Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The oil royalty conundrum
7 Things About Prophet Muhammad: A Clarification
Failing to fail
Of fatwa, Valentine's Day and smoking
CORRECTION: No referendum was held in Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya on Malaysia

Posted: 05 Feb 2013 12:18 PM PST

Distribution of oil wealth is a contentious issue. Azam Aris looks at a possible solution.

Azam Aris, fz.com

A FEW weeks ago, an ex-colleague who is now working with a foreign embassy sent me several questions about Malaysia's oil royalty. The issue, she added, was of interest to them.

I did not ask why that was so but I guess it is the job of an embassy to get as much information as possible on socio-economic and political matters that could have an impact on the country it represents.

The oil and gas industry worldwide, including here in Malaysia, attracts a lot of investments from multinationals (MNCs). Nearly all the big petroleum players are doing business here, with super majors like Exxon-Mobil, Shell and Conoco-Phillips awarded offshore exploration and production blocks.

The industry also attracts its fair share of controversy – ranging from human rights and environmental issues to the fair distribution of oil wealth by the central government in places like Nigeria, Sudan and Indonesia's Aceh province.

Distribution of the oil wealth, which is related to the royalty, has been an issue in Malaysia since 2000 when the federal government directed the national oil corporation, Petronas, to stop payments to the Terengganu government, which was then controlled by opposition party PAS.

On Jan 22, the Kelantan government – also controlled by PAS – filed an application for a court injunction to prevent Petronas from paying the state's "share" of the royalty to the federal government. Petronas and the federal government say Kelantan is not entitled to the royalty - which is the subject of another court case.

Kelantan had in fact mooted the idea of a G5 – to include the four other oil-producing states of Terengganu, Sabah, Sarawak and Pahang, all controlled by the ruling Barisan Nasional – to make a united stand when negotiating oil royalty.

It may all be a bit complicated for uninitiated readers. I will try to shed some light on the issue based on the questions asked by the foreign embassy. Of course, these are my personal views.

How is the royalty from Petronas to the states calculated?

First and foremost, get hold of the Petroleum Development Act (PDA). It is the Act that governs the oil and gas sector and Petronas' role as custodian of the country's hydrocarbon resources.

The oil companies are just contractors and Petronas is the owner of the blocks awarded. The oil companies sign a production-sharing contract (PSC) with Petronas. The PSC stipulates the sharing of the resources among the federal government, states, Petronas and the oil companies.

In simple terms, this is how the royalty works for the first-generation PSCs, based on the gross production of crude oil or gas.

Let's assume that gross production of crude oil is 100 barrels. Of this, 10% or 10 barrels are set aside as payment for royalty. The federal and state governments where the oil is produced get five barrels (or 5%) each. Oil companies are then allowed to claim a recovery cost up to a maximum of 20 barrels (or 20%) – considered "cost oil". The remaining 70 barrels (or 70%) – "profit oil" – are split in the ratio of 70:30 in favour of Petronas.

That's the basic formula. As oil and gas extraction becomes more difficult, with exploration moving into deeper waters, the percentage of cost oil and profit oil are increased in favour of the contractors. But the royalty remains at 10% – 5% each for the federal and respective state governments. Payment is made twice a year by Petronas straight into the state's coffers.

Are states eligible for royalty if the oilfields are situated more than three nautical miles from shore? Did the three-nautical-mile condition only come up after Kelantan made a claim on the Joint Development Area (JDA) in the overlapping waters of Thailand and Malaysia?

Almost all offshore oil and gas fields in the country – whether in Terengannu, Sabah or Sarawak – are more than three nautical miles from shore. They all get their royalty.

The PDA 1974 was crafted in the spirit of sharing revenue between the federal and state governments. There wasn't any issue until 1999, when PAS took control of the Terengganu government. The federal government, as the sole shareholder of Petronas, decided in 2000 that payment to the state government should stop. Part of the royalty – known as wang ehsan or goodwill money – was then channelled to federal-based agencies in the state.

PAS then took the federal government and Petronas to court. One of the main defences was that the Terengganu government was not entitled to royalty as the oilfields were not within the state's waters as they were more than three nautical miles from shore and thus belong to the federal government. So, based on the same argument, Kelantan too is not entitled to the oil royalty.

But if that were the case, Sabah and Sarawak should similarly not be entitled to the royalty. However, the federal government's counter argument was that oil was first discovered in Sarawak and Sabah during British rule and that they were governed by a different set of rules.

7 Things About Prophet Muhammad: A Clarification

Posted: 05 Feb 2013 11:59 AM PST

Islam is a religion which forbids compulsion. Islam is not a political ideology or sovereign nation that demands absolute loyalty. What religion on Earth did not divide into sects over dogmatic disagreements after its founder's demise?

Qasim Rashid (Huffington Post)

In her recent piece, "7 Things That May Surprise You About Muhammad," author Lesley Hazleton offers unique insights into Prophet Muhammad's life. Giving credit where it is due, I've enjoyed Hazleton's TED talk on Prophet Muhammad, and many of her writings on Islam. In fairness, however, several of her "7 Things" are incorrect. This article mentions and clarifies these matters.

1. He was born an orphan.

Hazleton accurately summarizes Prophet Muhammad's early years but perhaps it is semantically more accurate to say "he was orphaned as a young child." The foster mother who cared for him as an infant and young child was a woman named Haleema. Prophet Muhammad loved her dearly.

2. He married up -- and for love.

Hazleton accurately summarizes Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Hazrat Khadija, but I offer two minor matters of clarification.

First, while Hazleton is correct that the marriages were "a means of diplomatic alliance," Prophet Muhammad was in fact married 11 times, not nine times, after Khadija's death.

Second, Hazleton writes that Muhammad had "[no children] with any of his later wives." Perhaps she meant to say "no children who lived to adulthood" as Prophet Muhammad in fact had at least 11 children with his later wives, each of whom died in infancy or when only a few years old.

3. His first reaction to becoming a Prophet? Doubt and despair.

Hazleton accurately states Prophet Muhammad's fear upon the Angel Gabriel's appearance to him. Imam Bukhari records Prophet Muhammad's initial reaction.

Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, 'Cover me! Cover me!' They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, 'O Khadija, what is wrong with me?' Then he told her everything that had happened and said, 'I fear that something may happen to me.' Khadija said, 'Never! But have the glad tidings, for by Allah, Allah will never disgrace you as you keep good relations with your Kith and kin, speak the truth, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guest generously and assist the deserving, calamity-afflicted ones.' [1]

Khadija then took Prophet Muhammad to her cousin, Waraqa ibn Nawfal, a Christian Nazarene priest and Biblical scholar. Waraqa further reassured Prophet Muhammad not to fear, but recognized that he experienced precisely what past true Prophets of God experienced. He declared to Prophet Muhammad:

This is the same angel who appeared in times long past to Moses. Would that I might still be alive when you will be turned out of your native city. I could then help you to my heart's content.' Prophet Muhammad responded, 'Shall I be banished from my native city?' Waraqa replied, 'Any man who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly. [2]

Sadly, Waraqa bin Nawfal died shortly thereafter, but his predictions and recognition of Muhammad's truth were fulfilled in their entirety.

4. He led an early form of Occupy Wall Street.

Hazleton inaccurately compares the Occupy Movement and Prophet Muhammad's propagation of Islam. The two are substantively opposites.

For example, despite facing immense social, economic, and civil injustices Prophet Muhammad wholly forbade causing any form of public disorder or interruption. He did not form any public protests, marches, or resistance movements. No "Occupy Mecca" or "Occupy Kaba" existed. Instead, he preached quietly among family and friends during the first three years of his ministry.

When active persecution began, Prophet Muhammad ordered his companions to worship privately in their homes as to avoid public disorder as much as possible. When persecution intensified, he ordered his followers to migrate to Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia) and seek refuge under the righteous Christian King Negus. When persecution yet further intensified, he and his companions were boycotted and exiled from Mecca for a near three year period. They lived in a barren valley on the brink of starvation. Even during this intense period of suffering he forbade any form of public protest and disruption. Finally, when persecution reached its climax, he still forbade any form of public protest, and migrated with his companions secretly and peacefully to Medina -- some 240 miles away -- all to preserve peace and avoid public disorder.

Yes, Prophet Muhammad protested social and economic inequality, but not by any comparison to the Occupy Movement. Rather, it was through prayers, patience, and private preaching for peace.

5. He was a pacifist -- at first.

Hazleton mischaracterizes Prophet Muhammad's decisions on when to, and when not to, fight. Dictionary.com defines a pacifist as one who "is opposed to war or violence of any kind."

Though he loathed violence, Prophet Muhammad openly and repeatedly declared his willingness to take up arms to defend his Jewish allies in the Charter of Medina, defend all Christians in his letter to St. Catherine's Monastery, and to follow the Qur'anic commandment to defend all "Synagogues, Churches, Temples, and Mosques" from "being torn down." (22:41) That is, Muhammad considered fighting a last resort but would employ force if it meant defending universal religious freedom. This does not make him a pacifist "at first" or ever, but instead demonstrates his logical rationale, practicality, and recognition that at times, force is needed to ensure self-defense and universal freedom of conscience.

Failing to fail

Posted: 05 Feb 2013 11:03 AM PST

Malaysia's performance in 1999, when we first participated, was decent — some 70% of the students who sat for the test achieved intermediate benchmark scores. What is really worrying is how the scores have steadily deteriorated over time.

Nungsari Radhi, fz.com

I WAS reading up on The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) recently. TIMSS was started in 1995 by the research arm of the US Department of Education to benchmark the performance of US students between the ages of 10 and 14 globally by measuring their understanding of mathematical and scientific concepts.

There have been five TIMSS studies since 1995. The most recent, in 2011, involved students from 60 countries. Malaysian students did not participate in the inaugural study in 1995, but took part in the last four.

In the most recent study, only 36% of the students reached the intermediate benchmark scores, which means Malaysia's performance in 2011 is only half of what it was in 1999. The Malaysian scores are also below the average score of all 60 countries that participated in the study.

In the mathematics portion for 14-year-olds, for example, Malaysian students averaged a score of 440 while the overall average was 500. This contrasts with the performance of students from South Korea and Singapore, whose average scores were 613 and 611 respectively.

The low score of Malaysian students and the steep decline in their performance over the years should set alarm bells ringing for the authorities.

All the national aspirations of productivity-driven growth, innovativeness and being knowledge-based ring hollow in the light of this rather dismal performance of our 14-year-olds in mathematics and science. There is something seriously wrong with our school system and we are running the real risk of seeing an economic decline in the near future.

All this prompted me to read the recently released Education Blueprint 2013-2025, but I was reading it with the TIMSS results in my head and some preconceived ideas already forming. I was looking for some radical solutions. The blueprint does contain some interesting ideas, with a few even being radical.

I agree with some of the basic principles underlying the recommendations, particularly those around decentralisation and empowerment of schools. Students come in different profiles, schools are located in different communities and there are geographical factors affecting the types of students and communities. Therefore, schools and district education offices should be empowered to customise the treatment of students in their schools. And most of all, parents and communities must be a major part of education.

Apart from an overly centralised school system, the other factor that is afflicting our school system, in my view, is the failure to fail. Let me elaborate.

To improve things, we have to address both failing and failures. The poor TIMSS scores are indications of failures. If the school system is such that it uses failing more effectively, we would address this failure.

Failing is a big part of success. Without failing, we get more failures. Avoiding to fail at the individual level will get you more failures at the systemic level and I suspect that is what is fundamentally wrong with our education system generally.

In baseball, players are largely measured by their batting average, the percentage at which they get a base hit each time they are at bat. Any player with a batting average of above 30%, or 0.300 in baseball convention, is considered a very good hitter. The highest career batting average in US Major League Baseball history is 0.366, held by Ty Cobb, who played in the first decades of the 20th century. So, the best hitter in baseball failed to hit the ball about two-thirds of the time.

Striving for excellence and learning as a process are all about going through failure, repeatedly, with every step forward. Do not deprive students of this very important privilege of learning from failing. Do not be deluded into thinking that not failing is equivalent to helping; it is quite the opposite actually — it debilitates.

Failing is normal and there will be failures whenever there are standards. The challenge is to get students across the standards and to have teachers who are capable of motivating students to do so.

Of fatwa, Valentine's Day and smoking

Posted: 05 Feb 2013 11:00 AM PST

Would Jakim use the same method to enforce - with the same fervour - a 1995 fatwa that declared smoking haram for Muslims?

Sean Augustin, fz.com

IT is that time of the year, as a fellow journalist rightly pointed out, when the knives are out for Valentine's Day.

Political parties or religious groups brandish the morality card and sometimes statistics of children born out of wedlock to warn the Muslim community about the evils of Valentine's Day.

Muslims are urged to shield their faith which could otherwise be shaken from this 'sinful', if not Christian, commercialised day.

Yes, though inspired by a saint, there is no religious significance to Feb 14, compared to say, Christmas Day.

In the past few years Malaysians have become accustomed to statements reminding Muslims to not partake in this celebration, citing a fatwa issued in 2005.

This year, Bernama reported, more than 300 volunteers, comprising the youth, will join a programme to make the Muslim community realise the importance of not celebrating Valentine's Day.

The programme, called Jerat Hari Valentine or Valentine's Day Trap, will be focussed around KLCC, Bukit Bintang, Masjid India, KL Sentral, Pudu Sentral and the Putra World Trade Centre.

Islamic Development Department (Jakim) director-general Datuk Othman Mustapha said that volunteers would advise and explain Valentine's Day to the Muslim community.

Jakim director of Family, Social and Community Division, Saimah Mokhtar, was quoted byBernama as saying she hopes parents take the ban on Valentine's Day celebration seriously as it has elements of Christianity and mixed with vices forbidden by Islam.

Now, I'm not here to question the fatwa. If religious leaders feel they are doing their flock a service, so be it.

Getting volunteers to counsel the community might be an effective way in dealing with the issue, even if one disagreed with the reasons given.

I do however have one question. Would Jakim use the same method to enforce - with the same fervour - a 1995 fatwa that declared smoking haram for Muslims?

The edict was issued based on the following reasons: cigarettes are poisonous, addictive and increases the risk of cancer.

The National Fatwa council also cited verses from the Quran that forbid Muslims to not harm themselves.

I think it would be a sight to behold, volunteers approaching and counselling smokers on the perils of lighting up.

CORRECTION: No referendum was held in Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya on Malaysia

Posted: 05 Feb 2013 10:22 AM PST

The Malayan Government opted for Malaysia. The individual states in Malaya did not join Malaysia. So, Sabah and Sarawak cannot be referred to as the 12th and 13th states.

Joe Fernandez

My comment on the video in the email below.

Sabah and Sarawak did not become independent on 16 Sept, 1963 through Malaysia, as the history books keep telling our students.

Sabah obtained independence on 31 Aug, 1963 when it opted for self-determination.

Sarawak obtained independence on 22 July, 1963 when it opted for self-determination.

No referendum was held in Sabah, Sarawak and Malaya on Malaysia.

The Malayan Government opted for independence. The individual states in Malaya did not join Malaysia. So, Sabah and Sarawak cannot be referred to as the 12th and 13th states.

A vote was held in Singapore on independence through merger with Malaya via Malaysia. The people voted yes.

The Chinese in Sabah and Sarawak were against Malaysia.

The Orang Asal in Sabah and Sarawak wanted a period of independence before looking at the idea of Malaysia again.

The Sarawak Malay community leaders and the Suluk and Bajau leaders in Sabah welcomed the idea of Malaysia.

The Muslims in Sabah and Sarawak were not consulted on Malaysia.

The British and the Malayan Government brought Sabah and Sarawak into Malaysia to add the Orang Asal and Muslim population to facilitate the merger of Chinese-majority Singapore with almost Chinese-majority Malaya.

Singapore was expelled from Malaysia two years later in 1965.

The British and Malayan Governments' reasons for Sabah and Sarawak to be in Malaysia no longer existed after Singapore's departure. Security through Malaysia, against crocodiles Indonesia and Philippines, was an afterthought argument by the Malayan Government and the British.

The Orang Asal, Sabah and Sarawak are Nations in Malaya just like Malaya.

Sabah and Sarawak are not the 12th and 13th states in Malaysia.

Malaya monopolises and dominates the Federal Government of Malaysia instead of sharing it with Sabah and Sarawak.

Malaya has 165 seats in Parliament and not the 147 seats it should have -- i.e. one seat less than two third at a very maximum -- in Parliament. This means 18 seats stolen from Sabah and Sarawak.

In addition, the parti-parti Malaya have stolen more seats in Sabah and Sarawak including in the state assemblies and want to steal even more seats.

Malaya turned out to be the real crocodile in the region, as predicted by Indonesian President Sukarno.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Fwd: WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR SONG MA?
doDgNs9PRD0

MALAYAN GIRL QUESTIONS THE MEANING OF LIFE IN THE 3 COUNTRIES IN MALAYSIA. THNIGS HAVE CHANGE SINCE THIS VIDEO. THINGS GOT WORSE! IN SABAH SARAWAK THE CONCLUSION IS "LIFE WAS BETTER BEFORE 1963" - THAT WAS 50 YEARS OF "INDEPENDENCE IN MALAYSIA" - AGO!

WE WANT ALL THAT CHANGE PLUS OUR INDEPENDENCE!

Or watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doDgNs9PRD0

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Rabu, 6 Februari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan