an extract from an interview/report :
The Sultan of Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah has defined the social contract as compromise between the rulers and subjects as well as between Malays and non-Malays.
He also said that the Malay community should not make accusations about their rights and position being challenged.
Instead, the Malays should ask themselves if they have acted accordingly, he said while citing the recent flap over the fatwa on yoga.
"Malays must ask themselves why," the Sultan said.
"For example the yoga issue. One side speaks. Pam Pam Pam. Non-Malays start interfering. The source of it is that we are wrong for not following procedures. We make noise before we even do something correctly.
"We must know where the mistake is. We cannot make accusations. When we do something without following procedure everyone will be in a muddle."
The Sultan was speaking in an interview with Mingguan Malaysia published today.
It is the second time in a week the Sultan has spoken out on race relations and religious issues.
The remarks come amid a heated debate sparked by a raft of recent public comments about race relations and the concept of Malay Supremacy.
His comments are also the latest sign of a more vocal royalty which appears to be filling the vacuum left by a lack of political leadership.
In the interview with Mingguan Malaysia, the Sultan was also asked his opinion on how the issue of Ketuanan Melayu, or Malay Supremacy, which the newspaper described as a concept which for the Malays, was tied to the royalty, but which the non-Malays had other views.
He would not be drawn in, however, to the debate, pointing out instead that he did not know how to answer such questions because "we are the Malays, the sultans are Malays so why must it be brought up?"
"We must focus on more important issues such as the education, economy and income of the Malays."
The Sultan said he did not understand the restlessness, as described by the newspaper, regarding Malay rights.
He suggested it may all just be politics, adding: "that is why I do not understand politics. The proverb ada udang disebalik batu (having a hidden agenda), I don't understand all that."
But the Sultan pointed out that it was important for the sake of race relations for the public to know their history.
That was the reason why he it was his initiative to have the recent Conference of Rulers issue a statement defending the social contract, which has also been the subject of roiling debate recently.
In his interview with Mingguan Malaysia, the weekend edition of the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia daily, the Sultan spoke of the social contract that needed to be understood.
"Previously no one spoke of the social contract but it did not mean they were ignorant.
"What is the social contract? It is compromise, between the people and the royalty, the Malays with the Chinese and the Malays with the Indians."
Asked about the a recent suggestion by Tunku Naquiyuddin ibni Tuanku Jaafar for royal immunity to be restored, he said it was entirely up to the public.
"If the people feel that I am entitled I will accept it and I will do my best. I am not making any request for it.
The Sultan added that perhaps a conditional immunity should be considered.
"I do not agree in having immunity from paying my debts or from assaulting someone until the public does not get any justice," he said.
He suggested instead that royal immunity be granted for the rulers to speak out on issues.
Tunku Naquiyuddin's suggestion for a restoration of royal immunity, was described by Mingguan Malaysia an attempt to challenge Ketuanan Melayu and Malay rights, although the Negeri Sembilan regent had said only that it was to place the Malay rulers back on par with other constitutional monarchs around the world.
Tunku Naquiyuddin had also argued that royal immunity needed to be "reclaimed and reinstated so that the constitutional monarchy can be restored to its full sovereignty so as to play a more fitting role in the 21st century as a guardian of the Federal Constitution."
It was former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who led the charge against constitutional monarchy in the late 1980s and 1990s. Around 1992, the media exposed the excesses of the royalty and their extravagant lifestyle.
It so happened that a hockey coach was assaulted by a member of the Johor royalty. This unleashed a wave of public anger against the Rulers and culminated in Parliament, amending the Constitution and withdrawing royal immunity.
The personal immunity of Rulers was removed, except for the legal process relating to the performance of their duties.
Some Malaysians have also questioned the timing of Tunku Naquiyuddin's statement on reinstating the full immunity of the monarchy. His father, the Ruler of Negeri Sembilan was recently in the dock in a legal tussle with a bank.
A special court ruled that Tuanku Jaafar Tuanku Abdul Rahman had to pay Standard Chartered Bank nearly US$1 million to honour his commitment in a letter of credit over a business deal.
This was the first time the special court had heard a case involving a member of the royalty
The Sultan of Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah has defined the social contract as compromise between the rulers and subjects as well as between Malays and non-Malays.
He also said that the Malay community should not make accusations about their rights and position being challenged.
Instead, the Malays should ask themselves if they have acted accordingly, he said while citing the recent flap over the fatwa on yoga.
"Malays must ask themselves why," the Sultan said.
"For example the yoga issue. One side speaks. Pam Pam Pam. Non-Malays start interfering. The source of it is that we are wrong for not following procedures. We make noise before we even do something correctly.
"We must know where the mistake is. We cannot make accusations. When we do something without following procedure everyone will be in a muddle."
The Sultan was speaking in an interview with Mingguan Malaysia published today.
It is the second time in a week the Sultan has spoken out on race relations and religious issues.
The remarks come amid a heated debate sparked by a raft of recent public comments about race relations and the concept of Malay Supremacy.
His comments are also the latest sign of a more vocal royalty which appears to be filling the vacuum left by a lack of political leadership.
In the interview with Mingguan Malaysia, the Sultan was also asked his opinion on how the issue of Ketuanan Melayu, or Malay Supremacy, which the newspaper described as a concept which for the Malays, was tied to the royalty, but which the non-Malays had other views.
He would not be drawn in, however, to the debate, pointing out instead that he did not know how to answer such questions because "we are the Malays, the sultans are Malays so why must it be brought up?"
"We must focus on more important issues such as the education, economy and income of the Malays."
The Sultan said he did not understand the restlessness, as described by the newspaper, regarding Malay rights.
He suggested it may all just be politics, adding: "that is why I do not understand politics. The proverb ada udang disebalik batu (having a hidden agenda), I don't understand all that."
But the Sultan pointed out that it was important for the sake of race relations for the public to know their history.
That was the reason why he it was his initiative to have the recent Conference of Rulers issue a statement defending the social contract, which has also been the subject of roiling debate recently.
In his interview with Mingguan Malaysia, the weekend edition of the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia daily, the Sultan spoke of the social contract that needed to be understood.
"Previously no one spoke of the social contract but it did not mean they were ignorant.
"What is the social contract? It is compromise, between the people and the royalty, the Malays with the Chinese and the Malays with the Indians."
Asked about the a recent suggestion by Tunku Naquiyuddin ibni Tuanku Jaafar for royal immunity to be restored, he said it was entirely up to the public.
"If the people feel that I am entitled I will accept it and I will do my best. I am not making any request for it.
The Sultan added that perhaps a conditional immunity should be considered.
"I do not agree in having immunity from paying my debts or from assaulting someone until the public does not get any justice," he said.
He suggested instead that royal immunity be granted for the rulers to speak out on issues.
Tunku Naquiyuddin's suggestion for a restoration of royal immunity, was described by Mingguan Malaysia an attempt to challenge Ketuanan Melayu and Malay rights, although the Negeri Sembilan regent had said only that it was to place the Malay rulers back on par with other constitutional monarchs around the world.
Tunku Naquiyuddin had also argued that royal immunity needed to be "reclaimed and reinstated so that the constitutional monarchy can be restored to its full sovereignty so as to play a more fitting role in the 21st century as a guardian of the Federal Constitution."
It was former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who led the charge against constitutional monarchy in the late 1980s and 1990s. Around 1992, the media exposed the excesses of the royalty and their extravagant lifestyle.
It so happened that a hockey coach was assaulted by a member of the Johor royalty. This unleashed a wave of public anger against the Rulers and culminated in Parliament, amending the Constitution and withdrawing royal immunity.
The personal immunity of Rulers was removed, except for the legal process relating to the performance of their duties.
Some Malaysians have also questioned the timing of Tunku Naquiyuddin's statement on reinstating the full immunity of the monarchy. His father, the Ruler of Negeri Sembilan was recently in the dock in a legal tussle with a bank.
A special court ruled that Tuanku Jaafar Tuanku Abdul Rahman had to pay Standard Chartered Bank nearly US$1 million to honour his commitment in a letter of credit over a business deal.
This was the first time the special court had heard a case involving a member of the royalty
The Sultan of Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah has defined the social contract as compromise between the rulers and subjects as well as between Malays and non-Malays.
He also said that the Malay community should not make accusations about their rights and position being challenged.
Instead, the Malays should ask themselves if they have acted accordingly, he said while citing the recent flap over the fatwa on yoga.
"Malays must ask themselves why," the Sultan said.
"For example the yoga issue. One side speaks. Pam Pam Pam. Non-Malays start interfering. The source of it is that we are wrong for not following procedures. We make noise before we even do something correctly.
"We must know where the mistake is. We cannot make accusations. When we do something without following procedure everyone will be in a muddle."
The Sultan was speaking in an interview with Mingguan Malaysia published today.
It is the second time in a week the Sultan has spoken out on race relations and religious issues.
The remarks come amid a heated debate sparked by a raft of recent public comments about race relations and the concept of Malay Supremacy.
His comments are also the latest sign of a more vocal royalty which appears to be filling the vacuum left by a lack of political leadership.
In the interview with Mingguan Malaysia, the Sultan was also asked his opinion on how the issue of Ketuanan Melayu, or Malay Supremacy, which the newspaper described as a concept which for the Malays, was tied to the royalty, but which the non-Malays had other views.
He would not be drawn in, however, to the debate, pointing out instead that he did not know how to answer such questions because "we are the Malays, the sultans are Malays so why must it be brought up?"
"We must focus on more important issues such as the education, economy and income of the Malays."
The Sultan said he did not understand the restlessness, as described by the newspaper, regarding Malay rights.
He suggested it may all just be politics, adding: "that is why I do not understand politics. The proverb ada udang disebalik batu (having a hidden agenda), I don't understand all that."
But the Sultan pointed out that it was important for the sake of race relations for the public to know their history.
That was the reason why he it was his initiative to have the recent Conference of Rulers issue a statement defending the social contract, which has also been the subject of roiling debate recently.
In his interview with Mingguan Malaysia, the weekend edition of the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia daily, the Sultan spoke of the social contract that needed to be understood.
"Previously no one spoke of the social contract but it did not mean they were ignorant.
"What is the social contract? It is compromise, between the people and the royalty, the Malays with the Chinese and the Malays with the Indians."
Asked about the a recent suggestion by Tunku Naquiyuddin ibni Tuanku Jaafar for royal immunity to be restored, he said it was entirely up to the public.
"If the people feel that I am entitled I will accept it and I will do my best. I am not making any request for it.
The Sultan added that perhaps a conditional immunity should be considered.
"I do not agree in having immunity from paying my debts or from assaulting someone until the public does not get any justice," he said.
He suggested instead that royal immunity be granted for the rulers to speak out on issues.
Tunku Naquiyuddin's suggestion for a restoration of royal immunity, was described by Mingguan Malaysia an attempt to challenge Ketuanan Melayu and Malay rights, although the Negeri Sembilan regent had said only that it was to place the Malay rulers back on par with other constitutional monarchs around the world.
Tunku Naquiyuddin had also argued that royal immunity needed to be "reclaimed and reinstated so that the constitutional monarchy can be restored to its full sovereignty so as to play a more fitting role in the 21st century as a guardian of the Federal Constitution."
It was former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who led the charge against constitutional monarchy in the late 1980s and 1990s. Around 1992, the media exposed the excesses of the royalty and their extravagant lifestyle.
It so happened that a hockey coach was assaulted by a member of the Johor royalty. This unleashed a wave of public anger against the Rulers and culminated in Parliament, amending the Constitution and withdrawing royal immunity.
The personal immunity of Rulers was removed, except for the legal process relating to the performance of their duties.
Some Malaysians have also questioned the timing of Tunku Naquiyuddin's statement on reinstating the full immunity of the monarchy. His father, the Ruler of Negeri Sembilan was recently in the dock in a legal tussle with a bank.
A special court ruled that Tuanku Jaafar Tuanku Abdul Rahman had to pay Standard Chartered Bank nearly US$1 million to honour his commitment in a letter of credit over a business deal.
This was the first time the special court had heard a case involving a member of the royalty
Monday 8 December 2008
the begining of a global financial crisis 3@2008
extract from an interview/report:
Explaining the Global Financial Crisis The US homeowner loses a Faustian bargain
What are the roots of the global financial crisis, and why has it produced a sudden and shocking collapse in American confidence and economic activity?
What has really gone wrong is that that entire model has collapsed along with the global financial institutions that hot-housed it. Not only has the ceiling come down on the US household sector, but the wreckage is blocking the exits.
It is that collapse of any exit strategies that is doing the damage. Simply to retain household debt-to-equity ratios at last year’s levels will now take a contraction of around 6.1 percent in nominal private consumption spending next year. To eliminate that debt/equity ratio would need a contraction of around 25 percent - the Depression Option.
Since the problem is not the ‘normal’ Austrian one of over-capacity and deflation, the normal road to recovery – supply-side reforms and industrial consolidation to build assets and labor productivity – is unlikely by itself to be sufficient. Full-scale recovery will await the re-invention of a financial system capable of reawakening a much-abused appetite for risk.
1. First, and this is the only piece of quantifiable good news this article contains, this is not a classic ‘Austrian’ crisis of overinvestment and deflation. Or at least it fits into that model at a level of generalization so broad and long as to be analytically disappointing. Nowhere in the developed world have we seen the sort of reckless overinvestment which, for example, we saw in the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis. Nominal capital stock is growing around 3.4 percent in the US, around 5.3 percent in Europe, and 2.3 percent in Japan – hardly the stuff of bubbles. Similarly, private sector savings deficits are not running out of control. Even in the US, the private sector savings deficit is likely to be only around 1 percent of gross domestic product this year.
These are not the sort of ratios which precipitate financial crises. We expect the balance sheet of the financial system to be a mirror image of the balance sheet of the rest of the economy. But if that were the case, the problem would not possibly have escalated so catastrophically so quickly. In fact the balance sheet of the financial system no longer principally mirrors the balance sheet of the rest of the economy. Indeed, such is the size and opacity of off-balance sheet contingent liabilities, that we can say the balance sheet of financial institutions no longer even mirrors the balance sheet of the financial system.
There was a motive for this: the expiration of the 27-year bull market. And there was the opportunity: the increasingly gothic financial structures of the derivatives market which, at a huge cost, created any yield curve you liked. That divorce between real economy and financial system balance sheets really is a problem. It explains why, unlike any other financial crises I’ve witnessed or even read about, the problem is not that the US financial system has run out of money – the strength of the currency and government bond markets show that quite clearly. It’s simply that the institutions that can use that money either no longer exist, or can no longer be safely guaranteed to exist by the end of the financial and economic crisis.
Explaining the Global Financial Crisis The US homeowner loses a Faustian bargain
What are the roots of the global financial crisis, and why has it produced a sudden and shocking collapse in American confidence and economic activity?
What has really gone wrong is that that entire model has collapsed along with the global financial institutions that hot-housed it. Not only has the ceiling come down on the US household sector, but the wreckage is blocking the exits.
It is that collapse of any exit strategies that is doing the damage. Simply to retain household debt-to-equity ratios at last year’s levels will now take a contraction of around 6.1 percent in nominal private consumption spending next year. To eliminate that debt/equity ratio would need a contraction of around 25 percent - the Depression Option.
Since the problem is not the ‘normal’ Austrian one of over-capacity and deflation, the normal road to recovery – supply-side reforms and industrial consolidation to build assets and labor productivity – is unlikely by itself to be sufficient. Full-scale recovery will await the re-invention of a financial system capable of reawakening a much-abused appetite for risk.
1. First, and this is the only piece of quantifiable good news this article contains, this is not a classic ‘Austrian’ crisis of overinvestment and deflation. Or at least it fits into that model at a level of generalization so broad and long as to be analytically disappointing. Nowhere in the developed world have we seen the sort of reckless overinvestment which, for example, we saw in the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis. Nominal capital stock is growing around 3.4 percent in the US, around 5.3 percent in Europe, and 2.3 percent in Japan – hardly the stuff of bubbles. Similarly, private sector savings deficits are not running out of control. Even in the US, the private sector savings deficit is likely to be only around 1 percent of gross domestic product this year.
These are not the sort of ratios which precipitate financial crises. We expect the balance sheet of the financial system to be a mirror image of the balance sheet of the rest of the economy. But if that were the case, the problem would not possibly have escalated so catastrophically so quickly. In fact the balance sheet of the financial system no longer principally mirrors the balance sheet of the rest of the economy. Indeed, such is the size and opacity of off-balance sheet contingent liabilities, that we can say the balance sheet of financial institutions no longer even mirrors the balance sheet of the financial system.
There was a motive for this: the expiration of the 27-year bull market. And there was the opportunity: the increasingly gothic financial structures of the derivatives market which, at a huge cost, created any yield curve you liked. That divorce between real economy and financial system balance sheets really is a problem. It explains why, unlike any other financial crises I’ve witnessed or even read about, the problem is not that the US financial system has run out of money – the strength of the currency and government bond markets show that quite clearly. It’s simply that the institutions that can use that money either no longer exist, or can no longer be safely guaranteed to exist by the end of the financial and economic crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)