I take this opportunity to wish all of you a Happy New Year.
2009 is expected to be an eventful and roller coaster year.
Saya mengambil kesempatan ini mengucapkan selamat tahun baru kepada kawan-kawan saya.
Ramai yang meramalkan tahun 2009 sebagai tahun penuh cabaran dan dugaan. Marilah kita sama-sama berusaha untuk mengharungi sebarang cabaran dan dugaan yang akan ditemui kelak.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
人民公正党巫统化
不管怎样，我始终认为人民公正党是巫统的化身。
很多目前在公正党的强人，都是安华在巫统呼风唤雨时的跟随者。当然，在那段时间，华人社会有时候往往对安华的一些言论举止“咬牙切齿”。
公正党最近公布了各州联委会主席人选：
各州联委会主席的最新名单：彭亨州法兹阿都拉曼（Fauzi Abdul Rahman）、槟州再林（Zahrain Mohamed Hashim）、森美兰卡玛鲁（Kamarul Baharin Abbas）、雪兰莪／联邦直辖区卡立依布拉欣（Khalid Ibrahim）、沙巴／砂拉越安华依布拉欣（Anwar Ibrahim）、吉打阿末卡欣（Ahmad Kassim）、吉兰丹阿兹卡迪（Aziz Ab Kadir）、玻璃市佐哈里（Johari Shafie）、马六甲卡立嘉化（Khalid Jaafar）、柔佛查丽哈慕斯达法（Zaliha Mustaffa）、霹雳奥斯曼（Osman Abdul Rahman）及登嘉楼旺拉欣（Wan Rahim Wan Hamzah）。
这份名单清一色由该党马来党员担任州主席，原本以为在槟城可以委任华人出任州主席，但是，该党的华裔党员可要失望了。
I always opine that Parti Keadilan is “UMNO” in another form.
Just look at the important guys in the said Party , all of them are followers of Anwar when he was the strongman in UMNO. Of course , during those time when Anwar was almost at the helm of UMNO , some of his policies / announcements / deeds had caused many Chinese in Malaysia disillusioned , angry etc.
The recent appointments of the State Chairman of Parti Keadilan in all the 13 states supports my view that Parti Keadilan is another UMNO.
I believe that the voters who supported Keadilan and in particular its members in Penang must have expected that at least in the Penang State , Anwar would have appointed a non Malay to lead Penang State.
But , Anwar is Anwar , he will continue with his style as he was in UMNO.
This also explains why until now he has yet to openly state/declare his stand over the statement made by PAS Vice Chairman on the issue of Hudud Law.
很多目前在公正党的强人，都是安华在巫统呼风唤雨时的跟随者。当然，在那段时间，华人社会有时候往往对安华的一些言论举止“咬牙切齿”。
公正党最近公布了各州联委会主席人选：
各州联委会主席的最新名单：彭亨州法兹阿都拉曼（Fauzi Abdul Rahman）、槟州再林（Zahrain Mohamed Hashim）、森美兰卡玛鲁（Kamarul Baharin Abbas）、雪兰莪／联邦直辖区卡立依布拉欣（Khalid Ibrahim）、沙巴／砂拉越安华依布拉欣（Anwar Ibrahim）、吉打阿末卡欣（Ahmad Kassim）、吉兰丹阿兹卡迪（Aziz Ab Kadir）、玻璃市佐哈里（Johari Shafie）、马六甲卡立嘉化（Khalid Jaafar）、柔佛查丽哈慕斯达法（Zaliha Mustaffa）、霹雳奥斯曼（Osman Abdul Rahman）及登嘉楼旺拉欣（Wan Rahim Wan Hamzah）。
这份名单清一色由该党马来党员担任州主席，原本以为在槟城可以委任华人出任州主席，但是，该党的华裔党员可要失望了。
I always opine that Parti Keadilan is “UMNO” in another form.
Just look at the important guys in the said Party , all of them are followers of Anwar when he was the strongman in UMNO. Of course , during those time when Anwar was almost at the helm of UMNO , some of his policies / announcements / deeds had caused many Chinese in Malaysia disillusioned , angry etc.
The recent appointments of the State Chairman of Parti Keadilan in all the 13 states supports my view that Parti Keadilan is another UMNO.
I believe that the voters who supported Keadilan and in particular its members in Penang must have expected that at least in the Penang State , Anwar would have appointed a non Malay to lead Penang State.
But , Anwar is Anwar , he will continue with his style as he was in UMNO.
This also explains why until now he has yet to openly state/declare his stand over the statement made by PAS Vice Chairman on the issue of Hudud Law.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
一百万拨款 V 首长把孩子送进独中
南洋商报北马版在25日封面访问槟州五间独中负责人关于来年报读独中的新生人数。
话题当然要谈到百万拨款。到底百万拨款对州内五间独中的招生是否有帮助？
参与槟州独中的实际工作者每一年在新学年开始时总是抱着战战兢兢的心情，因为大家都在担心到底会招收到多少新生。还有一点就是新生总是珊珊来迟，往往必须等到新学年要开始时才能够比较肯定人数。
为什么？
因为在槟城，有不少名校，是国民型中学，是家长的首选，大家都想把孩子送到国民型中学。讲的难听一点，在很多家长的眼中，独中就是“后备轮胎”！
看南洋商报的报道，觉的两位拿督的看法最中肯，百万拨款根本和独中招生没有关系，是两回事。
其实，可能很多人忘记了，首席部长在大约在今年中时为孩子从马六甲迁校到槟城时，当时他的顾问忘记劝他把孩子送到州内五间独中的其中一间。还有就是州内的华教协调委员会也忘了协调，不然，首长孩子读独中应该是最好的“金字招牌”。
有了金字招牌，独中校长们坐在办公室里面就有很多学生来了！
话题当然要谈到百万拨款。到底百万拨款对州内五间独中的招生是否有帮助？
参与槟州独中的实际工作者每一年在新学年开始时总是抱着战战兢兢的心情，因为大家都在担心到底会招收到多少新生。还有一点就是新生总是珊珊来迟，往往必须等到新学年要开始时才能够比较肯定人数。
为什么？
因为在槟城，有不少名校，是国民型中学，是家长的首选，大家都想把孩子送到国民型中学。讲的难听一点，在很多家长的眼中，独中就是“后备轮胎”！
看南洋商报的报道，觉的两位拿督的看法最中肯，百万拨款根本和独中招生没有关系，是两回事。
其实，可能很多人忘记了，首席部长在大约在今年中时为孩子从马六甲迁校到槟城时，当时他的顾问忘记劝他把孩子送到州内五间独中的其中一间。还有就是州内的华教协调委员会也忘了协调，不然，首长孩子读独中应该是最好的“金字招牌”。
有了金字招牌，独中校长们坐在办公室里面就有很多学生来了！
做好事、慈善事业一定是义务工作吗？
“点滴归公”，这是常常与慈善事业挂在一起的句子。
长久以来，在本地人的观念中，慈善事业一定要是义务的。同样的，华文教育工作也是慈善工作的一类，因此，大家也期待义务性质，不只义务，还要出钱出力。
在这方面，全各地的60间华文独立中学的董事、赞助人最清楚不过。但是，由董事、赞助人长期资助独中也不是办法，因此，近年来就有些有识之士提出了独中要“以校养校”，不能长期的依靠社会善长仁翁。
其实，在外国，就曾经出现一些专门帮慈善事业筹款的公司，这些公司的负责人都不是义务工作人员，相反的，他们的专业工作就是受委托来帮慈善机构集资筹款。
但是，这的确是一个深具争论性的课题。NEW YORK TIMES 的知名专栏作者，NICHOLAS KRISTOF 就在25/12/2008的文章提到了这个争论性的问题。
December 25, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Sin in Doing Good Deeds
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Here’s a question for the holiday season: If a businessman rakes in a hefty profit while doing good works, is that charity or greed? Do we applaud or hiss?
A new book, “Uncharitable,” seethes with indignation at public expectations that charities be prudent, nonprofit and saintly. The author, Dan Pallotta, argues that those expectations make them less effective, and he has a point.
Mr. Pallotta’s frustration is intertwined with his own history as the inventor of fund-raisers like AIDSRides and Breast Cancer 3-Days — events that, he says, netted $305 million over nine years for unrestricted use by charities. In the aid world, that’s a breathtaking sum.
But Mr. Pallotta’s company wasn’t a charity, but rather a for-profit company that created charitable events. Critics railed at his $394,500 salary — low for a corporate chief executive, but stratospheric in the aid world — and at the millions of dollars spent on advertising and marketing and other expenses.
“Shame on Pallotta,” declared one critic at the time, accusing him of “greed and unabashed profiteering.” In the aftermath of a wave of criticism, his company collapsed.
One breast cancer charity that parted ways with Mr. Pallotta began producing its own fund-raising walks, but the net sum raised by those walks for breast cancer research plummeted from $71 million to $11 million, he says.
Mr. Pallotta argues powerfully that the aid world is stunted because groups are discouraged from using such standard business tools as advertising, risk-taking, competitive salaries and profits to lure capital.
“We allow people to make huge profits doing any number of things that will hurt the poor, but we want to crucify anyone who wants to make money helping them,” Mr. Pallotta says. “Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.”
I confess to ambivalence. I deeply admire the other kind of aid workers, those whose passion for their work is evident by the fact that they’ve gone broke doing it. I’m filled with awe when I go to a place like Darfur and see unpaid or underpaid aid workers in groups like Doctors Without Borders, risking their lives to patch up the victims of genocide.
I also worry that if aid groups paid executives as lavishly as Citigroup, they would be managed as badly as Citigroup.
Yet there’s a broad recognition in much of the aid community that a major rethink is necessary, that groups would be more effective if they borrowed more tools from the business world, and that there is too much “gotcha” scrutiny on overhead rather than on what they actually accomplish. It’s notable that leaders of Oxfam and Save the Children have publicly endorsed the book, and it’s certainly becoming more socially acceptable to note that businesses can also play a powerful role in fighting poverty.
“Howard Schultz has done more for coffee-growing regions of Africa than anybody I can think of,” Michael Fairbanks, a development expert, said of the chief executive of Starbucks. By helping countries improve their coffee-growing practices and brand their coffees, Starbucks has probably helped impoverished African coffee farmers more than any aid group has.
Mr. Fairbanks himself demonstrates that a businessman can do good even as he does well. Rwanda’s president, Paul Kagame, hired Mr. Fairbanks’s consulting company and paid it millions of dollars between 2000 and 2007.
In turn, Mr. Fairbanks helped Rwanda market its coffee, tea and gorillas. Rwandan coffee now retails for up to $55 a pound in Manhattan, wages in the Rwandan coffee sector have soared up to eight-fold, and zillionaires stumble through the Rwandan jungle to admire the wildlife.
President Kagame thanked Mr. Fairbanks by granting him Rwandan citizenship.
There are lots of saintly aid workers in Rwanda, including the heroic Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health, and they do extraordinary work. But sometimes, so do the suits. Isaac Durojaiye, a Nigerian businessman, is an example of the way the line is beginning to blur between businesses and charities. He runs a for-profit franchise business that provides fee-for-use public toilets in Nigeria. When he started, there was one public toilet in Nigeria for every 200,000 people, but by charging, he has been able to provide basic sanitation to far more people than any aid group.
In the war on poverty, there is room for all kinds of organizations. Mr. Pallotta may be right that by frowning on aid groups that pay high salaries, advertise extensively and even turn a profit, we end up hurting the world’s neediest.
“People continue to die as a result,” he says bluntly. “This we call morality.”
长久以来，在本地人的观念中，慈善事业一定要是义务的。同样的，华文教育工作也是慈善工作的一类，因此，大家也期待义务性质，不只义务，还要出钱出力。
在这方面，全各地的60间华文独立中学的董事、赞助人最清楚不过。但是，由董事、赞助人长期资助独中也不是办法，因此，近年来就有些有识之士提出了独中要“以校养校”，不能长期的依靠社会善长仁翁。
其实，在外国，就曾经出现一些专门帮慈善事业筹款的公司，这些公司的负责人都不是义务工作人员，相反的，他们的专业工作就是受委托来帮慈善机构集资筹款。
但是，这的确是一个深具争论性的课题。NEW YORK TIMES 的知名专栏作者，NICHOLAS KRISTOF 就在25/12/2008的文章提到了这个争论性的问题。
December 25, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Sin in Doing Good Deeds
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Here’s a question for the holiday season: If a businessman rakes in a hefty profit while doing good works, is that charity or greed? Do we applaud or hiss?
A new book, “Uncharitable,” seethes with indignation at public expectations that charities be prudent, nonprofit and saintly. The author, Dan Pallotta, argues that those expectations make them less effective, and he has a point.
Mr. Pallotta’s frustration is intertwined with his own history as the inventor of fund-raisers like AIDSRides and Breast Cancer 3-Days — events that, he says, netted $305 million over nine years for unrestricted use by charities. In the aid world, that’s a breathtaking sum.
But Mr. Pallotta’s company wasn’t a charity, but rather a for-profit company that created charitable events. Critics railed at his $394,500 salary — low for a corporate chief executive, but stratospheric in the aid world — and at the millions of dollars spent on advertising and marketing and other expenses.
“Shame on Pallotta,” declared one critic at the time, accusing him of “greed and unabashed profiteering.” In the aftermath of a wave of criticism, his company collapsed.
One breast cancer charity that parted ways with Mr. Pallotta began producing its own fund-raising walks, but the net sum raised by those walks for breast cancer research plummeted from $71 million to $11 million, he says.
Mr. Pallotta argues powerfully that the aid world is stunted because groups are discouraged from using such standard business tools as advertising, risk-taking, competitive salaries and profits to lure capital.
“We allow people to make huge profits doing any number of things that will hurt the poor, but we want to crucify anyone who wants to make money helping them,” Mr. Pallotta says. “Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.”
I confess to ambivalence. I deeply admire the other kind of aid workers, those whose passion for their work is evident by the fact that they’ve gone broke doing it. I’m filled with awe when I go to a place like Darfur and see unpaid or underpaid aid workers in groups like Doctors Without Borders, risking their lives to patch up the victims of genocide.
I also worry that if aid groups paid executives as lavishly as Citigroup, they would be managed as badly as Citigroup.
Yet there’s a broad recognition in much of the aid community that a major rethink is necessary, that groups would be more effective if they borrowed more tools from the business world, and that there is too much “gotcha” scrutiny on overhead rather than on what they actually accomplish. It’s notable that leaders of Oxfam and Save the Children have publicly endorsed the book, and it’s certainly becoming more socially acceptable to note that businesses can also play a powerful role in fighting poverty.
“Howard Schultz has done more for coffee-growing regions of Africa than anybody I can think of,” Michael Fairbanks, a development expert, said of the chief executive of Starbucks. By helping countries improve their coffee-growing practices and brand their coffees, Starbucks has probably helped impoverished African coffee farmers more than any aid group has.
Mr. Fairbanks himself demonstrates that a businessman can do good even as he does well. Rwanda’s president, Paul Kagame, hired Mr. Fairbanks’s consulting company and paid it millions of dollars between 2000 and 2007.
In turn, Mr. Fairbanks helped Rwanda market its coffee, tea and gorillas. Rwandan coffee now retails for up to $55 a pound in Manhattan, wages in the Rwandan coffee sector have soared up to eight-fold, and zillionaires stumble through the Rwandan jungle to admire the wildlife.
President Kagame thanked Mr. Fairbanks by granting him Rwandan citizenship.
There are lots of saintly aid workers in Rwanda, including the heroic Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health, and they do extraordinary work. But sometimes, so do the suits. Isaac Durojaiye, a Nigerian businessman, is an example of the way the line is beginning to blur between businesses and charities. He runs a for-profit franchise business that provides fee-for-use public toilets in Nigeria. When he started, there was one public toilet in Nigeria for every 200,000 people, but by charging, he has been able to provide basic sanitation to far more people than any aid group.
In the war on poverty, there is room for all kinds of organizations. Mr. Pallotta may be right that by frowning on aid groups that pay high salaries, advertise extensively and even turn a profit, we end up hurting the world’s neediest.
“People continue to die as a result,” he says bluntly. “This we call morality.”
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
连美国都要改革了!
汤母斯费里曼(THOMAS FRIEDMAN)在他的专栏谈到了美国落后的机场、火车上大手机中断、简陋的设备等，他认为金融风暴为美国带来改革的契机。
December 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Time to Reboot America
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
I had a bad day last Friday, but it was an all-too-typical day for America.
It actually started well, on Kau Sai Chau, an island off Hong Kong, where I stood on a rocky hilltop overlooking the South China Sea and talked to my wife back in Maryland, static-free, using a friend’s Chinese cellphone. A few hours later, I took off from Hong Kong’s ultramodern airport after riding out there from downtown on a sleek high-speed train — with wireless connectivity that was so good I was able to surf the Web the whole way on my laptop.
Landing at Kennedy Airport from Hong Kong was, as I’ve argued before, like going from the Jetsons to the Flintstones. The ugly, low-ceilinged arrival hall was cramped, and using a luggage cart cost $3. (Couldn’t we at least supply foreign visitors with a free luggage cart, like other major airports in the world?) As I looked around at this dingy room, it reminded of somewhere I had been before. Then I remembered: It was the luggage hall in the old Hong Kong Kai Tak Airport. It closed in 1998.
The next day I went to Penn Station, where the escalators down to the tracks are so narrow that they seem to have been designed before suitcases were invented. The disgusting track-side platforms apparently have not been cleaned since World War II. I took the Acela, America’s sorry excuse for a bullet train, from New York to Washington. Along the way, I tried to use my cellphone to conduct an interview and my conversation was interrupted by three dropped calls within one 15-minute span.
All I could think to myself was: If we’re so smart, why are other people living so much better than us? What has become of our infrastructure, which is so crucial to productivity? Back home, I was greeted by the news that General Motors was being bailed out — that’s the G.M. that Fortune magazine just noted “lost more than $72 billion in the past four years, and yet you can count on one hand the number of executives who have been reassigned or lost their job.”
My fellow Americans, we can’t continue in this mode of “Dumb as we wanna be.” We’ve indulged ourselves for too long with tax cuts that we can’t afford, bailouts of auto companies that have become giant wealth-destruction machines, energy prices that do not encourage investment in 21st-century renewable power systems or efficient cars, public schools with no national standards to prevent illiterates from graduating and immigration policies that have our colleges educating the world’s best scientists and engineers and then, when these foreigners graduate, instead of stapling green cards to their diplomas, we order them to go home and start companies to compete against ours.
To top it off, we’ve fallen into a trend of diverting and rewarding the best of our collective I.Q. to people doing financial engineering rather than real engineering. These rocket scientists and engineers were designing complex financial instruments to make money out of money — rather than designing cars, phones, computers, teaching tools, Internet programs and medical equipment that could improve the lives and productivity of millions.
For all these reasons, our present crisis is not just a financial meltdown crying out for a cash injection. We are in much deeper trouble. In fact, we as a country have become General Motors — as a result of our national drift. Look in the mirror: G.M. is us.
That’s why we don’t just need a bailout. We need a reboot. We need a build out. We need a buildup. We need a national makeover. That is why the next few months are among the most important in U.S. history. Because of the financial crisis, Barack Obama has the bipartisan support to spend $1 trillion in stimulus. But we must make certain that every bailout dollar, which we’re borrowing from our kids’ future, is spent wisely.
It has to go into training teachers, educating scientists and engineers, paying for research and building the most productivity-enhancing infrastructure — without building white elephants. Generally, I’d like to see fewer government dollars shoveled out and more creative tax incentives to stimulate the private sector to catalyze new industries and new markets. If we allow this money to be spent on pork, it will be the end of us.
America still has the right stuff to thrive. We still have the most creative, diverse, innovative culture and open society — in a world where the ability to imagine and generate new ideas with speed and to implement them through global collaboration is the most important competitive advantage. China may have great airports, but last week it went back to censoring The New York Times and other Western news sites. Censorship restricts your people’s imaginations. That’s really, really dumb. And that’s why for all our missteps, the 21st century is still up for grabs.
John Kennedy led us on a journey to discover the moon. Obama needs to lead us on a journey to rediscover, rebuild and reinvent our own backyard.
Merry Christmas!
December 24, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Time to Reboot America
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
I had a bad day last Friday, but it was an all-too-typical day for America.
It actually started well, on Kau Sai Chau, an island off Hong Kong, where I stood on a rocky hilltop overlooking the South China Sea and talked to my wife back in Maryland, static-free, using a friend’s Chinese cellphone. A few hours later, I took off from Hong Kong’s ultramodern airport after riding out there from downtown on a sleek high-speed train — with wireless connectivity that was so good I was able to surf the Web the whole way on my laptop.
Landing at Kennedy Airport from Hong Kong was, as I’ve argued before, like going from the Jetsons to the Flintstones. The ugly, low-ceilinged arrival hall was cramped, and using a luggage cart cost $3. (Couldn’t we at least supply foreign visitors with a free luggage cart, like other major airports in the world?) As I looked around at this dingy room, it reminded of somewhere I had been before. Then I remembered: It was the luggage hall in the old Hong Kong Kai Tak Airport. It closed in 1998.
The next day I went to Penn Station, where the escalators down to the tracks are so narrow that they seem to have been designed before suitcases were invented. The disgusting track-side platforms apparently have not been cleaned since World War II. I took the Acela, America’s sorry excuse for a bullet train, from New York to Washington. Along the way, I tried to use my cellphone to conduct an interview and my conversation was interrupted by three dropped calls within one 15-minute span.
All I could think to myself was: If we’re so smart, why are other people living so much better than us? What has become of our infrastructure, which is so crucial to productivity? Back home, I was greeted by the news that General Motors was being bailed out — that’s the G.M. that Fortune magazine just noted “lost more than $72 billion in the past four years, and yet you can count on one hand the number of executives who have been reassigned or lost their job.”
My fellow Americans, we can’t continue in this mode of “Dumb as we wanna be.” We’ve indulged ourselves for too long with tax cuts that we can’t afford, bailouts of auto companies that have become giant wealth-destruction machines, energy prices that do not encourage investment in 21st-century renewable power systems or efficient cars, public schools with no national standards to prevent illiterates from graduating and immigration policies that have our colleges educating the world’s best scientists and engineers and then, when these foreigners graduate, instead of stapling green cards to their diplomas, we order them to go home and start companies to compete against ours.
To top it off, we’ve fallen into a trend of diverting and rewarding the best of our collective I.Q. to people doing financial engineering rather than real engineering. These rocket scientists and engineers were designing complex financial instruments to make money out of money — rather than designing cars, phones, computers, teaching tools, Internet programs and medical equipment that could improve the lives and productivity of millions.
For all these reasons, our present crisis is not just a financial meltdown crying out for a cash injection. We are in much deeper trouble. In fact, we as a country have become General Motors — as a result of our national drift. Look in the mirror: G.M. is us.
That’s why we don’t just need a bailout. We need a reboot. We need a build out. We need a buildup. We need a national makeover. That is why the next few months are among the most important in U.S. history. Because of the financial crisis, Barack Obama has the bipartisan support to spend $1 trillion in stimulus. But we must make certain that every bailout dollar, which we’re borrowing from our kids’ future, is spent wisely.
It has to go into training teachers, educating scientists and engineers, paying for research and building the most productivity-enhancing infrastructure — without building white elephants. Generally, I’d like to see fewer government dollars shoveled out and more creative tax incentives to stimulate the private sector to catalyze new industries and new markets. If we allow this money to be spent on pork, it will be the end of us.
America still has the right stuff to thrive. We still have the most creative, diverse, innovative culture and open society — in a world where the ability to imagine and generate new ideas with speed and to implement them through global collaboration is the most important competitive advantage. China may have great airports, but last week it went back to censoring The New York Times and other Western news sites. Censorship restricts your people’s imaginations. That’s really, really dumb. And that’s why for all our missteps, the 21st century is still up for grabs.
John Kennedy led us on a journey to discover the moon. Obama needs to lead us on a journey to rediscover, rebuild and reinvent our own backyard.
Merry Christmas!
Friday, December 19, 2008
香港V大马石油价格
最近到香港去，倪震的“偷吃”和亚洲电视王维基都是头条新闻。
但是，还有一条新闻吸引我的关注，那就是香港的石油价格。一周刊和星岛日报都有评论为什么该地的价格没有随着世界油价的下降而下降。其中有谈到的是香港是自由贸易体制，政府对价格是管不了的。香港油价居高不下的其中一个原因是该地油站的租金都很高。
有趣的是星岛日报评论中谈到我国的油价，说政府跟随世界油价的下降而先后几次调低油价。言语中似乎在羡慕大马的消费人。
但是，还有一条新闻吸引我的关注，那就是香港的石油价格。一周刊和星岛日报都有评论为什么该地的价格没有随着世界油价的下降而下降。其中有谈到的是香港是自由贸易体制，政府对价格是管不了的。香港油价居高不下的其中一个原因是该地油站的租金都很高。
有趣的是星岛日报评论中谈到我国的油价，说政府跟随世界油价的下降而先后几次调低油价。言语中似乎在羡慕大马的消费人。
Friday, December 12, 2008
香烟盒子上骇人的图片有效吗?
卫生部已经决定要在所有香烟盒上印上骇人的病重图片作为反吸烟运动的另外一项重点宣传。
但是，最近在纽约时报的一篇OP-ED却带来不同的讯息。
December 12, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Inhaling Fear
By MARTIN LINDSTROM
Sydney, Australia
TEN years ago, in settling the largest civil lawsuit in American history, Big Tobacco agreed to pay the 50 states $246 billion, which they’ve used in part to finance efforts to prevent smoking. The percentage of American adults who smoke has fallen since then to just over 20 percent from nearly 30 percent, but smoking is still the No. 1 preventable cause of death in the United States, and smoking-related health care costs more than $167 billion a year.
To reduce this cost, the incoming Obama administration should abandon one antismoking strategy that isn’t working.
A key component of the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to smoking prevention is to warn about health dangers: Smoking causes fatal lung cancer; smoking causes emphysema; smoking while pregnant causes birth defects. Compared with warnings issued by other nations, these statements are low-key. From Canada to Thailand, Australia to Brazil, warnings on cigarette packs include vivid images of lung tumors, limbs turned gangrenous by peripheral vascular disease and open sores and deteriorating teeth caused by mouth and throat cancers. In October, Britain became the first European country to require similar gruesome images on packaging.
But such warnings don’t work. Worldwide, people continue to inhale 5.7 trillion cigarettes annually — a figure that doesn’t even take into account duty-free or black-market cigarettes. According to World Bank projections, the number of smokers is expected to reach 1.6 billion by 2025, from the current 1.3 billion.
A brain-imaging experiment I conducted in 2006 explains why antismoking scare tactics have been so futile. I examined people’s brain activity as they reacted to cigarette warning labels by using functional magnetic resonance imaging, a scanning technique that can show how much oxygen and glucose a particular area of the brain uses while it works, allowing us to observe which specific regions are active at any given time.
We tested 32 people (from Britain, China, Germany, Japan and the United States), some of whom were social smokers and some of whom were two-pack-a-day addicts. Most of these subjects reported that cigarette warning labels reduced their craving for a cigarette, but their brains told us a different story.
Each subject lay in the scanner for about an hour while we projected on a small screen a series of cigarette package labels from various countries — including statements like “smoking kills” and “smoking causes fatal lung cancers.” We found that the warnings prompted no blood flow to the amygdala, the part of the brain that registers alarm, or to the part of the cortex that would be involved in any effort to register disapproval.
To the contrary, the warning labels backfired: they stimulated the nucleus accumbens, sometimes called the “craving spot,” which lights up on f.M.R.I. whenever a person craves something, whether it’s alcohol, drugs, tobacco or gambling.
Further investigation is needed, but our study has already revealed an unintended consequence of antismoking health warnings. They appear to work mainly as a marketing tool to keep smokers smoking.
Barack Obama has said he’s been using nicotine gum to fight his own cigarette habit. His new administration can help other smokers quit, too, by eliminating the government scare tactics that only increase people’s craving.
Martin Lindstrom is the author of “Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy.”
但是，最近在纽约时报的一篇OP-ED却带来不同的讯息。
December 12, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Inhaling Fear
By MARTIN LINDSTROM
Sydney, Australia
TEN years ago, in settling the largest civil lawsuit in American history, Big Tobacco agreed to pay the 50 states $246 billion, which they’ve used in part to finance efforts to prevent smoking. The percentage of American adults who smoke has fallen since then to just over 20 percent from nearly 30 percent, but smoking is still the No. 1 preventable cause of death in the United States, and smoking-related health care costs more than $167 billion a year.
To reduce this cost, the incoming Obama administration should abandon one antismoking strategy that isn’t working.
A key component of the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to smoking prevention is to warn about health dangers: Smoking causes fatal lung cancer; smoking causes emphysema; smoking while pregnant causes birth defects. Compared with warnings issued by other nations, these statements are low-key. From Canada to Thailand, Australia to Brazil, warnings on cigarette packs include vivid images of lung tumors, limbs turned gangrenous by peripheral vascular disease and open sores and deteriorating teeth caused by mouth and throat cancers. In October, Britain became the first European country to require similar gruesome images on packaging.
But such warnings don’t work. Worldwide, people continue to inhale 5.7 trillion cigarettes annually — a figure that doesn’t even take into account duty-free or black-market cigarettes. According to World Bank projections, the number of smokers is expected to reach 1.6 billion by 2025, from the current 1.3 billion.
A brain-imaging experiment I conducted in 2006 explains why antismoking scare tactics have been so futile. I examined people’s brain activity as they reacted to cigarette warning labels by using functional magnetic resonance imaging, a scanning technique that can show how much oxygen and glucose a particular area of the brain uses while it works, allowing us to observe which specific regions are active at any given time.
We tested 32 people (from Britain, China, Germany, Japan and the United States), some of whom were social smokers and some of whom were two-pack-a-day addicts. Most of these subjects reported that cigarette warning labels reduced their craving for a cigarette, but their brains told us a different story.
Each subject lay in the scanner for about an hour while we projected on a small screen a series of cigarette package labels from various countries — including statements like “smoking kills” and “smoking causes fatal lung cancers.” We found that the warnings prompted no blood flow to the amygdala, the part of the brain that registers alarm, or to the part of the cortex that would be involved in any effort to register disapproval.
To the contrary, the warning labels backfired: they stimulated the nucleus accumbens, sometimes called the “craving spot,” which lights up on f.M.R.I. whenever a person craves something, whether it’s alcohol, drugs, tobacco or gambling.
Further investigation is needed, but our study has already revealed an unintended consequence of antismoking health warnings. They appear to work mainly as a marketing tool to keep smokers smoking.
Barack Obama has said he’s been using nicotine gum to fight his own cigarette habit. His new administration can help other smokers quit, too, by eliminating the government scare tactics that only increase people’s craving.
Martin Lindstrom is the author of “Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy.”
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
马华槟州联委会新闻局文告
反驳及严厉谴责慕克里单一教育政策的建议
(槟城讯) 马华槟州联委会新闻局主任兼槟州马华发言人陈显裕律师今天针对巫青团执委拿督慕克里建议政府废除华文与淡米尔文源流学校，从而落实单一教育政策的建议提出严厉的批评。
马华槟州联委会认为慕克里的建议，充其量只是巫统党选来临之际，一些极端政客的不负责任言论。这些政客，仍然没有办法跳出落伍思想的旧框框。
更令人感到遗憾的是慕克里竟然把华小、淡小的存在硬生生的套在“马来主权”议题上。其实，华小、淡小的存在根本和“马来主权”的议题没有任何关系。
相反的，身为国会议员的慕克里应该知道，从独立到现在，国内的华小已经造就了数十万的马来裔和印裔学生。到了今天，在任何一刻，国内共有超过六万名马来裔和印裔学生正在华小就读。
马华槟州联委会根本看不出慕克里的逻辑思维，唯一可以解释的是他本身为了党选而不惜发出极端言论。“我们要奉劝慕克里，不要为了赢党选而到了最后却输了大选”。
马华槟州联委会坚信华小在我国的地位将永垂不朽，同时也将会更加的发扬光大。华小贡献、价值绝对不会因为不负责任政客的言论而受损。
在这方面，马华槟州联委会必须重复最近国阵和中央政府所达至的协议，那就是政府的拨款将直接拨给华小的董事会，让政府公款可以在善用的原则下，取得更高和实质的效益。单单这一点就足以证明中央政府认同，甚至肯定华小的功能和存在价值。
2.12.2008
马华槟州联委会新闻局发.
反驳及严厉谴责慕克里单一教育政策的建议
(槟城讯) 马华槟州联委会新闻局主任兼槟州马华发言人陈显裕律师今天针对巫青团执委拿督慕克里建议政府废除华文与淡米尔文源流学校，从而落实单一教育政策的建议提出严厉的批评。
马华槟州联委会认为慕克里的建议，充其量只是巫统党选来临之际，一些极端政客的不负责任言论。这些政客，仍然没有办法跳出落伍思想的旧框框。
更令人感到遗憾的是慕克里竟然把华小、淡小的存在硬生生的套在“马来主权”议题上。其实，华小、淡小的存在根本和“马来主权”的议题没有任何关系。
相反的，身为国会议员的慕克里应该知道，从独立到现在，国内的华小已经造就了数十万的马来裔和印裔学生。到了今天，在任何一刻，国内共有超过六万名马来裔和印裔学生正在华小就读。
马华槟州联委会根本看不出慕克里的逻辑思维，唯一可以解释的是他本身为了党选而不惜发出极端言论。“我们要奉劝慕克里，不要为了赢党选而到了最后却输了大选”。
马华槟州联委会坚信华小在我国的地位将永垂不朽，同时也将会更加的发扬光大。华小贡献、价值绝对不会因为不负责任政客的言论而受损。
在这方面，马华槟州联委会必须重复最近国阵和中央政府所达至的协议，那就是政府的拨款将直接拨给华小的董事会，让政府公款可以在善用的原则下，取得更高和实质的效益。单单这一点就足以证明中央政府认同，甚至肯定华小的功能和存在价值。
2.12.2008
马华槟州联委会新闻局发.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
