Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Social Political Buzz & Bulls

Pakatan Rakyat Budget 2012 (Part 5 of 10)

4 Policy Highlights

4.1 Spending RM220 billion more effectively, while reducing the deficit

The global uncertainties and prospect of lack-lustre private demand would ordinarily call for pump-priming and stimulus measures by the government.

However, Malaysias finances, after 13 consecutive years of budget deficits by the Barisan Nasional government, no longer permits massive stimulus packages. On the contrary, the recent experiences of crises in countries with massive deficits eg the United States, United Kingdom and Greece, calls greater attention to reducing budget deficits.

Against this backdrop, Pakatan Rakyat will strive to maintain the total level of federal government spending at RM220 billion10 in 2012. Pakatan Rakyat practices of competency, accountability and transparency will result in:

  • Effective spending that generates for the rakyat at least 20% more in benefits.

    The Barisan Nasional government has a record of wasted, misdirected and inefficient spending. Cutting corruption and improving efficiency will contribute additional benefits for the same amount spent.

    For example, the Barisan Nasional government paid RM42,000 for a laptop11. Pakatan Rakyat policies will instead secure the best price. So, for a market price of RM2,500, the same amount of money will buy 17 laptops instead of just one.

  • The budget deficit will be brought down by measures including:

    • Maximising revenue collection (Selangor under Pakatan Rakyat administration has been consistently ranked as the best revenue collector by the Auditor General);

    • Auctioning APs (Approved Permits);

    • Minimising cost over-runs and completion delays.

This combination of revenue and expenditure measures together with economic growth will narrow the deficit as a percentage of GDP to 4.4% from an estimated 6% in 2011 under the tutelage of the Barisan Nasio! nal Gove rnment (2010: 5.6%; 2009: 7.4%).

Over the medium-term, Pakatan Rakyat policies will aim at restoring fiscal space for meeting unexpected future contingencies.

4.2 Prosperity through higher skills, incomes and opportunities

While the Prime Minister lectured the people on kicking the addiction to subsidies12, his government has displayed a more benevolent attitude towards influential cronies and concessionaires that benefit from myriad corporate subsidies. This has caused a sharp deterioration in the nations finances and compromised its competitiveness.

But instead of explicit multi-prong policies to address the root causes of the need for subsidies and price control measures, the federal government has allowed subsidies to rise by nearly ten-fold in the last decade, from RM2.6 billion in 2000 to about an estimated RM22 billion in 2011. Even so, this amount excludes subsidies provided by other government agencies, such as Petronas. Government direct and indirect subsidy support to industry is several multiples of those enjoyed by the people.

Table 1: Selected Consumer and Industry Subsidies, 2006-2010

20062007200820092010Federal Government SubsidiesRM10.1bRM10.5bRM35.2bRM20.3bRM24.9bPetronas Gas SubsidiesRM7.4bRM14.2RM19.7bRM19.5bRM18.9bPower Sector SubsidiesRM6.2bRM11.5RM13.8bRM12.7bRM11.2bNon-Power Sector SubsidiesRM1.2bRM2.7bRM5.9bRM6.8bRM7.7b

Sources: Economic Report 2010/2011, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia and Petronas Group Financial Results, FY2006-2010.

Pakatan Rakyat recognises that the root causes of the need for subsidies and price controls are the stagnant incomes of the rakyat arising from the failed policies of the Barisan Nasional. This is compounded by the increasing costs of living from rising prices of other essential products and services not covered by subsidies or controls, again reflecting in part the distortions in operations of markets perpetuated by the Barisan Nasional.

Pakatan Rakyat accepts! that th e current subsidy and price control polices would need to be kept in place while a holistic approach is developed that reduces the coverage and public costs of the national subsidies and distortions of the price controls system.

Pakatan Rakyat will prioritise policy initiatives aimed at raising the income levels of households and reducing the constraints on businesses and industry to dampen their costs and thereby diminish the unrelenting increases in the cost of living before the strain on public finances by subsidy payments can be diminished. This will require:

  • Policies to promote better salary or wage setting mechanisms to reflect labour productivity and to generate better paying jobs in higher value-added knowledgebased industries;

  • Emphasis on technical and vocational training to expand and upgrade the skill base of the workforce;

  • Reducing barriers for industry to increase investments and creating a greater competitive environment in sectors for new sources of growth to prosper and spawn high-income jobs;

  • More effective government expenditures on education, health, transportation and infrastructure to raise income and facilitate cost-effective worker mobility;

  • Emphasis on increasing use of green and environmentally friendly technologies to foster better energy use, efficiency and savings for the rakyat on utilities and other household expenses and for industry to raise productivity and profitability.

The Barisan Nasional government says it offers subsidies out of concern and care for the rakyat. Pakatan Rakyat agrees that the poorest and weakest in society must be helped. However, Barisan Nasional propaganda perpetuates the misperception that subsidies are largesse to be distributed by a benevolent government to the rakyat who must be grateful for any tidbits received.

Pakatan Rakyat will show leadership and take brave and bold steps to restore dignity to Malaysians. Malaysians have proven time and t! ime agai n our ability to overcome great challenges. Pakatan Rakyat is fully confident that the collective resolve of Malaysians to build skills, capabilities and incomes will bring us dignity, pride, confidence and independence.

4.3 Subsidy policy to be overhauled: The poor to be uplifted

Subsidies should be directed towards the most needy segments of the community including women and the disabled. The existing subsidies are poorly delivered.

This calls for an overhaul of the subsidy regime. For this, three basic questions must be answered:

  • Who will be receiving subsidies;

  • In what form should they receive these subsidies; and

  • Should there be a time limit for these subsidies.

The key characteristics of the disadvantaged groups requiring support and the policies to meet their needs should be made known publicly:

  • The Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, working with state and local government authorities, will be tasked with further expanding, improving and updating the existing database to encompass the poorest 40% of households.

  • The Ministry will consult with stakeholders community leaders, nongovernmental organisations and other interested groups to formulate an enhanced social safety net that includes nutrition, housing, healthcare, direct cash payments, micro-financing, child-care, educational support and skills training.

The framework of subsidy and price control policies on consumer products and services would be gradually adjusted to rationalise government expenditures.

  • General subsidies to industry would be phased out. However, start-up incentives including tax expenditures (mainly tax and duty exemptions for selected industries) will continue to be granted to attract high-valued added industries. Subsidies to monopolistic corporations will be stopped;

  • General subsidies will be restructured to benefit directly the needy ta! rget gro ups.

In the meantime, the existing subsidies on goods and services will be maintained. However, some changes will be made to improve the fairness and efficiency of the system and make the subsidies stretch further. Accordingly, assuming energy and commodity prices in 2012 remain similar to 2011 levels, the Pakatan Rakyat Budget will allocate a similar amount of RM22 billion13 for subsidies.

4.4 Immediate Measures to Help Malaysians
It is obvious that it will take time for Pakatan Rakyats policies to take hold in overcoming the root causes for the need of subsidies by raising the income of the rakyat markets for essential goods and services.

In the meantime, because Pakatan Rakyat shares the anxiety of the rakyat in confronting the demands of daily life, an assortment of immediate financial support for the most vulnerable segments of the community will be introduced. Pending continuous consultations with the affected communities for urgent additional support, the following immediate measures are proposed:

  • A senior Malaysian bonus for the elderly;

  • Support for homemakers;

  • Supplementing income of the hardcore poor.

4.4.1 Senior Malaysian Bonus for the elderly

Among the more vulnerable of the disadvantaged segments of the population is the elderly group of citizens. In 2010 8.4% or 2.2 million of citizens were aged 60 years and above, of which half were female.

In particular, elderly citizens in the lower spectrum of the income range are disproportionately exposed to the vagaries of the rising cost of living; the limitations of a fixed income, if any; the demands of rising needs for medical services with aging; and an increasing disappearance of family and community support, particularly in an indifferent urban setting. Pakatan Rakyats inclusiveness will give recognition to the past contributions of the elderly during their working lives and not allow their desires to be ign! ored.

Pakatan Rakyat proposes a financial aid programme of RM1,000 per year for Malaysians aged 60 and older who earn RM18,000 or less annual assessable income and do not own property worth more than RM150,000.

It is estimated that this will cost RM1.7 billion14.

4.4.2 Support for home-makers
A payment of RM1,000 in 2012 will be given to a home-maker (non-working spouse of a working adult) whose spouse earns RM18,000 or less annual assessable income and where there is at least one child under the age of 18 in the family. This will be channeled directly to the EPF account of the home-maker for immediate withdrawal. This exercise will also encourage more Malaysians to maintain an EPF account, irrespective of whether they are wage earners or self-employed.

It is estimated that this will cost RM2.0 billion15.

4.4.3 Eradicating hardcore poverty

The Penang State government under Pakatan Rakyat has successfully implemented a policy aimed at eradicating hardcore poverty.

This was achieved by implementing a policy to top-up the income of hardcore poor families to ensure that each family would have a minimum household monthly income of RM500.

It is proposed that this policy be extended nationwide, with the bar raised to RM550 per family. We propose an allocation of RM200 million for this exercise.16

______

10The federal government initially proposed a RM211b budget for 2011, as published in the Economic Report. However, the federal government over-spent, as usual and the total spend for 2011 is likely to be in the region of RM230b. Pakatan considers the RM220b mid-point as an appropriate base-line.
11RM42,320 for a laptop. The Star, 22 Oct 2009.
12Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak told an audience at Oxford Universitys Centre for Islamic Studies in May, 2011 that Subsidies as a whole are like opium. Once you take opium its hard to kick the bad habit.
13BN originally allocated RM20.9b for subsidies in 2011. In May! , Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib said fuel subsidies, which make up the bulk of the total subsidy bill, had been revised upwards by RM7b from RM11b to RM18b due to high global crude prices. However, fuel prices subsequently fell.
14Assuming 75% of the 2.2 million senior citizens aged 60 and above are eligible. Pakatan Rakyat recognises difficulties in the administrative framework for implementing this initiative, and will work with local authorities and NGOs for effective distribution, particularly in the rural areas.
15Based on 2 million home-makers in this category.
16Based on an average RM300/month per family up to an estimated 60,000 families. Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat said there were 32,271 hardcore poor families in 2010. Reported in Better lives for the hardcore poor, the Star 27 May 2010. The Government Transformation Plan defines hardcore poverty as households with incomes less than RM440 per month. We use 60,000 families due to our higher threshold of RM550 per month.

[Pakatan Rakyat Budget 2012 released by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on behalf of PR in Kuala Lumpur on 4th October 2011. Part 5 of 10]

[<< Part 4] [Part 6 >>]

Whistleblower dissatisfied with reply on 'Rosmah' ring...

The explanation in Parliament on the RM24 million diamond ring brought into the country is unsatisfactory as it does not explain the "mystery" surrounding its import, said former PKR central committee member Badrul Hisham Shaharin.

I am not satisfied (with the reply by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz) as it does not answer the mystery behind the ring, said a vindicated Badrul, who was the whistleblower in the ring that he alleges had been ordered by the prime minister's wife Rosmah Mansor.

Badrul (right), who heads a youth group called Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM), said the parliamentary reply proved that he had a case in lodging a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on July 13 to investigate the matter.

The MACC, after this reply, should have enough evidence to prove that the document (that I had furnished them) is authentic, otherwise they would not have questioned the cargo company officer A Krishnan till the wee hours of the morning in their investigation, he said in an email today.

SAMM and Badrul, who is also known by his blog name Chegubard, lodged a report with the MACC in Penang on July 13 on the alleged purchase of the diamond ring by Rosmah.

Badrul had said then that based on information received by the group on April 16, the 'natural fancy gray cushion cut diamond' ring tagged at RM24,458,400 was flown in via the KL International Airport.

The item was purchased through a fine jewellery company - Jacob & Co - based in New York, and brought to Malaysia by one Jeremy Beh Sin Tee," Badrul had said then, and that the Customs document sta! ted Rosm ah as the receiver of the item.

In a written reply to Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng in Parliament today, Nazri said that the Royal Malaysian Customs Department (JKDM) has confirmed the existence of the controversial diamond ring.

However, Nazri said the ring was not purchased after it was brought into the country, and added, After a few days, the ring was returned to the company which owns it."

'Imelda of Malaysia'

Badrul pointed out that the Customs document also stated that the item was tax free, and demanded MACC to investigate the reason behind this.

Did Rosmah's husband - Najib - use his power as finance minister to obtain the tax-free status? he had said at the time.


Badrul has likened Rosmah to the spendthrift former Filipino first lady Imelda Marcos, saying that such luxury living contradicted the fact that ordinary Malaysians were suffering from the rising cost of living.

What about a bracelet worth RM1.65 million that was sold by the same company (New York jeweller Jacob & Co that is behind the diamond ring) that is being worn by Rosmah? Badrul asked today.

This coming Monday, SAMM will distribute 25,000 brochures about the ring and other of Rosmah's spendthrift habits, he added.

source:malaysiakini

Cincin 24 Juta, Kenapa pula ianya dialamatkan kepada Rosmah?

Cincin RM24 juta tidak diikrar keluar semula- Chegu Bard

M! ACC deni ed the existance of such a ring. Now Customs admits the ring do exist. Nazri, how do you know there is no purchase?

To send such an expensive ring half way round the globe with a purchaser defies logic. One needs not be a rocket scientist to tell Nazri that such a story is full of Mahabullshit.

cheers.

Hudud Federal vs State Legislative Powers

"But while one man standing in the road is a nuisance, a mere distraction, 10 men standing together are far harder to ignore. And if those 10 become 100, a thousand, a million, a billion even, they become a force so big, so strong and so united in their common cause that those who espouse hatred will face a very simple choice." : Prime Minister Najib Razak's Oxford speech - 17th May 2011

Loyal Followers

Tuesday, October 04, 2011! < /h2>

Hudud Federal vs State Legislative Powers

I have stated in my article, Of wet dream, nightmare and Marty McFly that the implementation of hudud is a Constitutional impossibility until and unless two-third of our Members of Parliament would vote to amend the Federal Constitution to allow it to happen. I also grimly stated in that article that the time when such Constitutional amendment is moved would be the first time when our Members of Parliament would vote solely or predominantly along racial and religious line regardless of party policy or party whip.

The Bar Council has since issued a statement which basically echoes my opinion. Lim Chee Wee, the Bar Councils President was quoted as saying:

Hudud cannot be implemented within the current constitutional and legislative framework.

My friend, the learned Professor Aziz Bari was reported to have disagreed with the Bar Councils view. The learned Professor was quoted to say:

The key here is Islam, not criminal law.

The learned Professor pointed out that the Federal Constitution has set out the respective jurisdiction and powers of the Federal and State legislature. As the powers to legislate on matters pertaining to Islam rests with the State, he argued that the State, including Kelantan, may pass hudud laws accordingly. He also refuted that such move would result in double jeopardy for Muslim wrongdoers as, in his words:

In other words, two systems is not a problem and we are not the only country in the world where this duality ! prevails .

I have the highest of respect and regard for the learned Professor but I beg to differ on his opinion on this matter.

While I acknowledge and admit that the respective State Legislative Assembly (SLA) has the power to legislate on matters pertaining to Islam, I am somewhat doubtful that the SLA may pass any kind of law which creates offences and prescribes punishment for those offences in accordance with the tenet of Islam, especially when such offences and punishments are already created and prescribed by the Parliament.

The Federal Constitution divides the legislative powers between the Parliament and SLA quite clearly. The Parliament, or loosely, the Federal government, has the power to legislate over matters specified in List 1 (or otherwise known as the Federal List) of the 9th Schedule of the Federal Constitution. The SLA on the other hand may legislate on those matters in List II (also known as the State List) of the 9th Schedule. In addition, there are matters which may be legislated by both the Parliament and the SLA. These are contained in List III of the 9th Schedule (also known as the Concurrent List).

Included in the Federal List is, among other things, civil and criminal law; the constitution of all courts other than the Syariah Courts and the jurisdiction and powers of all such courts.

That much is clear. All this while, it is the Parliament which creates and defines all criminal offences as well as prescribing all punishment for those offences. There is no doubt about that. (In this respect, there are already laws governing murder, theft and slander, which are three of the hudud offences prescribed by the Quran. The only hudud offence which is not criminalised by the secular law is adultery).

In the meantime, the SLA may pass laws relating to several Islamic matters. Lets reproduce the whole paragraph 1 of the State List, so as not to cause any confusion*:

Except with respect to the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan,

i. Islamic law and per! sonal an d family law of persons professing the religion of Islam, including the Islamic law relating to succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy guardianship, gifts, partitions and non- charitable trusts; Wakafs and the definition and regulation of charitable and religious endowments, institutions, trusts, charities and charitable institutions operating wholly within the State; Malay customs. Zakat, Fitrah and Baitulmal or similar Islamic religious revenue, mosques or any Islamic public places of worship,

ii. creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List;

iii. the constitution, organisation and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over person professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law,

iv. the control of propagating doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam;

v. the determination of matters of Islamic law and doctrine Malay custom. (emphasis is mine).

*The above provision is actually contained in one paragraph. I have broken it into several parts denoting the different areas of Islamic matters which the SLA may legislate to maintain clarity.

The learned Professor opined that power on Islamic law belongs to the State. He then referred to the decision of our Supreme Court (then, the highest Court in Malaysia) Mamat bin Daud vs Govt of Malaysia where the Court held that a provision in the Penal Code which impacted on Islamic law was invalid as the Parliament had no power to legislate over Islamic matters. The learned Professor therefore challenged the Bar Councils view that the Kelantan State does not have the power to enact the hudud law.

It is quite clear from the ! State Li st reproduced above that various Islamic matters are within the purview of the SLA. The decision in Mamat bin Daud reinforces the view that strict adherence to the respective lists by the Parliament and the SLA in enacting laws is called for. In that case, a provision was included in the Penal Code by the Parliament which makes it an offence for anybody to cause religious disunity. The purport of that section was to maintain public order, a matter which is quite obviously within the purview of the Parliament. However, in a 3-2 majority decision (with the late Eusoffee Abdoolcader, among others, dissenting), the Supreme Court held that that provision impinges on Islamic matters, which is in the State List and consequently the Parliament had no power to legislate on it.

It follows from that decision that the Court jealously guarded the purview, width and breadth of the respective Federal and State lists. No amount of encroachment will be allowed by either the Parliament or the SLA on each others powers. Although the offence created by the Parliament in that case falls under public order, which comes under the purview of the Parliament, the Court still viewed that as an encroachment of the SLAs power to legislate on Islamic matters.

It is therefore clear and obvious that the Court took a strict and stringent approach in determining the rights and powers to legislate of the Parliament and the SLA.

Applying that strict rule, it is my humble opinion that the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly does NOT have the power to legislate on hudud laws or the power to create criminal offences and prescribe Islamic punishments for those offences. Matters concerning civil and criminal laws are clearly within the power and purview of the Parliament by virtue of the Federal List.

To allow the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly to enact a law to create hudud offences and prescribe punishment for those offences would amount to the usurpation by the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly of the Parliaments power! to legi slate over criminal matters. Applying the strict approach in Mamat bin Daud case, any law passed by the Kelantanese State Legislative Assembly as such would be void for being ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

Is it true that hudud comes within the State List and therefore the SLA has the power to legislate on it? We have to analyse the above State List to answer this question.

Paragraph (i) above concerns family, personal, inheritance and trust matters. That much is clear. Hudud does not come within the ambit of paragraph (i) above.

The bone of contention is paragraph (ii) above. It states that the SLA has the power over the creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List.

There are three important points to be made about this provision.

Firstly, the said provision is far narrower than the power given to the Parliament. Paragraph 4 of the Federal List spells out in the widest term possible the power of the Parliament to legislate over civil and criminal law. That includes everything under the sun. The only exception is Islamic personal law relating to marriage, divorce, guardianship, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, family law, gifts and succession, testate and intestate. Any other matters would come within the power of the Parliament to legislate.

Contrast that provision to paragraph (ii) above. Paragraph (ii) does not say Islamic civil and criminal laws. Nor does it say the creation and punishment of offences IN the precepts of that religion. It also contains a very important exception, namely, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List.

That brings me to my second point. Paragraph (ii) above only gives the SLA power to create and punish offences AGAINST the precepts of Islam. It does not give power to the SLA to create and punish offences IN the precepts of Islam. The established hudu! d offenc es, namely, murder, adultery, slander and theft are not offences against the precepts of Islam. They are offences within or in accordance with the precepts of Islam.

The failure to observe and appreciate this aspect of the provision has often led to a misconception that the State has the power to create any kind of offences as long as those offences are regarded as offences IN Islam. That is entirely wrong.

No less than our Federal Court, in Sulaiman Bin Takrib v Kerajaan Negeri Trengganu & Anor has, with respect, fallen into such interpretational misdeed when it held that the SLA had power to create offences against the precepts of Islam although by doing so, a criminal offence would be create so long as no such offence has been created by the Parliament. Former Chief Justice Abdul Hamid in his judgment says:

In the instant case, as the offences are offences against the precept of Islam, as there are no similar offences in the federal law and the impugned offences specifically cover Muslims only and pertaining to Islam only, clearly it cannot be argued that they are criminal law as envisage by the Constitution.

It has been my absolute pleasure and honour to have appeared before the learned CJ on some occasions. FCJ Abdul Hamid was a learned Judge for whom I have the highest of respect. However, his Lordships test in the above case is, in my humble opinion, wholly unsatisfactory.

The test is not whether there has been an offence created by the Parliament on the issue at hand. Rather the test is whether the offence created by the State Legislative Assembly is against the precepts of Islam. In this respect, offences AGAINST the precepts of Islam are totally different in nature and manifestation from offences IN the precepts of Islam.

This brings me to my third point. Paragraph (ii) above clearly prohibits the SLA from legislating on matters which are included in the Federal list. How clearer can that be? Is there any ambiguity there?

The prohibition is as clear as day! light. A s long as the matter sought to be legislated by the SLA is included in the Federal list, the SLA is prohibited from legislating on it. That prohibition is absolute. Applying Mamat bin Daud above, that prohibition must be strictly observed. It does not say the prohibition only applies if the matters are included in the Federal list and they have been legislated by the Parliament. CJ Abdul Hamid is wrong in Sulaiman Takrib case in this respect.

It is clear therefore that the State list does not vest the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly, or any other SLA for that matter, the power to pass hudud laws or to create criminal offences. The law passed by the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly on hudud, in my humble opinion, is void for being ultra vires the Federal Constitution.

1 comments:

Amir Hamzahsaid...

Well written bro. But you missed Article 121(1)(A), which was misinterpreted by our learned friend Eusoff Chin.

4 October 2011 14:59

Post a Comment


Follow by Email

Share it


About Me

Art Harun believes that he is a failed government experiment, abandoned and left alone to roam the streets after all remedial efforts yielded no positive result. He calls himself a non-governmental organism, practices law for a living and tries very hard to play guitar, sing, race cars and write some stuffs to stay alive.

My complete profile.
My Facebook
My Twitter ID - Art_Harun

All Rights Reserved

The writer claims ownership of all the articles published here. All rights to the articles published here are reserved.

Popular Posts

  • It shows that Malaysians are observing the agreements they have signed without trying to retaliate in other directions, such as water, whi...
  • I must admit of being astounded by the claim by Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling that Tanah Melayu had never been colonised by the British, s...
  • Mat Sabu is charged today for criminal defamation. I have not read the exact charge. However from various reports, apparently he is charge...
  • I have not seen the Buku Jingga, let alone read it. I wonder what Pakatan Rakyat says about hudud. Or whether Pakatan Rakyat says anything a...
  • There is a moment I spent with the late Raja Aziz Addruse which will forever be etched in my memory. It was one Sunday morning at Rajus PJ...
  • Need I say more? *thank you to Shirzad Lifeboat who shares this on fb.
  • Perkasa is of the view that security cannot be compromised. Security must override human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly...
  • This is the story of the human spirit. Sad, ugly, vicious and violent. And yet it is so beautiful and inspiring. Somewhere out there, G...
  • I dont know whether I am supposed to cry, laugh, jump for joy, do a poco-poco or just polish my shoes. But, according to a Malaysian Insid...
  • ARTiculations demands a full and unreserved apology. Now!

Recent Posts

Online Now

Subscribe To

Posts
Posts
Comments
Comments
!

Twitter Updates

Lijit Search

Blog Archive

hit counter
Picture Window template. Template images by Josh Peterson. Powered by Blogger.

Tiada siapa mahu Adun Bentayan

PETALING JAYA: Umno Bahagian Bakri, Johor menempelak Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) Bentayan Gwee Tong Hiang sambil menuduh beliau seorang pembohong dan gila publisiti murahan.

Ketua Umno Bakri Datuk Abdullah Mohd Ali berkata, tidak ada orang yang mahukan Adun Bentayan.

Siapa nak dia? Tak kan orang BN nak dia? Siapa nak beri 50 ekar tanah kepada Gwee? Nak dapat lima ekar pun susah, katanya ketika dihubungi hari ini.

Beliau berkata demikian ketika diminta mengulas dakwaan Gwee bahawa beliau ditawarkan habuan lumayan jika lompat keluar DAP dan menjadi wakil rakyat bebas.

Habuan itu meliputi ganjaran sejumlah RM150,000, pemberian 50 ekar tanah, elaun tambahan melebihi RM5,000 sebulan serta skuad khas bagi membantu menyelesaikan masalah kawasan Bentayan termasuk isu majlis perbandaran dan agihan tanah.

Semua tawaran ini dijanjikan hanya jika selepas beliau bersetuju untuk keluar DAP dan mengisytiharkan diri sebagai Adun Bebas, serta bertanding menentang DAP dalam Pilihan Raya Umum (PRU) akan datang.

Abdullah yang juga Adun Bukit Naning dalam Parlimen Bakri yang diwakili DAP mendakwa, Wee mempunyai masalah dengan Ahli Parlimen Bakri, Er Teck Hwa.

Jadi Gwee membuat semua dakwaan tersebut supaya orang DAP melihat beliau seorang pemimpin yang masih popular dan menjadi rebutan di kalangan parti politik termasuk di kalangan parti Barisan Nasional (BN) tetapi semua kenyataan yang dibuat itu bohong belaka, tambah Abdullah.

Gwee, Adun penggal pertama Bentayan digantung keahlian oleh DAP selama enam bulan kerana didakwa menyalahguna dana parti.

Mengulas mengenai Dun Bentayan, Abdullah berkata, BN mempunyai peluang untuk merampas semula kerusi berkenaan dalam PRU 13.

Baga! imanapun menurutnya, BN boleh menang jika mempunyai calon yang sesuai untuk kerusi berkenaan.


Spiteful, malevolent rant by Shenaaz Khan

FMT LETTER

From Linda Everett, via e-mail

I refer to the letter, Glove comes off on Palm oil written by Shenaaz Khan, the president of Malaysian Animal Welfare Society.

It was Daniel J Boorstin, winner of the 1974 Pulitzer Prize in History who famously wrote: The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge!

What an apt description of this spiteful, malevolent and hateful rant by the president of the Malaysian Animal Welfare Society.

At the risk of sounding facetious, how can the Melbourne Zoos hypocritical Dont Palm Us Off campaign even be defended by anyone, especially by the president of an Animal Welfare Society? The orangutan is a tropical animal and has no business sitting as an exhibit in a zoo, especially one located in a country with severe winters!

For Melbourne Zoo, the ultimate exploiter of animals, to feign concern for the plight of the orangutan is laughable. The real reason for the zoos sudden concern for the orangutan and the cynical organisation of the anti palm oil campaign is obvious it brings in donors and cold hard cash! Sure enough, in recent days, Orange Power has pledged A$150,000 to help fund the zoos Dont Palm Us Off campaign.

Whilst we, at Palmhugger.org, do not begrudge the zoo their fund raising activities, the zoo gave their game away on this one as as at the time of writing, the zoo has made no attempt to avail itself of a US$7 million Wildlife Conservation matching grant launched by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC).

Its easy to launch anti-palm oil campaigns it would appear but not quite as convenient when the zoo has to put its money where its mouth is, as in putting up an equivalent amount for the MPOC matching grant. Suddenly, the plight of the orangutans do not appear to be quite as urgent, important or exigent when the Melbourne Zoo has to put up its own funds to qualify for the matching grant. What utter hypocrites!

As a! matter of further interest Shenaaz Khan, the Australian House of Representatives Economic Committee had recommended that the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling Palm Oil) Bill 2010 be rejected not out of a whim.

Its because they have heard representations from various stakeholders and are better informed on the issue than mouth frothing environmental types who, like Melbourne Zoo have never hesitated to manipulate the facts and the issue if it brings in the payola and the mighty greenback.

It cannot be denied that palm oil is planted on only 0.23% of the world agricultural lands and yet supplies a staggering 30% of the world?s edible oil stocks. The reason for this is palm oils inherent hyper yielding nature which at 4-5 metric tons per hectare is close to 10 times that of its competitors like soy, rapeseed and sunflower.

This incredible yield has made palm oil very affordable and coupled with the inherent healthful profile of the oil (as it is packed with heart friendly anti-oxidants like tocotrienols, Co-enzyme Q10, beta-carotenes and also trans fat free) is proving so popular with consumers and food manufacturers that it has catapulted palm oil into the leadership position in the edible oil market. That has made palm oil an inevitable target for competitors unable to compete in the open market with palm oil.

To these environmentalists it is inconsequential that the allegations of massive deforestation are patently untrue. They know that so long as they use emotive images of forest clearing by legitimate logging companies, they can pin the blame on palm oil. After all, it is so easy to take satellite pictures of an area of logged over forests and allege that it is clear evidence of deforestation caused by palm oil.

The fact that palm oil requires so little land to produce so much edible oil should clue in any objective observer that the deforestation claims are disingenuous. If the claims were true, how could Malaysia, a relatively small country,! have be en the worlds largest producer of palm oil for the past 100 years? How could this small country still manage to retain the 53% forest cover that it has today? 53% forest cover dwarfs the percentage forest cover of any western developed country anywhere in the world.

However, the soundbites of frivolous claims such as over 300 football fields being cleared every hour are bound to appeal. These environmentalists know that such frivolous claims are not likely to be investigated; certainly not in Southeast Asia where topographical surveys and maps are not as up to date as in the west.

Ms Khan, as a Malaysian also should be cognizant of the fact that smallholders produce more than 40% of the total palm oil production in Malaysia and that these smallholders came into the industry by participating in FELDA, a wildly successful poverty eradication programme.

These smallholders have nothing to do with deforestation or with the orangutan as orangutans do not even exist in Peninsula Malaysia where most of the smallholdings are located. In East Malaysia, it is undeniable that the large tracts of forest reserves have been set aside, some of which, like Tabin, are larger than the island of Singapore.

It was the National Geographic which recently aired a programme where it was shown that instead of going extinct, the orangutan population in the wild, estimated at 50,000 could actually be growing with the discovery of a tribe of 2,000 orangutans in Borneo, prompting Erik Meijaard, senior ecologist for the Nature Conservancy in Indonesia to observe that the discovery could add up to 5% to the known orangutan population in the wild.

This discovery also led to the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) quietly removing from their website their ludicrous claim that due to palm oil cultivation, the orangutan will become extinct by 2011!

Ms Khan should be careful as to what she wishes for. If Malaysia were to switch from planting palm oil to other edible oil crops like so! y or sun flower, close to 10 times more deforestation will occur as these crops have only one tenth of the yield of palm oil.

Finally, Palmhugger is compelled to wonder whether the same degree of animosity and hostility towards palm oil would still exist if palm oil was not quite as inherently hyper yielding and consequently not as competitive price wise?

Would competitors still feel that they have to resort to underhanded means to rein in a crop that they just cant compete with in the open market. In our view, Ms Khan is just an unwitting agent and accomplice to these agents provocateurs in ultimately fulfilling their master plan!

The sad thing is that the international media has not done their due diligence and investigated the issue in depth and instead have elected to give column inches verbatim to the hype and wild and unsubstantiated allegations contained in the Press Releases of these environmental organisations.

Thats the real reason why the two Australian parliamentarian committees have recommended that the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling Palm Oil) Bill 2010 be rejected once they have heard representations from stakeholders (including the Malaysian Palm oil Council and environmental organisations) and have become fully informed on the facts.

Note: About Inc Society of PalmHugger: We are made up of professionals and individuals with a great passion for the truth.

We are biologists, creative designers, engineers, business men and women, professional tennis players, stay-at-home moms, retirees, college students, filmmakers, journalists, communication experts. You name it!

Our goals are all the same to advance the cause of truth through better and wider dissemination of true palm oil environmental news and views, assisting in CSR initiatives, or developing programmes for advocacy and lobbying of palm oil environmental matters, always with an emphasis on truth.

Who we are not: We are not pol! itically linked to any political parties. We are also not donor nor profit driven. Every single cent raised through our initiatives are channeled back to fund Palmhugger programmes that require financial assistance. www.Palmhugger.org

Also read:

Gloves come off on Palm oil


Kastam sahkan cincin RM24 juta Bik Mama memang wujud...

Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (JKDM) mengesahkan cincin berlian RM24 juta yang didakwa dibeli isteri perdana menteri Rosmah Mansor benar-benar wujud.

Bagaimanapun, dalam jawapan bertulis kepada ahli parlimen Segambut Lim Lip Eng hari ini, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz (kiri) berkata, tiada pembelian dibuat terhadapnya.


"Dalam isu yang dibangkitkan ini, SPRM (Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia) telah merujuk kepada JKDM, dan pihak JKDM telah mengesahkan bahawa tiada sebarang pembelian ke atas cincin tersebut.


"Setelah beberapa hari cincin tersebut dikembalikan semula kepada syarikat pemunya cincin berkenaan," katanya.


Dalam soalannya, Lim meminta perdana menteri menyatakan status siasatan polis, SPRM dan Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia (SKMM) terhadap dakwaan pembelian cincin bernama 'Natural Fancy Gray Cushion Cut Diamond'.


Isu itu didedahkan bekas anggota Majlis Pimpinan Pusat PKR Badrul Hisham Shaharin (bawah, kanan) Julai lalu yang mendakwa mempunyai bukti kemasukan cincin itu menerusi rekod kastam.


Dakwanya, rekod itu menunjukkan nama Rosmah dimuatkan dalam ruang penerima dalam borang pelanggan, yang didakwanya bukti menunjukkan pembabitan isteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak itu.

Badrul Hisham yang juga pengerusi NGO Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) melaporkannya kepada SPRM pada 13 Julai lalu.


Rosmah bagaimanapun menafikan dakwaan itu dengan menyifatkannya sebagai fitnah dan tidak mahu melayannya selepas dua minggu ia ditimbulkan.

source:malaysiakini

US$24m ring returned after a few days

Anih betoi. Sanggupkah anda menghantar sebentuk cincin berlian bernilai RM24 juta daripada New York ke 1Malaysia semata2 hanya untuk 'display' saja tanpa ada sebarang tempahan atau niat hendak membelinya?

Mungkin ketika memulangkan balik cincin batu itu, N & R ada lekatkan satu nota kecil berbunyi...
"Maaf Mr.Jacob,Saya terpaksa pulangkan cincin berlian yang tuan kirim tempoh hari. Ini adalah kerana...

1. berliannya agak kecil.

2. cincinnya agak ketat tak masuk jari manis Wanita Pertama yang agak besar dan tembam."


cheers.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...