Changes in Malaysia's horizon; Keep the momentum up!

Tweet

Changes in the nation’s horizon

Reflecting On The Law By Shad Saleem Faruqi

Whether by revocation by the King or annulment by Parliament, all emergency legislations will cease to exist six months after the end of an emergency proclamation.

Image via Wikipedia

THE Prime Minister’s surprise announcement that the Emergency will be lifted, that the Internal Security Act will be repealed, and that laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act will be amended to constitutionalise and humanise them has fired everybody’s imagination, and at the same time raised apprehension among the defenders of the status quo.

One reader asked whether the Prime Minister consulted with, and obtained, the consent of the Cabinet before making these bold pronouncements.

No outsider can answer this accurately, but what can be pointed out is that in parliamentary democracies, prime ministers are known to launch bold initiatives on their own and to present their Cabinets and their countries with a fait accompli.

Clear examples are decisions on premature dissolution of Parliament and budget and foreign policy initiatives.

In 1956, Anthony Eden of Britain got his country embroiled in the disastrous Suez invasion, and informed his Cabinet only after British paratroopers had landed on Egyptian soil.

In a strictly legal way, the prime minister is not bound by the Cabinet; instead the Cabinet is bound by the direction he supplies.

Politics may, of course, encourage a consultative approach but all students of parliamentary government know that the prime minister is the sun around which the Cabinet revolves.

Individual ministers are bound under the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility to support their prime minister or step down from office.

Another reader asked whether the Prime Minister’s announcement means that the Emergency is already lifted?  The answer is in the negative.

The Emergency is proclaimed by the King and either he must revoke his proclamation(s) or the two Houses must by resolution annul the proclamation(s).

If the King (acting on advice) revokes a proclamation, the revocation comes into effect immediately.

However, if the two Houses are to debate and vote on a resolution to annul, that process can be expected to take some weeks or months because the Dewan Negara will probably convene only after the Dewan Rakyat’s lengthy budget session beginning in October.

However, if immediate parliamentary action to annul the 1966, 1969 and 1977 proclamations is thought desirable, the two Houses can meet concurrently to draw to a close the 47-year saga of the existing post-independence Emergency.

Once a proclamation expires, whether by revocation by the King or annulment by Parliament through an Emergency Act of Parliament or a piece of subsidiary legislation under an emergency law, all emergency legislations will cease to exist six months after the proclamation.

If the Emergency ends, does the Internal Security Act (ISA) also cease to exist? The answer is in the negative.  The ISA is a law against subversion under Article 149.

It is independent of Article 150 and has a life of its own, no matter what happens to the Emergency.

If the ISA is repealed, will those detained under the ISA have to be released? Undoubtedly, yes.

If the basis of their detention is extinguished, the detention, too, ceases to be valid.

Even if there is a new law under Article 149 to deal with security or terrorism cases, that law cannot be backdated due to the prohibition of Article 7(1).

Of course, the detainees may face new prosecutions under the Penal Code or the new laws.
The rule of double jeopardy will not apply.

Will the Government have to pay compensation to all people detained under the ISA, including in previous years?

The answer is “no” because the legality of an act must be judged by the law at the time of the commission of the act and not by what happens afterwards.

How can the ISA be repealed? Does its repeal require the consent of the Conference of Rulers?

Under Article 149, any law against subversion may be passed or repealed by Parliament. A simple majority vote is sufficient. The consent of the Conference of Rulers is not needed.

From what we have heard, the ISA will be replaced by two laws on terrorism and national security.
Some cynics are saying that the move is therefore purely cosmetic and political.

The ISA may end but preventive detention may remain. I think we should hold our judgment on this issue till we see the substantive content of the proposed new laws.

I would give anxious consideration to the following issues:

> The concepts of terrorism and national security must be precisely and objectively defined and must not have any catch-all tendencies.

> There should be no exclusion of judicial review so that any abuse or misuse of power can be tested in the courts.

It is acceptable that on matters of security, the political executive must have a strong say without excluding the power of the courts to determine independently whether security was indeed involved or not.

> There must be some safeguards against political detentions.

> The power of the police to detain for purposes of investigation must be drastically reduced from the present 60 days to no more than three weeks.

> The Minister’s power, as at present, to order detention for two years and for such further periods as he deems necessary must be abolished.

Detentions on the orders of the Minister raise the unconscionable issue of accuser, adjudicator and executioner being combined. Some separation of powers and some check and balance is desirable.

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

> The power to try, to convict and to detain must be committed to a Special Security Court or Anti-Terrorism Court (or by whatever name called).

> Anxious consideration must be given to the composition of this Special Court which must arouse public confidence.

> The executive must accuse, the court must decide.

> Special procedural rules for security trials exist in many countries and must be examined.

Perhaps trials should be held in camera (without the public present).

Whatever the case, there must be fair due process. The accused must know the charge.

No incriminating evidence must be withheld from him and from the judge, as is possible at present.

The accused must be allowed to defend himself fully and fairly.

> The penalties and the maximum period of detention must be prescribed.

> Whether there should be no appeal in “security” and “terrorist” trials is a matter for further consideration.

We have many model legislations from many countries that we can emulate.

Whatever we follow must show fidelity to our own Constitution and to the primary instruments of international law.

> Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM.

Keep the momentum up!

Question Time By P. Gunasegaram

The momentous changes proposed by the Prime Minister need to be pushed through with the utmost urgency for greater effect.

THE overwhelming support and acclaim from Malaysians over the proposals by the Prime Minister to repeal the Internal Security Act or ISA and lift all proclamations of emergency show just how unpopular these measures are among Malaysians.

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has read the signals right. But as important as these and other proposals are, the larger agenda is even more significant – to review and if necessary repeal and replace all laws which stand in the way of demo-cracy, legitimate free expression, and human and individual rights.

Two paragraphs from Najib’s speech last Thursday are worth re-quoting: “It is absolutely clear that the steps I just announced are none other than early initiatives of an organised and graceful political transformation. It stands as a crucial and much needed complement to the initiatives of economic transformation and public presentation which the government has outlined and implemented for over two years in the effort to pioneer a modern and progressive nation.

“…the Malaysia that we all dream of and are in the process of creating is a Malaysia that practises a functional and inclusive democracy where public peace and prosperity is preserved in accordance with the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rights and individual rights.”

Two things are necessary to carry these reforms to its natural conclusion. The first is to keep the momentum generated up and without any delay implement what has been promised. Any delay and back-pedalling to cater to the interests of some sections of the community will have the effect of raising cynicism yet again.

The second is to look into all the other laws which need to be changed to allow Malaysians to exercise all their full rights as enshrined in the Federal Constitution without hindrance.

That means that all those laws that are in direct contradiction to the letter and spirit of the Constitution must go. The sooner they go, the better. There has to be demonstrable urgency over this matter.

Already there are some politicians who are saying that the amendments to make some of the major changes cannot be tabled at the forthcoming Parliament session and will have to be deferred to next year. That will be a wrong start.

The necessary repeals of the relevant legislation can be made and still passed by Parliament this year for implementation next year. By that time, other legislation such as a counter-terrorism Act to still allow detention without trial under special circumstances and under judicial review can be introduced.

That will have the effect of setting a timetable for the implementation of the proposed changes already announced so that no one will doubt that the Government is serious about implementing the promises.

Already, there is talk that some sections within the ruling party and some parts of the police force are opposed to the repeal of the ISA and the Banishment Act. But these people must not be permitted to stop – or even delay – the reform process set into motion by the Prime Minister.

Simultaneous with the rapid implementation of the announced measures is the necessity to do an urgent yet comprehensive review of existing laws to expand the public space and bring forth important issues to be debated maturely and openly – with no threat from any party.

The proposal to remove the yearly licensing requirement for publications including newspapers under the Printing Presses and Publications Act is a relief, but a small one. The Home Ministry still wields disproportionate power and has the right to stop publication at any time without there being any recourse to the courts.

For the full flowering of legitimate expression across the board, it will be necessary to repeal fully this Act. That of course does not mean we are free to publish whatever we want because we will still be subject to provisions of the law for defamation, sedition, secrecy and so on. There is still adequate check and balance.

Another piece of draconian legislation that needs to be reviewed is the Official Secrets Act (OSA). This Act was amended in the eighties to provide for mandatory jail sentence and gave the Government the right to determine what affected national security without review by the courts.

In practical terms, this has prevented many issues of great public interest such as toll agreements to come out into the open. In practical terms, the Government could classify the number of cups of coffee consumed in a departmental canteen as a secret and anyone who reported it could be convicted under the OSA and go to jail for a minimum one year.

New legislation should be worded such that it respects secrecy when it involves issues of national security, not cover up inefficiency, incompetence or breach of trust by the Government. That would help ensure a more accountable government.

One other Act which deserves mention is the University and University Colleges Act that prevents local students from taking part in political activities and being aligned to political parties. This is strange considering that many of our founding fathers were political activists from their student days.

They may be students but they are also adults and as adults should play their full role in society, including taking part in political activities. That is part and parcel of developing their maturity and making them better members of society in future.

There is no doubt many other pieces of legislation need to be reviewed and the task is momentous. However, momentous as it is, the momentum that has been created by the announcement of the proposals must not be lost. We must press on relentlessly.

Momentum is of the utmost importance for change to take place. We need to turn the wheels of transformation faster instead of slowing them down with all manner of unfounded excuses. Malaysia and Malaysians have to move forward and quickly.

> Managing editor P. Gunasegaram believes in the old axiom that change is the only constant.

Related posts:

Towards a brave new Malaysia, keep lobbying and pushing for change!

Winds of change blowing in Malaysia; Dawn of a new era?   

Obama Wants $1.5 Trillion In Tax Hikes, Mostly On Rich, Draws Election Battle Lines

Tweet

Janet Novack, Forbes Staff I write from D.C. about tax and retirement policy and planning.

Image via Wikipedia President Barack Obama will call today for an additional $3.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, including $1.5 trillion in tax hikes, mostly on the rich. His plan also includes $1.1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $580 billion in savings from “mandatory” programs, including $248 billion in Medicare cuts, but significantly, no increase in the age for Medicare eligibility and no Social Security trims.

Contrary to earlier press reports, however, the plan Obama is sending to Congress’ Joint Select Committee On Deficit Reduction—the so-called Super Committee– won’t include a special  new  millionaire’s tax. Instead, Administration officials said in a background briefing with reporters Sunday night, Obama will call for tax reform to be based on five principles and one of those will be the “Buffett rule”—in honor of Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett who has complained for years that he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary.  An official put the rule this way: “People making more than $1 million should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle class people pay.”  The other four principles, he added, are that tax reform should lower rates; reduce the deficit (in other words raise taxes) by $1.5 trillion over 10 years; close “wasteful loopholes and tax breaks”; and “boost job creation and growth.”


Republicans, too, favor tax reform and lower rates, but have ruled out raising any new revenue. On Thursday House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) declared tax increases “off the table”.  In an interview on NBC’s Meet The Press show Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) dismissed any consideration of tax increases as “a bad thing to do in the middle of an economic downturn.”

The August political deal that raised the nation’s debt ceiling and averted a Treasury debt default created the Super Committee and charged it with coming up with a plan by Thanksgiving to trim at least $1.2 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. The Super Committee is  made up of six Democrats and six Republicans and if it deadlocks—or its final product is voted down by Congress or vetoed by Obama–automatic budget cuts would kick in. Republicans insist the $1.2 trillion should come solely from cuts to spending, including to entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Significantly, the Administration official said Obama is making his embrace of Medicare cuts contingent on tax increases being included in the final deal.  “He’ll say he’ll veto any bill that takes one dime from the Medicare seniors rely on without asking the wealthy and the biggest corporations to pay their share,’’ the official said in a preview of Obama’s remarks. In another move that should similarly please his restive Democratic base, Obama is excluding from his proposal any change  to Social Security, including a reduction in inflation adjustments for Social Security recipients that was part of a bigger deal he tried to strike with Boehner in July. “It’s his vision,  not a legislative compromise,” an Administration official explained. “It’s inherently different form the grand bargain he was working on with the Speaker.”  A higher age for Medicare eligibility was also, reportedly, considered as part of the failed bargain with Boehner but won’t be in Obama’s proposal. (Currently, Americans become eligible at 65 even if they haven’t yet claimed their Social Security benefits.)



In the Sunday night preview, Administration officials cast Obama’s plan as a total of $4.4 trillion in net deficit reduction —including cuts that were made in discretionary spending as part of the August deal and prospective savings on interest costs. (While Republicans are sure to dismiss Obama’s counting of war savings, they have done the same thing in their deficit plans.)  Moreover, an Administration official noted, the $4.4 trillion is net of the cost of Obama $447 billion “jobs” proposal—a package of payroll tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and help for the unemployed designed to attack the nation’s stubbornly high 9.1% unemployment rate. Obama has proposed paying for that too with tax hikes Republicans have rejected, including a limit on mortgage, charitable and other deductions for the well off; elimination of the “carried interest” tax break enjoyed by the managers of hedge funds and other partnerships; and the repeal of various tax preferences enjoyed by oil and gas producers, including Exxon Mobil,  Chevron and BP.

Indeed, most of Obama’s tax proposals will apparently repeat those he has made before. For example, $800 billion would come from letting the Bush tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 expire at the end of 2012, meaning the top rate on ordinary income such as salary would rise from 35% to 39.6%. Last month, in a New York Times op-ed, Buffett called for two higher tax rates—one on income over $1 million and the other on income over $10 million. Published reports over the weekend variously suggested Obama would endorse a new millionaire’s rate or release some sort of proposal for a minimum tax on millionaires—say to replace the current convoluted alternative minimum tax.  But Sunday night, the Administration official said the Buffett rule was simply a principle for tax reform.

Most people earning more than $1 million are already taxed at a higher effective rate than their secretaries. In 2008, for example, taxpayers with adjusted gross income between $1 million and $10 million paid an average of 24.5% of their adjusted gross in federal income tax, compared with an average of 12.6% for those earning $100,000 to $200,000, and 8.4%  for those earning $50,000 to $100,000. But the 400 highest income taxpayers do pay a lower effective rate  than mere millionaires—an average of just 18.1% in 2008. That’s because the top 400 get the bulk of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at a top rate of 15%, scheduled to rise to 20% when the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2012. If tax reform is to insure that billionaires pay a higher effective rate than the upper middle and middle class it would have to reduce or eliminate the break for capital gains—something that was done in Reagan’s 1986 tax reform but that doesn’t sit well with most Republicans today.

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Obama tax plan draws election battle lines

Stephen Collinson 

An impassioned US President Barack Obama has set up an acerbic and personal clash with Republicans, demanding $US1.5 trillion ($A1.47 trillion) in new taxes on the rich in a plan aimed at slashing the deficit.

"This is not class warfare, it is math," Obama declared, arguing that without tax increases on those who could afford it, the budget gap - which is casting a shadow over future generations of Americans - could never be closed.

"All I'm saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay their fair share in taxes," Obama said in a speech that effectively staked out the ground on which the 2012 presidential election will likely be fought.

But Republicans immediately came out against the move, making it more likely that a fierce partisan row over taxes and spending will rumble on and define the terrain of the 2012 presidential election.

"Pitting one group of Americans against another is not leadership," said Republican House Speaker John Boehner.

A fiery, populist Obama laid out a plan few experts believe has any chance of passing Congress but which will make clear the battle lines between the White House and Republicans on the lumbering economy.

"We can't just cut our way out of this hole," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden, laying out his plans to cut $US3.0 trillion from the deficit with a mixture of spending cuts and tax hikes.

"It is only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share," Obama said, in a direct challenge to House of Representatives speaker John Boehner, who has categorically ruled out any tax increases to trim the budget gap.

"We can't afford these special lower rates for the wealthy. We can't afford them when we are running these big deficits," Obama said, fighting for the end of tax cuts for the rich passed by former president George W Bush.

"Middle class taxpayers shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that," said Obama, who has seen his approval ratings hammered by the slowed economy.

In a sign of the antipathy between Obama and Republican leaders after months of political confrontations, the president took personal aim at Boehner's refusal to contemplate any tax revenue raises.

"The speaker says we can't have it 'my way or the highway' and then basically says 'my way or the highway'."

"That's not smart. It's not right."

Obama's plan amounted to suggestions to a congressional supercommittee charged with finding up to $US1.5 trillion in deficit cuts by November.

The president threatened to veto any bill produced by Congress that was based on cutting medical benefits for the elderly but did not include increased revenues drawn from higher taxes on the rich and corporations.

Obama's plan effectively forced Republicans to defend continued favourable tax treatment for the wealthiest Americans and corporations while unemployment is at 9.1 per cent and economic frustration stalks the United States.

But Republicans, who say tax hikes would penalise small business and lower growth, reacted with contempt to his speech.

"Veto threats, a massive tax hike, phantom savings, and punting on entitlement reform is not a recipe for economic or job growth-or even meaningful deficit reduction," said Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate.

Mitt Romney, a leading Republican contender to take on Obama in the 2012 election, also rejected his plans as the action of a president who he portrays as out of his depth on the economy.

"President Obama's plan to raise taxes will have a crushing impact on economic growth," Romney said.

"This is yet another indication that President Obama has no clue how to bring our economy back."

Obama's plan includes $US1.2 trillion in cuts in federal discretionary spending already agreed in August as part of a compromise which ended a standoff with Republicans over raising the federal debt ceiling.

It includes $US580 billion in spending cuts across all mandatory spending programs and $US1.1 trillion of savings realised from drawing down US troop numbers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Tax reform would result in $US1.5 trillion in savings, and a further $US430 billion will be found in additional interest savings elsewhere.

Included in the spending cuts will be $US248 billion in savings from Medicare programs for the elderly and $US72 billion in cuts from the Medicaid service for the poor, officials said.

© 2011 AFP
Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Towards a brave new Malaysia, keep lobbying and pushing for change!

Tweet


As a writer, however, I’m most concerned with what will happen to the media. A functioning democracy needs a free and independent press and the PPPA has been a long-term stumbling block to both.

First off, I, along with most Malaysians, want more details. I totally disagree with the need for newspaper licences. The very concept is wrong-headed.

Second, access to and ownership of the media are also critical. We need all sides of the political debate (Barisan and Pakatan) to be given fair and equal coverage.

Malaysians can only make in­­formed decisions about who to vote for if they’re properly informed.

It’s worth bearing in mind that blanket media coverage of BN leaders has been a major turn-off. Whoever thought we needed to watch the PM wishing the country Selamat Hari Raya again and again was wrong. With the media, less is more, especially when you have nothing to say.

The current order also makes BN politicians lazy and high-handed when dealing with journalists and editors. But a freeing up of the media will force BN cadres to change – let’s call it political Darwinism.

The Singapore Government is also experimenting with liberalisation. During its recent general election, Singapore’s ruling PAP allowed its press some latitude in their coverage of the opposition. While the opposition made substantial gains, the ruling party still won because ordinary Singaporeans saw the candidates for what they were and still felt safer with the PAP.

There’s no reason to assume why the same couldn’t happen here, all the more so if the Prime Minister maintains his humility and candour.

At this stage, I must add that I would personally like to see Najib go head-to-head with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in a live, no holds barred debate during the next polls.

Such a debate would give Malaysians the chance to see who has a better vision for the country. Besides, Umno leaders really need to overcome their pathological fear of Anwar’s supposed superhuman rhetorical skills.

The man is not invincible. Then Information Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Shabery Cheek faced him back in 2008 and came out of the encounter very creditably.

Umno politicians also have to realise that constant communication and media coverage is the order of the day. Those who are not up to the exposure and pressure should be dropped – Barisan is better off without them. Certainly, if I had my way I’d dump over 80% of the present Cabinet. Most are ill-equipped for present-day challenges.

Also, reporters are stakeholders to be engaged, not hirelings to be ordered about. Treat them with respect and the returns will be considerable. Remember that the media, however tetchy and irritating, is the voice of the people.

At the same time, Malaysia’s mainstream media will now have to up its game. With Najib’s reforms, there’ll no longer be any excuse to not provide the critical news, investigative reporting and analysis that Malaysians crave.

We are tasked to serve the people and not our erstwhile political masters.

Najib has opened the door to a new world. We know most of his Barisan Nasional colleagues are ill-prepared. The tougher question is this: are we – the Malaysian people – ready for what’s to come?

Related posts:

Changes in Malaysia's horizon; Keep the momentum up!

Winds of change blowing in Malaysia; Dawn of a new era?      

How To Use Social Media To Promote Your Small Business

Tweet

Kym McNicholas, Forbes Staff

Image via CrunchBase

You have a small business and you haven’t bought into the social media craze? Guess what? Silence is no longer an option. People are online talking about your company as you read this, whether you like or not.  If you don’t engage in the conversation, you risk losing your customers. But maybe you don’t have a choice as many small airports do in the State of California and across the United States. Many are owned by cities who don’t give them a dime and yet take money whenever they please. Those city managers force their airport managers to jump through hoops and political red tape to be able to promote their facilities. These airport managers have their hands tied in dealing with counties which just recently decided to launch a website, let alone a social media marketing strategy. So, I was asked by Michael McCarron, Public Information Office for San Francisco International Airport, to speak to the managers of small airports through California about the benefits of having a social media presence, so that they can convince their ‘bosses’ to allow them to open Facebook, Twitter and Google+ accounts, as well as to create blogs.

Here’s part of my presentation. I hope it helps you with your online social media strategy. If You have more ideas, please share them in the comments section at the bottom of the post. The more ideas, the better.

1. ASSESS YOUR ASSETS: The first action you should take before engaging in online marketing or social media marketing and engagement is to look at what are you’re trying to promote. What are your assets? Who are your target customers? It may seem obvious. But, A Bay Area airport had small planes for rent. But business was slow because they were simply targeting pilots trying to rack-up hours. Turns out there was a larger audience they could target through social media, tourists looking for aerial Bay Area tours. Business took-off.

SIGN-UP FOR SOCIAL MEDIA: Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube and LinkedIn. Facebook allows you to create a business page.  Make sure you read the rules for businesses first. You can even ‘create a page’ through your personal account, if your business allows you to do so. That makes it easy for small business owners to manage it. On LinkedIn, every employee becomes your best advocate.



FIND A SOCIAL MEDIA MANAGER: Managing multiple social networks is daunting. So, before you start posting content, requesting friends and adding followers, sign-up for a social media manager such as Ping.fm and HootSuite. It allows you to manage all of your accounts on one site and schedule your messages to deploy so you don’t have to sit over it all day. It also allows you to review the success of the tweets real-time with click-through statistics. And you can gather all the mentions of your brand, industry or search terms on Twitter through it as well. That’s for the free version. I suggest trying that first. As you get more involved in social media, I prefer SproutSocial.com. You have a choice on plans for nine-dollars to $49. There’s a 30-day free trial to make sure it works for you. What I like is that it allows you to take all of those you follow and the followers and create contacts out of them which you can manage in the system and track engagement. It also has one inbox for all of your messages from all the networks. Plus, it allows you to track check-ins at FourSquare and Gowalla.

POST UPDATES: It’s important to have content on your social media pages before you start adding friends and followers. When you try to find friends, they’re going to look at the page to see if they want to follow you. So you need to give them a reason to follow you first. Provide valuable information about the industry. Post pictures of your business or people enjoying your business. On YouTube, post videos of your business, customer experiences, and encourage customers to make their own. You can also ‘favorite’ other YouTube users’ videos and they will end up on your page. If you’re a small airport, posting cool aerobatic videos of the Patriots’ Jet Team is a possibility that would add value to those who ‘subscribe’ to your page. Also, share those videos on your other accounts such as Twitter, Facebook and even LinkedIn.

FIND FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: Twitter and Google+ are easiest. Search keywords to find followers. On Twitter,  If you’re a small airport, for example, search ‘pilot. You can also search ‘flying.’ Searching your town and surrounding areas as well to find key influencers, news outlets, bloggers and city officials. Also, search for large players in your market. For airports, try Boeing, Virgin America, United Airlines and Southwest Airlines. If they share your posts, you have the potential to reach thousands.  I suggest adding just a few people at a time.  On Google+, comment on one of their posts immediately. On Twitter, mention them in a post immediately. You can also comment on one of their posts or simply say that you look forward to following their great content.  If it’s a reporter or blogger, give them story ideas and leads that have nothing to do with your business. Get them to trust you. To find fans on Facebook, it’s best to start with real friends and family. You can also pay as little as $100 to have an ad for your Facebook page syndicate across the network for a designated period of time.

7. ENGAGE FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS:
Cory Colligan who used to be head of marketing for California Bouquet friended me on Facebook. When she asked to be my friend, she typed a personal message, saying how impressed she was with my work and how she’s enjoyed watching my work evolve. I couldn’t remember where I knew her from. Was it a television station, radio station, or was it from school? I wasn’t sure. I was too embarrassed to ask. And she seemed harmless. So, I confirmed her friend request and wrote her a note back thanking her for her feedback and saying that I look forward to connecting. She proceeded over the next few months to follow my videos and stories. She engaged in great debates and conversation with me as well as my friends. I knew just days after I added her that I didn’t know her personally. But I was so impressed with her and the relationship we’d developed over the months, that when I was traveling to her town, Fresno, I suggested we have lunch. When I arrived she had a full basket of goodies from her shop, including the best dark chocolate covered strawberries I’ve ever tasted, waiting for me. Since then, I have been a regular customer and am quick to share her products on my page.

So, your first priority should be building that relationship with people, not pitching your service or product.

Give them story ideas and leads that have nothing to do with your business.

On Facebook:
Share their links on your wall and/or comment on them. Wish them a Happy Birthday. Birthdays are big on Facebook. Always acknowledge them. Maybe even offer them a discount coupon for a birthday treat via Facebook.

On Twitter:
Retweet their stories and comment on them! Reply to each and every message. Keep the conversation going. Get them to trust you. For example, one of my favorite Twitter followers is @heykim. She is an amazing example of how to do it right. She has thousands of followers. But she has even more friends. She friended thousands of people little by little and engaged with them, retweeting their tweets, commenting on their tweets, checking in on topics those folks had tweeted on days before. Now, she’s constantly in conversation with folks like Morgan Fairchild, Alyssa Milano and Kathy Ireland. Alyssa Milano even just shared a linked @heykim posted tonight about how Twitter has transformed over the last five years. Who would’ve thought? She’s not famous. The key is she knows how to engage. And she never misses a #FF (Follow Friday). On Friday’s many people share with their friends, their favorite people to follow, encouraging others to follow them as well.

Google+: It’s a cross between Facebook and Twitter. It’s great because you can create circles of certain people you want to target for different reasons. It makes it easier to post certain promotions to one group vs. another.LinkedIn: The best way to engage with potential customers is by joining industry groups and starting group discussions.

Very important: Do not ask for help/favors from people until you’re friends or at least warm acquaintances with them. And the #1 way to become friends is to offer tons of help/favors without expecting anything in return. In the words of Michael Ellsberg, Forbes Contributor and Author of “Self-Educated Millionaires: The Seven Skills You’ll Never Learn in College, “Networking is a *long term* activity – it CANNOT be done for short-term results. Follow these basic concepts, and you’ll be ahead of 99.99% of the knuckleheads out there who are botching their networking attempts online!” Also, a great book to read is by Brian Solis, Principal at Altimeter Group, “Engage: The Complete Guide for Brands and Businesses to Build, Cultivate, and Measure Success in the New Web.”

8. STAY CURRENT: Get alerts sent to your phone when folks engage with you via your social networking sites – at least in the beginning – that way you respond quickly.

Please share your tips and tricks that will help small businesses sign-up and use social media. This certainly just scratches the surface. Please share the most creative marketing campaigns via social media in the comment section below.

Is Malaysia's history all about semantics? A lesson on Sept 16!

Tweet

ONE MAN'S MEAT By PHILIP GOLINGAI

The debate over when is Malaysia Day, Aug 31 or Sept 16, will continue as there are still differing views. But one thing is certain – there are Malaysians who are very passionate about our history. 
Image via Wikipedia

Last week I had my Zainal Kling moment. In case there are those who are clueless on the recent big issue concerning Malaysia, here’s a summary.

Datuk Prof Dr Zainal Kling of the National Professors Council stirred a historical controversy when he declared that Malaya was never a British colony but only a “protectorate”.

Last week, in this column, I wrote an article titled “A lesson on Sept 16” (see below).

It was a history lesson that the Federation of Malaya, not Malaysia, was created in 1957. And that Sabah and Sarawak did not join Malaysia – they formed the country together with the then Malaya and Singapore on Sept 16, 1963.

That was that, I thought. Until I received brickbats mostly from my fellow Sabahans. Though most comments were good-hearted ribbing, I felt as if I was a snake that bit its own tail.

There were jocular warnings that Sabah will use its special immigration power to bar me from entering my state.

There were also warnings that went for the jugular. I was accused of living in Kuala Lumpur too long.
Factually correct, as I’ve been living in Greater Kuala Lumpur for more than 25 years. But parochially incorrect as you can take Philip out of Sabah, but you can’t take Sabah out of Philip.

And it was as if I did not live through Parti Bersatu Sabah’s ‘Sabah for Sabahans’ political era.

Factually, there was nothing incorrect about my article. It is just that I neglected to mention something that is close to the heart of many Sabahans.

The first brickbat was from a reader who may or may not be a Sabahan or a Sarawakian.

Sonny68mak emailed: “If I recall correctly my history lessons, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore declared independence on Aug 31, 1963.

“They could not form Malaysia on that day because they were waiting for the official referendum results to be declared by the United Nations which was delayed by Jakarta and Manila’s protests at the UN,” wrote the reader, who could even be a Singaporean.

“So therefore the Borneo states independence was effective Aug 31, 1963. They formed Malaysia on Sept 16 as two-weeks-old independent sovereign states.”

“Please ask your Prof friend to recheck the facts so that the public is not confused.”

Fair comment, I thought. As if I was debating the issue, I would have taken a similar stand.

However, just to show him that I was not a hack, I replied: “Yes, I did check that fact with the Prof.”

“I told him for example, North Borneo gained independence on Aug 31, 1963 so it must have been an independent country,” I wrote.

“He said ‘no’ as even though the British granted independence to North Borneo on that day, it still administrated Sabah.”

As soon as I sent that email, I received an SMS from a Sabahan who is a veteran journalist. Though the timing of his SMS was coincidental, it was as if he sensed my “betrayal” in cyberspace.

The 40-something journalist SMS-ed: “I beg to differ. On Aug 31, 1963, the Union Jack came down and the Sabah flag went up. Sabah and Sarawak were independent nations until Sept 16, 1963. You’re selling propaganda. Ha ha”.

Immediately I called him. And after 30 minutes we agreed that history is about semantics. And, quoting Winston Churchill, “History is written by the victors”.

Then I received a call from a Penangite who is more Sabahan than me. Well, he has lived in Sabah for more than 20 years.

“We can buang negeri (kick you out of Sabah) you!” he said.

“Your article missed the point. You should have written that Sabah was a country before it formed Malaysia! And you should have written that 1/3 of Sabahans wanted to form Malaysia, 1/3 did not want to and 1/3 were undecided.”

“You’ve also missed the point that it was four equal nations (Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore) forming the Federation of Malaysia.”

“But, but, but,” I replied. “The point of my article is just to discuss Sept 16.” “No, you missed the point!” he said.

“Do you know that Sept 16 is also Lee Kuan Yew’s birthday?” I said, just to change the topic.

However sharp the comments I received throughout the day, it was delightful to know that 48 years after the fact, Sabahans are still passionate about their history.

Still, it made me feel as if I had sold Labuan to the Feds. Wonder where’s Zainal Kling? I need a hug. And some historical semantics.

A lesson on Sept 16

ONE MAN'S MEAT by PHILIP GOLINGAI

The federation of Malaya, not Malaysia, was created in 1957. Sabah and Sarawak did not join Malaysia – they formed the country together with the then Malaya and Singapore on Sept 16, 1963.

ON AUG 31, I spent my Mer-deka Day holiday tweeting history lessons. I found certain historical inaccuracies on my Twitter timeline as annoying as – to misquote a tweet from @ATM2U – seeing a straight man eat cupcake.

For example, one of Malaysia’s tycoons tweeted: “Independence day for Malaysia today.”

As a Sabahan, I just had to correct him even though he is worth a billion times more than me. So @PhilipGolingai admonished: “Sir, independence day for Malaya. Malaysia was formed on Sept 16, 1963.”

Then someone – not the billionaire – tweeted: “Why Singapore not celebrating Malaya’s Indepen-dence day?” History was definitely not her favourite subject.

I replied: “When Malaya dec-lared Merdeka, Singapore was under the British. On Sept 16, 1963, Singapore, Malaya, Sabah & Sarawak formed Malaysia.”

My colleague @ChiaYingTheStar (Lim Chia Ying) tweeted: “How can a tv station say Happy Birthday to M’sia on Aug 31?? My gosh, no wonder kids can never learn real facts?”

On Merdeka Day, Faridah Stephens, daughter of one of Malaysia’s founding fathers, Tun Fuad Stephens (Sabah Chief Minister), reminded her Peninsu­lar Malaysian friends of our country’s history.

“(Some of) my friends wished Happy 54th Birthday Malaysia. They always say Malaysia. But it is not Malaysia’s independence but Malaya’s,” she lamented.

On Facebook, Faridah watched a video clip of Negaraku sung in Chinese. The rendition was “beautiful” but the ending of the video was a “dampener”.

“Alamak, I thought, when I saw ‘Happy 54th Birthday Malaysia’ at the end,” she said.

How did her friends’ respond to her reminder?  “Some people went quiet,” she said, laughing heartily.
      
Some Malaysians mistake Aug 31 for Malaysia’s birthday, according to Faridah, because “we tend to be West (Peninsular) Malaysia-centric”.

“Many forget that Malaysia did not exist until 1963. Malaysia was not created in 1957. Sabah and Sarawak did not join Malaysia, they formed the country,” she said, adding that “I’m just stating a historical fact.”

To get my historical facts right, I called my old classmate, then a history buff, at La Salle secondary school in Tanjung Aru, Sabah.

“Why are there Malaysians who confuse Hari Merdeka as Malay-sia’s birthday?” I asked Danny Wong Tze Ken, a history professor in Universiti Malaya.

Wong lectured me on the birth of Malaysia. Here’s a summary: On Aug 31, 1957, the Federation of Malaya was established. It was expanded into the Federation of Malaysia on Sept 16, 1963. The country became larger with the inclusion of Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah. And in 1965, Singapore left.

“If you think of the day for independence for Malaysia, then Sept 16, is logical for Sabahans and Sarawakians as that was when both states achieved independence, in 1963. But for the people of Peninsular Malaysia clearly it was Aug 31, 1957, as that was when Tunku Abdul Rahman declared Merdeka,” Wong ex-plained.

“So when is Malaysia’s birthday?” I asked.

“The best answer is to take the case of the United States. Their independence day is July 4, 1776, even though at that time there were only 13 colonies. Although the rest of the United States was incorporated only later, all the 50 states observe July 4 as Indepen-dence Day,” he said.

“So when is Malaysia’s birthday?” I asked again.

“As a newly formed Federation of Malaysia the birthday of Malaysia will be Sept 16 whereas the Independence Day of the country remains on Aug 31,” he said.

Wong said over the years, Sept 16 was no longer celebrated as Malaysia Day.

“In Sabah it was celebrated as the TYT’s (Governor’s) birthday. And Sabahans wondered why that day was then celebrated as the TYT’s birthday and not as Malaysia Day,” he added.

“It was only last year that Sept 16 was declared a public holiday to commemorate the formation of Malaysia.,” the historian said.

So, on Friday, if you are on Twitter, don’t forget to tweet “Happy 48th Birthday Malaysia!”

Related posts:

The decline of the West

Malaysia's history, sovereignty violated, semantics need truly national!

British Massacre - Batang Kali Victims win UK court scrutiny 

PAS Deputy President, Mat Sabu, In the spotlight for wrong reason?

Malaysia Day: Let’s celebrate Sept 16 for its significance!

Malaya, look east to boost Malaysian racial unity!    

Malaysia's future: A time for Malay renewal ! 

Malaysia still in pursuit of full independence  
The true meaning of independence 
Reviving our winning ways    

Winds of change blowing in Malaysia; Dawn of a new era?

Tweet

Winds of change blowing

BEHIND THE HEADLINES  By BUNN NAGARA

THE relief that greeted the Prime Minister’s announcement that the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960 and other repressive laws would be abolished was difficult to define for several reasons.

First, nobody expected Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to have gone so far in throwing off decades of unjust laws. When it happened, it took time to sink in, after more than a generation of having to endure those laws.
Image by KamalSelle via Flickr
Second, mention of two new laws to replace the ISA tempered the plaudits from critical observers. Would that mean returning to square one through a bait-and-switch?

Third, those who had banked on the Government retaining the ISA in some revised form were caught unawares. Regardless of their own views of it, they insisted there would be little change, seeking to vindicate themselves and “save face”.

All these have been efforts to adjust to a new national reality post-ISA. A fourth reaction comes from political opportunism: robbed of their thunder, the Opposition tried to diminish the significance of the Government’s move.

To others, however, the state’s abandonment of these repressive laws is both historic and definitive.
Of all the Governments that had presided over the ISA through the decades, Prime Minister Najib’s has been the one bold enough to do the decent thing of abolishing it.

It is not because this is possible only now since Malaysia no longer needs the ISA, because the country has not needed it for a long time already. Besides, some close to the seat of power still insist such preventive detention laws are needed.

It is untypical of any government to renounce a sweeping law that gives unparalleled powers to it. Dumping the ISA not only took guts, it showed a rare selflessness that placed actual national interest above perceived (by some) national security interest.

Doubts over the two new laws to replace the ISA may be natural but unwarranted. Both laws would relate to Article 149 of the Federal Constitution, which would shift more responsibility on preventive action from the Cabinet to Parliament, with emphasis on any use of these laws against a “substantial body of persons” rather than isolated individuals.

Malaysian parliamentarians have grown more alienated from the ISA than ever, even before the 2008 general election that made an unprecedented number of Opposition candidates MPs. Also, the aversion to draconian laws among Barisan Nasional MPs is far greater than any pro-ISA sentiment among Pakatan Rakyat MPs.

There is therefore no going back to anything like the ISA now. Any return to the spirit, if not the letter, of the ISA can only backfire badly on the Government and discredit it politically.

Until recently, there was the prospect of merely tweaking the ISA. But it soon dawned that simply twiddling the dials of a bad law would not make it good.

The toughest part of the journey towards abolishing the ISA is over. That was not in Parliament, the Opposition or the public, but in places closer to the Government, including some governmental agencies and NGOs.

Activists tempting ISA arrests may want credit for piling on the pressure until its final annulment. However, the opposite is more likely: raucous activism helped to make the ISA seem useful, even indispensable, while also weakening arguments for its abolition.

The authoritarian mentality sees any threat or challenge to the status quo as grounds for using greater force, not less. And such a mindset has hitherto had its hold on the levers of power such as the ISA.

For now, the case remains to be made as to why the two proposed laws are needed, what they should entail, and how their operation can respect civil liberties. Transparency would help public support for them, or at least mitigate any animosity.

The scheduled abolition of the ISA and other repressive laws has meant raised expectations of a new era of civil liberties. Law enforcement and maintenance of public order would then depend more on informed consent than submission or capitulation.

The implications place the ball in the court of key national institutions: Parliament, the judiciary and the police. They need to respond to signal assent, since they stand to benefit.

Parliament should exercise its lawful prerogatives to the fullest extent the political transformation affords. This begins and ends with every parliamentarian acting in his or her legitimate capacity.

The judiciary should assert its constitutional role by acting vigorously in concert with other major national institutions. It should no longer shy from a judicious activism that serves the national interests.

The police stand to gain the most from this push to enhance investigative norms, focus on criminal intent, seek admissible evidence and develop standard operating procedures instead of relying on non-contestable shortcuts like the ISA. Moving away from easy catch-all measures like ISA arrests and detentions can also improve the work ethic and public image of the force.

This aspect of the political transformation is an assurance that Malaysia’s development is also political and social, not just economic. It enables the country to move ahead of others in the region that may be more developed only economically.

For Malaysia itself, it is a large step towards Vision 2020, most of whose nine development objectives are not economic but political and social. No nation aiming to be fully developed can neglect them.

The small-minded may scoff at the transformation Najib announced on Friday. And only the mean-spirited would refuse to give credit for the new direction.

To say all this is mere election fluff ignores the fact that it is neither fluff nor as shortlived as an election campaign. To insist it is only a political move forgets that dismissing it is just as political.

Besides, if the ISA had been initiated and executed for political reasons, it should not be unnatural for its annulment to be so as well.

Dawn of a new era

ON THE BEAT By WONG CHUN WAI

Najib deserves credit for his move to reform some of the country’s most unpopular laws.

IT was the best gift for Malaysians on a special day. It is also a reminder that the nation has grown up and that we should move forward, leaving our baggage behind.

In a nutshell, the Prime Minister has stepped out of the shadows of his predecessors. It is a major step into the future. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak couldn’t have chosen a better day to make the announcement to do away with some of the country’s most unpopular laws.

It surely has not been easy. When bits of news filtered out about his Malaysia Day speech, there were doubts as to how far he would go.

Those who were privy to inner-circle discussions on how the speech would be crafted crossed their fingers and hoped there would be no last minute changes.

After all, as a politician, the Prime Minister has to balance the needs of the conservatives, right wingers and liberals within his party and also the Barisan Nasional coalition.

The PM understands fully how much the world has changed. The global political landscape has been altered drastically and the lessons to learn are that if leaders cannot change, the people will change them. There is plenty to learn from history, some very recent too.

The more conservative in Umno are still grappling with the changes, preferring to hold on to something which they are familiar and comfortable with. They are trying hard to understand where Najib is taking Malaysia to.

The younger ones, while looking apprehensively at the lack of changes in Umno, have tried hard to push, worried that the country’s ruling party could be losing its connection with the Twitter and Facebook generation. It’s not wrong to say that the PM has been watching, listening and feeling it all over the last three years.

On Aug 28, this scribe wrote that Najib’s call for greater democratic space, including doing away with censorship laws and setting up a Parliamentary Select Committee to review electoral laws, was just a prelude to his address on Sept 16.

I wrote that “it is almost certain that he will expand on democratic reforms with an outline of the changes he wants to implement in Malaysia. It won’t be promises but changes that would be set out in black and white.

“The fresh democratic reforms will surprise even his critics, particularly those who are pushing for a greater civil society.

“In short, the new democracy that he wants to see would recognise the calls by Malaysians. It is the Middle Malaysia that he wants to address. He will say that yes, he hears these voices.”

But even this writer was surprised at how far he was prepared to push. I dared not commit myself to put into words that he would repeal the Internal Security Act, but Najib has proven his doubters and critics wrong. He proved that he walked the talk.

As expected, everyone is trying to claim credit for the changes. The Opposition, still reeling from the shock, has said these would not have happened without their pressure and protests.

Then there are the usual cynics.

I think the point is this: It does not matter who is right, but what is right. It does not matter who did it, so long as the right thing gets done. Malaysians cannot be partisan on issues that affect us all.

Najib deserves credit for having the courage to take the bold steps. His New Democracy thrust is certain to continue.

The ISA will be repealed, no one should even doubt it anymore. An Anti-Terrorism Act – specifically for terrorists and not for political opponents, as in Britain and the United States – is likely to take over.

The Police Act would be redefined and possibly the right to assemble, which could be made clearer by designating places, time and how gatherings should be done.

An example to look at is Hong Kong, where night protests are directed to specific roads that would have little impact on businesses. Even then, gatherings are allowed on only one side of the road so that traffic can continue to flow on the other side.

In New York, there is a designated spot not far from the United Nations building for protest gatherings. A spot could be set up not far from the Parliament for similar purposes.

As in football matches in Britain, where police resources are used to safeguard public safety, organisers of protest gatherings in stadiums could be asked to put up deposits for police security and possible damages.

But the Printing Presses and Publications Act is still a thorn on the side for the media. Najib has taken the first step to abolishing this much hated law by allowing a one-off permit without the requirement for annual renewal. The Government must commit itself to a total abolishment, however.

An independent media council to be run by editors will finally be formed after 54 years of independence, and repealing the law would certainly be on the agenda of journalists. After all, no one needs a permit to start a blog or an online news portal, so why impose a permit for print?

The reforms have left a feel-good feeling but the Prime Minister has to follow up with an equally impactful Budget speech. All these reforms are good but they won’t put food on our tables.

Ordinary Malaysians are worried about the rising cost of living and middle income Malaysians are hit the most by monthly tax deductions.

In the rural areas of Sabah and Sarawak, where food and fuel need to be transported into the interior, the costs are even more enormous.

Malaysians want to hear how the Government intends to help them face the economic uncertainties, the spiralling cost of food and how to be confident about the future.

Malaysians are not expecting their Government to adopt a populist approach of promising the sun and the moon, which will bankrupt the nation. But they want the Government to be equally responsible in sharing the burden by cutting out excessive financial waste and leaks.

Najib’s challenge would be to balance the budget in the face of a slowing economy and at the same time appease the people ahead of a general election.

The Budget Speech is on Oct 7. Can Malaysians expect the Big Day to be soon after the PM has announced his economic plans for the country?

Related posts:
Towards a brave new Malaysia, keep lobbying and pushing for change!
Changes in Malaysia's horizon; Keep the momentum up!

Up Close and Personal with Steve Forbes

Tweet

By TEE LIN SAY and JOHN LOH starbiz@thestar.com.my

BORN: July 18, 1947
MARITAL STATUS: Married with 5 daughters.
Just celebrated his 40 th anniversary
HIGHEST QUALIFICATION: B.A in History from
Princet on in 1970
CAREER: Editor-In-chief of Forbes media,
president and CEO of Forbes Inc
FAVOURITE FOOD: Lamb chop, french fries
and cheese burgers. All the things that are bad!
FAVOURITE PLACE: Bicycle riding and
collecting letters and original manuscripts from
Winston Churchill, among others.
RELIGION: Presbyterian
POLITICAL PARTY: Republican

STEVE Forbes probably knows of the familiar Chinese saying that wealth does not pass three generations. Whether he believes it or not, given the onslaught traditional media have been facing in recent years, one wonders if that ominous saying has more than a tinge of truth to it.

He has grounds to be worried, though. The Forbes family business is now into its third generation. The publishing business was started by B.C. Forbes who then handed it over to his son Malcom Forbes and is currently under the stewardship of Steve Forbes.

Judging by the statistics, Forbes is taking on the proverb head on.

The company's flagship publication, Forbes, is the United States' leading business magazine with a circulation of more than 900,000. Forbes, Forbes Asia and the company's licensee editions together reach a worldwide audience of more than six million readers. The circulation of Forbes' international editions is 590,500.

“The tools have changed tremendously because of the Web. However, the purpose remains the same. We were the early embracers of the Web, and we did not confuse purpose and method. That is why in the United States there is no magazine that has done as well as ours on the Web,” said Forbes.

“It is because of this that we are able to put out more content. Ninety-eight per cent of our content doesn't appear in our magazine. Our early embrace of the Web has resulted in us having 20 million unique visitors a month and the number is growing in terms of usage. Our affiliated sites receive five million to six million visitors,” says Forbes.



Apart from having its own staff of journalists, Forbes also has 800 contributors for its website chosen by its channel contributors.

“No one is doing it on a scale as we are. The bottom line is, we believe the entrepreneurial class is growing around the world. That's what people want to know. The Web has enabled us to do things with more versatility and flexibility,” says Forbes.

On Money

Though born into money in Morristown, New Jersey, Forbes displayed from an early age that ink did run through his veins as he showed an aptitude to run a publishing business.

Graduated cum laude in 1966 from Brooks School, Massachusetts, Forbes, while studying at Princeton, founded his first magazine, Business Today, with two other students. Business Today is currently the largest student-run magazine in the world.

When asked what he loves more journalism or business and investing Forbes simply says he loves both but is quick to note that money is not everything.

“It is an effort for reward. It is a means of doing transactions. It is a facilitator and gives us the ability to invest for the future. Money puts things in a proper perspective,” he muses.

His first memory of money was as a small boy who never had enough allowance for toys and candies. Forbes had to complete his chores to earn money.

Image via Wikipedia

“So, my effort for reward was established at a fairly young age. To get money, you have to meet the needs and wants of other people. Sometimes you have to give them things they didn't know they wanted. The key thing is creativity. Money doesn't just come to you,” he says.

He believes, though, that people have to invest. That is key.

“If you look around the world today, there are great equity opportunities. It is precisely in terrible times like these that you can get enormous bargains.”

He adds that the time to get into the market is when everyone is getting out. “You do it when the clouds and storms are there. When the storm is gone, everyone will see what you saw,” says Forbes.

He cites the period between the late 1970s and the early 1980s when the global economy was in a troubled state. It started to sputter and then recovered in the late eighties. Between the 1990s and and the early part of the 21st century, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had grown 15-fold.

“The wealth of the world has increased. We've had great advances in technology and what's holding us back is the convulsions and distortions in the US dollar. I think when we get a new president, that will change. If we can get through the next one-and-a-half years, I think reforms will be made and better times are coming,” he said.

On Europe's debt problems, Forbes says Europe's woes will persist in the short term especially if the Europeans continue with their “incompetencies in handling the crisis”.

“Europe should be doing what we did in the United States in 2008. They should be having their own Troubled Asset Relieve Programme. If necessary, pump capital into banks. That is why they bail out countries like Greece, not because Greece is important, but because their banks are holding Greek papers and bonds. Hence, Europe has to focus on shoring up its capital,” he said.

He believes though that the axe would have to fall on some of Europe's banks and that Europe needs to have a programme where it does not let the good banks go down with the bad.

“Europe has to restructure its debts, instead of pretending Greece can pay those loans. They cannot. Restructure the debts. Don't just focus on austerity. You also focus on growth to make sure the economy grows again. Greece is now increasing taxes, which is the dumbest thing you could do. They should reform tax code, put in the flat tax. They should also make it easier to set up businesses in Greece,” he argues.

Principles in life

Forbes says an important thing in life is to have an ability to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, and he has three “F” principles faith, family and friends to maintain an everyday balance.

“The best thing was to have parents who already owned a successful business. My father used to say that nepotism doesn't matter as long as you keep it within the family!” Forbes says with a laugh.

“In my workplace, I am blessed to be in an area where I have always wanted to be in. It must be in the genes. When I was in school, I turned out newsheets for my classmates. I also graded my teachers. I thought, if they can give me grades, why can't I grade them too? That only lasted once!” he jokes.

Forbes likes riding his bicycle and has done trips to various parts of the world with groups of people. He likes London, Paris and various places in Italy. In Asia, he likes the coastal cities in China and some in the interior as he can feel the growth and energy there. He is amazed by what Singapore has done.

His hobbies include collecting old letters and manuscripts of noteworthy individuals Sir Winston Churchill and the writings of obscure British writer John Goldsworthy.

For young entrepreneurs, Forbes has one advice: focus on value adding. The focus should be on providing something people want, or did not know they wanted before.

“You can find it even in the most common areas. Take Starbucks coffee, for instance. Everyone drinks coffee. Anyone can make it and grow it. They still serve it for free on the airlines and yet, how did Starbucks do so well? They did it differently, serving up the Viennese coffee experience,” explains Forbes.

On his political ideologies

Forbes has no qualms voicing his disapproval of US President Barack Obama. Forbes would like to see a new president who can deliver true economic growth and a stable dollar. He says the problem of the weak dollar, which started under George W. Bush, was compounded by Obama.

“We should be in a recovery by now, but instead we are like an automobile going at 10km per hour. We should be going at 120kph,” says Forbes.

Some of Obama's measures that he doesn't agree with include the binge spending and the healthcare bill.

“The healthcare bill is a disaster, which will be repealed in 2013 when the new president comes in. Obama's massive regulations are crushing the banks. And his regulations on energy he is very anti-coal, very anti everything except for windmills, which is a very medieval technology. He has not reformed the tax codes and wants to raise taxes,” says Forbes.

On Obama's recent job stimulus package, Forbes says this is spending money the United States does not have.

“Governments do not create jobs. Entrepreneurs do. He does not understand that,” says Forbes.

For his pick for president, Forbes is leaning towards Republican Governor Rick Perry. He likes Perry's record as Governor of Texas and his success in creating jobs.

“He did not raise taxes, kept the budget under control and has also put in reforms,” says Forbes.

In 1996 and 2000, Forbes campaigned vigorously for the Republican nomination for the presidency.

On why he ran twice as a presidential candidate, Forbes felt there was a vacuum in the field of candidates as more opportunities should be given the people. And his experience from that? “Its more fun to win than to lose!”

Over the next five to 10 years, Forbes hopes to be doing more of what he is doing today, which is trying to influence positive policies to enable his country and the world to grow.