directed at the new boss, or the owners (apart from a few of the cyberspace crazies).
Perhaps this shows double standards on our part. But it is a reflection of track records, not an arbitrary dislike of the Londoner.
In a recent Goal.com article, three of the worst 10 transfers of 2010/11 were Hodgson purchases: Joe Cole, Paul Konchesky and Christian Poulsen. Given that he only made six signings, this is some going. Brad Jones and Fabio Aurelio (due to injury) have also had little impact, although unlike the three selected, neither was bought for the first XI, and neither cost more than £2m. With all this in mind, no-one wanted to see who Hodgson would reinvest the £50m on, with visions of £20m spent on Carlton Cole.
The fact that Kenny could sell the star player – even if the decision may have been made for him (due to Torres wanting away, and FSG not wanting to keep unhappy assets) – and not suffer dissent shows the authority he holds in the eyes of the fans. And as the fans are less likely to get on his back, his authority is less likely to be diminished in the eyes of the players, who can tell from the crowd reaction how the boss is viewed. And none of the players need telling who Dalglish is, or what he means to the club.
Could any other manager have gained such a response in January? Had Dalglish gone back to work at Newcastle and sold Andy Carroll, he would probably have been castigated by the Toon army. But at Anfield he’s a protected species. This is not to say that he isn’t double-guessed and questioned, in the way that all supporters express doubts from time to time (even Ferguson gets it). But those doubts are left at the turnstiles.
And of course, if a manager is undermined from above, his authority is likewise weakened. In Benítez’s case, it was by Gillett, Hicks, Parry and Purslow.
In Hodgson’s case, such undermining was more inadvertent, when FSG appointed Damien Comolli as Director of Football.
However well-intended, the Director of Football position always undermines the in situ manager to at least some degree. It implies “I don’t trust you”, and British football folk are particularly distrusting of the role. The British management culture is sole control. But it’s understandable why FSG, as newcomers, would baulk at handing over tens of millions of transfer kitty to a man they didn’t appoint; or, indeed, to any single individual.
Their intention was to turn to the wisdom of crowds, and spread the responsibility in scouting and securing players, by bringing in an expert in the buying of players (or at least someone who shared their methodology in analysing performance). But it’s always a PR blow to the manager, and perhaps puts doubt into the minds of some players as to who is calling the shots. Given the innate ‘threatening’ nature of the DoF, the manager needs to be seen as strong and commanding in the eyes of the players, fans and media.
Kenny Dalglish, even as a mere caretaker, has that authority. It helps that he took the role knowing that Comolli was already in place; therefore, no-one could say that he was undermined. But even so, he has clout.
If anything, time has eased some doubts that surrounded the legend towards the end of his first spell in charge.
By 1991, his penchant for excluding top-scorer Peter Beardsley, along with his proclivity to play a number of ‘defenders’ in midfield – not to mention buying the aging David Speedie and the hapless Jimmy Carter – had plenty of fans scratching their heads. But this is a different beast: older, wiser, and not living under the cloud of Hillsborough.
Tactical acumen
Tactics clearly play an important part in modern football. But if a manager is a lame duck, it doesn’t matter what formation he plays; the players have to respond, and so does the crowd, and that becomes all the less likely if there is a lack of trust and a sense of uncertainty. Rafa Benítez didn’t become a worse tactician overnight, but some of the players had stopped responding in the way they once had. (Hodgson never really got some of them going to start with, and his tactics were horribly flawed to deal with the expectations.)
Next season, tactics will perhaps play a bigger part for Dalglish, if he gets the job on a full-time basis.
Team spirit and togetherness is perhaps the most vital component for getting out of a slump, and Dalglish engendered that. He has managed the players incredibly well, and that is far easier to do if you are a living legend. But tactical naivety can just as easily undo all that good work, and thankfully there’s been no sign of that.
From the moment he reclaimed his puffy manager’s jacket, Dalglish showed he understood the abilities of the players at the club better than his predecessor. He also showed far more versatility, switching from 4-2-3-1 to 3-5-2 and finally settling on a 4-4-1-1 that could easily be viewed as 4-3-3 with Suarez pulling left and Kuyt to the right, either side of Andy Carroll.
Where Hodgson tried to force things into his flat 4-4-2, Dalglish found success with players operating between the lines. Where Hodgson preferred pure defenders like Kyrgiakos, Skrtel and Konchesky, Dalglish knew that the likes of Agger, Johnson, Aurelio and Kelly were vital in order to dominate possession and take the game to the opposition.
The only criticism would be a couple of games in which Andy Carroll was targeted with long balls from the back, but on the whole, the football has been fluid and inventive, whatever the formation and whatever the personnel.
Carroll won’t be as effective as a goal threat until there’s better service from wide areas, although with Kuyt likely to keep his place on the right, where he guarantees double figures for the season, the team only needs one winger.
(In the modern game, full-backs often provide a lot of crosses, and this is something the likes of Johnson, Kelly and Aurelio can do.) And Carroll can bring others into the game; he’s not just there to get on the end of crosses. (I covered some of the tactical issues in more depth here, including how the addition of pace will alter how the team can set up.)
Of course, the credit for the revival must be shared with Steve Clarke. While Kenny is canny with a chalkboard, Clarke is seen by many to be the driving force behind the tactical side of things. But it doesn’t really matter who is the ideas man, so long as the manager is seen to be in charge, and everyone is seen to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Clarke behind by a less-commanding figure would not have the same effect.
The key is to have the entire skill-set covered by the management team, and that appears to be the case right now. Add the less quantifiable qualities, like symbiosis, respect and authority, and it’s hard to think of anyone better suited to the Liverpool job right now.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Did you hear about the Bidayuh who voted for DAP?
http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2011/04/22/did-you-hear-about-the-bidayuh-who-voted-for-dap/
By June Rubis
April 22, 2011
We were like a bad bar joke: two Bidayuhs, a Lun Bawang, an Iban, and two Malays walk into a DAP ceramah in Kuching. The crowd is mostly Chinese, and the speeches so far are all in Mandarin.
“I don’t understand what they are saying,” I complain to my fellow Bidayuh.
“Neither do we, and that is why we drink,” he replies, handing me a can of beer.
The next day is Election Day for Sarawak, and we, the motley crew representing the urban non-Chinese, cast our votes for DAP.
Times have changed for urban Sarawakians who all this while have embraced DAP as a home-grown party despite it having its origins in West Malaysia. We have seen the party struggle to grab a foothold in the state political arena for many decades.
It may be a Chinese-based party but for many of us urban voters, it represents the best possible choice for change of a state governance that we have grown weary of. Plus, you have to admit, their mascot is very cun.
Unsurprisingly, DAP has done very well in the urban areas (and 30,000 Ubah plush toys have sold out in less than two weeks), and soon everyone’s jumping on the bandwagon about how the Sarawak Chinese have rejected Barisan Nasional.
I jokingly tweet about feeling neglected as an urban Dayak who had voted for “ubah”, and how the Chinese are getting all the credit.
And then, it starts to get a bit nasty. The Chinese community in Sarawak are accused of rejecting multi-racialism. Seriously?
I ask you, pick any Sarawak Chinese and ask them whether they have indigenous relatives, either by blood or marriage, and they will answer you in the affirmative. Sarawakians are a plural society, and we are proud of it. We may identify ourselves as Chinese, Bidayuh or Lun Bawang but at the heart of it, we are always Sarawakians first.
Blaming the divide between the urban and rural votes in the state election on race is lazy analysis.
It is all too easy to blame a group of people — either the Chinese for “rejecting multi-racialism” and voting for DAP, or the rural indigenous population for being “short-sighted, and naive” and voting for BN — than to acknowledge the real issues on the ground.
Let us put aside, for now, the obvious vote-buying, intimidation, trickery and unfairness during the electoral process that we all know happened during the election.
What we have to acknowledge and try to understand is that for the most part, the rural population still identify and support BN as the only genuine state government. Dismissing the voting results from the rural areas to the corruption process is simplistic and lazy because it absolves do-gooders from having to go on the ground, and try to understand why the rural peoples feel beholden to BN. We need to go beyond tweeting/facebooking/blogging about our outrage of the state election results.
Years of indoctrination cannot be undone in one state election, yet please do not mistake me for being dismissive about the results.
As a Sarawakian who has lived most of her life in this state, I am quite happy with the outcome. We may not have the government that we had hoped for but yet 45 per cent of my fellow Sarawakians voted for a change of government.
And this has given me hope.
I acknowledge that Pakatan Rakyat has given Sarawak a collective hope that we have not seen in years. That a change of government is indeed possible.
It is not the fiery speeches from the ceramahs that has inspired me per se, but the thousands of my people — Chinese, Bidayuh, Melanau, Iban, Malay — that came out despite the fear of being seen as “opposition”.
And now we, urbanites of Sarawak, ARE the opposition. There is some beauty in this.
For those two short weeks of intense campaigning, I would hope that those who came from West Malaysia with the genuine intent to help Sarawak, had a quick glimpse at what we have lived with for the past 30 years. You may not understand why we see things the way we do, but I do hope that this is the beginning of what will be a long process of trying to understand and help.
To my fellow Sarawakians who were outraged with how our brothers and sisters came from West Malaysia with their own ideas of doing things, let us at least acknowledge that their abrasiveness, lack of protocol, enthusiasm, and yes, naiveté, of how things work in Sarawak, and overcome our own inhibitions of “this is just how things are”. They helped us get our voices back. Their speeches, while at times biased towards West Malaysian issues, inspired us so that we too can speak out, loud and proud, and not be afraid. And yes, a lot of us were afraid for many years.
Instead of being angry and outraged at the huge interest in Sarawak, let us use this to inspire ourselves to be more involved in our state issues.
We do not like how the West Malaysians are doing things? Then let us lead the way.
Let us find the humility that there are still things we need to learn. Do not worry about the condescension that they sometimes show towards us. I am beginning to realise lately that it is more of their reflection of fear and confusion than anything else.
There is so much to do for Sarawak, on the political and civil society front, and we have to realise that it starts with us Sarawakians, but we do not have to do it alone.
And maybe, one day, we can move on beyond being a bad bar joke, and prove to the rest of the country that when we cast our votes, we indeed cast our votes for the representatives that we felt were best suited for the job, and not because of the colour of her skin.
* June is very sad that she did not manage to get an Ubah plush toy.
By June Rubis
April 22, 2011
We were like a bad bar joke: two Bidayuhs, a Lun Bawang, an Iban, and two Malays walk into a DAP ceramah in Kuching. The crowd is mostly Chinese, and the speeches so far are all in Mandarin.
“I don’t understand what they are saying,” I complain to my fellow Bidayuh.
“Neither do we, and that is why we drink,” he replies, handing me a can of beer.
The next day is Election Day for Sarawak, and we, the motley crew representing the urban non-Chinese, cast our votes for DAP.
Times have changed for urban Sarawakians who all this while have embraced DAP as a home-grown party despite it having its origins in West Malaysia. We have seen the party struggle to grab a foothold in the state political arena for many decades.
It may be a Chinese-based party but for many of us urban voters, it represents the best possible choice for change of a state governance that we have grown weary of. Plus, you have to admit, their mascot is very cun.
Unsurprisingly, DAP has done very well in the urban areas (and 30,000 Ubah plush toys have sold out in less than two weeks), and soon everyone’s jumping on the bandwagon about how the Sarawak Chinese have rejected Barisan Nasional.
I jokingly tweet about feeling neglected as an urban Dayak who had voted for “ubah”, and how the Chinese are getting all the credit.
And then, it starts to get a bit nasty. The Chinese community in Sarawak are accused of rejecting multi-racialism. Seriously?
I ask you, pick any Sarawak Chinese and ask them whether they have indigenous relatives, either by blood or marriage, and they will answer you in the affirmative. Sarawakians are a plural society, and we are proud of it. We may identify ourselves as Chinese, Bidayuh or Lun Bawang but at the heart of it, we are always Sarawakians first.
Blaming the divide between the urban and rural votes in the state election on race is lazy analysis.
It is all too easy to blame a group of people — either the Chinese for “rejecting multi-racialism” and voting for DAP, or the rural indigenous population for being “short-sighted, and naive” and voting for BN — than to acknowledge the real issues on the ground.
Let us put aside, for now, the obvious vote-buying, intimidation, trickery and unfairness during the electoral process that we all know happened during the election.
What we have to acknowledge and try to understand is that for the most part, the rural population still identify and support BN as the only genuine state government. Dismissing the voting results from the rural areas to the corruption process is simplistic and lazy because it absolves do-gooders from having to go on the ground, and try to understand why the rural peoples feel beholden to BN. We need to go beyond tweeting/facebooking/blogging about our outrage of the state election results.
Years of indoctrination cannot be undone in one state election, yet please do not mistake me for being dismissive about the results.
As a Sarawakian who has lived most of her life in this state, I am quite happy with the outcome. We may not have the government that we had hoped for but yet 45 per cent of my fellow Sarawakians voted for a change of government.
And this has given me hope.
I acknowledge that Pakatan Rakyat has given Sarawak a collective hope that we have not seen in years. That a change of government is indeed possible.
It is not the fiery speeches from the ceramahs that has inspired me per se, but the thousands of my people — Chinese, Bidayuh, Melanau, Iban, Malay — that came out despite the fear of being seen as “opposition”.
And now we, urbanites of Sarawak, ARE the opposition. There is some beauty in this.
For those two short weeks of intense campaigning, I would hope that those who came from West Malaysia with the genuine intent to help Sarawak, had a quick glimpse at what we have lived with for the past 30 years. You may not understand why we see things the way we do, but I do hope that this is the beginning of what will be a long process of trying to understand and help.
To my fellow Sarawakians who were outraged with how our brothers and sisters came from West Malaysia with their own ideas of doing things, let us at least acknowledge that their abrasiveness, lack of protocol, enthusiasm, and yes, naiveté, of how things work in Sarawak, and overcome our own inhibitions of “this is just how things are”. They helped us get our voices back. Their speeches, while at times biased towards West Malaysian issues, inspired us so that we too can speak out, loud and proud, and not be afraid. And yes, a lot of us were afraid for many years.
Instead of being angry and outraged at the huge interest in Sarawak, let us use this to inspire ourselves to be more involved in our state issues.
We do not like how the West Malaysians are doing things? Then let us lead the way.
Let us find the humility that there are still things we need to learn. Do not worry about the condescension that they sometimes show towards us. I am beginning to realise lately that it is more of their reflection of fear and confusion than anything else.
There is so much to do for Sarawak, on the political and civil society front, and we have to realise that it starts with us Sarawakians, but we do not have to do it alone.
And maybe, one day, we can move on beyond being a bad bar joke, and prove to the rest of the country that when we cast our votes, we indeed cast our votes for the representatives that we felt were best suited for the job, and not because of the colour of her skin.
* June is very sad that she did not manage to get an Ubah plush toy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)