Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

What is wrong with our sleepy head PM, is he out of his mind. Looks like he is in the business of making surprise announcements. Well, the lame excuse given by him is the so call savings that the government can make. He advise the people to tighten their belts so that BN can continue to rob the country's wealth. What about him and his luxury lifesytle? Aren't they cutting down on the income tax rates? Stop for once comparing fuel price with a non oil producing country like Singapore lah.

Jayaperakash a/l Jayadevan

Given the current global fuel prices, the increase of fuel prices in Malaysia was inevitable.

However I was a bit disappointed with the proposed revamp of fuel subsidy wherein the government has proposed as follows:-

i) a RM625 annual cash rebate per vehicle, for owners of private vehicles with engine capacities of up to 2,000cc, and pickup trucks and jeeps with engine capacities of up to 2,500cc;

ii) a RM150 annual cash rebate for owners of private motorcycles with engine capacities of up to 250cc;

iii) a RM200 road tax reduction for owners of private vehicles with engine capacities exceeding 2000cc;

iv) a RM50 reduction in road tax for owners of private motorcycles with engine capacities above 250 cc;

v) the proposed cash rebates will be paid via Money Order upon renewal of road tax, from July 1.

While I welcome the idea of some form of rebate, I am of the opinion that the rebate scheme as proposed by the government may not be very effective as it may not reach the target group especially the lower income group wherein:-

a) the proposed increase in fuel prices will not only affect owners of vehicles but will hit consumers across the board as everyone will be affected by an increase in the prices of goods and services. Therefore I would suggest that the proposed rebate of RM625 or such other amount deemed fit by the government be given to all persons(with a annual income of up to say RM60000 per annum) upon the filling of their tax returns wherein those whose income is not taxable will get a cash rebate paid to them by Money Order and those who have taxable income will get a reduction of their income taxes to the amount of RM625 or a cash rebate for the difference between the tax payable and the rebate entitlement. This will measure will also encourage more Malaysians to file their tax returns. In fact the law requires all those residing in Malaysia to file such returns but a large part of our society neglect this obligation.

b) in the event the government still prefers the proposed method of giving rebates by the engine capacities of the vehicles owned then the engine capacity should be reduced to not above 1600cc instead of 2000cc as anyone who can afford a RM100,00 or more Civic, Altis or Perdana should not be receiving any form fuel subsidy rebate. The depreciation of these cars itself far exceed whatever fuel bill their owners may have and they should be made to pay for their indulgences.

c) any savings made as a result of the lowering of the engine capacities of vehicles should be redirected to the owners of the lower cc cars and motorcycles wherein under the present proposed system:-

i) a owner of a car who currently spends RM300 per month on petrol per moth will be paying RM420 as a result of the 40% fuel price hike. However he will only receive a subsidy of about RM52.00 per month based on the proposed RM625 cash rebate for cars wherein his monthly fuel bill will be RM120 higher;

ii) as for motorcycles anyone who currently spends RM80 per month on petrol will be spending about RM112 per month based on the new prices. The rebate of RM150 per annum only works out to be RM12.50 where his monthly fuel bill will be about RM30 higher.

Therefore I would proposed that owners of vehicles under 1600cc be given a cash rebate of at least RM1200 per annum or RM100 per month and owners motorcycles under 250cc be given a rebate of RM300 per annum or RM25 per month.

This would certainly cushion the effects of the fuel price increase on the lower income group.

The rest of us would just have to bite the bullet and find ways and means to adjust to the higher fuel prices. As a start, my wife and I have decided to car pool together for between 2-3 days in our working week.

I would like to clarify here that I personally do not stand to gain from any of my proposals as I drive a 2500cc car (even though it may be a 13 year old car) and my annual income exceeds the threshold proposed by me.

I decided to pen my proposals as I feel that instead of lashing out at the government for the fuel price hike and ridicule their efforts to lessen the impact, those of us who are capable of making constructive suggestions should do so now in the hope that our government is able to frame a more equitable fuel subsidy plan.

Dominic Pillai a/l R.K. Pillai

What is most distressing is the manner in which the increase were announced. It would appear that we have a government who is hell-bent on surprising her citizenry. I can't understand the sheer lunacy of this action and the need to mislead the public. Is the government saying its ok to deceive? No wonder we have so many crooks running around....

To rub it in further, we compare ourselves to Singapore where we clearly have far inferior earning capacity and, notwithstanding that, we deride them at every single opportunity. But we see fit to compare ourselves with them when it suits the government. Has Badawi and his merry band have no scruples left? And Badawi has the audacity to say that he hoped people will not demonstrate?

My billion dollar question is this: what will become of the saved "subsidies"? Will there be continued persistence of the "subsidy mentality"? What will the saved "subsidies" be used for?

During the last round of increase, we were repeatedly assured of improvements in the service of public transport. Alas, some 2 years and 3 months have lapsed and the state of the nation's public transportation is comparable to that of Zimbabwe's.

So, what's next? More pledges of improving the country while we awit for more surreptitious awarding of contracts to certain warlords be brought to the fore?

I cant help but juxtapose the saved "subsidies" with the need to stay in power, vis a vis, the coming UMNO elections. As Roger Waters once sang "Money it's a crime, Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie", we will soon know who we, the populace, are subsidising.

Que Sera Sera.

Dipendra A/L Harshad Rai

Dominic,

I share your aspirations for the Government to frame a more equitable fuel subsidy plan. But I do wonder whether it would be impossible particularly when we consider the following:

a. Bernama has just reported that there is no longer a ban for fuel to be sold to foreign registered cars up to 50 km from Malaysian borders. (http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com...3ba14.html)

b. a litre of fuel is sold in Singapore at approximately RM5.37 per litre. (http://www.petrolwatch.com.sg/)

c. a litre of fuel is sold in Thailand at approximately RM4.00 plus per litre. (http://www.bernama.com/bernama...?id=337079)

d. the same link confirms that smuggling is an issue possibly due to the disparity in pricing - ban or no ban.

Given that context, it seems clear that subsidised pricing will lead to an unhealthy cottage industry at the border.

That aside, as much as I do laud your constructive suggestions, I wonder if the quantum of rebates you are thinking of might just provide another cottage industry of cultivating the ownership of old cars.

Moving forward and bearing in mind that we have also just been recently informed that the Government has received RM359 billion as royalties etc from Petronas since 1974, what should the Government do with the excess cash? (RM13.7 billion a year according to Bernama's reports but it will actually be more than that if you consider the similarly announced revised tariffs for Petronas supplies to TNB and TNB's electricity supplies actually providing more profits for the Government.)

Well, I don't have an exact answer but it seems obvious that there should be public participation influencing the Government's decision in that respect.

NOTE : The figure of RM359 billion is obtained from this report by the Edge Daily - http://tinyurl.com/659czz.

Nizam Bashir

I want to pick up on Dipen's point about public transport. No doubt the government will say that they have already announced more investments in public transportation. But we have yet to see the fruits of this. How long will it take?

If the government is truly committed to responding to the rising price of fuel, it should immediately consider conservation measures, both direct and indirect. I can think of 4:

1. All ministers, deputy ministers, senior civil servants and judges who currently drive government cars from Putrajaya to Kuala Lumpur or vice versa should henceforth use KL Transit. There is a decent enough bus system from any part of Putrajaya to the train terminal, and from there it is about 15 minutes to KL Sentral. Of course not enough people do it at the moment, which is why the U82 bus route, which is the only Rapid KL bus to pass anywhere near Parliament, doesn't even have a proper covered bus stop anywhere along Jalan Duta for people to alight. And when one gets down, there is no safe route to walk to Parliament. Until and unless ministers and deputy ministers, senior civil servants and other policy makers literally walk the talk and actually use public transport, our entire urban planning perspective will be skewed towards car ownership and use. Because the people who do the planning are not pedestrians. And because if we actually promote the use of public transport, what will happen to our national car policy?

2. We need more feeder buses on the roads. It is not enough to simply have the LRT system. People need to speedily and efficiently get to the stations. If you have to wait between 30 minutes to one hour for a feeder bus, you will give up and drive instead. And if the feeder bus takes you to your nearest station which is actually in the opposite direction of where you are headed, you are definitely not going to use it.

3. Have more covered walkways linking major buildings to public transport hubs. If people are going to get wet, they are going to stay in their cars. There is no way to walk from KL Sentral to the MIDA building and remain dry when it is raining. Or from the U82 bus stop to Parliament. Or from Ampang Park to any building along Jalan Tun Razak. You try and see.

4. Enforce traffic laws, especially at pedestrian crossings. If people don't feel safe walking our streets and crossing our roads, they won't risk getting out of their cars to use public transport. When was the last time you saw a motorist get ticketed for stopping on a pedestrian crossing? Or a motorcyclist ticketed for riding on the pedestrian pavement? Or a car ticketed for parking on the pedestrian pavement?

Andrew Khoo Chin Hock
(But Dipen, our system is NOT as bad as Zimbabwe's. I've been to Zimbabwe.)

The Government is making up for lost time. It had wanted to raise petrol price for months, but pre-election politics prevented it.

A price hike is not per se objectionable. It does not necessarily signify mismanagement.

But it becomes unacceptable when:

(a) one considers how the people's money is squandered;

(b) one considers how national wealth is abused;

(c) one notes that, for example, Petronas' accounts is secret;

(d) one considers the general lack of transparency and accountability in our current government.

Then it becomes obviously objectionable.

Yeo Yang Poh

The Govt wants to us to believe that we USED to have the 2nd cheapest petrol prices in Asia, second only to Myanmar.

When comparisons are made,Singapore is a favourite.

This is how the Govt puts it:
Malaysia - RM 2.70/litre
Singapore - RM 5.20/litre

Sounds good, eh?

Look at the bigger picture. That price in Singapore is after converting the currency from Singapore dollar to Ringgit.

In fact, Singaporeans pay S$ $2.26(98-octane fuel) per litre
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest News/Singapore/STIStory_240273.html

One should use the average purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita, i.e.the value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year divided by the average population for the same year, to compare.

Using data provided by the IMF (year 2007), the PPP for both countries are as follows:
[The Geary-Khamis Dollar @ International Dollar]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_dollar

Malaysia - 13,315 per capita [ranked 56 in the world]
Singapore - 49,714 per capita [ranked 6 in the world]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

As such, the average Singaporean who earns 3 times more than the average Malaysian pays 2.26 for their petrol while we pay 2.70.

Still singing the same tune,O' Ye In Govt? Bet not.

And that is just for one country. What about the rest? How do we stack up? How do we really stand?

Don't compare apples and oranges la.

If the Govt really wants to look good, start comparing with the likes of Burkina Faso, Mali, Nicaragua and perhaps even Mongolia.

Or better still, condemn the IMF and say that their data is "inaccurate and flawed."

And the "wayang" continues...

Nicholas Netto

I can understand that the Petrol price eventually has to rise. The Petrol price is more than US$120 per barrel and will likely to increase some more.

But will the subsidy money be REALLY better used?

I hope it wont go to some Member of Parliaments, as we all know that Barisan Nasional MP are capable of spending RM8 million in 3 months (and when asked - the MP tells the Rakyat it was "the norm for the funds to be used early in the year and it was coincidence the general elections was in March" per Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir)

How are we to trust the same government who loss billions at the Port Klang Free Trade Zone, Perwaja Steel, MAS, Bank Bumiputra etc etc.

In the meantime, I heard there is a bicycle shop having a major sale at town.

Richard Wee Thiam Seng

Penganalisis ekonomi menyatakan kenaikan harga minyak global sekarang berpunca daripada spekulasi dan bukan atas dasar bekalan dan permintaan.Iran pernah menyatakan bahawa jika tambahan pengeluaran minyak di buat pun tidak boleh menyebabkan harga minyak turun.

Pelabur antarabangsa mengaut keuntungan melalui spekulasi minyak.

Kerajaan sepatutnya berunding dengan syarikat minyak antarabangsa yang beroperasi di malaysia seperti shell, caltex, mobil dan esso agar untuk mengurangkan bayaran subsidi.Jika mereka enggan dan harga minyak dunia terus meningkat, maka besar kemungkinan mereka tidak dibenarkan beroperasi di Malaysia lagi.Jadikan ini sebagai cadangan dan spekulasi.Maklumkan kepada dunia kita tidak akan berdiam diri. Semua negara pengeluar minyak boleh mencadangkan pusat jualan minyak alternatif selain dari New York. Ini juga spekulasi.Hanya spekulasi yang boleh lawan spekulasi.

Mohd Azizan Bin Mat Nayan

I cannot agree with Dominic's suggestion that rebates be increased for lower capacity cars. The present suggestion by the government to grant a rebate of RM625 for cars below 2000c.c. but only RM200 for a car above 2000c.c. is presumably based on the premise that bigger c.c. cars are owned by the rich, and hence they should be subsidised less.

I own a 3 litre Mercedes year 1988 model (yes, it's 20 years old). I recently insured it for RM22,000 (the estimated market value) but my road tax was RM2,035. A lawyer friend of mine recently bought a Mercedes 200K for about RM350,000. It is a 1.8 litre car and I presume his road tax is less than RM400. He drives a car more than 15 times the value of mine, pays a fraction of the road tax I'm paying, and gets a RM625 rebate while I get only RM200?

Another person has three 1.6 litre cars with a value of RM270,000 in total. His road tax is probably collectively less than RM500. Yet he gets more than RM1,800 in rebates. Compare his situation to a retired teacher driving an old 2.5 litre junk which guzzles petrol and which he has had for 25 years. He can't afford to buy a new Vios or City. He pays RM1,200 in road tax, pays a bomb for his petrol now and gets only a RM200 rebate?

Come on Badawi and advisers, wake up!! Not all big c.c. cars are owned by the rich and famous, and not all cars with less than 2,000c.c. are cheap and owned by the poor.

Jaspal Singh Gill

Price hike in fuel we compare with Singapore. Standard of public transport, we compare with Zimbabwe. That is our government. And Mr Nicolas Netto, we are not supposed to know PPP and stuff like that. BN does not allow. That is why our University so low standard, but don't confuse Ivy league with poison ivy league. Our UM and UKM still better that some remote university say in Ghana or somewhere, or maybe not.

And Mr Yang Poh, of course they will not let you see all the fanstatic accounting gymnastics in Petronas. You are not of low enough IQ. I am sure you are not product of poison ivy league.

And why don't Pak Lah look at Brunei who has equivalent currency strength with Singapore but an oil producer. How much is their petrol? We are also oil producer. How come we pay the same rate as Singapore and not Brunei?

Ultimately, BN will run us to the ground.

Lim Chong Leong

I just wonder since the fuel price is rising currently, the government should have abolished personal income tax, road tax and other relevant taxes in order to ease the burden of the citizens.

Tong Kuan Ling

To quote the American band from Athens, Georgia :-

"It's the end of the world, as we know it.... and I feel fine...."

Alex Tan Ken Seng

Richard, you read my mind. I was seriously thinking of getting a bicycle before people start making a bee line at the bike shop... esp as we 'celebrate' environment day today.

Rudeen Chua Kim Hong