If we don't reform now, the country will collapse sooner than the 100-storey monument! -----------------------------------------
By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal
October 25, 2010
Najib said the total debt had been reduced but the Auditor-General’s report shows otherwise. — File pic
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 25 — Malaysia’s government debt for 2009 rose to RM362.39 billion or 53.7 per cent of GDP, its highest level in five years, according to the Auditor-General’s report released today.
The Auditor-General said in the report that this was the first time the debt to GDP ratio had breached the 50 per cent mark.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said in Parliament in June that Malaysia’s total debt had been reduced in 2009 to RM233.92 billion from RM236.18 billion in 2008.
Najib had also said that the debt to GDP ratio for 2009 was only 34.3 per cent, up from 31.9 per cent in 2008.
But today’s Auditor-General’s report said that the government debt had risen largely due to domestic debt.
“The debt ratio to GDP at the end of 2009 is 53.7 per cent, the highest level in five years and over 50 per cent for the very first time,” said the report.
The report stated that from 2005 till 2008, there was a general decline in the ratio between the government’s debt to the GDP.
It was 48.2 per cent in 2005, 42.3 per cent in 2006, 42.8 per cent in 2007 and 41.4 per cent in 2008.
The main reason behind the high debt last year, according to the audit report, was due to an increase in the government’s domestic debt.
“Towards the end of 2009, the unsettled domestic debt and foreign debt amounted to RM362.39 billion, an increase of RM55.96 billion (from 2008’s RM306.44 billion) due to an increase in domestic debt.
“The government’s domestic debt totalling RM348.60 billion is 96.2 per cent of the total debt of the federal government last year,” said the report.
The report also showed a decline in the government’s foreign debt — from RM26.91 billion in 2005 to RM13.77 billion last year — while domestic debt steadily increased from RM201.76 billion in 2005 to RM348.6 billion in 2009.
In his June parliamentary reply, Najib had moved to quell fears raised by a minister that Malaysia would one day go the way of Greece and Iceland and become a bankrupt nation.
In a written response to a question by Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timor) in Parliament, the PM gave an assurance that the government was taking steps to ensure that Malaysia’s debts would be reduced and maintained at a manageable level.
Finance Minister cum Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has tabled the 2011 budget. It amounts to RM212 billion which is the highest ever in Malaysian history.
Unfortunately with the huge sum of money to be spent, it does not benefit the people at large. Does Najib have the determination to reform the country? The budget is obviously a General-Election-Budget. Our Foreign Direct Investment is dwindling, yet the budget was not FDI friendly.
With the plan to build a 100-storey tower, Warisan Merdeka, which will cost RM5 billion, Najib may be trying to convey a message that our economy is booming and we have the capability to spend on mega projects. Pretense will not save the country but honesty does. The fact is, Malaysia is billions of Ringgit in debt and where are we going to get the money? I am afraid that the government has overly strained the EPF which was constantly being persuaded into investment partnership.
During those days when the former PM Dr. Mahathir wanted to venture into building the highest building in the world, there was much objection from the general public but to no avail. I am afraid that we could only do little thing to voice out again should BN win the next GE as Najib has justified himself over his action.
The Twin-Towers (KLCC) has nothing to do with me who am a not-high-profile person. Likewise there are plenty of people in the street like me who do not benefit from skyscrapers. They are for the rich and mighty! There is still plenty of office space available in KLCC after so many years of existence. So it will be heart-breaking to see RM5 billion from the treasury going down into the drain over another white elephant project.
It was the pride of Dr. Mahathir who wanted to put his fame known to the world. Malaysia is just a speck of dust in the world map. Our tourism did not flourish because we had the highest towers. Singapore has nothing more attractive than we but yet it surpassed us in the number of tourists each year. One skyscraper was already a mistake, let alone another one?
It is good news to hear that highways would freeze toll hikes for the next five years. But the bad news is that the government needs to fork out RM5 billion for compensation! Whose money? The tax-payers’! Why was a contract signed in favor of the highway company instead of the people? Cronyism has eroded Malaysia!
Najib has wanted the talented citizens who are working overseas come back to serve the country, but his budget has no plans to attract them. Until and unless our government is sincere in practicing meritocracy, his idea will only be remained as an idea forever!
Millions of Ringgit will also be spent in hiring 375 English teachers from England and Australia. How effective this could be? 375 teachers are likened to a drop of water in a 50-meter swimming pool! Our standard of English has dropped tremendously lately. It is embarrassing to tell that most of the students graduated from government universities cannot speak proper English.
English is a very important language. One of the reasons why our universities are declining in world ranking is the poor command of English, since most of the library books are in English. For long benefits’ sake, I would suggest that the government bring back the English-medium schools system.
I hope that Najib will spend the country’s treasury wisely. It must be targeting on creating opportunities for people to play a role in nation building, irrespective of their race or status.
The spirit of Jesus' sacrificial love was upon them. ------------------------------------------
by Chuck Colson
October 13, 2010
Americans were gripped this past weekend with the high drama of watching men drilling a hole in the ground: a hole that represented the difference between life and death and a hole that illustrates why, contrary to what we have been told, we are not just another ape.
On August 5th, a copper and gold mine in Chile caved in. The tragedy turned into a national crusade when, seventeen days later, it was confirmed that thirty-three miners had miraculously survived the cave-in. They were trapped in a rescue chamber 2,300 feet beneath the surface.
President Sebastian Pinera and his government made the miners' rescue their top priority. Work began immediately on drilling a 28-inch hole down to the rescue chamber to extract the survivors. No expense or effort was spared, and technical help came in from all around the world. And while families maintained a silent but painful vigil, food, water and other supplies were lowered down to the survivors through a smaller hole.
This past weekend, the rescue shaft was completed. Given its width, the miners will have to be removed one at a time. Since each trip will take approximately an hour, it will take the better part of two days to remove all the miners. Who should go first? The weakest?
Well, there was still one more twist in store for Chile and the world. A surprised Health Minister Jaime Manalich told AP that the miners "were fighting with [authorities] yesterday because everyone wanted to be at the end of the line, not the beginning."
A news man from the scene choked up while reporting it. You know who else should be surprised: Darwinians. They believe the race has evolved through survival of the fittest. Neo-Darwinism cannot explain altruism like that displayed by the miners. At best, it can offer a superficially plausible explanation for what they call "cooperation."
But caring about someone outside your immediate kinship group, much less being willing to sacrifice your well-being for theirs? Never. Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" would demand to be the first person out of that mine. The "selfish gene" would not have even made the miners' rescue a national priority. It would have settled for superficially-plausible mourning.
A far more plausible explanation is suggested by the items that the miners asked be sent down to them while they waited for rescue: a crucifix and other items associated with their Catholic faith. They told officials that they wanted to set up a shrine in the rescue chamber. They signed two flags for Pope Benedict and, to make sure he got at least one, gave them to different officials.
Now ask yourself, which is a better explanation for their altruism: a "selfish gene" or belief in a Good Shepherd that gives his life for the sheep?
Even without an explicit faith connection, we know that this kind of altruism is uniquely human. Females of other species will fight to the death to defend their young, but another female's young? Never.
This is so obvious that the insistence that man is just another ape is nothing but a worldview—a humanist philosophy which is palpably false.
It's a worldview that can never account for what just happened in Chile, and makes the continued adherence to the Darwinian worldview the biggest surprise of all.
The scandal does not confine to America only, it happens in Malaysia, Australia and all over the world – Allen Tan
by Albert Mohler
Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Mark A. Smith, who teaches political science at the University of Washington, pays close attention to what is now commonly called the "culture war" in America. Though the roots of this cultural conflict reach back to the 1960s, the deep divide over social and moral issues became almost impossible to deny during the late 1970s and ever since. It is now common wisdom to speak of "red" states and "blue" states, and to expect familiar lines of division over questions such as abortion and homosexuality.
In the most general sense, the culture war refers to the struggle to determine laws and customs on a host of moral and political issues that separate Americans into two opposing camps, often presented as the religious right and the secular left. Though the truth is never so simple, the reality of the culture war is almost impossible to deny.
And yet, as Professor Smith surveyed the front lines of the culture war, he was surprised, not so much by the issues of hot debate and controversy, but by an issue that was obvious for its absence — divorce.
"From the standpoint of simple logic, divorce fits cleanly within the category of ‘family values' and hence hypothetically could represent a driving force in the larger culture war," he notes. "If ‘family values' refers to ethics and behavior that affect, well, families, then divorce obviously should qualify. Indeed, divorce seems to carry a more direct connection to the daily realities of families than do the bellwether culture war issues of abortion and homosexuality."
That logic is an indictment of evangelical failure and a monumental scandal of the evangelical conscience. When faced with this indictment, many evangelicals quickly point to the adoption of so-called "no fault" divorce laws in the 1970s. Yet, while those laws have been devastating to families (and especially to children), Smith makes a compelling case that evangelicals began their accommodation to divorce even before those laws took effect. No fault divorce laws simply reflected an acknowledgment of what had already taken place. As he explains, American evangelicals, along with other Christians, began to shift opinion on divorce when divorce became more common and when it hit close to home.
When the Christian right was organized in the 1970s and galvanized in the 1980s, the issues of abortion and homosexuality were front and center. Where was divorce? Smith documents the fact that groups such as the "pro-traditional family" Moral Majority led by the late Jerry Falwell generally failed even to mention divorce in their publications or platforms.
"During the 10 years of its existence, Falwell's organization mobilized and lobbied on many political issues, including abortion, pornography, gay rights, school prayer, the Equal Rights Amendment, and sex education in schools," he recalls. Where is divorce — a tragedy that affects far more families than the more "hot button" issues? "Divorce failed to achieve that exalted status, ranking so low on the group's agenda that books on the Moral Majority do not even give the issue an entry in the index."
But the real scandal is far deeper than missing listings in an index. The real scandal is the fact that evangelical Protestants divorce at rates at least as high as the rest of the public. Needless to say, this creates a significant credibility crisis when evangelicals then rise to speak in defense of marriage.
As for the question of divorce and public law, Smith traces a huge transition in the law and in the larger cultural context. In times past, he explains, both divorce and marriage were considered matters of intense public interest. But at some point, the culture was transformed, and divorce was reclassified as a purely private matter.
Tragically, the church largely followed the lead of its members and accepted what might be called the "privatization" of divorce. Churches simply allowed a secular culture to determine that divorce is no big deal, and that it is a purely private matter.
As Smith argues, the Bible is emphatic in condemning divorce. For this reason, you would expect to find evangelical Christians demanding the inclusion of divorce on a list of central concerns and aims. But this seldom happened. Evangelical Christians rightly demanded laws that would defend the sanctity of human life. Not so for marriage. Smith explains that the inclusion of divorce on the agenda of the Christian right would have risked a massive alienation of members. In summary, evangelicals allowed culture to trump Scripture.
An even greater tragedy is the collapse of church discipline within congregations. A perceived "zone of privacy" is simply assumed by most church members, and divorce is considered only a private concern.
Professor Smith is concerned with this question as a political scientist. Why did American evangelicals surrender so quickly as divorce gathered momentum in America? We must ask this same question with even greater urgency. How did divorce, so clearly identified as a grievous sin in the Bible, become so commonplace and accepted in our midst?
The sanctity of human life is a cause that demands our priority and sacrifice. The challenge represented by the possibility (or probability) of legalized same-sex marriage demands our attention and involvement, as well.
But divorce harms many more lives than will be touched by homosexual marriage. Children are left without fathers, wives without husbands, and homes are forever broken. Fathers are separated from their children, and marriage is irreparably undermined as divorce becomes routine and accepted. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, but it is sin, and it is a sin that is condemned in no uncertain terms.
Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing.
Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience.
I interviewed Professor Smith on this week's edition of "Thinking in Public." Listen here.
An unusually honest and eloquent statement of evangelical concern and repentance on the scandal of divorce was adopted as a resolution at the 2010 Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Orlando, Florida. The chairman of the Committee on Resolutions was Dr. Russell D. Moore. The text of the resolution, "On the Scandal of Southern Baptist Divorce," can be found here.
