THE FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 1997 - 1998

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 1997 - 1998

By Nor Mohamed Yakcop

A moment comes, which rarely comes in a lifetime, when a particular event redefines a person's life and changes the course permanently. For me, the meeting with Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in Buenos Aires (Argentina) on the evening of October 3, 1997 was such an event. It enabled me to devote the next 6 years of my life working for Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, meeting him almost daily. In the process, it enabled me to see, at very close range, the abilities of this great man http://www.chedet.com/2008/06/oil-price.html> . The combination of many noble qualities in one person is rare, and it is this unique combination that has enabled Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to transform Malaysia from an otherwise typical third world country into a thriving and vibrant nation, well on the way to become a developed nation. It is also this combination of qualities that enabled Dr. Mahathir Mohamad to save Malaysia from becoming another IMF nation during the financial crisis of 1997 - 1998. I am often asked about my involvement in the recovery plan implemented on September 1, 1998.

It began on September 29, 1997, when I received a telephone call from the office of Dr Mahathir Mohamad informing me that the Prime Minister wanted to see me. The PM was in Cuba at that time, and I asked (in jest) if I was to meet the Prime Minister in Cuba ! I was told (not in jest) that he will be arriving in Buenos Aires on October 3, 1997 and I was to make sure I was in Buenos Aires at least a day before he arrived. I packed my bags and left for Buenos Aires, and arrived in Buenos Aires on October 2. The PM arrived the following day at 5 pm and we met immediately at his suite. He informed me that he had asked many people to explain to him what was causing the financial crisis but no one was able to give him a satisfactory reply. He asked me whether I could explain to him what exactly was happening. I asked him how much time he had, and he said two hours.

I explained to him how the forex market works, about short positions and long positions, about hedging and how currencies are borrowed and sold, the difference between "bid" and "offer" and how funds can be transferred from one country to another at the click of a button. I also explained how the equity market works and the relationship between the forex market and the equity market. Dr. Mahathir hardly said anything, asked one or two questions, and listened intently. After two hours, he had to end the meeting to get ready to go for an official dinner. He asked me about my plans for the night and I said I had been invited for the same dinner. Dr. Mahathir said to me: You go back to your room and write down all that you have been telling me for the last two hours, and see me at 7 am tomorrow. I went back to my room, skipped dinner, and wrote it all down, finishing at about 6 am. I saw him the next morning at 7 am and gave him the report.

He asked me to take a rest and come back again at 2 pm.. When I returned, he told me that he had read the report and that he now understands what was happening in the financial markets. We started discussing various methods of overcoming the crisis, and our discussions continued when we returned to Malaysia. I met him almost daily for discussion, sometimes at his house and sometimes at his office. We tried a few mechanisms to overcome the crisis, some of which worked initially, but the hedge funds were so strong that it was difficult to proceed successfully with these mechanisms. In early 1998, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad asked me to explore the idea of imposing an exchange control regime to overcome the crisis. I remember preparing voluminous notes on this subject.

Dr. Mahathir went through the notes carefully, and kept asking for more and more details. We went through many rounds of discussion, until he was finally convinced both with the concept as well as the proposed mechanism. The rest, I guess, is history. Dr. Mahathir also asked me to prepare a paper on how to put an end to Malaysian shares traded in CLOB (Central Limit Order Book) in Singapore. Dr. Mahathir was of the view that an important reason for the falling stock market was the short-selling of Malaysian stocks in CLOB. I prepared the report and Dr. Mahathir understood, for the first time, how exactly CLOB operates. The report, which was also implemented on September 1, 1998, put to an end the trading of Malaysian shares in CLOB.

I should add that the exchange control measures were crafted in such a way as to minimize the control aspects and maximize the outcome. The Prime Minister went through the proposed mechanism many times to make sure that the control elements were as few as possible, but adequate enough to ensure a positive outcome. There were no bureaucratic elements in these measures, such as requiring importers to obtain Bank Negara's permission to import. The Ringgit was also pegged at a level where it was not overvalued. In almost every other country, which imposes exchange control measures and pegs its currency, there would, almost by definition, be numerous bureaucratic controls, and the currency would also be pegged at an overvalued rate.

It is often assumed that the system of exchange control (including fixed exchange rate) that we implemented on September 1, 1998 saved the country. The measures of September 1, 1998 were undoubtedly a necessary condition, but it was not a sufficient condition to overcome the crisis. Malaysia was saved, not by exchange control measures per se, but by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. Let me explain. Any other developing country, facing a similar crisis, if it had introduced the measures that we introduced in September 1998, the measures would probably have failed. The fact that in Malaysia these measures succeeded is due to the ability and character of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

The economy and the financial system, under Dr. Mahathir's leadership, was in a very healthy state-healthy enough for the exchange control measures to be implemented without negative consequences. Moreover, the Prime Minister's hands-on management style enabled quick and timely decisions to be made, which was vital under the new exchange control regime. Dr. Mahathir, as Prime Minister, had ensured that the Malaysian economy was fundamentally strong. Ringgit was strong and stable. On the back of the currency stability (at RM2.50 against the US dollar) Malaysia was doing very well. At the end of 1996, real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at almost 8.5 per cent and the growth was expected to continue for many more years.

The government was enjoying a fiscal surplus. The external debt was low, at 40 per cent of the Gross National Product (GNP). The current account of the balance of payments had narrowed from a deficit of 10 per cent to 5 per cent of GNP, and was expected to improve further. Inflation was at its lowest at 2.1 percent. We had steady growth of over 8 per cent for a major part of that period. And this fundamental strength of Malaysia was a critical factor that enabled the exchange control measures to succeed. For a period of more than a year after the measures of September 1, 1998 were implemented, the Prime Minister met with a small group of us everyday - 6 days a week - for at least 2 hours to go through various economic data, including data on loan growth, exports, imports, property overhang etc.

This enabled the Prime Minister to take quick actions, whenever required. I remember one morning when we were going through the property figures, he looked at me and directed that I should organize a property fair to clear the overhang of properties. I did, and property worth more than RM 3 billion was sold. Even after the crisis was over, Dr. Mahathir continued to meet with the group regularly, though no longer on a daily basis. And Dr. Mahathir continued to go through all the economic data with a sharp pencil. No other Prime Minister in the world, either in developed or developing countries, employs such a hands-on approach in managing the economy.

We can see, therefore, that it was not the exchange control measures per se that saved the country but the man - Dr. Mahathir Mohamad - himself. The period 1997 - 1998 was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, the worst of times, but it was also the best of times. The worst conditions brought out the best in Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. There is a saying that a good leader is like good tea - you only know the true quality when he is in hot water ! Throughout the crisis, the Prime Minister was focussed on resolving the crisis. Day and night, he thought of nothing else but the crisis.

He read all he could on finance; he kept asking me to prepare notes on various technical issues. Sometimes he was sick with bad flu and cough, but he did not take time off to rest. He was convinced that he had to understand the issues before he could work out the solutions. His native intelligence and ability to focus on core issues were there throughout the crisis. He did not show any sign of fear even at the worst of time, only concern at the fast deteriorating state of the economy. He was, at all times, confident that he would prevail in the end. I would like to add two additional points related to the financial crisis. The first is that, in implementing the measures of September 1, 1998, Dr. Mahathir not only saved Malaysia but the neighbouring countries as well.

Let me explain. When Malaysia imposed its exchange control measures on September 1, 1998, the currency speculators realised that the other affected countries (Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea) could also impose similar controls, and they, therefore, stopped their activities in its track. The speculators backed off. They bought back the currencies that they had sold. This is resulted in the regional currencies appreciating. Moreover, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was not happy with what Malaysia had done, particularly since, after implementing the measures, we did exactly the opposite of what the IMF wanted us to do, i.e. we lowered our interest rates and injected liquidity into the system. The IMF, therefore, started relaxing conditions in other countries and allowed them to lower their interest rates and allowed them to inject liquidity to stimulate their economies so that Malaysia would not outperform the IMF countries.

Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that Dr. Mahathir Mohamad not only saved Malaysia, but the other affected countries in the region as well - Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea. My second point is regarding what would have happened if the exchange control measures were not implemented. If the measures were not implemented, many of corporations in Malaysia would have gone under, due to the high interest rates http://jebatmustdie.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/theres-something-about-anwar-alright> . When the corporations fall like dominos, banks would have faced severe liquidity and solvency problems due to the ballooning NPLs. The problems of the banks would have resulted in a credit squeeze, which would have led to another round of corporate failures. The Government's revenue would have fallen drastically as fewer firms would be paying corporate taxes, thereby reducing the Government's ability to stimulate the economy through fiscal policy measures. As a result of the problems faced by corporations and banks, unemployment would have increased substantially, leading to a second round of problems.

This is the classic vicious cycle, which could have, in the end, destroyed the social and political stability of the country. This was a scenario that was waiting to happen. It did not happen because of the decisiveness and guts of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who decided to take the path less travelled. We owe Dr. Mahathir much gratitude for what he has done for Malaysia over the last 22 years. Solving the financial crisis of 1997 - 1998 was just one, albeit perhaps the most important, of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's many contributions to the nation. On a personal note, over the last 6 years, I have come to admire this great man for his abilities, his high moral values and, most of all, for his sincerity. Certainly, a man like Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is not born everyday. (23rd. October, 2003)

Sign - Hijau Atau Merah?

Dear company collegue,
Anonymously written.

For your info, we have already stated our case to the management last Thursday. We have engaged the management enquiring them into getting clarifications for the new salary increment. Believe me, it did catch their attention. And on Friday, a group of staff have collectively stated their case to the advocates, hence HR. The two main issue that was brought up are the concern as the salary difference are not equitable throughout the years of difference, and that the salary gap between those with years of experience almost matches the salary of new entrant.

So far, the Carigali HR seems concerned and has been very helpful, and they are trying to seek further clarification from the Task Force. At the end, the group has demanded two things: HR to share the formulation of how the new salary is calculated and the justification on the differences for the salary adjustment. But then, there’s nothing else that can be done at this point in time.

If you choose to run petition, you can expect that it will trigger just the wrong side of the management. And look at this:

STAFF WILL REJECT
- New entrants are still getting the new salary increment regardless. So you can see yourself earning much lower than the new entrants.
- New allowance package will not kick in (your meal, travel, new salary progression, etc)

STAFF WILL ACCEPT
- We have stressed to them that loyalty will remain a concern

In the end, you see that you are in the losing end with only ONE option to choose from.

Don’t just give in to resentment! Perhaps you are angry that you are not getting what you deserve and started to compare against others. But the HR answer was that you are not supposed to make comparison. What you earn is Private & Confidential and you are not allowed to share it with others. In other words – it’s better than nothing, right?

So listen, I know that in the angry mode you’d be telling yourself that the company does not value your years of experience. The thing is, if you are an E1 in the market (a junior engineer in this case), the market does not treasure your experience and hence what they have applied here. So you would see that you are not getting much higher than the new entrants. Yes, the task force must have consisted of some older G that are probably envious to the current state in which we lack of E2, and E1 are mostly the doer nowadays. They don’t value our experience because during their times, you do not seek independence within 2 years of working experience. Well, they should wake up obviously. I doubt that there was any Technical personnel view accounted for when they came up with the salary revision.

But anyway, that’s an old issue. Let’s look ahead and work with what we have. Yes, pride should be accounted for. The company should reward us for our hard work, and differentiate performers with non-performers. But with debts of more than RM300 K, I am in no position to argue. Perhaps I should just reap the company of its knowledge and trainings, and ensure that I use this opportunity to enrich myself. Some might not be here long, but for some others, you’d realize that the package will reward you long term. They are making it up in other ways, ie. Salary progression increment which has doubled, new allowance package and revision to your current EPF. I had my first tantrum with the company on Thursday, but I soon settled off. Some say that I went back against what I believe so much, and decided to accept. But my answer is I do not want to be on the losing end.

Yes, I will accept. But at the same time, I’ll try harder into making the management listens. If I succumb to rejecting the offer, I might just not get anything. And dear friends, 16th September political uncertainty is something to ponder.

Anonymous?

Tun Dr Ismail ... You're the Man!

I just thought that this is an interesting reading, and would like to share with all. And i can't watch to catch his play soon in KLPac.
Cheers all.
---

Full text of Raja Nazrin Shah's speech at the 17th Tun Ismail Ovation Thursday, 31 July 2008 02:29pm

Introduction

Sir Isaac Newton, one of the most influential scientists to have ever lived, once remarked: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Tun Dr Ismail bin Abdul Rahman was a giant on whose shoulders an entire nation stands.

We see further, and are more, today because of the legacy that the good doctor, and others like him, left behind. He was a man who was hugely talented and unswervingly committed. Yet he was also utterly humble and selfless in his service to the nation. I am glad his memory lives on, and I am delighted to deliver this oration that bears his name. Today I want to talk on the subject of leadership. I hope that what I have to say is worthy of the man and would have met with his approval.

The subject of leadership is something that mankind has struggled to understand for at least two and a half millennia. Around 500 B.C., for example, Lao Tze and Confucius laid down guiding principles for rulers to administer their kingdoms. Among Confucius' many leadership precepts, he is perhaps best known for the Golden Rule: "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." Two centuries later, the Greek philosopher, Plato, wrote The Republic, in which he conceived the idea of the philosopher king. According to Plato philosopher kings had to undergo fifty years of intellectual and physical preparation to lead the state. A thousand years later, the Florentine diplomat and political philosopher, Machiavelli, penned The Prince, in which he introduced pragmatism and realism as essential elements of leadership.

The search for what makes good leaders continues to this day. Politicians, captains of industry, management gurus, psychologists, academics and, of course, the general public, all have their take on what makes some leaders bad, others good, and yet others great. I do not intend to summarise the vast and varied literature on the subject. Instead, I would like to do three things. First, I would like to suggest three leadership qualities that I think the world will need in the 21st century. Second, I would like to make three observations about common leadership challenges and weaknesses. Third, I want to suggest that these imperatives and challenges of leadership are relevant to Malaysia.


Imperatives of leadership in the 21st century

Leaders and leadership are as relevant today, as when man first organised themselves into tribes and later nations. One has only to open a newspaper, turn on the television or connect to the Internet, to see that the individuals who lead other individuals are a constant source of fascination. Their words, thoughts and actions are diligently studied. Their character strengths and flaws are carefully scrutinised. On this basis, we collectively express admiration or heap scorn. Sometimes we do both, as leaders, in the beginning, please us and, thereafter, disappoint. Or vice versa, when leaders earn our approval despite low expectations at the outset.

A great deal of serious scholarship has been invested in the question of what the qualities of a good leader are. The result is that we now have a mountain of information but no clear-cut answers. Charisma, for example, is often regarded as one of the necessary traits of leadership. Charismatic leaders are ones who can create feelings of intense admiration, confidence and loyalty among followers. But even charismatic leaders are not immune to being challenged or abandoned by their followers. If they do not fulfil their promises or if they do not act in honourable and morally correct ways, they too can quickly lose popular support. Some of history's worst leaders have been described as charismatic. By playing to his followers' basest needs and fears, Hitler's charisma and vaulting ambition brought his nation to disaster.

More than charismatic leadership, I believe what the nations of the world today need is what the leadership theorist James MacGregor Burns calls "transformational leadership" , which strives to achieve higher ideals, nobler values and superior behaviour among followers. It encourages followers to rise above narrow self-interests and to work in the service of others towards the common good. It mobilizes people to face, rather than avoid, tough realities; to tackle difficult problems and to make hard decisions. It does not turn away from the difficulty of problems by offering fake remedies. It elevates followers to a higher moral level. One example I often refer to is that of Europe. At the turn of the 20th century, many European countries were still devastatingly poor and a large number of their citizens had to migrate in order to survive. Their tendency to regularly go to war with each other also did not help matters. By the end of the 20th century, however, these same countries had become prosperous and advanced. More importantly, they had not only disavowed violence as a means of solving their problems, but had become instrumental in creating the conditions for world peace and stability.

In contrast to transformational leaders, transactional leaders tend to focus on their interests, and the interests of those on whom they depend. Not surprisingly, they are realists and pragmatists by nature and use threats, punishment and reward to achieve their ends. Such leaders can use their power for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes. In democracies, opposing political parties pitch themselves at each other to ensure public accountability and responsiveness. When
global conflicts have to be resolved or international business deals concluded, transactional leadership is called for. But transactional leaders can also exploit greed, fear and hatred to advance less desirable agendas. Racists, separatists and extremists of every stripe believe in the use of raw power to achieve their ends, even if it means depriving others of their rights, happiness and even lives.

We need more transformational leaders in the 21st century. By extension, we also need leaders who are much more capable in the exercise of what the political scientist Joseph Nye calls "soft
power". Hard power is what we are all familiar with. For governments, it includes the ability to direct, punish, defend and invade. For companies, it is the power to hire and fire and to acquire and dispose of companies. Soft power, on the other hand, is non-coercive. It sets agendas, persuades, shapes preferences and harnesses voluntary actions. It is marked by participation, delegation and networking, not command-and-control. In short, soft power is about working with and through people. While both may be needed, there is a greater need for soft power in today's complex information-based world.

The reason why soft power is required in increasing measure is that people today are becoming increasingly empowered, and countries are becoming too interdependent, to be ruled by hard power alone. Many societies are assimilating liberal democratic values. Mass education has made people more knowledgeable and discerning. They are less compliant and more distrustful of those in authority. Problems such as global warming, the spread of infectious diseases, disaster relief require collective and co-ordinated actions. Their solutions require the implicit consent of people who are switched-on and plugged-in.

The third imperative for leadership is that it must be moral and just. Good leadership in the modern age cannot operate in a moral vacuum. International law today makes it harder than in the past for leaders to get away with genocide, corruption and abuse of power. Countries
also organise embargoes and apply diplomatic pressure. These are the hard power elements. In addition, however, there is also the power of international public opinion. As mentioned earlier, the fates of countries today are intertwined as never before. The attitudes of the citizens of other countries therefore also matter as never before. When countries are perceived to behave in an immoral or unjust manner, global opinion will be marshalled against them. The fact is that
international opinion, influenced by a 24-hour-7-day-a-week media, is a prime shaper of international politics, economics and business.

Leaders today are held up by the public to a much higher standard than in the past, when there may have been no choice but to accept them. They have to have a high degree of personal integrity if they are deemed to be suitable to carry out public responsibilities. If they do
not, there will be the nagging fear that these personal compromises will carry over and affect the conduct of public duties and responsibilities.

Common leadership challenges and weaknesses

Leaders must exemplify the values they want their followers to have. As Mahatma Gandhi famously said, "You must be the change you want to see in the world". It is difficult, if not impossible, to persuade people to be idealistic and highly motivated when leaders are
self-serving and interested only in retaining power and control. Indeed, when a world leader extols the virtues of democracy, human rights and respect for the law, and then proceeds to act in a manner that is contrary to them, he or she makes an utter mockery of them.

Only when leaders show themselves to be driven by higher order goals can their followers feel fully assured that they are not somehow being deceived and manipulated into serving illegitimate or self-serving causes. Otherwise conflicting values and clash of interests will give
rise to widespread civil apathy or, even worse, open disobedience.

Walking-the-talk is therefore more than just a nice maxim. It is integral to what good leadership is about and what being a leader means. Tun Dr Ismail lived out the mottos "leadership-by-example" and "clean, efficient and trustworthy" long before these phrases gained currency. He demonstrated uncompromising integrity in all his dealings. Such is the measure of the man that we still speak of his leadership qualities and achievements 35 years after his passing.

Another common challenge for leaders is in the area of listening. Listening establishes a number of things simultaneously. It says that the leader values people. Leaders who are not people-oriented will generally find it very hard to lead from the top, front or middle. By showing themselves to be open to feedback, leaders also establish a basis for trust. Leaders who listen are less likely to pursue illegitimate goals or actions. By having their ideas and perspectives
considered, followers feel that they have a stake in the decisions made by their leaders. Finally, consultation is essential because without it, leaders cannot make informed and objective decisions.

Instead, they fall victim to the dreaded groupthink.

Listening, of course, is never easy. There are not only the views of electorates to consider, but also those of independent analysts, non-governmental organisations, media, financial markets and the blogosphere. On just about any issue of importance there will be differences of opinions due to dissimilar interests and values.

Diversity, however, is a fact of life and engaging diversity is one of the leader's main tasks. There is, of course, a limit to how much leaders can discourse and take into account. At the end of the day, they will have to make and be held accountable for decisions that they think is right. Their lives, however, would be easier if those who are affected by their decisions believe that they have been heard.

A third common challenge for leaders is to deliberately surround themselves with the best and most capable people, ones who can bring different talents and insights to bear and who may not necessarily be the most compliant. True leaders know, however, that they do not have all the answers and they must seek out those who are more competent and capable and delegate duties and responsibilities to them. If they do not, bad and poorly executed decisions can result, and this may end up eroding popular support for them. In order to be effective, they must have their eyes firmly fixed on achieving results.

Naturally, there are downsides to choosing highly capable and motivated people for one's inner circle. For one thing, they may not see eye-to-eye on many issues. It can take time a great deal of time and effort to forge a consensus. Occasionally, agreement may just not be possible. For another, second-tier leaders quite often end up challenging the leader. This makes many first-tier leaders wary about those they appoint to positions of responsibility. They may be tempted
to offer important positions to loyalists who are unsuited. Leaders, however, have to be more confident about their positions. They have to remember that they have a duty towards those who support them and that they should be uncompromising in discharging their responsibilities.


Implications for Malaysia

The general observations I have made about the imperatives and challenges of leadership in the 21st century are, I believe, relevant to Malaysia. One of this country's enduring strengths has been its almost obsessive focus on effective leadership, that is, one which has to deliver the goods to the people. This has been one source of legitimacy for leaders apart from personal popularity. The leadership process has also, to a degree, been open and inclusive and resulted in
Malaysia emerging as a shining model of development. Other countries may have had as much, if not more, than Malaysia but they were able to accomplish very much less.

As a result of its successes in human development, Malaysian society has changed. I believe that this has also made it necessary for the type of leadership to also undergo a transition from the transactional to the transformational. The Malaysian development ethos today is no
longer framed in purely materialistic terms. Malaysians, especially the younger generation, are empowered and energised. Their demands are for more moral, open, representative, equable and equitable forms of leadership. They want leaders who can courageously cross sectarian
boundaries and who depend on their intellectual and moral integrity and gravitas to attract and retain support, not just on political power and patronage.

Leaders today need to be masters of soft power because hard power, though still required to maintain law and order, is not well adapted in dealing with today's complex and interdependent world. As with any change, there will be tensions. Progress may advance and, at times, retreat, in line with changing circumstances. The pressures for transformational leadership, however, will be incessant and unremitting.

Such leaders will emerge in the future but it is necessary to remember that they have been around also in the past. Tun Dr. Ismail was one in the first wave of leaders who demonstrated an integrity that was beyond question. He passionately believed that Malaysia was a country that could accommodate the hopes and dreams of all its peoples. He envisaged a Malaysia for all without colour lines, without ethnic borders and without any one group feeling a sense of inferiority. He was Malay and a nationalist but he firmly opposed racism of any kind. Instead, he celebrated diversity.

Nor did he have the inflated self-importance that so many, on reaching his position, might have had. On being conferred an honorary doctorate of laws by Universiti Sains Malaysia on 9 June 1973, he said:

"…Saya berdiri di hadapan saudara-saudara bukan sebagai seorang pemimpin negara, bukan sebagai seorang politik, bukan sebagai seorang tokoh dalam masyarakat, tetapi hanya sebagai seorang hamba Allah di tengah-tengah orang yang berilmu, sebagai seorang manusia yang telah
lewat umur, tetapi telah banyak menjalani hidup yang penuh dengan kisah-kisah suka dan dukanya."

Such was the humility of the man. He passed away just 55 days later.

In the person of Tun Dr. Ismail, we are offered a glimpse of a gallant leader who exemplified everything that he advocated. He showed us that it is possible to hold steadfastly to one's beliefs and yet not deprive others of theirs. History shows that many have been given the chance to lead but only a few have excelled at it. This is because leaders often lose their values once they become besotted with power. Let us hope and pray that there will be many more giants like Tun Dr Ismail on whose shoulders we can stand to continue to undertake Malaysia's transformation into a modern democratic society.

Thank you.

Perempuan Memang Banyak Kerenah Kan...

SUHANA: I find that this is in someway true.. Some ..1.. 5.. 7.. Haha.. The secret of winning. But just take note, the ones in red is what every pathetic annoying guy would say. But yeah, some are very misguiding indeed, but some are just what every girl seek for.

So for your reading pleasure, here it is
-----------------------


Twenty-six things a perfect guy would do,and other propaganda disseminated by misguided women.

Someone recently sent me an email titled 26 things a perfect guy would do. I thought "hmm, nobody could possibly send me anything so stupid, it can't possibly be as dumb as it sounds." I stand corrected. The email was just as advertised: a wish list of how women supposedly want men to act, as if men in this country weren't already an episode of Friends away from turning into giant walking vaginas.

I never thought I'd ever read anything that would induce my gag reflex so quickly, and this is after having read the details of an anal prolapse that a friend sent me tonight. Here is the abridged list (because the full list might literally cause you to barf on your keyboard, and frankly, it's not worth reading), followed by my response to each "thing" that a "perfect guy would do:"

1. Know how to make you smile when you are down! When will women realize that they don't live on the set of a romantic comedy? Unless making you smile involves me playing video games while you cook me a steak, you're in for a disappointment. You don't think guys ever feel "down?" The door swings both ways, bitch.

2. Try to secretly smell your hair, but you always notice. What? Why the hell would I want to smell a woman's hair? It smells bad enough with all the sprays and perfume they use. Enough with the conditioners, sprays, and cream already; that shit makes my eyes water. What the hell is conditioner anyway?

3. Stick up for you, but still respects your independence. Translation: bail you out when you fail at life, but never bring it up during conversations.

4. Give you the remote control during the game. This one is inherently stupid because it implies that all guys like to watch "the game." Since I'd rather be shot in the chest with projectile diarrhea than watch "the game," I'll assume the author meant something worthy of watching, such as Ren & Stimpy, in which case you need to put the bitch down if she touches your remote.

5. Come up behind you and put his arms around you. LAME. Who has time for this? Sounds like something out of a herpes commercial where some lady is rock climbing or doing something else which symbolizes her independence, then out of nowhere she blurts out "I HAVE HERPES." The music gets all serious and you hear a voice over "...there is no cure," cue inspirational music "but treatment is available." Then it cuts to a shot of the bitch on a beach and a guy runs up behind her and puts his arms around her. Good job dumbass, you're dating a skank with herpes.

6. Play with your hair. Again with the hair? Women never play with the hair on my back, why the double standard?

7. His hands always find yours. This is one of those things women read and say "AWW HOW ROMANTIC." I have news for you: holding hands is stupid. Women don't know the first thing about being romantic. Only lesbians hold hands anyway; allow me to explain. The only time it's acceptable to hold hands with anyone is if you're at a peace vigil. Guys don't go to peace vigils, period. If you do, you have to surrender your balls and get a sex transplant because you're a bitch; in either case, you're a woman, and when two women hold hands it can only lead to one thing as far as I'm concerned.

8. Be cute when he really wants something. Bullshit. When I want something, I yell. If she can't hear me in the kitchen, sometimes I'll threaten beatings if I'm sober.

9. Offer you plenty of massages. For your boobs maybe. I happen to have the uncanny ability to massage breasts. With my mouth.

10. Dance with you, even if he feels like a dork. Let's face it: there are few things in this world
more stupid than dancing. Except break dancing, which pirates and lumber jacks would agree is awesome. Other than that, dancing makes me envy cripples.

11. React so cutely when you hit him and it actually hurts. See, this is what pisses me off about women: they expect special treatment at their discretion. They want equal rights, equal pay, and equal treatment for everything EXCEPT when it comes to shit like this, then they want you to "react cutely" instead of, say, putting them in a head lock and making them eat ants and/or spiders while you give them carpet burn. Why don't women react "cutely" when men hit them for a change? Oops, I forgot, that's domestic abuse.

12. Drive 5 hours just to see you for 1. Any guy who would drive five hours just to see a chick for one is an asshole. If every guy drove around for five hours just to spend one with their girlfriend, we'd fill up the air with so much pollution that we'd all choke on the exhaust, get cancer, and then bake under the sun while our lungs rupture and we slowly die from internal bleeding.

13. Stare at you. You stupid attention seeking whore, just buy the bitch a mirror, because apparently she thinks that you don't have anything better to do than to sit around and stare at her. If women ran the world, we'd still be searching for the wheel.

14. Call for no reason. Oops, this one belongs on the list of "Twenty-six things women do that piss men off because they need to fill their otherwise vapid lives with something to make them feel like they have a purpose for existing as they eventually realize that they're pissing their youth away on stupid bullshit like fashion trends."

Interesting, right!