by Dr. Chen Man Hin
The present oil policy to set gasoline and diesel prices at international market prices has caused a sharp decline of the economy causing hardships to the people.
This is the current policy adopted in developed economies which do not advocate subsidised oil for the people. Their experts contend that subsidised oil would distort the market, and people would not be encouraged to conserve the use of oil. In the end there would be a disastrous impact on the economy and on the environment.
The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who is also Minister of Finance slavishly followed the concept practised in developed countries. It has proved to be disastrous for Malaysia.
Because of the high pump prices of gasoline and diesel, the economy has slowed down considerably. The wheels of industry are not humming, and more people are laid off.
Consumers buy less because of lower income and inflationary prices of food and other essentials.
Every sector of the economy is affected, be it transportation, industries, consumerism, tourism or health.
The DAP has been advocating that Malaysia as an oil producer and exporter should use its revenue from oil to subsidise pump prices, in order to keep the economy going and ensure that the people do not suffer. Unfortunately, the advice has fallen on deaf ears.
The dap highly recommend a smart way to deal with rising oil prices, by adopting an oil policy that is centred to encourage economic growth at any cost.
It is the same policy adopted by China, whose economy is kept going at a fast clip. They were smart enough to adapt and innovate to ensure that the people were not made to suffer by raising gasoline and diesel prices to international. market rates.
China’s oil policy of ‘subsidies and price-ceilings’ have proven to be the right formula to cope with rising oil prices. Their subsidies are capped at 1% of the GNP and at the same time they impose a ceiling on pump prices.
Malaysia should send a delegation to China and study the hows and whys of a tried and successful system.
#1 by davelim881 on Sunday, 17 August 2008 - 7:33 pm
Kasim Amat says:
With regards to the public transport problem, there maybe some problems but please note that it is all the while being handled by the Ministry of Transport, the Minister of which is from MCA and UMNO has no right to interfere.
Kasim, this statement is smack of “racism” from the way you put it.
All, we must understand, who is leading the various component party, MCA, MIC etc.
#2 by aquaimplotec on Sunday, 17 August 2008 - 9:06 pm
imranj78,
Aiyah, When I say “bottom of the tank”, I do mean the bottom of the tank, just like when they say UMNO is scraping the bottom of the barrel for capable people to run the country.
#3 by aquaimplotec on Sunday, 17 August 2008 - 9:31 pm
Kasim Amat,
You say, “It is not necessary that only Bumi-companies will get jobs from government. Under the leadership of UMNO, there is no issue on favouritism in the allocation of projects.”
Well said, that should be the way, however, as usual you missed the point, the issue is cronyism and favouritism also smacks of cronyism. Then again you highlight another contentious point by making a sweeping statement that the leadership of the country is UMNO with complete disregard for other component parties; without the support of which UMNO will not even have a majority!!!
It’s not surprising judging from your comments that all other component parties are set to walkout from the BN coalition and join PR when DSAI comes into parliament as a representative of the people who will fight UMNO oppression.
#4 by StevePCH on Sunday, 17 August 2008 - 10:09 pm
BeEnd’s policy is best in the world. Aparteid and wealth amassing altogether. Cronysm, Nepotism
The current govt has got no right to shake hand with Nelson Mandela as he advocates freedom from racism.
UiTM = cradle of racism = BeEnd.
#5 by StevePCH on Sunday, 17 August 2008 - 11:14 pm
look at the a lot of tender documents and you will find, “di buka untuk syarikat bumiputra 100% etc ” or Preferably bumiputra status companies.
I am in business and I know what it’s like having to deal with so called leach that does not do anything except having the status.
With these overprotection, look how much we have grown over the past 50 years as compared to our neighbors.
Even FDI countries are very well aware of these practises and shunned Malaysia for other countries in this region.
These policy had truly backfired and Malaysian as a nation does not deserve BeEnd. We deserve a better goverment.
Kasim Amat, you said there is no favoritism ? you must be kidding man !!! Either you do not understand the word favoritism , misleading readers , being ignorant or provoking. typical AIDS.
Some non Bumi businesses had to apoint or set up Bumi status companies with proxies to remain in business.
As much as much of us like to see and ignore you comment, sometimes you do really deserve the fire you get from Malaysians of all races here. We are again as Malaysians here and will be united against Kasim an Co.
1 race – Malaysian , 1 party – Pakatan Rakyat and 1 PM – Anwar
#6 by trublumsian on Monday, 18 August 2008 - 12:45 am
kasim amat, puuullleeezzz, stop smoking crack!
2007 Global 500:
Sinopec, China, rank: 17. Industry: oil
China National Petroleum, China, rank 24. Industry: oil
Petronas, Malaysia, rank: 121. Industry: oil
kasim amat, Malaysia, rank: 1. Industry: stupidity
#7 by trublumsian on Monday, 18 August 2008 - 12:51 am
imranj78,
malaysians, bumis and non, cry murder because driving is the only realistic way of getting around in most cases, whereas umno spends billions on bridges to no where mega projects.
#8 by aquaimplotec on Monday, 18 August 2008 - 1:09 am
With the present oil crisis Malaysia is saddled also with the monstrosity called PROTON which for more than twenty years has bled Malaysians dry with car prices that cost more than a house.
Elimination of competition from imports by imposing import duties of 300% and more and now replaced by imposition of excise duties of equal amount so as to “comply” with AFTA pressure on the lifting of such tariffs on international trade. They had to change the universal meaning of EXCISE DUTY of course to apply to any car manufactured on this planet. Previously meant for those assembled or manufactured in Malaysia. A blatant disregard for other members of the AFTA community.
The end result of such foolhardy dogmatism to develop a national car is the obvious predicted inability of PROTON to keep up with engine technology. Today the most advanced diesels that are common in Europe give better fuel efficiency of more than 60 miles per gallon, which is more than the out of date Civic Hybrid that Honda Malaysia is trying to push at exhorbitant pricing. Bearing in mind that the assembler of Honda vehicles is also an UMNO crony, they together paint a picture that the public have no choice but to buy PROTON cars which give similar fuel efficiency as other offerings from other car manufacturers but are sold at cheaper pricing.
See – http://www.toyota.ie/innovation/engines/d-4d/
The manufacturers of these efficient cars have commented that Malaysians do not take cognisance of fuel efficiency as a deciding factor in purchase decisions and this is perhaps the official stance projected by pro PROTON supporters and their cronies.
With all the fuel inefficient commercial and private vehicles now owned by Malaysians, it will take another decade to finance the upgrade of these fuel guzzlers to the fuel misers that are now available but not brought into our country.
When will they bring them in? When PROTON & UMNO permits!!!!
#9 by trublumsian on Monday, 18 August 2008 - 1:16 am
umno recruits people with 2 grades, D’s and F’s (A’s-C’s are too smart). In standardized tests, the D’s and F’s directly maps to the A’s and B’s in UiTM. the F’s get to help run the country or be groomed to run the country. the D’s are smarter, so they’re assigned to this blog to mutter crap.
#10 by procol on Monday, 18 August 2008 - 1:54 am
Yes high fuel prices might hurt us in the short term, but we will emerge stronger in the long run as we will become more competetive. – Imranj78
Would you advocate the abolishment of NEP and all special rights accorded as well? If subsidies meant pampering, what would NEP mean then? If one is not competitive enough, then be humble and learn from others. One does not get more competitive, stronger and wiser by insisting on special privileges to get a head start. In fact, those who race fair and square would be the ones who will get stronger and wiser as they have no choice but to train harder in order to overcome the disadvantage placed before them.
Badawi’s decision is not deserving the credit you give to him. It’s not the first time the government simply adopts a system without thorough understanding of its suitability.
#11 by imranj78 on Monday, 18 August 2008 - 2:14 am
trublumsian,
True that driving is the easiest way of getting around in most cases but not all. No one is contesting that and our public transport MUST be improved. But on the other hand, the ease of driving a car has been engrained into Malaysians due to the poor subsidy policy that has been implemented for far too long. For this I must give credit to Badawi in the sense that he brought us out of the unsustainable low fuel price bubble, though the manner he implemented it was not well thought of.
procol,
NEP as it stands is not sustainable. It must be widen to include poor people of other races. However to abolish it out right now is not going to be acceptable as it is likely to result in potential conflicts within the country. Instead, the government must make a clear roadmap, targets and timeline for its abolishment. There must be commitment and compromises by all races for it to work.
Special priveledges is another matter altogether. Abolishment of special priviledges is unacceptable as this is enshrined in the Malaysian constitution.
#12 by Cookie Monster on Monday, 18 August 2008 - 12:13 pm
Imranj78
i do agree with some of yr points raised in this blog.
however pls do not forget tat majority of taxes collected by authorities was contributed by minorities group , how many % of tax revenue was being ploughed back to help the minorities who are genuinely poor ?
malaysians who left this country to work overseas also contribute to the economy by remitting their hard earned money back & spend to boost up consumption.
#13 by AhPek on Monday, 18 August 2008 - 1:10 pm
There is also no such thing as the special priviledges, only the special position of the Malays in the Constitution rightly recommended by the Reids Commission
and agreed by the founding fathers who at that time agreed on a gentlemen’s handshake (unfortunately) that this special position should not be perpetual and would be reviewed after 15 years which was, of course as we all know reneged.The whole rationale behind this ‘special position’ thing is to help Malays financially to prepare themselves better to be independent thro education.
#14 by imranj78 on Monday, 18 August 2008 - 9:56 pm
Cookie Monster,
Agreed that the poor, irrespective of race and religion, should be given appropriate assistance.
AhPek,
The idea of a gentlemen’s handshake with regards to special priviledges is debatable. You are right that originally there was a proposal to include a 15 year review period. However, after negotiations, this was removed from the constitutional document. Hence the 15 year review period is just that, a proposal that was never accepted.
#15 by aquaimplotec on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 - 5:41 am
Under Article 153, and due to the 13th May 1969 riots, the New Economic Policy was introduced. The NEP aimed to eradicate poverty irrespective of race by expanding the economic pie so that the Chinese share of the economy would not be reduced in absolute terms but only relatively. The aim was for the Malays to have a 30% equity share of the economy, as opposed to the 4% they held in 1970. Foreigners and Chinese held much of the rest.[9]
The NEP appeared to be derived from Article 153 and could be viewed as being in line with its wording. Although Article 153 would have been up for review in 1972, fifteen years after Malaysia’s independence in 1957, due to the May 13 Incident it remained unreviewed. A new expiration date of 1991 for the NEP was set, twenty years after its implementation.[10]
However, the NEP was said to have failed to have met its targets and was continued under a new policy called the National Development Policy.
#16 by aquaimplotec on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 - 6:19 am
Article 153 only applies to the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.
#17 by aquaimplotec on Thursday, 21 August 2008 - 2:51 am
153
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
#18 by aquaimplotec on Thursday, 21 August 2008 - 2:56 am
If you examine the English meaning of article 153(1), it is illegal to comment so I have no comment.
#19 by BNseedell on Thursday, 21 August 2008 - 3:23 am
Kasim Amat: What’s so great about Malaysia is ahead of China in terms of religious freedom? Have Malaysia received any internatioanlly recognised GOLD Medal in terms of religious freedom? If yes, please name me that Medal.
By the way, is Malaysia ahead of China in the field of sports or in terms of sport-related events? Have you been watching or following the ongoing 2008 Beijing Olympics? If not, here is the overall Medal Count at the time of posting my comment:
CHINA:
Gold = 45
Silver = 14
Bronze = 20
TOTAL: 79
MALAYSIA:
Gold = 0
Silver = 1
Bronze = 0
TOTAL: 1
Now, tell me, Tuan Kasim, who is ahead of who in terms of Olympics’ Medal Count if you want to make comparison??
#20 by aquaimplotec on Thursday, 21 August 2008 - 11:07 pm
Know your English used in our Constitution:-
Interpretation of the word “the”
–definite article (used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
Interpretation of the word “and”
1. (used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to; besides; also; moreover: pens and pencils.
2. also, at the same time: to sleep and dream.
Hence in the sentence “to safeguard the special position of THE women AND children of any of the states of Zimbawee and Myanmar” , the “THE” is specifying a particular group and the “AND” groups the two nouns “women”, “children” together. Women and children (treated as a single group) belonging to any of the states of Zimbawee and Myanmar.
#21 by aquaimplotec on Friday, 22 August 2008 - 12:00 am
According to constitutional scholar Shad Saleem Faruqi, the Constitution has been amended 42 times over the 48 years since independence as of 2005. However, as several amendments were made each time, he estimates the true number of individual amendments is around 650. He has stated that “there is no doubt” that “the spirit of the original document has been diluted”.[1] This sentiment has been echoed by other legal scholars, who argue that important parts of the original Constitution, such as jus soli (right of birth) citizenship, a limitation on the variation of the number of electors in constituencies, and Parliamentary control of emergency powers have been so modified or altered by amendments that “the present Federal Constitution bears only a superficial resemblance to its original model”.[2] It has been estimated that between 1957 and 2003, “almost thirty articles have been added and repealed” as a consequence of the frequent amendments.[3]
Anwar Ibrahim’s battle cry – justice for the malays, chinese, indians, Ibans and Kadazans – reflect the flaws in our amended constitution. Ibans and Kadazans have been left out of the list of natives in article 161a(7).
With a straight forward interpretation of the “the” and “and” in article 153, it is hardly surprising BN is loosing malay support in peninsular Malaysia. The malays have finally realised the true meaning of article 153, although it had already been worded this way since 1963!