Buat pertama kali saya menjengah Klinik 1 Malaysia di Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak. Lokasinya sesuai, dan berikut adalah pengalaman saya untuk dikongsi bersama.
Dengan bayaran hanya RM1 untuk mendapatkan perkhidmatan, sememangnya perkhidmatan Klinik 1Malaysia jauh lebih baik daripada mana-mana klinik swasta di kawasan ini. Pertamanya, klinik itu lengkap dengan kemudahan yang jauh lebih baik daripada klinik swasta. Misalnya alat penyukat tekanan darah pun lebih canggih daripada alat yang digunakan oleh Klinik swasta. Ada juga disediakan kemudahan mesin penimbang, untuk membolehkan pengunjung membuat ukuran sendiri.
Perkhidmatan yang diberikan juga adalah setanding dengan klinik swasta, bahkan pegawai yang menerima pelanggan bukannya calang-calang staf, sebaliknya adalah jururawat yang berpengalaman.
Pada waktu saya sampai, lebihkurang 8.30 malam cuma dua orang pelanggan saja yang ada. Ertinya masa menunggu pun lebih singkat.
Bagi kes saya yang perlukan rawatan susulan, doktor telah menjadualkan semula waktu-waktu untuk saya berjumpa semula. Saya amat gembira kerana kali ini setiap kali berjumpa, cajnya adalah cukup kecil. Kalaulah Klinik swasta, tentunya setiap kali berjumpa saya akan dikenakan caj yang tinggi.
Sesuatu yang baik perlu diberikan pujian. Tahniah kepada Klinik 1Malaysia, Seri Iskandar.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Hakim gariskan 4 sebab Herald dibenar guna kalimah ‘Allah’
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 17 — Penghakiman kontroversi Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Datuk Lau Bee Lan berhubung permohonan penggunaan kalimah “Allah” menggariskan empat alasan iaitu tindakan Menteri Dalam Negeri dan kerajaan adalah tidak sah, tidak berperlembagaan, tidak rasional dan gagal memuaskan bahawa penggunaannya adalah satu ancaman kepada keselamatan negara.
Dalam penghakimannya, beliau menekankan tentang elemen konflik dalam soal antara Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan enakmen pelbagai negeri selain tuntutan kumpulan-kumpulan agama Islam bahawa perkara tersebut tidak boleh dibawa ke mahkamah sivil.
Hakim itu mengeluarkan alasan-alasan bertulis berhubung keputusan yang beliau buat pada 31 Dis lalu lewat Jumaat lalu ketika kontroversi berhubung penghakimannya berterusan sehingga kini dengan mencetuskan ketegangan agama, berakhir dengan serangan dan perbuatan vandalisme ke atas gereja, kuil Sikh dan masjid.
The Malaysian Insider memperoleh penghakiman bertulis setebal 57 muka surat ini, di mana beliau memberikan alasan-alasan secara terperinci berhubung keputusan lisannya tempoh hari.
Hakim Lau memutuskan bahawa Menteri Dalam Negeri dan Kerajaan Malaysia, yang masing-masing dinamakan sebagai responden pertama dan kedua, mempunyai budi bicara di bawah Seksyen 12 Akta Mesin Cetak dan Percetakan untuk mengeluarkan ataupun membatalkan permit kepada Biskop Kuala Lumpur Rev. Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam iaitu pemohon untuk menerbitkan akhbar mingguan Herald.
Bagaimanapun beliau menambah, responden-responden telah membuat keputusan yang tidak sah, tidak berperlembagaan dan tidak logik apabila melarang akhbar mingguan Katolik itu daripada menerbitkan perkataan “Allah” di bahagian Bahasa Malaysia.
BACAAN LANJUT DI SINI...
Dalam penghakimannya, beliau menekankan tentang elemen konflik dalam soal antara Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan enakmen pelbagai negeri selain tuntutan kumpulan-kumpulan agama Islam bahawa perkara tersebut tidak boleh dibawa ke mahkamah sivil.
Hakim itu mengeluarkan alasan-alasan bertulis berhubung keputusan yang beliau buat pada 31 Dis lalu lewat Jumaat lalu ketika kontroversi berhubung penghakimannya berterusan sehingga kini dengan mencetuskan ketegangan agama, berakhir dengan serangan dan perbuatan vandalisme ke atas gereja, kuil Sikh dan masjid.
The Malaysian Insider memperoleh penghakiman bertulis setebal 57 muka surat ini, di mana beliau memberikan alasan-alasan secara terperinci berhubung keputusan lisannya tempoh hari.
Hakim Lau memutuskan bahawa Menteri Dalam Negeri dan Kerajaan Malaysia, yang masing-masing dinamakan sebagai responden pertama dan kedua, mempunyai budi bicara di bawah Seksyen 12 Akta Mesin Cetak dan Percetakan untuk mengeluarkan ataupun membatalkan permit kepada Biskop Kuala Lumpur Rev. Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam iaitu pemohon untuk menerbitkan akhbar mingguan Herald.
Bagaimanapun beliau menambah, responden-responden telah membuat keputusan yang tidak sah, tidak berperlembagaan dan tidak logik apabila melarang akhbar mingguan Katolik itu daripada menerbitkan perkataan “Allah” di bahagian Bahasa Malaysia.
BACAAN LANJUT DI SINI...
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Those bloody banks, credit card companies and Bank Negara! — Fahri Azzat (loyaburok.com)
JAN 16 — Diana Chee Vun Hsai, like many of us owned a credit card. She had two. One from Citibank Berhad, the other from HSBC Bank Berhad. On 7 September 2008, HSBC called up her to alert her about her credit card being used. When she checked her purse, she discovered both her credit cards were missing. She notified both the credit card companies of the loss of her credit cards on the same day and lodged a police report at Dang Wangi police station about it the following day. She understandably thought that was the end of the matter. She was wrong.
On 16 September 2008, Citibank told Diana Chee Vun Hsai they were billing her for the unauthorized transaction of RM 1,859.01 done on 6 September 2008. She responded through her solicitors to inform Citibank that the limit of liability for a lost credit card was RM 250.00 as provided in clauses 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3 of the Bank Negara Guidelines BNM/RH/GLO-041-01 (“the BNM Guidelines”). Citibank’s lawyers replied pointing out to her that the terms of her credit card the crux of which is as follows:
“Our client imposes a duty on the cardholder to notify the loss one (1) hour prior to the unauthorized use and to provide proof of acting in good faith and exercising reasonable care and diligence to prevent such loss or theft of unauthorized use of the card before our client can exercise its discretion whether to resolve the liability or not. Such a clause is not in contravention of the Bank Negara guidelines.” (emphasis mine)
I have emphasized that portion to demonstrate just how unreasonable banks can be; to limit your losses arising from the loss of your credit card to RM 250.00, you have to inform Citibank one hour before the unauthorized transaction takes place, which you would naturally know nothing about. Additionally, you have to prove good faith and demonstrate that you exercised reasonable care and diligence to prevent such a loss. How absurd is that! Even after you show all that that, it is still at Citibank’s discretion whether to “resolve the liability or not”. Is it any wonder the sensible man loathes banks despite yielding to them? They borrow your money, charge you a higher rate for borrowing back and offer you pittance for its use. But we shall leave this for another day.
READ MORE HERE
On 16 September 2008, Citibank told Diana Chee Vun Hsai they were billing her for the unauthorized transaction of RM 1,859.01 done on 6 September 2008. She responded through her solicitors to inform Citibank that the limit of liability for a lost credit card was RM 250.00 as provided in clauses 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3 of the Bank Negara Guidelines BNM/RH/GLO-041-01 (“the BNM Guidelines”). Citibank’s lawyers replied pointing out to her that the terms of her credit card the crux of which is as follows:
“Our client imposes a duty on the cardholder to notify the loss one (1) hour prior to the unauthorized use and to provide proof of acting in good faith and exercising reasonable care and diligence to prevent such loss or theft of unauthorized use of the card before our client can exercise its discretion whether to resolve the liability or not. Such a clause is not in contravention of the Bank Negara guidelines.” (emphasis mine)
I have emphasized that portion to demonstrate just how unreasonable banks can be; to limit your losses arising from the loss of your credit card to RM 250.00, you have to inform Citibank one hour before the unauthorized transaction takes place, which you would naturally know nothing about. Additionally, you have to prove good faith and demonstrate that you exercised reasonable care and diligence to prevent such a loss. How absurd is that! Even after you show all that that, it is still at Citibank’s discretion whether to “resolve the liability or not”. Is it any wonder the sensible man loathes banks despite yielding to them? They borrow your money, charge you a higher rate for borrowing back and offer you pittance for its use. But we shall leave this for another day.
READ MORE HERE
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The name "Allah" is the Arabic word that refers to the one true God who created the heavens and the Earth – the God of all the Prophets from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad (peace be upon them all).
READ MORE HERE: http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=1760
READ MORE HERE: http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=1760
Monday, January 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
