The 2010 Politics: Who Will Fall? According To Awang Selamat.

The 2010 politics: Who will fall?

In just a few days the closing curtain will fall on 2009 and we will be stepping into the new year of 2010. During the whole of this year, there are many events both sad and happy, that give colour to the life of the nation.
Awang is thankful that 2009 has seen the improvement in many fields especially under the administration of the Prime Minister, Mohd. Najib Tun Razak. The support to the government which was at one time considered as critical has changed for the better.
At the same time, the opposition is confronted with many internal problem and studies has shown that the support for the opposition including from youngsters has been dwindling. Political issues will continue to be the focus for next year.
Barisan Nasional (BN) is now facing accumulated issues that need to be overcome including the storm in MCA and PPP. The best formula for MCA is that its President, Ong Tee Keat should make an exit and there is a need a new lineup.
Awang also hopes that the stupor in Gerakan following the defeat of the party in the last general elections can be deal with. The sign for the party’s revival is not there yet. This brings the question, what has its President Koh Tsu Koon been doing? If he is not aggressive, it’s better for him to give way to the next echelon of leaders.
The most awaited event is the change in the MIC leadership from S. Samy Velly to his successor. Samy had helmed the MIC for far too long and there is no reason for BN to compromise in retaining him.
Awang believes that without Samy, the potential for MIC to attract the support of the Indian community is far more substantial. The party itself should feel embarrass if it failed to effect change as if they can’t do anything without Samy.
At a glance, UMNO seems to be strong but there is no guarantee that the party is in the comfort zone. This is because the effectiveness of many UMNO divisions in endearing themselves to the people is still questionable.
Speculations about minor cabinet reshuffle of ministerial and deputy ministerial posts involving some UMNO leadership is still creeping and might be a reality next year.
Among the name mention to be appointed is UMNO Youth Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin. His current position outside the government is giving him the edge to push forward the party’s mission. But if appointed, Awang feels it is the right an appropriate move. Either we like it or not, Khairy has the capacity and can be relied on.

To the opposition, 2009 is actually a very challenging year. The Anwar Ibrahim sodomy case on his former aide, Saiful Azlan Bukhari had made big headline.
Based on the latest indication, Anwar has not been receiving solid support from the opposition. Some of the Pas leaders are no longer keen in defending Anwar because it doesn’t want to be embroiled in his moral issue. His tactic in delaying the hearing of the court case has led many to ask, including the opposition – why is there a need to be afraid of?
Many have speculated that the disunity in Pas will “explode” next year. The position of Pas spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat, is getting shaky. The issue of his son-in-law, the haj sponsorship and his stance on the pro-Erdogan group and the DAP, has dragged him down the ebb never experienced before.

PKR is struggling to protect the party from falling due to various damaging issues especially the weakness and shortcoming of the Selangor State government under the leadership of Khalid Ibrahim.
The suspicion against the Vice President, Azmin Ali has reached the top and the friction in PKR has weakened the party.
Besides that, the DAP is being push to the corner in the defending the momentum of support from the Chinese by playing a lot on racial issues and matters related to the Constitution.
To Awang,the DAP continue to hold the record as the most racialist party not only in Malaysia, but also in the world.
But the most destructive issue besieging the opposition is its failure to build a solid opposition pact because of their fight for dominance.
With the myriad of shortfalls, the opposition pact needs to devise a strategy by manipulating certain issues against the government including on the missing RMAF fighter jet engines.
Awang is relieved that the government is committed to a full investigation to determine the culprits behind the scam.
Whatever it is, next year seems to be dominated by many political issues. Will the opposition especially the PKR continue to make a deep political dive is a matter for everyone to see?
The main focus will be, which politician will make a fall? What is the prayer and hope of Awang for the year 2010? Hopefully the country will be spared from politicians behaving like a fox in chicken feathers – with ill-intention, a tool to foreign elements and intends on destroying the national Constitution.

BAN PRESENTS. GIVE MONEY INSTEAD

Scroogenomics

Give gold, not myrrh

Dec 21st 2009
From Economist.com

DECEMBER dismays Joel Waldfogel, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and the author of a new book called “Scroogenomics”. Mr Waldfogel objects to the ritualised frenzy of shopping for gifts that precedes the enormous meals and awkward family reunions that are the other hallmarks of Christmas in the Western world.
Such complaints are hardly new. Harriet Beecher Stowe, an American abolitionist, grumbled in 1850 about “worlds of money wasted, at this time of year, in getting things that nobody wants and nobody cares for after they are got”. But unlike most criticisms of festive wastefulness, Mr Waldfogel’s objections are based on economic theory rather than morality or taste. When people buy something for themselves, they believe that their purchase is worth at least the price paid. But most gift-givers are only dimly aware of the desires and tastes of the beneficiaries of their largesse. As a result, they often give people presents that are worth far less to the person getting them than the gift-giver paid for them.

Presents? Humbug!

The result of all these inappropriate presents—ranging from the sweaters that people will never wear to games they will never play—is what Mr Waldfogel calls a “deadweight loss” from Yuletide generosity. This is the difference between the satisfaction a person gets when she spends a dollar on herself and when a well-meaning benefactor spends that dollar on a present for her. Over a period of time, a series of surveys have led him to conclude that the average deadweight loss from gift-giving is around 18%. Given his estimate that Americans spent $66 billion on Christmas presents in 2007, this amounts to a whopping $12 billion of lost value. Where others see generosity, Mr Waldfogel sees an orgy of value destruction.
Of course, not all presents are such bad value for money. What matters is how good people are at anticipating what others want. People who are in close contact with recipients usually do a very good job when it comes to choosing presents. Gifts from siblings, Mr Waldfogel’s research has found, create only a tiny deadweight loss, creating $0.99 in satisfaction for every dollar spent. Partners are excellent gift-givers; parents, reassuringly, do better than average. Unfortunately, aunts and uncles (like others who are only in occasional contact with the beneficiaries of their festive largesse) tend to give gifts that create only about 75-86 cents in satisfaction per dollar spent.
So what should people, especially those obliged to bestow holiday gifts on those whose tastes they do not know well, do? Since the best a gift-giver can do is give the recipient exactly what he wants, economic theory has a simple solution: give cold, hard cash. However, social norms make it a bit awkward to give money to all but a small subset of (usually much younger) relations in most societies.
But there may yet be hope. Gift vouchers are close to cash in that they leave the choice of exactly what to buy in the hands of the recipient, and have increased in popularity in recent years. Unfortunately (except for the retailer), human forgetfulness and the propensity to procrastinate mean that about 10% of such vouchers are never actually redeemed.
So is there no escape from the wanton wastefulness of Christmas spending? Mr Waldfogel offers a proposal of his own—gift vouchers that are designed to expire after a set period of time, with unused balances going to a charity of the giver’s choice. People would give more to charity if they could afford to and it were made easier, he argues. His proposal also chimes well with the spirit of Christmas. Whether Scrooge would have approved of it is less clear.

SEA Games - Malaysia Won Football Gold After 20 years - Congratulations Malaysia!!!

The taste of success is sweet indeed.  Congratulations to the Malaysian team for a job well done!!!  1Malaysia!!!

Latest

Malaysia Won  SEA Fooball Gold

17/12/09

VIENTIANE: Malaysia wins the SEA Games football final after an own-goal by Vietnam in the 84th minute. It is the first gold in 20 years.

After Dubai : A Financial Sandstorm

The global consequences of Dubai's debt problems-ECONOMIST 30.11.2009

AFP

FOR years, Dubai strove to capture the imagination of the financial world, projecting its young financial centre as a “global gateway” for capital. Last week it succeeded in grabbing attention. Its announcement that it would delay repayment of the debts of Dubai World, a vast government-owned conglomerate, swept through global markets like one of the blinding sandstorms that occasionally afflict the emirate, obscuring the gleam of its skyscrapers.
Like those storms, Dubai’s announcement was so damaging because it reduced visibility. Investors had assumed that the Dubai government was willing to rescue the indebted conglomerates it sponsors, and that Abu Dhabi, its well-heeled neighbouring emirate, was willing, in turn, to rescue Dubai. In particular, they had looked forward to the full and timely repayment of a $3.5 billion Islamic bond issued by Nakheel, a Dubai World subsidiary, on December 14th.
Dubai’s failure re-awakened a number of dormant fears in investors. Some worried about banks that had lent heavily to the region. Others wondered if Dubai was carrying far more than the $80 billion or so in debt that it has owned up to. The announcement reminded investors that tacit sovereign guarantees may be worthless. Earlier in November, for example, Ukraine’s state railway firm, Ukrzaliznytsya, failed to repay part of a syndicated loan, and its energy firm, Naftogaz, restructured its debt.
More fundamentally, Dubai’s wobble raised the spectre of a sovereign default. Dubai’s government is not technically on the hook for Nakheel’s debts. But the government’s hesitation in saving its national champions nonetheless demonstrates its fiscal limits.
Elsewhere, governments have emerged from the crisis burdened by debt. Both Greece and Ireland are carrying heavy public liabilities denominated in a currency (the euro) that they cannot print. Doomsayers worry that the world has escaped from the financial frying pan into a fiscal fire.
These wider fears are easy to exaggerate. Despite its self-aggrandisement, Dubai is not yet important enough to bring down the global financial system. Its troubles moved markets last week partly because so many traders were on holiday. Other investors were looking for cues to sell after the long rally in markets since the spring. By Monday November 30th, the principal stock indices were shaking off the dust and venturing upwards again.
But the damage Dubai has done to itself is no passing storm. An emirate that has spent so much money and hired so many flaks to cultivate its image and inspire confidence saw much of that work undone in a single 200-word statement announcing the debt standstill.
Had it announced the restructuring a few months earlier, with the ground properly laid, investors might have taken it in their stride. Those who lent to Dubai World at a premium can have no complaints if the risks for which they were compensated turn out to be real. And a standstill may buy time for the deeper restructuring that Dubai World undoubtedly needs. It is better to weed out the bad businesses within the group rather than cross-subsidise them to save face.
But Dubai had led investors to expect that publicly traded instruments, such as sukuk, or Islamic bonds, would be honoured. And the government offered no satisfactory explanation for its sudden change of stance. Thus even as markets slumped, political speculation mounted. A week earlier, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, Dubai’s ruler, had sidelined three of the men who ran “Dubai Inc” in the boom years. Perhaps, then, the standstill was the result either of a power struggle within the ruling circles of Dubai, or between Dubai and its neighbour, Abu Dhabi.
Abu Dhabi’s conservative rulers have mixed feelings about their brash, go-getting neighbour. They may have asked why they should rescue Dubai from the consequences of its own prodigality. Or why they should resuscitate bankrupt Dubai firms that will compete with Abu Dhabi’s own national champions? At the weekend, a senior Abu Dhabi official told Reuters that it would “pick and choose” which of Dubai’s entities to help.
But many investors in Abu Dhabi bought into the Dubai boom. They will lose money if the bust turns into a protracted slump. And of the banks most exposed to Dubai, several have headquarters in Abu Dhabi. Thus the central bank of the United Arab Emirates has made it clear that it will provide liquidity to any bank, foreign or domestic, operating in the United Arab Emirates. Dubai is not yet a gateway to the financial world. But it can open the door to all sorts of trouble in its neighbourhood.

Pengganti Tok Guru: Hentikan berbalas kenyataan Dalam Media

Abdul Aziz Mustafa - HARAKAHDAILY

KUALA LUMPUR, 28 Nov: Mursyidul Am, Tuan Guru Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat tidak sepatutnya ditekan untuk menamakan penggantinya dan semua kenyataan pemimpin PAS mengenai perkara itu mesti dihentikan, kata Naib Presiden PAS Datuk Mahfuz Omar. "Jangan paksa Tuan Guru mencadangkan penggantinya. Beliau tentu mempunyai perkiraan, perhitungan dan kebijaksanaan sendiri untuk memilih masa yang sesuai untuk mencadangkan siapa penggantinya," kata beliau. Mahfuz menyifatkan tindakan berbalas-balas kenyataan mengenai perkara itu secara terbuka di dalam media memberi tekanan kepada Tuan Guru menamakan penggantinya sebagai Menteri Besar Kelantan. Walaupun tindakan menyuarakan pandangan mengenai perkara itu adalah hak demokratik masing-masing, kata beliau, tetapi berbalas-balas kenyataan sesama sendiri mengenai perkara itu secara terbuka di dalam media boleh mengakibatkan implikasi yang lain. "Lebih dari itu, semua pihak jangan membelakangi tertib organisasi di dalam PAS. "Dari segi peraturan berorganisasi di dalam PAS, Tuan Guru atas sifatnya sebagai Pesuruhjaya PAS Kelantan boleh mencadangkan nama penggantinya kepada dan di dalam mesyuarat Jawatankuasa PAS Pusat untuk dipertimbangkan. "Begitu juga, ahli-ahli mesyuarat yang lain di dalam mesyuarat Jawatankuasa PAS Pusat juga boleh mengemukakan cadangan untuk dipertimbangkan. "Tetapi, dari segi kaedah berjemaah di dalam PAS, keputusan mengenai perkara itu hanya boleh dibuat di dalam dan dengan persetujuan mesyuarat Ahli Jawatankuasa PAS Pusat sebagai badan eksekutif yang dipilih oleh muktamar," katanya. Bagaimanapun, kata Mahfuz, pandangan dan hasrat Tuan Guru sebagai pemegang jawatan itu kini dan lebih dari itu sebagai Mursyidul Am biasanya diberi keutamaan untuk dipertimbangkan oleh mesyuarat tersebut. Mahfuz juga menjelaskan, setiap kali PAS mendapat kerusi majoriti di mana-mana negeri selepas pilihan raya, nama orang yang mendapat kepercayaan parti untuk menjadi Menteri Besar di kemukakan oleh Presiden PAS kepada Sultan negeri yang berkenaan. "Presiden PAS pula mengemukakan nama tersebut kepada Sultan yang berkenaan setelah dipersetujui oleh mesyuarat Jawatankuasa PAS Pusat,"kata Ahli Parlimen Pokok Sena itu. Mahfuz meminta semua pihak agar memberikan kepercayaan kepada Tuan Guru untuk memilih masa yang sesuai bagi mencadangkan penggantinya sebagai Menteri Besar Kelantan dan juga kepada mesyuarat Ahli Jawatankuasa PAS Pusat untuk mempertimbangkan cadangan beliau dan membuat keputusan mengenainya. "Saya yakin semuanya akan berjalan dengan lancar mengikut tertib berjemaah dan berorganisasi di dalam PAS," kata Ahli Parlimen Pokok Sena itu.

As You Sow, So Will You Reap

Singapore used to be a Chinese educational bastion for Southeast Asia with the most comprehensive Chinese-language educational system. But the deviation of its educational policy had changed everything in just two to three decades. Nanyang University, a leading Chinese university in Southeast Asia for 25 years, became part of the history in 1980. As nearly 100% of students were enrolled in English stream primary schools, English became the first language for all primary and secondary schools in Singapore. Since then, Chinese education had basically disappeared from Singapore, leaving only Chinese language teaching.
Under such a circumstances, the Chinese language standard of the new generation of Chinese Singaporeans is low, it is not surprising even to hear some of them saying: “I hate Chinese.”
However, the Singapore government has carried out many reforms in Chinese language teaching over the past 40 years. A Chinese speaking campaign has also been carried out with the hope to change the habit of speaking dialects in Chinese families and make Chinese a common language for them.

"Standing on the opposite shore, we are watching the decline of Chinese education in Singapore."

However, just as Singaporean scholar Lee Guan Kin said: “The closures of Chinese primary and secondary schools, as well as the Nanyang University, together with the deviations of the bilingual educational system had rapidly deteriorated the soil quality of Chinese language and culture in Singapore, causing a significant cultural gap phenomenon.”
Therefore, a few decades after the Chinese speaking campaign was launched, even though the country is now having fewer Chinese Singaporeans who speak dialects, Chinese is still unable to replace dialects as the communication language in Chinese families. Instead, there is a rapid increase in the number of Chinese students speaking English at home. The latest data shows that the number of students who speak English at home has increased to the current 60% from 10% in 1980.
What are the far-reaching impact when Chinese families are no longer the mainstream? An editorial from Zaobao said that Singapore may someday become a single English society.
Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is aware of the seriousness of the crisis, he said that they should start from the actual situation of the students, including to teach Chinese in English and having more creative Chinese teaching methods to enhance student's interest in Chinese language.
Standing on the opposite shore, we are watching the decline of Chinese education in Singapore. We always think that the fundamental factor that causes the problem is the status of Chinese language in the country. Although the rapid rise of China has made the Singapore government to encourage its people to learn Chinese and improve their Chinese teaching methods, it is worth pondering whether it is correct to learn Chinese based on the motive of economic interests instead of emphasising the language's cultural value and meaning.
The Singapore government had neglected Chinese while the Malaysia government had neglected English over the past few decades and clearly, they had paid a heavy price for their educational policies. This is what we called “it is easy to damage but it is hard to build” and “as you sow, so will you reap”! (By LIM MUN FAH/Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE/Sin Chew Daily)

Mukhriz's Marshall Dream

• 

Dark cloud looms over the sky of Kota Siputeh in Kedah. An election war is imminent.
On the one side, UMNO vows to keep its fortress intact, and consolidate its position to recapture the state.
On the other side, PAS is all set to take the enemy's bridgehead, and keep its prize safely in hand.
Both sides are rubbing their fists, ready to wage an all-out war against the other.
The UMNO camp has the advantages of unbeatable ammunition, supplies and manpower as well as superfluous confidence, but is unfortunately plagued by the presence of a multitude of minor warlords who have been fighting one another for so long without a competent general to lead the pack.
Mohd Shafie Apdal, the vice general of the UMNO camp, indeed has done an excellent job retaining Sabah and gets rewarded with the mandate to lead the troops in Kedah. But he does not seem to fit in so well in the state, and has problems giving out his commands.
The warlords in the state are going on their businesses separately, each having his own plans while trying to bog down on the rest of the pack.
The chief has run out of ideas, and does not have the least clue as to whom he should send to the battleground.
A lesser admiral comes out of the blue, yelling, "With the situation getting intensely critical, who else should you send if not me? Please let me go to the war front so that I can slay the enemy for the party!"
At a closer look, the lesser admiral is none other than Mukhriz himself. A member of the notable Mahathir clan, this young admiral is eyeing to parallel his father's achievements with the ambitious hope of subjugating the entire nation one day.
That said, in the battle for the Youth chair, he lost to another powerful admiral Khairy Jamaluddin.
But given his pre-eminent birth and his father's lofty status, the party has nonetheless offered him a deputy ministerial post in spite of his defeat.
That offering has not allowed him to play a more significant role, as he has a superior that makes all the key decisions while his subordinates are few and distanced. This, coupled with the absence of a party post, has slowly shut him out of the mainstream and obscured his future outlook.
The by-election in Kota Siputeh indeed provides a much awaited opportunity for him.
Even if he gets elected, he is nothing more than just a state assemblyman without much administrative authority. And to trade his deputy ministerial post for the new position is proven to be a sacrifice too large to make.
Looking from another perspective, his potentials are restricted in the central government, and to get promoted to a full-fledged minister remains a distant wish. Moreover, to get tied down to the central government may set him apart from the grassroots and quash his effort of flexing his muscles in his very own home ground.
If he turns to his home state of Kedah, he has all it takes to maximise his influences. Once the war in Kota Siputeh is won, he can look forward to a more sustainable operation despite the lowly prize he will bag.
Although Kedah has a fair share of warlords, it lacks a discernible general. This is where the young admiral can put his potentials into play.
As if that is not enough, if BN recaptures Kedah some day, with not many rivals of comparable strength around him, Mukhriz can very safely claim the state administrative helm.
Why not? Take a look at the current BN chief marshal Najib. He started with a minor post in the central government before returning to his home state and establishing his career just to pave the way for his ascension up the corporate ladder in the central government later.
Mukhriz has got his plan formulated, and is all the more eager to put it into implementation.
Deputy marshal Muhyiddin has seen through Mukhriz's desire. He has his own set of plans and has turned down Mukhriz's offer.
A bucket of cold water gets poured onto the head of Mukhriz, splattering all his fantasies of ascending to the throne. (By TAY TIAN YAN/Translated by DOMINIC LOH/Sin Chew Daily)

Barack Obama In Asia

The Pacific (and pussyfooting) president

Nov 19th 2009
From The Economist print edition

America’s president shows an alarming lack of self-confidence. So does China’s

AP

FOR some critics of Barack Obama, America’s dependence on China as the holder of some $800 billion of its government debt is to blame for what they see as a humiliating visit there this week. He preferred heaping praise on China’s achievements to hectoring its leaders about its shortcomings. Other critics went further and saw this emollient approach as in keeping with similar embarrassments elsewhere on his Asian tour. In Japan, he bowed deeply to Japan’s Emperor Akihito. In Singapore he attended a meeting with South-East Asian leaders including the prime minister of the repellent Burmese dictatorship.

Over Japan and Myanmar, the sniping was misplaced. Japan, an important ally, deserves present-day courtesy whatever its past crimes. Isolating Myanmar has benefited no one.

On China, too, Mr Obama is surely right to try to build a relationship whose premise is the need for co-operation and partnership rather than the inevitability of discord and rivalry. Rebalancing the global economy, stemming climate change and containing the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea all require China-America teamwork and are in the interests of both countries and the rest of the world.
 
Mr Obama’s critics, however, are right that he could and should have spoken out more loudly for America’s principles and resisted more strongly the choreography of a visit designed to shield China’s people from his persuasive powers (see article). The president said that, although America does not seek to impose its system on other countries, it believes fundamental human freedoms are universal. Yet he refrained from more than implicit criticism of China for its refusal to respect these. And, although he urged his hosts to talk to the Dalai Lama, his refusal to meet the Tibetan spiritual leader before his trip lest it sour the atmosphere sent a dangerous signal: that America’s support for Tibetans’ rights and for human rights more generally is, as China’s leaders have always suspected, just a bargaining counter.

In China, Mr Obama’s handlers connived at a programme which saw his “town-hall meeting” in Shanghai open only to handpicked young Communists and his joint “press conference” with Hu Jintao, his Chinese counterpart, confined to statements from the leaders with no questions allowed. For observers in China, as in America, this conformity with Chinese norms seemed to confirm the relative shift of power between the two countries. It was in glaring contrast to the comparative free-for-all of the visit in 1998 by Bill Clinton, who took on President Jiang Zemin on live television.

Fear of freedom

Yet perhaps the most surprising aspect of this is not Mr Obama’s attempt to charm a potential adversary. That is what he does, from Iran to Myanmar. Rather it is China’s nervousness that is baffling. In 1998 Mr Clinton’s visit was still in the long shadow of the 1989 Tiananmen killings. Since then, China has emerged as a great global power. Its political system, it claims, has been vindicated, and it likes to talk to America as an equal, or indeed as creditor to debtor. Yet its leaders seem more petrified than ever of what might happen if its people were given unfettered access to the thoughts of an American president. This may partly reflect the paranoid style of Mr Hu. But it also reflects how much the system as a whole fears those freedoms Mr Obama should have defended more boldly.

China Holds Firm on Major Issues in Obama's Visit

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

President Obama toured the historic Forbidden City in Beijing on Tuesday during a break from meetings with Chinese leaders.

• • Linkedin
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Permalink
  • 
    

By HELENE COOPER

Published: November 17, 2009

BEIJING — In six hours of meetings, at two dinners and during a stilted 30-minute news conference in which President Hu Jintao did not allow questions, President Obama was confronted, on his first visit, with a fast-rising China more willing to say no to the United States.

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

President Obama signed a guest book during his tour of the Forbidden City in Beijing on Tuesday. He has taken a conciliatory tone on his first visit to China.

On topics like Iran (Mr. Hu did not publicly discuss the possibility of sanctions), China’s currency (he made no nod toward changing its value) and human rights (a joint statement bluntly acknowledged that the two countries “have differences”), China held firm against most American demands.
With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said.

“China effectively stage-managed President Obama’s public appearances, got him to make statements endorsing Chinese positions of political importance to them and effectively squelched discussions of contentious issues such as human rights and China’s currency policy,” said Eswar S. Prasad, a China specialist at Cornell University. “In a masterstroke, they shifted the public discussion from the global risks posed by Chinese currency policy to the dangers of loose monetary policy and protectionist tendencies in the U.S.”

White House officials maintained they got what they came for — the beginning of a needed give-and-take with a surging economic giant. With a civilization as ancient as China’s, they argued, it would be counterproductive — and reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s style — for Mr. Obama to confront Beijing with loud chest-beating that might alienate the Chinese. Mr. Obama, the officials insisted, had made his points during private meetings and one-on-one sessions.

“I do not expect, and I can speak authoritatively for the president on this, that we thought the waters would part and everything would change over the course of our almost two-and-a-half-day trip to China,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. “We understand there’s a lot of work to do and that we’ll continue to work hard at making more progress.”

Several China experts noted that Mr. Obama was not leaving Beijing empty-handed. The two countries put out a five-point joint statement pledging to work together on a variety of issues. The statement calls for regular exchanges between Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu, and asks that each side pay more attention to the strategic concerns of the other. The statement also pledges that they will work as partners on economic issues, Iran and climate change.

But despite a conciliatory tone that began weeks ago when Mr. Obama declined to meet the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, before visiting China to avoid offending China’s leaders, it remains unclear whether Mr. Obama made progress on the most pressing policy matters on the American agenda in China or elsewhere in Asia.

The president has had to fend off criticism from American conservatives that he appeared to soften the American stance on the positioning of troops on the Japanese island of Okinawa, and for bowing to Japan’s emperor.

At a regional conference in Singapore, Mr. Obama announced a setback on another top foreign policy priority, climate change, acknowledging that comprehensive agreement to fight global warming was no longer within reach this year.

Past American presidents have usually insisted in advance on some concrete achievements from their trips overseas. President Bush received vigorous endorsements of his top foreign policy priority, the global war on terrorism, during his visits to Beijing, and President Bill Clinton guided China toward joining the World Trade Organization after prolonged negotiations. When either of those presidents visited the country, China often made a modest concession on human rights as well.

This time, Mr. Hu declined to follow the lead of President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia, who, after months of massaging by the Obama administration, now says that he is open to tougher sanctions against Iran if negotiations fail to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The administration needs China’s support if tougher sanctions are to be approved by the United Nations Security Council. But during the joint appearance in Beijing on Tuesday, Mr. Hu made no mention of sanctions.

Rather, he said, it was “very important” to “appropriately resolve the Iranian nuclear regime through dialogue and negotiations.” And then, as if to drive home that point, Mr. Hu added, “During the talks, I underlined to President Obama that given our differences in national conditions, it is only normal that our two sides may disagree on some issues.”

White House officials acknowledged that they did not get what they wanted from Mr. Hu on Iran but said that Mr. Obama’s method would yield more in the long term. “We’re not looking for them to lead or change course, we’re looking for them to not be obstructionist,” one administration official said.

In a meeting in Beijing with a senior Chinese official on Wednesday morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton again pressed China on Iran. She told the official, Dai Bingguo, that even if China had not decided what sanctions on Iran it would accept, “you need to send a signal,” said a senior American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity so he could describe the exchange.

Mr. Obama did not appear to move the Chinese on currency issues, either. China has come under heavy pressure, not only from the United States but also from Europe and several Asian countries, to revise its policy of keeping its currency, the renminbi, pegged at an artificially low value against the dollar to help promote its exports. Some economists say China must take that step to prevent the return of large trade and financial imbalances that may have contributed to the recent financial crisis.

Mr. Obama on Tuesday could only cite China’s “past statements” in support of shifting toward market-oriented exchange rates, implying that he had not extracted a fresh commitment from Beijing to move in that direction soon.

There are many reasons the White House may have heeded China’s clear desire for a visit free of the polemics that often accompany meetings between leaders of the two countries. Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is rooted in recasting the United States as a thoughtful listener to friends and rivals alike. “No we haven’t made China a democracy in three days — maybe if we pounded our chest a lot that would work,” Mr. Gibbs said in an e-mail message on Tuesday night. “But it hasn’t in the last 16 years.”

Kenneth Lieberthal, a Brookings Institution scholar who oversaw China issues in President Clinton’s White House, agreed. “The United States actually has enormous influence on popular thinking in China, but it is primarily by example,” he said. “If you go to the next step and say, ‘You guys ought to be like us,’ you lose the impact of who you are.”

The National Security Council’s spokesman, Michael A. Hammer, added, “What we did come to do is speak bluntly about the issues which are important to us, not in an unnecessarily offensive manner, but rather in the Obama style of showing respect.”

Mr. Obama, even as he projected a softer image, did nudge the Chinese on some delicate issues.
On Tuesday, standing next to Mr. Hu, Mr. Obama brought up Tibet, where Beijing-backed authorities have clamped down on religious freedom. “While we recognize that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China, the United States supports the early resumption of dialogue between the Chinese government and representatives of the Dalai Lama to resolve any concerns and differences that the two sides may have,” he said.

Congratulations Mr Ambassador

My cousin Dato Paduka Yusof Abdul Hamid after presenting his credentials as Ambassador of Negara Brunei Darussalam to the President of the United States of America. In the photo above he is with President Barrack Obama.