Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts

Budget 2009: Initial Thoughts

I wrote an immediate short column for Malaysian Insider yesterday after my budget forum on my thoughts with regards to the Budget for 2009 announced yesterday.

Not surprisingly, the media is full of praise of the RM35 billion allocated towards building a better public transportation system between 2009 to 2014. However, big numbers and big headlines aside, the actual allocation may not be that impressive.
Despite an impressive headline figure of RM35 billion allocated for public transportation, it actually only works out to RM5.8 billion a year over the next six years. In fact, if one looks carefully at the budget for the transportation sector, it has declined by RM1 billion to RM11.5 billion.
But what is of greatest concern will be the reckless spending spree the government seems to be undertaking. Barisan Nasional Pulai MP, Datuk Nur Jazlan wrote in his piece in Malaysian Insider that we should "Grow the Economy, Not Give it Away". Although he meant it in a different way, but I thought the title was apt in describing how we are just spending literally all our windfall (as opposed to hard-earned) tax revenues, particularly from the oil and gas sector, without a thought about saving for a rainy day.
Next year, the budgeted operational expenditure is another record RM154.2 billion. This figure is both shocking and scary as operational expenditure for the government when Abdullah Badawi first became prime minister in 2004 was only RM80.5 billion.

In just a short period of four to five years, government operational expenditure has increased by 91.5% or RM73.7 billion. This raises the question as to what the government is spending its money on which requires such substantial increase in operational expenses?

Even more worrying is the fact that most of the government's revenue is sourced from the petroleum sector. Last year, the estimated contribution of the sector to our government's coffers was 37%, but for 2009, this is estimated to increase to 46.4%.
There are a few separate tracks of criticisms that are worth further developing. And as I flesh them out over the next few days, I'll blog them here. So watch this space. ;-)

Malaysia Budget 2009

Flash updates:

Government's 2009 Budget

Record government expenditure: RM207.9 billion (2008: RM176.9b)
Operating Expenditure: RM154.17 billion (74.1%)
Development Expenditure: RM53.73 billion (25.9%)

Budget Deficit

Budgeted deficit 2008 - 3.1%
Revised anticipated deficit 2008 - 4.8%(!)

Budget deficit 2009 - 3.6%

Public Transport

RM35 billion allocated for 2009 - 2014
(Average of RM5.8 billion per annum)

Public Sector

To expand by 4.7% in 2008
1.1% contribution to GDP growth in 2008
Share of GDP high at 24.1%

2008 Operational Expenditure (OE) Exploded

2008 OE Budget (announced last September) - RM128.8 billion
2008 Revised OE Budget - RM151.0 billion
Variation of 17.2% or RM22.2 billion(!)

2008 Development Expenditure (DE) Shrunk

2008 DE Budget (announced last September) - RM48.1 billion
2008 Revised DE Budget - RM46.2 billion

Government Revenue

Original 2008 Budget revenue: RM147 billion
Revised 2008 Budget revenue: RM161.6 billion (increased by 9.5% or RM14 billion)
Budget 2009 revenue: RM176.2 billion (increase by 9.2% or RM10.6 billion)

Petroleum Sector Contribution to Government Revenue:

Direct Taxes: RM35.826 billion
Indirect Taxes: RM2.939 billion (Export Duties)
Non-Tax Revenue: RM30.0 billion (Dividends) + RM6.272 billion (Royalty)
Total Revenue Contribution: RM75.04 billion (46.4%)

Education & Training Expenditure (Major Beneficiary - Yay!)

Operational Expenditure 2009 (2008) - RM37.7b (RM35.5b)
Development Expenditure 2009 (2008) - RM10.1b (RM8.5b)
Total Expenditure 2009 (2008) - RM48.8b (RM44.0b)

Transportation Expenditure

Drop despite public transport plan
Operational Expenditure 2009 (2008) - RM3.9b (RM4.7b)
Development Expenditure 2009 (2008) - RM7.6b (RM7.8b)
Total Expenditure 2009 (2008) - RM11.5b (RM12.5b)

OK, that's all the updates for now. I'm off to a series of interviews and a budget forum @ Sin Chew Jit Poh tonight (come if you are free and understand Mandarin, 8pm). More later ;-)

DAP Budget Brief 2009

The Government's 2009 Budget is being tabled in a couple of minutes, and I'm ploughing through the reports which include the Auditor-General's reports, which are approximately 3 feet tall i.e., not much leg-room now.

A few days ago, DAP released its budget brief for 2009, on how we expect to deliever our budget should we be in government. It's adapted from our complete 2008 budget delivered last year as most of the policies have not been adopted by the Government and are still relevant.

You can download the budget brief (10 pages) or you can download the complete version for last year for a more detailed understanding of the party's economic policies (60 pages). Or you can also read The Star's report yesterday on DAP's CAT Budget.

In summary, we are anticipating a small increase in government revenue of approximately 3%, largely driven by oil and gas revenues but limited by a decline in corporate taxes to RM154.5 billion. However, we intend to maintain budget expenditure to RM177 billion as per the Government's budget 2008.

However, the allocations for operational and development expenditure will be restructured to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government expenditure. Operational expenditure will be reduced from RM129 billion to RM120 billion or a 7% reduction. On the other hand, development expenditure will be increased from RM48 billion to RM57 billion or an increase of 19%.

Reductions in the government operating expenditure which has ballooned by more than 43% since 2005 will be achieved through strict enforcement via the policy of competency, accountability and transparency. The effects of such policies will create greater expenditure savings over the next few years.

Savings from reductions in operating expenditure will instead be channelled towards development expenditure which will have a greater economic multiplier impact. The major beneficiaries of the increase in development expenditure in the DAP Budget 2009 will be the education, transportation and health sectors.

As a result of financial prudence, increasing the effective utilisation of the Government's revenue, the Government will be able to reduce its budget deficit from its estimated 3.1% in 2008 to 1.4% in 2009, without compromising its ability to pump-prime the economy in a weak global economic environment.

The 14 key measures to lift our economy proposed are:
  1. Protecting Oil Revenues
  2. Investing in Education
  3. Creating an Efficient Transportation System
  4. Renegotiating Unfair Contracts
  5. Implementing FairWage and Malaysia Bonus Scheme
  6. Open, Competitive & Transparent Tenders
  7. Open, Competitive & Transparent Auctions
  8. Seeding Creativity & Innovation
  9. Revitalising Malaysian SMEs
  10. Restructuring Personal Income Taxes
  11. Introducing Green Taxes
  12. Increasing Women Workforce Participation
  13. Reviving the ICT Sector
  14. Participation from the Civil Society
As mentioned earlier, details on these policies and others are available from our 2009 Budget Brief as well as our 2008 Budget.

Bursa Malaysia: Bull or Bear?

I'm no stock market guru, but I've been invited to speak at a Mandarin forum organised by Oriental Daily with regards to the above issue.
Date: 28th August 2007 (Tue)
Time: 7.30pm
Venue: KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
In recent weeks, the global equity and money markets can safely be regarded as undergoing a fair bit of turmoil, to a large extent caused by the subprime mortgage market crisis in the United States.

Therefore, the billion ringgit question, and I think analysts are split on this, is whether the current correction to the global stock market of between 8-10% is merely a healthy correction or is it a sign of more depressing things to come?

The stock market is without a doubt one of the hottest buttons to press, when it comes to generating public interest. Even when I travel to different parts of the country giving talks with regards to the Malaysian economy, in my position as the Economic Advisor to DAP's Secretary General, the audience tends to only wake up whenever the stock market is discussed. ;)

Even the last time I spoke at the Oriental Daily Forum on the 10th Year Anniversary of the Asian Financial Crisis, together with Dr Ho Kee Peng (who will also be there tonight), it was a "sold out" crowd.

So see you there! ;)

Khairy Face-Off

I've been off only for a few days from blogging and I'm getting complaints already ;-)

Well, besides a day which I took off to quietly enjoy my 36th birthday (and to remind myself that age is certainly catching on...), there just wasn't time to sit down and blog properly despite having at least 7 posts in draft mode(!).

But skipping the drafts and coming to the most recent event yesterday when I had a "face-off" with the honourable Member of Parliament from Rembau, Khairy Jamaluddin as well as the Selangor state assemblyman for Seri Setia, Nik Nazmi. Nik is also the youngest candidate in the last general elections, and is now doubling up as the political secretary to the Selangor Menteri Besar. The forum was held at the Malaysian Student Leaders' Summit, hosted by the UK and Eire Council for Malaysian Students (UKEC).

I won't go into the details of the session which lasted some one and a half hour long, which was certainly lively on the issue of subsidies and the tongkat mentality in Malaysia. Nik has blogged it here, with the Star headlining Rembau here and Malaysian Insider terming the debate as a "stalemate".

(Heh, Nik and I must have done a real crappy job of it if it was 2 against 1 and still ended stalemate ;-))


Khairy gets squeezed in this threesome

And there are other bloggers who blogged about it as well so far, Rajan R with a specific reference to the issue of foreign labour and low wages, and Shannon Shah, who will be writing for the soon-to-be-launched "The Nut Graph", was happy to see a democratic debate alive in Malaysia. I'm sure there'll be other sites which I've missed who have blogged the event.

Khairy revealed that I will be crossing over to Barisan Nasional on September 16th

I've only got a few points to add from the debate.

Firstly, possibly the only bit which I thought I could have answered better when pressed by the moderator with regards to the issue of forcing the hands of the Independent Power Producers (IPPs) to renegotiate the purchasing power agreements (PPAs) versus the concern of upholding the sanctity of contracts.

I had ended the line of argument by saying that the Government must have the political will to act in the interest of the public. I could probably have better express my point by making the Government weigh the cost (if any) of the grossly unfair PPA contracts which benefits very very few, versus the cost to the public and the overall Malaysian economy in the years to come. In my opinion, a mistake has been made by the government, and a responsible government will have to take the side of the people it serves.

Secondly, it was a rebuttal which I had wanted to make while debating a point with Khairy, but I didn't, so that the debate can move on to subsequent points. But I thought, definitely worth putting in the rebuttal here at the very least.

In a gist, Nik and I have argued that gradual reductions in subsidies should be done only after 2 key issues, a comprehensive social safety net as well as a efficient public transport system has been put in place.

Khairy had argued that funds were diverted to other important functions such as the RM4 billion food security fund, hence the savings from the "reduction" in subsidies could not be sufficiently allocated to public transport.

I, in return argued that the overall government budget has increased by some RM40 billion since 2004, hence there is no excuse for the lack of expenditure in essential projects like public transport. This increase was largely contributed by payments by Petronas to the government which increased in tandem with the rise in oil prices.

Khairy then argued that while there was an increase in government budget, the funds were utilised for development projects in the interest of the people, hence it was a question of priorities.

I then replied that the priorities were obviously wrong because over the past 10 years since 1998, the government has increased development expenditure from approximately RM20 billion to RM42 billion (2008), while, operational expenditure which comprises rental, wages, pens and paper, maintenance etc., ballooned from about RM40 billion to RM129 billion (2008)! Hence most of the increase in expenditure, financed by our Petronas money was not going to development.

Khairy responded that I have underestimated the importance of maintenance, as it was certainly critical to upkeep our infrastructure, for there is no point building new schools if we don't maintain them.

I let the argument rest there because I thought my point has been made and the audience should be able to judge it accordingly. But I was certainly eager to add on that the reason why our maintenance cost is so darn high is simply because it costs so much more to maintain our infrastructure than to actual build them! The case in point was the RM120 million MRR 2 flyover, which had cost RM70 million to repair in 2004, and now the pillars are cracking again! Or the countless other examples of bailouts - LRTs, MAS, MATRADE etc. Or the schools maintenance scandal, where RM30,000 was paid for RM3,000 worth of renovations. Not to mention of course, our Proton Perdana repair bills!


Khairy obviously doesn't take "no" for an answer ;-)
(Pictures courtesy of Nik Nazmi)

Well, the debate wasn't ever going to have any clear cut winners or losers. Such debate rarely does, unless one party is completely doofuss. What was important was the fact that a meaningful debate was carried out and the panelist has the opportunity to present their views and the audience gets to make (hopefully), a more informed opinion.

I hope that the 500+ audience who attended the forum yesterday had a good time and as I mentioned during the forum, I certainly hope that more will be inspired to join us in playing our part of change and make Malaysia a more progressive nation, whether with the government or the opposition (DAP preferred of course! ;-)) at some point in their lives.

Speech on Public Transportation

I had blogged earlier that as the 9th Malaysia Plan review debate time allocation was cut when I had my turn, I had to cut short my speech as well, and left out the portion on the public transportation mess.

On Wednesday, as we were debating the Supplementary Budget for 2008, I got my chance to speak as there was a period just after lunch break whereby many opposition MPs had not yet returned from a visit to the KL Police Station over Anwar's arrest that day. Hence, I was able to deliver my speech on public transportation in Malaysia. This is also the first time I had the opportunity to deliver a speech early in the day (when there are actually more MPs around, than say 10pm in the evening. Heh).

I won't repost my speech here, which was blogged earlier, but I had a few "minta penjelasan"s from Barisan Nasional (BN) MPs which I thought was interesting, which you can also read from the Hansard here, page 73.

The first was a question posed by former Minister, PADANG BESAR.
Dato' Seri Azmi bin Khalid [Padang Besar]: Boleh celah sikit?

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Sikit ya.

Dato' Seri Azmi bin Khalid [Padang Besar]: Saya ingin penjelasan. Petaling Jaya Utara datang ke negeri Selangor, negeri Selangor sudah diperintah oleh Parti Pakatan dan negeri
Pulau Pinang diperintah oleh DAP yang mana Yang Berhormat daripada DAP. Jadi, buatlah saja.
Kenapa dok blame kerajaan yang lama ini? Yang tak buat, tak mengapa, okey tapi kenapa
blame? Buat sekarang kerana kita dah memerintah negeri, tunjukkan teladan. Kita negeri kaya,
bukan negeri miskin. Kalau Perlis itu miskin tapi Penang dan Selangor negeri kaya. Buatlah.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Itu masalah senang saja. Sebab negeri
Selangor, dia punya annual budget, satu budget RM1.3 bilion. Annual budget bagi Pulau Pinang
RM380 juta sahaja. Menteri Pengangkutan, dia punya bajet RM23 bilion. Apa nak buat? Mana
boleh bagi.

Dato' Seri Azmi bin Khalid [Padang Besar]: Itu bajet yang tak termasuk pengangkutan.
Masukkan pengangkutan, besarkan bajet.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Pengangkutan satu tanggungjawab pihak
persekutuan. Bukan tanggungjawab dalam negeri.
Then, it was followed by REMBAU, who sought clarification in the later part of my speech:
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: [Bangun]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Ya Yang Berhormat Rembau Yang Berhormat. Nak bagi jalan?

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Sikit ya?

(We always ask "sikit ya?" because these interruptions actually eat into your allocated speech time of 10 minutes, so if these "penjelasan" turn into mini-speeches by the other guys, then you will have no time to finish your speech.)

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Terima kasih. Tadi Yang Berhormat daripada PJ Utara ada sebut tentang penjimatan daripada penstrukturan semula subsidi ini dan
sebahagian daripada itu digunakan untuk pengangkutan awam. Ini soal keutamaan daripada segi
penjimatan yang didapati oleh kerajaan. Sama ada kerajaan akan membelanjakan duit itu untuk
pengangkutan awam ataupun untuk perkara-perkara yang lain. Kerajaan Barisan Nasional telah
putuskan untuk membelanjakan duit tersebut sebahagian besar dalam bentuk subsidi makanan
dan juga dasar keselamatan makanan. Jadi adakah Yang Berhormat daripada PJ Utara
menyarankan agar duit untuk menampung subsidi bagi seluruh rakyat Malaysia untuk memberi
makanan yang cukup dengan harga yang munasabah itu diambil untuk pengangkutan awam bagi
rakyat yang ada di Lembah Kelang. Ini adalah trade-off Saya minta penjelasan daripada YB.

[Fong Kui Lun (BUKIT BINTANG) then interjected here to repeat that the RM4.4b allocated for public transport disappeared since petrol prices were increased 30 sen in 2006]

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Saya pohon laluan sebab ini dituju kepada kerajaan, saya Ahli Parlimen kerajaan. Saya minta laluan.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Saya dah bagi tadi, saya dah bagi tadi.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Sikit saja, sikit saja.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Saya tahu, faham you nak kata harga minyak dah naik sebab itu RM4.4 bilion itu sudah tidak ada. Saya tahu, saya tahu.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Ya, memang betul. Jadi jawablah. Tolong didik sikit kepada Yang Berhormat .... sama.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Tadi Yang Berhormat Rembau, Yang Berhormat Rembau....

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Ya, teruskan Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: .....telah berkata bahawa subsidi makanan lebih penting. Subsidi makanan yang ditambah hanya tak sampai RM2 bilion, tak sampai RM2
bilion.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Dasar Keselamatan...

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Nak bagi Yang Berhormat?

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Tak bagi jalan.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: ...Makanan Negara adalah sebanyak RM4 bilion.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Subsidi makanan tak sampai RM2 bilion. Mana boleh kata...

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Dasar Keselamatan Negara...

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: ...mengutamakan perbelanjaan terhadap subsidi makanan.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: ...Food Security Policy...

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Yang Berhormat Rembau, cukuplah Yang Berhormat Rembau.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: .....Jangan macam inilah. Saya gentleman selalu. Saya tak bagi, duduk dulu.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Kenapa Yang Berhormat PJ Utara tak baca RM4 bilion untuk Dasar Keselamatan Makanan?

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Inilah dia. Tuan Yang di-Pertua.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Ya teruskan, teruskan Yang Berhormat PJ Utara.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tak, saya tak nak orang putar belitkan fakta.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Tak apalah Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Eh, saya nak berikan fakta. You tak bagi saya jawab, saya nak jawab ini.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: RM4 bilion untuk Dasar Keselamatan Makanan.

Puan Fong Po Kuan [Batu Gajah]: [Menyampuk] Jangan bisinglah Yang Berhormat Rembau.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Ya teruskan Yang Berhormat PJ Utara.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Okey, perkara yang satu. Subsidi makanan tak sampai ....

Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang Serai]: [Menyampuk] Yang Berhormat Rembau jadi menteri senang. Bapa mertua Perdana Menteri.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Minta jalan Yang Berhormat ya.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: ....subsidi makanan tak sampai RM2 bilion.

Yang kedua, maksud Yang Berhormat Rembau itu sistem pengangkutan awam di kawasan
Lembah Kelang, di Johor Bahru, di Pulau Pinang tidak penting, tidak penting. Oleh sebab itu
dipinggirkan oleh kerajaan Barisan Nasional.

Yang ketiga, walaupun minyak petrol, harga minyak petrol pasaran seluruh dunia telah meningkat, akan tetapi bajet negara kita sejak tahun 2005 telah meningkat sekurang-kurangnya RM40 bilion. Kenapa tak boleh berikan sedikit, lebih sikit untuk pengangkutan awam. Kenapa tak boleh? Kegagalan sistem pengangkutan awam di Malaysia hari ini siapa yang patut bertanggungjawab?

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Gulung Yang Berhormat, gulung.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Okey. Hakikat ini, hakikat yang dijelaskan
Yang Berhormat Perdana Menteri telah mengumumkan satu lagi suruhanjaya yang baru iaitu
Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam. Penubuhan suruhanjaya ini nampaknya lucu sedikit kerana
kita sudah ada Kementerian Pengangkutan. Kenapa pula perlu sebuah Suruhanjaya
Pengangkutan lagi? Sebenarnya Yang Amat Berhormat Perdana Menteri menubuhkan
suruhanjaya baru ini adalah sebab Kerajaan Barisan Nasional ini mempunyai cara
menguruskan...
And now, I don't think I'll ever finish a speech in parliament without our PASIR SALAK friend raising the issue of blogs. It's quite farcical actually... ;-)
Dato' Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [Pasir Salak]: [Menyampuk] Main blog saja lah.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Pasir Salak. Saya tahu [Pasir Salak] tak ada blog.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Ronald Kiandee]: Ya gulung Yang Berhormat, gulung.

Dato' Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [Pasir Salak]: [Menyampuk] Tak layak jadi wakil rakyat pun. Main bloglah.
Anyway, it's certainly a better speech compared to some others I've made in Parliament (in terms of delivery, the last one being quite poor). Will see if I can put up a video of it somewhere. ;-) As mentioned earlier, the full text of the actual speech is here.

Transportation Priorities

The following is an article forwarded to me with regards to concerns over the mixed-up priorities of the BN government over transportation infrastructure investments. The RM16 billion double-tracking project goes ahead but the RM3.6 monorail in Penang gets shelved.

The author is a Director of Research with a fund management company, and with his kind permission, I'll post his analysis here.

Can we really afford RM16bn in double tracking railways?
Choong Khuat Hock

Trains have transformed transportation and boosted economic activities since steam locomotives were introduced in 1800s. Lately fast train services between cities have linked cities thereby enhancing economic linkages. Examples include the Shinkansen trains in Japan with speeds of up to 300km per hour, the Taiwan High Speed Rail which reduced the travel time of the 335.5km Taipei to Kaohsiung route from 4.5 hours to 90 minutes and the French high speed TGV trains which connect major French cities. TGV trainsets travel at up to 320 km/h in commercial use.

A specially modified TGV trainset attained 574.8 km/h on test runs, narrowly missed beating the overall world train speed record of 581km/h which was reached in 2003 by a Japanese magnetic levitation or maglev trains. Unfortunately, the proposed high speed train from KL to Singapore taking only 90 minutes has been cancelled.

The fast train proposal from KL to Johor/Singapore linking metropolitan areas with a population of 11m would have boosted property prices in KL and Johor and enhance the services sector of both cities. With private sector participation in a bankable project, the cost to taxpayers would have been minimised.

Instead at a time when the people are being asked to make sacrifices to reduce subsidies for the sake of development projects, one has to question the economic benefits arising from the Double Tracking Railway from Ipoh to the Thai border that will cost taxpayer RM12.5bn, of which RM5bn is just for signaling.

This project was initially supposed to be a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) funded by the private sector but as the financial return from the project is bad, it was decided that the funding will come from the government (i.e. taxpayers). The 329km Ipoh to Padang Besar railway will cost a massive RM38m per km which is 62% higher than RM23.5km for the 179km double-tracking railway from Rawang to Ipoh, completed for only RM4.2bn.

It is difficult to justify the economics of the project especially when KTMB only generated RM70.7m from their intercity services and RM113.0m from freight services in 2006. The freight services are less sensitive to travel time so the main benefit is likely to be shorter commuting time for passengers. Cutting the travelling time to 2.5 hours is hardly an irrestible proposition as the journey by road is only 2 hours. KTMB which made a net loss of RM99.2m at the group level in 2006, is definitely not in a position to fund the double tracking railway.

The double tracking project from Ipoh to Padang Besar has been awarded to Gamuda and MMC. Margins for the project have been squeezed by rising steel, cement and other building material costs. The project requires 400,000 tonnes of steel.

In addition to that, the government has also awarded a RM3.5bn contract to build a double track from Seremban to Gemas. The contract was awarded to an Indian company, IRCON International, which in turn subcontracted infrastructure works to a JV between IJM and Norwest which won a RM490.1m contract and a JV between Loh & Loh and Pasti Abad isdn Bhd which won a RM273.0m contract.

At a time when there is a need to enhance public transport within cities to relieve congestion and to reduce vehicle use, spending a total of RM16bn (largest among government development projects) on rails from Ipoh to the Thai border and Seremban to Gemas is rather perplexing.

In the meantime, the much needed RM1.6bn Penang monorail has been deferred. The monorail or an alternative system would have helped to relieve acute traffic congestion in George Town. For the project to happen, the co-operation of the Ministry of Transport and the Penang State Government is required. In the mid-term review of the 9th Malaysian Plan, the government has deferred the much needed project while proceeding with the less economically viable double tracking railway projects.

The LRT and monorails in the Klang Valley which were completed in 1998 do not have a good track record. Star and PUTRA had to be bailed out by the government through the issue of RM5.5bn of bonds backed by government-owned Syarikat Prasarana Negara Malaysia (SPNB) in 2001 as the traffic volumes were less than one third of forecast demand. The LRT operations were leased back to the management of PUTRA and STAR while taxpayers bore the debt. The KL Monorail which started operations in 2003 was also loss-making and its RM882m loan has to be assumed by SPNB in November 2007.

Criticisms of the KL urban rail systems include the lack of connectivity and capacity constraints. The Bangkok Transit System (BTS), HK’s Mass Transit Railway (MTR) and the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) appear to be better planned and enjoy superior capacity and connectivity.

It is true that the government needs to spend on infrastructure but it is important that taxpayers’ money is spent on projects that generate economic returns for the country. Construction companies being awarded the massive railway jobs may not be smiling as rises in building material prices have eaten into margins. Cost overruns are likely to increase the price tags of these mega-projects while further rises in oil prices have whittled away savings in subsidies arising from the fuel price hike.

This is clearly a time when unnecessary mega-projects need to be derailed.

Doing My Little Part

I've been granted a short weekly column with the Chinese newspaper, Oriental Daily which will be published on every Monday. ;) This has started since they "revamped" the paper into tabloid size last week. Yes, it's a Chinese paper, and I wrote in Chinese, although whatever I wrote goes through "heavy" language editing by colleagues. I'd post here my columns a week after they have been published ;)

So, here's my debut piece, a little introductory piece on doing my part for the country ;)

虽千万人吾往矣!
潘俭伟

人家时常问我:既然您的条件这么好,又何苦要加入政界呢?我所给的答案很简单,就是马来西亚是个资源丰富及人口充满生气的国家,但是我们却无法释出最大的潜能,而且还浪费许多宝贵的机会。当中的最大因素就是执政当局无能!

近年来,我国所拥有的最珍贵资源,即人文资本相继流失到国外去。我国最优秀的人才,不论哪一个种族,从12岁开始就给其他国家吸引去了。譬如,新加坡每年提供数百份东协奖学金,给我国学生到新加坡顶尖学府及大学深造。我有好多朋友如今都在新加坡落地生根。他们当中计有专科医生、大学讲师,有些甚至进入新加坡顶尖公司的管理层。

至于其他人有些则移居香港、伦敦或纽约,而他们的技能、智能与才能一般都受承认及获得赏识。像我这种要返回祖国并为国家贡献者,可说是少之又少。

近几年来,我国的人才相继离国,外国投资者亦对马来西亚趋之避吉。我国曾经是个最吸引外商投资的据点。1996年,我国外来直接投资额高达73亿美元。然而在短短10年内,这个投资额遽跌45.6%至39.7亿美元。若跟新加坡相比,新加坡同一时期的外来直接投资则从97亿美元增加超过一倍至209亿美元。

正当我们的邻国及竞争者相继茁壮,反观我们却一直被抛落人后。早前,我们能够很骄傲地跟新加坡、香港、韩国及台湾相比较;如今,我们则只能苦苦地跟泰国、越南及印尼相互竞争。

两周前,欧盟驻马来西亚大使蒂里·隆梅尔(Thierry Rommel)发表如何加强马来西亚吸引外商投资的建设性意见,尤其是有必要消除保护性及歧视性的政策。我国政府领导人不但没有感激隆梅尔所发表的逆耳忠言,反而还警告他别干涉我国内政。

追根究底,这个问题又再一次扯到人文资本的基本问题。随着越来越多人才对马来西亚失望而离国,我们是否还有具备足够资格的人才领导马来西亚呢?

Public Transportation Mess

This was the Part 2 of my speech to debate the 9th Malaysia Plan mid-term review, which would have been delivered, had the time to speak not been cut to 10 minutes. As I mentioned earlier, on hindsight I probably should have spoken on this Part 2 which covered the issue of transportation and not Part 1 on economy which many have spoken about.

Anyway, I wanted to highlight the complete overhaul which is needed to solve our public transportation problems in this country. I had also voiced my disappointment to the policies (if any) which was put forward by the Prime Minister in the mid-term review.

Di kalangan pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO), cadangan YB Perdana Menteri untuk mewujudkan satu Pelan Induk Pengangkutan amat menggelikan (amused). Ini bermaksud selama 50 tahun ini, kerajaan telah lalai dalam tanggungjawabnya kerana kerajaan telah mengurus tanpa sebarang pelan untuk mewujudkan satu sistem pengangkutan yang terpadu.

Sekarang, harga minyak telah meningkat dengan cepat sekali, apanya alternatif kepada rakyat Malaysia? Manakah sistem pengangkutan awam berkesan yang sering dijanji oleh kerajaan?

Penggunaan sistem pengangkutan awam di Lembah Klang telah menurun sehingga 16% sahaja berbanding dengan 40% pada tahun 1980an. Sepatutnya, bagi bandaraya negara yang maju, penggunaan sistem pengangkutan awam adalah melebihi 70%.

Sekarang, kita nak datang ke parlimen pun takda bas yang boleh dinaiki kecuali menggunakan teksi.

Pada tahun 2006, semasa harga petrol dinaiki 30 sen, kerajaan berjanji memperuntukkan RM4.4 bilion kepada dana sistem pengangkutan awam. Apa telah jadi dengan dana ini?

Pada masa itu juga, kerajaan mengemukakan pelan LRT yang baru, di mana satu aliran baru ditubuhkan ke Kota Damansara, and aliran yang sedia ada dipanjangkan ke Puchong. Akan tetapi bukan sahaja kerja ke atas projek LRT langsung tidak bergerak selama 3 tahun ini, sekarang, kerajaan sekali lagi mengemukakan pelan yang sama sebagai jawab kenaikan harga petrol. Suratkhabar The Star dan lain-lain pun menerbitkan pelan LRT yang dikemukakan sebagai satu pelan yang baru, memberikan berita baik kepada penduduk-penduduk di Lembah Klang.

YB Perdana Menteri mengumumkan bahawa kajian separuh penggal rancangan Malaysia akan memberi tumpuan kepada sistem pengangkutan awam. Tetapi, seperti yang telah dijanjikan sebelum ini, cakap kerajaan tak serupa bikin.

Peningkatan harga petrol bulan lalu dianggar menjimatkan kerajaan sebanyak RM13.7 bilion. Akan tetapi, hanya 11% ataupun 1.6 bilion sahaja daripada penjimatan tersebut diperuntukkan untuk menaik tarafkan sistem pengangkutan awam di Malaysia. Walaupun peruntukan baru sebanyak RM30 bilion telah diumumkan, tiada peruntukan tambahan diberi untuk sistem pengangkutan awam. Jumlah RM1.6 bilion langsung tidak mencukup untuk memberikan pengangkutan alternatif yang memuaskan untuk rakyat terutamanya di kawasan bandar seperti Lembah Klang, Johor Bahru dan Pulau Pinang.

Kegagalan sistem pengangkutan awam di Malaysia hari ini, siapa yang patut bertanggungjawab? Adakah kementerian Pengangkutan dan menteri-menterinya yang sebelum ini yang bertanggungjawab?

Selepas tsunami politik yang baru berlepas, kita bertuah mendapat seorang Menteri Pengangkutan baru, tapi saya kesian sama dia. Bukan sahaja dia kena menghadapi cabaran yang sukar sekali untuk memulihkan maruah MCA selepas dilantik Presiden pada bulan Oktober yang akan datang, dia telah dilantik sebagai Menteri Pengangkutan yang langsung tidak berkuasa untuk menaiktarafkan sistem pengangkutan awam di Malaysia.

Hakikat ini jelas kerana YB Perdana Menteri telah mengumumkan satu lagi suruhanjaya yang baru, iaitu Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam. Pertubuhan suruhanjaya ini nampaknya lucu sedikit, kerana kita sudah ada Kementerian Pengangkutan, kenapa pula perlu sebuah lagi suruhanjaya pengangkutan?

Sebenarnya, YB Perdana Menteri menubuhkan suruhanjaya yang baru ini adalah sebab kerajaan Barisan Nasional ini mempunyai cara mengurus sistem pengangkutan awam yang tidak masuk akal dan barangkali yang terkekok di seluruh dunia.

Pengurusan sistem pengangkutan awam di Malaysia bukannya bertumpu di Kementerian Pengangkutan tetapi dibahagi kepada 13 agensi kerajaan di kementerian yang tidak berkaitan. Terutamanya Lembaga Perlesenan Kenderaan Perdagangan (LPKP) bawah Kementerian Pembangunan Usahawan dan Koperasi, yang menguasai pengendalian lesen bas dan teksi, Kementerian Kewangan yang menguasai bas dan LRT RapidKL dan Kementerian Pengangkutan yang menguruskan keretapi KTM.

Oleh sebab itu, saya menyeru supaya kerajaan mengenepikan faktor kepentingan politik, dan fikiran yang kolot, dan mengambil langkah untuk menggabungkan kesemua badan dan agensi yang melibatkan sistem pengangkutan awam ke bawah pimpinan YB Menteri Pengangkutan.

Kita yakin, YB akan dapat menjalankan tanggungjawab dengan lebih berkesan jika diberikan kuasa yang berpatutan. Kalau tidak, apa gunanya kerajaan menubuhkan suruhanjaya-suruhanjaya yang yang baru ini, yang hanya menunjuk bahawa peralatan kerajaan telahpun gagal menyelesaikan masalah rakyat selama ini.

New Fare Structure for RapidKL?

Since we are on the subject of petrol hikes, and it has always been this author's position that we should focus on building alternative transport systems to alleviate the cost, and increasing convenience, particularly with regards to living in the city.

The following is a letter from Moaz, a fervent public transport advocate on the recent cabinets (in)decision to withdraw subsidies from RapidKL, which I thought was worth antithetical to exactly what the government needs to do with public transport at this point of time.
It is interesting to know that the recent decision by the Cabinet Commitee to withdraw the RapidKL operations subsidy was made at the same time that a court case that same subsidy was still pending. You may recall the lawsuit announced by Metrobus in March 2008. Metrobus named the CVLB as a defendant and indicated in the court proceedings that the CVLB had breached their own regulations by allowing RapidKL to offer a lower fare than the other operators. The court case was to be mentioned in late April, but I presume it still pending. In any case, the Cabinet Committee has effectively decided on the court case in favour of Metrobus.

It is ironic that the pressure on RapidKL is coming from their offering fares that were "too low" for the industry. It is ironic because normally the Malaysian government focuses on prices that are too high. In this era of inflation, one would think that a company offering low prices would be applauded. Well, Air Asia and Malaysia Airlines are applauded, but for some reason, RapidKL has their operations subsidy withdrawn. The new fare structure has been decided in Putrajaya, with very little consultation with RapidKL and clearly, very little interest in the wishes or the needs of passengers.

This kind of interference by the Cabinet Committee and the federal government, combined with their ignorance and lack of interest in local affairs, suggest a serious mismanagement of public transportation in this country.

That is why I am quite surprised to hear that the Cabinet is still continuing with the withdrawal of the operations subsidy to RapidKL, especially at this time when there should be a greater boost for public transportation.
In most places throughout the world, it is accepted that it is very very tough for public transport operators to make a profit without sacrificing service. Most countries and cities provide funds for their public transport operators. Here in Malaysia, it seems that the government wants to do the opposite, pushing bus operators to sacrifice service in order to make a profit.
How can the government talk about improving public transportation when they cannot even provide operations funding (let's not call it a subsidy) for the bus operators?

In fact, the government should be increasing the funds available to public transport operators, either through capital or operations funds. Perhaps this would lead the other bus operators to improve the frequency, punctuality, and reliability of their services. RapidKL may have a long way to go in terms for frequency, punctuality and reliability but they are miles ahead of the bus operators.
Finally, the government should be using this opportunity to implement KUTA, the proposed Klang Valley Urban Transport Authority, which was suggested more than 10 years ago. The presence of a Regional/Local Public Transport Authority for the Klang Valley will make a huge difference. With the cooperation of local government and the Public Transport Authority, we could see a huge increase in the quality of public transport services, in a very short time.

With the recent increase in petrol prices, the rakyat would expect that their government would act to show Malaysians that they are actually taking real steps to improve public transport. The withdrawal of the RapidKL operations funds, the long delay of the proposed Klang Valley Urban Transport Authority, and the continued investment in LRT and monorail construction show us that the government is either not ready or not willing to take these real steps and prefers instead to dream the "LRT Dream" and ignore the "bus nightmare."

Sincerely

Moaz Yusuf Ahmad
moaz.ahmad (at) gmail (dot) com

Debating 9th Malaysia Plan Mid-Term Review

Today is the last day to deliver my speech to take part in the debate on the above topic. I finally got called to make my speech at 9.50pm (yes, the sitting will probably end at midnight tonight) despite being ready since Tuesday last week. The time to deliver the speech however, has been cut from 20 minutes to 10. Hence essentially, I managed to deliver only part 1 of my speech.

On reflection, I should probably have just skipped part 1 'cos some other MPs have touched on the subject. Anyway, what's done is done. I'll post the Part 1 of my speech which I actually managed to deliver here, and put up the Part 2 later.

Here you go:

Terima kasih diucapkan kepada Tuan Yang DiPertua kerana memberi peluang kepada saya untuk menyertai perbahasan kajian separuh penggal rancangan Malaysia ke-9.

Tuan Yang DiPertua, saya berasa amat kecewa dengan ucapan kajian yang diberi oleh Yang Berhormat Perdana Menteri mengenai pencapaian dan langkah-langkah yang akan diambil oleh Kerajaan pada 2-3 tahun yang akan datang.

Kajian separuh penggal ini merupakan peluang keemasan bagi kerajaan Barisan Nasional untuk membetulkan banyak kesilapan dasar pada tahun-tahun yang lalu. Kajian ini memberikan peluang kepada kerajaan untuk menunjukkan keiklasan dan kesumbuhan politik ataupun dengan izin, political will, untuk menaiktarafkan kualiti kehidupan rakyat, terutamanya dalam suasana kadar inflasi dan harga barang keperluan kian meningkat.

Akan tetapi, YB Perdana Menteri telahpun melepaskan peluang ini dengan memberikan satu ucapan yang tidak bersubstance, yang tidak tentu hara dan tidak mempunyai dasar yang cukup konkrit untuk menghadapi cabaran kepada ekonomi dan masyarakat kita.


Tighten Belt

YB Perdana Menteri, YB Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan kerajaan pada keseluruhannya telah menyeru supaya rakyat jelata menyesuaikan cara hidup ataupun dengan izin, change lifestyle mereka untuk menghadapi cabaran inflasi. Kami kerap kali diminta supaya mengetatkan tali pinggan, tighten our belts, apakah tindakan kerajaan selaras dengan seruan tersebut?

YB Perdana Menteri mengumumkan, dan diterbitkan secara besar-besaran dalam suratkhabar tempatan, bahawa elaun hiburan menteri-menteri akan ditolak 10%. Langkah tersebut, bersama dengan beberapa langkah yang lain, dianggar akan menjimatkan sebanyak RM2 billion.

Walaupun elaun hiburan ditolak hanya 10% nampaknya amat kurang, kalau nak tolak, tolaklah 50%, kami masih berharap YB Perdana Menteri akan mengambil langkah-langkah yang lain, yang akan lebih menjimatkan perbelanjaan kerajaan.

Akan tetapi, setelah menganalisa ucapan YB Perdana Menteri dan laporan kajian dengan teliti, saya tidak nampak dasar yang menyeluruh untuk menjimatkan, terutamanya, perbelanjaan operasi.

Rakyat jelata dan juga ahli-ahli parlimen yang mengutamakan kepentingan rakyat ingin mendengar daripada kerajaan Barisan Nasional adalah pembatalan dasar bersikap kroni, seperti penawaran “Approved Permits” ataupun APs kepada pihak elit yang tertentu, yang lebih dikenali sebagai “AP Kings”.

“AP Kings” telah mencapai kekayaan yang tidak dapat dibayangkan dan mereka tidak lagi memerlukan bantuan daripada kerajaan atas alasan Dasar Ekonomi Baru untuk menjadi lebih kaya.

Rakyat ingin kerajan melaksanakan tender terbuka secara bersaing yang telus supaya kerajaan akan mendapat pendapatan yang lebih banyak. Jika setiap AP bernilai pasaran sebanyak RM30,000, 70,000 AP yang ditawar setiap tahun akan membawa hasil melebihi RM2 bilion yang boleh digunakan untuk meningkatkan sistem pengangkutan awam.

Kalau kerajaan perlu membangun pihak usahaan kaum bumiputera, laksanalah tender terbuka secara bersaing yang telus untuk SEMUA syarikat bumiputera dan bukannya ditawarkan secara percuma kepada pihak kroni yang tertentu sahaja. Kerajaan perlu membangunkan semangat persaingan syarikat bumiputera dan Malaysia, dan bukannya menghapuskan semangat tersebut.

Pada masa yang sama, Malaysia memerlukan budaya tender terbuka secara bersaing yang telus diperluaskan kepada semua projek yang dijalankan oleh kerajaan. Hanya dengan sistem persaingan terbuka ini, kerajaan akan mendapat penjimatan yang maksima dan mewujudkan kualiti yang lebih tinggi.

Sekali lagi, kalau kerajaan berpandangan syarikat tempatan perlu diberikan lindungan, maka laksanakan tender terbuka tempatan. Dan kalau kerajaan ingin memberikan peluang kepada syarikat bumiputera, laksanakan tender terbuka bumiputera. Akan tetapi, budaya rundingan terus yang selalu membawa hakikat ataupun persepsi rasuah dan kroni, mestilah dihapuskan.

Jikalau sebuah syarikat seperti UEM yang telah berjaya membina Jambatan Pulau Pinang yang ketiga panjang di Asia 10 tahun yang lalu masih tidak dapat bertanding dalam satu tender antarabangsa, dan masih memerlukan sedekah kerajaan, ia menunjukkan kegagalan Dasar Ekonomi Malaysia.

Dengan tender yang terbuka, kerajaan dianggar akan dapat menjimat sebanyak 20% jika berbanding dengan kos pembinaan jambatan-jambatan yang lain. Misalnya jambatan 36km di Shanghai akan dibina dengan kos RM149 juta setiap kilometer jauh lebih murah berbanding dengan RM179 juta setiap kilometer bagi Jambatan Pulau Pinang ke-dua. Ini belum lagi mengambil kira permintaan syarikat UEM untuk meningkatkan harga pembinaan dari RM4.3 bilion ke RM4.8 bilion, yang tengah dipertimbangkan oleh kerajaan Barisan Nasional.

Budaya tender terbuka akan benar-benar menjimatkan perbelanjaan kerajaan dan bukannya satu langkah yang tidak bersungguh-sungguh seperti pemotong elaun hiburan menteri sebanyak 10%.

Kerajaan selalu memberi sebab bahawa wang tidak mencukupi dan oleh itu subsidi perlu dikurangkan. Akan tetapi, pada masa yang sama, dalam 10 tahun yang lalu, perbelanjaan mengurus (operational expenditure) yang hanya berjumlah 46 bilion ringgit telahpun meningkat dekat 3 kali ganda ke 129 bilion ringgit. Pada masa yang sama, perbelanjaan pembangunan hanya meningkat lebih kurang 2 kali ganda dari 19 bilion ke 41 bilion ringgit.

Perbelanjaan mengurus meningkat dengan begitu dahsyat sekali membukti bahawa kerajaan memang mempunyai wang yang amat mencukupi. Cukai-cukai terutamanya berasal dari sektor minyak dan gas, yang pada tahun ini dianggar menyumbang sebanyak 37% kepada hasil yang dikutip kerajaan kerana Malaysia beruntung apabila harga minyak meningkat.

Akan tetapi, pendapatan kerajaan yang meningkat dengan begitu cepat selalunya dibazirkan dengan sia-sia sahaja. Banyak kementerian telah diperuntukkan belanjawan yang terlalu banyak sehingga tidak tahu apa yang patut dibeli. Misalnya, kementerian menggunakan wang kelebihan untuk membeli set pemutar skru dengan kos RM224 berbanding dengan kos sebenar RM40, set pen teknikal dengan harga RM1,146.56 berbanding dengan kos sebenar RM160, membeli “car jack” yang bernilai RM50 dengan kos RM5,700.

Pihak polis juga membeli helikopter bernilai sebanyak RM117 juta yang tidak dapat digunakan kerana ianya tidak mengikut spesifikasi, and RM15 juta lagi untuk melatih juruterbang helikopter ini.

Pihak kastam pula membeli sebuah sistem yang baru berjumlah RM451 juta walaupun sistem yang baru sahaja disiapkan yang bernilai RM290 juta masih belum diguna secara penuh.

Sehingga hari ini, ramai pihak yang bertanggungjawab ke atas pembaziran dan rasuah perkara-perkara di atas masih belum diambil tindakan, dan siasatan macam sudah tidak lagi diberi kepentingan.

Oleh kerana pendapatan meningkat, kerajaan juga telah membina sebuah perkhidmatan awam gergasi. Sejak tahun 2000, jumlah pekerja perkhidmatan awam yang tidak termasuk pekerja kerajaan negeri dan GLC, telah meningkat sebanyak 23.5% ke 1,142,783. Apakah yang perlu dijalankan oleh kerajaan dalam 6 tahun yang lalu yang memerlukan penambahan anggota perkhidmatan awam dengan begitu ramai? Sepatutnya, jumlah anggota perkhidmatan awam tidak perlu meningkat kerana polisi kerajaan penswastaan syarikat-syarikat kerajaan patut mengurangkan anggota perkhidmatan awam.

Berbanding dengan negara-negara lain, nisbah anggota perkhidmatan awam di Malaysia dengan bilangan penduduk teramat tinggi. 4.68% penduduk Malaysia merupakan pekerja kerajaan persekutuaan berbanding dengan 1.79% di Indonesia, 1.85% di Korea Selatan dan 2.69% di Taiwan. Kenapa Malaysia memerlukan anggota perkhidmatan awam yang begitu besar, begitu ramai? Adakah ianya disebabkan oleh kekurangan keberkesanan ataupun dasar kerajaan untuk memberikan pekerjaan kepada siswazah universiti Malaysia yang mengganggur?

Oleh itu, jelas bahawa, kerajaan bukannya kekurangan modal, akan tetapi menghadapi masalah terlalu banyak wang dan tidak tahu nak taruh di mana.

Walaupun kerajaan telah menambahkan peruntukan pembangunan sebanyak RM30 bilion, pada masa yang sama kerajaan telah mengambil langkah untuk membatalkan pembangunan yang akan membawa manfaat kepada orang ramai, terutamanya yang menghadapi harga petrol yang telahpun meningkat dengan melampau.

Misalnya, projek monorail yang amat dialu-alukan oleh rakyat Pulau Pinang untuk mengurangkan kesesakan jalanraya telah dibatalkan dan TIADA projek alternatif diumumkan untuk meringankan beban rakyat Pulau Pinang dengan sistem pengangkutan awan yang lebih berkesan. Rakyat Pulau Pinang telahpun dipinggirkan dalam pembangunan negara, dan ini rupanya sikap kerajaan persekutuaan yang tidak hormat terhadap keputusan rakyat dalam tsunami politik 4 bulan lalu.

Apa lagi, peruntukan untuk memperbaiki dan menaiktarafkan keretapi yang sudah nak luput, Bukit Bendera pun dipotong. Sikap keinginan untuk membalas dendam terhadap rakyat seperti ini bukan sahaja akan memperkuatkan semangat rakyat Pulau Pinang menolak Barisan Nasional, tetapi akan juga akan menimbulkan kesan buruk kepada industri pelancongan di Malaysia – dan bukan sahaja di negeri, terutamanya pelancong luar negeri.

Nampaknya, YB Perdana Menteri dan YB Menteri Kewangan Kedua, yang berasal dari negeri Pulau Pinang, pun sanggup mengorbankan pembangunan negeri asal mereka, dan meminggirkan rakyat negeri yang sedang menghadapi cabaran yang sengit.

YB Muar pada minggu yang lalu menyokong usul kerajaan untuk menaikkan harga petrol dan elektrik dengan simpulan “Yang berat sama dipikul, yang ringan sama dijinjing”. Saya tidak setuju dengan pendapat YB kerana, seperti yang telah pun dihujah, simpulan yang lebih tepat adalah “Yang ringan kerajaan menjinjing, yang berat rakyat yang memikul”.

10 Years After Asian Financial Crisis: A Reflection

OK, once again, I know this is a bit late, but better late than never I suppose ;)

I'll be appearing in a largely Mandarin forum (my slides will have English text) tonight to discuss the above topic. My counterpart is Dr Ho Kee Peng, an entertaining and well-known analyst in political and economic issues in the forum circuit.
Date: July 5th, 2007
Time: 7.30pm
Venue: Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
This forum is organised by Oriental Daily.

An excerpt on the Asian Financial Crisis taken form Wikipedia:

Until 1997, Asia attracted almost half of total capital inflow to developing countries. The economies of Southeast Asia in particular maintained high interest rates attractive to foreign investors looking for a high rate of return. As a result the region's economies received a large inflow of hot money and experienced a dramatic run-up in asset prices. At the same time, the regional economies of Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and South Korea experienced high growth rates, 8-12% GDP, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This achievement was broadly acclaimed by economic institutions including the IMF and World Bank, and was known as part of the Asian economic miracle.

Whatever the disputed causes, the Asian crisis started in mid-1997 and affected currencies, stock markets, and other asset prices of several Southeast Asian economies. Triggered by events in Latin America, particularly after the Mexican peso crisis of 1994, Western investors lost confidence in securities in East Asia and began to pull money out, creating a domino effect.

See you there! ;)

Clueless Politicians

Other than the many twists and turns in the Altantuya Murder Mystery, the other subject which has been hitting the headlines in the past week or so, has been the controversy over the issue of credit check services provided by CTOS Sdn Bhd. Much has been reported in the press, and most of it was negative.

Even today, the Prime Minister as well as the Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi chipped in unintelligently by claiming that "when CTOS made conclusions based on incomplete and outdated information the people concerned would be victimised. I dare make the claim here that Pak Lah has never ever seen the system himself, or he would have realised immmediately that the system does not blacklist individuals or companies.

Before I proceed, let me clarify that:
  • I've had a glimpse the CTOS service
  • I have no idea if my name will produce a result in CTOS
  • I have no shares in CTOS
  • I have no personal dealings with CTOS or its management
My beef on this issue is simply that economically illiterate Ministers are placing the efficiency and credibility of Malaysia's financial institutions at risk.

These statements were made following various allegations made by the Deputy Minister in Prime Minister's Department, Datuk M. Kayveas against the company. (The CEO of CTOS has issued an open letter published in Malaysiakini to the esteemed Minister, and intends to file a defamation suit against the latter.)

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak asked that CTOS "should not create problems or prevent borrowers from getting loans from financial institutions". Most shockingly, Deputy Finance Minister, Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussien has called on Banks "to stop using the services provided by CTOS".

Credit Information Enables Efficient and Sound Banking System

What CTOS provides is a service which is in demand by financial institutions to evaluate the credit-worthiness of their borrowers. Such information enables lending to be processed efficiently and at a lower risks for banks. No financial institution in the country will be willing to provide loans if such information is lacking or unavailable.

What CTOS does is to collate information which are publicly available and gazetted instantly to subscribers will then make their own assessments with regards to the credit-worthiness of the borrowers. As a result our financial and banking system has become more efficient as loans can be processed in greater confidence within a faster processing period. Banks offering loan approvals within 24-hours cannot do it today without such information.

On the other hand, without the CTOS service, Banks will still have to assess the credit-worthiness of the potential borrowers by reviewing bankruptcy gazettes, public notices in newspapers, company registration information in Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM), a tedious and time-consuming process. Such a process is inefficient, unwieldy and prone to errors.

Hence, when the Deputy Finance Minister called on Banks to stop using the CTOS service, he is in effect asking our Banks to increase take on unnecessary risk, which will only result in higher non-performing loans (NPLs). Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussien is also effectively asking them to be less efficient and as a result, less competitive compared to foreign financial institutions.

The General Public Are Winners with a service like CTOS

While parties with a poor credit history are clearly unhappy with the availability of services such as CTOS, it must be made known that the overwhelming majority of Malaysians benefit tremendously from such a system.

A negative search (i.e., no result) in CTOS for example, will often mean that a person's track record is clean. A search on 94% of all Malaysians will result in a negative search. Hence because of the availability of a credit information service like CTOS, these 94% of Malaysians will have their loans or business requirements processed at a faster, more efficient and effective manner. In fact, for many, it may mean higher facilities as well as lower interest rates.

Hence, what our Ministers are unfortunately trying to do is to in effect, to protect Malaysians with potentially weaker credit history while sacrificing the interest of the majority of Malaysians with excellent credit standing.

The Key is Accurate Information

Action should only be taken against CTOS should the information found within the system contain errors, which will then unfairly jeopardise the interest of the victim. CTOS should hence make all necessary effort to ensure that the data within the system is accurate.

In the event whereby CTOS faces difficulty in maintaining an updated record, all efforts must be made to obtain these relevant information. The Government should at the same time ensure that information such as bankrupts who have been discharged, are made available publicly on a timely basis.

Stop Making Unfounded Allegations

The Ministers should therefore stop making unfounded and uneducated allegations against companies such as CTOS, for they are critical in ensuring that our business and financial system and operates in a substantially more efficient and effective manner. They should instead seek direct clarification with CTOS to better understand their services and what necessary improvements should be made.

The Edge financial weekly has asked in its column "Frankly Speaking" this week, "Why shoot the messenger"?
...aren't the critics barking up the wrong tree? They are merely shooting the messenger. The culprits are actually the financial institutions that depend on credit bureaus for information on the credit-worthiness of their clients.

...ultimately, the decision to lend or not to lend to an individual lies with the banks and other financial institutions. There is no obligation on thepart of the banks to make a decision based on what has been provided by credit bureaus.
Even Transparency International has issued a statement with regards to "grave threats to transparency".
By seeking to suppress information, the authorities are “clearly violating freedom of access to information for legitimate business purposes and to be informed on public policy issues,” said TI-M president Ramon V Navaratnam in a statement today.

This freedom is not only essential for the public to make responsible and informed decisions based on fair access to information, but also for an open and transparent democracy to function meaningfully, he explained.

Officials and legislators should also cease their attacks on CTOS and instead raise “concerns about the way credit and financial information is collated and disseminated” with the management, he said.

“The fact that some legislators’ names are listed as defaulters surely does not justify any call to ban the service. We have to be increasingly concerned with public and national interest rather than the protection of individuals,” he added.
It is disappointing that in the midst of attempting to build world-class banks in an increasingly globalised and competitive environment, our clueless Ministers are seeking to eliminate one of the most critical components - "information", from being accessed by our financial institutions.

Instead of taking such a retrogressive step, they should encourage greater competition in this field so as the system will become even more efficient and reliable, benefiting not only our banking industry, but also all Malaysians.

"Lets Revitalise Penang Economy"

The economy of Penang used to be the most robust and competitive in Malaysia with giants like Intel anchoring the high-technology manufacturing industry. However, today, it lies a distant 3rd in the country, after Selangor and Johor. The Pearl of the Orient has clearly lost its sparkle.

How can DAP help revitalise Penang, and make the Pearl of the Orient shine, once again?

THEME: "Lets Revitalise Penang Economy"
"Revitalise Penang" Dialogue Series (I)

Speakers:
  • Lim Guan Eng, DAP Secretary-General
  • YB Chow Kon Yeow, MP for Tanjong
  • Tony Pua, Economic Advisor to DAP Sec-Gen
Language: Mandarin / English
Date: 6.7.2007 (Friday)
Time: 8.00 p.m. (Please be punctual)
Venue: Chew Si Kee San Tong Hall
(33, Lebuh Kimberley, Georgetown )
Contact:04-2288482 / 2277068


民主行动党甘榜哥南支部主办
"风云再起 "系列讲座(1 )

主题:" 如何抢救槟州经济?"

槟州经济放缓乃是不争的事实。
我们的经济发展应朝向哪里去?
民主行动党又能为您带来什么?

主讲人:
  • 林冠英 (民主行动党秘书长 )
  • 潘俭伟 (民主行动党秘书长经济顾问 ;英国牛津大学 哲学、政治与经济 系毕业 )
  • 曹观友 (丹绒区国会议员 ;民主行动党槟州主席 )
媒介语:华语 / 英语
日期: 2007年7 月6日(星期五)
时间:晚上 8时(请准时出席)
地点:槟城汕头街周氏岐山堂冷气礼堂
联络:04-2288482 / 2277068

Build Then Sell

One of the biggest complaints that representatives in the Klang Valley, and probably in many cities throughout the country, is the issue of abandoned housing. I've written earlier about the problem of house-buying and I'll quote here:
Just for the purposes of comparison, when you do go out and buy your dream car, be it a Proton or a BMW, worth RM50,000 or RM500,000, what's the process like? Typically, you'll pay 5% to 10% downpayment and the balance once your car is ready for delivery in a week or two.

The question then is, why is it that we as house-buyers have to pay a 10% upfront, and subsequently continue making progressive payments over a period of two years or so, before finally gaining 'vacant possession'? Often, our banks would have disbursed some 90% of our housing loan facility for the purchase, before the house or apartment is even completed!
So when I read that the Selangor state government intends to implement the "build then sell" concept of housing, I'll all hands in support. The Star reported that
SELANGOR aims to take the lead in the “build-and-then-sell” concept for housing projects to reduce the incidence of house buyers who are cheated by unscrupulous developers.

[Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim noted that] “In most developed countries, there is no such thing as you paying as the house is being constructed. For example, in Australia, you have the right to sell only when the project is completed. But in Malaysia, you can sell your housing project even before you complete it.”It was reported earlier that there are 141 abandoned projects in the state, 108 of them housing projects.

“We don’t want this to be done immediately, but it has to be done in stages so that in the future, there will be a lot more people who will build first before selling.The state and local governments are now facing a lot of problems as people are demanding to know why we allow buildings or houses to be built in a shoddy manner.”
I certainly hope to see the day in Selangor whereby houses are made before they are sold, for the protection of hard-earned savings of our Malaysian workers and families must be given absolute priority against weak and unscrupulous developers.

And I fully support the move by the state to "blacklist the directors and owners of the companies" so that they will not be able to 'return' under the guise of a different company resulting in more housing victims.

Deputy Minister Denies Labuan Blacklisted

If you have read my earlier post on Labuan International Business and Financial Centre (IFBC), then you would have noted that amongst the criticism I had was that the Government has not put in sufficient effort to ensure recognition of Labuan as an offshore financial centre as it has been excluded from the Malaysian double-taxation treaties with 11 countries and has been "blacklisted" by the South Korean government. An excerpt of my speech (pg 48) from the Hansard is as follows:
Labuan ingin menjadi sebuah pusat yang lebih menarik syarikat pegangan ataupun holding companies dengan dasar cukai yang rendah, 3% sahaja. Akan tetapi Labuan telah dikecualikan daripada persetujuan double taxation daripada 11 negara termasuklah negaranegara penting seperti Korea, Australia, United Kingdom, Jepun, Sweden dan Netherlands.

Apatah lagi negara Korea Selatan telah pun menetapkan Labuan sebagai pusat pelindungan cukai dalam satu senarai hitam ataupun dengan izin black list. Negara-negara Eropah melalui organisasi OECD atau Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development juga telah mengesyaki Labuan sebagai satu pusat pelindungan cukai yang boleh mendatangkan keburukan. Kerajaan Malaysia telah lalai dalam tugasnya mempertahankan Labuan sebagai satu pusat kewangan luar pesisir yang berintegriti dan bersifat bertanggungjawab supaya Malaysia tidak dimasukkan di dalam senarai hitam.
The Deputy Finance Minister, Dato' Haji Ahmad Husni bin Mohamad Hanadzlah however, insisted that Malaysia has not been "blacklisted" by any government and the South Korean allegation has arisen out of a misunderstaning or misperception created by a report by Financial Times. The excerpt from the Hansard (pg 78) is as follows:
Yang Berhormat Petaling Jaya Utara juga menyentuh tentang isu antara Malaysia dengan Korea Selatan yang dikatakan bahawa Korea Selatan telah blacklist Labuan Offshore Financial Centre ini...

Di mana wujudnya blacklisted tadi? Sebenarnya ini adalah datangnya daripada media iaitu financialtimes.com yang menggunakan perkataan blacklisted tetapi sebenarnya tidak. Malah pada hari ini sebanyak 123 buah syarikat Korea masih beroperasi di Labuan Offshore Financial Centre. Sekarang ini kita tidak panggil Labuan Offshore Financial Centre kerana hasil daripada rebranding ia dipanggil Labuan International Business and Financial Centre.
Firstly, I would like to clarify that being "blacklisted" does not mean that Korean companies cannot continue to remain in Labuan but it means that they will not be able to enjoy the low tax regime in Labuan and at the same time they may be subjected to additional witholding tax by the South Korean government.

Secondly, the term "blacklisted" was not coined by Financial Times as alleged by the Deputy Minister. Baker Mckenzie, one of the largest and most reputable international law firms in the world, have reported in its circular update in 2006 that Korea has implemented special withholding procedure for "blacklisted" countries:
As part of the Korean government's efforts to combat perceived abusive tax avoidance structures used to channel investments into Korea, a new special tax withholding procedure was adopted... This new provision authorises the Ministry of Finance and Economy (MOFE) to designate countries or regions that it believes are frequently exploited for tax avoidance purposes. Entities located in a country or region placed on this "blacklist" by the MOFE are presumed to be tax treaty treaty shopping...

On June 30, 2006, MOFE placed Labuan, Malaysia on the blacklist of countries/regions presumed to be a jurisdiction used for tax avoidance purposes. To date, only Labuan has been placed on the blacklist.
Not only have Malaysia been blacklisted, we had the (dis)honour of being the first country/ region to have made it into the list.

It is unfortunate that in the passing of the amendment to the bill, the Minister have either misled the House or was ignorant or was misinformed of certain facts relating to the issue. The information I have was based on a report by an international and reputable legal practice which would have taken more than necessary due care and diligence to ensure that the statements made are true and accurate (or the Malaysian government can choose to sue them).

It is hence important that the Minister made the necessary clarifications in the House and inform the House on the remedial steps being taken by the Government to restore the integrity and credibility of the Labuan IBFC.

Labuan International Business & Financial Centre

This is not a topic which will interest many people but we were debating the Labuan Offshore Financial Services (Amendment) Bill 2008 yesterday. You can get an idea of the bill (which I won't go into here, you can read the Deputy Minister of Finance's statement in the Hansard here, page 35).

I got my chance to debate the Bill, and thankfully this time, I didn't need to read at Rocket speed ;-). Below is the text of my speech, for those who are interested. The Deputy Minister had a subsequent response, which I will comment on, in a subsequent post. ;-)
Terima kasih Tuan Yang DiPertua dan Yang Berhormat Menteri.

Saya ingin mendahului ucapan saya dengan satu petikan ucapan yang diberikan oleh Perdana Menteri yang lalu, TUN DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD pada 29hb Ogos 1996, iaitu 12 tahun lalu, dan 5 tahun selepas Labuan Offshore Financial Centre ditubuhkan.

Beliau berkata “Kita berkeyakinan penuh bahawa Labuan akan berjaya sepenuhnya sebagai sebuah IOFC dalam jangkamasa lima hingga sepuluh tahun yang akan datang... Bagi kita di Malaysia, kejayaan Labuan bukan sahaja akan memberi manfaat kepada pulau Labuan, tetapi boleh juga dirasai kesannya di kawasan seberang di Sabah. Bandar Menumbok di Sabah adalah lebih kurang lapan kilometer jauhnya dari Labuan, di mana sudahpun terdapat perkhidmatan feri di antara kedua-dua tempat tersebut. Ini akan meredakan tekanan fizikal ke atas Labuan dan sekaligus dapat membangun kawasan pendalaman Sabah yang berhampiran sama seperti pertumbuhan Johor Bahru kerana Singapura.

Apa yang dijelaskan di atas mungkin merupakan satu mimpi lima tahun yang lepas. Sekarang ini ia merupakan satu kemungkinan. Dalam sepuluh tahun akan datang ia mungkin menjadi satu kenyataan.”

Dekat 12 tahun telah berlepas sejak ucapan Tun Dr Mahathir di Labuan. Adakah Labuan Offshore Financial Centre (LOFC) ataupun nama barunya, International Business and Financial Centre (IBFC) telah mencapai matlamat seperti yang dimimpikan oleh perdana menteri yang lalu?

Hakikatnya, LBFC masih merupakan sebuah mimpi yang begitu manis.

Mengikut Laporan Tahunan yang baru saja diterima pada hari ini, jumlah syarikat di Labuan IBFC berkembang sebanyak 11%, iaitu sebanyak 619 syarikat luar pesisir baru ditubuhkan. Walaupun mengikut peratusan, 11% nampaknya kredible, akan tetapi berbanding dengan pusat kewangan luar pesisir, seperti British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Dublin dan lain-lain di mana beratus-ratus syarikat luar pesisir ditubuhkan setiap hari, dan bukannya setiap tahun.

Labuan ingin menjadi sebuah pusat yang boleh menarik lebih syarikat pegangan ataupun “holding companies” dengan dasar cukai yang rendah, 3%. Akan tetapi, Labuan telah dikecualikan daripada persetujuan “double-taxation” daripada 11 negara, termasuklah negara-negara penting seperti Korea, Australia, United Kingdom, Japan, Sweden dan Netherlands.

Apatah lagi, negara Korea Selatan telahpun menetapkan Labuan sebagai pusat pelindungan cukai dalam satu senarai hitam ataupun “blacklist”. Negara-negara Eropah, melalui organisasi OECD juga telah mensyaki Labuan sebagai satu pusat perlindungan cukai yang boleh mendatangkan keburukan. Kerajaan Malaysia telah lalai dalam tugas mempertahankan Labuan sebagai satu pusat kewangan luar pesisir yang berintegriti dan bersifat tanggungjawab, supaya Malaysia tidak dimasuk senarai hitam.

Dengan tekanan perbadanan antarabangsa yang lain, termasuklah Financial Action Task Force (FATF), yang memberikan tekanan kepada pusat kewangan jenis luar pesisir, potensi perkembangan Labuan nampaknya terhad dan cabaran yang dihadapi amat besar.

Kerajaan telahpun memperuntukan perbelanjaan yang besar untuk membangun kawasan Labuan dengan kemudahan bangunan, pejabat dan lain-lain. Akan tetapi, pulangan pelaburan kerajaan nampaknya amat kurang. Walaupun saya tidak ada statistik yang terkini, bolehjadi Yang Berhormat Menteri boleh menjelaskan, pada tahun 2000, bidang servis kewangan hanya menyumbang sebanyak 10% kepada ekonomi ataupun GDP Labuan yang bernilai RM300 juta. Ini bermakna, sumbangan sektor servis kewangan kepada GDP negara hanya sekitar RM30 juta sahaja, satu nilai yang teramat rendah.

Bidang kewangan memerlukan ramai orang pekerja yang berilmu dan berpengetahuan. Oleh kerana itu, kekurangan pihak pakar menjadi satu lagi faktor yang menjejaskan impian kerajaan menjadikan Labuan sebagai pusat kewangan yang menarik bagi pihak pelabur, terutamanya dari luar negeri.

Baru-baru ini, pada tahun 2006, kerajaan mengambil langkah untuk memajukan perbankan Islam di Labuan di mana perbankan Islam luar pesisir diberikan hak menawar perkhidmatan ke seluruh Malaysia. Akan tetapi dasar ini bercanggah dengan dasar perbankan Islam bukan luar pesisir, dan telah menimbul perselisihan dan pergentengan antara kuasa agensi kerajaan Bank Negara Malaysia dan LOFSA.

Akhir sekali, untuk mencapai taraf pusat kewangan yang cemerlang di dunia, kita perlu menyediakan infrastruktur dan perkhidmatan asas yang dapat diharap. Akan tetapi pihak pelabur masih sering mengadu-adukan perkhidmatan telekomikasi yang kurang sempurna, bekalan elektrik dan air yang sering putus di Labuan.

Oleh itu, saya ingin supaya Yang Berhormat Menteri dapat menjelaskan pendirian kerajaan terhadap isu-isu yang telah dibentangkan. Jika kementerian mengambil pendapat bahawa Labuan sebagai pusat kewangan luar pesisir masih lagi relevan dalam pembangunan Malaysia, apakah langkah-langkah revolusi yang akan dilaksanakan oleh kerajaan untuk memulihkan pelaburan besar yang telahpun dibelanja kerajaan selama 17 tahun ini.

Sekian, terima kasih.
Will blog more about the Minister's response later, but you can also read it in the same issue of the Hansard, page 78.

Vote on Price Hike Policies

A vote has just been called on the Government's motion by the Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs to move his motion on the recent oil price hikes. (Warning: Long Post)
Bahawa mengikut peruntukan Peraturan Mesyuarat 27(3) Dewan ini mengambil ketetapan-ketetapan berikut:
"Bahawa Dewan ini,

Prihatin akan kenaikan mendadak harga minyak, makanan dan komoditi lain di pasaran dunia, yang merupakan fenomena global di luar kawalan Kerajaan.

Menyedari bahawa fenomena kenaikan harga ini membawa impak negatif yang besar kepada kesejahteraan rakyat serta kemajuan ekonomi negara.

Memahami dan menyokong langkah Kerajaan untuk menstruktur sistem subsidi minyak dan gas yang menjejas kewangan Kerajaan dan tidak dapat ditanggung tatkala harga minyak di pasaran global terus meningkat tinggi, agar beban ke atas ekonomi negara dapat dikurangkan dan subsidi dapat diagihkan dengan lebih saksama kepada mereka yang benar-benar memerlukannya yakni golongan miskin dan berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana.

Menyokong langkah-langkah yang dilaksanakan oleh Kerajaan untuk mengurangkan beban ke atas rakyat yang disebabkan oleh kenaikan harga minyak, makanan dan komoditi, agar kesejahteraan hidup rakyat terus terjaga.

Menyedari keazaman dan usaha Kerajaan untuk terus mempertingkatkan pertumbuhan ekonomi dan memperjuangkan agenda pembangunan nasional, walaupun persekitaran di peringkat global semakin mencabar.

Bahawa Dewan yang mulia ini menyeru kesemua lapisan rakyat Malaysia termasuk pekerja dan pengusaha agar tabah dan bersatu padu dalam menghadapi cabaran global ini serta memelihara keamanan, kestabilan dan kesejahteraan kita bersama”.
I have voted against the motion together with my other Pakatan Rakyat colleagues. The Government won the vote with 129 votes against 78 votes. The high profile pair from SAPP were missing from the Parliament.

My reasons to vote against the motion was to be expressed in my speech, attached below, which unfortunately didn't get to see the light of day as I didn't get a chance to speak. 9 MPs from the opposition got to speak - 4 from PAS, 2 from PKR, 2 from DAP and 1 supposed Independent.

My speech is as follows (a large part of which I have taken from my earlier blog post here.)
Tuan Yang DiPertua,

Saya ingin menyatakan bahawa walaupun kenaikan harga minyak sudahpun dijangka dan memang susah dielakkan, kerajaan tidak mengambil langkah yang mencukupi untuk mengurangkan beban rakyat Malaysia dalam menghadapi masalah kenaikan harga petrol dan elektrik.

Saya akan membangkang usul yang dikemukakan kerana Kerajaan tidak menyediakan mekanisme yang sempurna dan mencukupi untuk membantu rakyat Malaysia yang memerlukan bantuan dan menghadapi cabaran yang besar dan payah.

Kerajaan telah menggurangan subsidi minyak yang menyebabkan kenaikan harga minyak dan elektrik setinggi 63%.

Pada masa ini, Kerajaan telah mengumumkan pemberian wang tunai mengikut saiz kenderaan. Ini menglibatkan pemberian setahun sebanyak RM625 untuk kenderaan dengan kapasiti engine 2L ke bawah, RM150 untuk motorsikal dengan kapasiti engine 250CC ke bawah. Cukai jalan juga diturunkan sebanyak RM200 bagi kenderaan 2L ke atas dan sebanyak RM50 bagi motorsikal 250CC keatas.

Walaupun cara ini nampaknya adil dan innovatif, cara penyelesaian ini adalah untuk jangka pendek dan tidak dengan sepenuhnya menyelesaikan isu-isu lain yang penting sekali:

1.Usaha-usaha ini akan terus menggangu (distort) corak pengangkutan, harga-harga, dan kemahuan tetapi tidak menggalakan kegunaan pengangkutan awam. Tiada insentif bagi rakyat Malaysia, terutamanya rakyat di kawasan urban, untuk berubah kepada pengangkutan awam, yang akan mengurangkan kegantungan kepada minyak, mengurangkan kesesakan jalan raya, dan juga mengurangkan impak terhadap persekitaran apabila subsidi diberi mengikut pemilikan kenderaan.

Sebaliknya, terdapat khabar bahawa subsidi bas akan dikurangkan dan kos pengangkutan awan akan dinaikkan. Negara kita dijangka menjimat RM13.7 billion daripada pengurangkan subsidi-subsidi, tetapi kejimatan ini telahpun dirancangkan bagi kepelbagaian guna kecuali memperbaiki pengangkutan awam yang akan menolong Negara kita dalam jangka masa panjang.

2.Kenaikan harga minyak seharusnya diumumkan seiring dengan pelan-pelan konkrit untuk mempercepatkan pembinaan rangkaian pengangkutan awam (mass transportatation networks), seperti membesarkan rangkaian LRT dan "bus feeder system" ataupun memperbaiki rangkaian sedia ada. Kekurangan pelan-pelan tersebut adalah sesuata kemuradaratan kepada penduduk Lembah Klang dan juga kawasan bandar di mana kesesatan jalan raya adalah kebiasaan dan system pengangkutan awam kurang baik.

Kerajaan telah lama membincangkan dan menjanjikan pelan system pengangkutan awam komprehensif. Namun, tiada langkah-langkah konkrit telah dilaksanakan dan negara kini kian bergantung kepada kenderaan-kenderaan persendirian. Akibat kelalaian kerajaan dalam merancangkan pembangunun, peningkatan harga minyak baru-baru ini sangat menyusahkan raykat Malaysia, terutamanya rakyat berpendapatan rendah.

Namun, kerajaan hanya mengumumkan RM100 juta untuk mereka yang ingin mengambil pinjaman untuk menjadi pemandu teksi. Tiada lagi langkah konkirt buat masa ini. Raykat tidak berdaya menunggu sehingga tahun depan untuk kerajaan mengumumkan pelan serta langkah pelaksanaan untuk memantapkan pengangkutan awam Malaysia. Rakyat memerlukan reaksi positif dari kerajaan sekarang juga.

3.Akhirnya, kenaikkan harga tenaga akan menyebabkan inflasi sekunder barang-barang penggunaan dan servis harian. Pemberian wang tunai kenderaan yang disyorkan cuma membantu mereka yang memiliki kereta atau motorsikal tetapi tidak membantu mereka yang masih menghadapi masalah-masalah kenaikan harga keperluan harian.

Secara kebetulan, golongan ini lebih mungkin adalah dari golongan berpendapatan rendah yang paling memerlukan pertolongan dalam menghadapi kesan-kesan sekondari inflasi yang disebabkan reduksi subsidi.

Saya mengulangkan pengesyoran DAP untuk menimbangkan skim geran sebanyak RM3000 kepada setiap pekerja ataupun RM6000 bagi setiap keluarga yang kurang keupayaan dan pendapatan. Wang ini boleh diberi melalui mekanisme EPF (KWSP) di mana kita terus dapat maklumat gaji pekerja.

Konsumer-konsumer seterusnya akan mempunyai pilihan untuk mengguna wang dengan sebaik mungkin mengikutan keperluan masing-masing. Di samping itu, konsumer-konsumer ini akan mendapat wang gran ini sama ada mereka memiliki kenderaan.

Membantu rakyat melalui sistem yang sedia ada juga lebih murah dan kurang bermasalah untuk menghantar wang balik kepada rakyat, jauh lebih murah dan effisien berbanding dengan skim money order ataupun kad subsidi yang dibentang kerajaan.

Kerajaan memang mampu memberikan bantuan yang dicadangkan ini kerana sumbangan Petronas kepada kerajaan kian meningkat, dan mencapai sebanyak RM55 bilion tahun lalu. Wang Petronas adalah wang kepunyaan rakyat dan ianya perlu dikongsi supaya beban rakyat dapat diringankan.

Negara Hong Kong dan Singapura dan, dua-dua ekonomi yang langsung tidak ada sumber semulajadi seperti minyak, gas, balak, tanah untuk tanaman komersil seperti minyak sawit, dapat mengendalikan polisi grant tunai kepada rakyat mereka yang kurang berupaya dari segi kewangan. Malaysia sebagai antara sebuah negara yang terkaya dengan sumber minyak di seluruh dunia, patut mengikut teladan yang baik dimana nasib rakyat diutamakan, apatah lagi minyak yang digali Petronas adalah minyak kepunyaan semua rakyat Malaysia.

Akhir sekali, saya menyeru supaya kerajaan memberikan kuasa persaingan harga kepada setiap syarikat petrol. Dua belas tahun yang lalu, apabila sebuah syarikat petrol memberikan diskaun kepada pengguna, pihak Petronas membantah langkah tersebut and kerajaan mengambil keputusan menyokong bantahan tersebut dan persaingan harga petrol dilarangkan.

Demi meringankan beban rakyat, kerajaan mesti membatalkan larangan tersebut supaya persaingan harga minyak antara syarikat seperti yang ada di luar negara boleh digalakkan. Hanyan dengan kebabasan persaingan, rakyat jelata Malaysia akan bermanfaat.

Tuan Yang Dipertua, saya memohom menolak usul yang dikemukakan oleh Menteri.
Despite voting enbloc with my other opposition colleagues, I voted with my consciences with only the interest of Malaysians in my mind. We could only have hoped that our honourable members on the other side of the fence can do the same.

Inflation Rate Not A Reflection of Reality

I have argued, and so have most of my opposition colleagues that the Government's inflation rate calculation is faulty and needs to be desperately revamped as it has failed to reflect the real world.

Throughout the campaign period, we have ridiculed the 2% inflation index as announced by the Government. Can you believe that inflation is only 2%?

Today, to a supplementary question posted by BAGAN, the Second Finance Minister, Nor Mohamed Yaacob admitted as much that the inflation index published by the Government does not reflect reality. He announced that the current make up of the inflation index is being revamped to better reflect what is on the ground.

It's a big admission, for the Government has been measuring its "excellent performance" and praised the health of the economy by quoting the "low" inflation index. Will try to extract the Hansard text tomorrow.

The Malaysian Oil Dilemma

Yes, DAP organised forums - which were frequently held in the months before the elections are back. This time, the DAP Socialist Youth (DAPSY) is organising an English forum on "The Malaysian Oil Dilemma". The details are as follows:
Date: 24th June 2008 (Tuesday)
Time: 8.00pm
Venue: KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
And the invited speakers include:
  • Anthony Loke Siew Fook, Member of Parliament for Rasah
  • Tony Pua, Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara
  • Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, ADUN for Seri Setia
  • and other distinguished panelists...
To register in advance, please call 03-7957 8022 / 017-6099 963
or email: leefuhaw (at) gmail (dot) com

I'll be speaking again on the related topic of fuel price hikes at the same venue, same time on Thursday 26th on the fuel price hikes. There's plenty to discuss on the issue and I'll assume that 80% of my content will be different between the 2 forums ;-) See you there!
Save Private articles about economics on social network: