Showing posts with label Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Issues. Show all posts

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Kacang hijau tiruan di Tesco


Kacang hijau tiruan di Tesco

image001 30 Kacang hijau tiruan di Tesco image002 28 Kacang hijau tiruan di Tesco Bagi mereka yang suka makan makanan ringan ataupun jajan atau yang mempunyai kebiasaan untuk membeli jajan untuk anak-anak anda, harap ambil perhatian dari analisa seorang ahli makmal di USM berkenaan kacang hijau.
Seperti yang terdapat di pasaran, makanan ringan kacang hijau terdapat beberapa jenis dari pelbagai jenama. Antaranya kacang hijau manis sahaja dan kacang hijau bersalut tepung dan sebagainya.
Kacang hijau mengandungi dua kali ganda protein dari sayur-sayuran, malah boleh jadi pengganti daging.Tiga suku cawan kacang memberikan 6 gram protein,tiamin plus , riboflavin, niacin, kalsium, besi, fosforus, kalium dan 645 unit vitamin A.
Malangnya sebahagian besar industri makanan ringan di negara-negara membangun berlaku penipuan dengan
kacang hijau palsu yang terdiri dari racun bahan kimia (pewarna). Industri-industri ini menyediakan kacang seperti kacang rebus yang berwarna coklat (lebih murah) kemudian merendamnya dalam larutan pewarna semalaman.
image003 31 Kacang hijau tiruan di Tesco Semua bahan kimia ini telah dilarang oleh makanan AS pada tahun 1974 . Kesan dari pewarna kacang hijau palsu boleh merosakkan usus besar dan kanser pundi kencing.
Semua kacang hijau palsu dilarang di AS, Kanada, semua Negara Eropah dan negara-negara maju lain.
Pengenalan kacang hijau palsu:
1. Masukkan kacang hijau dalam air mendidih selama 30 saat, ternyata air bertukar kepada warna hijau.
2. Setelah makan kacang hijau palsu ini akan menyebabkan lidah anda mempunyai kesan berwarna hijau dan rasa pahit.
Gejala :
1. Sakit perut.
2. Air kencing berubah menjadi seakan warna hijau.
3. Sakit kepala ringan.
Kajian kes :
Paket berikut ini dibeli oleh seorang pakar dalam kajian dadah USM daripada Tesco , Pulau Pinang pada tarikh 4 Julai 2010.
image004 23 Kacang hijau tiruan di Tesco
image005 25 Kacang hijau tiruan di Tesco
image006 23 Kacang hijau tiruan di Tesco
image007 20 Kacang hijau tiruan di Tesco
Sebagai ahli kimia beliau membuat ujian di makmal dan menjumpai bahan pewarna tiruan di dalam kandungannya.
Rujukan akhbar :
News paper reference:
China daily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-03/31/content_9664992.htm
D. Bharath Reddy
Research scholar
Centre for drug research
USM, Pulau Penang
Malaysia 11800.
www.isuhangat.net

The fall of the West's little dictator

The fall of the West's little dictator

http://en.harakahdaily.net
Esam al-Amin   
When people choose life (with freedom)
Destiny will respond and take action
Darkness will surely fade away
And the chains will certainly be broken
-Tunisian poet Abul Qasim Al-Shabbi (1909-1934)
On New Year's Eve 1977, former President Jimmy Carter was toasting Shah Reza Pahlavi in Tehran (pictured right), calling the Western-backed monarchy "an island of stability" in the Middle East.
But for the next 13 months, Iran was anything but stable. The Iranian people were daily protesting the brutality of their dictator, holding mass demonstrations from one end of the country to the other.
Initially, the Shah described the popular protests as part of a conspiracy by communists and Islamic extremists, and employed an iron fist policy relying on the brutal use of force by his security apparatus and secret police. When this did not work, the Shah had to concede some of the popular demands, dismissing some of his generals, and promising to crack down on corruption and allow more freedom, before eventually succumbing to the main demand of the revolution by fleeing the country on Jan. 16, 1979.
But days before leaving, he installed a puppet prime minister in the hope that he could quell the protests allowing him to return. As he hopped from country to country, he discovered that he was unwelcome in most parts of the world. Western countries that had hailed his regime for decades were now abandoning him in droves in the face of popular revolution.
Fast forward to Tunisia 32 years later.
What took 54 weeks to accomplish in Iran was achieved in Tunisia in less than four. The regime of President Zein-al-Abidin Ben Ali (left, with wife) represented in the eyes of his people not only the features of a suffocating dictatorship, but also the characteristics of a mafia-controlled society riddled with massive corruption and human rights abuses.
On December 17, Mohammed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old unemployed graduate in the central town of Sidi Bouzid, set himself on fire in an attempt to commit suicide. Earlier in the day, police officers took away his stand and confiscated the fruits and vegetables he was selling because he lacked a permit. When he tried to complain to government officials that he was unemployed and that this was his only means of survival, he was mocked, insulted and beaten by the police. He died 19 days later in the midst of the uprising.
Bouazizi's act of desperation set off the public's boiling frustration over living standards, corruption and lack of political freedom and human rights. For the next four weeks, his self-immolation sparked demonstrations in which protesters burned tires and chanted slogans demanding jobs and freedom. Protests soon spread all over the country including its capital, Tunis.
The first reaction by the regime was to clamp down and use brutal force including beatings, tear gas, and live ammunition. The more ruthless tactics the security forces employed, the more people got angry and took to the streets. On Dec. 28 the president gave his first speech claiming that the protests were organized by a "minority of extremists and terrorists" and that the law would be applied "in all firmness" to punish protesters.
However, by the start of the New Year tens of thousands of people, joined by labor unions, students, lawyers, professional syndicates, and other opposition groups, were demonstrating in over a dozen cities. By the end of the week, labor unions called for commercial strikes across the country, while 8,000 lawyers went on strike, bringing the entire judiciary system to an immediate halt.
Meanwhile, the regime started cracking down on bloggers, journalists, artists and political activists. It restricted all means of dissent, including social media. But following nearly 80 deaths by the security forces, the regime started to back down.
On Jan. 13, Ben Ali gave his third televised address, dismissing his interior minister and announcing unprecedented concessions while vowing not to seek re-election in 2014. He also pledged to introduce more freedoms into society, and to investigate the killings of protesters during the demonstrations. When this move only emboldened the protestors, he then addressed his people in desperation, promising fresh legislative elections within six months in an attempt to quell mass dissent.
When this ploy also did not work, he imposed a state of emergency, dismissing the entire cabinet and promising to deploy the army on a shoot to kill order. However, as the head of the army Gen. Rachid Ben Ammar refused to order his troops to kill the demonstrators in the streets, Ben Ali found no alternative but to flee the country and the rage of his people.
On Jan. 14 his entourage flew in four choppers to the Mediterranean island of Malta. When Malta refused to accept them, he boarded a plane heading to France. While in mid air he was told by the French that he would be denied entry. The plane then turned back to the gulf region until he was finally admitted and welcomed by Saudi Arabia. The Saudi regime has a long history of accepting despots including Idi Amin of Uganda and Parvez Musharraf of Pakistan.
But a few days before the deposed president left Tunis, his wife Leila Trabelsi, a former hairdresser known for her compulsive shopping, took over a ton and a half of pure gold from the central bank and left for Dubai along with her children. The first lady and the Trabelsi family are despised by the public for their corrupt lifestyle and financial scandals.
As chaos engulfed the political elites, the presidential security apparatus started a campaign of violence and property destruction in a last ditch attempt to saw discord and confusion. But the army, aided by popular committees, moved quickly to arrest them and stop the destruction campaign by imposing a night curfew throughout the country.
A handful of high-profile security officials such as the head of presidential security and the former interior minister, as well as business oligarchs including Ben Ali's relatives and Trabelsi family members, were either killed by crowds or arrested by the army as they attempted to flee the country.
Meanwhile, after initially declaring himself a temporary president, the prime minister had to back down from that decision within 20 hours in order to assure the public that Ben Ali was gone forever. The following day, the speaker of parliament was sworn in as president, promising a national unity government and elections within 60 days.
Most Western countries, including the U.S. and France, were slow in recognizing the fast-paced events. President Barack Obama did not say a word as the events were unfolding. But once Ben Ali was deposed, he declared: "the U.S. stands with the entire international community in bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle for the universal rights that we must all uphold." He continued: "We will long remember the images of the Tunisian people seeking to make their voices heard. I applaud the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people."
Similarly, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy (left, with Ben Ali), not only abandoned his Tunisian ally by refusing to admit him in the country while his flight was en route, but he even ordered Ben Ali's relatives staying in expensive apartments and luxury hotels in Paris to leave the country.
The following day the French government announced that it would freeze all accounts that belonged to the deposed president, his family, or in-laws, in a direct admission that the French government was already aware that such assets were the product of corruption and ill-gotten money.
The nature of Ben Ali's regime: Corruption, Repression and Western Backing
A recently published report from Global Financial Integrity (GFI), titled: "Illicit Financial Flows from Developing Countries: 2000-2009," estimates Tunisia was losing billions of dollars to illicit financial activities and official government corruption, in a state budget that is less than $10 billion and GDP less than $40 billion per year.
Economist and co-author of the study, Karly Curcio, notes: "Political unrest is perpetuated, in part, by corrupt and criminal activity in the country. GFI estimates that the amount of illegal money lost from Tunisia due to corruption, bribery, kickbacks, trade mispricing, and criminal activity between 2000 and 2008 was, on average, over one billion dollars per year, specifically $1.16 billion per annum."
A 2008 Amnesty International study, titled: "In the Name of Security: Routine Abuses in Tunisia," reported that "serious human rights violations were being committed in connection with the government's security and counterterrorism policies." Reporters Without Borders also issued a report that stated Ben Ali's regime was "obsessive in its control of news and information. Journalists and human rights activists are the target of bureaucratic harassment, police violence and constant surveillance by the intelligence services."
The former U.S. Ambassador in Tunis, Robert Godec, has admitted as much. In a cable to his bosses in Washington, dated July 17, 2009, recently made public by Wikileaks, he stated with regard to the political elites: "they rely on the police for control and focus on preserving power. And, corruption in the inner circle is growing. Even average Tunisians are now keenly aware of it, and the chorus of complaints is rising."
Even when the U.S. Congress approved millions of dollars in military aid for Tunisia last year, it noted "restrictions on political freedom, the use of torture, imprisonment of dissidents, and persecution of journalists and human rights defenders."
Yet, ever since he seized power in 1987, Ben Ali counted on the support of the West to maintain his grip on the country. Indeed, Gen. Ben Ali was the product of the French Military Academy and the U.S. Army School at Ft. Bliss, TX. He also completed his intelligence and military security training at Ft. Holabird, MD.
Since he had spent most of his career as a military intelligence and security officer, he developed, over the years, close relationships with western intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, as well as the French and other NATO intelligence services.
Based on a European intelligence source, Al-Jazeera recently reported that when Ben Ali served as his country's ambassador to Poland between 1980-1984 (a strange post for a military and intelligence officer), he was actually serving NATO's interests by acting as the main contact between the CIA and NATO's intelligence services and the Polish opposition in order to undermine the Soviet-backed regime.
In 1999 Fulvio Martini, former head of Italian military secret service SISMI, declared to a parliamentary committee that "In 1985-1987, we (in NATO) organized a kind of golpe (i.e. coup d'etat) in Tunisia, putting president Ben Ali as head of state, replacing Burghuiba," in reference to the first president of Tunisia.
During his confirmation hearing in July 2009 as U.S. Ambassador to Tunisia, Gordon Gray reiterated the West's support for the regime as he told the Senate Foreign Relations committee, "We've had a long-standing military relationship with the government and with the military. It's very positive. Tunisian military equipment is of U.S. origin, so we have a long-standing assistance program there."
Tunisia's strategic importance to the U.S. is also recognized by the fact that its policy is determined by the National Security Council rather than the State Department. Furthermore, since Ben Ali became president, the U.S. military delivered $350 million in military hardware to his regime.
As recently as last year, the Obama administration asked Congress to approve a $282 million sale of more military equipment to help the security agencies maintain control over the population. In his letter to Congress, the President said: "This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country."
During the Bush administration the U.S. defined its relationship with other countries not based on its grandiose rhetoric on freedom and democracy, but rather on how each country would embrace its counter-terrorism campaign and pro-Israel policies in the region. On both accounts Tunisia scored highly.
For instance, a Wikileaks cable from Tunis, dated Feb. 28, 2008, reported a meeting between Assistant Secretary of State David Welch and Ben Ali in which the Tunisian president offered his country's intelligence cooperation "without reservation" including FBI access to "Tunisian detainees" inside Tunisian prisons.
In his first trip to the region in April 2009, President Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, stopped first in Tunisia and declared that his talks with its officials "were excellent." He hailed the "strong ties" between both governments, as well as Tunisia's support of U.S. efforts in the Middle East. He stressed President Obama's "high consideration" of Ben Ali.
Throughout his 23 year rule, hundreds of Tunisian human rights activists and critics such as opposition leaders Sihem Ben Sedrine and Moncef Marzouki, were arrested, detained, and sometimes tortured after they spoke out against the human rights abuses and massive corruption sanctioned by his regime. Meanwhile, thousands of members of the Islamic movement were arrested, tortured and tried in sham trials.
In its Aug. 2009 report, titled: "Tunisia, Continuing Abuses in the Name of Security," Amnesty International said: "The Tunisian authorities continue to carry out arbitrary arrests and detentions, allow torture and use unfair trials, all in the name of the fight against terrorism. This is the harsh reality behind the official rhetoric."
Western governments were quite aware of the nature of this regime. But they decided to overlook the regime's corruption and repression to secure their short-term interests. The State Department's own 2008 Human Rights Report detailed many cases of "torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" including rapes of female political prisoners by the regime. Without elaboration or condemnation, the report coldly concluded: "Police assaulted human rights and opposition activists throughout the year."
What next?
"The dictator has fallen but not the dictatorship," declared Rachid Ghannouchi (right), the Islamic leader of the opposition party, al-Nahdha or Renaissance, who has been in exile in the U.K. for the past 22 years. During the reign of Ben Ali, his group was banned and thousands of its members were either tortured, imprisoned or exiled. He himself was tried and sentenced to death in absentia. He has announced his return to the country soon.
This statement by al-Nahdha's leader has reflected the popular sentiment cautioning that both the new president, Fouad Al-Mubazaa', and prime minister Mohammad Ghannouchi have been members of Ben Ali's party: The Constitutional Democratic Party. And thus their credibility is suspect. They have helped in implementing the deposed dictator's policies for over a decade.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister promised, on the day Ben Ali fled the country, a government of national unity. Within days he announced a government that retained most of the former ministers (including the most important posts of defense, foreign , interior and finance), while including three ministers from the opposition and some independents close to the labor and lawyers unions. Many other opposition parties were either ignored or refused to join based on principle protesting the ruling party's past.
In less than 24 hours, huge demonstrations took place all over the country on Jan. 18 in protest of the inclusion of the ruling party. Immediately four ministers representing the labor union and an opposition party resigned from the new government until a true national unity government is formed. Another opposition party suspended its participation until the ruling party ministers are either dismissed or resign their position.
Within hours the president and the prime minister resigned from the ruling party and declared themselves as independents. Still, most opposition parties are demanding their removal and their replacement with reputable and national leaders who are truly "independent" and have "clean hands." They question how the same interior minister who organized the fraudulent elections of Ben Ali less than 15 months ago, could supervise free and fair elections now.
It's not clear if the new government would even survive the rage of the street. But perhaps its most significant announcement was issuing a general amnesty and promising a release of all political prisoners in detentions and in exile. It also established three national commissions.
The first commission is headed by one of the most respected constitutional scholars, Prof. 'Ayyadh Ben Ashour, to address political and constitutional reforms. The other two are headed by former human rights advocates; one to investigate official corruption, while the other to investigate the killing of the demonstrators during the popular uprising. All three commissions were appointed in response to the main demands by the demonstrators and opposition parties.
January 14, 2011 has indeed become a watershed date in the modern history of the Arab World. Already, about a dozen would-be martyrs have attempted suicide by setting themselves ablaze in public protest of political repression and economic corruption, in Egypt, Algeria and Mauritania. Opposition movements have already led protests praising the Tunisian uprising and protesting their governments' repressive policies and corruption in many Arab countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Libya, Yemen, and the Sudan.
The verdict on the ultimate success of the Tunisian revolution is still out. Will it be aborted by either infighting or the introduction of illusory changes to absorb the public's anger? Or will real and lasting change be established, enshrined in a new constitution that is based on democratic principles, political freedom, freedoms of press and assembly, independence of the judiciary, respect of human rights, and end of foreign interference?
As the answers to these questions unfold in the next few months, the larger question of whether there is a domino effect on the rest of the Arab world will become clearer.
But perhaps the ultimate lesson to Western policymakers is this: Real change is the product of popular will and sacrifice, not imposed by foreign interference or invasions.
To topple the Iraqi dictator, it cost the U.S. over 4,500 dead soldiers, 32,000 injured, a trillion dollars, a sinking economy, at least 150,000 dead Iraqis, a half-million injured, and the devastation of their country, as well as the enmity of billions of Muslims and other people around the world.
Meanwhile, the people of Tunisia toppled another brutal dictator with less than 100 dead who will forever be remembered and honored by their countrymen and women as heroes who paid the ultimate price for freedom.
Courtesy: CounterPunch

Monday, January 17, 2011

Ban on Muslims in booze-serving joints


Ban on Muslims in booze-serving joints: Let common sense prevail, says Liu



Monday, January 17th, 2011 12:13:00
PETALING JAYA: Chairman of the Local Government, Study and Research Committee Ronnie Liu criticised the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) for still refusing to revoke its ban on Muslims working at alcohol-serving premises and said he hoped common sense would prevail.


Responding to MPSJ president Datuk Mohd Adnan Ikhsan's claim it was only a "verbal directive" by Liu to lift the ban, he said: "If they want it in black and white, we will give it to them."


Criticising Adnan's decision as "irresponsible", he said: "First, you need to ask the MPSJ president, did the council consult the State government over their decision?


"How could they decide on people's livelihood without considering the consequences? Which council and State have implemented this ban? Where is the grace period for the implementation? You cannot simply take away people's earnings and expect them to survive overnight."


Liu was hopeful of the outcome of today's between Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim and the council presidents, but refused to speculate what decisions would be made.


Khalid had called for the meeting to discuss the issue with with councils and the State excos members, following the MPSJ's decision to ban Muslims from working in alcohol-servingoutlets.


Asked whether the local councils had the right to overrule the State's decision in policy implementation, Khalid said: "This is why we've called for the meeting. This time around, I would sit down with the councils and excos to find the solution."


Khalid said it would be up for discussion today whether other local councils would follow suit on the ban.


The Paper That Cares learnt there was a possibility for the ban implementation to be put on hold for few months, until proper procedures and implementation mechanisms were finalised.


Saying the move would not be enforced immediately, there were other factors that would need to be sorted out before any decision by the Selangor government.

Council will abide by State government decision



BOTH the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ ) and Klang Municipal Council (MPK) have pledged to toe the Selangor government line when asked about the ban on Muslims working at alcoholserving outlets.


PJ Mayor Datuk Roslan Sakiman told The Malay Mail that the council would follow whatever directive of the Selangor government concerning the ban on Muslims from working at alcohol-serving premises.


"We will follow although many Muslim employees would be affected by the decision, since most are used to working at such outlets and many have been working there for years."


Asked if the new ruling was necessary, Roslan said: "It's hard for me to comment. Let's just see what takes place tomorrow (today) at the meeting with Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.


"The decision by the local council to ban Muslims from working at alcohol-serving outlets would be clarified by the State then."


Said MPK president Mislan Tigiu: "I'm unaware of the meeting tomorrow (today) but I would attend if I was called. MPK would abide by the State decision."


Pakatan in one mind to reverse ban on Muslims
Ban may bring hardship to Muslims working in booze-serving premises

Monday, January 17th, 2011 12:13:00


PETALING JAYA: Pakatan Rakyat (PR) members in the Selangor government are closing ranks to ensure the reversal of Subang Jaya Municipal Council's (MPSJ) decision to ban Muslims from working in alcohol-serving premises.


While Selangor PAS chief Datuk Dr Hasan Mohamed Ali came out strongly in support of the MPSJ decision, contrary to the directive by fellow State exco member Ronnie Liu from DAP, it looks like the ban is set to be cancelled.


Downplaying the public spat, Klang MP Charles Santiago (DAP) said Hasan was expressing his personal view.


"The exco decision was unanimous. He was also a part of the exco. He cannot overrule exco decisions."


Santiago said the "rift" was healthy as it showed the PR government was open to differences and signified a healthy democratic practice.


Hasan had commended MPSJ for its stand on Muslims working in alcohol-serving premises, stating such activity contravened Section 18(2) of the Syariah Criminal Enactment of Selangor.


The MPSJ decision was tabled last year as part of the council’s “self-initiated improvements”, meaning businesses that failed to abide by the condition would be subjected to a compound or withdrawal of their licence.


Taman Medan State assemblyman, Hanizah Talha (PAS), believed there was a misunderstanding between Liu and Hasan on the technical aspects in the enforcement of the ban.


The Selangor deputy speaker said: "Differences between Liu and Hassan are irrelevant. What's important is for details of the enforcement plan be disseminated to the public. The main purpose of the Selangor Syariah criminal enactment had 'vanished' due to the highlighted squabble between Liu and Hassan."


On Friday, Hasan, who is also the State exco member in charge of Muslim affairs, Malay customs, infrastructure and public amenities, said rules pertaining to licences for the sale of alcohol had a similar provision banning employment of Muslim workers at such premises.


He also clashed with Liu last year after the announcement mosque officials could arrest Muslims caught drinking alcohol in public places.


Hasan had asked for Liu's removal from the State exco following the confiscation of 70 cans of beer from a retail outlet in Shah Alam by the Shah Alam City Council. The "beerspat" took place during the row over the ban on the sale of beer in Muslim areas in Selangor.


During the weekend, it was reported syariah legal experts supported Hasan's view MPSJ's decision was applicable only to Muslim employees.


International Islamic University Malaysia constitutional law and syariah criminal law lecturer, Dr Shamrahayu A. Aziz, wondered why Liu had insisted on going against the State's syariah laws.


He said MPSJ did the right thing in following Section 18(2) of the Syariah Criminal Enactment of Selangor, a view echoed by Management and Science University law lecturer Raja Nur Alaini Raja Omar.


Criticising Liu for not abiding by the state's syariah laws, this MSU lecturer urged the government to strictly enforce rules related to Muslims in the State.


Meanwhile, Mohd Faizal Mohd Salleh, chairman for the Selangor chapter of Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung, called for Liu's sacking from the State government for being a "traitor to Muslim sensitivities".


Gabungan Anti Penyelewengan Selangor chairman, Hamidzun Khairuddin, said Liu was interfering in matters outside his purview by going against the State's syariah laws.


Malaysian Ulama Association secretary-general, Dr Mohd Roslan Mohd Noor, pointed out that Islam was the official religion under the Federal Constitution and this cannot be disputed even by Liu.


He also scoffed at Liu's reasoning of Muslim workers losing their livelihoods "as such a vocation isn't allowed by the religion in the first place".


Selangor Perkasa chief, Abdullah Mansor, called Liu insolent and said he had no right to interfere in Islamic matters.


Barisan Nasional (BN) felt the public spat was yet another rift in the State PR government.

Selangor sending wrong message, says MEF




PETALING JAYA: The Subang Jaya Municipal Council's (MPSJ) decision to ban Muslims from working at alcohol-serving establishments is a sensitive issue and the Selangor government is sending the wrong message to the world, said Malaysian Employers Federation executive director, Shamsuddin Baradan.


"Both employers and employees would be adversely affected by the decision. Most Muslim staff members aren't involved in alcohol consumption. But then, again everyone is entitled to their own opinion and authority.


"In Malaysia, there are jobs aplenty, but if Muslims are asked to leave their current jobs at liquor outlets, the question is will they get other jobs? There could be legal issues, too.


"It's sad issues like these keep coming up as, previously, there was a raid in which Muslim staff at alcohol-serving outlets were detained."


Shamsuddin said MEF expected to be approached by employers and employees if the ban was not lifted. "The local authority and State government should discuss with people on both sides of the table."

http://www.mmail.com.my/content/60996-jeers-and-cheers

Jeers and cheers

Monday, January 17th, 2011 11:50:00
Frontera Sol of Mexico
BAR BAN: Frontera Sol of Mexico will face manpower issues, says its manager — Pic: Amirul Shakir


OPERATORS and staff of outlets which serve liquor have expressed both support for and opposition to the Subang Jaya Municipal Council's (MPSJ) decision to ban Muslims from working in such outlets which may be extended state-wide, The Malay Mail found in a random survey.


Frontera Sol of Mexico restaurant manager, Ramesh Vadiveloo, said such a move would reduce the available workforce.


"I disagree with the ban as it will worsen the manpower situation. From my experience, some of the best bar tenders are Muslims. They are skilled in the job."


Echoing this view was Royal Oak Bar manager who hoped the ban would not be extended to PJ.


"Such a ban will badly hit hotels, pubs and other entertainment outlets depriving many hard-working Muslims of jobs," he said, while requesting not to be named.


However, a supervisor of a pub in PJ, who also preferred anonymity, said the ban would end the issue of Muslims working in the alcohol industry once and for all.


"In the long run, operators of such outlets will no longer have to worry about such matters."

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Mass Rail Transit (MRT)

Magic bullet may miss its mark
http://www.sun2surf.com/
SPEAK UP! :: Letters

IT has been announced that the Mass Rail Transit (MRT) construction will begin in July next year, and we are told that the RM36 billion project (not including land acquisition cost) will generate more jobs and income for the nation. MRT has been touted as the magic bullet to solve congestion woes in greater Kuala Lumpur.
But we have not been told on how the project can sustain itself financially and fulfil the needs of the rakyat equitably. How can the most expensive transport undertaking in the nation’s history proceed even before the endorsement of a public transport masterplan.
The high cost of the rail network means that fewer areas can be served with public transport, and most of the cost will be disproportionately shouldered by the majority who will benefit the least from the proposed MRT alignments.
Last year’s audit report on Prasarana showed that the average LRT fare of RM1.60 has to be increased to nearly RM9 for the LRT infrastructural costs to be fully recouped within the next 20 years. Since Prasarana’s bonds are guaranteed by the government, every taxpayer will have to eventually foot the bill, no matter whether their homes are near or far away from the stations.
There have been talks on the MRT to replicate the success story of the subsidy-less Hong Kong Mass Transit Rail company, but it will take the closed traffic system city-state tens of years for the capital investments to be recouped through rail plus retail approach. Even then, the corridors can easily adapt to the catchment of the surrounding ultra high density population and the city-centric employment concentration.
The pedestrian accessibility to our rail stations has yet to reflect the 400m radius of demand depicted in our structural plans due to unaddressed man-made barriers, and no one has figured how the tremendous fortunes made by certain real estate beneficiaries situated next to our present rail stations can be tapped to recoup the rail infrastructure costs. Worse, there was recent news on high market value lands previously owned by Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad, which should have been used to enhance KTM Komuter capacity, being sold off to fit the interests of certain real estate developers.
Greater KL consists of fragmented low and medium density housing sprawls, which are segregated by complicated networks of expressways. Employment centres are dispersed, and traffic gridlocks are building across the outer rings of Greater KL.
Just like a highway will remain unreachable to its nearby suburbs without access roads to the nearest exits, rapid transit lines will remain inaccessible without the support of local transit networks. The emphasis on making our car-oriented infrastructure more transit friendly, on speeding up the present feeder buses through better network designs and on making our streets more permeable and pedestrian-oriented should precede new mass transit announcements, not the other way around.
Communities must be empowered to decide on how their suburbs, towns and cities should be designed, and how the scarce roads available can be adapted to move more people instead of more cars. As walking is the single biggest means to access transit, no amount of enforcement powers can beat the eyes and ears of the locals in safeguarding their bicycle lanes, sidewalks and open spaces from errant motorcyclists and car drivers if such amenities exist and the transit services are reliable.
In world-class cities, it is the flexible use of different mobility tools, not the presence of state-of-the-art metros, that encourage people to use public transport. Pedestrians, cyclists and car drivers learn to co-exist with trams and buses through right-of-way transit classification and prioritisation.
The fundamental mindset that accords respect from drivers to pedestrians, and from those who travel individually to those who travel collectively, can be shaped through multimodal solutions that interact with one another, not brand new stand-alone rail solutions one after another.
RM36 billion is more than sufficient to build modern circulating tram lines for all major downtown areas in Malaysia, connected with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines with exclusive busways on the arterial roads and local circulator lines with queue jumps at bottleneck junctions in the suburbs. RM36 billion can even build more than 3,000km of BRT lines with MRT-like passenger capacity.
With these, new jobs can be created all over Malaysia, and urban centres can be made more compact and sustainable.
Public transport best practices around the globe show that local transit organising authorities play the crucial role in bridging the gap between spatial and transit planning through constant participatory planning and empowerment. Our local planners within the already scattered township jurisdictions all across the Klang Valley are in the dark on how the structural plans will jive in with the future transport needs, especially considering the top-down secrecy of the MRT alignments.
Participatory approach is a fundamental tool for good governance, and it requires the trustees of public funds to afford the public their rights to evaluate and approve choices based on transparent studies and findings, in which the pros and cons are deliberated by experts and presented to all affected stakeholders.
So far, there have been no studies made public on MRT’s cost-benefit comparison with other alternative transit modes such as BRT, trams and BET (which can work perfectly with traffic restraint and transit priority measures).
The people’s need should be put first.
Muhammad Zulkarnain HamzahShah Alam

Updated: 10:57PM Sun, 19 Dec 2010