If Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had been anything but the smoothly abrasive politician that he is, he would have been a beguiling PR operative, a super salesman who could, with a zealot’s glint in his eyes with a winning smile, convince sceptical geeks that the much-maligned Microsoft Windows Vista is the best operating system to boot, bring the Palestinians and the Israelis to the negotiating table and talk meaningful peace, and, yes, sell to the Eskimos ice they have freely in abundance on top of the freezers they don’t really need. That’s how dexterous Anwar’s persuasive powers are.

Who but him could have brought the DAP and Pas - two parties who regard each other as short of a pestilence - to the political table, cajoling, then convincing them to be nice to each other, at least until their unholy troika with Parti Keadilan Rakyat gels into a loose alliance strong enough to maul the Barisan Nasional hegemony on March 8 but not strong enough to topple the durable coalition.

If you have trouble articulating Anwar’s claims, boasts and braggadocio, you can’t fault his charismatic role as the Great Unifier of warring parties. If you have trouble believing his claims of forming a new Federal Government after he ignored a handful of broken deadlines, you can’t help but grudgingly admire the way he spins his mealy-mouthed deflections into a new assumption of authority.

But demagogues like him are forced to flaunt sentiments, emotions and words in a limited window of opportunity. Sooner or later, like a poker player playing with nothing but a weak hand, he has to show his cards and prove that he has the numbers to form a Federal Government with a simple majority, or fold. For now, he is carelessly upping the ante, forcing the Government to be on the defensive, or “bluffing” his way with ease, if you are less charitable in characterising his ambulations to power.

On Sept 16, the anniversary of Malaysia Day determined by Anwar as the day he rules the roost, he baulked at exposing the MPs who had jumped ship, on the excuse that disclosure would compel the Barisan to “buy back” the defecting MPs. Today at the Dewan Rakyat was another of Anwar’s high testosterone days, the highly anticipated moment he should have unfolded his cards and tell the House that he has the 30-odd MPs wooed from the other side. Instead, there was no motion of no-confidence against the Prime Minister but a new date for his legal power grab - early December when Muslims celebrate the Hari Raya Haji.
It would appear that Anwar had been selling everyone Kool-Aid but not everyone is drinking. Instead of making a foray inside the House if one was to stick to his shrill pronouncements, Anwar deftly deflected the issue at hand to the tanking global economy and how the new Finance Minister must overhaul Budget 2009, which he claims had been gravely outdated by the titanic sinking of mega-financial houses in the United States and Europe and the panic spiralling of major international bourses.

“Even Singapore, with a more robust economy, has fallen into a recession while Malaysia’s government remains in denial with claims that its economy is strong,” Anwar came out strongly in his classic deflective style while debating Budget 2009. “The government would be hard pressed to generate funds to make the budget work. They are not only dreaming but sleeping in broad daylight.”

Anwar still slalomed his way into picking apart some key issues of Budget 2009 - crude and palm oil earnings are sliding because of global commodities price drops while he pointed out demand for goods in the US and Europe will fall and hurt Malaysian exports. “Enough of this rot,” he thundered. “If the new Finance Minister is truly responsible, he must table a new budget.”

Tossing aside the motion of no-confidence against the PM as if it was out-of-fashion bell-bottoms in the 1990s, Anwar nonchalantly announced that the Pakatan Rakyat’s focus now was for now on the Budget, calling for an adjournment of the budget debate while the Finance Minister revises the facts and data.

Both Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Datuk Seri Najib Razak were noticeably absent in the House while Anwar held everyone in rapt attention. Anwar also could not resist taking a potshot at the DPM for being absent, throwing insinuations that the Najib was busy elsewhere.

Further deflecting his earlier pledge to overthrow the Barisan Government, he now claims that his Pakatan Rakyat can produce an improved budget by wooing billions in foreign investment while promising to slash multi-billion-dollar projects to ease the budget deficit.

But outside the House, Abdullah rebutted Anwar’s contention, maintaining that the Malaysian banking system is not facing a liquidity crunch. “Malaysia is not going into recession now. We have very strong economic fundamentals. And we have very strong reserves. Our trade surplus is still strong, our savings are also very high,” Abdullah insisted at a press conference. “We have a currency that today is stable. Our banking system is still strong.”

Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timor), who sat besides Anwar at the press conference, also demanded the Budget debate adjournment until the Finance Minister was available, beseeching that the government may lose credibility while Malaysia becomes a laughing stock. He admonished the Government for not deploying a single minister to hear the Anwar’s speech. “This is a headless Government,” he vented.

Au contraire. International Trade and Industries Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, now the front runner to become the next Deputy prime Minister, dismissed Anwar’s demand for a Budget 2009 overhaul. “It is still relevant. Even if the scenario changes, we don’t have to overhaul the budget. Tabling a new budget has never happened in our history,” he said. “The Opposition can still offer criticism and suggestions during the debate.”

Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shahrir Samad was also on the same wavelength as Muhyiddin when he asseverated that the revenue and expenditure projections in Budget 2009 were still applicable. “When it was tabled, the government took into account the likelihood of a challenging period,” he posited.

The uncertain and exasperating socio-political situation continues as the Anwar ennui drags. Malaysians of the wary disposition will wonder if the early December deadline is yet another of Anwar’s bright sales pitch, as he desperately ploughs the field for MPs, any MP, who is willing to sell their BN soul for a cramp place in the PR sun.

New Straits Times

WASHINGTON : John McCain is going all-in on the biggest bet of a political career marked by instinctive gambles, seeking new life for his White House bid in the political convulsions set off by the finance crisis.

Citing the bravado of an “old navy pilot,” the Republican plunged into efforts to frame a huge bailout for teetering Wall Street, injecting volatile presidential politics into an already delicate congressional process.

By early Friday McCain’s move had left the day’s crucial first presidential debate against Democrat Barack Obama in limbo and brought the presidential race to a standstill, just 40 days before election day.

Freezing the election campaign, reducing it to a bitter partisan fight and running out the clock all clearly help McCain, with Obama apparently pulling away as voters warmed to his handling of the crisis.

But some observers have suggested McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign and head to Washington betrayed desperation.

It was not the first time that a long-odds McCain bet has shifted the dynamic of the race.

The Arizona senator limited Obama’s polling bounce and squashed talk of the spectacular Democratic convention finale with his shock selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate four weeks ago.

McCain hopes to emerge from this political power play with credit for driving the 700-billion-dollar (479-billion-euro) bailout into law, to be seen as bringing rival factions together and burnishing his credentials as a maverick and reformer.

But the downside risk is also huge; if McCain is blamed for scuppering a deal and the stock markets tank, taking the life savings of Americans with them, his presidential bid may be doomed.

Democrats are already trying to portray McCain as a rash gambler unfit for the highest office. Senator Barbara Boxer said he was clearly “under stress,” while Senator Claire McCaskill warned he was “erratic.”

Republican consultant Scott Reed rejected the descriptions and insisted McCain has remained consistent.

“McCain isn’t doing anything than he hasn’t always done — he needed a game changer to get out of the shadow cast by being a Republican in an economic crisis,” Reed said in US publication Politico.

President George W. Bush’s administration led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke failed late Thursday night to close a gap over the bailout with conservative Republicans in Congress.

The holdouts oppose throwing hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money into a big government buyout of the debt-crippled finance industry — what they see as a reward for bad Wall Street behaviour.

It is uncertain whether McCain has aligned himself with the group, as Democrats said, or was actively trying to win them over as his campaign maintains.

“The problem right now is that any rescue package has to pass by a majority vote,” said McCain senior campaign strategist Steve Schmidt.

“There is not yet a majority of Democrats and Republicans who are willing to vote yes for anything.”

Obama, who sat a few feet away from McCain in an unprecedented White House meeting called by Bush on the crisis, blamed McCain’s parachute into Washington for wrecking a deal Democrats had announced had been struck hours earlier.

“Sometimes if you inject presidential politics into some delicate negotiations, it’s not necessarily constructive,” the Democrat told NBC News.

“It’s amazing how much people can get done when folks aren’t worried about taking the credit or passing the blame.”

Later, Obama tried to further position himself as the face of bipartisan politics.

“We can not risk an economic catastrophe,” he said in a statement. “This is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem — this is an American problem. Now, we must find an American solution.”

In this intense game of political poker, McCain faced another gamble on Friday. Should he show up at the debate in Mississippi, or stick to his position that the crisis was too dire for the show to go on?

Obama is adamant that he will show up for the debate, so a decision by McCain to stay away would be a spectacular gamble as it is tough to calculate voter response to such a move.

McCain is no stranger to the political high-wire act.

He backed the idea of pouring more troops into Iraq, when almost everyone else in Washington was looking for a way get them out.

But he also backed comprehensive immigration reform last year, and the bill’s failure left him politically embarrassed and damaged him with Republican conservatives.

- AFP /ls

Channel News Asia

TOO many years ago, over many misspent months in the southwest of England, there were four of us who would meet every week for a game of contract bridge.

The three people that I played with every Friday night were complete strangers. We had, all of us, met by means of an imaginary handbill hastily stapled to the walls of a virtual notice board, located in some dreary and dusty corner of the Student’s Union website that advertised for bridge companions. In a world where everyone else played poker (of the Texas Hold ‘Em variety) neither of us had much hope of finding many compatriots. We did however find each other.

There was very little conversation during our long and arduous sessions. We would come, we would play our tricks, and we would leave. We knew just enough about each other to be workable partners in the game. We quite enjoyed the anonymity.

One evening, as we were all preparing to leave, we noticed that one of our group, an aspiring magician, had taken a small object from his pocket and was playing with it in his hands.

Curious, we asked him what it was. He told us, that it was a “toad stone”. He explained that such stones were incredibly rare and were thought to ward off evils and provide those who carried it with protection. They were believed to bring good luck and, throughout history, have helped many a card player.
He told us that he could prove it. He asked us: “How often do you deal a singleton?” (A singleton is a card that is the only one of its suit in a particular hand. In bridge, that would be the only card of its suit in a hand of 13. Most bridge players are convinced that singletons are comparatively rare. And so were we.)

We gave him our opinions, and he offered to bet, that with the aid of his toad stone, he would deal at least one hand with a singleton. He proceeded to place the stone on the back of the deck and then shuffled it several times, carefully making sure the stone had come into contact with all the cards.

He then returned the stone to his pocket and handed the deck to me. He told me to deal four hands face up, and then another, and another, and another after that. I kept going, and the results, I can tell you, were astounding, as the singletons kept coming up.

We were floored. We were duped. Little did we know, that statistically speaking, every five out of six deals would result in a singleton. If all he did was demonstrate the statistical, then his only achievement would have been to prove us wrong of our initial assumptions. Instead, our magician friend, with his artful misdirections, had very cleverly taken advantage of our collective ignorance. And he had done it very well.

He had drawn us to him, making us initiate the conversation. He didn’t employ any fancy shuffles or flourishes. He made it look easy and smooth. He kept his voice honest and upbeat. His words were well paced. He looked us in the eye at all times, occasionally shrugging his shoulders, like nothing really mattered. His arms were always almost fully extended. Everything was open and everything was completely fair. Because to get someone to believe you, or at least come close, you’ll need to convincingly rid them of all suspicion.

He smiled a lot.

And when he was done, channelling Blanche DuBois, he exclaimed loudly: “I don’t want realism. I want magic! Yes, yes, magic. I try to give that to people. I do misrepresent things. I don’t tell truths. I tell what ought to be truth.”

His illusion employed absolutely no trickery whatsoever. His only deception was to disguise the fact that there was no trickery. He did nothing more deceptive than speak convincingly. And with that, the very same stone, which had absolutely no effect on the cards, had an acute affect on our minds. He created meaning where there was none. And from that meaning, he created drama. And we believed him.

Because the greatest illusions aren’t those that deceive you, but those that convince you otherwise. It isn’t a matter of unquestioning belief, but rather the suspension of disbelief. The audience doesn’t really believe the magic to be real, they merely fail to disbelieve it.

As complicated as it is to pull a rabbit out of a hat, or saw a woman in half, or make a dove disappear and reappear at will, it is so much harder to convince your audience that what you’re doing is real. All that matters is what your audience sees, and hears, and thinks.

Great magic is all psychology. Great magic doesn’t take place on a stage but in our minds.

Great magic is a lot like politics. Because what happens on its stage is of very little consequence. Its only importance lies in how it affects the thinking of those watching.

It is the 16th of September, 2008. And we do not know what, if anything, will happen. We do not know what, if anything, is going on. All we’re doing is watching closely.

New Straits Times