Bebel Without a Clause

Bebel Without a Clause

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Death of Putra

KUALA LUMPUR: Police have classified the death of a Royal Military College (RMC) student in Sungai Besi as sudden death.

In confirming the report on the death of the male student, Cheras police chief Mohan Singh Tara Singh said preliminary investigations on the body of the 16-year-old student did not find any signs of foul play or physical injury.

He said a post-mortem by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Hospital also did not show any sign of criminal misdeed.

“Further investigations are being conducted,” he said. - Bernama

Global Peace Index 2012: Negara Islam yang praktiskan hudud corot, apa celop?


Walaupun Negara2 Islam di Asia Barat mengamal agama Islam (yang bermaksud "Peace"), negara2 ini tidak termasuk dalam linkungan 'ISLAM'.

Kecuali Malaysia. SYABAS.

Adakah Malaysia telahpun mengamal Islam sebenar?
Apa yang ketara, negara2 yang praktiskan hudud tidak kesampaian dalam mengamankan negara. Banyak yang lari dari kemiskinan , mahupun peperangan. Yang lari ke Thailandpun banyak, mereka kaya dengan minyak dan mahu tengok Snake and Tiger Show.

Malaysia Credit Rating: Walaupun baik namun pengangguran kalangan 45-55 tahun tinggi


Dalam diam, Malaysia masih unggul sebagai environmen penjanaan ekonomi berbanding dengan negara ASEAN yang lain kecuali Singapore, dan setanding dalam negara-negara seperti USA, Australia dan negara2 di EU. Untuk makluman lebih lanjut, layar http://chartsbin.com/view/1178 .

Masaalah yang harus di tandingi juga merangkumi permasaalahan yang timbul bila ramai orang2 muda mengambil alih pucuk pengurusan GLC dan telah melahirkan ramai penganggur terhormat yang berumur 45 tahun keatas.

Kerajaan BN, pada pendapat saya masih belum lagi cukup peka akan masaalah untuk mereka2 yang dalam peringkatan umur mid-life crisis kerana majoriti daripada mereka berniaga atas sebab terpaksa dan tiada cukup modal berniaga, hanya cukup untuk pergi haji, masukkan anak2 ke sekolah sahaja.

Monday, July 30, 2012

6 miilion ringgit and 1 kidney man and 1 jubur (i)

Saya telah bertanya seorang rakan saya mengenai perletakan jawatan DS Lajim MP Beaufort.Beliau yang juga salah seorang ketua Bahagian di Sabah berkata:
1. Biasalah, nama tak naik di PRU13
2. Masaalah Kesihatan. Beliau kini hanya beroperasi dengan satu buah pinggang sahaja
3. Tidak turun padang
4. Tidak ada sokongan dari Pergerakan Puteri, Pemuda dan juga Wanita

Ada yang kata beliau lah the 6 million dollar man. Bukan in the positive but negative :)

 Jadi ada yang mengandaikan beliau berpatah arah bila ada masyuuk.

Namun beliau masih ada strong grassroot supporters, dan BN perlu berkerja keras nampaknya.

Did Israel do a 9-11 more than 50 years ago?

I am sure many of us are already following the olympics amid the business of performing tarawikh and moreh during the Ramadhan.
What I want to point out is that there is an episode on Astro showing a tragic event that happened sometime during the Olympics in 1972 when Mark Spitz made history by winning the most medals in one event.

Some says it is a tit-for-tat.

No doubt, while being tragic, but it has also created an anti-Palestine sentiment, which we need to correct the sense by watching the following video.

It is about the Ashkenazi (Nazi? No joke!) Israel's violent nature in its struggle to steal a homeland in the 40's and 50's, by hook or by crook.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Santai Ramadan: Jewish Wailing Wall

A female CNN journalist heard about a very old Jewish man who had been going to the Western Wall to pray, twice a day, every day, for a long, long time. So she went to check it out. She went to the Western Wall and there he was, walking slowly up to the holy site. She watched him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave, using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview.
"Pardon me, sir, I'm Rebecca Smith from CNN. What's your name?

 "Morris Feinberg," he replied.

 "Sir, how long have you been coming to the Western Wall and praying?"

"For about 60 years."

 "60 years! That's amazing! What do you pray for?"

 "I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims. I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop. I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults and to love their fellow man. I pray that politicians tell us the truth and put the interests of the people ahead of their own interests."

"How do you feel after doing this for 60 years?"

"Like I'm talking to a wall!"

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Pondan dan Pengkid: Cubaan Anwar untuk memperbaiki imej nya menjelang PRU13

Secara umumnya BN tidak diskriminasi kan golongan Pondan dan Pengkid.

Ia tidak meNgalakan aktiviti tersebut kerana ia bercanggah dengan Agama Islam.

Konsep BN dalam tangani kegiatan LGBT adalah tidak akan menyokong atau memberi ruang kepada apa2 perayaan yang mengagungkan kegiatan sumbang dalam masyarakat kita.

Untuk lebih lanjut sila baca artikel yang dicilok dari blog dibawah ini.



------
Just recently, Anwar Ibrahim was recorded saying that it is right to discriminate against homosexuals. In reply to a question from lawyer Firoz Hussein if Malaysia should “discriminate against homosexuals,” Anwar said: “Yes”. “We do not give space to homosexuals.” Deputy director of Human Rights Watch (Asia division), Phil Robertson, accused Anwar of playing politics with civil liberties. “Anwar is fundamentally wrong when he maintains that it should be permissible to discriminate against homosexuals. 

The Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) response to Anwar’s latest stance on homosexual rights has been anticipated by political observers. But whether this is just another political game played by Anwar remains a question. Phil Robertson too, does not brush-off the idea and went on saying, “While this might be a good vote-getting strategy in some parts of Malaysia, his claim shamefully runs completely contrary to the central principle of non-discrimination in international human rights law”.

However, many in Malaysia agree that Anwar is just fishing for votes when he agrees to discriminate himself (homosexual), but whether his ‘masters’ in the west, including Phil Robertson himself is also in the game by pretending to bombard and condemn him in order to ensure Anwar gets the much needed Muslims’ votes in the upcoming GE, we might never know.  

anwaraidc web had exposed that Phil Robertson is known to be in close relationship with PKR through their human rights lawyers, namely, Surendran, Latheefa Koya and Fadiah Nadwa. His ‘closest’ acquaintance, however, is Fadiah. It is said that their ‘closeness’ raises brows. These lawyers’ favourite meeting place is in Bangsar Village. Phil has been to PKR HQ a number of times giving talks and trainings on how to use the human rights issue to suppress the government. 

Phil has been very vocal in the issue of ISA in Malaysia, which is championed by SUARAM. SUARAM too, has been very busy trying to tarnish the government image in the scorpene submarines purchasing issues. Therefore, we could not be wrong to assume that the HRW, PKR, SUARAM all work as a team.  

The team must have realized that they are on the losing side when Anwar received quite a hard slap on the face for his blurry stance on homosexual rights when asked by the media soon after his acquittal from the sodomy case. This, plus the SUARAM’s series of blunders, that left PKR/PR with no real issues to fight, Anwar needs to strengthen his position in the eyes of Malaysians, especially the majority Malay Muslims.  

A blurry statement on homosexual rights was a disaster.  What more with his unpopular statement in the Wall Street Journal on protecting the Zionist’s ‘rights’ in the Palestines. Many Muslims abandoned him right away after these two issues. With his chameleon nature is already too obvious, Anwar needs to choose just one character or image, for this particular GE. So, he chooses to show that he is still a devout Muslim who firmly rejects this new religion called ‘Human Rights’ promoted by the west. As a good Muslim, he couldn’t even dare to consider the rights of homosexual, lesbians or transgenders.   

He must also convince the people that the west don’t support him as alleged by his enemies. He must erase the image of a ‘western puppet’ altogether. So, we might hear more condemnation by the west towards him after this. Don’t be surprise that in the next few days, we might also hear Anwar firmly rejecting and condemning liberalism and pluralism in religion, although we know for a fact that he lives by them. So, Malaysians, I can only say this:  be ready for this new Anwar but I sure can’t promise you how long this new Anwar will last.

Read more at http://khairulryezal.blogspot.com/2012/07/hrw-condemns-anwar-anwar-struggles-to.html#8slQHfFAF0F32QXr.99

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Curry Mamak lagi lama lagi bagus: Kit Siang Pernah Halau Melayu dari Kg. Baru


Kiriman oleh Zanuddin @ Obey_one pada July 24, 2012.
Disimpan dalam Isu, Semasa


Penasihat Kebangsaan DAP, Lim Kit Siang melenting apabila parti itu didakwa diresapi elemen-elemen komunis sementara PAS pula dipengaruhi unsur-unsur organisasi penganas Jemaah Islamiah.

Reaksi spontan Kit Siang terhadap kenyataan Ketua Penolong Pengarah E2 (M), Bahagian Ancaman Ekstremis Sosial Bukit Aman, Datuk Mohd Sofian Md Makinuddin dalam Konvensyen Pemimpin Muda Negara di Parlimen 19 Julai lalu harus difahami dalam konteks sejarah penubuhan DAP dan kaitan parti itu dalam rusuhan kaum 13 Mei 1969.

Bagi golongan muda yang tidak melalui peristiwa berdarah 43 tahun lalu mungkin tidak begitu mengerti mengapa tokoh veteran DAP itu amat marah terhadap dakwaan tersebut, tetapi generasi yang melihat dengan mata kepala mereka sendiri tragedi paling dahsyat dalam sejarah negara itu sudah tentu memahami sebab musabab reaksi cacing kepanasan beliau.

Sejarah awal penubuhan DAP mempunyai kaitan rapat dengan Parti Tindakan Rakyat Singapura (People’s Action Party – PAP ) yang di tubuhkan pada tahun 1954.

Antara pelopor awal PAP ialah Lee Kuan Yew yang bertindak sebagai setiausaha agung parti itu.

Sejurus Singapura berpisah daripada Persekutuan Malaysia pada 9 Ogos 1965, pendaftaran parti itu di negara ini dibatalkan sebulan kemudian.

Maka untuk meneruskan agenda PAP yang 100 peratusnya adalah pro-Cina, Devan Nair, ahli parlimen Bangsar ketika itu berusaha menghidupkan kembali parti itu dengan mendaftar sebuah parti baru dipanggil Parti Tindakan Rakyat tetapi ditolak oleh pendaftar pertubuhan kerana mempunyai persamaan dengan PAP dari segi nama.

Devan Nair lalu menukar nama tersebut kepada Parti Tindakan Demokratik atau Democratic Action Party (DAP) yang diluluskan secara rasmi pada 19 Mac 1966.

DAP yang baru ditubuhkan itu dipelopori pula oleh Kit Siang yang dikatakan mempunyai pertalian famili dengan Kuan Yew yang berasal dari Batu Pahat, Johor.

Dari segi lambang parti, prinsip perjuangan dan cara berpolitik, tidak ada bezanya antara DAP di Malaysia dan PAP di Singapura.

Maka tidak hairanlah sehingga ke hari ini generasi pemimpin baru DAP seperti anak Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng meneruskan tradisi berkiblat kepada PAP terutamanya setelah parti itu memerintah Pulau Pinang.

Bukankah Guan Eng sendiri mengaku bahawa beliau sering melakukan lawatan ke Singapura setiap dua minggu untuk bertemu mentor besar DAP, Kuan Yew serta mendapatkan arahan-arahan spesifik berhubung gerakan kerja politik parti itu di Malaysia?

Apabila DAP dan Gerakan (ketika itu masih menjadi pembangkang) menang besar di Selangor pada pilihan raya umum tahun 1969, kedua-dua parti itu menjadi besar kepala.

DAP menggunakan kebebasan bersuara tanpa batasan dan kawalan untuk mengutuk dan menghina bangsa Melayu dengan kata-kata kesat dan mengaibkan dalam perarakan besar-besaran di Kuala Lumpur dengan membawa sepanduk dan pembesar suara.

Baru sahaja 12 tahun kaum Cina diberi taraf kerakyatan penuh melalui dasar ‘jus soli’ sebagai salah satu syarat utama Inggeris untuk kemerdekaan, orang Cina sudah naik tocang.

Menurut Laporan rasmi Majlis Gerakan Negara (MAGERAN) yang dipengerusikan oleh Almarhum Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, tindakan DAP mengadakan perarakan jalanan meraikan kemenangan mereka dengan menghambur sentimen perkauman terhadap bangsa Melayu menjadi pencetus kepada rusuhan kaum yang menelan korban lebih 2,000 nyawa.

Sehari setelah melenting, Kit Siang bertukar nada dengan mengatakan parti itu ingin bekerjasama dengan Barisan Nasional untuk menghindari tragedi 13 Mei berulang.

Tujuannya ialah untuk menutup dosa besarnya sebagai pengerak utama 13 Mei dan membasuh tangannya yang berlumuran darah rakyat tidak berdosa yang didalangi tidak lain tidak bukan oleh Kit Siang sendiri.

Slogan yang dicanang oleh Kit Siang dan pemimpin DAP Cina lain pada perhimpunan dan perarakan mereka yang menjurus kepada peristiwa berdarah 13 Mei ialah “Malai si” yang bermakna “Mati Melayu”.

Pada 11 Mei penyokong DAP berteriak:

“Apa polis boleh buat, kita raja. Buang sama polis Melayu.”

Di Jalan Bukit Bintang pada hari yang sama, DAP melaung:

“Mati Melayu, sakai pergi masuk hutan.”

Di Jalan Changkat Dollah pula mereka mengapi-apikan bahawa:

“KL sekarang Cina punya.”

Sehari kemudian pada 12 Mei di Jalan Ipoh dan Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman, penyokong DAP menjerit:

“Melayu balik kampung, Melayu sekarang tidak ada kuasa. Sekarang kita Cina sudah ‘control’.”

Malah sejarah mencatat kenyataan angkuh Kit Siang sendiri di Jalan Khir, Kampung Baru, di hadapan orang Melayu ini denga berkata:

“Melayu keluar! Apa lagi duduk sini, kita hentam lu, sekarang kita sudah ada kuasa.”

Keesokan harinya pada 12 Mei di hadapan Balai Polis Jalan Pudu, penyokong Cina DAP terus melaungkan:

“…semua Melayu kasi habis, kasi halau semua polis.”

“Apa ini Melayu, kita sudah perintah, ini negeri bukan Melayu punya, mata-mata lancau.”

Hari yang sama mereka juga mengutuk bangsa Melayu di Jalan Canvel:

“Butuh Melayu, Malai si, pergi mati Melayu.”

Di Jalan Bukit Bintang, DAP pula berkata;

“Ini negeri bukan Melayu punya, kita mahu kasi halau semua Melayu.”

Hakikatnya, DAP tidak akan bertukar menjadi sebuah parti yang memperjuangkan hak-hak orang bangsa Melayu dan pribumi kerana sikap rasis dan perkauman tebal sudah menjadi darah dagingnya.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Debat FathulBari-Tantawi: Sinar Harian sabotaj Fathul Bari?

Sial baca satu komen Hal Ustaz Fathul Bari di solek Oleh Pakar solek dari Sina Harian.
Komen saya selepas article yang saya pelik Dari Cucu tok selambit. Sebeleum moment saya selepas ini.










------

Heboh juak-juak "cybertroopers" pembangkang apabila Ustaz Fathul Bari disolek ketika berlansungnya "Debat: PRU 13: Orang Muda Pilih Siapa?" yang di adakan di Karangkraf, Shah Alam pada 19/07/2012. Untuk berlaku adil kepada beliau, bacalah penjelasan beliau seperti di bawah:


Bismillah,

Untuk isu "solek" yang diperdebatkan oleh pecinta kebenaran; komen saya:

1. Setiap insan pasti melakukan kesilapan termasuk diri saya dan Ketua Pemuda PAS. Maka saya akui kesilapan saya (seperti di dalam gambar) apabila disolek kali pertama di bilik mesyuarat (moga Allah mengampunkan kesalahan ini), dan saya telah memperpetulkan kesilapan tersebut ketika berada di pentas debat, alhamdulillah.

2. Maka, yang terbaik buat pesalah adalah mengaku kesalahan dan beristighfar.

3. Bagi yang memberi komentar, jagalah lisan dan perkataan. Sesungguhnya Allah itu Maha Melihat lagi Maha Mendengar.

4. Bagi pihak yang menganjurkan program yang memerlukan kepada solekan, maka tolonglah ambil serius isu perbezaan jantina antara juru solek dan yang disolek.

5. Mungkin ada yang beralasan, "tidak mengapa jika tidak menyentuh kulit", tetapi Islam memerintahkan umatnya menjaga mata pandangan. Sabda Nabi SAW: "mata juga berzina". Melihat aurat wanita adalah sesuatu yang dilarang. Bahkan melihat wanita tanpa keperluan pun kita diperintah oleh Nabi SAW agar bersegera melarikan pandangan.

6. Saya dan KP PAS (saya yakin) bukanlah sengaja menghulurkan wajah untuk disolek, tetapi keizinan untuk disolek diambil oleh kami secara spontan tanpa sempat berfikir panjang. Inilah kelemahan manusia.

7. Saya cuba disolek kali pertama di dalam bilik (seperti di dalam gambar). Pada waktu itu saya baru tiba dalam kekalutan dan kelewatan, lalu disolek buat kali pertama. Tetapi saya telah meminta daripada juru solek untuk membersihkan sendiri. Namun oleh kerana ketidak"cekapan" saya dalam menyolek menyebabkan wajah saya bertapuk lalu juru solek tersebut melakukan touch up. Manakala kali kedua ketika di pentas, saya bermuhasabah kesilapan yang lalu maka saya tidak mengizinkan wajah saya disolek olehnya sekali lagi.

8. Wall Ustaz Fauzan menurut pendapat saya bertujuan menyedarkan pelampau politik yang memaksumkan tokoh-tokoh parti mereka bahawa setiap manusia tidak akan bebas dari silap dan salah termasuk KP PAS. Moralnya: Oleh itu, jangan kita mudah menghukum orang lain kerana seluruh manusia tidak maksum kecuali Nabi.

9. Saya berterima kasih atas nasihat Ustaz Fauzan dan sahabat-sahabat atas kesilapan ini. Moga Allah memberikan kekuatan untuk kita mengharungi fitnah dunia dan akhirat. Wallaahua'lam.

Ustaz Fathul Bari bin Mat Jahya

Read more at http://khairulryezal.blogspot.com/2012/07/isu-ustaz-fathul-bari-disolek-baca.html#FExUyc2xkZ5t6ZWc.99
----------------///

Yang saya pasti adalah satu |
Pengambilan gambar itu memang terancang.
Tanggung jawab Sinar Harian adalah menguruskan acara debat itu ? Dengan pengacaraan yang terapi termasuk memilih pengacara yang ahli parti PAS mula kah kita kata bahawa insiden in memang disengajakan oleh Sinar Harian.
Hakikinya memang Sinar Harian pada pendapat saya memang kerjanya hari itu adalah untuk sabotaj fathul Bari.
Sinar Harian kononnya ingin menjadi kan ini satu forum yang neutral tapi memilih pengacara yang berat sebelah seperti apa yang berlaku debat perdana wacan PRU 13 di Kelantan. Dan ambil gambar Fathul Bari di semasa yang ngam ngam aje dengan ada Pulak cameraman terpacak di situ. Hairan? Ini semu terancang la beb.
Hari ini gua makan kat Victoris Station. High Class beb. Di Kayu Pun low class.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Kes Air Rawat Selangor sama macam kes Lynas. Kurang Mahir analisa Fakta.

Much ado about nothing.
Nampaknya,isu air Selangor ini makin kelamaan menjadi isu sama macam Lynas jugak. kurang fakta hanya laungan retorik dari pihak pembangkang.
Langat 2 sudah lama dalam perancangan memastikan Selangor tidak akan mengalami masalah air rawat di masa akan datang.
Sepatutnya Kalau pihak kerajaan negeri Selangor ingin menjaga hak rakyat sepatutnya isu nak ambil,alih Syabas dilakukan pada 4 tahun yang lepas. Bukan bila sudah hendak ada pilihanraya.
Langat 2 memang akan tetap berlaku kerana populasi penduduk,akan sentiasa bertambah. Tahap air rawat digunakan untuk menjadi kayu ukur bila keadaan air akan menjadi kritikal di masa hadapan dan tadahan air rawat perlu di siapkan. ia Bukan pengukur untuk bila nak selesaikan masalah NRW atau air tidak mendatangkan pendapatan ( Non Reenue Water).
NRW memang satu sumber mengapa air rawat tidak mencukupi. Tetapi menurut penyelidikan dunia menyelesaikan masalah ini amat rumit dan memerlukan kos yang lebih tinggi over benefits ( relative benefits/ costs). Maka pembinaan Langat 2 adalah mesti dilakukan . Walaupun ia memakan belanja yang tinggi. Kerana dia sudah jadi kerja yang urusetia kerana Kerajaan negeri Selangor telah melengahkan proposal untuk mengambil alih Syabas terlampau lama sekiranya kerajaan negeri sudah dapat pastikan jalan penyelesaian.soalannya kenapa sekarang mau nak ambil alih.
Rakyat sudah tentu boleh menilai dan sudah nampak bagaimana kerajaan pakatan pembangkang akan mencari helah dana alasan untuk mempolitikkan apa sahaja untuk menyalahkan kepada orang lain.
Kalau tidak mahir mengurus janganlah salahkan orang lain, letak jawatan lagi dapat pahala dari cuba menegakkan benang basah,

Kes meraikan Anak Yatim Ahmad Maslan: Hina ke kalau anak2 yatim itu duduk bersila. Patut dipuji dan ditegur secara beradab kalau ada silap

Hari baik bulan baik ini eluknya kita membuat kebajikan lebih2 lagi memberi makan kepada anak2 yatim yang berpuasa.Walaubagaimanapun, kadang2 perkerjaan dan niat baik cara tidak sengaja di sengajakan memberi pengertian yang salah.
Umpamanya. lawatan Ahmad Maslan ke rumah anak2 yatim di Hulu Kelang (tak jemput aku pulak, padan muka dah kena belasah dek kaum) untuk meraikan anak2 dari Rumah Amal Belaian Kasih Hulu Klang, Rumah Anak Miskin Syifa dan Rumah Anak Yatim Al-Nasuha.

Anda boleh baca isu di blog bro Zelmey, http://zelmey.blogspot.com/2012/07/antara-dua-darjat-orang-kaya-vs-anak.html yang terbit dari blogger tersohor yang telah sengaja turun tahta nombor satu pro-BN, macam Muhammad Ali lah kot, lepas ini boleh rampas balik bila kembali ke BN. Ha hahaha.
Layan post nya yang mengutuk Ahmad Maslan http://aku-tak-peduli.blogspot.com/2012/07/wassatiyah-umno-antara-dua.html/ Anda juga boleh layan doubleY yang menyangkal tuduhan mereka2 ini. http://yuseriyusoff.blogspot.com/2012/07/tuduhan-kononnya-datuk-ahmadmaslan.html

Ini adalah sedikit gambar2 yang menjadi kontroversial pada mereka.

Saya sedikit terkilan dengan komen2 mereka yang dibuat dalam bulan ramadan.

Macam2 persoalan dari saya kerana tidak sanggup seseorang itu dalam hendak melakukan kebaikan di luta sampai begini.

Pertama. adakah bersila itu hina?

Betul ke mereka in makan harta anak yatim?

Berat tuduhan itu bro, lebih2 lagi kalau tak betul. Niat orang kita tak tahu.
Adakah benar beliau melakukan acara itu sengaja hendak makan anak yatim dan hendak menghina mereka.

Pada lazimnya, budak2 kecil kalau di kampong halaman saya, akan kena duduk bersila dan orang2 tua duduk selesa sedikit.
Ini berlaku bilamana keadaan tidak ada kerusi mencukupi.

Dan selalunya juga sebagaimana yang telah saya alami, yang menguruskan tempat makan adalah PENYELIA rumah bakti itu sendiri. Mereka yang akan menyusun meja, kerusi dan aturcara. Saya rasa ini sudah menjadi 'standard' bagi rumah bakti ini.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Apahal Abdullah Sani MP Kuala Langat halau isteri? Tak Patut bulan puasa nie.

Sumber disini

Laluan dan design Lebuhraya rakyat di dakwa di citakrompak dari JKR


Saya telah berkesempatan bertemu dengan seorang jurutera/arkitek dari Kelantan yang pernah bekerja di JKR bahagian perancangan.

Apa yang dinyatakan amat mengejutkan. Beliau mendakwa bahawa design laluan intipati lebuhraya ini telah dirancang di JKR bertahun2  termasuk rekabentuk laluan lebuhraya ini. Lebuhraya ini bukan lah ide baru tetapi sudah lama, terbantut kerana kerajaan negeri tidak memberi kerjasama sehingga rancangan lebuhraya terbantut.
Cerita, kononnya, perunding dari JKR sabotaj adalah tidak benar. Yang ketara kononnya ada konsultan yang memberi khidmat percuama adalah sebenarnya reka bentuk lebuh raya sudah hampir siap, hanya perlu beberapa modifikasi sahaja.
Sejauh mana kebenaran ini, tetapi kalau benar maka PAS sekali lagi terbukti setelah mereka ini kantoi mereka akan membuat apa2 cerita kononnya mereka ini memperjuangkan rakyat Kelantan yang zalim.
Yang sebenarnya mereka ini tidak akan membenarkan rakyat Kelantan maju dan makmur sekiranya projek2 itu di bernaskan oleh BN.
Mereka tidak terima hakikat bahawa BN boleh membawa kemajuan ke Kelantan.
Ini sebagaimana dinyatakan oleh PM Najib, busuk hati bila satu kebaikan itu datang dari 'musuh politik' nya.

Gempar: Obama arah Israel untuk serang Syria. PAS bersubahat?


Memang kita tahu berapa taksub nya PAS dan Melayu PKR dalam menyaksikan kejatuhan Assad di Syria walaupun pada hakiki nya ini adalah satu rancangan untuk menjatuhkan kuasa Islam di dunia. Syria adalah sekutu Iran dan Malaysia. kedua2 negara ini adalah dalam' NEXT CNAGE LIST'.
Walaupun kita tidak juga menyokong Assad namun ada pelbagai cara untuk mengubah di Syria. Di sana ramai hantu2 dan pelesit hanya menanti masa untuk mengambil alih pemerintahan Greater Israel sebagaimana dirancang atas kepercayaan neo- Zionis sebelum wujudnya kepulangan Jesus Christ ke dunia.
Pada mata kristian, ini adalah mulanya kembali era kristian dimana Nabi Isa akan hidup,kembali dan memulakan pemerintahan kristian sehingga kiamat.

Yang PAS jadi bodoh apasal?



Sumber: http://news.antiwar.com/2012/07/20/barak-orders-israeli-military-to-prepare-for-syria-invasion/
---------
In an interview with Israeli Channel 10 today Defense Minister Ehud Barak confirmed that he has ordered the military to prepare for a full-scale invasion of neighboring Syria, with the goal of seizing weapons from the Syrian military, currently embroiled in a civil war.

Barak sought to justify the move, saying that it was possible Syria might transfer “anti-aircraft missiles” or even chemical weapons to Hezbollah, a militant faction operating out of neighboring Lebanon.

There were some reports that Syria was hoping to ditch some of its less useful weapons on Hezbollah, because they weren’t of much value in the ongoing civil war and were costing resources to protect from looters. Though this would be the case with some weapons, it is unlikely Syria would want to reduce its anti-aircraft arsenal, particularly with Western nations chomping at the bit for a NATO attack and imposed regime change.

Early this week it had been reported Israel was considering such a step, and that Pentagon officials had been dispatched to try to talk Israel out of the invasion, warning it would bolster Assad’s position.

PAS Proxy USA: Perang anti assad di Syria adalah rancangan menjatuhkan Kekautan Islam.

Adakah PAS yang sentiasa menyokong cubaan rampasan kuasa di Arab bermain proksi dengan USA dan pihak barat?

Adakah mereka ini yang pernah menyatakan pada mula perjuangan ISLAM kini berpatah arah kepada sosialisme dan kebajikan semata2 menari atas rentak USA dan Barat?

Corak semua sama. Ingat bersih 3.0 yang mirip sama dengan Arab Spring.
Baca lah artikel ini yang terdapat di www.rense.com

Amatilah apa yang dimaksudkan oleh artikel ini.kita jangan tindak melulu dalam memberi sokongan terhadap sesuatu yang kita hanya dengar khabar2 angin.

Kita PASTI PAS dan PKR telah dimainkan DAP untuk mewujudkan the MALAY SPRING.

Adakah Malaysia dalam senarai akan datang untuk menghapuskan kuasa Islam maju dan progresif dan PAS adalah So.dadu bodohnya?

----------

Nothing Civil About
Washington's War On Syria
By Stephen Lendman
7-17-12


Insurgents are Washington proxies. Key NATO partners, rogue Arab League states, and Israel are very much involved.

The same dirty game repeats. Independent states are targeted for regime change. All options are used. They include full-scale war, mass killing, and turning nations into charnel houses on the pretext of liberating them.

American-style freedom is slavery. Mainstream discourse doesn't explain. It repeats long ago discredited notions about humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect (R2P). Protracted violence and bloodshed hardly reflect it.

Washington-led Western generated violence ravages Syria. On Sunday, The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) declared ongoing conflict a civil war.

It's not civil when mostly imported proxies are used. Most Syrians deplore violence and oppose internal and external groups committing it.

According to ICRC, Syria is involved in a "non-international armed conflict." Previous statements said violence occurred only in certain hotspots. "Hostilities have spread to other areas of the country," said ICRC.

"International humanitarian law applies to all areas where hostilities are taking place."

War rages in Syria. The laws of war apply. ICRC's statement changes nothing.

In times of war, international law and international humanitarian law apply. Gertrude Stein's most famous quote is relevant. "A rose is a rose is a rose," she said. She meant "things are what they are."

A war crime is a war crime is a war crime. So are crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg Charter calls a crime against peace:

(1) "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;" and

(2) "Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned" above.

It defines war crimes as:

"Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity."

Crimes against humanity are:

"Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

"Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity....is a crime under international law."

Since last year, all of the above apply in Syria.

The 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities includes similar laws of war.

The US Army Field Manuel 27-10 covers "The Law of Land Warfare." Section II explains Crimes Under International Law. Paragraph 498 states:

"Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Such offenses in connection with war comprise:

Crimes against peace.

Crimes against humanity.

War crimes."

Paragraph 499 defines War Crimes, saying:

"The term 'war crime' is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime."

Paragraph 500 covers Conspiracy, Incitement, Attempts, and Complicity, saying:

"Conspiracy, direct incitement, and attempts to commit, as well as complicity in the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are punishable."

These provisions apply to all US military and civilian personnel. They include top commanders, the Secretary of Defense, his subordinates, and the President and Vice President of the United States.

Moreover, under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2), all international laws and treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land."

The UN Charter's Article 2 states:

"The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members...."

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Article 33 states:

"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."

In other words, nations may not settle disputes by planning, instigating, or becoming involved in war. All other means must be used. Only the Security Council can authorize military action in cases when one or more nations attack another.

America, key NATO partners, and complicit regional states violated the laws of war by using proxy forces against Syria. Waging war this way isn't "civil."

Belligerent states bear full responsibility. Under international law, they're guilty of crimes of war and against humanity.

The Geneva Conventions and Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions also apply. Their provisions are explicit with regard to crimes of war and against humanity.

Attacking civilians is strictly prohibited. Western-directed insurgents target them.

They're victims. So is Syria's government. It threatens no one. Nonetheless, it's been willfully and illegally attacked. Whether by NATO or proxy forces makes no difference. Killing is killing is killing whatever elements are involved.

They're entitled to sue belligerent states at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It's the UN's primary judicial organ. It's charged with settling legal disputes between nations and providing advisory opinions received from authorized international organizations, agencies and the General Assembly.

According to Francis Boyle, countries like Iran and Syria can request emergency hearings. At issue is preventing further economic sanctions, blockades and/or war.

Washington obstructs peace. It refuses good faith negotiations. It bears full responsibility for violence ravaging Syria. The ICJ has legal authority to hold guilty states accountable.

Hoped for never again became perpetual war. It's official US policy. Holding it responsible is long overdue.

So is prosecuting culpable officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Established by the July 1, 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it has jurisdiction over individuals in its 121 member states.

When they're unable or unwilling, it's charged with investigating and trying them for genocide, crimes of war and against humanity. This type lawlessness is too grave to ignore.

ICC prosecutors function largely as imperial tools. Victims, not perpetrators are accused. US officials are flagrantly guilty. It's vital to hold them accountable. Only then might never again be possible.

Cut off the head of rogue lawlessness and maybe complicit partners will back off. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Top US officials behind bars may be the best deterrent to war.

A Final Comment

Daily events advance the ball for war. On July 15, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) headlined "Assad receives last warning to stop moving his WMD(s): Top generals defect."

Alleged defections of generals, other officers, and entire army units are spurious. So are reports about Syria moving nerve agents, mustard gas and cyanide to northern and central locations for possible use.

At issue is hyping fear and advancing the ball for war. DF claims Western "intelligence channels" gave Assad a "last warning." Leave these alleged weapons in storage or they'll "be destroyed from the air."

This type threat comes perilously close to declaring war. Pretexts are easy to invent. It could come any time.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Kalau Yahudi dan Islam boleh bersatu ini kan pula PAS dan UMNO.



PARIS — The stories of the Holocaust have been documented, distorted, clarified and filtered through memory. Yet new stories keep coming, occasionally altering the grand, incomplete mosaic of Holocaust history.
Enlarge This Image

Martin Bureau/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The film's director, Ismaël Ferroukhi.
One of them, dramatized in a French film released here last week, focuses on an unlikely savior of Jews during the Nazi occupation of France: the rector of a Paris mosque.

Muslims, it seems, rescued Jews from the Nazis.

“Les Hommes Libres” (“Free Men”) is a tale of courage not found in French textbooks. According to the story, Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the founder and rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, provided refuge and certificates of Muslim identity to a small number of Jews to allow them to evade arrest and deportation.

It was simpler than it sounds. In the early 1940s France was home to a large population of North Africans, including thousands of Sephardic Jews. The Jews spoke Arabic and shared many of the same traditions and everyday habits as the Arabs. Neither Muslims nor Jews ate pork. Both Muslim and Jewish men were circumcised. Muslim and Jewish names were often similar.

The mosque, a tiled, walled fortress the size of a city block on the Left Bank, served as a place to pray, certainly, but also as an oasis of calm where visitors were fed and clothed and could bathe, and where they could talk freely and rest in the garden.

It was possible for a Jew to pass.

“This film is an event,” said Benjamin Stora, France’s pre-eminent historian on North Africa and a consultant on the film. “Much has been written about Muslim collaboration with the Nazis. But it has not been widely known that Muslims helped Jews. There are still stories to be told, to be written.”

The film, directed by Ismaël Ferroukhi, is described as fiction inspired by real events and built around the stories of two real-life figures (along with a made-up black marketeer). The veteran French actor Michael Lonsdale plays Benghabrit, an Algerian-born religious leader and a clever political maneuverer who gave tours of the mosque to German officers and their wives even as he apparently used it to help Jews.

Mahmoud Shalaby, a Palestinian actor living in Israel, plays Salim — originally Simon — Hilali, who was Paris’s most popular Arabic-language singer, a Jew who survived the Holocaust by posing as a Muslim. (To make the assumed identity credible, Benghabrit had the name of Hilali’s grandfather engraved on a tombstone in the Muslim cemetery in the Paris suburb of Bobigny, according to French obituaries about the singer. In one tense scene in the film a German soldier intent on proving that Hilali is a Jew, takes him to the cemetery to identify it.)

The historical record remains incomplete, because documentation is sketchy. Help was provided to Jews on an ad hoc basis and was not part of any organized movement by the mosque. The number of Jews who benefited is not known. The most graphic account, never corroborated, was given by Albert Assouline, a North African Jew who escaped from a German prison camp. He claimed that more than 1,700 resistance fighters — including Jews but also a lesser number of Muslims and Christians — found refuge in the mosque’s underground caverns, and that the rector provided many Jews with certificates of Muslim identity.

In his 2006 book, “Among the Righteous,” Robert Satloff, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, uncovered stories of Arabs who saved Jews during the Holocaust, and included a chapter on the Grand Mosque. Dalil Boubakeur, the current rector, confirmed to him that some Jews — up to 100 perhaps — were given Muslim identity papers by the mosque, without specifying a number. Mr. Boubakeur said individual Muslims brought Jews they knew to the mosque for help, and the chief imam, not Benghabrit, was the man responsible.

Mr. Boubakeur showed Mr. Satloff a copy of a typewritten 1940 Foreign Ministry document from the French Archives. It stated that the occupation authorities suspected mosque personnel of delivering false Muslim identity papers to Jews. “The imam was summoned, in a threatening manner, to put an end to all such practices,” the document said.

Mr. Satloff said in a telephone interview: “One has to separate the myth from the fact. The number of Jews protected by the mosque was probably in the dozens, not the hundreds. But it is a story that carries a powerful political message and deserves to be told.”

A 1991 television documentary “Une Résistance Oubliée: La Mosquée de Paris” (“A Forgotten Resistance: The Mosque of Paris”) by Derri Berkani , and a children’s book “The Grand Mosque of Paris: A Story of How Muslims Saved Jews During the Holocaust,” published in 2007, also explore the events.

The latest film was made in an empty palace in Morocco, with the support of the Moroccan government. The Paris mosque refused to grant permission for any filming. “We’re a place of worship,” Mr. Boubakeur said in an interview. “There are prayers five times a day. Shooting a film would have been disruptive.”

Benghabrit fell out of favor with fellow Muslims because he opposed Algerian independence and stayed loyal to France’s occupation of his native country. He died in 1954.

In doing research for the film, Mr. Ferroukhi and even Mr. Stora learned new stories. At one screening a woman asked him why the film did not mention the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern European origin who had been saved by the mosque. Mr. Stora said he explained that the mosque didn’t intervene on behalf of Ashkenazi Jews, who did not speak Arabic or know Arab culture.

“She told me: ‘That’s not true. My mother was protected and saved by a certificate from the mosque,’ ” Mr. Stora said.

On Wednesday, the day of the film’s release here, hundreds of students from three racially and ethnically mixed Paris-area high schools were invited to a special screening and question-and-answer session with Mr. Ferroukhi and some of his actors.

Some asked banal questions. Where did you find the old cars? (From an antique car rental agency.) Others reacted with curiosity and disbelief, wanting to know how much of the film was based on fact, and how it could have been possible that Jews mingled easily with Muslims. Some were stunned to hear that the Nazis persecuted only the Jews, and left the Muslims alone.

Reviews here were mixed on the film, which is to be released in the Netherlands, Switzerland and Belgium. (American rights have been sold as well.) The daily Le Figaro said it “reconstitutes an atmosphere and a period marvelously.” The weekly L’Express called it “ideal for a school outing, less for an evening at the movies.”

Mr. Ferroukhi does not care. He said he was lobbying the Culture and Education Ministries to get the film shown in schools. “It pays homage to the people of our history who have been invisible,” he said. “It shows another reality, that Muslims and Jews existed in peace. We have to remember that — with pride.”


A version of this article appeared in print on October 4, 2011, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: Heroic Tale Of Holocaust, With a Twist.

Source: new york time.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Ke tidakadilan Debat Sinar Astro: Kenapa bilangan orang PAS lebih ramai?

Hari ini adalah debat antara Ustaz Muda Fathul Bari dari UMNO dan Nasrudin Tantawi dari PAS, Tapi sdah jelas bilangan penyokong Pakatan rakyat semasa penyiaran adalah lebih ramai bila kita dengar suara boo mereka bila mana ustaz Fathul Bari berhujah.

Saya kira bilangan penyokong perlu lah di tapis agar bilangan yag adil dapat di 'maintain'kan.

walaupun tajuk debat agak neutral, namun kita pasti penceramah PAS akan snetiasa mengubah suaikan debat ini secara politik. Umpamanya, soalan seperti bajet sebenarnya tidak patut diarahkan kepada Fathul Bari kerana beliau bukan dalam rangkaian pemerintah atau kabinet. Apa yang baik perlu kita terima, katanya. Nilaikan seasuatu dengan fakta bukan dengan persepsi.

Ustaz Nasaruddin, pulak cakap lebih pasal Winnable Candidate (macam biasa dengar) bila soalan berkenaan artis jadi calun Pakatan Pembangkang. Benarkah tiada rasuah dalam kerajaan PAS di Kedah. Habis yang hampir goncang kerajaan PAS tempuh hari bukankah disebabkan tuduhan rasuah yangdilemparkan kepada Ustaz Azizan.

Fathul Bari selanjutnya memberi nasihat agar pilhpoltik yang berdasarkan syarie atau fakta bukan persepsi, fitnah mefitnah antara satu sama lain.  Dalam gulungan Ustaz Nasharudin pula, cuba menegak benang basah kononnya rasuah itu adalah persepsi pada UMNO walhal dia pula menyebut Tun Mahathir pernah mengatakan peihal rasuah dalam UMNO. Beliau lupa pula rasuah Nik Aziz kepada orang Asli. semasa PRU Kecil di Gua Musang  Bolehkah dia bersumpah bila Pembankang menang PRU rasuah akan di hapuskan sama sekali.

Nasharudin lupa perihal tingkahlaku PAP menggulakan orang Melayu Singapura dan akhirnya mereka hilang kuasa bila Lee Kuan Yew mengaturkan Social Engineering dimana kawasan Melayu majoriti dihapuskan. Gerrymandering dan penghapusan kuasa orang Melayu sedang berkalu di Pulau Pinang.

Black Monkey from Kuantan


Thursday, July 19, 2012

Bai Fangli: Selfless donation to poor students - China.org.cn

Bai Fangli: Selfless donation to poor students - China.org.cn




The last instalment of Unsung Heroes series is one hero provided financial help to poor students. But this is no millionaire -- he made a living by pedalling a pedicab. Bai Fangli donated a total of 350,000 yuan to help more than 300 poor students continue with their studies. In 2005, he passed away at the age of 93.


Bai Fangli: Selfless donation to poor students


For almost twenty years, to save up for his donations, Bai Fangli peddled his pedicab everyday.

His devotion started in 1987 when he was 74 years old. Bai had prepared to retire and say goodbye to his job.

But after coming back to his hometown, a group of children working in the field aroused his attention.

Bai's daughter, Bai Jinfeng said:" He asked why the children didn't go to school. And our relatives told him that it was because they were too poor to afford tuition. My father was worried so he decided to donate 5,000 yuan to the schools in our hometown. But for him, it was all he owned."

As soon as he returned to Tianjin, Bai went back to work. All of his earnings went to support the needy students.

His sons and daughters tried to persuade him to change his mind, as they wanted him to enjoy a relaxing life. But the father turned a deaf ear to them.

Bai Jinfeng also said:" At that time, he went out at dawn and wouldn't return until darkness fell. He earned 20 to 30 yuan each day. After returning home, he put his earnings in a place carefully."

Bai had always felt regretful that he was illiterate. So he hoped the next generation could change their destiny with education.


Bai Fangli: Selfless donation to poor students


Later on, to increase his effort to assist students in need, Bai moved to a simple room near the Tianjin Railway Station. He waited for clients 24 hours a day, ate simple food and wore discarded second-hand clothes he found.

At the age of 82 years old, to his children's surprise, Bai made another decision.

He founded an education support fund with the help of loans.

But his life driving a pedicab continued.

Xu Xiuxiang, one of the workers of Education Support Fund, said:" He never forgot when to give money to the schools and often urged us to give his earnings to the school. Each time he gave the money he felt very happy and said he had completed his mission again."

In 2001, he drove his pedicab to Tianjin YaoHua Middle School, to delivering his last installment of money. Nearly 90 years old, he told the students that he couldn't work any more. All of the students and teachers were moved to tears.

Bai Fangli said:" I hope the students could study hard and get a good job, and then make contributions to our country."

A long journey of supporting and aiding students lasted two decades.

In 2005, he was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.

Although he had kept none of his earnings for himself, he was left with his selfless spirit and love.

Beli barangan China, dah terkencing baru nak terberak.

Seringkali masyarakat di Malaysia suka membuat andaian tanpa mengusul periksa dan bertindak menghukumi terlebih awal.
Kita satu masyarakat yang lebih mengutamakan peribahasa sudah terhantuk baru tengadah, atau dah terhantuk baru nak dengar, dah kencing baru nak terberak.
Bercakap pasal mutu, maka kita lebih utamakan barangan yang murah tanpa usul periksa akan mutu sesuatu barangan itu.
Kalau di tanya, mana lagi baik, barangan China ke atau Germany?
Silat ilhat gambar di bawah:

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Warga Bukit Atarabangsa numero uno blogger BN


Tahniah brother APA yang telah dapat menjadi number one dan telah menjadi satu sejarah besar bagi warga Bukit Antarabangsa.

Beliau yang kini telah menjadi ikon seorang blogger kedai kopi telah menunjukkan tiada yang mustahil dalam dunia ini. Bila datang ke Craven kamu akan pasti terlihat seorang separuh umur walaupun rambut masih belum beruban, duduk dimeja sambil menaip laptop. Hanya dua tempat meja akan menjadi tempat favoritenya. Yang sudah pasti mesti berdekatan dengan suis tenaga , keperluan untuk semua blogger seperti beliau. Tidak kira Siang atau malam, kadang2 beliau ini tidak tidur sehari suntuk kerana menyiapkan assisgnment yang diassignkan ke atas diri sendiri.

Apakah rahsia APA? Disiplin dan jangan cepat giveup katanya, adalah antara sifat yang perlu ada.

Sebagai number one, sudah sampai masa, beliau mempunyai team media nya sendiri, dan bila agaknya UMNO hendak mengeluarkan belanja sedikit seperti yang diperuntukkan bagi sesetengah blogger number one yang lain.

Last but not least, tahniah lagi sekali kepada blogger APA, dan thank you for the teh tarek celebration semalam, walaupun kecil, namun amat bererti kepada saya dan seluruh warga Bukit Antarabangsa,

Caption| macam kenal aje enam2 orang ini. Kalau ada 6 orang APA, apa akan jadi Pulak di Dunia blogger ini.

Salah satu sikap APA adalah selalu mencabar diri sendiri.

So what is the Next stop for APA, nombor one in Malaysia?.😜😜😜

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Isu air dan derhaka tihta sultan: Khalid Ibrahim , once a traitor always a traitor?


A good write up on the water issus in Selangor by Datuk Seri Azman Ujang, ex- director .
in chef of bernama.




Ingat tak baginda Sultan ada menitahkan supaya isu air ini jangan dipolitikkan, dan isu ini telah lama diselesaikan semasa zaman BN dulu. Sudah jelas Khalid menderhaka lagi kepada Sultannya, adakah ini tabiat asli orang Melayu berbangsa JAWA ijok.

Langat 2 akan sentiasa memberi manfaat walaupun perlaksanaan nya mungkin akan mengambil keuntungan yang ada merasakan berat sebelah atau tidak adil.

Air adalah isu keselamatan,seperti diSingapura, lebih2 lagi pasir nak bertayammum pun dah kena jual. Tetapi Kalau berjunub , air lagi best beb.

Majlis keselamatan negara (MKN) telah mengenal pasti air sebagai sekuriti, lama dah dan selari dengan piawaian antarabangsa dan seharusnya ia dibawah jagaan Pusat. Ia sebagai tier ketiga sama dengan bekalan elektrik.

Kalau tak ada air Pulak, kilang beerpun mungkin kena tutup dan juga spa2 dan rumah urut Ronnie Liu. Cuba fikir mengapa mereka berdua ini senyap pasal isu Catuan air.

Ukuran untuk air mencukupi mestilah simpanan yang dihantar sebelum ke pengguna, iaitu empangan yang mengandungi air dirawat.

Kalau penduduk Selangor ini mengamalkan sikap sayangi sungai maka, sewaktu krisis bolehlah kita menggunakan air sungai tanpa rawat.



------------------
Holding water security to ransom

SELANGOR Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim last week upped the ante in his game of brinkmanship with the federal government over water issues as the dreaded water crisis has begun in his state, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.

Reports say at least one million people in the three regions, which are the country's most densely populated, are affected by supply shortages.

It's not surprising that Khalid remains defiant. He thinks he holds the trump card against the federal government for the Pakatan Rakyat coalition which rules Selangor.

But what's unbecoming is that in doing so, he is also going against the "titah" or royal instruction of the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah.

In May, the Selangor ruler told the Khalid administration not to politicise the water issue "in the interest of the people and development of the state". But it seems now that not only did he choose to ignore all warnings of the water crisis, but has even worsened the situation by issuing an ultimatum to the federal government last Friday.

He is demanding that the federal government put in writing the proposed "post-Langat 2" water tariff and declare water facilities worth RM10.5 billion as "state assets" before both parties can even discuss approval for the Langat 2 treatment plant, which the state government has withheld since it came to power four years ago.

Langat 2 can ensure adequate treated water supply in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya with some 7.3 million consumers until 2030.

Khalid's stand against granting the development order for work on the Langat 2 plant to begin is based on his fears of a tariff hike, among others.

"If they agree not to increase the water tariff, we also want to discuss the recognition of RM10.5 billion of Selangor's assets. Then I will tell the people of Selangor that this is a good deal for them.

"If I am satisfied, they can even proceed with Langat 3," he said in a display of ego as he knows that nobody has even talked about a Langat 3.

Selangor's water politics has not only thickened but Khalid has a knack of throwing more spanners in the works. These include transferring water from the Kenyir Lake in Terengganu rather than the Pahang river like the federal government has decided with plans well underway, as well as developing the state's underground water sources.

Even his insistence on reducing non-revenue water (NRW) by 10% as a better alternative to the Pahang-Selangor Water Transfer project, which includes the Langat 2 plant, has been dismissed as not viable by an Energy, Green Technology and Water Ministry senior official.

Its water sector senior division secretary Sutekno Ahmadbelon said it would cost RM7.2 billion to reduce NRW from 32.3% to 20.8%, which would only provide an extra 500 million litres per day (MLD), compared with the total cost of the Pahang-Selangor water transfer and Langat 2 which would cost RM8.9 billion but would bring in 1,130 MLD in its first phase.

It is also not cheaper to transfer water from Kenyir instead of the Pahang river as the cost to just lay the 500km of pipes from Kenyir to Langat will come to RM11.3 billion.

One might understand Khalid turning a blind eye to dealing with the BN politicians but why is he shutting out Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (Syabas), the privatised legal entity tasked with supplying clean water to Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya?

Khalid and his officials keep telling the people that there's enough water. Media representatives were taken to the five dams in Selangor which showed a decent level of water but the critical issue is treated water not raw water. All the 34 treatment plants are operating without a break and should some of them break down, then we had it.

Syabas chief operating officer Datuk Lee Miang Koi said that the company has sent no less than 50 proposals and follow-up letters to the state government to avert the water crisis but to no avail.

It's obvious that Khalid is against water privatisation but I'm sure he knows that signed contracts must be honoured. Anyway what kind of message are we sending investors?

Also legal suits amounting to hundreds of million have been filed by Syabas against Selangor for alleged breaches of agreements.

The Selangor government wants to take over water resources worth at least RM10 billion from the concessionaires but even assuming that it has the financial means to do so, how is it going to recoup its investments when it insists on giving free water to the people? So far Khalid has avoided talking about this.
So its policy on the matter is not only conflicting but, pardon the pun, doesn't hold water.

The bigger question is, why is the mentri besar allowed to virtually hold the country to ransom over such a critical matter as our water security which has a grave impact on the people and economy?

The federal government needs to work overtime to see how to unwrangle the mess before more taps run dry.

A former top Malaysian diplomat had the harshest criticism for Khalid when I asked for his views. Citing Singapore as an example, he said in the island nation, water is a security matter and there's no compromise when it comes to ensuring enough water for the people, and they plan and execute water projects as a long-term strategy.

And there are no political squabbles when it comes to water.

"Unfortunately the mentri besar is a political naivete," he said. "This is an irresponsible act for the country and well-being of the people and the likes of him should be held accountable before it is too late."

If not, Malaysia would end up being the laughing stock of our neighbours as a country blessed with a lot of rain but unable to provide enough water to its people "on account of political stupidity", he said on condition of anonymity.

In Singapore, any act of endangering water security is tantamount to treason, he said.

So forget politics or we'll have a dry Hari Raya with other possible crippling consequences.

Azman Ujang is a former editor-in-chief of Bernama. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

Sunday, July 15, 2012

KJ:: factors that will weigh Heavvily oN voting decisions, my take on his post.

A good write up KJ.

Notice that KJ touched on the set of criteria that will decide the voting trend of the young voters.

Different areas will have different set of weights of the same criteria.
Certain local issues will outweigh national issues. Deciding on the winnable candidates is a huge tasks and may require decision making technologies like that shown http:// www.1decision.my


Deciding the chai or candidate list are a long process. This includes assessing the available possible candidates as much as possible.

Even getting this list can be a headache and a difficult contention as what happened in Ampang.

Even if the PM has the team and tools to profile the candidates, the chah keting has already happened even before the name had got to the table at the bahagian.
personal feuds amongst AJK can be really heavy.

It depends on the smartness of Ketua Bahagian to address the issue.

Source below is from
http://www.rembau.net.my/

-----------------/////////

There is no running away from election talk, especially if you are a politician like me. The only thing people ask you is when the general election will be held.  As if anyone but one man knows!  Malaysia practices the traditional Westminster model of determining the date of the general election.  That means it is entirely the prerogative of the prime minister to decide when he submits to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dissolve Parliament.

Obviously, this arrangement has many pros and cons.  Most of the benefits accrue to the incumbent government, which can choose the best time to try and renew its mandate within the maximum five year term of Parliament.  This power gives the PM flexibility and, crucially, the element of surprise because he or she can call the election at a time when his party is ready regardless of the state of preparedness of the opponent.

On the flip side of it is that unlike predetermined election dates like in the US where the presidential election takes place on the first Tuesday of November of every four years, our model has a measure of uncertainty, especially when election speculation drags on for too long.  What this means in real terms is the business of governing and executing long-term policies could take a back seat to short-term populism by all parties contesting thereby wasting precious time when we should be focusing on transforming our economy and education system.

Having said that, even in democracies with pre-determined dates, the business of governing suffers due to the election cycle.  In the US, the White House is in election mode one year from the election date.  This affects policy, legislation and even foreign relations.  So to say that our system leads to greater uncertainty is not necessarily true.  But there have been more calls for us to move to a system where the date of our general election is more certain.  

One of the recommendations from the Parliamentary Select Committee on improving the electoral process was to ensure that there is a minimum parliamentary term of four years. This means that by law, the prime minister will not be able to get Parliament dissolved at any time less than four years from the last general election.  

Thus the speculative period would effectively be cut down to just one year, which would be an improvement on the current situation where people have been predicting ‘snap polls’ from as early as 2009 and --222-----subsequently every other month – eventually, someone will get right.

While this could help with political certainty, it also takes away the key flexibility of being able to renew a mandate in exceptional circumstances.  While Malaysian parliamentary terms have on average gone past four years, in some countries that have a similar system, governments have gone for a general election much earlier.

In cases where there is a crisis of confidence in the government, a good way to overcome the impasse is to go back to the people.  If we are by law prohibited from doing so, it may result in a paralysis of governance for a few years, which could be disastrous.  A recent example would be Greece.  

While it is obvious that Malaysia does not find itself politically or economically anywhere near Greece’s current situation, the example is still instructive.  A Greek general election in May failed to produce an outright winner at a time when there needed to be political will to push through with painful economic reforms.  

Had Greece been prevented from seeking another election, they would have had to go through the next few years with a weak coalition that could not make any decision on the way forward to save the country’s economy.  This is why putting a minimum timeframe on a parliamentary term could work against us if we find ourselves confronting a crisis in need of a new mandate.

Another interesting thing to note about the next general election, other than speculating on its timing, is the massive number of new voters who will cast their ballots for the first time.  The Election Commission has disclosed that that we could have up to two million new voters, most of them young.  The numbers are staggering.

In my own constituency of Rembau there are more than 12,000 new voters, a number that is greater than my winning majority in 2008.  These new voters represent the deciding factor of the next polls.  Many constituencies will be won and lost based on how these first timers cast their vote.

Politicians from both sides have been busy courting these new voters.  We have been trying to figure out their likely voting preferences and issues close to their hearts.  Although making crass generalisations is one of the biggest mistakes in politics, there are some rough ways of determining party support even among these first time voters.

A survey conducted by Barisan Nasional Youth for instance showed that 62% of young voters have not decided yet who they will vote for.  This fits in with most anecdotal samplings that tend to say that committed voters are fewer than those sitting on the fence. This is a marked difference from older Malaysians.  

While there are swing voters among the older generation, there are many more who have strong party loyalty and will continue to cast their vote as they have done regardless of current issues. But young voters who represent for the crucial swing factor will be looking at several things before deciding which way they will throw their support.  Broadly speaking there are five factors that will weigh heavily on voting decisions in the upcoming general election.

First, the young voters will be assessing candidates.  This is why there is so much hype about “winnable candidates”.  No longer can we field candidates based on their position in party hierarchy without any regards for the views of non-party member voters.  There will almost always be more non-party member voters than party members so it makes no sense to choose someone who is a party warlord but is detested by local voters in general.  

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has made it clear that he will be choosing candidates based on their winnability among general voters and not internal party popularity.  In several by-elections in the last few years, the prime minister hass overridden the choices of the local party divisions and nominated candidates who do not have senior party positions but proved to be winnable.  

In fact, BN members have given our commitment that this must be the guiding principle in choosing candidates, even if it means we will not be nominated or renominated.  So, expect there to be many new, credible and winnable faces from BN since  the ‘candidate factor’ has become more important for voters in deciding which side to support.

Second, voters will look at national leadership.  They will weigh both the leadership of BN and the opposition.  Although local candidates and issues are important, voters will be aware this general election will produce the next government.  BN’s strongest suit is the personal popularity of the prime minister, which outstrips that of the opposition leadership.  

However, we have to be careful not to try to “ride” on prime minister’s popularity.  Although there is no doubt that the “Najib factor” is a big boost for BN, local candidates should not be complacent and hope to win by piggybacking on his popularity without campaigning hard themselves.

Third, state leadership is important.  Other than in the Federal Territories and Sarawak, Malaysians everywhere will vote for both a parliamentary and state representative (unless states run by the federal opposition do not dissolve their state assemblies at the same time as Parliament’s dissolution).  When casting their state votes, they will want to see who the candidates are for menteri besar/chief minister from both sides.

A clear MB/CM-designate is a factor that can excite voters.  The candidate for MB/CM may be new or an incumbent.  If the incumbent state leader is popular, clear signals that he will continue to lead the state can have a positive effect on voters.  In states where a challenge is being mounted, voters want to see who the state opposition is putting forward to challenge the incumbent.  I am sure many in Selangor are waiting for BN to announce our choice for MB should we reclaim the state.  This could possibly be the most important game changer in the contest for the coveted state.

Fourth, parties still matter.  Although party loyalties are markedly less among new, young voters, they will still always fall back on the overall perception they hold towards both sides.  This includes their overall view on how political parties position themselves on current issues, their track record and also articulation of a vision for the future. Manifesto promises are done in the name of the party, therefore the association between party and policy platform is at the forefront of the voters mind.  

There will also be other issues that can determine the outcome of specific contests.  Local issues may not grab national headlines, but for some constituencies it could be relevant in forming their voting choices.  This may lead to tactical voting where voters choose one side for their federal representation but the other at the state level because they believe their local needs are better served by one particular party or candidate.  

With the general election certain to be held only after Hari Raya and possibly after the budget speech in September, the race for these fence-sitters will continue.  Parties and candidates will be mistaken in thinking there is one ‘silver bullet’ that can win the next general election.  Many factors - among them those identified above - will make the difference.

YB Khassim hanya harap bencana nak tunjuk muka di Lembah Jaya

Tadi saya berpeluang untuk mengaAdiri Pagi santai bersama Persatuan Pengusaha dan pemandu teksi Ampang atau Peshta yang di hadiri oleh Datuk Seri Ir Zin Badak bersama Barisan pimpinan UMNO Ampang dan BN di Taman seri Mrdeka Ampang.

Antara yang dikupas adalah mengapa TR1MA dan BR1M di laksanakan sebagai satu catalyst bangau o bangau atau vakue Chain Cycle atau Kitaran Rantai Nilai dimana agihan tersebut bila dibelanja akan menjanakan ekonomi dalam suasana ekonomi yang tidak menentu di Eropah akibat kegagalan ekonomi di Greece dan Sepanyol dan juga di USA.
Sebagai kerajaan. Yang berjiwa rakyat tindakannya yang cepat dan tepat adalah ciri 2 sebuah kerajaan yang bertanggungjawab selain dari mengadakan NKRA atau performance indeks sebagai alat ukur pencapaian.

Kita perlu sekarang bertanya kepada kerajaan pakatan rakyat apa pencapaian yang dirancang. jangan lah kata air percuma kerana air percuma memang sudah diberikan dari dulu lagi oleh kerajaan BN. Itu pun secara menyeluruh bukan kadar 50% sahaja kerana penghuni pangsapuri dan kondo tidak dapat pun air percuma ini. Air yang diberikan oleh BN adalah air percuma untuk 20 liter pertama yang dicaj hanya harga rawat sahaja,
Walau apa pun yang ditafsirkan oleh Pakatan Pembangkang sekarang ini, air percuma ini mengakibatkan Harta Yayasan Selangor dijual kepada kroni 2 DAP bagi tujuan dijadikan land bank yang boleh dijual kepada towkay kaya untuk aktiviti dan program menjajah oleh kapitalis Cina haram di Malaysia ini.

Kita perlu juga tanya apa yang dibuat oleh YB Khassim Baba di lembah jaya. Melainkan kononnya pantau projek yang dijalankan oleh kerajaan pusat, Eleh jadi PM yang tidak di lantik kah tu , cakap penduduk Ampang di sini.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJUtwKToXPQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Kalau tidak ada musibah di Lembah Jaya tidak adapun batang hidung YB Khassim dari PAS ini melainkan berkempen untuk menjadi exco tertinggi dalam PAS.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Faq on Malaysian Debt

