Wednesday, September 16, 2009

NEW CURRENCY NEEDED, SAYS UN - BLOOMBERG

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on September 9, 2009 8:19 AM

1. For a long time now Malaysians have been questioning why we must use the United States' Dollar for international trade, why we cannot use a dinar or any other currency. But Malaysians are not supposed to know anything about money, about finance. So nobody listens.

2. Now it is the United Nations which is saying that its member countries should agree on the creation of a global reserve bank to issue a new currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, according to Bloomberg reporting on the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development.

3. The report said that China, Brazil and Russia this year called for a replacement of the Dollar as the main reserve currency after the financial crisis sparked by the collapse of the mortgage market led to the worst global recession since World War II.

4. The United States as the whole world knows is existing on unlimited loans by the rest of the world. US Dollar bonds are bought by every country in the belief that they would represent their reserves. Such bonds seem to be available all the time, unlike bonds issued by other countries which are for specific amounts.

5. If the US Dollar is not used for trade payments and loans, then there would be no demand for it. Obviously this would cause the US Dollar to be devalued. When it is devalued all the countries holding Dollar bonds would lose their reserves very substantially. So the countries with huge Dollar reserves would resist any move that would reduce the value of their reserves.

6. The US itself would resist as devaluation of the US Dollar would make it a very poor country. It cannot then remain the imperial power that it is now.

7. If the US Dollar is not to be used for trade and reserves, what currency should replace it? The Euro and the Yen seems suitable but it is doubtful if either Europe or Japan would want their currencies to be used the way we use the Dollar now.

8. The suggestion that a new currency be issued by a new global reserve bank is very attractive. Some people would like to use gold dinars.

9. The actual name of the currency is not important but backing by gold is important. If the new currency is used only for trade settlements (just as the US Dollar is now used) the proposal would be quite feasible.

10. Whatever, the world needs to discuss this proposal seriously. As the report says, a new currency would help to protect the emerging market from "confidence game" of financial speculation. And Malaysia falls into the category of emerging markets.

11. Maybe Malaysia might embolden itself to champion this proposal. Maybe!

SOUND BITES

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on September 8, 2009 10:20 AM

For the Lawyers - The Constitution and Parliament

1. When I asked whether the Constitution or Parliament came first, I just wanted to make certain. But I am sorry that most who answered were not lawyers.

2. According to Tun Suffian in his book "An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia", the Constitution was promulgated on Merdeka Day, 31st August 1957, i.e. before there was a Parliament. In fact the Constitution created the Parliament.

3. The question which arises is whether it is governed by the Interpretation Acts of 1948 and 1967 (Act 388) which in Part 1 section 2 under Application reads;

2. Application

(1) Subject to this section, Part I of this Act shall apply for the interpretation of and otherwise in relation to -

(a) this Act and all Acts of Parliament enacted after 18th May 1967;

(b) all laws, whether enacted before or after the commencement of this Act, revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968

(c) all subsidiary legislation made under this Act and under Acts of Parliament enacted after the commencement of this Act;

(d) all subsidiary legislation, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968

(e) all subsidiary legislation made after the 31st December 1968, under the laws revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968

(2) Part 1 shall not aply for the interpretation or otherwise in relation to any written law not enumerated in subsection (1)

(3) Part 1 shall not apply where there is -

(a) expressive provision to the contrary; or

(b) something in the subject or context inconsistent with or repugnant to its application

I hope my question would be answered by a few lawyers at least.

*****
Kasitah Gaddam

(in response to comment by Amiir in KASITAH GADDAM published on Aug 20)
Amiir,

1. My friends cases are not like what happened to Anwar.

2. There was a clear-cut case against him. He was tried in a court of law and he had nine lawyers defending him.

3. He was convicted. He appealed three times. Of the 10 judges involved all except two found him guilty.

4. The two who acquitted him, in a written judgment stated that the prosecution got the date wrong but they also expressed the view that the offence had taken place probably on another day.