Selangor once again to give...

Selangor Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim launched 'communitarian economy' on Friday (20 June 2008).

Khalid announced this good news through his speech on Pakatan's 100 days of governance in Selangor.

1. Funds for the welfare of Selangor-born children

•Every new-born child in Selangor will receive RM100, and can enjoy an insurance scheme until 18 years old.

•Once approach 18 years old, every person can get RM1500

2. Incentive for those children who enter the university

•Every student offered a place in a university will receive RM1,000.

•The state government will form a committee, once receive the application forms from any student, will remit to the applicant account or to send a cheque to the applicant within 2 weeks time (10 working days)

3. Insurance and free medical for the senior citizens

•Those 60 years old and above or had lived in the state for at least 15 years would receive free medical and insurance coverage worth RM3,500.

4. One-Stop Crisis management centres

•Setting up One-Stop Crisis management centres at all state hospitals that would work with the Welfare Department, the police and other agencies to help women and children who are victims of rape, sodomy, domestic violence and other abuses.

5. A fund for children of plantation workers

•A fund for children of plantation workers would also be established to provide assistance in the form of scholarships.

•To fund the construction and maintenance of dormitories for the children of plantation workers.

雪州再送禮

雪州再送禮

（雪蘭莪‧沙亞南）雪州大臣丹斯里卡立週五（2008.06.20）宣佈設立雪州子民基金。
卡立是在民聯執政100日慶典上致詞時，宣佈雪州民聯政府推行的福利基金:
1.雪州子民基金
●每名在雪州出生的新生兒可獲得100令吉，並享有保險保障至18歲。
●年滿18歲後，每人可獲得1500令吉。
2.孩子進入大學獎勵金
●每名成功進入大學深造的雪州子民，可獲得1000令吉獎勵金。
●州政府將成立一個委員會，在收到學生寄來的申請表格後，將在2星期內（10天工作日），把錢匯入申請者戶頭，或是寄發支票給申請者。
3.樂齡人士保險及醫藥基金
●60歲以上的雪州子民或在雪州居住超過15年者可享有特別醫藥收費率及保險保障達3500令吉。
4.一站式危機處理中心
●設立在雪州各醫院，與化驗局、警方及其他相關部門連線，在第一時間向被強姦、雞姦、被虐及面對家暴的受害者，尤其是婦孺施於援助。
5.園坵工人孩子教育基金
●為園坵工人的孩子提供獎學金，用以繳交學費。
●為園坵工人的孩子興建宿舍及繳付宿舍管理費。
星洲日報‧2008.06.21

There is no such thing as subsidy for the oil

There is no such thing as subsidy for the oil that is produced in Malaysia. The term ‘subsidy’ has been royally used left, right and centre but no one is really sitting down and thinking hard and asking themselves, what is there to subsidise? Who is paying whom?

In actual fact, the hike in petrol price in Malaysia has nothing to do with a subsidy because we produce our own oil. An analogy - if you produce your own rambutans in your backyard, you are free to enjoy your own fruits. How can you tell people you are subsidising your rambutans or eating it at a subsidised rate?

In actual fact, there is no subsidy at all. It is called opportunity cost. Dr Mahathir Mohamad, being the Petronas Adviser and probably the only person who really knows the accounts, production and profit of Petronas, states that Malaysia produces 650,000 barrels a day of crude oil.

A total of 400,000 is used for local consumption in Malaysia (ie, the petrol we use), leaving 250,000 barrels to be exported. He further claims that these 250,000 barrels alone produced daily will bring Petronas about RM27 billion profit annually.

And this is assuming global oil price is US$130. If it goes up to US$200, you can imagine how much Petronas will make. And mind you, this is just the exported portion, in other words, this is just the excess 250,000 barrels exported alone.

So, what subsidy is there? There is no subsidy at all. The 400,000 barrels used in Malaysia is produced by Malaysia in the first place. We are producing our own rambutan ie, oil. What all the drama is about is the fact that Petronas wants to sell all the 650,000 barrels it produces per day at the global market rates of US$130 per barrel.

They want to reap even more profits. This is called opportunity cost and not subsidy. The 400,000 barrels per day consumed by Malaysians and sold at a cheaper rate can be sold at full market price to the global market.

To put is clearly, ‘opportunity cost’ - which would be the revenue that is being lost because the oil is being sold locally at less than the global market price. In other words, extra revenue that could have been earned - has been lost.

Unlike other oil producing countries which sell their oil cheaply to their rakyat, we on the other hand, are not bothered about our rakyat. Our petrol prices are either one of the highest or the highest in the world amongst all the oil-producing countries.

Don't forget that we have one of the highest car prices in the world too, after Singapore. I think it is even higher than Singapore because the purchasing power of Singaporeans is much higher than Malaysians.

So a S$60, 000 Honda City in Singapore is not a big deal to a Singaporean earning about three times a Malaysian earns.

Please be reminded, too, that Petronas is government-owned so, again, what subsidy is there? Rakyat is not stupid lah; use proper terms, the correct term is ‘opportunity cost’. How are the young economics graduates from the local universities going to become good international economists when simple terms like ‘subsidy’ are confused as ‘opportunity cost’?

From SAPP's blog.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3980934123916550972&
postID=4928721859288818306&pli=1

7 月12 日 星期六 美里支部晚宴

DAP Miri branch is going to hold a dinner function on 12th of July to celebrate Sarawak DAP's 30th anniversary.

民主行動黨美里支部將於7月12日(星期六)假富麗華大酒家舉行晚宴慶祝砂州火箭登陸砂州三十週年。

該黨這次的晚宴除了有州層級和中央領袖出席之外，另外也邀請到西馬兩位非政府組織成員來助陣。

第一位為楊培根律師，以下為楊培根律師簡介：
- 1941年，出生於柔佛東甲。
- 1966年，赴英倫留學，法科畢業。
- 1968年，學成回馬，隨後在新山執業，從事法律工作至今。
-始自1985年，文章常發表在《南洋商報》、《星洲日報》、 《中國報》等各大報章及雜誌,至今結集成書並已出版的法律專題文集等共20餘本。由於文章分析深入淺出，化枯燥為風趣，故深得讀者歡迎。
- 1987年，委為董教總法律顧問。
- 1990年，委為全國華團民權委員會（CRC）主席。
- 1998年，任全國人權協會（HAKAM）署理主席。
-幾年來擔任大馬人民之聲(SUARAM)新山支會、柔佛州人民之友工委會署理主席兼法律顧問。
-文章多在電子媒體《獨立新聞在線》（MERDEKAREVIEW. COM）的《培根說法》專欄上發布。

楊培根律師的內容將圍繞在《馬來西亞司法危機與實境》，馬來西亞 “司法危機”和“改革風暴”對東馬(砂、沙) 兩州的影響 (尤其是陳漢章大法官最近在詩巫高等法庭审訊一件由民行黨提出的選舉訴訟案件時揭露的在砂州司法上所發生的驚人內幕)。

第二位為嚴居漢先生：

- 1983年，出生於丁加奴（登嘉樓）。
- 2007年，畢業於馬來西亞工藝大學（UTM)，產業管理系。
大學期間，積極參與學生活動，並且擔任第十四屆工大華裔學生理事會（簡稱：工華）內務副主席職。
-目前擔任大馬人民之聲（SUARAM)新山支會協調員、柔佛州人民之友工委會執行秘書。

嚴居漢的演講的內容將圍繞在《介紹馬來半島非政府組織（主要是SUARAM）與馬來西亞的民主人權及其鬥爭概況和問題》

民主行動黨美里支部主席房保德表示，目前該晚宴的票己經出售近80%。他呼籲美里市民能夠給與該黨大力的支持，只有壯大的在野黨的力量才能有效的監督政府，掃除政府部門中貪污濫權的行為，提高政府的行政效率和透明度，人民才能從中獲益。

A letter to Pak Lah

Dear Sir

In the 12th parliamentary election, the opposition parties have achieved excellent results in the polls unprecedentedly since the historical formation of the nation. In light of this electoral outcome, the BN leaders have presented various views on their below par performance. The MCA attributed their disastrous failure in the election to UMNO, because some UMNO leaders had frequently acted and spoken publicly, in such a manner as to offend the feeling of other races. As a consequence, disgusted Chinese society refused to vote for MCA candidates.

As a matter of fact, some MCA leaders also reckon that the MCA, acting as representative of the Chinese society in the BN, and failing to timely rectify the bias in the BN, should not put the blame wholly on the UMNO; the MCA should also hold accountable for their incompetence.

Basically, the two views of the MCA leaders reflect how some BN leaders, by virtue of their deeds, have seriously undermined the image of the BN, and leading the various races to associate the BN with injustice such as corruption, abuse of power, arrogance, arbitrariness etc. Inflation due to high price increase of fuel, and sense of deteriorating public security, disgusted citizens have unhesitatingly vetoed the BN Via their votes.

In fact the tarnished imaged of the BN was not merely portrayed by few UMNO leaders. On 07/03/08, two cases had occurred in Miri which greatly damaged the image of the BN, and both cases were widely published by the newspapers. If the BN Government would not look seriously at the cases and investigate, then it would only deepen the public’s negative view on BN’s injustice image.

Case 1: Malaysian citizen Tan Seng Hin @ Tan Wa Min (I/C 400805045269) and spouse arrived at Miri airport on 07/03/08. They prepared to vote on 08/03/08, the next day, which as citizens , they have the obligation to fulfil. They planned to leave on 09/03/08 at 4:00pm. However, their plan was shattered by an immigration officer. The officer told Tan Seng Hin that he had been ‘blacklisted’ by Sarawak Government, hence, he was not permitted to enter.

Data revealed that on 22/10/2000, the immigration of Sarawak abruptly issued an order to deport him and prohibit him from entering the state. No reason was given. This case was brought to the parliament for debate by DAP legislator. The following reasons were given:

1. Tan Seng Hin posed a threat to the harmony of the local society.
2. Tan Seng Hin was ungrateful to the Sarawak Government whom had permitted him to reside there for 23 years.
3. Inciting the local residents.
4. Tan Seng Hin took the advantage of his position as a secretary of Hainan Association Miri, criticized the State government.

Tan Seng Hin stated that as resident in Miri for 23 years, he had never involved in any illegal activities. He was nominated as secretary of the Hainan Association in 1995. Before his departure, he was appointed to represent Hainan Association as Board of Director of Pei Min Secondary School for the year 2001-2002.

During the period he held the post of secretary of Hainan Association Miri, he had represented Hainan Association making some suggestions and criticisms on Chinese education of Miri and the policy and guidance (mission) of the two independent Chinese medium school of Miri namely Riam Road Secondary school and Pei Ming Secondary school. The Miri Hainan Association proposed that independent Chinese medium school should stick to the guidance (mission) of mother tongue education, opposed the use of English as a teaching language. Tan Seng Hin expressed the apprehension and the stand of Hainan Association Miri that some manipulative persons might use the establishment of Curtin University to pervert (i.e. To change the medium of instruction from Chinese to English)the two independent Chinese medium school in Miri, or even the entire independent Chinese medium school in Sarawak. To date, the Sarawak Government is still unable to produce evidence to substantiate their claim that Tan Seng Hin, during his residence in Miri, had incited the local residence, nor to prove that Tan Seng Hin had involved himself in extremist action so as to harm the security of the society. Apparently, statement made by Tan Seng Hin that “manipulative persons might use the establishment of Curtin University to pervert the two independent Chinese medium school in Miri, or even the entire independent Chinese medium school in Sarawak” had agitated the Sarawak Government. Hence, he had to be eliminated to ease their worries. Obviously, the claim of incitation was merely a ploy to disrepute Tan and as an excuse to expel him.

Miri is a small place, whether or not Tan Seng Hin was involved in any extremist actions is clear to persons who are concerned about social situation of Miri. The Sarawak Government alleging Tan Seng Hin had harmed the security of the state and intends to use it as a reason to prohibit Tan from entering the state can hardly be accepted by the citizens. Mirians believed that a responsible State Government would not expel a person claimed to be involved in activities harmful to the security of the state from its territory, and irresponsibly off load the problem to other states. Citizens may be curious to see that a person who is deemed to be guilty, and the government is keeping tab on him, not on his endeavour to escape, but his “attempts” to enter the state.

The deportation of Tan Seng Hin revealed that the Sarawak Government had abused its power and seriously violated the Article 13 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 13:
(1) everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the country.
(2) everyone has the right to leave any country; including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 19: everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference.

The act to prevent Tan Seng Hin entering the state to vote had violated Article 3(1)(n) of the < election offences act 1954>

During the election period, the chairman of Election Commission of Malaysia had pledged sincerely to chastise the violators of this act, hoped that there be no double standard or saying one thing and doing otherwise.

Case 2: On 07/03/08 at around 10:00pm, more than 10 cars carrying BN flags, with dark windows, attempted to disrupt a political speech given by DAP by driving into the crowd, blasting horns and bellowing with accelerators. One member of public was hurt, causing dispute and commotion. The police intervened to end the dispute. On the eve of election day, SUPP solemnly clarified in several major newspaper denying the rumours that they were using money to buy votes. Due to lack of evidence, DAP Miri did not publicize the matter, even though we had heard about it. Looking at SUPP’s seriousness in its attitude and its solemn declaration, together with the above two cases, people further more believed that the rumours might not be baseless. The prohibition of Tan Seng Hin ‘s petty sum of one vote, the gangsters’ disruptive actions, can only lead people to believe that the BN would resort to any means in order to achieve their objectives.

Worries pervade the public in general due to the sense that as public security deteriorates and the gangsters’ organizations evolve into entrepreneurial entities resulting in the gangsterism’s influence growing bigger and becoming a serious problem. Public were shocked to see that the BN’s election working team consisted of gang members. The government proclaimed their fight against crime, on the other end, the public cannot discern the complete eradication of the gangsters. After the above cases came to light, people would realize that the government had employed domineering tactics on Tan Seng Hin similar to the gangsters, and would acknowledge that under the shield of the government, the gangsters would continue to proliferate and rampage about. How then, can the people continue to have confidence in the BN government and the future of the nation? ‘Black sheep’ (unscrupulous persons) within the BN may exist, it is not totally the fault of the BN government. However, should the BN government not take action to investigate after receiving information, the people would regard the BN government collaborating with the unscrupulous persons, tacitly allowing illegal activities to continue.

People, in their guest for true democracy, would expect healthy competition between the two-party in order to genuinely benefit the people. The expectation that victory built upon the mistakes of the other party certainly is a far cry from what democratic seekers relish.

Timely rectification of faults , the establishment of two-party system engaged in fair and healthy competition , should be the BN utmost urgent task. Waiting until the day when people equate the BN with injustice might just be too late.

Yours faithfully

Fong Pau Teck

Chairman DAP Miri Branch Sarawak

致阿都拉公开信

【党团文告／民主行动党（美里支部主席房保德）】在野党在第12届全国大选中获得了建国后有史以来的佳绩。大选过后，国阵各族领袖纷纷对国阵在此届大选取得不理想的成绩提出各自的看法。马华公会领袖认为，马华公会在本届大选遭遇惨败是被巫统拖累，因为一些巫统领袖经常在公开场合发表和做出有损他族感受的言论和举动，使到华社反感而不投选马华公会候选人。

当然也有一些马华公会领袖认为，马华公会作为华社在国阵内的代表，无法及时纠正国阵内的偏差，马华公会不应该把过失全归咎巫统，马华公会也需要承担办事不力的过失。

基本上，马华公会领袖上述两种意见，皆说明了一些国阵领袖的所作所为，严重地损害了国阵的形象，使到各族人民把国阵和贪污，滥权，霸道等等违反社会公义的行为联想在一起。在治安不靖，燃油价格高涨而引起通货膨胀的民怨中，人民就毫不犹豫的以手中选票否决了国阵。

事实上，破坏国阵形象的又岂只是一些巫统领袖呢？在今年3月7日发生在美里选区的两件事就大大破坏了国阵的形象，而两件事都被报章广泛报道。国阵政府如果没有严正看待此事件而采取行动调查，必加深人民对于国阵滥权，霸道，违反社会公义的负面看法。

陈成兴事件

事件一∶马来西亚公民陈成兴和夫人在今年3月7日飞抵美里机场，准备在隔天（3月8日）覆行公民权利和义务在美里选区投下神圣的一票，并计划于3月9日乘搭下午四时的飞机离开。然而，此举遭到美里移民厅官员的阻止。移民厅官员告诉陈成兴说陈已被砂拉越政府列入不准入境的“黑名单”。

资料显示，砂州移民厅在2000年12月22日突然向陈成兴发出勒令其离境并禁止其再入境的通知而没有给予任何理由。事件被民主行动党国会议员带到国会中辩论，有关方面给予的理由是∶

一、陈成兴对社会和谐构成危害。

二、陈成兴对允许他居住在该地23年的砂州政府忘恩负义。

三、煽动当地人民。

四、陈成兴以美里海南会馆秘书的身份批评州政府。

陈成兴（左图）表示，居住在美里的23年中，没有参与任何非法活动。1995年被推选为美里海南会馆的秘书，在离境前，被海南会馆委派为美里培民中学2001—2002年度董事代表。

陈成兴在担任美里海南会馆秘书期间，曾代表会馆对美里的华文教育及美里两所华文独中（廉中和培中）的办学方针和政策，提出一些意见和批评。美里海南会馆的主张是，华文独中必须坚持母语教育办学方针，反对把独中课程用英语教学。陈成兴代表海南会馆表达的立场是，担忧别有居心者可能利用科廷大学的设立，来变质（即改变其教学媒介语为英文英语）美里两所独中，甚至全砂的所有华文独中。

到目前为止，砂拉越州政府仍然无法提供具体的证据来说明陈成兴居留美里期间所涉及的所谓煽动人民，对社会构成危害的极端行为，即表示砂州政府对于陈成兴以海南会馆秘书身份发表“别有居心者可能利用科廷大学的设立来变质美里两所独中，甚至全砂的所有华文独中”感到极度厌恶和不安，必须除之而后快。那所谓煽动人民和对社会构成危害的说词显然是在蓄意抹黑陈成兴以作为合理化驱逐陈成兴出境的一个做法。

美里是个小地方，陈成兴有没有涉及任何极端行为，关心社会动态者心里有数。砂州政府以陈成兴危害砂州安全为由而禁止其入境是难以服众的。美里人民相信，作为负责任的州政府，不是不负责任的在没有说明理由的情况下把一个被指涉及危害社会安全的人仕驱逐出砂州境内，把问题推给国内其他州属，而令人感到纳闷的是，被认定犯了事的另一方，在政府已经开始注意他时，不是努力潜逃却试图闯关入境。

砂州政府把陈成兴驱出砂州已显示其滥用权力，且严重触犯世界人权宣言第十三及十九条列。第十三条列：(一) 人人在各国境内有权自由迁徒和居住。 （二）人人有权离开任何国家，包括其本国在内，并有权返回他的国家。第十九条列：人人享有主张和发表意见的自由；此项权力包括有主张而不受干涉的自由。而阻止陈成兴履行公民权利和义务进行投票，也已触犯《1995年选举犯罪法令3(1)(n)条文》。有关方面在选举期间，还信誓旦旦要严惩触犯此条例者，希望有关方面不要说一套做一套，或持双重标准。

大选前夕闹事

事件二∶十余辆挂着国阵和人联党旗帜，车镜漆黑的车队在3月7日晚上10时左右闯入民主行动党的政治演讲会现场，猛按车笛，踩油门闹场，还撞伤一名公众，一度引起纷争。在警方介入后方平息纷争。

就在投票日前夕，人联党在本地各大报章刊登了一则澄清启事，郑重否认市面谣传人联党购买选票一事。民主行动党对人联党购买选票一事也略有所闻，惟没有掌握任何证据，因此也没有刻意炒作。从人联党郑重其事看来，在加上发生了上述两件事情，人民益发相信传言非空穴来风。连陈成兴的区区一张选票，有关方面也要阻止其投下，再加上流氓闹场事件，怎不叫人民相信国阵为求达到目的而不择手段。

当治安败坏，黑社会逐步企业化而壮大，引起人民普遍担忧之际，人民惊见国阵的助选队伍居然和黑社会份子扯上关系。政府这边厢扬言扫黑，那边厢，人民却发现黑帮份子除之不尽，扫之不绝。上述事件曝光后，人民惊觉政府对付陈成兴的霸道手段有如流氓，而认定在政府的包庇下，黑帮份子才能继续在社会横行。那人民对于国阵政府和国家的未来，还存有什么信心？国阵内部的一些害群之马的所作所为，固然不能完全归咎国阵政府，然而，要是国阵政府在知情后没有采取任何行动，人民会把这种包庇行为理解为国阵中央政府和这些害群之马同流合污，而默许这些不法行为的发生。

追求真正民主的人仕，当然是希望在两线制上寻求良性的竞争，才能真正造福人民，期望胜利建筑在另一方的错误上，绝不是追求真正民主人仕所希罕。

适时纠正错误，建立两线制的公平和良性竞争平台，是国阵当务之急，不要等到人民在观念上把国阵和违反社会公义划上等号时，一切已经太迟。

http://www.merdekareview.com/news.php?n=6961