Does the 100-Days matter?

When  you are campaigning, you need to make your message clear and simple for everyone to understand. Creating a 100-Day Manifesto is a one good way to do that. It sets out clearly and simply what you want to achieve for the rakyat if they vote you into power, and it sets a time limit for those things to be achieved.

Why 100 days and not 99 days or 101 days or 75 days or 125 days etc, etc? Why 100? Because it's a nice round figure that sounds catchy and easy for any voter to grasp.

If you are a political watcher of any sort, you will know that politicians will make promises that they cannot keep. In some cases, this means promises delayed. In other cases, it means promises unfulfilled. That's true of politicians overseas and it's true here too. It's to be expected. And so it is with the Pakatan 100-Day Manifesto.

What's important is to see which promises are not being implemented and what is the reason for its delay or non-implementation.

Let's take the case of GST. Pakatan had campaigned heavily on removing GST should it come to power. This message resonated strongly with voters, many of whom felt the pinch because of the 6% tax.

Getting rid of the GST is one promise Pakatan cannot fail to do. It is an absolute must-do. And that is why even though there were some early indications that it might take some time to actually dismantle it, Dr M ordered that GST be effectively removed immediately by bringing the GST rate down to 0%.

Technically bringing it down to 0% is not the same as dismantling it. But the practical effect of it on consumers is the same as it being abolished. So the people are happy. Pakatan knew it absolutely must get rid of GST and it found a way to effectively do so. Immediately.

Another thing that Pakatan needed to do immediately was to investigate scandals, in particular the 1MDB fiasco. In the manifesto it said it would set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into such scandals. So far no RCI has been set up yet but does it really matter? Does anyone seriously think that investigations into 1MDB-related crimes are not being taken seriously or given enough attention. Yes, technically you are not exactly fulfilling the manifesto if you don't set up an RCI (as stated in the manifesto) but what the rakyat wanted is for the culprits behind these scandals be brought to justice. And that is ongoing. Nobody's going to complain about this one.

Something that is being delayed is the promise to standardize minimum wages across the country. That probably won't happen within 100 days. Is it good to have standardized minimum wages? Yes. Will Pakatan eventually implement it? There's no reason to doubt that. But it probably won't happen exactly within 100 days. Whether it takes 101 days or 110 days or 150 days or more, as long as there is a genuine commitment to see it through within a reasonable amount of time (not 1000 days!) I think the rakyat will forgive the delay.

And the same goes for the rest of the manifesto. The question is: Will there be a walk back of the promises. So far there's no indication that Pakatan plans to renege on any of the promises. But even if it were to do so on one or two items, it's important to look at whatever reasons they give for it and to assess whether it's a reasonable and acceptable argument. Perhaps there's some new developments that make it impossible to fulfill certain promises. Maybe there are better alternatives than what was promised. Or maybe it's a totally flimsy or ridiculous reason that they offer. We need to assess each situation and decide whether we feel Pakatan has been the right choice.

The alternative is of course to go back to BN or whatever remains of BN. Or simply to UMNO. Or PAS. Does anybody want that?

Khairy's Hail Mary pass

Smooth operator

In American football, a Hail Mary pass is a very long throw by the quarterback, often made in desperation when there are no other viable options left.

Khairy Jamaluddin has bet on the wrong horse twice. First he bet that his father-in-law Pak Lah could coast his way through several terms as prime minister, thus paving the way for KJ to eventually be in succession for that role himself. That plan crashed and burned when Pak Lah got unceremoniously dumped by his own party after just one term. 

This was disastrous for KJ. The party was now run by the very guy who led the charge to remove Pak Lah. And Najib deeply distrusted KJ (for obvious reasons). He wasn't even made a minister despite being UMNO Youth head. But KJ decided to play the long game and did everything in his power to assuage Najib's distrust of him. In time, Najib would come to trust him and make him a minister.

When the 1MDB scandal erupted KJ could have spoken truth to power like Muhyiddin and Shafie Apdal did. Instead, he bet on the wrong horse again and defended Najib.

Now, you can interpret that in one of two ways. One viewpoint is that KJ was a fool who actually believed that there was nothing amiss about 1MDB and that everything was hunky dory. The other viewpoint is that he is a man with no principles and will do what is necessary to stay in the good graces of his boss. Which one of these two is more likely to be the case?

KJ is an Oxford educated dude. Presumably, he is capable of reading and understanding the Wall Street Journal's (or the New York Times' or Malaysiakini's) account of what's going on with 1MDB . If the rest of us non-Oxford grads can smell something fishy with 1MDB, I'm sure KJ could too. This leaves us with the other viewpoint, which is that he is a power-hungry guy with no principles.

So, what's worse, an idiot or a guy with no principles? Well, both are terrible. Which is what KJ is.

Make no mistake, KJ is one of those guys who feels it's his destiny to become PM of this country. I'm sure deep in his heart, despite the extremely long odds, he still thinks that's a possibility. So, what can he do now that he's in the opposition, in a party that everyone's abandoned (except for MIC and MCA) and doesn't even hold any position in his own party?

He's got no good options so here's his Hail Mary pass:

KJ knows the road to PM-ship in his lifetime will not be through BN (which is all but dead) nor will it be through UMNO (which will only grow weaker with time as more elected reps and members abandon ship). No, it will have to be through Pakatan Harapan. So, his long-game Hail Mary pass will be to make his way into Pakatan and eventually become its leader.

I know, it sounds crazy but this is how this scenario could play out:

First, he will try to distinguish himself as a credible opposition member. No doubt, Zahid is the actual opposition leader but he's pretty useless in that role (even Najib is more articulate than Zahid). Make no mistake, the person everyone will be looking to for smart rhetoric will be KJ.

Even on the first day of Parliament he managed to distinguish himself by refusing to join the walk out by his colleagues in the opposition. Never mind that there was one other opposition MP, Anifah Aman, who also declined to walk out. (Anifah who?) The MP that social media paid attention to was KJ, not Anifah Whatshisname. 

KJ is already rebranding himself.

KJ will continue to play the rebel role. The so-called "conscience of UMNO" who will say all the right things while his colleagues continue to make a fool and a mockery of themselves (something they excel in). He will continue to wow the millennials who are already star struck by his hip and savvy ways.

At some point, KJ might even get booted out of UMNO, which would play quite well with the narrative he wants to weave. He doesn't want to be seen as abandoning ship. But if he gets kicked out, that's a different matter. Annuar Musa has already disclosed that KJ didn't join the pre-council meeting and MP's discussions before the first day of Parliament. He will do what he wants until UMNO is sick of him.

If KJ gets thrown into the political wilderness that would only bolster his credentials among those who are awed by him. Of course the current Pakatan leaders want nothing to do with him. Mahathir, Anwar and Guan Eng all detest him with a passion.

But Mahathir is already 93 years old and Anwar is no spring chicken either at 70. Granted, Guan Eng is only 57 but he's Chinese and therefore not seriously in line to be PM (or as Guan Eng put it, "I'm not qualified to be PM").

KJ is only 42 year old. Even if he goes for a 20-year Hail Mary pass, he would only be 62 by then. Two decades from now, we will have a new crop of Pakatan leaders and they might not be as unforgiving of KJ as the current leadership is.

Heck, some of them might even kinda admire him, especially if he's been playing the rebel role of keeping everyone in check with his smart rhetoric for 20 years. A new crop of Pakatan leaders might actually say, "Why don't we take this guy into our ranks?"

Nah! This ain't gonna happen. This scenario is as close to an impossibility as you can get. But if you want a Hail Mary pass scenario, this is it. Nothing else even has a ghost of a chance.

WSJ: Must call to cancel subscription

I paid for a trial subscription of the Wall Street Journal. It's a good paper, and has some really good reporting on the 1MDB issue, but I didn't feel that I would read it enough to justify paying a regular monthly subscription for it. As such I decided to cancel the subscription way in advance of the trial deadline. I sent them an e-mail requesting cancellation and I received the following reply:

WSJ's e-mail reply to me

I read the first paragraph, which contains the words "We're sorry to hear of your decision to discontinue your membership."

I mistakenly thought that this means my subscription had been cancelled as per my request. I neglected to read the following paragraph which said I had to call an international number to cancel my account by phone.

Yes, it's my mistake for not reading that (and therefore not making the call). I only realized this when I saw a bill for RM119.54 for this month's billing cycle.

I went to their website to look for a customer service number, called it to complain and was told that cancellation only happens when you call in. "But I sent an e-mail requesting cancellation," I said. "I'm sorry but it's company policy that you have to call in to cancel," the customer service representative said.

Wouldn't it be more convenient if there was just a button you can press or an e-mail you can send to say you want to cancel subscription? Of course. But these companies don't want to make it convenient for you, the consumer, to cancel.

I'm pretty pissed off about this but not as much as I am about FT, which not only auto-charged me without any notice, it charged me the most expensive premium option they had (without asking me what I preferred) AND they charged me for the print version which I never received. Isn't that amazing? Good case study on how to not only lose a customer but have someone pissed off at your brand.

When subscription cancellation is not cancellation

Over the past year, I've been testing different types of e-book software. All of these are cloud based solutions. One of the services I tried out was something called Designrr, which was an okay software. I managed to create some sample e-books with it but I didn't feel it really suited my needs. It didn't have the features I was looking for. So, I wrote in to them in February, well in advance of the autopay renewal deadline.

Initially I was told that what I should do is to wait until the deadline was near and then request to cancel the autopay because if I cancelled early, I would not be able to use the software anymore. I thought this was kind of ridiculous since I had already paid a subscription for the whole year. Just because I cancel the autopay months in advance I would suddenly not be allowed to use the remainder of my subscription? Well, that seemed to be the policy.

I thought about it and I decided to cancel straight away, even if it meant I could no longer have access to a service I had paid for. I did this for two reasons. Firstly, I wasn't planning to use it much anyway since I had already concluded it didn't have some key features that I needed. Secondly, I didn't want to run the risk of missing the autopay deadline and finding out only after the fact that my credit card had been billed for another year. Generally, many online services tend not to give advance notice that they are about to auto-charge you. They just do it and give you the receipt.

So, I told them to cancel my subscription. To my surprise I was told that I was actually still able to have access until the expiry date. So that was fair enough. I wonder why I was told otherwise earlier.

Anyway, I promptly forgot about Designrr until I received an e-mail the other day saying I had been charged an annual subscription (due to autopay). I checked my e-mail archives and found the correspondence which confirmed that I had already cancelled. So, I immediately wrote to them and to their credit they acknowledged the mistake and said they would refund the amount charged. That's decent of them.

I would say their autopay policy is nowhere nearly as a bad as FT's policy, which is the worst I've ever come across. But it certainly could be improved. They should make it easier to cancel the autopay (I had to write an e-mail to someone to request this. It should have been as easy as pressing a button). They also should inform customers when the autopay is about to happen so that the customer can consider whether to continue or to cancel. If you have confidence in your product why do you have to worry about the customer cancelling? Just let the customer know you are about to charge them for a year and you want to make sure this is okay with them.

FT has the worst subscription policy

I recently had some sticker shocks with some online subscriptions. I wouldn't go as far as to say that these practices are unethical but they are at the very least "not consumer friendly". I have three experiences to share. Let me start with FT.

Financial Times offers an introductory of only US$1 for four weeks of access. Great deal right? I decided to give it a try and maybe if I liked it, I could opt for their least expensive plan, which is US$6.45 per week. That's still pretty expensive at $25.80 per month (or RM104) but this was something I could decide before the trial was over.

When they say it's US$1 for four weeks, they mean it literally (28 days). It's not a month like I mistakenly assumed. So imagine my shock when on the 28th day, I saw a bill on my credit card for RM254.27 for the next billing cycle. Now, if you look at the most expensive option (Premium Digital + Print), that's US$13.60 per week or US$54.40 per month (roughly). In Malaysian ringgit that would be roughly RM219, which is already ridiculously priced but I was charged even more. I was charged RM254.27! It's obvious that they charged me the MOST expensive option without notifying me ahead of time AND they did so with a conversion rate that was super expensive.

FT subscriptions

So, here's my beef with FT:

1. I was charged on the 28th day instead of one month (okay, maybe my fault for assuming 4 weeks is a month).
2. There was no notification or advance warning that my trial would be ending soon (that would be a consumer friendly thing to do).
3. I was not asked which paid option I would prefer. Instead, I was automatically charged the MOST expensive option.
4. The most expensive option included print. I NEVER received any printed copies.

I cancelled straight away (no refund given). I will NEVER subscribe to FT again in my life.

Was what they did unethical? Maybe not. Perhaps it's written somewhere in their terms and conditions that after four weeks, without notification they will automatically charge you the most expensive option. But what I can say is that their subscription strategy and policy is the most consumer unfriendly I have ever seen of any major publication. Shame on FT for this.