A FAQ On Malaysian Government Debt There’s a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the level and sustainability of government debt, which has been seriously skewing the public discourse not just about Europe and the US but here as well. [For examples, here, here, here, here and here]. Rather than arguing the points one by one, I’m putting up this FAQ as a central reference point, with some faint hopes that we might move on to a better informed debate about the issue. It’ll be available as a permanent page (see the menu on the top right of every page on this blog), and I’ll update it from time to time. The focus will be on the Malaysian situation, but some of the general principles are applicable elsewhere as well. First the raw data (RM millions; sample period 1970-2012, with 2011-2012 data based on estimates): Up to 2Q 2011, government debt in total has reached RM437 billion, or approximately 53% of nominal GDP: Based on Budget 2012 numbers, total government debt outstanding should reach just over RM495 billion by the end of 2012. The average rate of increase for the last 40 odd years has been about 11% in log terms (log annual changes): And on a per capita basis (RM): Based on 2012 numbers, the per capita debt should reach a little over RM 17,000 per person by the end of that year. Finally, the fiscal deficit (ratio to nominal GDP): You’ll see from the above that it’s not unusual for Malaysia to run a fiscal deficit – in fact it’s been the norm, except for a short period in the mid-1990s. Now on to the FAQ: Q1. Government debt is like household debt – if we spend more than we earn, we’ll go bankrupt A. That’s the common sense view, and its one that’s commonly held. The problem is that it’s also mostly wrong. Here’s where the misconception lies – if you’re a household, you earn income based on your work and investments. For a company, income depends on selling the goods and services it produces. For both parties, that income represents the upper limit of what can be paid to service debt. It’s also – and this is the important point – determined by conditions mostly outside your control. You have to depend on someone else to determine your wages; the prevailing interest rate or investment rate governs returns; and market supply and demand (most of the time) limits what a company can sell. But that’s not true of government generally. It’s “income” comes largely from direct and indirect taxation – the rates of which are determined by the government itself. So in a very real sense, governments don’t face the hard constraints that households and companies do. Instead its a soft constraint of what level of taxation citizens are willing to bear. But even if governments come up against such a limit, there’s also the little fact that most governments also have a de facto monopoly on the issuance of money. As long as a government’s debt is denominated in its own currency and it retains control over issuance of that currency, government debt can always be paid off. Third and more importantly, if government spending is directed towards investment which raises the productive capacity of the economy e.g. spending on education, that effectively raises the future tax yield, which indirectly allows a higher burden of present debt. In the end, the real limit to government borrowing (and spending) is neither taxation nor the printing press – its the ability of an economy to produce goods and services. Which leads to the next point. Q2. Bigger and bigger amounts of government debt is inflationary A. It depends – and the size of debt isn’t the factor here, it’s what the money raised from debt issuance is spent on. Consider a closed economy (i.e. no external trade) with three separate sectors – households, companies and the government. All three sectors produce and consume goods and services. Inflation occurs when demand for goods and services from all three sectors exceeds production. The only way for government spending to be inflationary is when it causes total spending from all three sectors to exceed that limit. Now consider a case where households and companies suddenly want to spend more while the government maintains its level of spending. We’ll now have a case of excess demand and inflationary pressures even though the government is not spending any more than it did before. Suppose the opposite case where households and companies suddenly want to save more instead. Under those circumstances, an increase in government spending up to the limit of the productive capacity of the economy will not be inflationary since its only taking up the excess supply that households and companies don’t want. But inflation actually represents another way for governments to reduce their debt burdens and is often termed “implicit taxation” – if governments spend to the point where inflation increases, that effectively reduces the real burden of debt, and not just for the government but for all debtors. That’s because debt is contractually determined at the point of borrowing (in the past), but payment is usually in current tax dollars (which with inflation has lower purchasing power). Inflation also raises nominal growth, which generally means more tax dollars for a given level of real output. Historically, with the exception of actual defaults, government debt has often been paid off through two channels – inflation and economic growth. Q3. The Malaysian government has been running a deficit for years – but it should only be running a deficit in bad times. In good times, it ought to be saving and paying down debt A. There’s another implication from the discussion on Q2 – whenever there’s an imbalance in the savings/investment decisions of households and companies, the opposite situation must prevail in government spending and investment for an economy to be maintained at full output and income generation . If households and companies are saving more, the government has to dissave. Otherwise, demand will be deficient, and household and company surplus falls, which makes their saving pointless. If on the other hand households and companies are overspending, then the government has to save. Otherwise you’ll get inflation. So it’s not just a binary decision of good times (save)/bad times (spend) for government expenditure, which is the popular notion of Keynesian economics. It’s more than possible to have a situation of economic growth but with excess saving in the household and corporate sectors. Excess government spending then helps maintain that growth situation with full employment, but with the side effect that it requires government spending to exceed its revenue. Let’s take it one step further by adding an external sector (i.e. trade) to our though experiment. In aggregate, if a country is running a trade surplus, then production in the economy exceeds consumption – in short, the economy as a whole has excess savings. The opposite is also true, in that a trade deficit indicates an economy that is consuming more than it produces. So far so good. Plug in the conclusions from the preceding discussion and you get the following – excess government spending is not a big problem with a trade surplus, but a government should cut back its spending with a trade deficit. In the former case, whether the government should run a deficit or not depends on whether external demand is sufficient to provide full domestic employment. In the case of a trade deficit however, the advice is unequivocal – you have to run a budget surplus unless you’re willing to tolerate higher inflation. Hence the consistent concern over America’s “twin” deficits over the past decade. Q4. All this increase in debt will be a burden on our children and our children’s children A. This is based on the idea that debt has to be repaid eventually, and the main source of government income is taxation – basically a corollary of the idea that a government is similar to a household. Hence, in this view, the greater the debt build-up the greater the expected future level of taxation. The popular notion is thus that of the current generation borrowing from future generations. There’s a problem with this conception. First, since governments are collective enterprises on behalf of the governed, there’s no natural lifespan involved. There’s no necessity for debt to be fully paid off and it can be effectively carried in perpetuity. Some governments have actually taken advantage of this fact to issue perpetual bonds that never mature, and at least one major government has issued a 999 year bond. But the most important point is this – whether government debt accumulation will become a burden on future generations depends greatly on who the debt is owed to. If the debt is held by citizens or agencies acting on the citizens behalf (for example EPF), then the taxes raised to pay for maturing debt comes from citizens and the debt payment goes back to citizens. All that occurs is a change in financial obligations and possibly some redistribution of wealth, but not a net burden on taxpayers. That’s how Japan has managed to raise public debt to over 200% of GDP, yet is barely penalised by bond investors – most of that debt is held by domestic institutions like postal savings banks and pension funds. The Japanese are in effect lending to their government so that the government can spend it on them. In Malaysia’s case, the ratio of foreign holdings of federal government debt has been rising steadily since 2005, but its still at a fairly low level (Government debt, not including BNM bills): For the rest, about a quarter is held by social security institutions like EPF and SOCSO, the financial sector (banks, insurance companies) hold another quarter. Holders of general investment issues aren’t specifically classified, but foreign holdings of GII are relatively minor according to RENTAS. Q5. Government debt growth is being aided and abetted by our pension and investment funds, which are now at risk A. Here’s an interesting question for you – which is the better credit risk, a household or company who faces hard budget constraints on income and expenditure, or a government with discretionary powers of taxation and a printing press? Government debt typically forms the benchmark for all bond issues in an economy. Even the best rated companies pay more on their debt than the government of their country. It goes back to the safety factor. That’s why pension funds and insurance companies put most of their investible funds into government securities. Whatever the risk of investing in government securities, every alternative except cash is riskier. Q6. Since most of government debt is owned by Malaysians and only some by foreigners, the foreigners will get paid first while we have to pick up the bill A. Actually, the reason why there’s such elaborate care and concern over foreign bond investor perceptions and rights – not just here but globally – is because historically when countries do default, it’s almost always a default on external debt, not on the debt held by domestic institutions. It’s not hard to figure out why – when we’re talking about citizens, no democratically elected government would dare default on its debt obligations as it risks being booted out otherwise. Same thing for institutions such as pension funds and insurance funds, which take care of the future financial needs of their investors (read: voters). For banks, a domestic default could mean the government needing to bail them out, which makes a default worthless. So foreigners are always first in the firing line, which makes them understandably skittish. Q7. The government went on a spending spree during the recession A. In 2008, in response to the Lehman Brothers collapse and the resulting shutdown of the international financial system, Malaysia instituted a fiscal stimulus package worth RM7 billion. When that didn’t appear to be enough, a bigger spending package with a face value of RM60 billion was passed through Parliament in March 2009, which put the total up to RM67 billion. That sounds like a lot, especially since both were enacted under conditions where tax revenue was expected to drop. But here’s what really happened: Of that RM67 billion, RM5 billion was for National Savings Bonds paying 5% interest intended to help retirees and pensioners to raise their income even as BNM cut banking interest rates (i.e. it was actually revenue, not expenditure); RM7 billion was in Private Finance Initiatives, where the government didn’t pay a sen; RM20 billion was in credit guarantees for SMEs and small businesses, where again the government didn’t pay a sen; and only the remainder of RM35 billion was allocated for direct spending. That’s still a lot, and helps explain why debt ballooned in 2009/2010. Or does it? The truth is, Government expenditure in 2009 was only about RM1.4 billion higher than the original 2009 budget proposals sent to Parliament in 2008: By my estimates, about RM14 billion of both stimulus packages were actually spent in 2009, yet the increase in total government spending was only a tenth of that. The implication is that most of the funding for the extra spending didn’t come from extra borrowing, but from cuts in other government programs. From my point of view that’s no spending spree, that’s being overly tight fisted – 90% of the stimulus effect was swallowed up by cutbacks in other areas.. So how come government debt rose sharply in 2009? Because government revenue came in at 10% below the budget estimates - in fact a little worse than the contraction in 2009 GDP of 9.9%: Q8. We’re in trouble because debt has doubled in the past five years while income hasn’t A. This is almost true: at the end of 2005, Federal Government debt stood at about RM229 billion and rose to RM407 billion by 2010. Nominal GDP on the other hand only rose from RM522 billion in 2005 to an estimated RM766 billion in 2010. But this little calculation is also wholly misleading as an indicator of debt sustainability. The key point is that the recession seriously dented not just government income but the nation’s nominal income as a whole – the recovery in 2010 saw national income only just passing the level reached in 2008. In the meantime, the government had to deal with the drop in revenue in 2009, and thus had to borrow to cover the difference. Looking at the growth rates, debt growth actually lagged income growth from 2005-2007: It was only the recession that caused debt growth to jump, and it has now come down to more sustainable levels. As long as debt growth falls more or less in line with income growth, we should be fine. Looking at the experience of the last recession (2000-2001) will give you an idea of why just taking a five year comparison won’t give you an accurate picture of the real situation. Q9. Government debt isn’t sustainable because operational spending is greater than revenue A. I think this came from a misunderstanding of what was said by Idris Jala at the recent ETP anniversary event. But it’s pretty easy to disprove: The government’s operational balance has been negative in just three years out of the last 40, and it has not been in deficit since 1987. As required by law, the government only borrows to finance development expenditure, i.e. investment that will raise future capacity to produce. Q10. Government debt is nearing the legal debt limit, and they won’t be able to borrow anymore so we’ll have to default A. satD has covered this question in detail, so I won’t post more than a summary – the legal limit is a paper tiger and the government can change it anytime it wants. If at any point the government fails to gain legislative approval to raise the limit, in our system of parliamentary democracy that means an immediate dissolution of parliament and fresh general elections. You’re not going to see a repeat of what happened in the US in August here. The US uses a presidential system, where the executive is elected separately from the legislative. Since this system is designed to promote checks and balances, that almost always means that a Democratic President has to deal with a Republican Congress and vice versa. The result is typically political gridlock. Q11. The Treasury says the national debt is RM240 billion but the outstanding government debt is RM437, someone must be lying A. It’s a funny thing but in Malaysia, we don’t use the term “national debt” in the way it’s commonly used elsewhere. Here the term refers exclusively to external debt only, of both the public and private sectors, and not to government debt. So in Malaysia, government debt and national debt mean two very different things. The government’s external debt, by the way, is all of RM17 billion. Q12. In ten years time, we’ll be like Greece A. Greece has a 2000 year history of defaulting on its external debt. Malaysia has never defaulted on its debt. Greece has had a debt to income ratio over 100% for the last twenty years, a ratio that is expected to climb to over 150% this year. Malaysia’s debt to GDP ratio peaked at 70% 25 years ago, and is at most 54% today. Greece has something like three quarters of its debt owing to foreigners. Malaysia only owes about one fifth of its government debt to foreigners. Greece is part of the Eurozone, and thus has no control over the issuance of its own money. Malaysia through Bank Negara controls the supply of Ringgit. Worse, the European Central Bank is legally bared from becoming a lender of last resort for the Eurozone governments. Bank Negara has no such restrictions. Greece is uncompetitive – it costs 40% more for a Greek worker to produce a unit of output compared to a German one. (Unfortunately the relevant statistics aren’t available for Malaysia). Malaysia is not Greece, and we’re not exactly in danger of becoming one in the next ten years. [If there are any other questions that I haven’t thought of here, feel free to post in the comments and I’ll add it to the FAQ). Technical Notes: Data on Federal Government borrowing and expenditure from Bank Negara’s Monthly Statistical Bulletin and from the Economic Planning Unit. Population estimates from EPU and the Department of Statistics EMAIL THIS BLOGTHIS! SHARE TO TWITTER SHARE TO FACEBOOK 81 COMMENTS: AnonymousNovember 21, 2011 11:56 AM I am sure the defence budget takes up a hugh chunk, buying submarines and warships when there is really no threat of war. Even if there is war, do you think 2 submarines and some warships will gaurantee us victory. Put aside corruption (it is really between the decision makers and God in final judgement) is there really a need to spend BILLIONs on such equiptment? Reply hishamhNovember 21, 2011 12:47 PM Actually, security (internal and external) takes up less than 10% of the budget, about half of that for the police force alone. And there are solid strategic reasons for the buildup of defense hardware, not least of which is the slow withdrawal of US forces from our region. The main threat isn't war, but geo-political encroachment by China (the Spratleys is one example). Submarines for instance aren't defensive weapons in nature, they're power projection platforms. We (and I mean ASEAN as a whole) won't be able to defend our interests unless we're able to sustain a military presence outside our own domestic spheres. Relying on the US has allowed us to focus almost solely on economic growth for the past half century, but at this stage with US looking increasingly inwards, this isn't something we can fully rely on going forward. On that basis, the real question is are we spending enough? Having said that, some transparency and efficiency in defense spending is certainly called for. Reply AnonymousNovember 24, 2011 10:59 AM Your argument is based on: the inflation is caused by demand/cost push/pull factors, without taking consideration of the monetary supply growth. Half truth at best. Agree with you, government have no problem paying off its debts. But at what cost? You did mention it. When government run into deficits, it can pay its expenses via increased taxation (or other receipts) or borrowing. If there is no borrowing, what government can do is either to increase tax or reduce its spending. Most politicians don't like it because increase tax cause people resentment and reduce government spending is equal to reduce government size, this is the last thing they want. What left, is borrowing. I agree with you that government will have little problem to pay its debts since the printing press is just a click away. The only culprit is it will bring inflation as more money supply will push up demand (prefer to say more money bid up the same quantity of goods cause price to increase). Through inflation, the big loser is the creditors not debtors (government) as eventually the inflation will wipe out the initial debts number. Imagine, if I borrow 100k now, there are 2 scenario. 1) inflation is 3% annually and 2) inflation is 15% annually. I, as a debtor, will gain so much if inflation is higher. The higher the better. By less than 5 years, the 15% inflation will cut the debts into half in nominal term. That's why government around the world is so addicted to debts. Government is just like an individual. He cannot endlessly spend out of the way he likes from the money he creates out of thin air. No one, can escape ever from the gravity rule. When music stops, it will come to an end. There is no lack of historical cases of similar stupidity by indebted government that had collapsed the entire nation. No lesson learnt, ignorance persists and head remains into the sand, otherwise why current mounting European problems still fail to give warning signal? It is not far off like Roman Empire or Yuan Dynasty? (both was collapsed by debts) Reply hishamhNovember 24, 2011 11:37 PM "Your argument is based on: the inflation is caused by demand/cost push/pull factors, without taking consideration of the monetary supply growth. Half truth at best. " Since we're talking here about the nexus between government debt and inflation, and not the determinants of inflation itself, I don't see how you can characterise my analysis as "half-truth". My argument is not based on how inflation happens, but the interaction between government debt and inflation. In any case, money supply growth is a part of the explanation, only it comes in indirectly - you've completely missed the point, as the following makes clear: "The only culprit is it will bring inflation as more money supply will push up demand (prefer to say more money bid up the same quantity of goods cause price to increase). " If you actually followed my explanation, you're actually describing the boundary where I said is the limit to any increase in government spending, i.e. when the economy is at full capacity and full employment. This is true irrespective of whether government spending is tax-financed, debt-financed, or money-financed. But if the economy is below that level, i.e. where demand is deficient relative to potential supply, then debt-finance or money-financed deficits are ok, and should in fact be sustainable. Why? Because under those circumstances the increase in money doesn't bid up prices, but rather builds up production from unused capacity, which in turn raises incomes (and tax revenue). It's only when you get pass this point that money supply growth turns into inflation, as demand exceeds supply. And it doesn't matter here whether the government is running a deficit or not, and is accumulating debt or not. Looking at it from another perspective, money supply growth only results in inflation if three conditions are met: the economy is already at full employment; money velocity is stable or increasing; and money supply growth exceeds money demand growth. If any of these three are violated, then growth in the money supply does not necessarily lead to inflation. And this would also be true whether the government is running a deficit or not. "There is no lack of historical cases of similar stupidity by indebted government that had collapsed the entire nation. " And how many of these countries ignored the limits that I've talked about? This is certainly the case in Europe, where the countries that are most in trouble have for decades overspent, and/or have been unable to adjust to demographic changes which made social spending and debt accumulation less sustainable. That's simply not the case for Malaysia. Reply AnonymousDecember 21, 2011 12:02 AM Is it possible to find total federal government debt 2001 quarterly data? This is because it seems that data is quite available in BNM or MoF Thank you very much. Reply AnonymousDecember 21, 2011 12:06 AM This because it seems that the data is NOT available in BNM or MoF. Thank you very much. Sorry for the error in the previous comment. Reply hishamhDecember 21, 2011 8:40 AM http://www.bnm.gov.my/files/publication/msb/2011/10/xls/3.1.4.xls Reply Nor Izzatina Abdul AzizDecember 29, 2011 3:30 PM Excellence work. Wish that politicians here can argue on facts rather than facts-tailored to their belief. Reply Yang Oi MunDecember 29, 2011 4:22 PM hishamh, Just stumble along your blog. Excellent piece here. I am very much anti-BN but had difficulty stomaching Pakatan politicized attack on Msia public Debt and deficits. They went too far with their household comparison and omitting the fact that public debt for other countries was growing pretty fast in the last 5 years also. Pardon me a blue collar worker for adding a few grain of under informed opinions hereon what most Malaysian Debt/Deficit Doomsayer choose not to touch: 1) Msia Government don't print money. They can only borrow money from BNM or other institutions(private/public)by issuing government securities(MGS). As a result, the interest on MGS will also cause the national debt to grow. 2) Pakatan doesn't mentioned that other countries governments also rollover their debt consistently. And it is the major contributing factors to why most countries saw their gov debt rose steeply in recent years.(Compound interest curve become pretty scary after the 20th year) 3) Gov deficit(public spending) represents a surplus for the private sector. Singapore has a public debt of 102.1% of GDP. Singapore public debt are used to keep public transport affordable, keep the street safe and other commonwealth functions. Malaysian gov deficit are spent into the pockets of cronies. We should be panicking because of corruption and not debt levels per se. 4) Public(Gov) money vs Private(Banks) money? Both increases their liabilities(leverages) to supply the economy with money. But not enough panicky weight has been placed on the level of private debt(mortgage and vehicle). As much as we lament irresponsible gov borrowings, the private banking credits(created out of nothing too) are as culpable in messing up the economy. Both puts money into businessmen to create oligarchies/monopolies and very little are trickled down. Both also pushes the normal folks into debt choke-hold. Bottom line Najib's government needs to face the electorate but CIMB answers to the rich elites only. 5)CM Lim Guan Eng mentioned it briefly but fell short of implementing anything that can curb excessive land speculation that is helping to choke the economy. 6) Malaysia will be the next Greece? Only if Malaysian foreign debts grow out of proportion and our government cease to be sovereign state that can create its own credit money. We do have a decent trade surplus by today's international standard. IMHO instead of worrying about debt level, our main problem is political and legal. How to keep our sovereignty? What are we going to about practical issues: 1)prevent escalation of an artificial crisis where predatory private individuals/entities (foreign or local) can buy up Malaysia for pennies on the dollar? 2)If SHTF how are we going to repudiate odious debts incurred by corrupt politicians? 3)Gotta to admit that most of the loots had already illicitly been transferred out of the country. So can we come up with some contingencies to claw back some of these funds? Can we find some way to neutralized the value of these illicit Ringgits overseas? 4) Seems that half of our EPF had also been drawn down by our current gov(they seem to prefer borrowing form EPF than BNM). It is not ideal but we have to face the fact that EPF is not going to be fully funded for future retirees. But we can nonetheless find some way to manage the funds flow by not compromising on the retirees or the working public too much. Thanks Reply hishamhDecember 30, 2011 3:13 PM Oi Mun, Thanks for the kind words. I didn't start this blog with the intention of being educational, but I'm happy it's been able to do so. With respect to your comments: 1. Technically speaking, printing money isn't a literal phrase. It refers to direct purchases of government securities from the Treasury by the central bank. So Government borrowing from Bank Negara would be ipso facto "printing money", even if no money is literally printed. 2. Agreed - but you have to factor in that income (GDP) generally will grow at the same time. As long as debt increases at a slower pace than nominal GDP, debt accumulation will be sustainable. We should reach that stage about next year. 3. Again agreed, though I don't necessarily think it's due entirely to corruption. Consider that the debt to GDP ratio fell throughout most of the Badawi administration - I don't think anybody would argue that period was any less corrupt or inefficient. 4. Not sure if I fully agree with this either - corporate borrowing has largely shifted to the bond markets, which is why banks have been pursuing household borrowing over the past ten years. The inequality in the economy has more to do with our tax structure and educational system then corporate plundering. 5. & 6. Yup On the other remarks: 1. Unlikely as the conditions for it (such as in 1997) no longer apply - the Ringgit is floating freely, and BNM has been careful to maintain adequate international reserves. 2. I favour ensuring greater accountability and transparency - and bringing back local elections. One of the problems with our political system is that the winner take all approach to state elections entrenches a feudal culture among political parties (including the components of PR). That ensures political favour and largesse runs through whoever runs the state political mechanism - more opportunities and temptations for corruption. 3. If you're referring to the supposed outflow of "illicit" money from Malaysia, I've commented on this before (here and here. 4. You'll find that EPF's mandate requires that it invest most of its funds in government securities, which are much safer than anything else they can invest in domestically. Considering that EPF is basically a defined contribution pension plan, that's understandable. In fact, EPF has a problem because they have never been able to fulfill that part of their mandate - there's not enough freely traded government securities for them to invest in. I don't know if I'd really categorise this as the government "borrowing" from EPF, since MGS and GII issues are always conducted via auctions. Reply Yang Oi MunDecember 31, 2011 10:09 AM 1) Money printing- Actually I was trying to imply that it is the gov job to supply the economy with money it needs.But gov can only borrow from BNM to create money and not issue it themselves(debt free money).Which means legitimate public money appears as gov debt on the balance sheet. To reduce gov debt is to reduce money in circulation which some end of the world people dont get(something that really irritates me). In a sovereign country, central bank can even rebate the interests of gov bonds back to the public to reduce unnecessary burden on the country. 3)But Debt and GDP figures are not absolute determinants of country well being. But again point is we should worry more about corruption and public services delivery on the ground. 4)Corporate borrowing- Still new. Maybe you can write something it. Maybe something also on proportion of gov guarantees in corporate bonds market. Reply hishamhDecember 31, 2011 10:02 PM Oi Mun, First happy new year! But I'm not at all sure I understand what you're getting at. Under our current system, money is created largely independently of both government and central bank. Bank Negara does no more than try to influence the process. The government does not come into the picture at all, until and unless the central bank monetises government debt. But under normal circumstances, government borrowing does not create money. Also, the issuance of government securities should not have any influence on money in circulation. Reply Yang Oi MunJanuary 3, 2012 2:00 PM hishah, Happy new year yo you too. I am new new to economics. From the stuff I had encountered so far(foreigh sources), I had assumed that money creation as follow: 1)Treasury issues bond to the Central Bank. and the Central Bank issues an equivalent amount of Currency Notes to the treasury. 2)Treasury bonds end up as asset of Central Bank and the currencies notes 3)While commercial banks will create money through loan via fractional reserve. But after checking BNM bulletin, it seems that BNM only hold about RM2bil of MGS which is less than 1% of M1. So I need to throw my new found misinfo out of the window. Does this means our gov serves as an intermediary only to tax/borrow and respend it in other parts of the economy? While money is created by the economic activities through commercial banking sector and foreign currencies from oil/exports(420. Regardless of of money is created, money stagnant in EPF reservoir looks good but actually dont do anything much really except for preventing inflation. So am I correct to say that by borrowing from EPF, the gov debt actually increases the credits available in the economy that people can use for productive businesses. Money are scarce for your average Malaysians. They are right to be worried of gov overpaying (by the multiples) to military vendors or guaranteeing/bailout of lousy crony businesses. But it needs to be corrected, that people should be focused on how gov debt/deficit are utilized and not the amount of gov debt. Back to the point that gov debt are spent into the economy as fiscal surplus. To eliminate gov debt/deficit may backfire by starving the normal folks from basic services. Reply Yang Oi MunJanuary 3, 2012 2:10 PM Hishamh, Oh ya almost forgot. Lots of people are worried that how on earth is our gov going to pay off RM4++billion debt. People are scared sh*t that they will be tax and suffer austerity to the hill. Is it just a number game? That Gov only needs to make sure to pay EPF what it needs to pay the retirees? Or BNM just monetize the gov debt periodically? Reply hishamhJanuary 3, 2012 2:45 PM Oi Mun, the process you are describing where treasury notes are exchanged for money at the central bank is actually the process known as "printing money" - it has almost never been done in Malaysia to my knowledge. The second part (commercial banks) is almost correct, except the idea of fractional reserve creation of money really only applies when money is exogenous to the system (e.g. based on metals or other commodities), and not a pure fiat system where money is endogenous. Two years ago I thought the same as you did about fractional reserve banking, but I've since changed my mind - it doesn't really describe the true money creation process at all. Which means a lot of the commentary out there on the internet is flat wrong. Money is also created (and destroyed) through central bank open market operations (see this post for a primer). Also, only in the case of a dollarised economy, or if a country operates a currency board will inflows of foreign exchange automatically increase the supply of money. Otherwise, it would depend on the central bank's policies of forex intervention and sterilisation (see this post for details. Getting back to the topic, yes you could describe the government as a sort of intermediary. But this doesn't create credit for productive use - government spending is like any other spending. Insofar as that money is spent on goods and services (or for salaries), then it works. Second, EPF money is not stagnant, as government borrowing is always spent (i.e. the money circulates). Other EPF investments are about the same - if they invested in primary issues of corporate debt or equity, that money is spent too. It's only when EPF invests in the secondary market that that doesn't happen - but the counterparty getting the money should be spending it too, so it's still money flowing through the economy. As far as paying it back is concerned - the government doesn't have to, which is the point that many people miss. As long as income on average increases faster than debt, the debt load will be sustainable. The amounts don't really matter. Historically, government debt is "reduced" through two methods - inflation, which reduces the real burden of debt, and economic growth, which increases the resources available to pay it off. But these methods increase the sustainability of debt, not reduce its nominal amount. Reply AnonymousJanuary 4, 2012 1:46 AM Fiat & Debt Based Economy will fail. Reply hishamhJanuary 4, 2012 8:08 AM Unfortunately, metallic based monetary systems promote wealth inequality, war and colonialism, and periodic depressions. Reading the literature, they're also incompatible with real economic growth and democracy. You pick your poison. The only situation I can think of where a metallic based monetary system would be desirable would be where the global population is either static or shrinking...which based on current trends should be in about 200 years from now. Reply AnonymousJanuary 4, 2012 12:52 PM Thank you for the good post. but just a comments on my humble opinions. Once the growth cant cope or merely enough to cover the interest payment, i do believed the printing press will comes to work, and in this situation, inflation is unavoidable & the one that's gonna feel the pinch is the middle to lower working class people. just my 2 cents. Keep up with the good post. Reply Yang Oi MunJanuary 4, 2012 1:01 PM I personally own a few kilos of silver. I do it as an insurance and I pray everyday that we will not return to a gold standard. Because that we will betting against humanity ability to organized ourselves for the better. Being a worker I know how terrible it feels when inflation eats away our stagnant real wages. But to blame it on paper/digital currencies or government alone would be too narrow I guess. The problem is the elasticity of paper currencies being abused to enrich the minority elites and not elasticity per se. Inelasticity of precious metal can be also abused. It can be cornered and hoarded into a few hands by hook or by crook. No one can deny precious metals have intrinsic values, but it is still a token. Society greatest folly is our narrow fixation with these tokens and not the sweat&tears of people is backing. For example, 1)to put paper currencies at the top of the money podium gives disproportionate power the paper elites while putting the rest at a disadvantage. 2)to put precious metals to at the top of the money podium meanwhile gives disproportionate power the gold/silver hoarders while putting the rest(including farmers) at a disadvantage. 3)to put commodity currencies at the top of the money podium gives disproportionate power the commodities owners while putting workers(esp services) at a disadvantage. Whatever type of money/tokens we used, the power lies with the hand that manage the credit/debit system of these tokens. Their discretion is powerful and often abused. Reply Yang Oi MunJanuary 4, 2012 1:10 PM Correction: Society greatest folly is our narrow fixation with these tokens and not the sweat&tears of people that are backing these tokens. Reply hishamhJanuary 4, 2012 3:22 PM Oi Mun, I like your thinking. Yes, there's this confusion between money and wealth, which are not the same. But the one advantage of fiat currency is that there's no limit to supply, unlike in metals or commodities. That gives people a fighting chance to improve their lot, which would not be possible under the hard constraints of a metallic system. As bad as wealth and income inequality are now, it was many times worse before. The keys are to ensure a level playing field, at least in so far as giving everyone the same chances and advantages at life - universal education and healthcare, and a culture that provides social and economic mobility. We're not there yet, but I think we're slowly moving in that direction. Reply dinJanuary 5, 2012 1:48 AM "But the one advantage of fiat currency is that there's no limit to supply, unlike in metals or commodities." I do totally agreed on this, but this is in situation which the faith of the currency is intact. It will be at an disadvantage, if the faith for the currency is not there. Sorry for the words used. I'm not an economist, just another average Joe six pack. We can looked at an example for Iran today, as we speak, due to sanction & further manipulation of the economy or currency, their currency value has lost of more than 40% if i'm not mistaken, just within a few day's. People in Iran are running to gold & where gold is not accessible, people are running for other worthy currencies. Not to mentioned Zimbabwe which has already had an hyperinflation within this decade. Unlimited supply is an advantage, but once abused, there will be no turning back. Reply hishamhJanuary 5, 2012 10:01 AM @din, The limits for government debt applies as well to currency printing - it's always about the ability of an economy to produce real goods and services. But the funny thing about fiat money is that because its demand is volatile, printing money will have different consequences depending on the circumstances. In the case of Zimbabwe, where we had full monetisation of government debt despite an economy already at full employment, the results are as you know. In the current case of the US and UK, central banks are barely keeping up with private sector deleveraging (aka money destruction). Reply Yang Oi MunJanuary 5, 2012 11:32 AM Din, I am no economist either. But I was pretty careful in not dismissing precious metal or commodities as moneys by using the analogy of a money podium. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. I do agree with you precious metals are decent investments for the average folks.In fact we are under owning precious metals and over leveraging on mortgage. Not having exposure to different assets classes is not hedging yourselves. No doubt, when there is political/economic unrest gold/silver will trump any other currencies. But if things continue to breakdown, it will be energy, food,clean water and daily necessities that will be king. And if SHTF even the family(basic unit of society)will breakdown and we will see abandoned children everywhere. Dmitry Orlov five stages of collapse explained this in details. IMHO Iran is more of geopolitical attack on a country monetary system. Typical modus operandi for looting a country is through banks and then bombs. First is to attack it financially using currencies speculation and debt(IMF). If that doesn't work, than the bombs and bulletts come raining in. That was the case with Libya. It was impossible to bring down Libya financially as they had their own sovereign currency,gold, oil, water and are debt free. Then came NATO with their bombings and military support(or leadership) to the rebels. My wild guess is that Iran is more worried about its military attacks on its soil. Iran have plenty of gold in central bank coffers and public hands. It can be circulated as money freely to facilitate internal trade in the interim. To absorb the currency shock in the domestic economy the gov can try a mixture currency stabilization,recalibration or capital control . As for international trade, Iran can do direct bilateral trade or currency agreements with major trading partners. Denomination can be in partners currencies, 3rd party currencies, gold or even barter(eg oil for infrastructure). Every type of man-made system(including free market capitalism) has some sort of systemic flaw in it. Its alright to tweak,overhaul or switch between them if necessary(Note:The latter two has more short term risk) IMHO, on the surface our problems may seem political and economic in nature. But if we look further down it is actually our failure live peacefully/balancely as a community (be it local or international). In short it is a human problem. The fundamental question is how do human come together to manage the inherent flaws(sytemic and behavioral) with the tools we have. To be successful in this pursuit we need a whole damn lot of grace and respect for life. Reply dinJanuary 5, 2012 6:28 PM Yang Oi Mun, I totally agreed on your statement aboved. I hope SHTF will not be in my lifetime. Just hoping to get enough to be able to hedge myself here. Reply AnonymousJanuary 25, 2012 4:44 AM Salaam Hisham, the worrying issue for a taxpayer like myself is the increase in debt/nGDP especially from 97/98 todate. Between yr 80 to 90 we had huge increases in debt but those were Malaysia's booming years where we were growing on average at 9% annually. Hence strong justification for huge spending to build infrastructure etc. However, Yr 97 was the start of the Asian financial crisis and thats when our debt started to increase, worryingly. Even during the 2001 slump we continued to increase our debt. (Lets not go back 40 yrs as it wont reflect the true economy of Malaysia ad world.) Yes, slight dip between yr 04-08 but overall an increasing trend. Question now is has the spending been justified and efficient to boost our economy so that the debts will be able to be repaid/reduced in later years. I commend you for providing the technical aspect of our debt but don't believe the Govt has answered this question to me and most Malaysians. Plot the debt spending against GDP growth since 1970 and you will see my point. rgds Worried tax payer Reply hishamhJanuary 25, 2012 12:25 PM Salam, hope you've had a good holiday. I've rechecked the data - in the 1980s, average real GDP growth was just a hair under 6.0%. Government expenditure (and revenue) started climbing beginning about 1980 and peaked in 1982 - but GDP growth at the same time slowed. Both numbers fell back after 1982 but especially revenue, and debt to GDP didn't peak until 5 years later in 1987. The large runup in debt in the 1980s was only partly due to a jump in government spending, but more to a large drop in revenue from the 1981-82 (small) and 1985-87 (very large) recessions. The latter caused a revenue drop worth 6% of GDP - actually slightly bigger than the impact from the 1997-98 crisis. Same thing happened in 1997-98 and 2008-2009. While you could argue that debt accumulation in the 1980s and after 1997-98 was due to fiscal stimulus measures, there really hasn't been a relatively big increase in spending over this last recession. As a percentage of GDP, government spending is now back to pre-crisis levels at around 25% of GDP. If we can limit debt growth to around 8%-9%, that should stabilise the debt ratio and start the reduction process. Reply AnonymousFebruary 12, 2012 11:28 PM I find that you are trying to mislead everybody who reading your explanation! If everything goes like what you said, no country can go bankruptcy. You are just using all the unrealistic economic instruments and very limited viewpoints to explain away the problems of Malaysia Federal government are facing. For example, a sovereign government can always print money for paying off the debt, yes it is only technical true, but it will always depreciate our currency and the value of our assets. Our government are wasting a lot of money on unnecessary spendings, corruptions, etc. And thus they need to keep on borrowing in order to solve the deficit and causing the federal government debt going higher and higher. If one day, government were to print money in order to solve the debt problem, then all the money and assets that citizens holding will be devalued. Do you think this is a responsible and capable government should do? Reply hishamhFebruary 13, 2012 1:04 AM Mislead how exactly? I've outlined the conditions under which debt accumulation is safe, and under what conditions it isn't safe. I'll be the first to point out when Malaysia's position reaches that stage, but we are nowhere close to that point. Scaremongering might be good politics but makes for poor economics (as Europe is discovering). With respect to printing money, whether it results in a depreciating currency and falling asset prices (shouldn't that be the other way around?) or not depends on the specific circumstances - in no way is this result automatic. For example, India has been "printing money" for decades, as has Japan. The US Fed has been doing quantitative easing through massive secondary market purchases of government debt through most of the past 3 years, which is close to printing money. Yet none of these countries are experiencing runaway inflation or rapidly depreciating currencies - except India lately for the reason I've outlined in my post: private plus public expenditure exceeding the productive capacity of the economy. This is not the case in the US or in Japan, or even here yet (based on the present rate of debt accumulation, it will take approximately 100 years for the debt to GDP ratio to reach 100% of GDP). Nor is it necessary to "solve" the debt problem - the government is not a natural person with a natural lifespan where all debts have to be repaid at the end of the day. It is sufficient to cap debt at a sustainable level of increase (i.e. below the rate of increase in nominal income). In terms of the fiscal plans for 2012, we're almost there. International investors don't even worry about a country's debt level until it reaches 60% of GDP. Why should we in Malaysia? Singapore's public debt is almost twice ours in relation to GDP - do you hear any noise from across the causeway? Almost none, because they're careful to adhere to the limits I've described. Reply METALRAGEFebruary 13, 2012 1:11 AM Hi Anon @ 12-Feb I think Hisham doesn't mislead rather than discuss angles? He has been academic and fair in all his approaches/explanations and for that, I thank him, for I have learnt much. He does sometimes put forth opinions, to which you/I need not agree. But he does *not* mislead. He backs them with thought out rationale. As an academic/technocrat-ish fler commenting frm the sidelines, he has nothing to gain. Au contraire, opposition vitriol has proven to be less well considered and does not always isolate our governance issues fairly. Scoring political points w/ low blows. That's OK. Just spare the impartial academics from the venom please. Reply hishamhFebruary 13, 2012 1:27 AM Thanks for the defense Metalrage, though I don't think it was necessary. I do find that I have to walk a pretty fine tightrope not to take a stand on politics - this is not and never will be a political blog. I have some sympathy for the opposition's positions on many things (such as social protection), but neither can I quite stomach some of the bad economics and analysis involved - and that's from both sides. If PR ever takes power, be sure I'll defend their right to maintain deficits as the correct economic policy to follow if required. Last point for anonymous: the degree to which countries are exposed to the risk of "bankruptcy" is only with reference to their external public debt (debt owned by foreigners and denominated in foreign currency). Malaysia and Singapore have almost none. Past sovereign bankruptcies have always involved countries owing money overseas, and never domestically. The European case is slightly different because there is no local currency within the Euro area, since as the ECB controls money issuance, all debt is by definition external. Reply AnonymousFebruary 13, 2012 9:08 AM I don't agree with hishamh simply because he just tried to explain or give an impression to the readers that given the condition of Malaysia and the way that Malaysia Federal Government is spending right now, we are very "safe". He is not giving a whole picture of the problem that Malaysia government is facing. First, US, Japan and India are very different from us, US is using USD which is the international trading currency, Japan and India are BIG economy engines, plus Japan is having a lot of private strong companies and enterprises . All these elements allow these countries to have deficits or issuance of money without much problems. Malaysia has none of these advantages. Plus, US and Japan government are facing very tough financial problem as well, no one guarantee that they will not go bankruptcy in near future. "International investors don't even worry about a country's debt level until it reaches 60% of GDP. Why should we in Malaysia? Singapore's public debt is almost twice ours in relation to GDP - do you hear any noise from across the causeway? Almost none, because they're careful to adhere to the limits I've described." - You only told part of the story. Singapore's public debt are mostly for investment on areas that could yield investment returns. And Singapore's GIC and Temasek are holding almost USD500billions assets of the Singapore Government. That is the reserve that Singapore accumulated from past years' surplus and investment return. Malaysia's debt is purely for serving the deficits, the debt interest or payments for old debt, just like running a "ponzi scheme". Malaysia has no single sovereign wealth fund could has the scale that Singapore is having now. Most importantly, Malaysia's 40% revenue (about RM60-70Billion) is from oil and gas, these natural resources can only last for another 20 years. We are facing "resource curse" problem within 20 years. Without oil and gas, Malaysia Government will for sure face very tough and serious financial problem then. Last one, a responsible and capable government should often maintain surplus budget and operation, not deficit for almost all the years since independent. A good government should maintain a good and controllable account, and have sufficient reserve to tackle or minimize the impact of any domestic or international economic problems. Yes, agreed that right now Malaysia is still pretty far away from bankruptcy but that's doesn't mean we should continue and spend in the way that Malaysia government is doing. Let's back to the very fundamental concept, no one can be sustainable without money and reserve, and keep on borrowing money. Reply hishamhFebruary 13, 2012 10:48 AM "First, US, Japan and India are very different from us, US is using USD which is the international trading currency, Japan and India are BIG economy engines, plus Japan is having a lot of private strong companies and enterprises . All these elements allow these countries to have deficits or issuance of money without much problems." Being a big economy is no different from a small one - it'a all relative. You can't run away from economic fundamentals and truths. The reason why these economies can run deficits and issue money is the same reason why we can if we needed to - we have the fiscal and monetary space to do so. "Singapore's public debt are mostly for investment on areas that could yield investment returns. And Singapore's GIC and Temasek are holding almost USD500billions assets of the Singapore Government." 1. During the 2008-2009 crisis, Singapore implemented tax cuts, income tax rebates, job assistance programs, and credit guarantees worth 6% of GDP. Where's the investment here? Our deficits over the last three years (not including 2011) came from a sharp drop in tax revenue, not accelerating spending increases. 2. GIC manages Singapore's international reserves, not the government's accounts - these are not savings in the conventional sense, but more akin to insurance. And those reserves were gained through active manipulation of the SGD. And a lot of it is invested in (*cough*) US Treasuries. In contrast, BNM does not appoint a single manager for our reserves, but they do invest them (and quite probably, they're mostly in US treasuries too). 3. Temasek's portfolio is worth about 2/3rds of Singapore's GDP. No we don't have quite the scale of Temasek, but last I checked, Khazanah Nasional's portfolio is a respectable RM108 billion, or about 15% of Malaysia's GDP. Considering they only started after 1998, that's pretty decent, especially for a government that hasn't been "saving". "Most importantly, Malaysia's 40% revenue (about RM60-70Billion) is from oil and gas, these natural resources can only last for another 20 years." Oil, yes...gas, no. From what I remember, gas reserves are expected to last another 50-60 years. The 40% figure comes from Petronas, and includes payments to state governments, not just central. Central government revenue derived from Petronas and other oil companies is less than 20% of total revenue. "Last one, a responsible and capable government should often maintain surplus budget and operation, not deficit for almost all the years since independent." Totally wrong from my point of view. You're assuming a government is like a household. The biggest differences - governments can vary their income, with the only constraint being what's politically and socially acceptable, which households cannot do. Second, government income is sensitive to total income - cut expenditure, and government income drops too, again unlike a household. What's the point of saving, if by saving you drop your income (and everybody else's) at the same time? Attempting to cut the deficit and debt levels by austerity only works if private sector income and production are booming (alternatively, very loose monetary policy which results in the same thing). If they aren't, then cutting back only results in slower growth, lower government income, and continued deficits. Fiscal austerity in Europe is resulting in worse deficits and debt levels, not better. My viewpoint has always been about what's best for the economy at the macro-level, in terms of maintaining and increasing employment and total incomes. In this context, debt and deficits are policy tools, not ends in themselves. A responsible government is one that tries to maintain full employment and growing real incomes, not to save on its own account. If the situation calls for debts and deficits, then so be it. Reply AnonymousFebruary 13, 2012 12:35 PM “During the 2008-2009 crisis, Singapore implemented tax cuts, income tax rebates, job assistance programs, and credit guarantees worth 6% of GDP. Where's the investment here? ” - The term 'investment' may not always refer to the real money that put into projects or companies that can reflect on the account book. Singapore spent the money to improve the skills of the workforce and to maintain the stability and the survival of the economy and all the companies in the country. These decisions has strengthen the confidence of both domestic and foreign investors toward the Singapore government and the entire business environment of Singapore. Yet Malaysia spent most of the revenue purely to maintain a big group of civil servant, not on the training or education or upgrading of skills but their salary and bonus. Why does Malaysia need such a big group of civil servant? All these are pure consumption not investment. The only reasons for maintaining big group of civil servant are for stabilize the votes count of BN and low unemployment rate. "Our deficits over the last three years (not including 2011) came from a sharp drop in tax revenue, not accelerating spending increases." - Wrong. The total tax revenue has dropped about RM6billion last 3/4 years, but the salary for civil servant alone has increased about RM15Billion. "GIC manages Singapore's international reserves, not the government's accounts - these are not savings in the conventional sense, but more akin to insurance. And those reserves were gained through active manipulation of the SGD. And a lot of it is invested in (*cough*) US Treasuries. In contrast, BNM does not appoint a single manager for our reserves, but they do invest them (and quite probably, they're mostly in US treasuries too)." - No matter how, the amount of GIC money is belong to Singapore Government. Singapore Government has the rights to use it if the country is in financial trouble. "Oil, yes...gas, no. From what I remember, gas reserves are expected to last another 50-60 years. The 40% figure comes from Petronas, and includes payments to state governments, not just central. Central government revenue derived from Petronas and other oil companies is less than 20% of total revenue." - I believe large amount of money is from Oil, but not Gas. Yes, Petronas alone doesn't contribute more than 40% to Central Government, but the Petroleum Income Tax (PITA) plus the dividend from Petronas, together contributed about RM60Billions to the Central Government in 2011/2010. "A responsible government is one that tries to maintain full employment and growing real incomes, not to save on its own account. If the situation calls for debts and deficits, then so be it." - Yes, agreed. But now the question here is "how"? Malaysia government spent a large amount of money on maintaining the 1.7million civil servant, which is about 15% of the entire workforce of Malaysia. Where does the money come from? From non-renewable natural resources! Is this going to be sustainable? A good government should provide good education and good business environment, to all the citizens so to ensure their are competitive, productive and able to produce and survive in tough and competitive business and social environment. All the points you put up here, are purely from economic points of view, without considering the long-term survival strategies of a country. What the Malaysia Central Government is doing also the same, they are putting the future of Malaysia into risk! Reply hishamhFebruary 13, 2012 2:48 PM "Singapore spent the money to improve the skills of the workforce and to maintain the stability and the survival of the economy and all the companies in the country." And the funny thing is that most of their growth over the past decade hasn’t come from Singaporeans, but from a large influx of foreigners. Despite having a crude birth rate below replacement level, from 2004 until now Singapore’s population growth rate averaged over 3%. Hence, they’ve increased economic activity not by creating a better skilled more productive Singaporean workforce, but by adding more and more numbers of high income foreigners (who incidentally drive up the cost of living for everybody else). That’s not a survival strategy Malaysia can follow, nor should we, as it just exacerbates income inequality. "Yet Malaysia spent most of the revenue purely to maintain a big group of civil servant, not on the training or education or upgrading of skills but their salary and bonus. Why does Malaysia need such a big group of civil servant? All these are pure consumption not investment." One day, I’m going to write a blog post on this topic. The reason why Malaysia’s civil service appears bloated by comparison with our neighbours is because we are the only other country in this region apart from Japan who does not have the draft (try this link. The numbers look big because it’s not a like to like comparison. Take away the Malaysian police and the armed forces, and you get something close to the same relative size. "- Wrong. The total tax revenue has dropped about RM6billion last 3/4 years, but the salary for civil servant alone has increased about RM15Billion." Wrong. Tax revenue for 2009 alone was RM18 billion below expectations. [tbc] Reply hishamhFebruary 13, 2012 2:50 PM [Cont] "- No matter how, the amount of GIC money is belong to Singapore Government. Singapore Government has the rights to use it if the country is in financial trouble." Again wrong. GIC money belongs to MAS. For the Singapore government to use that money would be illegal as MAS is a separate legal entity. It would also require MAS to completely change the entire basis for their conduct of monetary policy (which is based on control over the path and rate of appreciation of the exchange rate). Even if the government could use that money, operationally it would require the SGD to appreciate substantially, putting Singapore’s export competitiveness at risk. And even assuming your conception was true, that puts Malaysia in a pretty good position – BNM at last count is sitting on over RM420 billion in international reserves, or very nearly enough to cover the entire government debt. "- I believe large amount of money is from Oil, but not Gas. Yes, Petronas alone doesn't contribute more than 40% to Central Government, but the Petroleum Income Tax (PITA) plus the dividend from Petronas, together contributed about RM60Billions to the Central Government in 2011/2010." Gas production is double that of crude. The RM60 billion is correct from Petronas perspective, but where it is in the government accounts I can’t see. "Malaysia government spent a large amount of money on maintaining the 1.7million civil servant, which is about 15% of the entire workforce of Malaysia." I’ve covered that above. "Where does the money come from? From non-renewable natural resources! Is this going to be sustainable?" Did you know that by Malaysian law (unlike the paper tiger of a debt limit), the government can only borrow for development and investment purposes? Civil service salaries and operational expenditure must be covered by current revenue. And interestingly enough, output of crude and gas has been falling yet the yield in terms government revenue has increased instead. I suspect this is something we will continue to see going forward – as oil and gas reserves are depleted worldwide, revenues from oil and gas will remain high as prices adjust for the reduction in supply and as demand increases from developing countries like India and China. Government revenues would only fall if prices stagnate, and that’s simply not going to happen anytime soon. "All the points you put up here, are purely from economic points of view, without considering the long-term survival strategies of a country. " Which is another way of saying that debt and what it’s spent on is the same thing, a concept I reject. The issue of debt and deficits (the macro picture) are to me completely separate issues from the direction and purpose of government expenditure (the micro picture). I see deficits primarily as a tool for macro stabilisation policy (maintaining incomes and employment over time). How those deficits are used is an entirely different story. Reply AnonymousFebruary 13, 2012 3:49 PM No doubt Singapore is facing birth rate problem, that's why they need foreign workers, talents or investors to fill up the gap. Yet this is their structural social problem, as far as the government spending is concerned, it is the correct way. The target of Singapore budget is always Singaporeans and PR. "One day, I’m going to write a blog post on this topic. The reason why Malaysia’s civil service appears bloated by comparison with our neighbours is because we are the only other country in this region apart from Japan who does not have the draft (try this link. The numbers look big because it’s not a like to like comparison. Take away the Malaysian police and the armed forces, and you get something close to the same relative size." - May be you should come to JB-SG custom and take a look, a lot of staffs are doing nothing there but sitting and walking around, even some of them go to the shopping center next to custom during office hours. "- Wrong. The total tax revenue has dropped about RM6billion last 3/4 years, but the salary for civil servant alone has increased about RM15Billion." Wrong. Tax revenue for 2009 alone was RM18 billion below expectations. - Maybe you should show us the report of 2008, 2009 and 2010 Malaysia Federal Financial report, the amount of revenue dropped and the amount of salary expenditure increased. Reply AnonymousFebruary 13, 2012 3:49 PM [Cont] “Again wrong. GIC money belongs to MAS. For the Singapore government to use that money would be illegal as MAS is a separate legal entity. It would also require MAS to completely change the entire basis for their conduct of monetary policy (which is based on control over the path and rate of appreciation of the exchange rate). Even if the government could use that money, operationally it would require the SGD to appreciate substantially, putting Singapore’s export competitiveness at risk. And even assuming your conception was true, that puts Malaysia in a pretty good position – BNM at last count is sitting on over RM420 billion in international reserves, or very nearly enough to cover the entire government debt.” - In 1997/98 economy crisis, Singapore has proved that they have the ability to stabilize the currency and economy problems, Malaysia has nothing to safeguard the depreciation of RM then. So why such situation happened? "Gas production is double that of crude. The RM60 billion is correct from Petronas perspective, but where it is in the government accounts I can’t see." - Production and the amount of money generated is different thing. Again, government revenue income heavily depends on non-renewable natural resources, yet mainly for servicing consumption. This is not a logical and good management and governance. “Did you know that by Malaysian law (unlike the paper tiger of a debt limit), the government can only borrow for development and investment purposes? Civil service salaries and operational expenditure must be covered by current revenue.” - This is just a distorted reason/excuse. Government total expenditure covers operating expenditure and development expenditure. If government maintains controllable and reasonable operating expenditure, then revenue income should be enough to cover the development expenditure without borrowing and letting the federal government debt growing. "And interestingly enough, output of crude and gas has been falling yet the yield in terms government revenue has increased instead. I suspect this is something we will continue to see going forward – as oil and gas reserves are depleted worldwide, revenues from oil and gas will remain high as prices adjust for the reduction in supply and as demand increases from developing countries like India and China. Government revenues would only fall if prices stagnate, and that’s simply not going to happen anytime soon." - Don't forget the world will not wait for the last drop of oil and gas before they starts exploring new energy sources. They are doing now. “Which is another way of saying that debt and what it’s spent on is the same thing, a concept I reject. The issue of debt and deficits (the macro picture) are to me completely separate issues from the direction and purpose of government expenditure (the micro picture). I see deficits primarily as a tool for macro stabilisation policy (maintaining incomes and employment over time). How those deficits are used is an entirely different story.” - Agreed. But this is a topic concerned the survival and governance problem of our country. You should at least clarify that Malaysian Government Debt is sustainable for now, however should not have happened in that way. You are just giving an impression and idea to the readers that what the government is doing is perfectly no big issue. That's wrong! Reply AnonymousFebruary 13, 2012 8:52 PM There are 2 issues that needs clarification here: 1. GIC belongs to Government of Singapore, not MAS. Temasek belongs to Ministry of Finance, thus belongs to Government Of Singapore as well. Though the actual details of protocols, principles, structure of reporting are unknown. http://www.gic.com.sg/about/overview 2. The Debt-To-GDP Ratio of Singapore is totally not an accurate indicator for gauging the financial health of Singapore. Singapore has been maintaining surplus most of the years since independence day, their debt is just for creating and running a robust sovereign debt market. Malaysia debt is purely for consumption and repayment of old debt, interest and servicing deficits. So, again please don't simply do comparison without knowing the details. Most importantly, the quality of Malaysia Government has no way to compare with Singapore. http://www.sovereignman.com/finance/the-cost-of-being-a-contrarian-for-contrarians-sake/ Reply Yang Oi MunFebruary 13, 2012 9:59 PM Anon "Yes, agreed. But now the question here is "how"? Malaysia government spent a large amount of money on maintaining the 1.7million civil servant, which is about 15% of the entire workforce of Malaysia" I do share your concerns. But as an average person, I am more concern about the delivery of our civil service than their size. As long as it is good service it doesn't matter whether private or public sector is providing it. That said we have to decide someday on whether: 1) we get the civil servants to deliver more and reduce privatized concessions/monopoly 2) Or reduce civil servants no and let the private sector takeover I maybe wrong but it took me a long time to get around the public deficit thingy. What hishamh is trying to say is that shrinking the public debt/deficit could make the GDP shrink even faster(instead of growing). So your debt to GDP ratio could actually increased thereby making debt repayment even harder. Reply hishamhFebruary 13, 2012 10:16 PM @anonymous 4.52 To clarify your clarification: 1. Yes I know - but if you read what I actually wrote, I said the money they manage belongs to MAS, not that GIC was. 2. Yes, I know that, too - I no more think that Singapore is in any kind of trouble than Malaysia is. "Malaysia debt is purely for consumption and repayment of old debt, interest and servicing deficits." Since money is fungible, how do you come to that conclusion? Especially since legally, the Malaysian government cannot borrow except to fund the development budget. Debt service for instance falls under the operational budget. Reply hishamhFebruary 13, 2012 10:52 PM @anonymous 11.49 "- May be you should come to JB-SG custom and take a look, a lot of staffs are doing nothing there but sitting and walking around, even some of them go to the shopping center next to custom during office hours." Sorry, how's this relevant to the topic at hand? "- Maybe you should show us the report of 2008, 2009 and 2010 Malaysia Federal Financial report, the amount of revenue dropped and the amount of salary expenditure increased." Read Point 7 in the post above, or the original post I had on this issue. - In 1997/98 economy crisis, Singapore has proved that they have the ability to stabilize the currency and economy problems, Malaysia has nothing to safeguard the depreciation of RM then. So why such situation happened? They "stabilize the currency and economy problems" by...well, actually they didn't. The reason why Malaysia suffered worse was we had a finance minister committed to an IMF "solution", a central bank that criminally allowed a massive credit and property bubble to grow over a two year period, and a short sighted reliance on a pegged exchange rate. Singapore at that point had already long shifted to a managed float - flexible exchange rates reduce the vulnerability to external flows, as we've experienced in this past recession. If we had still been pegged to the Dollar, we'd have been up the proverbial creek without a paddle... "- Production and the amount of money generated is different thing." I thought that's what I said. " Again, government revenue income heavily depends on non-renewable natural resources, yet mainly for servicing consumption. This is not a logical and good management and governance. " Come to think of it, my pet idea is to put a stop to petrol and diesel subsidies (it's all consumption), which would save about RM12-14 billion a year. Then tack on the full economic cost of petrol use as additional petrol taxes, which should raise another RM8 billion. Do away with unfair IPP contracts and the hidden gas subsidy from Petronas, and the dividend yield from Petronas would add on another RM20 billion. Put that together, and the fiscal deficit's gone and the debt level would decrease by 8% of GDP every year - care to put your name to that proposal? "- Don't forget the world will not wait for the last drop of oil and gas before they starts exploring new energy sources. They are doing now." Yes, which is why I'm not terribly worried about government revenue derived from non-renewable sources. By the time we get to that point, the country will have matured enough that other sources of taxation will become more important. "You should at least clarify that Malaysian Government Debt is sustainable for now, however should not have happened in that way. You are just giving an impression and idea to the readers that what the government is doing is perfectly no big issue. That's wrong!" To me - as far as the debt is concerned - it really isn't a big issue. I really don't understand why people seem to think our public debt level is a problem at all (hence why I wrote this FAQ). The market can't get enough government securities - yields have been continuously dropping for a full year now across all maturities. Reply AnonymousFebruary 14, 2012 12:49 AM "- May be you should come to JB-SG custom and take a look, a lot of staffs are doing nothing there but sitting and walking around, even some of them go to the shopping center next to custom during office hours." Sorry, how's this relevant to the topic at hand? *** What I wanted to tell is, Malaysia Government is spending too much on Civil Servants, and there is no single logical reason to have such a big group of people working in the government. Staffs working in SG-JB custom have always been doing nothing most of the time. This is obviously a waste of money, and thus Malaysia Government is not doing a minimal good job for maintaining the deficits and debt. *** From the very beginning, I have said that you just misled readers, to give an impression to the people that it is perfectly no problem with our country debt. Yes, from economic indicators and figures, you are right, but that's not the whole picture. We are running deficits and having high debt level, all because of the mismanagement, super-size of civil servants and corruptions. This is the problem of our government. "I really don't understand why people seem to think our public debt level is a problem at all" *** People are concerned about our country debt not only because of the ability of payment of debt, but also why we need to bear such a big amount of debt. We have ample of resources for export yet running a deficit budget. *** Another question that make me puzzled is that you compared the Debt-To-GDP ratio of Singapore with Malaysia. I believe you fully understand the rationale of this Debt-To-GDP ratio indicator, that it is meaningless to make such a comparison. So, personally, I feel you were just trying to explain away the problem. *** Well, essentially, you could just simply say: Malaysia Government will not go bankruptcy because they can always print money for paying debt or selling lands for revenue. There is no need to come out so many complex economic theories or explanation. *** Well, I think we should stop here because as I said, you are just using all the unrealistic economic instruments and very limited viewpoints to explain away the problems of Malaysia Federal government are facing. You yourself has admitted that you are just explaining thing from "macro-level", not "micro-level". That is the core problem of our discussion, "macro-level" and "micro-level" totally give different conclusion, and most crucially, it is the "micro-level" telling the true story. *** Last one , I always believe knowledgeable person should use his knowledge wisely and ethically. Reply hishamhFebruary 14, 2012 2:16 AM "What I wanted to tell is, Malaysia Government is spending too much on Civil Servants, and there is no single logical reason to have such a big group of people working in the government. " And I can show you the stats that say otherwise. No doubt there are many in the government who don't work efficiently - but there are as many who do work hard (e.g. our health service). And the issue of debt and deficits should be considered separately from the use of funds. "From the very beginning, I have said that you just misled readers, to give an impression to the people that it is perfectly no problem with our country debt." There isn't a problem. My intent is not to mislead, but to educate. Too many view our debt level through simplistic and uninformed viewpoints that simply don't accord with theory, reality or the historical record. "People are concerned about our country debt not only because of the ability of payment of debt, but also why we need to bear such a big amount of debt." Because, honestly, it isn't big. "Another question that make me puzzled is that you compared the Debt-To-GDP ratio of Singapore with Malaysia." To show the nuances of my position - to show that debt can in fact be sustainable under certain conditions, which we mostly meet. "Well, essentially, you could just simply say: Malaysia Government will not go bankruptcy because they can always print money for paying debt or selling lands for revenue. There is no need to come out so many complex economic theories or explanation." Actually, yes there is. To not consider the limits of every proposition (such as money printing and debt financing) wouldn't be intellectually honest. "You yourself has admitted that you are just explaining thing from "macro-level", not "micro-level". That is the core problem of our discussion, "macro-level" and "micro-level" totally give different conclusion, and most crucially, it is the "micro-level" telling the true story." Actually both viewpoints are true - I am all for fighting waste or corruption, but in my judgement those are completely separate issues from the macro-stabilisation role of debts and deficits. "Last one , I always believe knowledgeable person should use his knowledge wisely and ethically." In other words, just because I mostly disagree with you, I must be stupid and unethical? But thank you for the debate anyway. Reply AnonymousFebruary 14, 2012 8:13 AM Please dont misunderstood. I put up my comments all because I wanted to tell the actual fact and the full picture, not to show my disagreement. Just like corruption, it is not the matter of small or big amount, it is the question of ethnic, responsibility, reason, and accountability. Same for our debt, not that anybody could explain that it is still at healthy level and reasonable level via any economic methods, it is perfectly no problem or question. It concerns about the interest, survive, and future of the citizens as well as the country. No doubt, a large amonut of our money has been wasted on unnecessary use, corruption, and big group of unproductive staffs(health service is not much different, public no confidence to them except the service is affordable, and our Sultan and PM go to Singapore or Australia for medical treatment). No single financial or economic instruments could explain away this fact. The last statement is always my believe, nothing to do with anybody. Reply METALRAGEFebruary 14, 2012 10:12 PM Kawan anon, Doubtful anyone disagrees w/ the ills and inefficiencies you have mentioned or that if stamped out, the savings might negate the need to run a deficit to attain a similar level of output/productivity/investment. But the point of this FAQ is not to highlight those ills. It is a FAQ on Debt & Deficits as a tool. The out-take from it is that to stigmatize debt and running deficits as "wrong" is for all good intents... misguided. We need people to be passionate about righting wrongs. Just be careful not to misdirect that righteous anger. Reply Yang Oi MunFebruary 14, 2012 11:13 PM @METALRAGE Agree thoroughly. Reducing public debt/deficit is not a guarantee panacea to economic woes. If applied wrongly, it will could cause the GDP to shrink at a faster rate than the initial reduction in deficit. Making the the debt to GDP ratio to soar thereby making debt repayment more difficult. Reply AnonymousFebruary 15, 2012 1:04 AM jesus this is like explaining the reason to build a dam to an environmentalist or trying to ask the Amish to drive a car instead of traveling on a horse back well, if big people getting treated here in malaysia is somehow be taken as a measure of public confidence to our health system, i can immediately name a few. one of them even managed to do heart related surgeries here TWICE. at the hands of malaysian trained surgeons. this is going political,dont u think so? jezzz. why everything has something to do with politics? Reply AnonymousFebruary 15, 2012 7:37 AM hi hishamh, im quite interested to know why you mentioned that singapore gic money belongs to mas and the troublesome process to use the reserves. as far as i know, it is true that sg gov can easily draw the reserve after president approved. Reply hishamhFebruary 15, 2012 9:10 AM @anonymous 3.37 Two problems with using international reserves in a domestic context (and this goes for just about everybody, not just Singapore): 1. International reserves are foreign currencies and not legal tender; 2. The intermediate target of monetary policy, which in the case of Singapore is the path and slope of exchange rate appreciation. Since US dollars or Japanese Yen are not legal tender in Singapore, to use international reserves in the domestic economy (for instance by the government), those reserves must first be sold in exchange for SGD. That does two things - reduces the supply of SGD in private hands, and puts upward pressure on the SGD exchange rate. In the Singapore context, this is equivalent to a monetary tightening, reducing asset market prices and raising benchmark and market interest rates, eventually leading to a reduction in economic activity. If the exchange rate appreciation approaches the upper intervention band, MAS will intervene in the forex markets buying foreign currencies in exchange for newly created SGD, which leaves you right back where you started. The only exception to this would be if you use reserves externally - for example, settlement of external debts. But since Singapore's public external debt is precisely zero, there's not much point. The process in Malaysia is slightly different because BNM uses an interest rate target instead of an exchange rate target, but the end result is pretty much the same: - international reserves sold into the domestic system in exchange for Ringgit; - this reduces Ringgit money supply, and puts upward pressure on interbank rates and exchange rates; - to maintain the OPR target rate, BNM has to provide fresh liquidity by buying up BNM bills with new money. Again, status quo ante. The only way for governments to utilise foreign reserves domestically is to either accept monetary tightening over and above what the economy requires (in effect displacing private financial resources by public financial resources) or to print money. For some strange reason, people seem to object to both alternatives. Reply AnonymousFebruary 15, 2012 12:48 PM hi hishamh, i thought the main purpose for sg building up the huge reserves, is to tackle any crisis. According to what you explained, seem like the sg reserves have very little help in time of crisis. If sg is in difficult time, they could simply draw, say 50billion, from the reserves, will they have to go through the troubles you mentioned till causing the appreciation of sg dollars and hurting the export competitiveness? Reply hishamhFebruary 15, 2012 3:02 PM In the Singaporean context, there's two reasons for reserve accumulation - first is containing the appreciation of the currency, inherent in a fast growing high income economy. But the second is indeed to manage crises. But international reserves are primarily for forex liquidity and balance of payment crises, not for domestic crises. The first line of defense is foreign currency assets within the banking system. If capital and trade outflows exceed the available forex resources within banks, this puts downwards pressure on the exchange rate, which will lead MAS to sell reserves to meet forex demand. This function used to be more important when exchange rates were fixed and reserve gains/losses was non-discretionary, less so now when exchange rates are floating. International reserves are insurance, not savings. Reply Hijaz KamalFebruary 15, 2012 10:42 PM I find anonymous attemot to turn hishamh into a political bogeyman failed miserably and make him look like a child. Hishamh, i have tried sharing your FAQ with many 'Malaysia will be bankrupt' chicken littles and you will be horrified what they call your blog...in a similar tone like anonymous' character assassination tactics but in the end these people are misleading their own silly selves. just to drop that I follow your blog faithfully and your blog also led me to read other wonderful economic blogs like mad druid and regional blogs in europe and US. Reply AnonymousFebruary 16, 2012 1:01 AM interesting article. spent me almost an hour reading. so would be great that hishamh elaborates a bit why our minister raised the alarm that malaysia is going into bankruptcy if we don't ease the subsidies and debt will bloat to crisis level in 2019. is it that our minister just finding an excuse for cutting subsidies? Reply Hijaz KamalFebruary 16, 2012 8:02 AM Idris jala is an accountant..not an economist..if he is fiancne minister he will be auctioning national assets to keep the accounts book bloated while people go jobless and starving....that is the problem why he made thatnkind of chicken little statement ...he spewed rubbish like all PEMANDU staff and the many good stuff have alays been copied from the EPU Reply hishamhFebruary 16, 2012 12:14 PM Hey guys settle down, I don't think anonymous was being spiteful or deliberately provocative. It's an honest disagreement, and I'll always welcome critical comments on this blog, as long as it doesn't descend into trolling. @anonymous 09.01 Yes, it's an excuse. The problem is that the real reasons, which have more to do with economic efficiency, are a lot harder to sell to the public, especially since the public has a vested interest in maintaining subsidies. In retrospect, PEMANDU should have taken a different tack, but I guess that's what happens when you have management consultants in the mix. Reply Replies PeterJune 2, 2012 7:15 PM Now you should have understood why it is harder to sell mismanagement of micro-economy to public, comparing to soaring debt level. Reply AnonymousFebruary 16, 2012 2:09 PM given that gov. has no saving and accum. debt, if any sudden, deep or long eco downtime, all Malaysians will sure suffer since all stats here are either current or historical, cannot predict the future. or debt may shhot up faster than expected if gov to give stimulus package. so i think we should not too comfort w whatever presented here. Reply hishamhFebruary 16, 2012 3:36 PM @anonymous 10.09 A government is not a household - the two situations are not the same. For maximum social welfare, they must usually be symmetrically opposite i.e. an increase in household or corporate savings must be met with an equal and opposite government dissaving. The only clear cut situation where a government should save is when both private sector and households are not saving, under conditions of autarky. If both are in fact increasing saving, a government that also saves means the economy must necessarily be operating below capacity i.e. unemployment must increase. Under an open economy, whether a government should save or not depends again on the full employment level, though the situation is more complicated (see discussion in Q3 in the post above). Reply AnonymousFebruary 16, 2012 4:31 PM that's part of the function of gov, in economy. but that doesn't explain our debt will not accelerate to worse level if hit by eco problem bcos revenue drops borrowing up for stimulus. Reply hishamhFebruary 16, 2012 5:10 PM Isn't that precisely the point? Whether debt increases or not (and the government saves or not) in this context is irrelevant. As long as debt remains at sustainable levels (and there's no reason to think it won't), then we'll be fine. Reply AnonymousFebruary 16, 2012 5:41 PM now i understand the core reason why the outbreak of debt crisis burning in PIIGS, most economists and financial guys think alike. Reply AnonymousFebruary 16, 2012 5:43 PM public debt - there's no reason to think it won't be sustainable! Reply AnonymousFebruary 16, 2012 5:45 PM it seems that some economists always have reasons to explain "it is sustainable" and "why it failed to be sustainable" before and after crisis burst. Reply AnonymousFebruary 16, 2012 7:37 PM ya... agreed ... Greece and Itally bankruptcy problem just suddenly exploded without much prior signals. How many economists and bonds investors in the world predicted correctly? US sub prime and housing also. people like to paint good picture without preparing for rainny days. i think it is good also to let public feel that Malaysia is going to bankruptcy as to push gov to do prudent management. Reply Hijaz KamalFebruary 16, 2012 9:48 PM Many Malaysians smart alecs also predicted Malaysia will be bankrupt for as along as I remember when roaming the internet i the last 10 years...not to mention Malaysian will become maids..invaded by USA .that didnt happen right...these are all speculations based on gobbledegook... We need some study on Greece and Italy to comparenwith Malaysia's economic fundamentalns beopfore we can make comparisons...and I am sure such data will resurface soon and many economicsts to dissect the information.. mowadays thebare many blogs that discuss thee economic condition in their respective countries just like hishamh and bloggers jn his blog rolll. A good example is this, sort of a hishamh for Spain which could be a good study as Spain is a PIIG country, http://spaineconomy.blogspot.com/ but what we generally see, kost economic problems are precipotated by property bubbles..example, Japan,US and even Spain..not sure about Greece but probably thensame case. Reply AnonymousFebruary 16, 2012 11:33 PM no doubt that malaysia has been suffering slow progress or no progress for last 10-15 years, in mostly all areas, economy, social, education, etc. it is hard to compare malaysia with other well-developed countries like US, Japan or even Spain as we rely very much on natural resources. without rich natural resources, malaysia would be more or less like somalia. becoming maids ... not that serious, but a lot of talents and high-income group have been leaving the country. sorry, the discussion has been derailed. Reply hishamhFebruary 16, 2012 11:42 PM At both anonymous, With the exception of Ireland, the PIIGS have been economic basketcases for years now. Actually, with the exception of some of the smaller countries (e.g. Finland) and Germany, most of Europe has been in poor economic shape. Greece and Italy already had preexisting debt loads as percentage of GDP exceeding 100% from as long as nearly 20 years ago, Portugal and Spain in excess of 60%. Spain and Ireland had big credit booms leading to a housing bubble - prices rose even faster (and have fallen further) than the US. All of them to a lesser or greater extent had social safety nets - so not only did they have to deal with rescuing wobbly banking systems and falling tax revenue when the crisis hit, they also all had to increase spending to cover unemployment and pension benefits. In Malaysia the debt to GDP ratio has risen about 13 percentage points since the crisis; by comparison, Italy has gone up about the same, Spain's is up about 30 points, Portugal 35 points, Ireland 65 points, and Greece 55 points. We can take another recession, they can't. Every single one of the PIIGS was running a fiscal deficit together with a current account deficit (violating the limits I was talking about under Q2 and Q3 in the blog post), implying not only public dissaving but also private dissaving - big no-no. All of them have to struggle under the constraints of a monetary union over which they have no control over the supply of money or interest rates. Every single one of these countries have governments spending in excess of 40% of GDP - Malaysia averages a little over 25%. When I look at these countries, I see Malaysia in 1995-1998 - trade and current account deficits, a housing and investment bubble, a runaway financial system, and a government in denial. But we've learned our lesson, and we had the benefit of being able to manage our own monetary conditions and our exchange rate. Those poor devils don't. No, right now, we're nothing like them. None of the risk factors are present, except a slightly bubbly housing market. The only macro risk factor that looks potentially dangerous isn't public debt, it's household debt (corporate balance sheets are in very good shape, as are our banks). and the main risk factor here is not systemically important banks, but non-banks which wouldn't have implications for the broader economy. So yes right now, I'm not worried at all about public finances. We can take another recession or two without too much problems, as unlikely as that is. Reply hishamhFebruary 16, 2012 11:45 PM @anonymous 7.33 Yes, there are much more important problems we need to address rather than worrying about debt. Reply Yang Oi MunFebruary 17, 2012 11:12 AM A large part of Greece public debt are owed to German creditors. While French banks are exposed to Italy's debt. Swedish creditors to the Baltics debt, Austrian banks to Hungary debt, Brits to Spain debt and Irish banks like AIB. So I would not necessary put Malaysia public debt in the same category. Most of the money owed, we owe it to ourselves. That said we need to be monitor foreign debt trend also. Reply AnonymousMarch 22, 2012 8:04 AM so,who is actually got the benefit from this debt crisis? Reply pjamMarch 22, 2012 9:58 AM the FAQ is very informative and serves to soothe public's contention on our high debt levels in relative to GDP...if the FAQs are applied to PIIGS' economies, the EZ won't be in debt crisis as of now, IMHO Reply AnonymousApril 18, 2012 3:02 PM Well written article there hishamh. Fair assessment on government debt. I'm neither BN/PR supporter, I just couldn't comprehend how naive the leaders and supporters of both parties on economic issue. Neither has strong economic strategies. Reply hishamhApril 18, 2012 3:37 PM Thanks. My boss and I have half-jokingly talked about doing basic econs seminars for ministers, MPs, and civil servants. Some of them need help. Reply AnonymousApril 18, 2012 4:11 PM I wouldn't worry much on the size of our civil service at the moment. It's very essential to keep the unemployment low, the distribution wealth should be spread out. Reducing the civil service for the sake of reducing the operational budget would be disastrous measure. Anyway, can't wait to see your opinions on civil service issue. Reply hishamhApril 19, 2012 12:05 PM I think the problem is less the size of the civil service then its effectiveness. Teachers form one third of the civil service, and given present class sizes, I don't think there's an argument against having that many. But...are they effective in providing the education our children need? That's a different question altogether. Reply LadybugMay 14, 2012 11:02 AM Excellent primer on govt debt hishamh! I'm new to your blog, but am enjoying your takes on economic issues. Also appreciate your refrain from politicizing economic data. Often times, i find that most people are too restricted by their own ideologies to be objective about anything. Reply hishamhMay 14, 2012 4:16 PM @Ladybug, Welcome to the blog. Thanks for the kind words Reply JMay 22, 2012 5:19 AM Nice post. And so to the argument so far. Another economist i followed once said that economist's job is to explain what and how, not good and wrong, I believe Hisham has adhered to the rule so far, and others shouldnt required him to go beyond the boundary. Just another thought on EPF and Government Debt. From what i believe, the creation of EPF, and the raising of his fund, is not from voluntary market's action but government mandatory policy. Ie, cost of credit go low not because there is not enough government bond for the market to invest in, but the EPF policy make the market flood with liquidity. Giving the inflation figure in malaysia, that the return on government bond is less than satisfactory, I doubt the way of saving in EPF, using EPF to fund government debt, would be an efficient way in distributing resource and spread the wealth around in Malaysia. Inflation occur when the supply of money exceed the demand for money. As long as government is not monetizing the debit, when government borrows money from private sector, the amount of money available to spend (by the private market) will decrease. hence, government borrowing in this case, is just transfering spending from private to the public, and shouldnt cause inflation. The real source of inflation, i believe, was from the trade surplus that we have. We produce goods to be export, but the ringgit created, when foreigner exchanged Dollar with BNM, will stay in Malaysia. Thus less goods circulated for given amount of money supply. Reply Peter:June 2, 2012 7:47 PM Inefficiency of managing micro-economies is obvious, and I can see on one here deny it. Our debt level can be worse if we take out the windfall natural resources such as petroleum and gas. Government is now spending on rakyat's behalf, which is our hard-earned savings in EPF. Continuing excessive borrowings from EPF will one day drain up our epf through corruption and high inefinefficiency. Coupled with depleting natural resources, we will see soaring of external debt sreal soon... On the other hand, good management of resources will see rakyat benefit the most, such as increasing in development in human resources through high quality training and education, productive investment and subsidies to the poor and nneedy. Reply hishamhJune 6, 2012 11:01 AM @J With respect to your last para, that would only be true under a fixed exchange rate regime. Under a floating rate regime as we have now, it's up to BNM discretion as to how much pass through to allow. In practice, given an interest rate target, the pass through into the domestic money supply should be zero. @Peter Depends what you mean by excessive. EPF holdings of government debt is less than 20% of total government debt. Holdings of government securities as a percentage of EPF managed assets is only slightly bigger - in fact far, far below the legal requirement of 70% under the EPF Act. Reply Home Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive