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.

New Economic Policy Rhetoric

I'm kinda late blogging this issue, as the matter was discussed and a ruckus was created in Parliament last Thursday morning in Parliament. You would have read all about it here (Malaysiakini) or here (The Sun).

The question from REMBAU was:

...adakah kerajaan bercadang untuk mengubah polisi yang telah digubal berlandaskan semangat Dasar Ekonomi Baru, terutamanya yang menolong kaum bumiputera sejajar dengan desakan pembangkang untuk menolak dasar ini.

The replies from the Government, which has been asked numerous times on this issue in this session, of which written replies has been provided has been standard and rhetorical and does not at all address the issues at hand. To quote some of the standard replies provided, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, Senator Datuk Amirsham A Aziz stated that:

DEB telah digubal pada awal 1970-an dengan matlamat utama iaitu untuk mencapai perpaduan nasional dan pembentukan negara melalui strategi serampang dua mata.

Pertama, pembasmian kemiskinan tanpa mengira kumpulan etnik dan kedua, penyusunan semula masyarakat bagi menghapuskan pengenalan etnik mengikut fungsi ekonomi. Semangat DEB kemudiannya telah diterapkan dalam dasar-dasar ekonomi selepasnya iaitu Dasar Pembangunan Nasional, Dasar Wawasan Negara dan Misi Nasional di bawah Rancangan Malaysia Kesembilan bagi menangani masalah jurang sosial ekonomi antara dan di kalangan kumpulan etnik bandar dan luar bandar.

I won't quote the entire thing but you can read the rest of his "standard" reply here from the Hansard. The government has never responded to the issue that the problem and objection with the DEB doesn't really lie with the "noble" objectives but with its discriminatory practices and overzealous implementation.

Anyway, the whole episode got "politicised" when REMBAU asked in his supplementary question:

Ahli Yang Berhormat daripada bahagian yang juga Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang telah berikrar untuk menghapuskan Dasar Ekonomi Baru daripada pentadbiran Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang kerana DEB ini, “Breeds corruption, cronyism and systematic inefficiency”, dengan izin.

Saya hendak bertanya Yang Berhormat Menteri, adakah adil untuk Yang Berhormat
Bagan membuat rumusan umum seolah-olah rakyat yang mendapat faedah daripada DEB, yang miskin tidak kira kaum, berjuta-juta pelajar dan profesional bumiputera termasuk Yang Berhormat Menteri sendiri yang menjadi produk DEB, yang menjadi ketua pegawai eksekutif bank yang terbesar di Malaysia seolah-olah kita semua ini kroni dan kaki rasuah. Adakah ini kenyataan yang adil, Yang Berhormat Menteri? Adakah ini adil?

That was when the Minister started reading his 2-page prepared text which clearly demonstrated that the answer was prepared in advance, making a mockery of the parliamentary question time. There was obvious collusion between REMBAU and the Minister, to attack BAGAN on his statement to eliminate the corruption and cronyism associated with the New Economic Policy.

Datuk Amirsham started his reply with

...saya berpendapat kenyataan Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang itu tidak tepat dan langsung tidak memahami objektif DEB... Kalau itu kesimpulan beliau tentang DEB, maka sesiapa sahaja yang mendapat bantuan melalui DEB sama ada dalam bentuk pinjaman, peluang pekerjaan, peluang perniagaan, biasiswa dan lain-lain itu adalah kroni dan kaki rasuah...

An answer like that from a so-called technocrat and professional Minister certainly deserves, in my opinion, the heckling from the opposition members he received subsequently. IPOH TIMUR rightly asked, "Panjangnya jawapan tambahan, siapa sediakan?" You can watch the video here.

I had stood to ask an additional supplementary question, but the opportunity went to BATU KAWAN [Prof Ramasamy]. I had wanted to ask the Minister:

Bukankah satu dasar yang memberikan tumpuan khusus kepada membantu golongan miskin jauh lebih berkesan membantu kaum bumiputera yang kurang berkeupayaan berbanding dengan DEB yang memberikan tumpuan mengikut bangsa, kerana ramai yang diberikan bantuan kerajaan bukannya golongan miskin kaum bumiputera, tetapi kaum UMNOputera yang telah kaya-raya, dan yang menerima manfaat yang lumayan sekali?

It's a question I hope to get the opportunity to ask one day in Parliament, as I would really like to hear the answer from the Ministers involved.

Beruk Calling Beruk

So much to blog about... how-lah. Where got enough time??

Khairy Jamaluddin had during the UMNO General Assembly called for the organisers of the BERSIH rally to be arrested. He likened the demonstrators to 'beruks'.

“Don’t be like monkeys (beruk) on streets. If you want to fight, fight in the real ring like a man."

You can check out his speech here on YouTube.

Well, I'm guilty of demonstrating at the BERSIH rally, and hence by Khairy's definition, I'm now officially a 'beruk'. ;-)

But interestingly enough, Khairy who has led plenty of street protests as well in Malaysia, a fellow 'beruk' as well? Check out this clip from none other than the Oracle of Truth with Khairy himself leading the show with a group of protesters who tried to force their way into the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre. ;-)



And not forgetting, even when not "demonstrating", he certainly carried traits of being one at Ijok ;-).

Subsidies: RM35b or RM10b?

UMNO leaders typically attempts to talk a little more sense prior to an election, and this years' UMNO General Assembly, which is likely to be the last one prior to the next general election is no different.

UMNO Youth Deputy Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin, rightly criticised the current subsidy structure where the rich benefits more from the Government's subsidy scheme than the poor.

What was however interesting was when Khairy claimed that:

In all, the government had to foot RM35 billion, or 25 percent of government income, lamented Khairy during the debate on economy and education at the Umno assembly today.

Now, this RM35 billion figure is absolutely new to me. For the last I checked, specifically at the Goverment's 2007 and 2008 budget, the subsidy levels are no where near the purported figure given by the Member of Parliament and possible Minister in the making.

Based on the Budget figures provided by the prime minister's office, the subsidies allocated by the Government amounts to only RM12.2 billion and RM10.2 billion for 2007 and 2008 respectively, as shown in the table below.

Federal Government Operating Expenditure by Object 2006-2008

The question, I have then is, who is telling the truth? If the Government's budget is providing the accurate figure, then why is Khairy sensationalising the Government's budget by more than thrice the original amount? Was it to make it look like the Government's burden is higher than it actually is at "25% of total revenue", as opposed to only 7%? It is to illicit the rakyat's sympathy for the government which has wasted billions of the rakyat's tax payers monies in all manners possible?

Or on the other hand, more worryingly, did the Government published budget figure totally inaccurate and hides the fact that the Government (mis)allocates an incredible amount of funds to subsidise parties of unknown origins?

I've always had my suspicions and skepticisms over the manner by which the Government produces their budget numbers (e.g., the discrepancy of RM8 billion (!) expenditure between the Prime Minister's budget speech versus the published Economic Report), but if the above discrepancy is indeed "true", then it's absolutely shocking!

KJ "Protection"

Khairy Jamaluddin says he wants to use "protection" to change things, as reported by The Star.

PETALING JAYA: Khairy Jamaluddin says that being the Prime Minister’s son-in-law has provided him “protection” which he wants to use to change things for the better. The Umno Youth deputy chief said he was able to “push the envelope now” partly because of that relationship with the prime minister.

“There’s a certain extent (to which) these people in Umno will not go after me. So it gives me ‘protection’ to change things. If I don’t use this ‘protection’ to change things for the better, then I’m just wasting time and marking my time to go up the ladder of politics. That’s not what I am about.

“I want to use this time that I have while I have this ‘protection’ to change things, to change Umno for the better.”

Interesting. And making UMNO a more 'racialised' party, less tolerant of the other Malaysian races as well as promoting the Ketuanan Melayu and the New Economic Policy agenda - "changing UMNO for the better"?