Sunday, January 26, 2014
大马的发展与升级难关
作者: 孙和声
从性质上言，大马的经济与財政问题，已非单纯的周期性（Cyclical）问题，而是结构性（Structural）的问题。只要不解决根本的、长期的结构性问题，如腐败，討论再多的把年度预算赤字，限定在国內生產总值（GDP）的百分之多少，都不会起治本作用。
大马的结构性问题有哪些？专攻东南亚经济的澳洲学者HalHill在其主编的《大马的发展挑战》一书（2012年）里，认为大马面对著三大类关键挑战，即產业升级与创新；宏观经济调控，及社会政策与扶弱济贫政策。就升级与创新言，至少有以下7项挑战：
首先是政府对研发的重视程度。总的来说，大马在这方面不但不如新兴工业化经济体，如新加坡，甚至比中国还差。姑不论研发人员的素质，就研发投入言，长期以来，大马的占比还不到GDP的1%，而中国则为1.4%。
就產业政策言，大马本在1970年代，有机会成为东南亚的汽车製造中心，可却「头脑发烧」，而把这良机拱手让给了泰国。据笔者所知，在2012年，泰国的汽车年產量已超过200万，其中有约一半出口到各地。
大马的年產量则不到泰国的四分之一，且是在帮日本人变相垄断性地剥削本国消费者。技术没学到，市场没开拓到，还赔上充份工业化的代价。
教育一代不如一代
其二，一国要升级，大专院校的职能不可忽略；可惜大马的大专教育太过政治化与族群化，不但能者不能出头，连过往尚称得上不错的成绩也保不住。此点，也明显地反映于歷届的国际评比中。在世界快速进步的时代，成绩竟然一代不如一代，又如何为升级与创新出一把推动力？
其三，廉价外劳涌入，而人才则出走。此外一个常被提起的观点是，这现象抑止了大马的產业升级，可新加坡的例子则是，虽然廉价外劳也不少，可產业依然可持续升级换代。
这里突露的信息是，大马没做好把本国的单纯劳动力，转化为有素质的人力资本（Human Capital）的基础工作。其结果，自然无法像新台韩一样大体上能在高增值领域，为国民创造足够的体面就业，而让廉价外劳，从事低增值的经济活动。
其四，大马虽存在著不同寻常大政联公司（GLCs）部门，可这些部门，都大体上在从事传统行业，没能为大马带来有意义的科技进步。实则，这些大型GLCs的操作也不够透明，它基本上已沦为政治恩庇（patronage）的工具。
另外，即便在服务部门的政联公司，也没能在快速增长的国际服务性，为大马带来机会，更遑论对中小的带动作用。一句话，就是大而不当。
大马人才有去无回
其五，新经济政策，究竟对大马的企业家精神或企业创新，起了多大的抑止作用，尚无全面的总结。
其六，尽管对教育的投资很大，可成果却颇有疑问。在台韩，外流人才最终能回流，且有助于提升台韩的產业升级，可大马的情况却是，有去无回，平白为他国做嫁衣裳。
显见，这是个不著重成本与效益（Cost-Benefits）的国家，只顾投入，而不顾產出，或其產出品质与回酬。我国不但不会理才，也不会用才。一个实例就是，大马在最近的国际学生学力评估（PISA）中，成绩竟然低于泰国、越南、菲律宾等国。虽然，大马的教育投入额远高于这些国家。
其七，现代进步的国家，均有一套上轨道的法治，可大马在司法独立方面，就很不足，以至有人用制度退化来形容之。在2013年，腐败印象度（CPI）也排名第53。要升级，这方面的软实力，是不可或缺的。
另一点是Hal Hill也提到不破不立，没有破坏性创新（Creative Destruction），便难有突破的道理。特別是在全球化的压力下，不敢去除阻碍生產性力量发挥其潜能，就只能原地踏步，可当代世界却是个不进则退的时代！
从不久前巫统大会的发言来看，大马有著不进反退的趋势，如更种族化，更保护主义，更排他而非包容的言论。若这些更自我封闭的言论真得到落实，可以预见，大马只会加速其逐底的势头，而非向上、向前、向外跨进。
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Saturday, January 11, 2014
A tale of two diverging carmakers
The Edge, Jan 6, 2014 issue
By Kamarul Azhar
South Korea’s Hyundai Motor was established in 1967 and has a 16-year head start on Malaysia’s national car company, Proton Holdings Bhd, which was set up in 1983, two years after Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad became prime minister.
Proton, which started with Japanese partner Mitsubishi Corp, was to be the centrepiece of Dr Mahathir’s ambition to make Malaysia an Asian industrial powerhouse.
While the 16 years’ advantage is big, the reality is the gap in the performance of Hyundai and Proton is far bigger than the difference in their age. Hyundai is now enjoying immense success and is a global car company with annual sales of 4.4 million cars. Together with its 32.8%-owned associate KIA Motors, Hyundai Motor Group is the fourth largest carmaker in the world, with 7.12 million cars sold last year, after Toyota, General Motors and Volkswagen.
Proton, meanwhile, continues to languish even in its protected home market and has hardly any export market to talk of. In Malaysia, it is now the No. 2 carmaker with 141,121 units sold in 2012, behind Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua Sdn Bhd (Perodua).
Why is it that South Korea could create world champions in the automotive industry? Today, Hyundai and KIA cars can be seen on the roads from Panama City to Manila, not to mention major markets like the US, Europe and China.
The picture for Proton is totally different. Despite all the protective measures put in by the government, it has not made any impact outside of Malaysia. When Hyundai launched its first model in 1967, it was a rebadged Ford Motor Company’s Cortina. Proton did the same, with its maiden model launched in 1985 — the Saga, a rebadged Mitsubishi Lancer Fiora. After almost a decade of rebadging Ford’s models, Hyundai graduated as a fully fledged carmaker when it introduced its first home-grown model, the Pony, in 1975. Soon enough, the car was exported to Ecuador, the Benelux countries and Canada. In 1986, Hyundai exported its cars to the US, then the largest car market in the world. While Hyundai cars used to be dismissed as unreliable, the company persevered and continued building its brand image by investing in design and build-quality as well as undertaking long-term research of its cars.
The rest, as they say, is history, with its current flagship model, the Sonata, competing at the same level with the likes of Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
Proton, meanwhile, only managed to launch its own model, the Gen-2, in 2004, to mixed reviews. With mounting challenge in the domestic market, notably from Perodua, it continues to struggle with lack of economies of scale and the heavy burden of having to invest in developing new technologies and models.
Proton has not utilised the protection and privileges it enjoyed over the past 30 years to become a globally competitive car company that is able to stand on its own. Instead, it is still dependent on some form of protection. And it continues to enjoy a research and development grant amounting to close to RM200 million a year from the government, even though Proton is now privately owned by Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, who bought Khazanah Nasional’s stake in the company several years ago.
Indeed, now that it is in private hands, should we still give it national car status and the privileges that come with it?
By Kamarul Azhar
South Korea’s Hyundai Motor was established in 1967 and has a 16-year head start on Malaysia’s national car company, Proton Holdings Bhd, which was set up in 1983, two years after Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad became prime minister.
Proton, which started with Japanese partner Mitsubishi Corp, was to be the centrepiece of Dr Mahathir’s ambition to make Malaysia an Asian industrial powerhouse.
While the 16 years’ advantage is big, the reality is the gap in the performance of Hyundai and Proton is far bigger than the difference in their age. Hyundai is now enjoying immense success and is a global car company with annual sales of 4.4 million cars. Together with its 32.8%-owned associate KIA Motors, Hyundai Motor Group is the fourth largest carmaker in the world, with 7.12 million cars sold last year, after Toyota, General Motors and Volkswagen.
Proton, meanwhile, continues to languish even in its protected home market and has hardly any export market to talk of. In Malaysia, it is now the No. 2 carmaker with 141,121 units sold in 2012, behind Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua Sdn Bhd (Perodua).
Why is it that South Korea could create world champions in the automotive industry? Today, Hyundai and KIA cars can be seen on the roads from Panama City to Manila, not to mention major markets like the US, Europe and China.
The picture for Proton is totally different. Despite all the protective measures put in by the government, it has not made any impact outside of Malaysia. When Hyundai launched its first model in 1967, it was a rebadged Ford Motor Company’s Cortina. Proton did the same, with its maiden model launched in 1985 — the Saga, a rebadged Mitsubishi Lancer Fiora. After almost a decade of rebadging Ford’s models, Hyundai graduated as a fully fledged carmaker when it introduced its first home-grown model, the Pony, in 1975. Soon enough, the car was exported to Ecuador, the Benelux countries and Canada. In 1986, Hyundai exported its cars to the US, then the largest car market in the world. While Hyundai cars used to be dismissed as unreliable, the company persevered and continued building its brand image by investing in design and build-quality as well as undertaking long-term research of its cars.
The rest, as they say, is history, with its current flagship model, the Sonata, competing at the same level with the likes of Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
Proton, meanwhile, only managed to launch its own model, the Gen-2, in 2004, to mixed reviews. With mounting challenge in the domestic market, notably from Perodua, it continues to struggle with lack of economies of scale and the heavy burden of having to invest in developing new technologies and models.
Proton has not utilised the protection and privileges it enjoyed over the past 30 years to become a globally competitive car company that is able to stand on its own. Instead, it is still dependent on some form of protection. And it continues to enjoy a research and development grant amounting to close to RM200 million a year from the government, even though Proton is now privately owned by Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, who bought Khazanah Nasional’s stake in the company several years ago.
Indeed, now that it is in private hands, should we still give it national car status and the privileges that come with it?
The Costs of "rent-seeking"
A central theme of this blog is economic inclusion and the need to do away with rent-seeking behaviours. In the article I last posted, I argued that people feel they are unfairly suffering the pains while not benefitting equitably from the gains.
The rising cost in Malaysia is partly a consequence of these inefficiencies, where a few people are extracting the resources of the country at the expense of many. The Edge last week carried an excellent analysis of the auto industry in Malaysia. It is also a very good example of the rent-seeking behaviour that this blog seeks to highlight and articulate against. We would like to share a couple of these articles in this blog with you, reproduced with the permission of The Edge.
The Edge Jan 6, 2014, issue
The opportunity cost of having a national car
Malaysia received RM2.2 billion in automotive FDIs between 2006 and 2012, while Thailand got RM22.3 billion.
The rising cost in Malaysia is partly a consequence of these inefficiencies, where a few people are extracting the resources of the country at the expense of many. The Edge last week carried an excellent analysis of the auto industry in Malaysia. It is also a very good example of the rent-seeking behaviour that this blog seeks to highlight and articulate against. We would like to share a couple of these articles in this blog with you, reproduced with the permission of The Edge.
The Edge Jan 6, 2014, issue
The opportunity cost of having a national car
Malaysia received RM2.2 billion in automotive FDIs between 2006 and 2012, while Thailand got RM22.3 billion.
Malaysia and Thailand both have automotive industries that started in the 1960s, assembling mostly Japanese marques for the domestic market. However, during the 1980s, they took different paths in pursuing their respective industrialisation agendas. Malaysia took the less travelled path by setting up its own national car programme with Proton, while Thailand opened up its market to all. The rest, as they say, is history. In 2012, Thailand produced 957,623 units of passenger vehicles and 1.53 million commercial vehicles for a total of 2.48 million units, out of which over one million units were exported.
In terms of domestic sales, Thailand hit 1.3 million units in 2012, versus Malaysia’s 569,620 units. Compared with Thailand, Malaysia’s vehicle exports remain lacklustre at about 20,000 units a year.
So, what went wrong? Many experts blame the malaise in Malaysia’s automotive industry on the government’s auto policy that revolves around protecting the national car.
Since the establishment of Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional Sdn Bhd (Proton) in 1983, Malaysia has not been able to keep up with Thailand, and more recently Indonesia, in getting foreign direct investments (FDI) for the automotive industry.
Between 2006 and 2012, Malaysia’s automotive industry only attracted RM2.2 billion in FDIs while Thailand received a staggering RM22.3 billion. The high level of automotive FDIs received by Thailand translates into a large production base, dominated by Japanese and American car makers. In 2012, Thailand’s automotive assembly capacity was 2.78 million units yearly, with Toyota Motor Corp the largest assembler with a 700,000 annual capacity.
In February 2012, Toyota announced plans to add another 200,000 units annually to its production capacity in Thailand by 2015. Mitsubishi Motor and Isuzu will add another 100,000 units a year each to their annual capacities of 400,000 and 220,000 units respectively. Suzuki, meanwhile, will add another 65,000 units in capacity, to produce 200,000 units by 2015.
On the other hand, Malaysia’s total production capacity stood at about 960,000 vehicles per year. As Malaysia’s total industry volume was only 627,753 units in 2012, this means the industry is facing severe overcapacity, producing at just 65% of installed capacity.
The overcapacity issues rest mainly with Proton and its huge but underused facility in Tanjung Malim. In comparison, Thailand’s plants were running at 89% capacity as in 2012. The national car programme in Malaysia and the resulting two-tier mass market coupled with a high excise duty structure have also been blamed for high car prices and high household debt among Malaysians.
According to Bank Negara Malaysia statistics, almost 26% of the total household debt of RM784 billion borne by Malaysians was for car loans. Along with the agenda to promote the national car programme, with Proton needing the critical mass to survive, much of the government’s resources and planning priorities have been channelled towards building expressways and highways to support the vast growth in private vehicle usage, at the expense of improving the public transport infrastructure.
The price to pay for a poor public transport system is that the government is also forced to keep fuel prices low through subsidies as private vehicles have become a necessity for Malaysians. The funds spent on expressways and highways as well as the annual allocation for fuel subsidies could have been better utilised in other productive areas such as education, public transport and healthcare. Supporters and promoters of the national car can deny it all they want, but the facts clearly show that the consequence of the decision to start Proton in 1983 has been a very costly one. The country has not been able to achieve the sizeable automotive industrial base, capacity and capability that Thailand has achieved.
While Thailand welcomed the world, we chose to protect the one.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Declaration of Unlawfulness of COMANGO is Highly Flawed and Must be Revoked
The Malaysian Bar questions the legitimacy of the announcement by the Ministry of Home Affairs that the Coalition of Malaysian Non-Governmental Organisations in the Universal Periodic Review (“COMANGO”) is unlawful.
Firstly, the announcement came by way of a media statement by the Secretary General of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and referred to alleged non-compliance by COMANGO with the Societies Act 1966 (“Act”). There is no mention of any order made by the Minister of Home Affairs under section 5 of the Act declaring COMANGO unlawful. Instead, it refers to the fact that since COMANGO is not registered under section 7 of the Act, then by virtue of section 41(1)(b) of the Act COMANGO is an unlawful society. However, under section 3A of the Act, the powers, duties and functions “as may be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to and carrying out the provisions of this Act” lie with the Registrar of Societies. There is no provision for the Secretary General of the Ministry of Home Affairs to make pronouncements under the Act. There is further no provision for the delegation of power by the Minister to the Secretary General in this regard.
Secondly, the media statement assumes that COMANGO is a “society” within the definition of that term in the Act. However, COMANGO in its name clearly states that it is a coalition of non-governmental organisations. It is not settled law that coalitions need to be registered under the Act. In fact, the argument was raised in Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan & Ors v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2012] 5 MLRH 181 that coalitions and unincorporated associations need not be registered. It is public knowledge that the High Court in that case held that the Minister of Home Affairs’ declaration that BERSIH was an illegal organisation was “tainted with irrationality”, and quashed the declaration.
Thirdly, the media statement alleges that one of the aims of COMANGO is to champion rights that deviate from the religion of Islam. When one looks at the submission made by COMANGO to the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2013, a copy of which was delivered at about the same time to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, only four out of 63 recommendations deal with issues relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning (“LGBTIQ”) communities, sexual orientation and gender identity. Even these four recommendations are presented in the context of ending discrimination in law and practice. It is hard to imagine these four recommendations, which are grounded upon a call to non-discrimination of human beings, as constituting a threat to the belief and practice of Islam in Malaysia.
Fourthly, the media statement is mischievous in that it makes the highly prejudicial reference that most of the member organisations of COMANGO are non-Muslim-based, as though there were something wrong or illegal about that, when in fact there is not. This is highly irregular and very irresponsible.
Fifthly, the media statement is in error when it states that only 15 of the 54 member organisations of COMANGO are registered under the Act. The Ministry of Home Affairs does not appear to have access to accurate or up-to-date records, as several organisations listed as not being registered under the Act are in fact registered under the Act, including Association of Women Lawyers, Christian Federation of Malaysia, PS The Children, and Women’s Centre for Change, Penang.
Sixthly, the media statement again mischievously states that every society that intends to carry out activities legally in the country must be registered with the Jabatan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan Malaysia. It conveniently omits to state that some of the member organisations of COMANGO are in fact not societies, but companies registered under the Companies Act 1965 or bodies registered under some other law regarding registration of organisations, and therefore not required to be registered under the Act. By failing to make this point clear, the media statement perpetuates the impression that something illegal or amiss is taking place.
Seventhly, the media statement totally avoids mentioning that the Malaysian Government has been engaging with COMANGO since September 2008 when preparations for the 1st Universal Periodic Review of Malaysia by the United Nations Human Rights Council were being made. The Malaysian Government has had more than five years to check on the background of COMANGO and has had no problems working with it until now. To now declare COMANGO to be unlawful when for the past five years the Malaysian Government has had direct dealings with it smacks of mala fide.
Finally, by embarking on this course of action, the Malaysian Government has publicly made known that it has no intention of promoting and protecting the right to free speech or the right to freedom of assembly. Its only standard operating procedure appears to be to ban or declare unlawful any organisation or coalition of organisations that appears to promote views that are not in consonance with that of the Malaysian Government, or whose ongoing presence is a bane to its continuance in power.
The Malaysian Bar calls on the Malaysian Government to immediately retract the media statement and revoke the declaration of unlawfulness, flawed as it is on so many levels. Instead, it should welcome and constructively engage with COMANGO to adopt and implement as many of the 63 recommendations as possible. This can only lead to a more decent, honourable and human rights-positive country that all mature and right-thinking Malaysians hope for.
Christopher Leong
President
Malaysian Bar
10 January 2014
Firstly, the announcement came by way of a media statement by the Secretary General of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and referred to alleged non-compliance by COMANGO with the Societies Act 1966 (“Act”). There is no mention of any order made by the Minister of Home Affairs under section 5 of the Act declaring COMANGO unlawful. Instead, it refers to the fact that since COMANGO is not registered under section 7 of the Act, then by virtue of section 41(1)(b) of the Act COMANGO is an unlawful society. However, under section 3A of the Act, the powers, duties and functions “as may be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to and carrying out the provisions of this Act” lie with the Registrar of Societies. There is no provision for the Secretary General of the Ministry of Home Affairs to make pronouncements under the Act. There is further no provision for the delegation of power by the Minister to the Secretary General in this regard.
Secondly, the media statement assumes that COMANGO is a “society” within the definition of that term in the Act. However, COMANGO in its name clearly states that it is a coalition of non-governmental organisations. It is not settled law that coalitions need to be registered under the Act. In fact, the argument was raised in Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan & Ors v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2012] 5 MLRH 181 that coalitions and unincorporated associations need not be registered. It is public knowledge that the High Court in that case held that the Minister of Home Affairs’ declaration that BERSIH was an illegal organisation was “tainted with irrationality”, and quashed the declaration.
Thirdly, the media statement alleges that one of the aims of COMANGO is to champion rights that deviate from the religion of Islam. When one looks at the submission made by COMANGO to the United Nations Human Rights Council in March 2013, a copy of which was delivered at about the same time to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, only four out of 63 recommendations deal with issues relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning (“LGBTIQ”) communities, sexual orientation and gender identity. Even these four recommendations are presented in the context of ending discrimination in law and practice. It is hard to imagine these four recommendations, which are grounded upon a call to non-discrimination of human beings, as constituting a threat to the belief and practice of Islam in Malaysia.
Fourthly, the media statement is mischievous in that it makes the highly prejudicial reference that most of the member organisations of COMANGO are non-Muslim-based, as though there were something wrong or illegal about that, when in fact there is not. This is highly irregular and very irresponsible.
Fifthly, the media statement is in error when it states that only 15 of the 54 member organisations of COMANGO are registered under the Act. The Ministry of Home Affairs does not appear to have access to accurate or up-to-date records, as several organisations listed as not being registered under the Act are in fact registered under the Act, including Association of Women Lawyers, Christian Federation of Malaysia, PS The Children, and Women’s Centre for Change, Penang.
Sixthly, the media statement again mischievously states that every society that intends to carry out activities legally in the country must be registered with the Jabatan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan Malaysia. It conveniently omits to state that some of the member organisations of COMANGO are in fact not societies, but companies registered under the Companies Act 1965 or bodies registered under some other law regarding registration of organisations, and therefore not required to be registered under the Act. By failing to make this point clear, the media statement perpetuates the impression that something illegal or amiss is taking place.
Seventhly, the media statement totally avoids mentioning that the Malaysian Government has been engaging with COMANGO since September 2008 when preparations for the 1st Universal Periodic Review of Malaysia by the United Nations Human Rights Council were being made. The Malaysian Government has had more than five years to check on the background of COMANGO and has had no problems working with it until now. To now declare COMANGO to be unlawful when for the past five years the Malaysian Government has had direct dealings with it smacks of mala fide.
Finally, by embarking on this course of action, the Malaysian Government has publicly made known that it has no intention of promoting and protecting the right to free speech or the right to freedom of assembly. Its only standard operating procedure appears to be to ban or declare unlawful any organisation or coalition of organisations that appears to promote views that are not in consonance with that of the Malaysian Government, or whose ongoing presence is a bane to its continuance in power.
The Malaysian Bar calls on the Malaysian Government to immediately retract the media statement and revoke the declaration of unlawfulness, flawed as it is on so many levels. Instead, it should welcome and constructively engage with COMANGO to adopt and implement as many of the 63 recommendations as possible. This can only lead to a more decent, honourable and human rights-positive country that all mature and right-thinking Malaysians hope for.
Christopher Leong
President
Malaysian Bar
10 January 2014
Friday, January 3, 2014
嗅觀嚐辨真偽 避免買到假燕窩
吃燕窩來養生保健，但又擔心內有化學物質或其他不好的雜質，這種只有現代人才會有的煩惱著實讓人感到為難。有沒有一種方法可以鑑定燕窩是否被“動了手腳”呢？余仁生董事經理駱榮富經營燕窩行業也吃了不少燕窩，就由他來傳授一兩招吧！他對燕窩有相當的敏感度，一旦吃到“加料”（化學物質）燕窩，舌頭就會有麻痹的感覺，這成了他“縱橫”燕窩界的一個武器。但是，並非每一個人都可以像他這樣敏感，因此他提出了三種檢查燕窩的方法。
三方法檢查燕窩 首先，選購燕窩時，可以用嗅的方式檢查燕窩是否有問題，經過化學物質處理的燕窩會有化學味道在內，雖然不會明顯，但還是有“味”可尋，極度敏感者還可能因此嗆鼻呢！若是已經買回家，在燉煮之前放入水時，若發頭（膨脹度）不大，就可能表示含有化學物質，大小的標準則視個人對燕窩的經驗而定。
再不能確定？那就唯有以身試法，如果吃下去是沒有任何淡香，即表示有關燕窩已可能帶有化學物質。這只是駱榮富提供的一些簡單檢驗方法，常人不可能每次買燕窩都送去實驗室檢驗，唯有依靠這些方法來衡量，另外比較穩妥的方式就是到有信譽的商店去購買燕窩，避免付出了高昂的價錢卻又得不到實質的回報。实際上，駱榮富承認燕窩的好處無法解釋，從不少例子中，如咳嗽或鼻子問題都有可能憑藉吃燕窩獲得改善，而這些實例就直接證明燕窩的效用，
“中醫相信，肺能夠獲得滋潤將影響皮膚和鼻子，從中改善這兩種人體的問題，而燕窩的潤肺作用可以起一定的幫助。”要精明選購燕窩 老一輩的華人甚至相信，若能將燕窩的味道“悶”在肺中，將產生更加顯著的效果。由于相信胃在臨睡前的時間開始消化，但又顧慮未睡時吃了燕窩后，燕窩味會因為開口說話而流失，因此老人家會要求食用燕窩的人先睡一個小時，趁他處在迷糊的狀態叫他起來吃燕窩，然后再繼續上床睡覺，這樣一來，燕窩的味就會留在肺中發揮作用。若以現代的衛生標準來看，吃后就睡有礙口腔清潔，而且睡了不久就被吵醒，除了影響睡眠品質外，未免有擾人清夢之嫌。駱榮富表示，晚間吃燕窩只是其中一種方式，他認為起床后未用早餐之前空腹食用燕窩更有助于人體吸收，份量則視個人體型和體質而定，一般上介于 5克至10克之間。
燕窩的功效經過時間的洗禮和歷史的鑑定，它已是華人的養生保健的補品，但因為價值居高不下，讓一些無良商家趁機以其他東西如木耳、海草、石燕（干后的樹汁）、豬皮等魚目混珠，企圖蒙混消費者以從中牟利，因此消費者受促精明選購燕窩，以免付出高額的金錢購得假貨，造成金錢或是健康的損失。
有人吃後過敏燕窩價值或受考驗 一些人可能會問：吃燕窩會不會吃出禍呢？發出疑問的人並非無的放矢，而是在香港與新加坡已有小孩食用燕窩之后出現過敏和身體不適的案例，經過檢驗發現是由燕窩引起。針對這些例子，駱榮富指出，他並不會質疑檢驗的結果，需要抱存疑問的是：專家收集的燕窩檢驗樣本是否來自原裝燕窩。由于經過添加化學物質的燕窩會對人體造成影響，進而導致食用者出現身體不適的情況，如果專家拿到的是附有化學添加物的燕窩，檢驗出來的結果自然讓燕窩的價值受到考驗。“如果燕窩對小孩有影響，大人食用燕窩時一樣會出現問題，至今為止，我還未遇過不能吃燕窩的人。”
駱榮福對于燕窩的效力信心滿滿。但是，他不否認有對燕窩極度敏感的人，就好像某一些人對某一種食物避之則吉一樣。燕窩中含有蛋白質的會不會引發至過敏的原因呢？他以自己的孩子例：他的孩子對螃蟹或是干貝之類高蛋白質的食物過敏，但對于同樣含有蛋白質的燕窩卻沒有問題。“只要在我的孩子的食物中加入讓他敏感的食物，他的身體即刻會起反應，而我們也曾顧慮燕窩是否也會對他造成影響，但最終證明沒事，他也非常享受吃燕窩的感覺。”至于患有高血壓或是糖尿病的人士，前者食用燕窩並不會造成影響，后者乃因燕窩需要加糖調味，因此會有所忌諱。
現代角度探討滋補功效不言而喻 眾所週知，燕窩具有潤肺養顏的功效，這是中醫的說法，目前的營養和生化科學對燕窩的角度又是如何呢？北京市的營養研究所曾對此進行研究，認為燕窩除了含有水份、蛋白質、醣之外，還包含鐵、銅、鋅等微量元素，這是組成人體的元素如碳、氫、氧、氮、鈣、磷、鎂、鈉、鉀、氯、硫等之外的元素，燕窩因此能夠對人體發揮重要的作用。此外，中國醫學科學衛生研究所編制的《食物成份表》，以及香港中文大學江潤祥教授及關培生發表的《燕窩考》，不約而同的指出燕窩的蛋白質含有大量生物活性的蛋白份子，對人體有滋補復壯的作用。同時，研究顯示燕窩含有少量的表皮生長因子，具有刺激細胞生長的作用，這和中醫藥所說的補中益氣功能不謀而合。研究學者認定燕窩在促進細胞組織再生之餘，還可以增強身體的免疫功能，而且食用燕窩還有可能抵抗身體對ｘ光或其他放射線的損害。
高溫殺菌處理瓶裝燕窩不失療效
吃燕窩未必要花時間去燉，科技早已為吃燕窩的方式帶來改變，瓶裝燕窩的出現省略了消費人的時間，想要吃燕窩就旋開瓶蓋來喝。但是，瓶裝燕窩讓人產生一個疑問：由于需要防止燕窩變質，是否加入一些化學物質，如防腐劑呢？對此，駱榮富表示，目前瓶裝燕窩是以高溫殺菌的方式處理，並沒有添加任何化學藥物，消費人可以安心食用。“現在，就連一些罐頭都已不採用防腐劑的方法，而是以高溫殺死細菌的方式處理，瓶裝燕窩當然也是如此。”即使這樣，或許有一部份注重燕窩品質和效力的消費者可能會問：瓶裝燕窩的功效會不會因此減低了呢？
駱榮富的回答是：不會。他指出，經過高溫處理的燕窩本質並未有變化，服用后對身體的健康依舊有極大的幫助，消費者無需擔心。但是，他鼓勵飲用者一次喝完瓶裝燕窩，盡量避免分開數次食用，這是因為擔心空氣中的細菌會滲入其中。與原莊燕窩過百令吉的價格比較起來，瓶裝燕窩的價格較為大眾化，就以余仁生出售的尼亞燕瓶裝燕窩而言，一瓶75毫升的純正燕窩約只需30令吉，而加入其他中藥的瓶裝燕窩的價錢介于13令吉至25令吉之間。駱榮富強調，瓶裝燕窩的品質保證胥視商家而定，消費人需要以自己的經驗去鑑定。
假燕窩一覽表
1)燕菜假燕窩：燕菜加入調合劑，呈片塊狀，黃白色或白色表面，略透明具光澤；浸水后成碎片化成顆粒，不會膨脹（發頭）。
2)銀耳假燕窩：銀耳干燥后制成細碎粒，加上蛋清調勻；呈黃白色或淡黃色，略透明和稍具光澤，浸水后稍脹但彈性差。
3)豬皮假燕窩：豬皮經油炸或炒后制成細碎粒狀加上蛋清調合而成，可加工成半球形；呈黃白色或淡黃色，粗糙帶略透明，浸水后略脹，似海綿狀。
4)用淀粉加工的假燕窩：用淀粉加工的仿制燕窩，具有膠性的長條形或不規則形塊狀，外側粗糙，內側面呈網絡狀，浸水后稍脹。
5)豆粉假燕窩：用豆類面粉加工成略具膠性的仿制燕窩，呈黃白色或棕黃色，稍具光澤，浸水后稍微膨脹。
6)植物葉假燕窩： 黃綠色或棕楬色的圓形或橢圓形的團塊狀，明顯可見莖和葉等物。
燕窩的療效對象
嬰孩：燕窩燉溶成水，加入糊、粥或奶中，可以調理腸胃、增加食慾、幫助消化和吸收營養。
兒童：增強體質和抵抗力，促進腦部和智力發展。
青少年：促進新陳代謝，增強身體機能。
上班族：消除疲勞，舒緩工作壓力，可令女性保持美白和袪斑。
孕婦：產前安胎、養胎和減低妊娠期身體不適。
中年人士：對長期睡眠不足和煙酒過多者，有清腸熱和滋陰潤肺的作用，尤其對吸煙之人有洗肺的功效。
長者：對患有呼吸系統問題的有幫助，可以舒緩氣和化痰止咳。
三方法檢查燕窩 首先，選購燕窩時，可以用嗅的方式檢查燕窩是否有問題，經過化學物質處理的燕窩會有化學味道在內，雖然不會明顯，但還是有“味”可尋，極度敏感者還可能因此嗆鼻呢！若是已經買回家，在燉煮之前放入水時，若發頭（膨脹度）不大，就可能表示含有化學物質，大小的標準則視個人對燕窩的經驗而定。
再不能確定？那就唯有以身試法，如果吃下去是沒有任何淡香，即表示有關燕窩已可能帶有化學物質。這只是駱榮富提供的一些簡單檢驗方法，常人不可能每次買燕窩都送去實驗室檢驗，唯有依靠這些方法來衡量，另外比較穩妥的方式就是到有信譽的商店去購買燕窩，避免付出了高昂的價錢卻又得不到實質的回報。实際上，駱榮富承認燕窩的好處無法解釋，從不少例子中，如咳嗽或鼻子問題都有可能憑藉吃燕窩獲得改善，而這些實例就直接證明燕窩的效用，
“中醫相信，肺能夠獲得滋潤將影響皮膚和鼻子，從中改善這兩種人體的問題，而燕窩的潤肺作用可以起一定的幫助。”要精明選購燕窩 老一輩的華人甚至相信，若能將燕窩的味道“悶”在肺中，將產生更加顯著的效果。由于相信胃在臨睡前的時間開始消化，但又顧慮未睡時吃了燕窩后，燕窩味會因為開口說話而流失，因此老人家會要求食用燕窩的人先睡一個小時，趁他處在迷糊的狀態叫他起來吃燕窩，然后再繼續上床睡覺，這樣一來，燕窩的味就會留在肺中發揮作用。若以現代的衛生標準來看，吃后就睡有礙口腔清潔，而且睡了不久就被吵醒，除了影響睡眠品質外，未免有擾人清夢之嫌。駱榮富表示，晚間吃燕窩只是其中一種方式，他認為起床后未用早餐之前空腹食用燕窩更有助于人體吸收，份量則視個人體型和體質而定，一般上介于 5克至10克之間。
燕窩的功效經過時間的洗禮和歷史的鑑定，它已是華人的養生保健的補品，但因為價值居高不下，讓一些無良商家趁機以其他東西如木耳、海草、石燕（干后的樹汁）、豬皮等魚目混珠，企圖蒙混消費者以從中牟利，因此消費者受促精明選購燕窩，以免付出高額的金錢購得假貨，造成金錢或是健康的損失。
有人吃後過敏燕窩價值或受考驗 一些人可能會問：吃燕窩會不會吃出禍呢？發出疑問的人並非無的放矢，而是在香港與新加坡已有小孩食用燕窩之后出現過敏和身體不適的案例，經過檢驗發現是由燕窩引起。針對這些例子，駱榮富指出，他並不會質疑檢驗的結果，需要抱存疑問的是：專家收集的燕窩檢驗樣本是否來自原裝燕窩。由于經過添加化學物質的燕窩會對人體造成影響，進而導致食用者出現身體不適的情況，如果專家拿到的是附有化學添加物的燕窩，檢驗出來的結果自然讓燕窩的價值受到考驗。“如果燕窩對小孩有影響，大人食用燕窩時一樣會出現問題，至今為止，我還未遇過不能吃燕窩的人。”
駱榮福對于燕窩的效力信心滿滿。但是，他不否認有對燕窩極度敏感的人，就好像某一些人對某一種食物避之則吉一樣。燕窩中含有蛋白質的會不會引發至過敏的原因呢？他以自己的孩子例：他的孩子對螃蟹或是干貝之類高蛋白質的食物過敏，但對于同樣含有蛋白質的燕窩卻沒有問題。“只要在我的孩子的食物中加入讓他敏感的食物，他的身體即刻會起反應，而我們也曾顧慮燕窩是否也會對他造成影響，但最終證明沒事，他也非常享受吃燕窩的感覺。”至于患有高血壓或是糖尿病的人士，前者食用燕窩並不會造成影響，后者乃因燕窩需要加糖調味，因此會有所忌諱。
現代角度探討滋補功效不言而喻 眾所週知，燕窩具有潤肺養顏的功效，這是中醫的說法，目前的營養和生化科學對燕窩的角度又是如何呢？北京市的營養研究所曾對此進行研究，認為燕窩除了含有水份、蛋白質、醣之外，還包含鐵、銅、鋅等微量元素，這是組成人體的元素如碳、氫、氧、氮、鈣、磷、鎂、鈉、鉀、氯、硫等之外的元素，燕窩因此能夠對人體發揮重要的作用。此外，中國醫學科學衛生研究所編制的《食物成份表》，以及香港中文大學江潤祥教授及關培生發表的《燕窩考》，不約而同的指出燕窩的蛋白質含有大量生物活性的蛋白份子，對人體有滋補復壯的作用。同時，研究顯示燕窩含有少量的表皮生長因子，具有刺激細胞生長的作用，這和中醫藥所說的補中益氣功能不謀而合。研究學者認定燕窩在促進細胞組織再生之餘，還可以增強身體的免疫功能，而且食用燕窩還有可能抵抗身體對ｘ光或其他放射線的損害。
高溫殺菌處理瓶裝燕窩不失療效
吃燕窩未必要花時間去燉，科技早已為吃燕窩的方式帶來改變，瓶裝燕窩的出現省略了消費人的時間，想要吃燕窩就旋開瓶蓋來喝。但是，瓶裝燕窩讓人產生一個疑問：由于需要防止燕窩變質，是否加入一些化學物質，如防腐劑呢？對此，駱榮富表示，目前瓶裝燕窩是以高溫殺菌的方式處理，並沒有添加任何化學藥物，消費人可以安心食用。“現在，就連一些罐頭都已不採用防腐劑的方法，而是以高溫殺死細菌的方式處理，瓶裝燕窩當然也是如此。”即使這樣，或許有一部份注重燕窩品質和效力的消費者可能會問：瓶裝燕窩的功效會不會因此減低了呢？
駱榮富的回答是：不會。他指出，經過高溫處理的燕窩本質並未有變化，服用后對身體的健康依舊有極大的幫助，消費者無需擔心。但是，他鼓勵飲用者一次喝完瓶裝燕窩，盡量避免分開數次食用，這是因為擔心空氣中的細菌會滲入其中。與原莊燕窩過百令吉的價格比較起來，瓶裝燕窩的價格較為大眾化，就以余仁生出售的尼亞燕瓶裝燕窩而言，一瓶75毫升的純正燕窩約只需30令吉，而加入其他中藥的瓶裝燕窩的價錢介于13令吉至25令吉之間。駱榮富強調，瓶裝燕窩的品質保證胥視商家而定，消費人需要以自己的經驗去鑑定。
假燕窩一覽表
1)燕菜假燕窩：燕菜加入調合劑，呈片塊狀，黃白色或白色表面，略透明具光澤；浸水后成碎片化成顆粒，不會膨脹（發頭）。
2)銀耳假燕窩：銀耳干燥后制成細碎粒，加上蛋清調勻；呈黃白色或淡黃色，略透明和稍具光澤，浸水后稍脹但彈性差。
3)豬皮假燕窩：豬皮經油炸或炒后制成細碎粒狀加上蛋清調合而成，可加工成半球形；呈黃白色或淡黃色，粗糙帶略透明，浸水后略脹，似海綿狀。
4)用淀粉加工的假燕窩：用淀粉加工的仿制燕窩，具有膠性的長條形或不規則形塊狀，外側粗糙，內側面呈網絡狀，浸水后稍脹。
5)豆粉假燕窩：用豆類面粉加工成略具膠性的仿制燕窩，呈黃白色或棕黃色，稍具光澤，浸水后稍微膨脹。
6)植物葉假燕窩： 黃綠色或棕楬色的圓形或橢圓形的團塊狀，明顯可見莖和葉等物。
燕窩的療效對象
嬰孩：燕窩燉溶成水，加入糊、粥或奶中，可以調理腸胃、增加食慾、幫助消化和吸收營養。
兒童：增強體質和抵抗力，促進腦部和智力發展。
青少年：促進新陳代謝，增強身體機能。
上班族：消除疲勞，舒緩工作壓力，可令女性保持美白和袪斑。
孕婦：產前安胎、養胎和減低妊娠期身體不適。
中年人士：對長期睡眠不足和煙酒過多者，有清腸熱和滋陰潤肺的作用，尤其對吸煙之人有洗肺的功效。
長者：對患有呼吸系統問題的有幫助，可以舒緩氣和化痰止咳。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)