Too fat to lock up: Bedridden man weighing 43-stone avoids jail for food scam
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1262992/George-Jolicur-The-43-stone-man-fat-lock-up.html#ixzz0jzfidkAz
A 43-stone man found guilty of scamming restaurants out of food has escaped a jail term - because he is too fat.
Morbidly obese George Jolicur ordered huge meals and ate most of them before complaining about the products and sending them back. He would then refuse to pay.
In one episode he scammed five free milkshakes from a restaurant after consuming an entire drink before complaining that the milk was off.
Jolicur, 38, was finally caught after eating almost £30 worth of jerky in a restaurant before returning the last few pieces, claiming they were mouldy. The shop owner went to police.
When officers went to his home to arrest him, they described hearing 'what sounded like a male trying to cover his voice as a female.'
The person told police Jolicur was not there - but policeman Jeff Sabounji then heard a woman inside the house saying: 'George, just turn yourself in.'
On the way to prison, Jolicur, of Sandford, Florida, turned to Sabounji and said: 'The beef jerky got me.'
He avoided jail because he is so fat the medical costs of imprisoning him would be too great.
He is now bedridden, breaths with the aid of a respirator, and could not even attend court to be sentenced. Prosecutors said it would cost thousands in medical fees just to bring him before a judge.
They offered his lawyers a plea deal that in return for avoiding prison he would plead guilty to five charges.
Lawyers for Jolicur accepted thedeal and he was fined £800.
Prosecutor Kyan Ware said: 'He's got his prison cell. He's not getting out of that bed.'
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Dump the NEP - Suflan Shamsuddin (The Malaysian Insider)
Source:http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/suflan-shamsuddin/56090-dump-the-nep
Dump the NEP
by Suflan Shamsuddin
MARCH 13 — In 1970, Bumiputras held 1.5 per cent of the country’s wealth. Today they hold 19 per cent, out of which 16 per cent is held by trust institutions and funds.
This means that over the life of the NEP, despite everything, individual Bumiputra wealth has grown from 1.5 to 3 per cent.
Hardly anything to be proud of. And what has been the costs of this meagre achievement?
Well there is of course the actual cost of making all of these opportunities available in the first place, whether in relation to business and entrepreneurship, education and scholarships, concessions, discounts, pink-slips, property ownership, etc. But that is not all.
Think of the cost to the country for retaining a feudalistic patronage based system that enlarges the socio-economic divide between rich and poor, because the former are the ones who mostly profit from this arrangement.
Think of the sickening and crippling effect that Ketuanan Melayu has had on the mentality and attitudes of many Malays who are conditioned to be dependent on crutches and to embrace short-termism, and who now struggle with issues of self-confidence and self-reliance in a challenging global market place.
What about the cost of having countless businessmen (many of whom were Malays, I might add) who have been wiped out, not by non-Malay competition, but by other Malay businessmen who so happens to have the right ‘connections’ to those in power and pedigree. What about the costs associated with having hundreds of thousands of Malay graduates who have a degree but can’t get good jobs because their qualifications have no market or industry value.
All of these things have a cost to the Malays and everyone in Malaysia.
Let’s not forget the costs associated with the fact that millions of poor and needy non-Malay Malaysians have had no effective social welfare net to rely on so that they remain in squalor. Think also of the costs associated with how disunited we as are, by splitting society into those who are ‘princes of the soil’, and those who aren’t.
We would need to add to this, the costs of having weakened and ineffective institutions of government, across all of its branches, whether it is the legislature, the judiciary or the executive. That would of course include the costs of a bloated and inefficient government beauracracy which has had to absorb countless numbers of Malay graduates that might not find employment elsewhere.
We would also need to take account of the substandard education that our children are getting, and the cost that propaganda and brainwashing has had on making Malays inept to take on the challenges to survive in a meritocratic environment.
The total costs of the NEP would also need to include the very high cost of bailouts and fixing things that have gone wrong because of misused opportunities.
What about the cost of market distortions from lost productivity and competitiveness when competing for business, talent and foreign direct investment and the consequential cost (including for example, brain drain) that follows?
And what of the cost of corruption, that is a necessary bi-product of maintaining a system that lives off of patronage? All these costs must be computed and added to the total NEP bill.
If you try to monetize the aggregate cost of the NEP (or whatever its current incarnation is called), it must run into the hundreds of billions of ringgits, if not more. The NEP has cost the country a mountain of money, and its achievements are at best shoddy and patchy, especially for the Malays themselves.
On top of that, it has created a warped sense of values that are totally inconsistent with universal and Islamic values. With depleted financial resources not being replaced, the socio-economic landscape not changing in the way it was intended, and value systems remaining warped, it is only a matter of time before we become like Zimbabwe.
And there are those who have the audacity to ask that it remains in place?
It’s time to dump the NEP. But that’s not to say that we no longer need affirmative action programmes. We do. But we need these programmes to undergo a ‘game-changing’ re-design to become much more effective.
For the sake of the Malays and everyone else. And to do this we need to take some bold changes.
Firstly, affirmative action programmes must be designed to benefit those who need such support across all races. By definition this means that those who can now stand on their own two feet to realise the opportunity being offered, regardless of what race they are, must be excluded.
But determining who needs what support must however take account, not just of how smart, how financially needy, and how hard working the person seeking such support is, but his/her background and social circumstances. The more such a person is unaccustomed to the rigours of operating in a free market, the more deserving should he be of the programme.
The more that help offered to him is likely to have a major positive impact on him and those around him, the more deserving should he be of the program.
Secondly, the programme cannot be limited to giving opportunities alone. It needs to deliver a life-transforming behavioural change. It needs the beneficiary to come away from having being given this opportunity with the willingness to embrace the challenges of an open and competitive society. This is true whether it relates to opening or building a new business, furthering his education, or sharpening his professional skills.
Finally such programmes must be run professionally, independently and free from political interference. The programmes must not be run by those who are beholden to any set of political beliefs or party system. This is because that would create an irreconcilable conflict of interest as a result of which the program will suffer from the ill effects of poor governance, as has been the case with the NEP.
By developing colour-blind affirmative action programmes along this philosophy, you immediately remove the notion that opportunities are associated with the race to which you belong, even though the bulk of the beneficiaries, given the demographics and their social condition, are likely to still be Malays anyway. A beneficiary is given this break, not because it is his right, but because he is proven to have a need, and society desires to help him meet that need, both for his own sake and for the sake of society itself.
And because of this, the beneficiary is less likely to abuse this gift.
In addition, you remove from the potential list of beneficiaries, anyone that ought to be able to get on without any crutches. By having these programmes run independently and professionally, you also stop rewarding those who are linked to a party or a leader with opportunities.
It is this group that is the biggest strain on the system. It is this group’s greed that keeps elitism and cronyism alive and kicking. We need to stop letting this lot drain the system. By doing so, all the wonton wastage can be put to better use where it is really needed.
Focus on those that are disadvantaged, and leave those who have their own means to get on to compete on their own two feet. With such a shift in emphasis, we are more likely to sustain such effective social engineering programmes over a much longer time horizon, focus on alleviating the conditions of those who are in the most need for help (the bulk of whom, as I said, will remain the Malays), whilst creating a society that is built on the sharing of common universal values of integrity, hard work, respect, tolerance, and compassion.
The only thing that is preventing the above approach from being supported and succeeding is the middle-class Malay’s fear of failure, and the voices of the ultra-Malays.
To the latter I say, we must quell them for being criminally or recklessly irresponsible and ignorant. They are the ones who are causing the Malays to remain backward. To the former I can only quote FDR’s saying, ‘The only thing we have to fear is Fear itself’.
If we can overcome this fear, then God-willing, we can deliver our own salvation and turn this country around to fulfil all of its promises, for everyone.
This means that over the life of the NEP, despite everything, individual Bumiputra wealth has grown from 1.5 to 3 per cent.
Hardly anything to be proud of. And what has been the costs of this meagre achievement?
Well there is of course the actual cost of making all of these opportunities available in the first place, whether in relation to business and entrepreneurship, education and scholarships, concessions, discounts, pink-slips, property ownership, etc. But that is not all.
Think of the cost to the country for retaining a feudalistic patronage based system that enlarges the socio-economic divide between rich and poor, because the former are the ones who mostly profit from this arrangement.
Think of the sickening and crippling effect that Ketuanan Melayu has had on the mentality and attitudes of many Malays who are conditioned to be dependent on crutches and to embrace short-termism, and who now struggle with issues of self-confidence and self-reliance in a challenging global market place.
What about the cost of having countless businessmen (many of whom were Malays, I might add) who have been wiped out, not by non-Malay competition, but by other Malay businessmen who so happens to have the right ‘connections’ to those in power and pedigree. What about the costs associated with having hundreds of thousands of Malay graduates who have a degree but can’t get good jobs because their qualifications have no market or industry value.
All of these things have a cost to the Malays and everyone in Malaysia.
Let’s not forget the costs associated with the fact that millions of poor and needy non-Malay Malaysians have had no effective social welfare net to rely on so that they remain in squalor. Think also of the costs associated with how disunited we as are, by splitting society into those who are ‘princes of the soil’, and those who aren’t.
We would need to add to this, the costs of having weakened and ineffective institutions of government, across all of its branches, whether it is the legislature, the judiciary or the executive. That would of course include the costs of a bloated and inefficient government beauracracy which has had to absorb countless numbers of Malay graduates that might not find employment elsewhere.
We would also need to take account of the substandard education that our children are getting, and the cost that propaganda and brainwashing has had on making Malays inept to take on the challenges to survive in a meritocratic environment.
The total costs of the NEP would also need to include the very high cost of bailouts and fixing things that have gone wrong because of misused opportunities.
What about the cost of market distortions from lost productivity and competitiveness when competing for business, talent and foreign direct investment and the consequential cost (including for example, brain drain) that follows?
And what of the cost of corruption, that is a necessary bi-product of maintaining a system that lives off of patronage? All these costs must be computed and added to the total NEP bill.
If you try to monetize the aggregate cost of the NEP (or whatever its current incarnation is called), it must run into the hundreds of billions of ringgits, if not more. The NEP has cost the country a mountain of money, and its achievements are at best shoddy and patchy, especially for the Malays themselves.
On top of that, it has created a warped sense of values that are totally inconsistent with universal and Islamic values. With depleted financial resources not being replaced, the socio-economic landscape not changing in the way it was intended, and value systems remaining warped, it is only a matter of time before we become like Zimbabwe.
And there are those who have the audacity to ask that it remains in place?
It’s time to dump the NEP. But that’s not to say that we no longer need affirmative action programmes. We do. But we need these programmes to undergo a ‘game-changing’ re-design to become much more effective.
For the sake of the Malays and everyone else. And to do this we need to take some bold changes.
Firstly, affirmative action programmes must be designed to benefit those who need such support across all races. By definition this means that those who can now stand on their own two feet to realise the opportunity being offered, regardless of what race they are, must be excluded.
But determining who needs what support must however take account, not just of how smart, how financially needy, and how hard working the person seeking such support is, but his/her background and social circumstances. The more such a person is unaccustomed to the rigours of operating in a free market, the more deserving should he be of the programme.
The more that help offered to him is likely to have a major positive impact on him and those around him, the more deserving should he be of the program.
Secondly, the programme cannot be limited to giving opportunities alone. It needs to deliver a life-transforming behavioural change. It needs the beneficiary to come away from having being given this opportunity with the willingness to embrace the challenges of an open and competitive society. This is true whether it relates to opening or building a new business, furthering his education, or sharpening his professional skills.
Finally such programmes must be run professionally, independently and free from political interference. The programmes must not be run by those who are beholden to any set of political beliefs or party system. This is because that would create an irreconcilable conflict of interest as a result of which the program will suffer from the ill effects of poor governance, as has been the case with the NEP.
By developing colour-blind affirmative action programmes along this philosophy, you immediately remove the notion that opportunities are associated with the race to which you belong, even though the bulk of the beneficiaries, given the demographics and their social condition, are likely to still be Malays anyway. A beneficiary is given this break, not because it is his right, but because he is proven to have a need, and society desires to help him meet that need, both for his own sake and for the sake of society itself.
And because of this, the beneficiary is less likely to abuse this gift.
In addition, you remove from the potential list of beneficiaries, anyone that ought to be able to get on without any crutches. By having these programmes run independently and professionally, you also stop rewarding those who are linked to a party or a leader with opportunities.
It is this group that is the biggest strain on the system. It is this group’s greed that keeps elitism and cronyism alive and kicking. We need to stop letting this lot drain the system. By doing so, all the wonton wastage can be put to better use where it is really needed.
Focus on those that are disadvantaged, and leave those who have their own means to get on to compete on their own two feet. With such a shift in emphasis, we are more likely to sustain such effective social engineering programmes over a much longer time horizon, focus on alleviating the conditions of those who are in the most need for help (the bulk of whom, as I said, will remain the Malays), whilst creating a society that is built on the sharing of common universal values of integrity, hard work, respect, tolerance, and compassion.
The only thing that is preventing the above approach from being supported and succeeding is the middle-class Malay’s fear of failure, and the voices of the ultra-Malays.
To the latter I say, we must quell them for being criminally or recklessly irresponsible and ignorant. They are the ones who are causing the Malays to remain backward. To the former I can only quote FDR’s saying, ‘The only thing we have to fear is Fear itself’.
If we can overcome this fear, then God-willing, we can deliver our own salvation and turn this country around to fulfil all of its promises, for everyone.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Economic Recovery Noteworthy But Industriousness Key To Continued Survival-BERNAMA
Source:
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=478152
A news analysis by M. Saraswathi
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 26 (Bernama) - Malaysians can now heave a sigh of relief with the economy on an upward path, having expanded by 4.5 per cent in the last quarter of last year after three consecutive contraction quarters.
Rather than celebrating, it will be wise for the people to exercise prudence, while increasing their industriousness amid external uncertainties for an economy that is invariably tied to regional and global economy.
In short, we are not out of the woods yet for economics is a dynamic phenomenon which from to time does not fail to spring surprises much to the chagrin of policymakers.
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that all sectors -- manufacturing, services and construction, except mining, chalked up strong positive growth.
Undoubtedly, this is largely attributable to the spillover of the RM67 billion stimulus package under which 113,000 projects have been or are being implemented, bearing fruit indeed.
The construction sector seems to be an obvious recipient, being the highest growth sector, expanding by 9.2 per cent year-on-year compared with a 7.9 per cent growth in the third quarter.
Further evidence of the economy on the right path is the pick up in container movements at major ports, thousands of jobs are created in the manufacturing sector and listed entities reporting better corporate earnings.
The stock market saw greater interest with rising volume and the index hovering at 1,270-point level.
Figures released by the government showed exports have started to rise while more foreign firms are eyeing listing on the stock exchange.
Credit should go to the government in unveiling the two packages relatively quickly as pre-emptive measures to mitigate adverse effects of a global economy reeling from the onslaught of the U.S. credit crunch.
On the average, the government has pumped about RM1 billion per month into the market since January 2009, which is no easy feat.
Other factors are also raising sentiments and economic optimism.
Earlier this month, a Malaysia-Chinese joint venture aluminium smelting plant in Sarawak was formalised, involving an investment of US$1 billion, clearly reflecting the confidence of Asia�s biggest economic power has in investing in a big way in Malaysia.
Saudi Arabia's institutional portfolio funds are also teaming with Malaysian parties to invest in the economy and third countries, which yet again gives a positive sign to the investment climate in Malaysia.
Hopefully, this will mark a further indicator in the country's path towards rapid and sustained economic recovery.
What was far-sighted was that the stimulus packages encompassed diverse economic and target groups, including workers, consumers, investors, small-and medium-sized businesses, exporters and unemployed graduates.
The government�s measures were also designed to benefit the rural folk, again proving that while the government was focused to grow the economy, it never forgets the people's welfare.
After all, the people are a valuable resource in a nation's endeavour to redeem herself from recession and move forward without too many casualties.
For this year, growth is projected at more than five per cent -- higher than the four per cent projected earlier, thanks to the pro-active measures put in place by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
The prime minister's visits to key economies like China, India and the Middle East to woo much-needed investments are beginning to pay dividends, with investors from these countries now making inroads into the local economy.
However, the extent of Malaysia�s recovery also depends on the health of regional and global economies as external economies will decide the demand for the country�s exports and more so Malaysia is an export-driven nation.
Still, we are well placed to achieve an average six per cent growth a year and attain developed nation status by 2020.
But now the real challenge begins -- to maintain and boost growth.
The much-awaited and long-overdue New Economc Model (NEM) is expected to have the answer with bold measures that will ensure Malaysia makes the quantum leap to a high-income country.
Najib, who is also Finance Minister, is to unveil NEM end-march.
Hopefully, it comes with solutions to the never-ending subsidy issue and how the government plans to reduce the budget deficit, expected to shrink to 5.6 per cent this year from 7.4 per cent last year.
The economic model will incorporate ideas on improving the country�s economic standards and propel Malaysia from a middle-income country into a high-income nation.
One thrust of the model is how to increase workers� productivity through their own efforts via innovation and creativity.
But more than the blueprint itself is the speed of execution of NEM is what will ensure the country�s economy not only remains on the growth path but also is able to weather any kind of storm that awaits us.
The resilience of the domestic economy and healthy corporate and financial sectors plus the NEM will ensure Malaysia is well prepared to seize the opportunities when the global economy recovers.
-- BERNAMA
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=478152
A news analysis by M. Saraswathi
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 26 (Bernama) - Malaysians can now heave a sigh of relief with the economy on an upward path, having expanded by 4.5 per cent in the last quarter of last year after three consecutive contraction quarters.
Rather than celebrating, it will be wise for the people to exercise prudence, while increasing their industriousness amid external uncertainties for an economy that is invariably tied to regional and global economy.
In short, we are not out of the woods yet for economics is a dynamic phenomenon which from to time does not fail to spring surprises much to the chagrin of policymakers.
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that all sectors -- manufacturing, services and construction, except mining, chalked up strong positive growth.
Undoubtedly, this is largely attributable to the spillover of the RM67 billion stimulus package under which 113,000 projects have been or are being implemented, bearing fruit indeed.
The construction sector seems to be an obvious recipient, being the highest growth sector, expanding by 9.2 per cent year-on-year compared with a 7.9 per cent growth in the third quarter.
Further evidence of the economy on the right path is the pick up in container movements at major ports, thousands of jobs are created in the manufacturing sector and listed entities reporting better corporate earnings.
The stock market saw greater interest with rising volume and the index hovering at 1,270-point level.
Figures released by the government showed exports have started to rise while more foreign firms are eyeing listing on the stock exchange.
Credit should go to the government in unveiling the two packages relatively quickly as pre-emptive measures to mitigate adverse effects of a global economy reeling from the onslaught of the U.S. credit crunch.
On the average, the government has pumped about RM1 billion per month into the market since January 2009, which is no easy feat.
Other factors are also raising sentiments and economic optimism.
Earlier this month, a Malaysia-Chinese joint venture aluminium smelting plant in Sarawak was formalised, involving an investment of US$1 billion, clearly reflecting the confidence of Asia�s biggest economic power has in investing in a big way in Malaysia.
Saudi Arabia's institutional portfolio funds are also teaming with Malaysian parties to invest in the economy and third countries, which yet again gives a positive sign to the investment climate in Malaysia.
Hopefully, this will mark a further indicator in the country's path towards rapid and sustained economic recovery.
What was far-sighted was that the stimulus packages encompassed diverse economic and target groups, including workers, consumers, investors, small-and medium-sized businesses, exporters and unemployed graduates.
The government�s measures were also designed to benefit the rural folk, again proving that while the government was focused to grow the economy, it never forgets the people's welfare.
After all, the people are a valuable resource in a nation's endeavour to redeem herself from recession and move forward without too many casualties.
For this year, growth is projected at more than five per cent -- higher than the four per cent projected earlier, thanks to the pro-active measures put in place by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
The prime minister's visits to key economies like China, India and the Middle East to woo much-needed investments are beginning to pay dividends, with investors from these countries now making inroads into the local economy.
However, the extent of Malaysia�s recovery also depends on the health of regional and global economies as external economies will decide the demand for the country�s exports and more so Malaysia is an export-driven nation.
Still, we are well placed to achieve an average six per cent growth a year and attain developed nation status by 2020.
But now the real challenge begins -- to maintain and boost growth.
The much-awaited and long-overdue New Economc Model (NEM) is expected to have the answer with bold measures that will ensure Malaysia makes the quantum leap to a high-income country.
Najib, who is also Finance Minister, is to unveil NEM end-march.
Hopefully, it comes with solutions to the never-ending subsidy issue and how the government plans to reduce the budget deficit, expected to shrink to 5.6 per cent this year from 7.4 per cent last year.
The economic model will incorporate ideas on improving the country�s economic standards and propel Malaysia from a middle-income country into a high-income nation.
One thrust of the model is how to increase workers� productivity through their own efforts via innovation and creativity.
But more than the blueprint itself is the speed of execution of NEM is what will ensure the country�s economy not only remains on the growth path but also is able to weather any kind of storm that awaits us.
The resilience of the domestic economy and healthy corporate and financial sectors plus the NEM will ensure Malaysia is well prepared to seize the opportunities when the global economy recovers.
-- BERNAMA
Sebahagian Besar Industri Berkembang Dengan Kos Palsu-BERNAMA
Source: http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/bm/newsindex.php?id=478194
Analisis Berita Oleh Massita Ahmad
PUTRAJAYA, 26 Feb (Bernama) -- Kos pengeluaran dan operasi sebahagian besar industri di Malaysia boleh dikatakan "kos palsu" kerana sejumlah besar elemen kos tersebut merupakan subsidi yang ditanggung kerajaan, demikian menurut mereka yang arif dalam perkara tersebut.
Golongan pengeluar sewajarnya berasa "malu" apabila mengatakan mereka mengaut keuntungan tetapi pada dasarnya sebahagian besar kos mereka ditanggung pihak lain iaitu kerajaan.
Apatah lagi jika gagal, kerana ditanggung kerajaan pun mereka tetap gagal.
Mengambil contoh gas, sebahagian besar industri berubah kepada penggunaan gas bagi menjalankan aktiviti pengeluaran produk mereka berikutan harga yang lebih murah berbanding diesel.
Walhal kedua-duanya disubsidi oleh kerajaan dan yang membezakannya adalah lebih tinggi atau rendah jumlah subsidi itu.
Harga gas yang disubsidikan bagi sektor tenaga adalah RM10.70 setiap juta unit termal British (mmbtu), pengguna terbesar RM15.35/mmbtu, dan Gas Malaysia Sdn Bhd RM11.05/mmbtu.
Harga tanpa subsidi atau harga pasaran gas ketika ini bagi sektor tenaga adalah RM41.16/mmbtu, pengguna terbesar RM56.20, dan Gas Malaysia RM42.35/mmbtu.
Bagi diesel pula, harga diesel bersubsidi bagi nelayan dan pengangkutan adalah RM38.65/mmbtu atau RM1.43 seliter dan harga di pam ialah RM45.95/mmbtu atau RM1.70 seliter.
Harga pasaran bagi diesel ketika ini adalah RM55.00/mmbtu.
Melihat angka-angka ini, pihak industri pasti boleh membezakan harga gas bersubsidi yang mereka "nikmati" selama ini.
Golongan sasar bagi subsidi seperti para nelayan pula pasti "menggelengkan kepala" melihat betapa rendahnya subsidi yang mereka terima jika dibandingkan sebahagian besar industri itu.
Kerajaan dianggarkan menanggung beban bagi subsidi gas sahaja melebihi RM20 bilion pada tahun ini dan akan terus "menggunung" pada tahun-tahun akan datang sekiranya harga gas terus disubsidikan.
Lebih malang adalah jumlah subsidi yang pada awalnya berada pada sekitar RM7 bilion pada lima tahun lalu hanya dinikmati oleh sebahagian industri tertentu tetapi tidak oleh masyarakat keseluruhan.
Sebahagian besar industri ini mungkin "pura-pura" tidak sedar bahawa mereka sebenarnya tidak cekap dalam penggunaan bahan api atau komoditi tersebut dengan berterusan menggunakan gas berharga rendah "akibat" disubsidikan kerajaan.
Penggunaan gas berharga pasaran mungkin akan "menyedarkan" mereka ini untuk meningkatkan kecekapan dan berusaha untuk menjimatkan kos mereka dan seterusnya meningkatkan daya saing.
Berdasarkan Perjanjian Pembekalan Gas di antara Petronas dan pembeli (elektrik dan bukan elektrik), harga gas yang dibekalkan oleh Petronas disandarkan kepada harga minyak bahan api medium (MFO).
Umum mngetahui harga minyak di pasaran dunia meningkat sepanjang tahun lalu menjadikan harga MFO turut menghadapi trend yang sama.
MFO didagangkan sekitar AS$72 setong pada Disember 2009 berbanding AS$37 setong pada Mac 2009.
Semakin tinggi harga MFO, semakin tinggi juga subsidi yang perlu diperuntukkan kerajaan bagi sebahagian industri yang menggunakan gas.
Kerajaan terus dibebankan lagi untuk menampung subsidi berikutan permintaan gas daripada sebahagian industri tertentu yang juga semakin tinggi.
Petronas dikatakan menghadapi kekangan bekalan berikutan permintaan terhadap gas yang meningkat secara mendadak dan ini juga melebihi keupayaannya untuk membekalkan komoditi itu.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd turut menghadapi masalah untuk mendapatkan bekalan gas daripada Petronas dan ini telah memaksanya bertukar sebahagian penjanaan elektrik kepada arang batu.
Mungkin sudah tiba masanya bagi pihak kerajaan mendasarkan harga bahan api seperti MFO, diesel, gas dan arang batu kepada harga pasaran agar sebahagian industri tempatan akan mempunyai lebih banyak pilihan.
Dengan itu, pergantungan kepada bekalan gas tidak akan begitu tinggi atau keterlaluan kerana harga pasaran antara suatu bahan api dengan yang lain kemudiannya tidak akan jauh berbeza.
Sehubungan ini, sebahagian besar industri boleh memilih untuk menggunakan bahan api yang lain sekiranya bekalan gas tidak dapat dipenuhi.
Pilihan bahan api yang lebih luas akan mengurangkan tekanan ke atas permintaan terhadap sumber gas tempatan yang semakin menyusut.
Langkah atau dasar yang dicadangkan seterusnya akan membantu memanjangkan hayat rezab gas negara untuk kegunaan generasi akan datang.
-- BERNAMA
Analisis Berita Oleh Massita Ahmad
PUTRAJAYA, 26 Feb (Bernama) -- Kos pengeluaran dan operasi sebahagian besar industri di Malaysia boleh dikatakan "kos palsu" kerana sejumlah besar elemen kos tersebut merupakan subsidi yang ditanggung kerajaan, demikian menurut mereka yang arif dalam perkara tersebut.
Golongan pengeluar sewajarnya berasa "malu" apabila mengatakan mereka mengaut keuntungan tetapi pada dasarnya sebahagian besar kos mereka ditanggung pihak lain iaitu kerajaan.
Apatah lagi jika gagal, kerana ditanggung kerajaan pun mereka tetap gagal.
Mengambil contoh gas, sebahagian besar industri berubah kepada penggunaan gas bagi menjalankan aktiviti pengeluaran produk mereka berikutan harga yang lebih murah berbanding diesel.
Walhal kedua-duanya disubsidi oleh kerajaan dan yang membezakannya adalah lebih tinggi atau rendah jumlah subsidi itu.
Harga gas yang disubsidikan bagi sektor tenaga adalah RM10.70 setiap juta unit termal British (mmbtu), pengguna terbesar RM15.35/mmbtu, dan Gas Malaysia Sdn Bhd RM11.05/mmbtu.
Harga tanpa subsidi atau harga pasaran gas ketika ini bagi sektor tenaga adalah RM41.16/mmbtu, pengguna terbesar RM56.20, dan Gas Malaysia RM42.35/mmbtu.
Bagi diesel pula, harga diesel bersubsidi bagi nelayan dan pengangkutan adalah RM38.65/mmbtu atau RM1.43 seliter dan harga di pam ialah RM45.95/mmbtu atau RM1.70 seliter.
Harga pasaran bagi diesel ketika ini adalah RM55.00/mmbtu.
Melihat angka-angka ini, pihak industri pasti boleh membezakan harga gas bersubsidi yang mereka "nikmati" selama ini.
Golongan sasar bagi subsidi seperti para nelayan pula pasti "menggelengkan kepala" melihat betapa rendahnya subsidi yang mereka terima jika dibandingkan sebahagian besar industri itu.
Kerajaan dianggarkan menanggung beban bagi subsidi gas sahaja melebihi RM20 bilion pada tahun ini dan akan terus "menggunung" pada tahun-tahun akan datang sekiranya harga gas terus disubsidikan.
Lebih malang adalah jumlah subsidi yang pada awalnya berada pada sekitar RM7 bilion pada lima tahun lalu hanya dinikmati oleh sebahagian industri tertentu tetapi tidak oleh masyarakat keseluruhan.
Sebahagian besar industri ini mungkin "pura-pura" tidak sedar bahawa mereka sebenarnya tidak cekap dalam penggunaan bahan api atau komoditi tersebut dengan berterusan menggunakan gas berharga rendah "akibat" disubsidikan kerajaan.
Penggunaan gas berharga pasaran mungkin akan "menyedarkan" mereka ini untuk meningkatkan kecekapan dan berusaha untuk menjimatkan kos mereka dan seterusnya meningkatkan daya saing.
Berdasarkan Perjanjian Pembekalan Gas di antara Petronas dan pembeli (elektrik dan bukan elektrik), harga gas yang dibekalkan oleh Petronas disandarkan kepada harga minyak bahan api medium (MFO).
Umum mngetahui harga minyak di pasaran dunia meningkat sepanjang tahun lalu menjadikan harga MFO turut menghadapi trend yang sama.
MFO didagangkan sekitar AS$72 setong pada Disember 2009 berbanding AS$37 setong pada Mac 2009.
Semakin tinggi harga MFO, semakin tinggi juga subsidi yang perlu diperuntukkan kerajaan bagi sebahagian industri yang menggunakan gas.
Kerajaan terus dibebankan lagi untuk menampung subsidi berikutan permintaan gas daripada sebahagian industri tertentu yang juga semakin tinggi.
Petronas dikatakan menghadapi kekangan bekalan berikutan permintaan terhadap gas yang meningkat secara mendadak dan ini juga melebihi keupayaannya untuk membekalkan komoditi itu.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd turut menghadapi masalah untuk mendapatkan bekalan gas daripada Petronas dan ini telah memaksanya bertukar sebahagian penjanaan elektrik kepada arang batu.
Mungkin sudah tiba masanya bagi pihak kerajaan mendasarkan harga bahan api seperti MFO, diesel, gas dan arang batu kepada harga pasaran agar sebahagian industri tempatan akan mempunyai lebih banyak pilihan.
Dengan itu, pergantungan kepada bekalan gas tidak akan begitu tinggi atau keterlaluan kerana harga pasaran antara suatu bahan api dengan yang lain kemudiannya tidak akan jauh berbeza.
Sehubungan ini, sebahagian besar industri boleh memilih untuk menggunakan bahan api yang lain sekiranya bekalan gas tidak dapat dipenuhi.
Pilihan bahan api yang lebih luas akan mengurangkan tekanan ke atas permintaan terhadap sumber gas tempatan yang semakin menyusut.
Langkah atau dasar yang dicadangkan seterusnya akan membantu memanjangkan hayat rezab gas negara untuk kegunaan generasi akan datang.
-- BERNAMA
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)