Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 31 Dec 2012 03:17 PM PST

Malaysia's quarterly growth rates have been fairly impressive: 4.9 per cent, 5.4 per cent and 5.2 per cent respectively in the first three quarters. The economy needs just 4.1 per cent growth in the fourth quarter of 2012 to garner 5.0 per cent growth for the year as a whole. So all indications are that Malaysia's GDP growth will slightly exceed the government's target of 5.0 per cent growth in 2012. The main growth drivers are domestic consumption and investment, both private and public. Construction and services have been the fastest growing sectors in 2012.

It is noteworthy that inflation has become increasingly tame, decelerating from 2.7 per cent in January to 1.3 per cent in October 2012. The inflation rate for the full year in 2012 is projected to settle at 1.7 per cent. The unemployment situation has been somewhat steady, in the region of 3.0–3.3 per cent. The banking sector stayed healthy and well capitalised with a net impaired loans ratio of just 1.4 per cent. The central bank has kept its overnight policy rate at 3.0 per cent in the face of ample liquidity. Malaysia continues to register a current account surplus in its balance of payments, although the size of its surplus has been diminishing. International reserves at the end of September stood at US$135.6 billion, providing a retained import cover for 9.4 months, which is more than comfortable.

The Malaysian fiscal story, however, is unflattering, as the country has been continuously running budget deficits since 1998. With elections around the corner, government subsidies and cash handouts have been flying in the face of fiscal discipline, with no attempts made to address much-needed tax reforms that would reduce the current overdependence on oil and gas, which accounts for roughly 40 per cent of government revenue. Government revenue has failed to grow in tandem with GDP growth in recent times, with the ratio of revenue to GDP falling from 33 per cent in 2007 to 24 per cent of GDP in 2011 and to an estimated 22 per cent of GDP in 2012.

All this may have an adverse effect on the country's international credit ratings, and hence the need to rein in sovereign debt. Government debt has ballooned to MYR 502.4 billion (US$164.6 billion) in the third quarter of 2012, breaching the self-imposed debt ceiling of 55 per cent of GDP. The debt ceiling was raised from 40 per cent to 45 per cent of GDP in April 2008 and lifted further to 55 per cent in July 2009. Malaysia's debt-to-revenue ratio of about 250 per cent is close to Italy's 260 per cent.

The near-term outlook for the Malaysian economy is very much dependent on the economic performance of its major trading partners. Export market diversification efforts currently underway may help reduce Malaysia's vulnerability to external impacts but cannot lessen its exposure to the external world. Likewise, a dynamic domestic economy can contribute to greater resilience but cannot be a substitute for the more lucrative external sector, given the relatively small size of the domestic market. GDP growth in 2013 is forecast to be in the region of 5.5 per cent.

Posted: 31 Dec 2012 02:55 PM PST

Similarly, within the Pakatan Rakyat or PR, there are loyal supporters, but sharp contradictions too.

I do not wish to touch on the religious issue. This is not because I am scared to wonder into the unknown. On the contrary, too much is "known" simply by going through the mainstream media (MSM) and on ever more frequent occasions, the non MSM too.

Instead, I am venturing into a hidden area – and yet not so hidden after all.

Take the issue of two leaders of Perak DAP, with the exposure of the unsustainable and untenable Kelantan lands and logging deals. It is most unfortunate that the DAP leaders could only use the supposed "legality" of the deals as an excuse to justify the inexcusable.

History has taught us that when a fundamental principle is breached, no amount of justification is tenable, unless they want to take the voters as fools.

Time tested principles mean just that – they have withstood the challenge of time. So with the principle that business and politics must not mix, there is no "BUT", unless you want to project your ridiculous self as holier than others.

It should have been unacceptable – period – because as political leaders, you cannot justify yourselves being involved in business, least of all the dirty logging business, even if the forest monoculture is repackaged as "replanting".

After all, the DAP is on record as the most vocal opponents, and rightly so, during the UMNO/BN-dominated political era. The DAP took the most highly principled stance against BN's crony capitalism.

So PAS and DAP really have exposed the contradiction between the principle that they once championed, and the murky world of the logging business. But do not be mistaken: I am no holier than they in what I am writing. I merely point out how PAS, DAP and the PR as a whole will need to answer for its actions, as a political pact.

Let me be more specific now.

On just one day, 28th December 2012, the mainstream and non-mainstream media reported something very much symbolic of the evils strangling Malaysia – our treatment of the original inhabitants of Malaya and Borneo. Malaysiakini, and The Star online, reported on the plight of Orang Asli in Malaya in regards to self-determination and survival. We used to be able to pinpoint government disrespect and disregard of the "first people" of Malaya and Borneo as being firmly in the BN domain – but this can no longer be exclusive to the BN. After all, we know that in Kedah and Kelantan at least, under the PR government, the disrespect and disregard shown to the "first people" are similar to those practised by the BN.

How else can we interpret the condescending and pathetic views of the Kelantan Exco, in having the cheek to highlight – in a sickening fashion – that the Orang Asli refused to work for "RM300 to RM500" per month, condemning them for being "choosy"? This was pitiful at best, and at worst, it was downright characteristic of a BN-type mentality. This BN-aping is a more accurate interpretation of such attitudes towards the original inhabitants of the peninsula. If such is the attitude of the existing PR in government, then Borneo natives have the legitimate right to question what life would be like if the PR formed governments in the two Borneo states.

After all, to those in the two states who are in the know, it is an open secret that a few "elite" native members of the PR are questioning the extent to which PR has been supporting land rights in the two Borneo states, as reflected in the number of court cases brought by Native Customary Rights (NCR) landowners. These PR "native leaders" are worried that when the PR takes over as governments in the two Borneo states, they might find judicial obstacles in their efforts to replace BN cronies in exploiting the rights of native land owners.

How can we differentiate them from the BN, when the principle states that what are the fundamental land rights of people must be respected, irrespective of which coalition forms the government?

It is no longer a matter of "natives" versus "non-natives", a fake division cynically propagated by those political opportunists trying to revive "Dayakism", or lately "Borneoism", to trap the masses with emotive means.

It is not difficult to dissect such opportunism by the elites to review how the Dayaks or the Borneo elite native leaders who, when they were previously within the BN, were marginalising and dispossessing the very people they are now championing as being oppressed.

It is a simple matter to observe how many of the present day "champions" of Dayak rights or Borneo rights are the very same people who were very much involved in plundering the two resource-rich states for themselves as members of the BN in the past.

As far as the facts are available, the plundering in those days, and the corruption now, are targeted against the same people, the marginalised native landowners.

READ MORE HERE

The Church & Allah

Posted: 31 Dec 2012 04:15 AM PST

I am again not surprised that many have missed the point, evidenced by remarks like:

(a) So, based on this simple etymological track, the used of ANY word/name to describe a Superbeing that the follower used was/is Highly localised. It should not be monopolised, just like some local Muslims like to dictate!

(b) Will you be happy if I forbid you from using certain words because I find it offensive? Who am I to impose this on you? If I forbid you to call your wife, your brother or sister with an alternative name because I find it offensive with their current names which you been calling them all these years. Will you be glad? Please think through.

None of above had been what I proposed in my previous post on subject matter.

wakakaka

Just to refresh your memories (and a bloody lack of reading skills, wakakaka) I wrote:

While I believe on principle there ought not to be a monopolistic use of any word or words, I can understand the Muslim community's worries about the Church's obdurate intention to use this word, especially more so when I know it's obligatory, nay, a sacred duty of the Church and Christians to be 'missionary' (evangelistic).

Yes, I'm afraid on a personal basis, kaytee isn't all that supportive of the Church's insistence on using the Allah word to represent/indicate/describe their Christian God in the Malay language.

Given the experts' etymological and historical clarifications on the Allah word, I am in no doubt that Father Lawrence Andrew is on strong legal grounds to use it ... and indeed we know that the court has supported his stand.

But I have always believed that religion is about faith and morality and not legality or for that matter, political approval. Thus I find it unfortunate that the Father Andrew and the Catholic Herald had taken the issue to the courts. Surely on a matter of religious faith and knowledge, there are numerous other names of God it could have use beside Allah. I view its arguments for the use of Allah as seemingly based on obduracy and legality rather than any plausible unavoidable reason.

The reason why I have not (still am not) been sympathetic with the Church, I had already expressed as follows:

let us also not forget that Christianity and indeed Islam as well are both evangelistic missionary religions with an obligation on the faithful to convert the so-called pagans, for altruistic reasons of course.

So, what is the meaning of 'missionary' and 'evangelistic'?

In their adjectival forms, the dictionary has these to say, respectively:

Missionary = reflecting or prompted by the desire to persuade or convert others.

Evangelistic seeking to evangelize; striving to convert sinners (where sinners mean all not within the Faith).

Dictionary also defines the word evangelize as 'to convert to Christianity', and where we can also substitute the word Christianity with Islam.

Thus, both Christianity and Islam require their respective followers to evangelize.

In my post I had written:

I dare say those Dutch Christian missionaries were out to convert the Indonesian pagans (Muslim and others) into Christianity with whatever it took, and would have found the use of the word Allah as a convenient substitute for the Christian God in persuading the native Muslims that the conversion to Christianity would be nothing more than a seamless worship to the same Allah, albeit with some minor adjustments to the rituals.

Thus the argument that the 16th Century Dutch had been doing this or that during dictatorial colonial circumstances would today be just not good enough for the Church to persist along that line.

Dutch church in Indonesia

Leaving aside the legal aspect, where I had already accepted that Father Lawrence Andrew is on very strong grounds, my post points out the several areas and factors where I have found the stand of the local Catholic Church and Father Lawrence Andrew quite disturbing.

Thus I asked and continue to ask again:

Really, I have to ask again of Father Lawrence Andrew and the Church: "What is really your goal in obdurately pursuing the use of the word Allah to refer to the Christian God in a Malay-language newsletter and Bible when so many other names of your Christian God, with even better biblical pedigree, remain available?"

If the aim of the Church is to spread the word of God, why not use Tuhan or Elohim or a multitude of other Hebraic names available from its source, the Tanakh. Why insist on the Allah word when everyone in Malaysia, especially Peninsula Malaysia knows that Allah is familiarly (automatically) visualized and known as the God of Islam.

Thus I quoted Friedrich Nietzsche who reminded us: "Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal."

Isn't the goal of the Church to spread the word of its Christian God, which can be done without using the word Allah because Elohim and Yahweh and Tuhan are available?

Why has the Church represented by the person of Father Lawrence Andrew remain stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, namely, to use the Allah word in their Catholic Newsletter, the Herald, and the Bahasa version of the Bible, al Kitab?

Without too much hubris I believe I have successfully challenged every position Father Andrew and the Church had presented as to why the Allah word is essential and cannot be substituted, but some comments here as well as at RPK's Malaysia-Today have totally ignored my points, and continue to come up with comments equally as obdurate as Father Andrew's or as if they haven't read my post at all (which has been why I mentioned some readers' 'lack of reading skills' wakakaka).

In other words, my post questions the sincerity of the Church's insistence in using the Allah word, which I do not support because of the likelihood of confusion over whose (Islamic or Christian) god is Allah.

The ensuing confusion would not be unlike a dangerous sampan in a very turbulent evangelistic sea.

Now, my dear friend Ong Kian Ming wrote a piece in Malaysiakini titled Allah row - what's the name of the game?

Much as I (platonically, wakakaka) love Kian Ming (and I am not joking, he's a great guy) I am not persuaded by his article.

He argued that as Yahwah is already translated into Tuhan, then Elohim (if also translated into Tuhan) following the Yahweh word would result in Tuhan … Tuhan, giving us a double or repetitive Tuhan which won't make sense or provide cohesive reading for the mentioned passage.

MKINI photo

He provided the example of Exodus 29:46, which (KJV) states:

And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God.

Kian Ming provided the NIV (1984) version which doesn't make much difference to KJV for his arguments and the point I intend to make. But let's use his NIV 1984 version which states:

They will know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them out of Egypt so that I might dwell among them. I am the LORD their God.

He argued that a Bahasa translation minus the use of the Allah word would give us:

"Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah TUHAN, Tuhan (rather than Allah) mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tingal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah TUHAN Tuhan mereka."

But in that translation, Kian Ming has become just like Father Lawrence - though as his matey, I believe Kian Ming has been sincere - in believing that both Yahweh and Elohim must both be translated into Tuhan.
Why, and what for? Unless you insist on making an disingenuous point?

Thus, according to his arguments, if we are to avoid the awkward Tuhan Tuhan translation, we require both the Tuhan and Allah words, so as to show each as a different word in that passage.

But my point is why must Elohim be translated from Hebrew into Arabic (Allah)? Why not retain the Elohim word as is in al Kitab instead of translating into Arabic and then daringly claim Allah is a Malay word. If one can claim the Arabic Allah is a Malay word, why not claim and use the Hebraic Yahweh and/or Elohim as also Malay words.

Thus the Bahasa translation of Exodus 29:46 should read as follows (two forms):

(a) "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah TUHAN, Elohim mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tinggal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah TUHAN Elohim mereka"

(b) "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah Yahweh, Tuhan mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tingal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah Yahweh Tuhan mereka"

I personally prefer the second. And don't forget, we also have Adonai, El Elyon, El Shddai, El Olam, etc.

Sorry, Kian Ming, as a matey I regret I can't even say 'good try' because your arguments have been based on the totally incorrect premise that the Allah word is a Bahasa word when it's patently not – it is as Middle-Eastern (Arabic) as much as are Yahweh and Elohim (Hebrew).

Now, what about my idol Karpal Singh's comments in Malaysiakini's that Karpal rises to Guan Eng's defence over 'Allah' row which reported:

DAP national chairperson Karpal Singh has risen to the defence of the party's secretary-general Lim Guan Eng's Christmas day call for Christians to be allowed to use the term 'Allah', stating that it was not intended to hurt Muslim sensitivities.

He explained that Lim's call was meant for Christians in Sabah and Sarawak where the word has been in use for generations.

I think that's fair enough, though if we have already published a Malay edition of the al Kitab which uses Elohim instead of Allah, why not use it to acquaint Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians on the Elohim and/or Yahweh word(s). Why have a further division of Peninsula from the Eastern States even in al Kitab?

It is surprising, therefore, that Penang Umno secretary Azhar Ibrahim has publicly come out with a scathing attack on the Penang chief minister that what he had said in his Christmas message should not hurt the feelings of Muslims, he said in a statement yesterday.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 1 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan