ANWAR IBRAHIM MAY ACT LIKE A HERO BUT THE QUESTIONS OF WHY PROVE HIM BEING THE VILLAIN

The QUESTION is not WHY ANWAR wasn’t given the benefit of the agreed Wednesday 2 pm extended schedule before he was apprehended, but rather, WHY ANWAR DEFIED an earlier police order requesting him to be present on MONDAY? Why Anwar not doing so the DAY AFTER? And why Anwar CHOSE TO give priority and attended to Anti Coruption Agency’s hearing instead of adhering and obeying to the urgency of an ARREST WARRANT on behalf of the police on him to facilitate the sodomy case involving him? WHY ANWAR?

He snubbed and mocked the authority of the police by staying at home instead of attending to police request for him to make himself available on Monday. He then cited police discourtesy as the main reason for HIS PAYBACK in not adhering to the Monday request. WHY ANWAR?

So much for his proclaimed ‘WILLINGNESS’ and yet he made NO such effort at all to either contact the police or to attend to the police on TUESDAY. WHY ANWAR? 24 ABSOLUTE FREE HOURS for him to make things easier for both him and the police, if ONLY he chooses to stay true to his word and intention of ‘willingness’. Instead he did nothing. He knew the police could not come banging his door down without a proper court order which is the arrest warrant. Hence, to say Anwar Ibrahim and his team of 7 legal experts know nothing about this and what’s coming is an absolute lie and ignorance. WHY ANWAR?

On WEDNESDAY, police made known to Anwar Ibrahim, his representatives and all Malaysians, that an arrest warrant has been issued out on Anwar and the police will use the power and regulations given to, if the need arises, apprehends Anwar Ibrahim. And to have an arrest warrant issued out against you is no child’s play and kidding. The seriousness in one would have had any sensible Malaysian losing sleep and eating appetites worrying about one. But NOT our dearest Anwar Ibrahim. He chose the ‘on need and free basis’ appointment with the ACA instead of obeying the arrest warrant. An ACA’s appointment which he could have easily postponed without anyone blaming him for. WHY ANWAR?

He made a promise earlier with the police to straight away go to Kuala Lumpur police headquarters after the ACA’s session. But yet again, he did not. He DIVERTED his route towards his house in Segambut Dalam. With yet another melodramatic reason, this time of lunch and dresses. WHY ANWAR?

Anwar Ibrahim has been requested, invited, served and entertained up to the nose. He has been given treatments that none other Malaysians would have throughout their entire lifetime dealing with the police. He has been defying not one but many rightly requests and laws and acted himself above even the Sultan and all Malaysians. WHY ANWAR? Yet we still do not want to see and believe what the real Anwar Ibrahim looks like.

“No one is above the law”. I and you and hundreds Non-Government Organizations (NGO) have made that one statement as our course of promoting, mission worth action and basis principle to civilization. And if the laws require you to adhere, obey and act to one and as long it is within its guiding perimeters, then we should all be a sensible civilized Malaysian and respect the wishes of Malaysians and the land Malaysia. And that includes SULTAN ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM!

SAPP SAGA: NO CONFIDENCE VOTE CANNOT BE TABLED ON MONDAY

Datuk Nazri Aziz had speedily with no time wasted, came out telling SAPP and other members of Parliament, that VOTE OF NO-CONFIDENCE CANNOT BE TABLED ON MONDAY. AT LEAST not through the normal existing procedure guided under the Standing Orders Rule 27. BUT can be tabled using Motion of Emergency privileged under Standing Orders rule 18 (1), PROVIDED the motion fulfils the required criteria sets on to it. But that too, is UP TO THE SPEAKER TO DECIDE.
(source)

SAPP SAGA: TO BRING PAK LAH DOWN THROUGH VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN PARLIAMENT

Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) is REPORTED to have NO CONFIDENCE anymore in the leadership of their Coalition’s chief (BN) also the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah).

SAPP will table a NO-CONFIDENCE motion for votes against Pak Lah in the coming preceding of Parliament on Monday, June 23^rd. The motion can be tabled by any members of the Parliament, but most probably the SAPP shall be the one initiating it through either YB Datuk Chua Soon Bui or YB Datuk Eric Majimbun.

As to WHY SAPP chooses to NOW delivers this potentially fatal-blow to not just Pak Lah, BUT BN as well. Here is their rational behinds it:

“We must make a stand before the window of opportunity closes. This window of opportunity closes by August after which Sabah would be forgotten again. The nation¡¦s attention would switch to MCA and UMNO elections, people will be pre-occupied with the fasting month, Hari Raya, school exams and year end events. Political fatigue in the national mainstream over Sabah issues would set in” – SAPP press statement.

What’s the REASON for SAPP to take this drastic action and by what inputs of sense can the Rakyat judge this action to as reasonable and timely? Here it goes:

“The momentum for us to recover our autonomy, get 20% oil royalties and return of Labuan would be lost. Unfair federal laws, excessive taxes and structural imbalances in the economy will remain entrenched. Sabah will remain the poorest state subservient to the central leadership. Labuan bridge, poverty eradication and rural development will remain elusive. Racial politics and wasteful monopolies will continue as usual. The illegal immigrant problems will reach boiling point. Grown up street kids, illicit drugs and crimes will continue to strike fear among the people. Police and law enforcement will remain understaffed and under-resourced. In other words, Sabah will lose out badly again. We will not get this window of opportunity for another 50 years, if ever again. In fact, we have now become suspicious of their delaying tactics.” – SAPP press statement.

Is SAPP pulling OUT of BN since now they have becoming outrageously VOCAL and AGAINST the spirit of the BN?

“We will have a press conference on Friday June 20 to announce this matter of SAPP membership in BN after our Supreme Council meeting. This is the most popular question of the week. Actually, the BN has already left Sabah. The spirit of BN is no longer there. It is not that Sabah does not want BN; it is BN that does not want Sabah. The BN does not recognize the contribution of Sabah to the national mainstream. Ask any Sabah UMNO leader privately, they will pour out their frustrations. Remember the speeches of MPs Datuk Anifah Aman on terrace houses, Datuk Ghapur Salleh, Datuk Wilfred bumburing and Datuk Eric and Datuk Dr. Chua Soon Bui? Many BN component leaders also share our feelings.” – SAPP press statement.

More to continue...

(SAPP press statement, here)

M'SIAN OIL SUBSIDY: THE FACTS WE CANT SIMPLY IGNORE. THE REALITY WE CANT SIMPLY ESCAPE

UNIT PERANCANG EKONOMI (EPU) DAN MAJLIS TINDAKAN EKONOMI NEGARA (MTEN) (Terbitan Julai 31, 2005)

OIL PRICES AND SUBSIDIES – THE EXPLANATION

(Note: click on the table chart to view in larger size)

1. Why has the price of fuel on the international market increased recently?

• Since mid-2004, the price of crude oil has increased substantially on the world market. For example, the West Texas Intermediate (a reference price used in the United States and globally) increased from US$19 per barrel in 1993 to US$31 in 2003. In October 2004, it reached US$51 and in 2005 it went up to US$67 per barrel.

• The main causes for these increases are:

- The existence of a tight market due to the small margin between production (83.0 million barrels per day (bpd)) and demand (82.5 million bpd);

- High demand for oil by China, India and the United States;

- Uncertainty of supply in some OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries.

- Adverse weather conditions such as Hurricane Emily in Mexico, affecting oil production and

- Speculation on oil prices.

2. Our country produces oil. So why should we increase fuel prices?

• The price of oil and petroleum products are determined by the international market based on supply and demand. These are factors beyond our control. OPEC also plays an important role in setting oil production levels which in turn, affect the market price. Although Malaysia produces and exports oil, we are not a member of OPEC, nor are we a major oil producing country. As such we have no influence on how the price of oil is determined in the international market.

• If there is a large increase in oil prices on the world market, it affects the price of petroleum products such as diesel, petrol and cooking gas (LPG) in our country.

3. How do Malaysian fuel prices compare to neighbouring countries?

• By comparison, fuel in Malaysia is much cheaper than most ASEAN countries. In fact, our prices are among the lowest in the world.

• Due to the much lower prices of diesel in Malaysia compared to Thailand and Singapore, there is a big incentive for Thais and Singaporeans to buy petrol and diesel in our country.

4. How does the Government ensure fuel prices are cheaper compared to neighbouring countries?

• The Government ensures a low price of petrol, diesel and cooking gas in Malaysia by exempting sales tax on diesel and petrol and providing subsidies for all products.

• With the combination of subsidies and taxes forgone, the public can enjoy more affordable public transport. Subsidies also lower operating costs for fishermen and operators of river transportation in Sabah and Sarawak.

5. How are the retail prices of petroleum products in Malaysia determined?

• The mechanism for setting retail prices of petroleum products has been in effect since 1983.

• In brief, the retail prices of petrol, diesel and LPG are set as follows:

Petroleum Products Cost
+ Operational Costs
+ Margin for Distributors of Petroleum Products
+ Commission for Owners of Petrol Stations
+ Sales Tax
- Subsidies
= Retail Price

• The price mechanism is linked to international market prices. The actual product price is determined after taking into consideration prevailing international prices, operating costs such as distribution and marketing costs and finally, sales taxes. In Malaysia, fuel is sold much cheaper than other countries because the Government provides subsidies and sales tax exemptions.

• For example, the retail price of RON97 petrol on 31 July 2005 is as follows:

6. What are subsidies?

• Subsidies are money paid to producers or retailers of a given product by the Government, in order to lower the retail price. It is a form of assistance for a given industry or segment of society.

7. How long will subsidies be maintained? Should they be abolished?

• The Government will continue to provide fuel subsidies but the amount would be determined by the state of Government finances.

• The Government is devising a more effective method to ensure that fuels like diesel and LPG are enjoyed by those truly requiring it such as fishermen, public transport operators and operators of river transportation in Sabah and Sarawak.

8. What are ‘taxes forgone’?

• Diesel and petrol are subject to sales taxes of 19.64 sen per litre and 58.62 sen per litre respectively. These taxes are revenue for the Government in addition to being a means of maintaining stable petroleum product prices. But the Government has decided to forgo this tax so that the retail price of petroleum products remains reasonable. This actually results in a loss of revenue for the Government.

• Recently, the amount of taxes forgone has increased. For example, in 1993, RM190.8 million was forgone, while in 1999 it amounted to RM2.6 billion. This year, it has rocketed to RM7.9 billion. Sales tax exemptions for diesel began in October 1999 following increasing prices, while for petrol it began in June 2004.

9. What are the negative effects of subsidies?

• One of the adverse effects of subsidies is market distortion, meaning the price of the commodity does not reflect its actual cost. This jeopardizes the national economy as it would lead to excessive fuel consumption and wastage in addition to unhealthy practices such as illicit trade, cheating and smuggling. The Government cannot permit the gap between market and subsidized prices to increase as this could encourage profiteering. Today, irresponsible parties make illegal profits by purchasing diesel at subsidized prices and selling it at higher prices to the non-subsidised sector.

• Another outcome from heavy subsidies is the smuggling of fuel, particularly diesel, to neighbouring countries. This is akin to giving foreigners the subsidies intended for Malaysians. Our country suffers a great loss. Based on projected subsidies of RM6.6 billion for 2005, smuggling 10 percent of fuel out of Malaysia would be equivalent to an outflow of RM660 million.

• The Government also has to spend more for enforcement personnel and equipment in order to arrest smuggling activities.

• Also, huge subsidies are ‘opportunity costs’ which prevent us from allocating more to national development to benefit a larger segment of our population. Savings from subsidies could be used to build more schools, hospitals and public facilities which would provide long lasting benefits for our future generations.

• Today, both the rich and the poor benefit from subsidies which are actually meant for the latter.

• Subsidies also jeopardize the ability of the Government to reduce the budget deficit.

10. How much would fuel and petroleum products cost without subsidies?

• Without subsidies, premium petrol (RON97) would cost RM2.45 per litre, and not RM1.62 that we are paying now. In fact when a consumer buys a litre of premium petrol in Peninsular Malaysia, the Government bears 82.82 sen that is 58.62 sen in the form of taxes forgone and 24.20 sen in subsidies.

• The actual cost of diesel in Peninsular Malaysia is RM2.07 per litre. Consumers pay RM1.28 per litre because of the 59.13 sen subsidy and 19.64 sen tax forgone, per litre.

• The unsubsidized retail price of cooking gas (LPG) in Peninsular Malaysia is RM2.39 per kg. However, consumers buy LPG at RM1.45 per kg. This means that there is a subsidy of 93.92 sen per kg. For example, a 12 kg cylinder of cooking gas costs RM17.40 when in fact, the actual cost is RM28.67. In other words, for each cylinder of cooking gas purchased, the Government subsidizes the consumer RM11.27.

11. How much does the Government spend on fuel subsidies?

• The more fuel consumers use, the higher the amount borne by the Government for subsidies.

• As illustrated in Table 5, subsidies in 2001 were RM2.4 billion based on an average WTI crude oil price of US$25.24 per barrel. In 2004, the subsidies increased to RM4.8 billion based on the average international oil price of US$41.60 per barrel.

• This does not factor the loss of revenue from taxes which has also been increasing. Losses in 2002 of RM3.3 billion rose to RM4.8 billion in 2003 and reached RM7.2 billion in 2004.

• By increasing the retail prices of diesel and petrol on July 31 2005, the Government will save RM1 billion on subsidies. For 2005 subsidies are now expected to be RM6.6 billion compared to RM7.6 billion before the price increase (2004 subsidies totalled RM4.8 billion), as illustrated in Table 5.

• Large subsidies are ‘opportunity costs’ as the substantial amount of money could be better used to benefit the rakyat, for example, by building schools or public amenities.

12. The Country benefits from increased oil prices. Why can’t the Government increase its subsidies?

• When oil prices rise, the Government’s revenue increases accordingly. However, subsidies borne by the Government also increase from RM4.8 billion in 2004 to a projected RM6.6 billion in 2005.

• It is true that as oil prices on the global market increase, the country’s export earnings from oil goes up. However, the Government chooses to spend this additional income responsibly. It would be unwise of the Government to utilize the additional income earned to fully subsidize fuel prices.

• We must remember that gains from the increase in oil prices will only benefit us in the short term. In the medium term, subsequent increases in oil prices will adversely impact the world economy and being an open economy Malaysian exports would reduce and consequently national income contracts. As such, in the medium term an increase in oil prices does not benefit us.

• Furthermore, we still have to import to meet some of our domestic oil needs. While it is true that we gain from exports of oil at higher prices, we still have to pay more for the oil that we import.

13. What is the impact of subsidies on Government finances?

• Subsidies and tax exemptions impact Government finances in five ways:

- First, it results in an increase of the operating expenditure. Subsidies of RM6.6 billion in 2005 represent 7.4 percent of operating expenditure. Without subsidies, the fiscal deficit could be reduced.

- Second, if the savings are not used to reduce the deficit, it could instead be utilized for development. RM6.6 billion spent on subsidies represents 23.3 percent of the 2005 development budget, which is equivalent to building 600 secondary schools assuming it costs RM11 million to build one school.

- Third, tax revenue forgone represents a loss in revenue for Government. Sales tax revenue forgone of RM7.9 billion in 2005 represents 8 percent of revenue. If collected, this money could be used to build 316,000 low cost houses.

- Fourth, subsidies and sales tax forgone amounting to RM14.5 billion is sufficient to reduce the fiscal deficit from 3.8% of GDP to 0.7% of GDP for 2005. This would in turn strengthen the Government’s financial position.

- Fifth, a small deficit means that the Government can reduce its borrowings.

14. Should the Government use up contributions by PETRONAS to pay for subsidies?

• In fact, contributions by PETRONAS are sufficient to fully cover fuel subsidies.

• However, spending on subsidies are one-off expenditures which do not generate further income for the nation and its people. Although the Government could fund increased subsidies, it would not be the most prudent course of action as it would adversely affect funding for other productive projects.

• If the rakyat and Government can share the cost of rising fuel prices, thus reducing the need for subsidies, a part of the contributions from PETRONAS can instead be directed to generate new sources of income.

15. PETRONAS profits have increased due to rising oil prices. Shouldn’t PETRONAS contribute more to absorb the cost of rising fuel prices?

• Since its establishment in 1974 PETRONAS has made significant contributions to the nation’s development. During the financial year 2004/2005 it contributed RM31 billion in the form of taxes, dividends and royalties. This was an increase of 47% over the previous year’s contribution. This amount represents 53% of PETRONAS’ gross profits of RM59 billion for the year 2004/2005.

• PETRONAS only controls 30% of the Malaysia retail petroleum market while the remainder is held by competitors like Shell, Esso, Caltex, BP, Mobil and Projet. This means that if PETRONAS were to subsidise fuel prices in full, it would effectively be paying these foreign companies too.

• In Malaysia, PETRONAS owns 3 refineries with a combined capacity of 256,000 barrels per day (bpd), or 47% of the total national output. The remaining 53% is provided by refineries owned by Shell (155,000 bpd), Exxon-Mobil (88,000 bpd) and ConocoPhillips (48,000 bpd). As Malaysia consumes 520,000 barrels of oil per day, it is obvious that in order to meet this demand we need to rely on refineries belonging to international oil companies too.

• PETRONAS also subsidizes natural gas in this country. This subsidy amounted to RM25 billion since May 1997. For the power sector, the price of gas is fixed at RM6.40 per Million British Thermal Unit (mmbtu) compared to the commercial price of RM25.70 per mmbtu. This low price has enabled Malaysia to maintain electricity tariffs at reasonable levels.

16. What would happen if PETRONAS were to use all its profits to provide subsidies?

• PETRONAS is a business entity with domestic and international operations. If a substantial portion of its profits were used to provide subsidies it might be perceived as an irresponsible company, thus affecting its credibility. This could result in it being downgraded by international rating agencies.

• PETRONAS’ primary role is to manage and preserve our country’s oil and gas resources. In order to achieve this, profits must be reinvested into exploration activities both domestically and internationally. In addition, profits should also be spent on research and development.

• In the financial year 2004/2005 PETRONAS spent 61% of its total investments, or RM10.7 billion in exploration activities. If there are no new oil discoveries, Malaysia will become a net importer of oil by 2009.

• Such investments in exploration have resulted in annual increases of oil reserves by 2 – 3% annually. Clearly, this would not be possible if PETRONAS uses all its profits for subsidies.

17. What options are open to the Government in addressing the increase in oil prices?

• The Government has three options:

- To maintain the retail price of petroleum despite rising international market prices.

This would require the Government to increase subsidies and taxes forgone to match the rise in product cost, resulting in an even larger gap between subsidised and market prices of fuel. This would result in less money available for development and would impose severe strains on the Government’s financial position; or

- To completely remove subsidies and reimpose sales taxes; thus allowing fuel prices to be determined solely by market forces. If this is done, there will be no disparity between retail prices in Malaysia and world market prices. This option would allow the Government to use savings from subsidies to fund development. However, consumers would have to bear the full brunt of price increases and the Government might be perceived as being insensitive to their needs; or finally

- To gradually reduce subsidies; as has been done in recent months. This middle path involves the sharing of burden between the Government and consumer. In this option consumers pay slightly more for fuel while the
Government continues to provide subsidies. By increasing prices gradually, consumers will be able to adjust their expenditure accordingly.

• The Government is of the view that the gap between domestic retail and world prices should be reduced gradually. From the three options listed above, the third is the best. The Government will continue to provide subsidies while the consumer contributes by sharing some of the burden.

18. What steps are the Government taking to encourage the use of alternative energy sources?

• The Government is encouraging the use of natural gas vehicles (NGV). Incentives include:

o A discount of 50% for road tax of monogas vehicles and 25% for bi-fuel (diesel) and dual-fuel (petrol) vehicles; and

o Fixing the price of NGV at about half that of petrol pump prices.

• The Government is also encouraging the use of renewable energy under the Small Renewable Energy Programme (SREP), for the generation of electricity under 10 MW using biomass, landfill gas and mini-hydro.

• Hydroelectric power is being developed in Bakun which has a capacity of 2,400 MW. This project is due for completion in 2010.

• The Government intends to introduce the use of green fuels such as biodiesel, using palm oil.

19. As consumers, what role can the rakyat play?

• Following oil price increases certain traders may take the opportunity to profiteer. As such, the rakyat must be prudent and smart in their spending.

• It is also good practice for shoppers and customers to compare prices and the quality of goods between shops prior to making purchases. Such buying habits will contribute directly to improved family finances.

• Through prudent planning and spending, consumers will also prevent wastage.

• The transportation sector constitutes 41% of energy consumption. With prior planning of trips, car pooling and the use of public transport, the expenditure on fuel could be reduced.

20. What measures need to be taken by the rakyat?

• The rakyat should realize that Malaysia could be completely without oil in 19 years. Therefore, we must be prudent in our use of oil resources. We must find ways to reduce our dependency on oil and should be prudent in its use and avoid wastage. We should consider using alternative energy sources such as biofuel.

• Some countries have already implemented radical energy conservation measures. Malaysians have to be prudent in their consumption of energy and should support the Government’s actions in energy efficiency and saving measures.

• The Government will go down hard on irresponsible traders who profiteer from the current situation. Consumers can play a crucial role by reporting unethical practices by traders to the relevant authorities. Traders and businessmen on their part must be responsible and not exploit the public by raising the price of goods and services indiscriminately.

M'SIAN OIL SUBSIDY: MY TURN AROUND PERSPECTIVE

I (and few others) have just been given some (informal) thorough and detailed explanations regarding our OIL AND ITS SUBSIDISATION by some well informed and well involved (in the oil industry) people. The explanations were well and kindly presented, with few rounds of ‘Teh Tarik’ making its ever needed presence on the table.

I am NOW more than satisfied of the whole thing, thus shall too do my part to help others to understand the current issue, better, hopefully. Although I did have some arguments (or suggestions rather) with those guys, on how to improve the current mechanism used by the involved parties and authorities. But of course la…I am mister nobody who would be able to channel those thoughts to the intender. More so, those ideas of mine, maybe, probably, worth nothing or nothing new at all to them. BUT still, the govt has to do something more or introduce more approach that would help to ease the people’s burden. This is a MUST. REGARDLESS of how true and bad can a consequence be to this country IF the 45 years ol’ subsidisation is to continue.

Its too early in the morning now. Forgive me for not elaborating or sharing further. I will…but in another time and given opportunity, perhaps. As for now, i am too tired, too sleepy and too late for my Subuh prayer.

M'SIAN OIL SUBSIDY: FUELING THE MAVERICKS IN STREET PROTEST

Thousands protested right after Friday prayer marching from Kg Bahru mosque towards KLCC but diverted their supposed route due to Police road-blocking hence headed Jln Tuanku Abdul Rahman and ended there with no reports of any incident whatsoever.

The protest was all about the recent increment of fuel (petrol and diesel) prices which led to other services and goods prices being increased too. While the increased of fuel was much seen as the current government fault of not acting and structuring it wisely, others increased items should also be blamed on UNSCRUPULOUS TRADERS AND PROFITEERS taking advantage of the current scenario. But amazingly they too took part in this protest while racking some amazing Ringgits from unfortunate others, days before and surely days to come.

As seen, although the issue that brought the people marching out of the mosque is clear enough; the motives of CERTAIN PROMINENT INDIVIDUALS collaborating and organizing the protest are without haze, unclear and much less associated to the current propagated and voiced issue. The bearing slogans on almost all the placards were all politically in sense and nature. It was another MILESTONE for some POLITICAL HUNGER MAVERICKS who themselves, like many other irresponsible traders and profiteers; are taking advantage of the people misery for their own personal gains.

The current protest will not solved anything. It wont ring anything new to a government which knew almost everything including the people’s suffering. Instead the current protest showed us what maturity and mind does one leader has when comes to initiate and help the Rakyat. And sadly to some (who lead and organized the protest), they don’t have the slightest idea as to what would ease the suffering of the Rakyat other than “CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR”.

If these so-called mavericks really, I meant really want to STRIKE daring and deafening message to the current government, they should themselves and tell others to stop using PETRONAS until the government reaches out to their demand. Afterall, PETRONAS is much in the current happening too. Im NOT SUGGESTING them to do so, but im TELLING them that pulling the Rakyat into participating in Street Protest is a NO and will only add more miseries to Millions others silence Rakyat who had enough suffering and in much needed of better levelled, compassionate and brilliant heads to engage and suggest to the current government of methods that would help all, in a better and civilised conference of environment.

We should be more focussed on how to help ourselves and the government too, in rendering our services and knowledge which then hopefully can be accepted and embraced by this weak government smarties of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. We should forced the government to accept more participations from the public and scholars in addressing the current issue. We should forced the government to sacrifice some unworthy policies and practises surrounding the oil saga, to get the Rakyat to now learn to sacrifice their long beloving relationship with subsidisation, in return.

M'SIAN OIL SUBSIDY: A CONFUSE QUESTION OF AN ALREADY CONFUSED PHENOMENA

The sudden rise of petrol and diesel prices were nothing short of a shocker for the reasons of firstly when it was (as announced) supposed to be done somewhere in August (refer to Dato Shahrir), not right while we were still sleeping,  and secondly the margin of the increment for both the items for example petrol increment at a whooping 78 sen to RM2.70/litre from the previous RM1.92/litre.

I came across an article written by Tun Mahathir on the matter of OUR OIL, THE SUBSIDY AND THE SUDDEN RISES OF ITS PRICE. (refer here).

And one thing that interests me, was the mentioned of an approximately 400,000 BARRELS OF CRUDE OIL segmented for Malaysian consumptions. Mind us, that Tun is the current adviser to Petronas. Hence, he may well knows more than what meets the eye.

But to be frank, till now I still do not understand how and why the so-called mechanism of 400,000 barrels of crude oil produced and allocated for Malaysian by our dearest Petronas, daily; ends up with us Malaysians, BE MADE TO PAY AT AND ACCORDING to the current world’s gross market price of refined (processed) fuel which stands at (according to our know-how Johorean Minister) RM3.00/litre. Wasn’t it, the 400,000 barrels of our homely milked and made product, supposed to be FREE from global market interpretations (and effects) OR else it wouldn’t be ours to begin with? Would the cost of refining and processing crude oil in our own country with our own facilities, reaches up to RM3.00 for exact litre of consumption? That cant possibly be, right? Or was it a practice everywhere in the world, for a govt owned oil producing company to return (sell is the right word) the people’s treasure to the people (and govt) at a cost equivalents to the fluctuating price of world’s oil market? What rational does that constitutes? Because I cant find the reason as to why the govt has to subsidise our own plundered oil by the govt’s own company UNLESS the playing (and business) rules affecting this commodity’s trade (regardless of where it comes and goes) are of that it goes by not just the world’s standards, but also the world’s prices.

In layman terms, WE ARE BUYING IMPORTED OIL AT IMPORTED PRICE EVEN IF THAT SAD DISGUSTED OIL CAME JUST OFF THE COAST OF TERENGGANU.

I could be wrong, but it looks like Petronas is charging us every dollar and cent of world’s currency with no exceptions as to where the oil came from and who the 400,000 barrels consumers were.

So the QUESTION is, WHY DO WE HAVE TO LIVE BY THIS RULE IN OUR OWN TURF WHEN THE RULE FOR ONCE, CAN BE CHANGED AS IT IS OUR OWN PRODUCT WITHIN OUR GOVERNING JURISDICTIONS AND TERMS?

WHY do we have to pay for something that rightly, supposedly and beneficially ours AT THE CURRENT WORLD’S MARKET PRICE? I may be no Einstein, but theoretically, fixing the allocated 400,000 barrels each at a price which is much lower than the world’s price and acceptable to both the Govt and the people (consumers), by Petronas, can of course be done and making sense, right? And too, it wont make Petronas goes bling, broke and bankrupt. And surely the government too and its think-tank at ISIS and EPU can come out with a better scheme to at least temporarily accommodate its own people. At least better than the marginally little proportion of the so-called reduced and refunded Road Taxes.

I agree that Malaysian cant be taught and pampered all while long till eternity with oil subsidisation. Malaysian needs to be educate to accept the harsh realities which boggled the world around us. And we don’t expect to live with this cruel kindness of subsidisation, forever. Especially when crude oil supply in Malaysia is becoming thinner and thinner by day. BUT education needs and will take time. Its not an overnite matter like the flip-flop's announcement of the sudden oil price hike by our learnt minister. Encouraging Malaysian to be better prepared and understood, is to gradually and wisely phases-out the subsidisations. Not by strangling us with the shock of an electrifying magnitude announcement that makes some unfortunate thousands Malaysians become BROKE, the day after. We haven’t had enough of AIR inhaled getting over the recent cooking oil and rice issues. What more is there left, when suddenly, WE HAVE TO LEARN TO NOW START BREATHING CARBON DIOXIDE INSTEAD…IN ORDER TO LIVE.

KHALID: NO CUT IN RATES THIS YEAR

Ratepayers in Selangor can forget about the 20 per cent reduction in assessment and the 10 per cent reduction in commercial property tax this year as the state government will not be able to deliver on its promise made in the recent general election.

Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim said it was not feasible to implement the rate cuts as the state's economy had not reached a desirable level.
Any reduction this year could have a negative financial impact on the state government.

'DO NOT PROMISE WHAT YOU CANT DELIVER'

Its the most simple and correctly proven and oftenly used WISDOM in the world. 'DO NOT PROMISE WHAT YOU CANT DELIVER'.

At the end of the day, REALITY bites.

Khalid was right that it was not feasible to implement the rate cuts as the state's economy had not reached a desirable level. Not Feasible means it is wisely not to do the tax cut. But technically, it can be done.

So now that Khalid and co. have the chance to administer a state; he now knows how difficult it was since, to really governs a state. The act of balancing expenditures and incomes. Promoting healthy financial concepts and controls while keeping viable revenues intact and growing. And to please the Rakyat and fulfilling own political needs and bank's account.

What about the made promises and the now seemingly irrelevant election Manifests? Politicians are all the same. They promise you bridge even where there is no river to build upon.

DID BALKIS HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE RM9.9MIL?

Questions are being asked whether it was correct for the Wives of Selangor Assemblymen and MPs Welfare and Charity Organisation (Balkis) to transfer out the RM9.9mil it had in its coffers a few days after the state fell to the Opposition. Defending the money transfer, then president Datin Seri Zahrah Kechik said she had the legal right because her husband Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo was still the caretaker Selangor Mentri Besar at that time. Dr Mohd Khir said the money was “temporarily transferred” to the Association of Wives of Ministers and Deputy Ministers (Bakti) to ensure the money would be spent according to Balkis' purpose, namely for the welfare of children. The state government, however, is questioning the transfer of the money and seeking legal advice. It has also asked the Registrar of Societies to put on hold the dissolution of Balkis, which the committee, led by Zahrah, also unanimously decided to do. The Bar Council is of the opinion that Balkis' action could be tantamount to criminal breach of trust. (source)

They are RIGHT lawfully, WRONG ethically and morally. While the money came from various donations and contributions (none accumulated to any state govt allocation), the patronage of the govt of Selangor and its agencies were definitely there in used. Its like handing someone the Selangor MB's calling card, to get the calling for contributions, and sorts. BALKIS were formed by a group of people. And by law, this group of people has the right to de-registered the association, if they immorally wishes so. BALKIS is not part of any Selangor state govt agencies. But the money they collected for the people of Selangor, using the Selangor state govt as its front, ethically should belong for the use of the people of Selangor. It should stay where it is. In the present Bank Account. So did the association, supposedly. The money should not be transferred and BALKIS not being dissolved. This is just another wicked political game in the face of public betrayal and trust. While those proposed would not want the newly Selangor's ruling party to have easy hands on money, those opposed would definitely want easy hands on making this into a huge political drama and what could be a certain victory.

HURAIAN BERNAS, TEPAT DAN PADAT MENGENAI ISU BABI

Semua kita sedia maklum terdapat begitu banyak isu-isu untuk ditangani oleh semua pihak di Malaysia dan Selangor khasnya. Dalam kontek kemasyarakatan, keadaan begitu mendesak untuk kita menyelesaikan isu-isu yang berkaitan dengan integriti kaum, masalah sosial dan jenayah. Mengikut stastik dan maklum balas daripada akar umbi, inilah antara isu-isu yang menjadi keutamaan untuk di selesaikan oleh pihak pemerintah. Tetapi setakat ini, selepas PRU, kita tidak nampak lagi penekanan yang begitu serius diberikan terhadap isu-isu yang disebutkan di atas.

Dalam perkembangan terbaru di Selangor yang diwar-warkan oleh semua pihak sekarang ini malah YB sendiri ialah berkenaan dengan isu projek ternakan babi yang dikatakan akan dibuat dalam skala yang besar tetapi secara sistematik di Selangor. Pelbagai pihak telah memberikan pandangan dan maklum balas tentang isu berkenaan. Tidak dapat dinafikan isu ini juga merupakan antara isu yang berada di tangga teratas kerana ia berkaitan dengan soal alam sekitar , kesihatan serta sensitiviti masyarakat Malaysia, khasnya penduduk Islam. Sesungguhnya isu babi boleh dikatakan telah berlarutan sekian lama dan merimaskan pelbagai pihak. Permasalahan yang berlegar sekarang adalah penternakan babi yang berleluasa tanpa kawalan yang menyumbang kepada pelbagai permasalahan seperti yang kita sedia maklum.
Sebelum kita pergi lebih jauh dalam menangani isu ini, amatlah perlu kepada kita untuk memahami keperluan kepada babi itu sendiri. Dengan ini, ia akan memudahkan kita untuk mencari pendekatan yang lebih sesuai berdasarkan keperluannya. Tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa daging babi merupakan sejenis makanan yang lazat bagi sesetengah pihak. Tetapi dalam masa yang sama ia juga merupakan sejenis makanan yang lebih banyak membawa kepada kemudaratan dari segi kesihatan dan pembentukan peribadi seseorang. Kita sedia maklum bahawa babi merupakan sejenis binatang yang begitu kebal daripada sebarang jenis penyakit dan pada masa yang sama ia juga bersifat pengotor. Jika diperhatikan kepada tabiat semulajadi kehidupan dan pemakanan binatang ini, ia amatlah berlainan dengan binatang-binatang lain.
Dengan sifat semulajadinya yang kebal daripada sebarang penyakit dan tabiatnya, jadi tidak hairanlah sekiranya binatang ini disinggahi, menyebar dan menjadi tempat pembiakan pelbagai jenis virus dan cacing. Pelbagai kajian secara saintifik telah dijalankan berkenaan dengan babi dan kesinambungannya dengan penyebaran dan pembiakan kepada pelbagai jenis virus dan cacing.

Kajian dan penyelidikan berkenaan dengan babi telah dijalankan berabad-abad yang lalu dan ia telah diperakui oleh kebanyakan pakar yang pengambilan babi sebagai sumber pemakanan lebih membawa kepada keburukan. Salah satu huraian tentang keburukan babi telah dibuat oleh John Harvey Kellogg (1897), pengasas produk pemakanan Kellog Corn Flake. Salah satu huraian beliau boleh ditemui di laman web berikut, http://www.giveshare.org/Health/porkeatdanger.html
Petikan daripada laman http://www.ismaweb.net/ISMA/PNphpBB2-printview-t-47-start-0.phtml juga menggariskan penyataan daripada beberapa pakar perubatan berkenaan dengan babi seperti berikut. Daniel S. Shapiro, M.D., Pengarah Clinical Microbiology Laboratories, Boston Medical Center, Massachusetts yang juga seorang Penolong Profesor Perubatan di Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Massachusetts, merumuskan bahawa terdapat PELBAGAI JENIS PENYAKIT yang boleh di jangkiti daripada babi seperti:• Anthrax
• Ascaris suum
• Botulism
• Brucella suis
• Cryptosporidiosis
• Entamoeba polecki
• Erysipelothrix shusiopathiae
• Flavobacterium group IIb-like bacteria
• Influenza
• Leptospirosis
• Pasteurella aerogenes
• Pasteurella multocida
• Pigbel
• Rabies
• Salmonella cholerae-suis
• Salmonellosis• Sarcosporidiosis
• Scabies
• Streptococcus dysgalactiae (group L)
• Streptococcus milleri
• Streptococcus suis type 2 (group R)
• Swine vesicular disease
• Taenia solium
• Trichinella spiralis
• Yersinia enterocolitica• Yersinia pseudotuberculosisKajian oleh Alix Fano (M.A.), Murry J. Cohen (M.D.), Marjorie Cramer (M.D.,F.A.C.S.), Ray Greek (M.D.), dan Stephen R. Kaufman (M.D.) mendapati antara PENYAKIT-PENYAKIT ini ada yang BOLEH MEMBAWA MAUT, contohnya leptospirosis. Ia boleh menyebabkan kerosakan hati dan buah pinggang.
TOKOH-TOKOH PERUBATAN CHINA juga tidak kurang mengatakan bahayanya babi. Yan Show Tan adalah satu jurnal kesihatan Cina yang terkenal suatu masa dahulu mengatakan: “Semua daging adalah berkhasiat MELAINKAN DAGING BABI.”
Sun See Mao ialah seorang TABIB TERKENAL DINASTI TANG menulis dalam bukunya Sheh Shen Lu (Catatan-catatan Kesihatan) mengatakan: “Daging babi MERANGSANG PENYAKIT-PENYAKIT LAMA, menyebabkan KEMANDULAN, PENYAKIT TULANG dan ASMA.”
Lee Shih Ch’en pula seorang TABIB TERKENAL DINASTI MING yang mengarang lebih kurang 50 jilid buku-buku perubatan. Pendapatnya tentang daging babi adalah: “Ia boleh MENDATANGKAN KESAN BAHAYA.”
Kesan-kesan yang dinyatakan di atas bukanlah kes-kes baru kerana ia telah banyak berlaku di banyak negara termasuk negara kita sendiri seperti yang kita telah sedia maklum.

Kita juga tidak menafikan bahawa sumber makanan yang lain juga boleh membawa bahaya jika diambil dalam kuantiti yang berlebihan atau dengan diet tidak teratur. Tetapi ia tidaklah seperti bahaya yang dibawa oleh babi. Babi secara nyata dan jelas berbeza dengan sumber makanan lain.

Dalam kontek kerohanian pula, kita sedia maklum bahawa kita terdiri daripada badan(body) dan jiwa/roh(soul). Unsur-unsur kandungan babi dalam badan boleh mengurangkan perasaan malu (dalam melakukan perkara yang tidak elok) dalam diri seseorang selain daripada menyemai perasaan bongkak, tidak berperikemanusiaan dan tamak haloba. Tetapi ia tidak sampai ke tahap kita boleh mengatakan yang bahawa seseorang yang memakan daging babi dia semestinya berperangai begitu kerana ramai juga manusia yang tidak memakan babi berperangai yang tidak elok. Perangai buruk boleh disebabkan oleh banyak faktor. Tetapi kita boleh mengambil iktibar bahawa pengambilan unsur-unsur babi secara konsisten boleh mempengaruhi komposisi rembesan kimia dalam badan seterusnya mempengaruhi cara kita berfikir, perasaan dan tindakan kita. Salah satu tulisan yang dibuat mengaitkan babi dan kejiwaan telah dikarang oleh Rashid Shamsi dalam The Muslim World League Journal, Rajab 1420 - October 1999. Beliau juga ada memetik pepatah Inggeris yang berbunyi 'a man becomes what he eats'.

Dalam kontek keagamaan pula, agama-agama samawi iaitu Islam, Yahudi (Jew) dan Kristian (Old Testament) begitu jelas memperkatakan tentang pengharaman babi. Tetapi ramai penganut-penganut Kristian telah mengabaikan perintah itu. Dalam kontek Islam, segala bentuk pengharaman termasuk babi adalah berkait rapat secara ilmiah dan saintifik dan kita diperintah untuk mendalami dan mencari hikmah-hikmah di sebalik apa yang diperintahkan menggunakan akal fikiran yang dikurniakan.

Di peringkat global sekarang, banyak negara-negara cuba untuk mengurangkan pengambilan babi malahan Australia telah menguatkuasakan pengharaman penternakan babi di sesetengah tempat untuk mengurangkan jumlah babi. Jiran-jiran kita seperti Singapura dan Hong Kong juga telah dikatakan mengambil langkah untuk tidak membenarkan kemasukan babi hidup ke dalam negara mereka. Beliau malahan secara nyata menyarankan adalah lebih baik berhenti daripada membiakkan babi dan biarkan ia mencari tempatnya sendiri untuk hidup.

Jadi berdasarkan fakta-fakta di atas adalah jelas kepada kita bahawa babi banyak membawa kepada keburukan dan ketidak harmonian. Jadi berbalik kepada isu babi di Malaysia amnya dan Selangor khasnya. Apakah pendekatan yang harus kita ambil terhadap isu babi ini? Kalau dilihat kepada aspek-aspek negatif yang di bawa angkara babi ini, adalah lebih baik diharamkan terus babi ini dalam bentuk apa pun baik penternakan, pembiakan dan pemakanan khasnya. Tetapi apakah wajar kita berbuat demikian? Jawapan kepada soalan ini adalah bergantung kepada tujuan aktiviti-aktiviti tersebut.

Dalam kontek penternakan, ia lebih kepada satu industri untuk tujuan komersial. Jadi bolehkah kita menghapuskan industri ini jika ia untuk tujuan komersial semata-mata. Jawapannya kenapa tidak. Tetapi bagaimana nasib terhadap penternak-penternak babi itu. Sebenarnya, jawapan itu telah ada. Kita lihat bagaimana kita menangani isu penanam-penanam tembakau atau isu-isu pengambilan tanah demi sesuatu tujuan. Kita boleh memberi pampasan dan menawarkan peluang-peluang lain. Jadi apakah pendekatan seperti ini tidak boleh dilakukan dalam isu babi ini? Jika kita boleh mempertimbangkan untuk membunuh babi bila keadaan mendesak seperti bila penularan wabak penyakit. Jadi dalam keadaan terkawal, kenapa kita tidak berkata untuk menghapuskan penternakan babi. Kita tidak perlu membunuh babi itu. Ia boleh dilakukan secara jualan pukal kepada pihak-pihak yang sanggup membelinya. Apakah kita dikatakan kejam bila berbuat demikian? Atau tidak kejamkah kita bila membiarkan sesuatu yang kita maklumi berbahaya dan boleh membawa mudarat biarpun dikatakan dibuat dalam keadaan terkawal terus berada dalam masyarakat kita? Tidakkah ia seumpama 'api dalam sekam'? Jika ia membawa kepada kebaikan dan amat perlu tidak mengapa, kita mungkin sanggup untuk mengambil risikonya. Tapi perlukah kita berbuat demikian untuk babi? Jawapannya TIDAK.

Dalam kontek kemasyarakatan dan intergriti, kita perlu memikirkan tentang jurang perbezaan. Kita seharusnya mengurangkan jurang perbezaan antara semua kaum. Dalam masyarakat Malaysia khasnya, penduduk Islam begitu menitik berat perihal soal halal dan haram. Babi seperti yang telah kita semua maklum dalam Islam merupakan unsur haram atau maaf untuk disebut merupakan najis berat. Jadi secara tidak langsung ini merupakan satu perkara yang mereka begitu pertimbangkan bilamana menghadiri majlis-majlis atau keraian yang dianjurkan oleh orang bukan Islam. Itu baru dalam kontek kehidupan harian. Bagaimana pula dalam kontek pertanian dan perniagaan bilamana petani-petani bukan Islam secara terang-terangan mengguna pakai dan menghasilkan produk-produk yang disenaraikan dalam kategori haram? Perlukah kita menggadaikan semua itu dengan menambahkan jurang perbezaan demi untuk memelihara babi?

Berdasarkan analogi di atas adalah perlu untuk mengurangkan bilangan babi seterusnya membasminya. Bukan untuk menstabilkannya kerana risiko untuk ia berkembang bakal terbuka luas. Semua telah tahu kadar pembiakan babi terlalu cepat dan tidak cerewet untuk hidup dalam apa keadaan sekalipun.

Tetapi bolehkah kita menghapuskan terus industri ini dalam masa yang singkat? Ya, jika semua penternak faham akan tujuan dan menerima alternatif dalam bentuk lain dan setuju dengan jumlah pampasan atau sebagainya yang diberikan.Tetapi ini mungkin tidak akan berlaku sepenuhnya kerana akan ada penternak yang tidak setuju dan berkemungkinan bertindak di luar batasan jika dipaksa. Jadi kepada mereka, syarat-syarat yang ketat seperti amalan kaedah sistematik adalah perlu dan had bilangan babi perlu dipatuhi. Konsep perladangan mereka juga perlulah bersifat tertutup jauh dari penempatan, punca air, takungan dan tidak mencemarkan alam sekitar. Tindakan tegas perlu diambil jika ia tidak dapat dilakukan. Sistematik dalam skala yang besar dengan sistematik dalam skala yang kecil adalah dua perkara yang berbeza. Dalam perkara negatif jika terpaksa dilakukan adalah elok menggunakan skala kecil kerana lebih senang untuk diuruskan malah untuk dibasmikan.

Dalam kontek negeri Selangor, langkah kerajaan untuk menempatkan penternakan babi di satu tempat yang luas dalam skala besar walaupun dikatakan akan dibuat secara sistematik adalah tidak wajar. Ini kerana tahap risikonya adalah amat tinggi dan bakal mengundang pelbagai masalah. Kita belum lagi dapat menguruskan sebuah incinerator untuk pembuangan sampah. Apakah kita mampu menguruskan ladang babi berkeluasan 300 ekar? Kita tidak perlu bersikap 'Malaysia Boleh' dalam hal ini. Apa yang perlu ialah pendekatan untuk mengurangkan seterusnya membasmi babi, bukan untuk menstabilkan jumlahnya apatah lagi menambah jumlahnya. Jika difikirkan dari segi keperluan apakah tiada makanan lain yang lebih berkhasiat dan ternyata bersih serta tidak menimbulkan sebarang keraguan. Cukuplah ia dijual sekadar untuk mereka-mereka yang tidak dapat meninggalkan langsung makanan itu atau untuk tujuan keraian dan bukan keperluan harian. Mengikut perangkaan, jumlah pelaburan yang bakal digunakan adalah RM 100 juta. Tidakkah lebih baik jika pelaburan sebegitu banyak digunakan untuk menjana sumber makanan lain seperti ikan, ayam, lembu dan sebagainya yang nyata jauh dari unsur was-was/haram dan dapat dimanfaati oleh semua pihak? Fikir-fikirkan lah. Tidak perlulah kita perjuangkan perkara yang negatif. Apa yang perlu dilakukan ialah mengurangkan babi seminima yang mungkin kearah membasminya. Tidak perlulah kita ke German semata-mata untuk belajar pengurusan babi kerana pakar dalam negera pun ada yang tidak kurang hebatnya, mungkin untuk skala kecil. Dan ini pun yang kita perlukan untuk memenuhi kehendak mereka yang betul-betul berkeinginan terhadap babi. Kerana kita percaya tidak ramai orang yang tidak boleh hidup tanpa babi.

Berkenaan dengan kelulusan yang telah diberikan oleh kerajaan yang lepas. Persoalannya, apakah ia tidak boleh diubah?

Kita tidak boleh mengharamkan terus babi untuk dimakan oleh mereka yang menpunyai hak ke atasnya. Tetapi kita boleh untuk menggalakkan mereka untuk mengurangkannya atau meninggalkannya seperti juga arak dan judi. Jadi dalam isu ini tidak timbul isu untuk menidakkan hak kepada mereka yang berhak. Hak terus diberikan tetapi ia perlu dipastikan tidak menyusahkan dan menimbulkan keresahan kepada pihak lain. Hatta, dalam Islam sendiri pun dibolehkan untuk makan babi dalam keadaan darurat seperti kebuluran dan sebagainya. Sekiranya ini dapat dilakukan secara perlahan-lahan adalah diharapkan penggemar daging atau produk berasaskan babi dapat melupakan tabiat berkenaan. Bacalah laman ini http://hubpages.com/hub/porkhazards yang mengisahkan pengalaman seorang pelajar berbangsa Cina yang belajar di London berkenaan dengan babi.

Kepada YB dan rakan-rakan seangkatan dalam kerajaan Selangor, bertindaklah dengan betul supaya ia boleh memberi manfaat kepada semua pihak secara menyeluruh. Say No to BABI not Well Done for BABI. Berikan juga penekanan yang lebih kepada isu-isu sosial, jenayah, rogol, judi dan arak. Bersama kita melahirkan Selangor dan Malaysia yang bersih. BERSIH!!!!!!!! Lupakah kita?? Berkatalah benar walaupun ia pahit. Sekian terima kasih dan selamat berkhidmat.

(klik di sini untuk sumber terbitan asal)

Pendapat saya mudah. Jangan POLITIKKAN LAGI ISU BABI ini. Jangan POLEMIKKAN LAGI untuk kepentingan agenda maupun madah.

Memandangkan perkara perihal ladang BABI di Selangor ini akan melibatkan kebajikan PENDUDUK di sekitar kawasan terbabit khasnya, dan Selangor Umumnya. Langkah BIJAK, ADIL dan TERBAIK adalah dengan mendapatkan pandangan, maklumbalas serta persetujuan Penduduk yang terbabit. Kalau majoriti mereka, SETUJU; walau apa buruk dan baiknya dari apa jua sudut pandangan, PROJEK TERSEBUT MAKRUH DITERUSKAN. Kalau majoriti mereka TIDAK BERSETUJU, maka PROJEK PENTERNAKAN BABI TERSEBUT WAJIB DIHENTIKAN!!