Hal-hal minyak

It is intriguing to note the similarities of the situations that the PMs of Malaysia and the UK are finding themselves in at the moment. Both were 'leaders-in-waiting', both came into power on a landslide of support based on their reputation as men of principle, both have struggled to maintain that image in the face of the number of controversies that have plagued them; which are culminating in a situation where they're both leading their parties in an atmosphere where the public has lost all confidence in them and the popularity of the opposition leaders are increasing exponentially.

And it is almost tragic that the changes that they are implementing to please the electorate are just seen as juggling acts to gain more votes as opposed to concrete policy changes that would benefit society at large.

It doesn't help that the global economy is shuddering from the mismanagement of assets in the international financial sector. The old adage of China catching a cold when America sneezes is holding true, and it is worth bearing in mind that it's not just a sneeze but a mucky cough productive of green phlegm, and that it's not just America, but a fair amount of the Western economies.

One manifestation of this disease was the recent cutback in fuel subsidies in Malaysia, which made quite an impact primarily as a result of the degree in which it was slashed. Naturally, this occured after promises by the PM that it would not occur, in the same vein that he announced the general election a day after he vehemently denied that he was going to do so (this proves 2 points really; 1. lying to the public is allowed under Islam Hadhari and 2. if he tries to convincingly tell you one thing, you really need to consider the possibility that the opposite will occur).

Having said that, I do believe that subsidies should be cut back, albeit at a more gradual pace. The prolongation of subsidies will merely breed a population that relies on such gestures for sustenance, and would discourage more enterprising behaviour. After all, why bother to work if things are handed to you on a silver platter (cue misuse of disability benefits in the UK)? Why indulge in industry when you can be paid millions in commission by knowing the right people?

The end point of all this should be a total elimination of all forms of subsidies, including the special economic priveleges that are meted out to the Malays without rationing such assistance in order to ensure that only the most needy receive it. Such social policies should be administered in a more uniform and pragmatic matter, and in the Islamic setting, the concept of wakaf should play a more important role when deciding if certain segments of society need assistance.

But change is instinctively resisted by us homo sapiens. It is only ever accepted if the reasoning behind it is sound, and backed by confidence that the government has the citizen's well-being as their main concern.

The decrease in subsidy would be a lot easier to swallow if :

1. policy-makers choose to lead by example (there is no point in lecturing the rakyat on how they should 'adjust' their lifestyles unless the ultimate aim is to regress our growth and increase the poverty gap, and stories of the wives of politicians indulging in designer shopping overseas do not help the matter either).

2. there is greater transparency with regards to how the additional cash is utilised. Would you be happy if you are asked by a stranger to hand over extra money to him so that he can provide you with a service, without actually knowing where that money is being siphoned off to?

After all, Petronas is said to earn an extra 250million bucks whenever the price of a barrel of oil increases by a single USD. Perhaps it is time to change the legislation so that the national oil company reports to Parliament, as opposed to being subservient to a single individual (the PM). MNCs are compelled by law to indicate their revenues and profit margins in order to provide confidence to the market; a similar gesture by any goverment would be most welcomed by Joe Public.

3. the money is ploughed back into public transportation (as in REALLY put into public transportation, as opposed to declarations like those done months ago about how millions will be invested in transportation without any evidence of progress).

Essentially, I think it is right to cut back on subsidies, but the argument goes to pot if the government is unable to justify its balance sheet. And if the rakyat thinks that the treasury is being mismanaged and they are being forced to pay the price, then you can rest assured that the next elections will not be a happy one for the incumbent.

On a brighter note, Obama has won the nomination to be the Democratic presidential nominee. I am sure that if the world was allowed to vote for the American election, he would win by a landslide. Unfortunately things aren't going to be that easy, but it would be intriguing to watch the way in which this battle pans out.