The Damage Had Already Been Done

Gov't set to announce fuel price cut

Aug 1, 08 2:07pm (www.malaysiakini.com)

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today said the government was set to announce a cut in fuel prices, following a 41-percent hike in June that stirred protests.

Good to hear that, but it was meaningless. The damage had already been done. Costing of living had already shot up. Even though the government cut the fuel price, I doubt it can be restored back to the previous level.

Government has cut down their projects; private companies has changed their bearing from expansion mode to survival mode; inflation rate has rocketed to 7.7% (which I still believe the real life figure is much higher); job market looks shaky and consumer's spending is dropping (Generally a restaurant business dropped 20%-30% after the fuel price increase).

There is an old chinese saying: "If you know that this is the consequence, why you want to do it in the first place?" I don't believe none of the economist/expert warned the government before they announced the 78 cents fuel price increase. Why? Why do this at the expense of the general public?

Sue The Public Smokers

Was having breakfast with my wife and son at a restaurant this morning. It's NOT a non-smoking restaurant. Unfortunately we were seated beside a table full of male smokers. It destroyed our "breakfast mode", and we left as soon as we finished our food, of course inhaled a lots of "complementary" passive smokes.

According to tons of research conducted, smoking is the greatest risk factor for cancer. Read the article by Cancer Research UK here. Passive smoking has the same or even greater risk. Read the extract of the BMJ article here.

Though we are only exposed to the passive smokes for that few minutes, but no doubt we were mentally stressed, and left with some damage lung cells.

Some time one day, when I have the resource, I will bring these public smokers to court for attempt to cause injury/sickness to other. Or bring the restaurant owner to court for negligence for not taking care the interest of non-smokers, when the restaurant is not designated as "smoking only" or "non-smoking" restaurant.