马来西亚股汇崩盘看经济前景

2014年12月2日

不要把信心放在世界的经济，它有一天必全然崩盘！

《启示录》18：1-24 

大巴比伦倾倒
	1		这些事以后，我看见有另一位掌大权柄的天使，从天上降下来，他的荣光照亮了大地。
	2		他用强有力的声音呼喊说：“倾倒了！大巴比伦倾倒了！成了鬼魔的住处，各样污灵的监狱，一切污秽可憎之雀鸟的牢笼，
	3		因为各国都喝她淫乱烈怒的酒醉了；地上的君王与她行淫，世上的商人因她奢华挥霍就发了财。”
	4		我听见另一个声音从天上来，说：“出来吧！我的子民，要从那城出来，免得在她的罪上有分，受她所受的灾难；
	5		因为她的罪恶滔天，　神已经想起她的不义来。
	6		她怎样待人，你们也要怎样待她；照着她所作的，加倍报应她；用她调酒的杯，加倍调给她。
	7		她怎样炫耀自己，怎样奢华挥霍，你们也要怎样给她痛苦悲哀。因为她心里常常说：‘我坐着作女王，我不是寡妇，决不会看见悲哀。’
	8		因此，在一日之内她的灾难必然来到，就是死亡、悲哀和饥荒；她还要在火中被烧掉，因为审判她的主　神是大有能力的。
	9		“地上的众王，就是跟她一同行邪淫、骄奢无度的，看见焚烧她的烟的时候，就必为她痛哭捶胸。
	10		他们因为害怕她所受的痛苦，就远远地站着，说：‘有祸了！有祸了！这大城，巴比伦，这坚固的城啊！一时之间你的审判就来到了！’
	11		“地上的商人也为她悲哀痛哭，因为没有人再买他们的货物：
	12		就是金、银、宝石、珍珠；细麻布、紫色布、丝绸、朱红色布；各样香木，各样象牙制品，各样极贵重的木器、铜器、铁器、大理石制品；
	13		肉桂、豆蔻、香料、香膏、乳香；酒、油、面粉、麦子；牛、羊、马、车、奴仆、人口。
	14		你所贪恋的果子离开你了！一切珍馐美味、华丽的美物，都从你那里消失，再也找不到了！
	15		贩卖这些货物，借着她发了财的商人，因为害怕她受的痛苦，就远远地站着，痛哭悲哀，
	16		说：‘有祸了！有祸了！这大城啊！就是一向穿着细麻布、紫色、朱红色的衣服，佩戴着金子、宝石和珍珠装饰的，
	17		一时之间，这么大的财富竟荡然无存！’”所有船长、旅客、水手，以及凡是靠海谋生的，都远远地站着。
	18		他们看见了焚烧她的烟，就喊叫说：‘有哪一座城能与这大城相比呢？’
	19		他们又把尘土撒在自己头上，痛哭悲哀，喊着说：‘有祸了！有祸了！这大城啊！凡是有船航行海上的，都因这城的财宝发了财；一时之间她竟成了荒场！’
	20		天哪，你要因她欢喜！众圣徒、众使徒、众先知啊，你们也要因她欢喜！因为　神已经在她身上为你们伸了冤。”
	21		有一位大力的天使，把一块好像大磨石一样的石头，举起来拋在海里，说：“巴比伦大城也必这样被猛力地拋下去，决不能再找到了！
	22		弹琴、奏乐、吹笛、吹号的声音，在你中间决不能再听到了！各样手艺技工，在你中间决不能再找到了！推磨的声音，在你中间决不能再听到了！
	23		灯的亮光，在你中间决不能再照耀了！新郎新娘的声音，在你中间决不能再听到了！你的商人一向都是地上的大人物，万国都因你的邪术受了迷惑。
	24		先知、圣徒和地上一切被杀的人的血，都在这城里找到了！” ---------------------------------------------------------- 作者：陈亚伦 12月1日，马来西亚的股汇崩盘，这只是冰山一角，因为按照圣经，这个世界的金融制度有一天会全然崩溃，进入敌基督掌权的时代！         马币在1997年东亚金融风暴前是1美元兑2.60令吉，我国经济重创以来，经过了17年的挣扎仍然爬不起来。昨日反而重挫贬值1.6%至1美元兑3.43令吉。国家领袖经常以低马币使我国出口增加竞争力为借口，见解似是而非。当你韩国金融风暴受创比我国严重，它们必须向国际货币基金局借贷，不过今天它们的进步却走在我国前面19年。因此，竞争力乃在乎国家重视人才的大环境。         有利出口是在乎商家有何精明经商方法，商家出口以美元对冲货品交易，所以低马币对商家未必有利。我国的公司税比一般贸易对手的国家更高，所以商家只好找对策获得更大盈利。香港公司税比我国低，我国的公司即在香港设立公司，然后把货品通过香港跟其他国家交易。越南，柬普寨等新兴发展中国家给予外资特别低税优惠，我国的公司即在那些国家等设立公司，然后通过该些国家出口。到头来，损失的是我国政府。         所以，低货币政策并不是增加出口外汇的万灵丹。一个国家货币高，并不等于竞争力被削弱。不防看看邻国新加坡，隔了一条长堤，两国的经济就天渊之别。但回想以前 1960、70年代两国的货币相等，新加坡还需要靠大马人往那里消费才能生存。我们有否探讨为何今天新加坡的1元币值兑我们2.63令吉，人均收入是我国的五倍吗？         其实，一国的货币强大乃是一国的尊严，货币须要强大免得被别人白眼对待。新加坡大量进口马来西亚的东西，因着以高货币购入，所以新加坡人在新加坡消费比大马人在大马消费更便宜（别以兑换率来计算）。它们的汽车贵，但因着它们交通四通八达，所以汽车不是必需品。它们的房产贵，但我国的现在也很贵，甚至新加坡人比我们更有能力买房产呢！         五年来超过60%的货品价和服务费持续涨         我经常有帮忙家中购物的，每一年就看着物价有增无减。付更高价，乃是因为我们的钱贬值了。尤其是最近三年，人民因为经济疲弱，收入少了，加上物价高而感到更吃力。经济越弱，国家的货币越滑落。三年前一令吉还买到大大粒的苹果，现在一样大小的却要1.50令吉！外国的商家应该笑着跟我国交易，因为以前它们国家的小粒水果是出口至贫穷国家的，现在我国购入很多小粒水果，这意味什么信息？当然只举例水果，五年来我国超过60%的货品价和服务费都持续涨了20%以上。疲弱马币呀，我们的尊严去了哪里？         而我们去到高币值的国家消费，都叫苦连天，我们的尊严受创。甚至去中国现在已经不便宜呢，我们需要56令吉换100元人民币，我国再不争气的话，或许会来到一天以一令吉兑换1元人民币呢！         送孩子到先进国留学也痛苦，我看到澳洲的大马留学生，大多数是来自普通的家庭的。不少父母，变卖了房子，再穷也不穷教育！         我认为大马若经济蓬勃，导致马币强大，策划往高科技工业发展，可早日走入先进国行列。所以，我国有必要检讨我们的政治形态，因为我们需要建设一个拥有竞争力的国家。这没有捷径，需要很多人才配搭。国家兴旺必须靠人才，而人才是藉着不分种族给予公平对待的。这样是治本。假使想通过税务来增加收入的话，那是治标。         向来领袖依赖石油、棕油、橡胶等原产品出口，缺乏远见，导致现在这些资源没价值，要怎样才救得住经济？如果大马不是因为贪污严重导致债台高筑的话，我们的币值也不会搞到币值疲弱，造成经济衰退。一旦经济衰退的话，人民怎样有好收入？没有好收入又怎样付更多税？因此，我担心一旦明年4月征收消费税的话，恐怕人民的生活品质会进一步削弱。最坏情况是在粮食上节省，那可能导致营养不良，这也是通胀的后遗症，人民的竞争力会因此进一步被削弱！通胀，人民还能够消费算是幸运的了，因为恐怕不是通胀而是变本加厉变成通缩，即说，人民的购买力被削弱，减少消费，整个国家的经济就会萎缩！

Najib making Umno less relevant, says columnist

28 November 2014

Umno is losing its appeal among more Malaysians, and its president Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been the cause of this with new approaches that pushed the party out of the political spotlight, effectively making it less relevant to the people, The Edge Review columnist, Bridget Welsh, wrote.

Among these were the “outsourcing” of Umno’s traditional role as defender of the Malays to right-wing groups like Perkasa, competing with PAS to be the defender of Islam, use of government resources and machinery to dispense patronage, and relegating the party to the sidelines in the making of government policy.
Writing in this week’s edition of the digital magazine, Welsh, a political analyst, said Najib had changed Umno’s role and in so doing, made the party “less politically relevant”.

She noted that Umno has long relied on the “racial insecurity” of Malays to maintain power but outsourcing its role as defender of the Malays to other groups had “marked the start of Umno’s slide to the sidelines”.
Although these groups received government funding and were closely linked to Umno, holding memberships in both, they had come to take over Umno’s position in spearheading calls to protect Malay interests.

The next approach, competing with PAS to “position Umno as the defender of Islam in Malaysia” effectively moved Umno further from its “moderate roots”, causing it to be perceived by the public as becoming more zealous and hardline.

Najib, as prime minister, allowed increased funding for Islamic institutions, Islamic-based groups, religious schools and the state’s religious apparatus, and while this impacted PAS negatively, it also strengthened the religious bureaucracy within the government service, making it even more powerful and autonomous, Welsh noted.

Equally damaging to Umno’s ability to win new support was Najib’s use of government handouts which “replaced the party as the vehicle for wooing voters”.

Of such initiatives, the 1Malaysia People’s Aid programme (BR1M) was the most visible and was used widely during elections.

This re-branding of the ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, during election campaigns, served to take the focus off Umno and its baggage, but the party no longer became the “face of political patronage”. While loyalty to Umno was still expected, it was “less direct”, Welsh said.

Welsh used these approaches to illustrate how Umno’s decline in the public eye had come from an unlikely cause – from “within the party leadership itself”.

“In fact, one of the distinguishing features of Najib Razak’s tenure has been the displacement of Umno as a truly dominant political actor,” she wrote.

The moves to outsource Umno’s role as defender of the Malays, to appear more Islamic and to hide behind the face of government as benefactor was the party’s way of dealing with the massive loss of support in the general election of 2008, she said.

Umno then was rejected for its racial politics and corruption, and went on to lose its customary two-thirds majority in Parliament.

Welsh said Umno was unable to transform itself in response to the public’s new political awareness, and opted instead for different tactics, which only worsened its political capital.

Other approaches detrimental to the party have been in the area of party and election financing, and government engagement, Welsh added.

She said Najib had to tap from “new vehicles for election funding, including the scandal-ridden 1Malaysia Development Berhad fund, which was a departure from the past whereby Umno itself had a sufficient war chest.

“Today, other investment arms and entities have changed Umno’s dominant position. It has opened up alternative sources of funding for party leaders, but at the same time reduced the party’s role in setting the direction of financing,” she wrote.

Yet another way Najib has diminished Umno’s role was in reducing the party’s engagement in policy-making, having brought in “hired consultants” to the government, Welsh said.

“The common feature of all of these changes has been to push Umno back from the political front line,” Welsh concluded, and while this had made it “more obsessed” with clinging to power, it was ironically contributing to its own decline. – November 28, 2014.

Source:  http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/najib-making-umno-less-relevant-to-malaysians-says-columnist

All Americans Will Receive A Microchip Implant In 2017 Per Obamacare -- A look at "Mark of the Beast"

Rev. 13: 16-18
16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Rev. 14: 9-12

9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

 ---------------------------------------------------------


NBC has recently predicted that in 2017, all of America will be tagged with microchips. They will be implanted to help identify individuals immediately. According to the report, the technology is used to answer one question, “Am I who I say I am?”

Some worry, however, that the RFID Microchip will give the government too much power, allowing them to track every move. In some states, like Virginia, legislation is in process to stop this from happening. The report also reveals an RFID Brain Chip that has been developed and is currently being tested on several humans. Proof the RFID Microchip is in Obamacare below:


It was reported that the use of Micro-Chips in Bill H.R. 4872 was located on Page 1014 under “National Medical Device Registry” it tells about a “Class II Device That is Implantable” and yes, they passed the bill. Read Page “1014″ In The H.R. 4872 Read Class II Special Controls Guidance For FDA Staff 


With the RFID Microchip they can track the movement of the people that are implanted. They can also control the money and food of the people. It is also reported to be possible to even kill the people that don’t obey. The HR 3962 Bill is an exact copy of the HR 3200 bill in with the exception of just a few words removed concerning the RFID Microchip but the ability to Chip Every Citizen of the United States is still in the bill. Open Bill and Read Pages 1501 through 1510 Read Class II Special Controls Guidance For FDA Staff Read And Do The Research For Yourself……LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK! 

Source: http://dcgazette.com/all-americans-will-receive-a-microchip-implant-in-2017-per-obamacare/

Will we, the 52%, strike back?

Details Created on Friday, 14 November 2014 07:00

 

By Haris Ibrahim

 

11.2 million registered voters cast their votes at the poll at the last general election. 52% voted for a regime change in Putrajaya. I was one of them.

Since the result was announced, to this day I feel cheated.

This week I chatted with Maria Chin Abdullah and Wong Piang Yow on the 'Agree to Disagree…with Haris Ibrahim' show.

And over the last few days, I have ploughed through the report of The People’s Tribunal on the 13^th General Election.

On the Election Commission, the tribunal reported, at page 60 of the report, that it is “hard to escape the conclusion that the EC of Malaysia was designed as an instrument of the ruling party to keep it in power”.

On the matter of constituency boundaries, the tribunal reported that “It is hard to see how having one constituency nine times the size of another in terms of electorate can be described as ‘approximately equal’.

"The EC failed to implement the principle of equal representation in apportionment and districting…there is considerable evidence that these anomalies work in one direction only: to the benefit of the ruling coalition."

To make a long story short, a major factor that led to the 52% being cheated at the 13^th GE was the extensive malapportionment and gerrymandering that afflict our constituencies.

The EC has announced that it is ready to kick off a delimitation exercise which will entail a re-drawing of constituency boundaries, that may even lead to an increase in the number of constituencies, both parliamentary and state.

Should we hope that the EC will look to re-draw boundaries with a view to, as best as it can, equalize the constituencies, or will it continue to serve “as an instrument of the ruling party to keep it in power”?

Maria says she does not trust the EC to serve the interests of the Rakyat.

I, too, do not trust it.

And Wong takes the view that this delimitation exercise offers us, the 52%, the best opportunity to right the inherent wrongs in our present constituency boundaries.

“Haris, we will not have another opportunity like this for another 50 years," was how he put it.

Two things, according to Wong, can be achieved if we are permitted to effectively exercise our constitutional right with regard to this imminent delimitation exercise.

First, we can work towards equalizing our constituencies, aspiring towards achieving the ideal of 1 person, 1 vote, 1 value throughout the constituencies.

Second, and this will go a long way towards helping us achieve the first, to prevent the increase in the number of parliamentary constituencies from the existing 222, which, according to Wong, already far exceeds the number that we actually need.

What is this constitutional right that Wong speaks of? Under the constitution, once the proposed delimitation has been duly gazetted, there is a 30-day period during which objections may be lodged with the EC by a minimum of 100 registered voters in a particular constituency in respect of the proposed re-drawing of that constituency boundary.

Wong warns, however, that there are barriers to the effective exercise of this constitutional right that you and I have.

First, the period for objection is very short: 30 days. Then, you need to have at least 99 others to make up the requisite 100 objectors.

Then comes the biggest barrier.

EC's not being forthcoming with the information that you will need. Let me illustrate this point. I vote in PJ Selatan and Bukit Gasing. EC has just gazetted its proposed delimitation for the whole country. My 30-day period to object has started.

The proposed new boundaries for PJ Selatan and Bukit Gasing are on display at, say, the MBPJ building.

Great. I go and look at it.

But I want to compare this with that of the 21 other parliamentary and 55 other state constituencies in Selangor to see if they are ‘approximately equal’, as stipulated in the 13^th Schedule of the Constitution. No maps of the other constituencies are on display at MBPJ. They are not available online on the EC website.

I call EC and it informs me that I can view the maps of all the other constituencies at the various district offices in all the constituencies!

I tell EC I don’t have the time to go through the state to sight the maps, so I wish to purchase them from EC.

Sorry, not for sale.

So, before the expiry of the 30-day objection period, I will have to travel through the state to the various district offices to sight and make sense of these maps!

Not just me, but 99 others!

So much for EC’s 'Cekap & Iklas' slogan that stares at you when you go to its website!

Are we, the 52%, going to allow the EC to get away with this?

Or do we strike back?

Source: http://www.rakyattimes.com/index.php/columnist/1612-will-we-the-52-strike-back-haris-ibrahim

An open letter to the auditor-general on 1MDB

10:40AM  Nov 13, 2014

By AH Manaf

 

Y Bhg Tan Sri, I read with concern your recent statement, “Why aren’t we auditing 1MDB? As far as their accounts are concerned, they are already audited by one of the big four.” To audit any firm was a “very laborious task”.

In view of the controversies surrounding 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), passing the buck to ‘The Big Four’ is simply not good enough. It also creates a misleading impression of the role, scope and limitations of external auditors.

Companies involved in the biggest scandals in financial history employed leading audit firms. Enron was audited by Andersen. Our own BBMB was audited by Touche Ross (later swallowed up by Deloitte who happens to be 1MDB’s current auditor). Deloitte was the auditor in the Transmile scandal.

Lehman Brothers, the golden boy of investment banking that went spectacularly bankrupt in 2008, was audited by Ernst & Young. It is chilling to remember that Lehman Brothers went bust by selling US$50 billion worth of toxic asset to Cayman Islands banks on the understanding that they would be bought back eventually.

What this created was the impression that Lehman Brothers had US$50 billion more cash than it did and US$50 billion less toxic assets than it held. All this under the nose of ‘Big Four’ Ernst & Young.

Auditors are not infallible, if they were there would be no financial scandals. Audit firms are businesses like any other and operate within the scope of auditing standards which themselves are not infallible.

Sir, I do not dispute that reopening 1MDB’s books is a “very laborious task”. The decision whether to take on this task should be determined among other things by the entity’s risk profile and I would like to ask did you factor these considerations into your decision?

1. 1MDB has gone through three of the ‘Big Four’ firms in the space of five years, according to reports in The Star, The Edge and the Singapore Business Times.

2. 1MDB’s first auditor was Ernst & Young who resigned without signing a single set of accounts (The Star, The Edge).

3. 1MDB’s second auditor KPMG resigned in late 2013 (ie many months after FY March 2013 ended) without signing off the accounts.

4. 1MDB’s third auditor, Deloitte, issued unusually lengthy notes and critical judgments to the FY 2013 accounts. In the industry this can be termed ‘Cover Your Back’, disclosing as much detailed information as possible in order to protect your reputational risk in the event of future problems.

5. Add to this 1MDB’s unusual and inexplicable late filings of annual reports for FY 2013 and FY 2014. Some of 1MDB’s subsidiaries have allegedly not filed accounts since FY 2013.

1MDB’s former 100 percent subsidiary SRC International’s accounts have not been filed since March 2012. This subsidiary is now 100 percent held by the Finance Ministry and has borrowings of RM4 billion via Retirement Fund (Incorporated) or KWAP bonds guaranteed by the government. The auditor of SRC in FY 2012 was Deloitte International.

Auditors are not infallible

As I explained, auditors are not infallible. They cannot 100 percent evaluate a company’s financial health. However they are trained to watch out for ‘alarm bells’ and evaluate fraudulent and other risk factors. The question to ask is why did 1MDB’s first two auditors extricate themselves from a lucrative and prestigious government account?

Tan Sri, with 1MDB’s multiple auditors, late filings, missing subsidiary accounts, I find it astounding that your alarm bells as the auditor-general of Malaysia have not rung at all.

You as the auditor-general have extensive powers as enshrined in the Audit Act 1957 including the power to “call upon any person for any explanations and information which the auditor-general may require in order to enable him to discharge his duties”.

I would like to ask, before dismissing the need for the “laborious tasks”, did you make any enquiries formal or informal to ascertain the claim and discover the reasons why 1MDB had three external auditors in five years?

Did you communicate with officials at the Finance Ministry to find out why 1MDB’s ex-subsidiary SRC, now 100 percent owned by the ministry, has not filed accounts since FY March 2012? With borrowings of RM4 billion from KWAP guaranteed by the government, surely this company warrants the interest of the Auditor-General’s Office.

In addition to the unusual pattern of 1MDB’s auditors and annual reports, there is publicly available information which also rings alarm bells and enhance the case for investigation.

1. 1MDB’s unusual revaluation policy. 1MDB’s revaluation surpluses recorded in the accounts are RM826 million (FY2011), RM569 million (2012), RM2.7 billion (2013) and RM896 million (2014).

Therefore total revaluation in the last four years amounts to a colossal RM4.9 billion. If you deduct this amount from 1MDBs current shareholders funds of RM2.4 billion, 1MDB is in a position of negative equity of RM2.5 billion ie the company would be ‘balance sheet insolvent’.

I will not go into the applicability of MFRS14 but this begs the question why did 1MDB adopt an unusual revaluation policy in contrast to most property developers who book in land at cost or book value?

The simple calculations show that if 1MDB did not undertake this unusual revaluation policy its shareholders funds would be negative to the tune of RM2.5 billion and the company would be considered ‘balance sheet insolvent’. In the event of a material downturn in the property market this has serious implications for 1MDB’s asset cover.

2. The infamous RM7 billion Caymans account (SPC). Tan Sri, as you know Segregated Portfolio Companies (SPCs) are notoriously difficult to value.

Deloitte took pains to highlight in the notes that they depended on unidentified ‘independent third party valuers’ meaning they themselves did not do a mark-to-market or other valuation.

Furthermore, much of 1MDB’s total RM16 billion cash and portfolio investments held abroad is classified by Deloitte in the notes as ‘Level 3 assets’ ie illiquid assets whose fair value cannot be determined by observable measures (high levels of Level 3 assets have been implicated in insolvent companies of the 2007 global financial crisis).

These issues are highlighted for users of the accounts to read and make their own informed interpretations. My question is, Tan Sri, did you?

Raising alarm bells

A brief look at the history of this Caymans RM7 billion and how it came into being as noted in the accounts is again enough to raise alarm bells. A JV with Petrosaudi, mubahara notes, KPMGs ‘emphasis of matter’ (audit flagging up significant uncertainty), stake purchased by an undisclosed third party and finally the RM7 billion proceeds placed in an off-shore Caymans account.

We therefore should ask the question, why did Deloitte highlight in the accounts that they did not evaluate this Caymans portfolio investment themselves?

Sir, taking all this into account can you really claim you have done everything in your power to dismiss all allegations and doubts before dismissing the need for the “laborious task” of opening 1MDB’s books?

I also address this question to the chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamad, in view of the PAC’s role of examining not only the Audit Report but the “accounts of public authorities and those administering public funds” and “other matters it deems fit”.

 

 

 

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/280361

Why Do These Pentecostals Keep Growing?

Nov 11, 2014

Many evangelical churches and denominations are in a state of plateau or decline. Why aren’t Pentecostals? 

| Ed Stetzer

 

 

There are parts of the globe where the greatest church growth is happening through the Pentecostal movement. One of the most asked questions is, “In a world where the church seems to be declining in many areas, how they are bucking the trend?”

There is never one reason why a movement succeeds. But some factors rise to the surface. Pentecostals will say they are growing because the Spirit is moving in a powerful way. I get that, and actually would affirm that as part of the reason, but from a sociological perspective, other things are happening and worth exploring.

Pentecostals will say they are growing because the Spirit is moving in a powerful way.

 

I was recently asked (by Pentecostal leaders) what some sociological reasons might be. So, following that meeting, and in this brief post, I want to explore how the beliefs of Pentecostals actually promote and produce growth, compared to other, more “mainstream” groups.

Pentecostals Value Their Shared Experience

From a statistical perspective, Pentecostals tend to be less “nominal” than other believers. The reason is often obvious—the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

In almost all Pentecostalism (as contrasted to other continualist streams) speaking in tongues follows the Holy Spirit’s baptism. After that experience, it's hard to say, “Oh I don’t take this whole thing serious, I don’t even know if it’s real."

When you believe you’re speaking in another language, that belief reshapes the way you think about faith!

Being a nominal Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist is easier; though there are some outward expectations like baptism (among credobaptists) that can mark a spiritual commitment. But Pentecostal believers and churches constantly emphasize spiritual practice and engagement.

That helps make a more robust faith.

So, more often than not, stagnation is not as compatible with a real Spirit-filled experience. The end result—it’s harder to be a nominal Pentecostal—the beliefs of the movement tend to weed out nominalism. Because of what is happening in church and the community of faith, people tend not to just hang around as casual observers.

Either you join in it, or you move on. Many join. Movements populated by nominals are usually in decline. Nominals don't populate Pentecostalism, so it grows.

Pentecostals Want to Share Their Values

Not only does a valued distinctive encourage participation and growth in the local body, but it also provides an imperative for growth outside of the local body. When you appreciate what you have as much as Pentecostals do, you aren’t satisfied to experience it yourself. You think others should have the same opportunity to partake of the movement of the Spirit of God.

When I meet with Pentecostal leaders, they're strategizing about where to plant a church. They break out the maps and determine where they need to focus their attention.

From a statistical perspective, Pentecostals tend to be less “nominal” than other believers.

 

Never mind there are already six churches in a 10-block community. To them, there’s not a Spirit-filled church in that community until they plant one. So they are avid planters, not just in their own area, but also around the world.

Worth Sharing The Spirit-Filled Experience

Pentecostals believe in their approach. Their Christian walk has benefited, and they think everyone should have access. While others are figuring out what to do now to achieve growth, Pentecostals are focusing on who they are and are achieving growth.

When you think your expression is worth sharing (be it Pentecostal, Calvinist, or Anabaptist) you are more likely to share it with others, start new churches, and more.

So, What Does It Mean for the Rest of Us?

One key to growth is for you actually to believe what you have is so important that propagation to other contexts in its current version is necessary. The Vineyard exploded in growth in the 1980s for this reason. They thought that people needed to experience what the Vineyard had to offer.

Baptists thought that way in the 50s. Methodists thought that way in the Second Great Awakening.

Pentecostal believe they have something worth propagating. And that’s worth learning from.

Odd Distinctives

Of course, to non-Pentecostals, all this seems odd. Sometimes for younger or dissatisfied Pentecostals, they want to de-emphasize the supernatural.

Well, I'd have some theological nuances I’d like to bring in, but from a sociological perspective my response is, “I wouldn’t downplay what is in the engine.” You don’t care for some of their expression? That’s fine. But they are trying to reach the lost and grow the Kingdom.

Their distinctives apparently aren't hindering their growth—they are propelling growth globally.

Pentecostal believe they have something worth propagating. And that’s worth learning from.

People Want a Faith With Flavor

One of the dangers today is “bland evangelicalism.” Many evangelical churches and denominations are in a state of plateau or decline. Some groups are trying to downplay their distinctives to be more acceptable. Who wants to duplicate that? Nobody.

Sometimes the difference between an expanding movement and one that is retracting is how they deal with their distinctives. Some are in protection mode. They feel like they have to preserve their specialness by locking it down and guarding it. Ironically, they end up smothering the mission by covering the light that would shine through their specially designed glass.

Others embrace and celebrate their unique values and expression. In doing so, they attract people who are seeking something more than bland.

Of the 25 largest faith groups in the United States, the only two orthodox Christian groups on the list that are growing are the Assemblies of God and Church of God (Cleveland). So, what do all of the declining denominations have in common?

Most are mainline, a few are evangelical, but most simply are not as excited about what they believe—and don’t think it needs to be propagated as much—as the Pentecostals.

Source: http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2014/november/why-are-pentecostals-growing.html

How To Instantly Stop A Migraine With Salt

Posted on June 21, 2014 by admin
Source: http://livingtraditionally.com/instantly-stop-migraine-salt/

Migraine sufferers are often anxious to rid themselves of the terrible pain characterizing this condition. A migraine is nothing to laugh at; a really bad migraine can pretty much cripple you and take you down for the rest of your day. What’s worse, there are some migraines that can’t be abated with your usual pain killers. So, what’s the next best thing to use? Salt.

How to Use Salt for Instant Migraine Relief

Being acquainted with migraines, I literally have used everything in the past to attempt to stop it.  Migraines are one of those things that simply ruin your life for the day. However, eventually, I did find a method that worked for me!  I am very happy I didn’t have to resort to conventional medicine.

When you use salt to relieve migraines, make sure to use high quality salt such as Himalayan crystal salt. It’s the most complete salt in the world. It contains 84 minerals, electrolytes and elements – a fascinating number considering that there are only 118 elements known to science. This salt helps reduce the severity of migraine headaches, strengthens the immune system, increases energy levels, balances serotonin levels in the bloodstream, restores the body’s alkaline and electrolyte balance and much more.
Also, this method is very easy.

Just take a glass of lemon juice with a high concentration of Himalayan crystal salt and drink it. It works like magic!

In campaign to defend democracy, U.S. should start with Malaysia

By Editorial Board October 31 at 7:20 PM

 

AT THE United Nations in September, President Obama, citing “relentless crackdowns” around the world against dissent and civil society, promised “an even stronger campaign to defend democracy.” Even when it was “uncomfortable” or “causes friction,” he pledged, his administration would step up to defend persecuted activists and “oppose efforts by foreign governments to restrict freedoms of peaceful assembly and association and expression.” So far we haven’t seen much follow-up on that promise, but the opportunities to do so are abundant.

One of the most urgent lies in Malaysia, a U.S. ally that has launched an extraordinary crackdown on opposition leaders, academics and journalists. In the past two months, the government of Prime Minister Najib Razak has charged nearly two dozen activists under a colonial-era sedition law, that mandates three years in prison for acts that “excite dissatisfaction” with the government. Mr. Najib promised as recently as 2012 to repeal the law; instead, the government is prosecuting critics merely for speaking out, publishing articles or uploading videos.

At the same time, the government has revived an odious criminal case against Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the opposition and one of the Muslim world’s foremost liberal democrats. Mr. Anwar was charged in 2008 with homosexual sodomy, which Malaysia shamefully still treats as a crime. Though he denied the charge and was acquitted in a 2012 trial, an appeals court this year reversed the verdict and handed him a five-year prison sentence. This week his final appeal is being heard by Malaysia’s highest court. If he loses, the 67-year-old Mr. Anwar will be imprisoned and banned from politics. Even if he wins, he, too, faces prosecution under the sedition law.

It’s not hard to guess why Mr. Najib might have broken his pledge to repeal the statute and reversed what was previously a cautious march toward greater freedom in his majority Muslim country. Last year, his ruling party for the first time lost the popular vote in a general election, to a coalition led by Mr. Anwar.

Gerrymandering preserved the government’s parliamentary majority, but the ruling establishment Mr. Najib leads appears to have set out to crush the opposition before the next election, due in 2017. The campaign is particularly destructive because Malaysia, unlike many other majority Muslim countries, does not currently face an internal terrorist challenge, though some Malaysians are known to have traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State. By eliminating peaceful means of opposition, Mr. Najib risks making extremist options more attractive.

Mr. Obama has made a point of cultivating Mr. Najib and his government as part of his policy of “rebalancing” toward Asia, and so far the administration has had little to say about the political crackdown. In March, it cautiously expressed concern about Mr. Anwar’s prosecution. But as Mr. Anwar has argued his appeal this week there’s been no sign of the “stronger campaign” Mr. Obama promised. The verdict is expected next week; if Mr. Obama is genuinely willing to incur “friction” with allies in defense of human rights, now is the time to do it in Malaysia.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-campaign-to-defend-democracy-us-should-start-with-malaysia/2014/10/31/ff50e0ae-6048-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

Exposing Taib Mahmud, Sovereign of Sarawak

I’ve been pondering Tun Taib Mahmud’s penchant for the colour yellow.

Yesterday I learned that Taib likes his buildings painted yellow and always wears something yellow – even if it be but his underwear. Yellow was the colour of royalty in India. Yellow became and remains the colour of royalty in the Peninsula. Does Taib have pretensions to royalty?

I thought of royalty because I had read news reports that the Conference of Rulers met this week. I wondered if timber was on their meeting agenda.

I wondered about timber because when Dr Mahathir (now Tun) began his mission to clip the wings of the royals, he revealed long-withheld information about the royals’ thirst for a share in the timber resources of Malaysia. According to Professor Mark Gillen of the Faculty of Law of the University of Victoria in Canada, the royal thirst for timber concessions was made public on 15^th and 18^th December 1992 by the New Straits Times and The Star newspapers.

I wondered about timber because that has been the route to riches for Taib – as documented in the meticulously researched book Money Logging: On the Trail of the Asian Timber Mafia by Dr. Lukas Straumann, a professional historian and Executive Director of the Switzerland based Bruno Manser Fund.

Money is in the title for a reason.

Taib’s wealth is enormous. On the occasion of 77 year old Taib’s elevation from Chief Minister to Governor of Sarawak, The Diplomat wrote this about Taib’s wealth:

“Pak Uban or the ‘white haired uncle’ – and his family have amassed a fortune worth $20 billion or more, and established business tentacles through 400 companies into the tiniest reaches of the state and around the world that will ensure his clan continues to thrive long after his retirement on Friday.”

The Constitution of Malaysia grants to state governments – not the Federal government, not the Sultans – the authority over land and natural resources. Thus the Chief Minister (Menteri Besar), the head of the state government, has the power to determine how land will be used and by whom.

Taib became Chief Minister in 1981, the year Dr Mahathir became Prime Minister. Dr M had many enemies in Umno, in the peninsula. The last thing he needed was a rebellion by the Sarawakians, the “fixed deposit” which kept him in office. Taib turned Mahathir’s insecurity to his advantage.

For a fee, Taib delivered the ‘Sarawak stability’ Mahathir needed. His fee was to reign unchecked, like an old-time royal.

A hallmark of Taib’s reign was his abolishment, in 1985, of the forestry ministry. He replaced it with the ministry of resources planning and appointed himself its head. This gave him the sole prerogative to grant concessions and plantation licenses.

Dr Straumann points out the result of Taib’s manoeuvre: “Exploitation of all of Sarawak – worth billions of dollars – depended on just one person, with no checks and balances, no transparency and no public accountability.” (Page 119)

As I said earlier, it is public knowledge that Taib and his family are worth USD 20 billion or more. Dr Straussman goes further: he names the companies which are the vessels of Taib’s wealth.

The first to appear in his list is Sakto real estate company (Canada, 1983) incorporated two years after Taib became Chief Minister; next is Sakti real estate company (California, 1987); then the reverse takeover of state construction company, Cahaya Mata Sarawak (1993); then Ridgeford Properties (London, 1996); then purchase of RHB bank, Malaysia’s fourth largest bank (2001).

The list and its webs and intrigues are long. Suffice to say that by 2011 “The Taib family had a financial interest in over 400 companies in 25 countries and offshore financial centres.” (Page 303)

The book reads like a thriller. Few readers will detect that it’s a translation of a work first published in German. I hope the publishers are working on a Malay translation.

The Federal government and the State legislature allowed Taib to act like a sovereign. He rewarded those who supported him. He punished those who did not. There are hordes of examples in the book. I’ll just mention one.

Taib turned against his Uncle Rahman Ya’kub, who had brought him into politics and had stepped into the role of Governor to make way for him. The extent of Taib’s vindictive agenda was displayed for all as an example of what would happen to anyone who would resist this Adelaide University trained lawyer.

This quote shows the climate of fear Taib created; it also exhibits Dr Straumann’s readable style:

“Taib was “aggrieved and hell-bent on taking revenge, and everyone has been particularly afraid of him since that time,” reports one of Rahman’s former golf partners. “Whenever Rahman appeared on the golf course in Miri, suddenly there was not a soul left to be seen there. Nobody wanted to be spotted by Taib’s spies on the golf course at the same time as Rahman.” Any business people who had had dealings with Rahman lost their public contracts and were shut out of lucrative deals. Politicians and civil servants suspected of supporting Taib’s uncle were side-lined. “In those days, I used to play golf with Rahman frequently, but in the end I had to stop. My son asked me to; he was afraid of losing his government job.”” (Page 121)

Money Logging is not only meticulously researched; it is thoughtful and comprehensive. It discusses the ridiculous projects spawned to consume the electricity to be generated by Taib’s dams. It describes the injustices done to the natives. It exposes many who contributed to Taib’s “success.”

Even the FBI of the USA and ministries of the Canadian government are implicated, as are banks and countries such as Hong Kong and China. Money Logging is as insightful and explosive a book as Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times by Barry Wain.

The Rulers Conference is attended by the Rulers together with their Chief Ministers. I wonder if the man in yellow from Sarawak attended. I wonder what the Rulers and Chief Ministers think of Taib Mahmud. I hear Michael Douglas saying “Greed is good” and Edmund Burke saying “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Who will prevail?

 

Source: http://write2rest.blogspot.com/2014/11/exposing-taib-mahmud-sovereign-of.html

Federal Court Anwar Sodomy II Trial 联邦法庭安华《鸡奸二》审讯

Today, 29th Oct 2014 is the second day of Anwar Ibrahim's Sodomy II trial at The Palace of Justice in Putrajaya. The court case is extended one day till 30th, and the verdict could be deferred to a later date. Wesley Nga and I dropped by and hoped to get into the court room but it was full, so we loitered around and took photos. Today there was a supporting crowd of at least 2,000 people, and all of us hopred that justice will prevail. Of course, Christians all over the country were praying for justice in this matter.

今天，2014年10月29日，是安华在布特拉再也联邦法庭的《鸡奸二》的第二天审讯。审讯延长一天至30日，而判决或许会延伸至迟些日子。我和蓝卫斯理到场想进入法庭聆听，但它已经满座。我们只好在外面走走拍拍照。今天，最少有 2 千名支持的群众，我们大家都希望正义获得伸张。当然，全国的基督徒都为此事的正义祷告。

Anwar arrived and was thronged by the crowd as a sign of support

安华到场，被群众涌前推挤表明支持

Allen was pointing at the building where the entire vicinity 

was sealed off by police

亚伦指着整个范围被警察封锁的建筑物

總檢察署：捍衛伊斯蘭神聖，依布拉欣沒“煽動傾向”

【更新】總檢察署：捍衛伊斯蘭神聖‧依布拉欣沒“煽動傾向”

2014-10-28 09:16

•     

（雪蘭莪‧八打靈再也27日訊）總檢察署指出，土權主席依布拉欣阿里針對日落洞國中事件所發表的言論不在“煽動傾向”的定義範圍內，因為依布拉欣阿里只是為了捍衛伊斯蘭的神聖。

總檢察署今日發表文告解釋，一項言論在被指具有煽動傾向之前，應該與其發表的場合看作是一個整體，而不能從環境上分離。

文告說，依布拉欣阿里是在日落洞國中事件發生的情況下作出有關言論，總檢察署從整體範圍研究此案後認為，該言論不歸類為“煽動傾向”。

指無意引起宗教騷動

“明顯地，依布拉欣阿里無意引起宗教騷動，而只是為了捍衛伊斯蘭教的神聖。”

文告還引述依布拉欣阿里的談話“這並不是在煽情或想引起宗教騷動，而是為了捍衛伊斯蘭的神聖性，這顯然已在法律裡”，這佐證依布拉欣阿里的無意。

文告也說，該言論也不能滿足觸犯刑事法典504條文（故意污辱及破壞公共安寧）的要素，因為依布拉欣阿里無意侮辱和挑釁，使得公共秩序受到威脅。

文告指出，此外，依布拉欣阿里也沒有觸犯刑事法典第298條文（在多元宗教的社群中製造仇恨）和298A條文（危害對團結或和諧的維護），因為前者是為了捍衛伊斯蘭的神聖性。

考慮證據無須帶上庭

“在日落洞國中外公開免費派發聖經的行動可能會破壞那些對宗教缺乏知識的穆斯林學生的信仰，尤其是在有關聖經還包含爪夷文字的時候。”

在考慮這兩宗案件的事實和證據後，總檢察長認為，兩宗案件都不宜被帶上法庭。

非專派馬來學生
無法對付派聖經者

文告指出，去年1月21日，武吉丁雅警察局接獲投報，指依布拉欣阿里發表充公和焚燒含有“阿拉”字眼和一些阿拉伯文和爪夷文字的馬來版聖經的言論。

文告說，這是根據網絡媒體自由今日大馬於1月19日題為“土權主席告訴穆斯林：焚燒阿拉聖經”的文章而舉報。依布拉欣阿里是在檳城瑪拉工藝大學舉辦的土權大會發表上述言論。

在依布拉欣阿里發表談話之前，有人報警指1月17日下午1時，3名華裔男子在學校門前分發口袋型英文版聖經給國中學生，包括穆斯林學生。

在這2次報案後，警方展開調查，並將之歸類為刑事法典298A條文，並呈交報告給總檢察署，以進行後續行動。

有關日落洞案的報告已經於去年9月17日呈交給總檢察署，當局將投報列為“無法展開進一步行動”的案件，因為沒有確鑿的證據顯示，聖經只是發給馬來學生而已。

“當時的情況是，任何人都可以向嫌犯領取聖經，調查也顯示，嫌犯沒有意圖把聖經分發給馬來學生而已。因此不符合刑事法典298A條文以及1996年檳城伊斯蘭刑事條例第5條文的條件。”

12月3日，武吉丁雅警局針對依布拉欣阿里案件的調查呈交給總檢察署後，也被列為“無法展開進一步行動”的案件。

摘錄依布拉欣致詞內容

文告也摘錄依布拉欣阿里致詞時的談話，內容如下：

依布拉欣阿里致詞時說：“就如昨晚所說，我呼吁信奉伊斯蘭的馬來人，充公……充公和焚燒。這不是情緒化或要掀起宗教騷動，而是要依據法律中所闡明的條文，維護伊斯蘭的神聖。

“我們已經勸告，我們已經呼吁，我們已經強迫他們為所採取的行動負責任，但是還是發生，如果繼續發生，我只好希望穆斯林充公和焚燒。只有這個方法了。

“所以我希望昨晚發生的不再發生，以避免不愉快的事情發生。但是如果還是繼續，雖然他分派給非穆斯林學生，但是別派給穆斯林學生。如果國文版聖經出現｀阿拉’字眼，有一些爪夷文字如昨天那樣，我們將會充公，我們要求穆斯林充公和焚燒。”

“是的，聖經有爪夷文字會造成混淆，昨晚分派的是新約聖經，我們不是要吵架，是為了維護伊斯蘭。

“我呼吁他們所有負責任的人停止這麼做，他們必須向負責的人展示聖經，也就是製作成國文版的人，瞭解法令後才分發聖經，千萬別碰觸穆斯林感到敏感的事項。”

【本篇內容已在2014-10-28更新。】

（星洲日報）

来源： http://news.sinchew.com.my/node/393417?tid=1

Speaking about context, what about other sedition cases?

 COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

Published: 27 October 2014

 
Datuk Ibrahim Ali's threat to burn Bibles containing the word 'Allah' last year 
was deemed to have been made in the context of defending Islam and hence 
it was acceptable. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, October 27, 2014

Context, the Attorney-General Chambers said today, was the important ingredient to consider when deciding whether Datuk Ibrahim Ali committed sedition when he threatened to burn bibles that contained the word "Allah" last year.

"As decided by the court, before a statement is said to have seditious tendencies, the statement must be viewed in the context it was made ...

"When studied in its entire context, Datuk Ibrahim's statement is not categorised as having seditious tendencies.

by FLV Player Addon

X

"It was clear Datuk Ibrahim Ali had no intention to create religious tensions, but was only defending the purity of Islam‎," the AGC said, noting the Perkasa chief also said: "This is not a sentiment or (an attempt) to provoke religious tensions, but to defend the purity of Islam which is clearly (stated) in the laws."

"He also did not commit any offence under Section 298 or 298A of the Penal Code as he was clearly defending the purity of Islam."

Right. So the context is this, Ibrahim was not charged because he said he was not attempting to provoke religious tensions but was defending the purity of Islam.

Well, to put it in context, that is a half-baked explanation by the AGC, a comment after the fact.

In any court, this type of mitigation would have been laughed at.

Can the AGC explain what made the legally correct statement by the late Karpal Singh and academics Dr Azmi Shahrom and Dr Aziz Bari seditious? What was their context that made them liable for sedition?

In their statements thus far, none of these three stand-up individuals caused an affront to the dignity of another religion or community. Their words were factual and based on the law of the land.

Yet, one was convicted of sedition and the other two face sedition charges. And many others run the risk of being prosecuted without knowing the context of the offence.

But the one individual who has consistently caused the mercury of race and religion to rise in Malaysia is being defended by the AGC and the federal government.

How's that for context in Malaysia? – October 27, 2014.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/speaking-about-context-what-about-other-sedition-cases