谁更爱沙巴州？

此文已于27/5/2008在《星洲日报》刊登，原文如下：

沙巴州部份国阵议员在反对怡保东区国会议员林吉祥动议成立皇家调查委员会后，据说将在今年6月的国会提呈动议，就非法移民问题设立一个国会遴选委员会。

沙国阵国会议员俱乐部主席兼金马利国会议员拿督阿尼法阿曼认为，国会遴选委员会能比皇家调查委员会更有效解决沙巴非法移民问题。

他还说了一番令人动容的谈话："我不认为有人比我们更爱沙巴，而且我们才是受苦者；我们比任何西马人都爱沙巴。"接着一句还想争宠，证明沙国会议员非常关注沙巴："问题是我们提出的，惟却被林吉祥利用此机会提呈动议。"

阿尼法的"乡情"浓得化不开。依据他的说法，全天下只有爱沙巴的沙巴人才有资格为沙巴人说话，而爱沙巴的西马人没有资格为沙巴说话，毕竟西马人不是沙巴人，肯定爱沙巴少一点。

既然身为沙州国会议员，在国会里提出沙州非法移民的问题是天经地义、义不容辞的，如果还能得到西马议员的支持，才能突显问题的严重性，为何还要分在朝在野，甚至指别人博取政治利益？

若沙州国会议员真的爱沙巴、尽了本份、为沙巴州人民说真话、争取权益，天然资源丰富的沙州，今天也不会沦为全马非法移民最多、最贫穷的州属。

犹记得2007年4月国会期间，林吉祥也曾经厉正严词地列举沙州贫穷、贪污的问题，还引用了新闻界用来讽刺沙巴首长轮任制的名言：一个拿山、一个送海、一个卖山谷、一个投注水务交易。当时沙州议员冷眼旁观也罢，最令人咬牙的是，京那巴丹岸区议员拿督莫达竟挑战对方在国会外重复卡达山、杜顺、姆禄族遭边缘化的言论，他认为这番言论具煽动性。

若沙州国会议员真的爱沙巴，还应该追究13年前巫统进军沙巴时许下的承诺：2000年达致零贫穷、零文盲率、人人一间家以及解决非法移民的问题。以上各项承诺，哪一些已经实现了？

当年巫统为了在选举中取胜，在M计划中派发了百万张公民权及身份证给非法移民，为此，沙巴州人民在社会、经济方面已经付出高昂的代价。若成立一个皇家调查委员会，将有助于全面彻查上述累积了几十年的问题，寻求解决途径。

民统党署理主席兼斗亚兰国会议员拿督威费烈邦布宁就不同了。他勇敢地指出一些官员曾经拒绝出席国会遴选委员会的问话，证明这种委员会根本做不了什么。他也认为设立皇家调委会是解决沙州非法移民的最佳途径。

若真的爱沙巴，就要睁大双眼，勇敢面对令人想掉眼泪的真相，然后认真寻求对策，药再苦，也得喝下肚。

Half of oil palm expansion in Malaysia, Indonesia occurs at expense of forests

20May 2008
mongabay.com

More than half of the oil palm expansion between 1990 and 2005 in Malaysia and Indonesia occurred at expense of forests, reports a new analysis published in the journal Conservation Letters. The conversion had a "detrimental" impact on regional biodiversity say the authors.

Analyzing data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Lian Pin Koh and David S. Wilcove of Princeton University found that 55-59 percent of oil palm expansion in Malaysia and at least 56 percent of that in Indonesia occurred at the expense of forests. Given that oil palm plantations are biologically impoverished relative to primary and secondary forests, the researchers recommend restricting future expansion to pre-existing cropland and degraded habitats.

In recent years Malaysia and Indonesia have rapidly expanded the area of land devoted to oil palm cultivation: between 1990 and 2005 the area of oil palm plantations in Malaysia more than doubled to 3.6 million ha; in Indonesia the area planted with palm expanded by more than 270 percent to 4.1 million ha. At the same time Indonesia's forest cover declined by 28 million ha, while Malaysia lost some 1.5 million ha. Koh and Wilcove calculate that at least 1.704 million ha of forest land in Indonesia and 1.04 million ha in Malaysia were converted for the oilseed during the period.

"Our analysis indicates that oil palm plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia have replaced forests and, to a lesser extent, pre-existing cropland," the authors write.

Using data on birds and butterflies showing that conversion of forest to oil palm produces steep declines in species richness, Koh and Wilcove say the expansion of the oil palm estate in Malaysia and Indonesia negatively affected regional biodiversity.

Noting that demand for palm oil is expected to increase dramatically in coming years, the authors suggest future oil palm expansion be limited to lands that have already been converted for agriculture or are otherwise heavily degraded. Even logged forests — which support considerably higher levels of biological diversity than plantations — should be off-limits to oil palm development, they conclude.

This is why we must reduce waste.

Camden News - by PAUL KEILTHY Published: 15 May 2008

Recyclate is currently unsorted in Camden, which means it must be sent overseas for processing The dirty secret of where your recycling really goes The contents of your ‘green’ box are being sent to the Far East by a council that can’t cope SHIPLOADS of recycling conscientiously sorted on Camden residents’ doorsteps are still sent to China, India and the Far East despite criticism of the practice by leading councillors when they were in opposition. Every item of paper placed in Camden’s recycling bins is sent to Malaysia, Indonesia, India or China, according to figures released to the New Journal this week under Freedom of Information rules. All of the borough’s waste plastic goes to China. The Town Hall’s official “eco-champion”, Belsize councillor Alexis Rowell, called the revelations “a scandal” and said the policies overseen by his Lib Dem colleagues and their Tory partners in the cabinet were “probably the least environmentally responsible thing”. Blaming the council’s cost-cutting policy of lumping all types of waste together for the fact that the contaminated recycling can only be processed abroad, he said: “This is the worst possible thing we could do for the environment. If we took it to landfill we’d do less damage to the environment. And unless they [the waste authorities] can show you data proving that it is recycled in the Far East, it is perfectly possible that it isn’t used in industrial processes at all, just dumped in landfill anyway.” Residents could be forgiven for believing that the council’s record on waste management is exemplary. The recycling pages of the council’s website give a detailed account of how the waste is collected and sorted but make no mention of the fact that any of the recyclate goes abroad. The page entitled “What happens to my recycling after it’s collected?”, states only that: “The final baled recycling is sent to manufacturers who make it into new products.” In fact, the material is only beginning a journey that takes it thousands of miles. Of newspapers and pamphlets collected in Camden, 10 per cent are sent to Malaysia and 90 per cent are sent to Indonesia, while a fifth of mixed papers are sent to China with the remaining 80 per cent ending up in India. Only steel, aluminium and glass are recycled in UK processing plants. The council is locked into a seven-year, £16 million a year contract with waste company Veolia, as well as having many of its waste services dealt with through the North London Waste Authority (NLWA), a partnership of seven boroughs. Veolia takes most of Camden’s – and the NLWA’s – recycling to its depot at Greenwich, where much of it is loaded onto ships bound for the Far East. Many recycling experts hold that this is no bad thing. The ships that bring China’s vast number of imports to the UK would return home empty were it not for the fact they are stuffed to the gunwales with used British plastics, which in turn make the next generation of plastic goods. Fortunes have been made in India and Indonesia by lucratively recycling discarded British paper to feed Asia’s roaring manufacturing economy. A Friends of the Earth spokeswoman said: “It is important to recycle as much as we can in the UK. But we recognise that a global market exists for the most-in-demand materials.” Leading Lib Dem councillors, however, criticised the previous Labour administration in 2005 for the fact recycling was sent abroad and demanded a full audit of the recycling process when they came to power in partnership with the Conservatives in 2006. The council set aside £10,000 for that investigation last February but on Monday, Town Hall officials said that the final report was an internal document which could not be released yet. Lib Dem council leader Keith Moffitt led criticisms of the previous regime’s policy of exporting recyclate and admitted on Tuesday that he was “still very concerned” about the policy’s continuation under his administration. He said: “I have concerns about co-mingling and about the final destination of our recycling, but you have to bear in mind that we are operating under some long-term contracts... and targets under which we are penalised for landfill. “I called for the audit and I do want firm evidence on which to base our actions.” Conservative environment chief Councillor Mike Greene, declined to comment on the figures when the New Journal contacted him on Monday, referring questions to the council’s press office. A Town Hall press official said: “Most UK waste contractors use facilities in Asia to reprocess some materials – for example, plastic into other products – and half of all recyclable material produced in the UK is sent overseas for reprocessing. This is because there are not currently enough facilities in the UK to reprocess and re-manufacture all of the materials that people in the UK recycle.” NLWA, Camden Coun­cil’s disposal authority, said it was a signatory to the Recycling Registration Scheme, whose members have to make sure that materials shipped abroad are in line with international rules. A spokesman added: “Under the scheme recyclable material going abroad must be sent to recovery facilities operating to standards broadly equivalent to those set down by EU regulations.”

Outdated, flawed wildlife law

Stories by TAN CHENG LI , The Star, 20 May 2008

Our wildlife law calls for saving wildlife but it has limited powers to do so.

TRAP a tiger and you will be arrested. Sell wine or plaster made from ground tiger bone and you can escape punishment, reason being, the Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 (PWA) is silent on “derivatives” of protected species.

That is just one of many flaws prevalent in the PWA. Here’s another: contrary to popular belief, the elephant is not totally protected but listed as a “big game animal” in the Act – which means it can be hunted if one obtains a hunting permit from the Wildlife and National Parks Department (Perhilitan).

And another: not a single plant, fish or amphibian is protected by the Act. There’s more: some highly endangered species are getting scant protection, legal hurdles abound when prosecuting offenders, penalties are ridiculously low ... the list goes on – no wonder our wildlife is depleting.

Many species owe their survival to the PWA but this legislation has not kept up with the times in some instances. Today, with wildlife being pushed to the brink by habitat loss, poaching and flourishing commercial trade, the Act is in sore need of an overhaul.

“In dealing with sophisticated wildlife criminals and their syndicates, this 35-year-old law appears to be failing to achieve what it set out to do in the 1970s. It is outdated and there are many loopholes which unscrupulous criminals take advantage of, and at the expense of wildlife. We need the Act to be comprehensively reviewed, passed and implemented urgently,” says Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) executive director Dr Loh Chi Leong.

Low penalties – under the PWA and meted out by the courts – is a worry for the non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Case 1:
In 2005, the butchered tiger in Tumpat, Kelantan? The offender got off with only a RM7,000 fine although the PWA allows a maximum of RM15,000.

Case 2:
That same year in Bentong, Pahang, a man caught with five bear paws, 32kg of bear meat and bones, one trophy barking deer head, four skinned civets, part of a hornbill beak, three skinned doves and nine live blue-crowned hanging parrots, was fined only RM5,500.

Case 3:
Also in 2005, a man caught with four leopard cats in Gombak, Kuala Lumpur, and another with 294 pangolins in Perlis, were each fined RM3,000.

RM17b

Important notes from "RM17b which could be better spent elsewhere"(By R. Nadeswaran, The Sun)

-Why is the government reviving the once abandoned undersea cable project from Sarawak to Peninsular Malaysia?

-The peninsula has more than enough power generating plants including IPPs.Why is RM17billion being spent on a white elephant when what the country wants dearly is a lot of basic needs and price control?

-TNB: The electricity capacity for Malaysia excluding Sarawak exceeds peak demand by 43%, while in Sarawak it is only 10%. Peak demand for energy in Sarawak is expected to rise to 860MW this year and to 1174MW by 2015.

-Deputy Minister(April 08): By 2013, Bakun Dam is expected to begin transmitting 1600MW to Peninsular Malaysia via the 676km submarine cable across the South China Sea.(but Peninsular Malaysia already having excess capacity of up to 45%, what is Tenaga going to do with the 1600MW?)

-State-government owned Cahaya Mata Sarawak Berhad has entered into a joint-venture agreement with Australian mining giant, RIO TINTO ALUMINUM LTD, to set up a RM7billion aluminum smelting plant near Bintulu.So, where is this new project going to get its power from if the power generated by Bakun ends up in the peninsula?

-Why would anyone spend billions laying an undersea cable when there is enough domestic demand and there is a ready buyer in the neighbourhood?

-At a time when rising food prices have required us to tighten our belts, would it be prudent to spend such a colossal sum of money on something we don't need?

举剑七宗罪

《火箭报》观点专栏

巫青团团长希山慕丁针对他举剑之事，向非马来人道歉，也对马来人道歉。

他举剑，他道歉，表面看来是如此，但这其中的含义，不能单独地从“他举剑，他道歉”如此黑白分明的角度来思考。

我们必须承认，马来剑是马来文化的象征。今天，一件原本属于文化象征的物品会成为政坛讨论的问题，也不能单纯地从“那是一把马来剑”来思考。

希山慕丁一连三年在巫统大会上举剑，会变成2008年大选后，国阵成员党怪罪的对象。问题是，希山举剑，真的是败选的原因吗？

让我们认真解剖一下“希山举剑”这四个字。为什么在2008年308海啸之后，这是一个希山道歉的原因？

（一）希山慕丁是巫青团团长。

（二）巫青团手中的马来剑其实不是文化象征，而是种族政治霸权的象征。

（三）每一次举剑，都会狠狠地提醒非马来人：你们不是国家的主人，我们才是。马来西亚各族人民不平等。

（四）每一次举剑，那些外资、商人就会想起：我们将30％股权白白送人。

（五）每一次举剑，华小、淡小家长就会想起：我们的华小、淡小永远像乞丐。

（六）巫青团长身边的“马仔”闻鸡起舞，越叫嚣越过火，如：凯里，惹恼了非马来人。

（七）希山举剑，捍卫的是自己的政治地位，这种做法玷辱马来剑的文化精神。

剑本无罪，有罪的是，举剑的人内心各种各样的歪念。希山道歉，他不应该为他“举剑”的动作道歉，而是应该为他“举剑”那一刻的想法道歉。

如果举剑，是捍卫司法公正、捍卫人民主权、捍卫各族人民平等权利，情况肯定不一样。届时，人人都会高高兴兴去买一把马来剑，然后相约在独立广场，一起举剑。

如果不是那样，凡举剑犯下上述“七宗罪”的人士，都应被人民唾弃，特别是那位有可能成为下一任首相的纳吉。

别忘了，这位仁兄曾在1987年茅草行动前夕，高举马来短剑高喊：“用华人的血来染这把剑！”

纳吉，你还欠全国人民一个道歉。请说：“对不起，我知错了”。