TR EMERITUS

From The Age JOSH GORDON April 4, 2010 THE federal government will consider slashing Australia's annual migration intake to help tackle concerns about traffic congestion, housing, hospitals, water and the environment. Just months after declaring himself in favour of a ''big Australia'', Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday warned of ''legitimate concerns'' with population growth and appointed Agriculture Minister Tony Burke as Australia's first Population Minister. Mr Burke has been given a year to develop the country's first population plan, including a review of immigration levels. The announcement came as another boatload of asylum seekers - the 102nd to be intercepted since Mr Rudd took office - was placed in detention at the Christmas Island facility, which has reportedly reached capacity. Mr Rudd denied the new strategy was a smokescreen to divert attention from the recent boat arrivals, saying the idea for a population plan had come after ''extensive deliberations of the cabinet over the last month''. He said population growth must be monitored: ''Particularly its impact on urban congestion, its impact on the adequacy of infrastructure, its impact on the adequacy of housing supply, its impact on government services, its impact also on water and agriculture and on our regions.'' Mr Rudd's change of heart followed the release last month of Treasury's Intergenerational Report, which predicted Australia's population would swell from about 22 million to 35.9 million in 2050, with overseas migration by far the biggest contributor. Australia's growth rate is now twice the global average, even outstripping that in some developing nations including the Philippines, Malaysia, India, Indonesia and Vietnam. Figures from the Bureau of Statistics show that last financial year net overseas migration added a record 298,924 people, while natural increase (births minus deaths) added 157,792. Victoria's population, estimated at 5.44 million at June 2009, is growing faster than the national average, with 27 per cent of all immigrants in 2008-09 choosing to set up home here. The majority moved to Melbourne, where population growth outstripped all other capital cities for the eighth year in a row, compounding pressure on the city's public transport network, roads and housing market. Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison dismissed Mr Rudd's announcement as a diversion to cover his failure to control boat arrivals. ''Effectively what he has announced is a plan for a plan after the next election,'' he said. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said Australia needed a serious debate on population. ''It's very hard to have a sustainable population strategy if you can't control our boat arrivals. You can't have a population policy without having a border protection policy,'' he said. The Future Eaters author and former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery welcomed the move, but said the Government should create an independent board to set medium and longer-term targets that would take into account the environment, social issues and the economy. Greens leader Bob Brown said the new strategy must be matched with action. ''The major parties' population growth plan is outstripping Australia's infrastructure, environmental capacity and affecting quality of life.''   Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-flips-on-big-australia-20100403-rkvo.html  Read More →

作者:梁实轩 2010年4月2日 译者：冀居·谢 新加坡能源在2007/2008财政年度赚了10亿8600万元，环比是增加了15个百分点。除此之外，2009最后一个季度的家庭电费上升了12.5%，而在2010年4月又要再次提高。（ 链接） 每个人都在问：为什么电费可以在4月1日提高，也不看看国人去年的实际薪金是呈下降的趋势、超过6万人仍在失业、而新加坡经济也不过才从大衰退中走出来？ 既然是这样，那么就试试解答下列的问题： 根据官方网站，“从2000年到2006年，发电厂利用天然气发电的比例从19%上升到78%。”--那为何电费还是照旧和高涨的原油价挂钩，而不是天然气价格呢？ 既然新加坡整体的能源生产效率已经从2000的38%攀升到2006年的44%，为何没有折现回馈给消费者呢？（ 链接） 为何发电厂和能源供应商的合约不可以公开呢？如果这些资讯得以摊在阳光下，那么我们就能回溯原油价、天然气价格和电费之间的关系，从而知道他们从中赚取多少的利润？ 为什么我们的三家发电厂归淡马锡控股所有之后，可以无需经过国会辩论，就轻易地卖掉这些国家战略性资产呢？ 在许多国家，经营者很少承担发电基础设施，因为它是国家发展的一部分，所以理应由政府承担。那新加坡有什么特别的理由要成为例外呢？为什么不利用税收来减低电费、天然气费和资助能源基础投资呢？ 根据香港发电厂CLP能源-供应香港大约80%的电力-的一份2008年9月的新闻发布，新加坡是2005年来，全球21个城市中把电费提得最高的第二名，为什么呢？ 根据能源管理局（EMA）的一份报表，2008年1月份，当原油价是96.64元时，电费是22.62元。既然官方宣称电费是和原油价挂钩，那么到了2009年1月电费报22.93元，高过2008年1月，但是当时的油价却是92.29元，还低过2008年1月的96.64元？这证明年度环比，虽然油价是跌了4个百分点，然而电费却起了1个百分点，那么到底电费和原油价是什么关系？ 新加坡能源在2007/2008财政年度坐收10亿8600万的盈利，和2003/2004财政年度的同比是15%的增长。为什么我们允许一个国营企业提供垄断性公用设施时赚取这么庞大的利润？ 那么一年电力市场的总利润是多少？包括供应商（新加坡能源）和所有发电厂？ 为什么需要那么长的时间来所谓打开电力零售市场和引进竞争对手？ 根据新加坡统计年鉴，新加坡的水、电、天然气价格从1995至2005的指数分别每年上扬了8.6、2.8和4.2个百分点。而同期的通货膨胀只是每年1个百分点。 2009年最后一季的家庭电费却是上扬了12.5个百分点。 为什么电力价格的上涨，允许比通货膨胀多这么多？ 新加坡高居本区域电力价格之冠，他们向消费者征收的价格甚至比美国和法国还高，为什么？ 你知道吗？那些跌入所谓“付多少用多少”计划的单位已经从2006年12月的1万2200户增加到2008年的1万3243户了。 还有多少家庭是付不起电费的？ 为何国会和主流媒体都不经常公布“付不起电费”家庭、“付多少用多少”（PAYU）电表数目和电力行业利润等信息呢？ 电力行业这些主要执行官和董事局成员是怎么委派出来的？他们具有独立性吗？他们有可能照顾消费者的利益吗？ 上述的许多问题，在许多国家根本不必提出来谈，因为电力供应一般上都把它视为是公共事业，必然需要很高的企业执行力、透明度、问责制和国会监督等等。 在2008年，能源管理局在一篇给海峡时报读者的回复里这么说： “我们同意Serrien先生提出与其立法，不如设立监管机制来保护消费者的建议。这就是能源管理局成立的原因，我们致力于重组和开放能源市场，让它获得实际的增长和保证具竞争力的价格。政府还设立一个能源效率计划部门，在不同的领域指导能源效率的实行。接着下来，我们会尽我们的能力帮助一般家庭节省能源和节省电费。” 来源：大马论坛  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Chelsea reclaimed top spot in the English Premier League when they beat Manchester United by two goals to one at its home turf. Joe Cole opened the scoring at 20 minutes followed by Didier Drogba at 79 minutes though he appeared to have scored from an off-side position. Federico Macheda pulled one back for the Red Devils 2 minutes later, but Chelsea hanged on for an important victory. Chelsea now moves up to 1st position at 74 points with only 5 games to go. Manchester United has 72 points while third-placed Arsenal has 68 points with a game in hand. Chelsea will be crowned as the new EPL champions if it were to win all its remaining games.  Read More →