Alam Kekal

1. 18 comments: Responses to “ Debat Berat Sebelah: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berdebat menentang orang bongok yang mulutnya berbuih-buih (tapi bukan kerana minum root beer float) ”

2. By bongkersz on 12:06 AM, July 16, 2008

   aku kesian melihat shabery chik yang berbuih-buih mulutnya menjawab soalan yang mudah. jika inilah orang yang dikatakan oleh pak lah amat pandai berpidato, sungguh rendah sekali tahap intelek dia ni. memang bongok dan dungu gila, asyik memberi kuliah sejarah pembentukan petronas, kuliah ekonomi and inflasi venezuela, arab saudi dan iran.. apa apa entah lagi yang dicakapkan.
   
   aku pun baru post up my lousy 2 cents on the debate :)

3. By Hero on 12:52 AM, July 16, 2008

   aku dah baca dan dah komen pun entry kau tuh.. hahaha.. thank you for your visit..
   
   mmg tak sepadan lawan DSAI tu.. kebudak-budakan sangat..
   
   kuliah sejarah penubuhan petronas tu mmg aku tak tahan.. ahahaha.. giler ke hapa mamat tu? ahahaha..
   
   ada sekali tu sampai DSAI terpaksa cakap, something like - "saya bukan against petronas, tapi saya menentang kerajaan BN".. tapi aku rasa mat buih tak paham jugak tu.. :D

4. By tokei minyak urut on 8:28 AM, July 16, 2008

   Huhu..mmg best debat semlm! ble tgk Menteri Penerangan lari topik n x menjwb soalan mmg jelas sgt ler yg dia tu ngek. Aku yg mude remaja belia pun paham soalan.
   Lagi satu nasihat aku kt Menteri Penerangan tu: Nk berdebat tu, telan r air liur ble berckp so xdela mulut berbuih2 ;p geli teman nengoknye..huhu

5. By simple economy on 9:13 AM, July 16, 2008

   Saya rasa anda yg bongok. Tak paham apa shabery tu cakap, lepas tu nak tunjuk pandai. Bila dia cakap "Saya rasa saudara tidak mengikut perkembangan semasa. Dulu harga minyak ialah pada kadar USD 70 setong. Kini ia telah meningkat kepada USD 140 setong!", maksudnya penjimatan yg RM4b tu sebenarnya hilang/telah habis dibelanjakan sbb harga minyak naik dan govt terpaksa beri lebih subsidi. RM4b subsidi itu hanya akan kekal JIKA harga minyak dunia tidak naik. Boleh paham tak simple economy ? ok saya bg dlm bullet points
   1. Govt jimat rm4b dengan menaikkan harga runcit minyak (PENJIMATAN)
   2. Dalam masa yg sama, harga pasaran minyak dunia meningkat, jadi jumlah subsidi yg terpaksa dibayar kerajaan meningkat (PERBELANJAAN). Jadi penjimatan di atas itu kini digunakan utk memberi subsidi kepada syarikat minyak yg menjual minyak pada harga pasaran
   
   Ada paham sekarang? Kalo tak paham jugak mmg sah bongok

6. By saudagar minyak on 10:26 AM, July 16, 2008

   Syabas saudara/i Simple Economy yang bijak pandai. Saya cadangkan saudara/i berdiri di sebelah Dato Shabery untuk menjadi interpreter beliau the next time he goes up on stage (as the opposition) to debate the new PM. Don't forget to bring along some towels for your 'champ'.

7. By simple economy on 1:16 PM, July 16, 2008

   Nah, it doesn't matter who's the next PM to me. fyi,i voted for nurul izzah in the last GE. it just that i can't stand someone as stupid as the owner of this blog who writes something which is totally wrong and then telling everyone that he's telling the truth. educate urself first la bro. do not spread lies or u'll be as irresponsible as the politicians, be it from BN or PR

8. By Hero on 2:30 PM, July 16, 2008

   simple economy.. emo pulak ye? bawak bersabar pak.. saya bukan kata awak bongok.. hehehe.. takpe.. not going to lose any sleep over it pun.. you are entitled to your opinion, no matter what. but thank you for your comments. :D
   
   you should notice that i've put in a disclaimer earlier in the above post - "Namun, selagi transkrip penuh belum diperolehi, saya hanya mampu menulis kembali setakat yang saya ingat." so it may not be as accurate as the real script and I used "lebih kurang" whenever possible to denote "something like..", but the idea is there i hope.
   
   however, i think you've missed the point i raised earlier. the one I wrote was regarding Mat Buih's failure to answer a question from Zulkifli Sulong. Zulkifli may have been beating around the bush in formulating his query but he essentially wanted to know how the govt. spent the fund (which he claimed as per stated in the Parliament to have been spent at around 900mil out of 4 bil ++) and how they (the govt.) plan to spend a larger amount since they couldn't even properly spend a lesser amount?
   
   THAT, i believe was his question (kinda). Mat Buih's response should've been along the line of "no, the govt. did spend it all" or "we are still trying to blabla.." and so forth. but instead, he resorted to ""Saya rasa saudara tidak mengikut perkembangan semasa. Dulu harga minyak ialah pada kadar USD 70 setong. Kini ia telah meningkat kepada USD 140 setong!". ??? what the hell does that go to do with anything? so, was he saying that it is true that the govt. failed to properly spend the 4 bil due to the what.. RM70 setong? surely you can see that there is no correlation between the two, no?
   
   anyway, let us wait for the full transcript just to be sure. i may be wrong myself but you seemed to be very sure of your convictions. why not wait awhile or re-read my argument or come back later. the transcript should be available soon. then we'll see for sure, insyaAllah.

9. By bongkersz on 3:03 PM, July 16, 2008

   "penjimatan yg RM4b tu sebenarnya hilang/telah habis dibelanjakan sbb harga minyak naik dan govt terpaksa beri lebih subsidi. RM4b subsidi itu hanya akan kekal JIKA harga minyak dunia tidak naik. Boleh paham tak simple economy ? ok saya bg dlm bullet points
   1. Govt jimat rm4b dengan menaikkan harga runcit minyak (PENJIMATAN)
   2. Dalam masa yg sama, harga pasaran minyak dunia meningkat, jadi jumlah subsidi yg terpaksa dibayar kerajaan meningkat (PERBELANJAAN). Jadi penjimatan di atas itu kini digunakan utk memberi subsidi kepada syarikat minyak yg menjual minyak pada harga pasaran"
   
   Hilang? Kepala hotak kau hilang. Macam mana 4 billion boleh hilang disebabkan kenaikan harga minyak?
   
   Harga minyak dinaikkan 30 sen masa tu dan ini dibuat sebelum nilai ringgit bertambah kuat berbanding US dollar. Masa tu tukaran mata wang USD/RM 3.70, sekarang berapa? 3.20?
   
   Jumlah penjimatan sepatutnya lebih daripada 4 billion, jika tak ada pun semua 4.4 billion tu, sepatutnya masih ada 1-2 billion.
   
   Lagi, harga minyak naik, untung kerajaan dari minyak naik, kira offset lah.
   
   Memang simple economy :)
   
   Lagi satu, jangan temberang lah, ada ke kerajaan buat perancangan betul-betul bagaimana nak guna duit 4 billion itu sekiranya ada untuk menaiktaraf sistem pengangkutan? Perancangan pun tak pernah ada.
   
   --
   Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

10. By simple economy on 3:52 PM, July 16, 2008

    Ok let’s assume that b4 the price increase (from 1.62 to 1.92), the govt spent RM 20b in fuel subsidy. After the price increase, RM 4b is saved. But because of the increase in the crude oil prices, now (when the price of petrol is already 1.92) the govt has to spent RM 30b in fuel subsidy. So instead of a rm4b saving, now the govt has to fork out an extra rm 6b to subsidize all of us.
    
    “Harga minyak dinaikkan 30 sen masa tu dan ini dibuat sebelum nilai ringgit bertambah kuat berbanding US dollar. Masa tu tukaran mata wang USD/RM 3.70, sekarang berapa? 3.20?”
    This has a negative impact to our petroleum industry. PETRONAS sells the crude using dollar. In some countries (e.g. Myanmar n Sudan), dollar is not used because of the sanction imposed by the US. When the Ringgit strengthened, our proceeds become less (i.e. for every dollar of crude sold, we are now entitled for only rm 3.20 instead of rm 3.7 previously). This low amount is only realised when the proceeds are repatriated back to Msia in the form of dividends.
    
    “Lagi, harga minyak naik, untung kerajaan dari minyak naik, kira offset lah”. This is totally true, but we’re not addressing this issue here. We’re talking abt subsidy and the effect to the economy. How the money from PETRONAS is spent is totally a different case.
    
    “Lagi satu, jangan temberang lah, ada ke kerajaan buat perancangan betul-betul bagaimana nak guna duit 4 billion itu sekiranya ada untuk menaiktaraf sistem pengangkutan? Perancangan pun tak pernah ada.”. this one I dunno what’s the answer. Perhaps u can ask the relevant ministry

11. By simple economy on 4:16 PM, July 16, 2008

    On another note, DSAI also failed to answer 1 question which was posed to him yg lebih kurang mcm ni “if the price of petrol is lowered, the amount of subsidy given to the foreign companies (Shell, Exxon, BP) will increase. What’s ur opinion on this?”
    IMO, this amount contributes to a huge leakage to the economy, but DS tak bgpun pandangan dia. Sibuk cerita pasal corruption la etc
    Instead of subsidizing the fuel, lg bagus kita subsidize harga roti, beras, air n letrik (depends on the usage), low income tax rate for low income earner, cheap loans to farmers n org kampong etc” why shud someone who drives a bmw 7 series pays the same price as pakcik bawak moto Honda cup for petrol? Lg bagus kalo dua2 bayar mahal lepas tu govt tolong pakcik tu dgn bg monthly allowance or any other benefits such as retirement benefits or etc”
    On whether govt ada buat tu semua is a different issue, I’m not interested to talk abt our political parties. I’m more interested on the impact of subsidy to the economy. Subsidy is good for a short term period, but it’ll surely distort the economy in the long term. It’s indeed a “populist” policy to increase the amount of subsidy to gain support from the rakyat.
    To be honest, I’ll happy if the price of petrol diturunkan. Siapa tak happy beb. But it’ll surely distort the economy. There are other better ways to help the rakyat instead of turunkan harga petrol yg for sure akan dinikmati oleh org2 yg tak sepatutnya, as mentioned above

12. By simple economy on 4:26 PM, July 16, 2008

    mr hero,
    
    pls accept my apology for using the word "bongok" to address u. ter-emo la pulak tadi. Apologies again

13. By Anonymous on 9:02 PM, July 16, 2008

    Simple Economy ni orangnye jenis flipflop jugak...dah marah orang lepas tu mintak maaf...lebih baik senyap je in the first place...biahhh

14. By bongkersz on 9:53 PM, July 16, 2008

    Simple Economy, your assumptions must make sense in the first place. Well, unlike you I doubt our government actually take out this amount of money and use it to subsidize the fuel. There are credible sources saying that the subsidy is actually given in term of oil exchange mechanism, so the talk about extra 'money' is invalid here. The mentioned subsidy here actually the 'loss' made by Petronas/government because they need to channel the supposed fuel they can sell at the market price for domestic use.
    
    It is really simple actually, forget all the complex calculations, the question we should ask is, do we earn more than enough, or a lot more for us to subsidize in the first place in the face of fuel price increase? Let me quote you here:
    
    Assumption : Before the price increase (from 1.62 to 1.92), the govt spent RM 20b in fuel subsidy.After the price increase, RM 4b is saved. But because of the increase in the crude oil prices, now (when the price of petrol is already 1.92) the govt has to spent RM 30b in fuel subsidy. So instead of a rm4b saving, now the govt has to fork out an extra rm 6b to subsidize all of us.
    
    Stop there. Government need to fork out an extra RM 6b to subsidize all of us, AND at the same time is making billions of ringgit because of the fuel price increase, agree? Say government supposed to spend 20b out of the 50b that it has, with the increase of fuel price, now government need to spend 30b from the 50b but we need to add probably 10-20 billions or more of profits from the fuel increase! How much Petronas earns after the fuel price increase? So the FACT is the government never fork out extra money in that sense.
    
    No extra spending actually because the proceeds are use to offset the increase. It is the same or probably lesser amount of fuel subsidy required. What the government emphasized so far just on the money they 'spent' but never compare it with the money they supposely earn. If we are forced to put out extra money because are not earning any extra money (assume we are not net oil exporter) then only it is true that, because of fuel price increase, extra subsidy is affecting the goverment. (Damn I hope I make some sense here)
    
    Well, if you talk about purely about subsidy and economy, I agree with you that subsidy only distort the economy. I do not support the subsidy concept. But, the thing is, government do nothing to alleviate the burden of ordinary people by cutting the subsidy abruptly, which back to Anwar Ibrahim points of government's accountability and tranparency.
    
    ps: It is nice we can talk this way :)

15. By mahagraha on 12:30 AM, July 17, 2008

    Hey,
    
    "Simple economy" - lu ni memanglah otak simple.
    
    I tell you what, if the govt is so concerned about price distortions due to subsidies, then the people in the govt is contradicting itself…
    
    Remember in 1998, Mahathir and the UMNO led BN govt did their best to shield the economy form the so called harmful effects of a globalised economy…
    
    Nobody (inthe govt) was complaining about subsidies at that time. Yes… the subsidy was in the form of “lower” interest rates….
    
    Lower interest rates means that borrowers can pay less interest rates and therefore keep their businesses and enterprises viable…
    
    Why govt people are complaining about giving fuel subsidies?
    
    Subsidies means that the rakyat (especially the small people – 'wong cilik' ) pays less for fuel and therefore their costs of living is lower…
    
    Why different explanation in the high oil price crisis in 2008 compared to the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998?
    
    Ya.... tuan-tuan dan puan-puan dan saudara-saudari yang budiman, renungkanlah dan pikirkan-lah sendiri...
    
    tapi kalau bisa...tolong jawab...ya...

16. By Anonymous on 12:52 AM, July 17, 2008

    meleleh2 air lioq aku nak paham debat hangpa ni... bagi la bahasa senang2 sikit aku ni org kampung...

17. By simple economy on 10:44 AM, July 17, 2008

    Simple Economy, your assumptions must make sense in the first place. Well, unlike you I doubt our government actually take out this amount of money and use it to subsidize the fuel. There are credible sources saying that the subsidy is actually given in term of oil exchange mechanism, so the talk about extra 'money' is invalid here. The mentioned subsidy here actually the 'loss' made by Petronas/government because they need to channel the supposed fuel they can sell at the market price for domestic use.
    Answer: I’m afraid your credible sources are not true. Being a PETRONAS’ employee, I can confirm that the oil companies in Msia sell the petrol at market price (current price as at 11 July is rm3.36 per litre). The govt will then pay the difference to the oil companies. Imagine how big is the leakage? That’s why it’s important for Malaysians to support PETRONAS. If we buy petrol from Shell/BP/Esso, they’ll enjoy the subsidy and will declare more dividends at the year end to their respective parent companies.
    
    It is really simple actually, forget all the complex calculations, the question we should ask is, do we earn more than enough, or a lot more for us to subsidize in the first place in the face of fuel price increase? Let me quote you here:
    
    Assumption : Before the price increase (from 1.62 to 1.92), the govt spent RM 20b in fuel subsidy.After the price increase, RM 4b is saved. But because of the increase in the crude oil prices, now (when the price of petrol is already 1.92) the govt has to spent RM 30b in fuel subsidy. So instead of a rm4b saving, now the govt has to fork out an extra rm 6b to subsidize all of us.
    
    Stop there. Government need to fork out an extra RM 6b to subsidize all of us, AND at the same time is making billions of ringgit because of the fuel price increase, agree? Say government supposed to spend 20b out of the 50b that it has, with the increase of fuel price, now government need to spend 30b from the 50b but we need to add probably 10-20 billions or more of profits from the fuel increase! How much Petronas earns after the fuel price increase? So the FACT is the government never fork out extra money in that sense.
    Answer: As I mentioned b4, the extra billions made by PETRONAS is a different issue. Using your example above, the amount of subsidy increased from 20b to 30b.Hence, the govt has to fork out extra money for subsidy. What I’m trying to justify here is that the amount saved before is now gone and at the same time the govt need to spend extra rm6b on subsidy and again I would like to stress that subsidy is not good for the economy, as duly agreed by you.
    
    No extra spending actually because the proceeds are use to offset the increase. It is the same or probably lesser amount of fuel subsidy required.
    
    What the government emphasized so far just on the money they 'spent' but never compare it with the money they supposely earn. If we are forced to put out extra money because are not earning any extra money (assume we are not net oil exporter) then only it is true that, because of fuel price increase, extra subsidy is affecting the goverment. (Damn I hope I make some sense here)
    Answer: Agreed. This is one issue that Shabery failed to clarify. FY kind info, the Ministry of Finance on a yearly basis produced the “Laporan Ekonomi”. In this laporan, all govt’s income and expenses are tabled and discussed. The information is there, it’s just that we Malaysians are too malas to do our homework and are more interested to believe what the politicians say. The same applies to PETRONAS’ financial statements (yg jadi issue hari tu). FY info, the financial statements that you can obtain from our website is the simplified version, but the one that we submit to parliament and external banks(coz we’ve loans with them and we need to show our duly audited full financial statements to them come every year end) is the full version. It’s there in the parliament’s library but that stupid khairy and lim guan eng conveniently ignored the fact and said that PETRONAS need to be more transparent. And majority of the rakyat believed them. What they wanna do is to be popular in our eyes. That’s what politicians are best at. If we equip ourselves with knowledge, I believe we’ll not be fooled by these politicians, be it from the ruling govt or the opposition
    
    Well, if you talk about purely about subsidy and economy, I agree with you that subsidy only distort the economy. I do not support the subsidy concept. But, the thing is, government do nothing to alleviate the burden of ordinary people by cutting the subsidy abruptly, which back to Anwar Ibrahim points of government's accountability and tranparency.
    Answer: since the price hike, some measures have be taken such as the fuel rebate (may not be much but it’s there), cheap loans for pekebun kecil, bantuan kepada nelayan and etc. you may also want to refer the “laporan kewangan” mentioned above for the bantuan given to the rakyat by the govt in the past. And yes I agree that lots need to be improved by out govt
    
    ps: It is nice we can talk this way :)

18. By simple economy on 11:36 AM, July 17, 2008

    oh terlupa nak jawab soalan mr mahagraha..
    
    mr mahagraha,
    
    Before I answer your question, appreciate if you can do some homework and answers all my questions below:
    
    
    Berapa jumlah penduduk in 98 vs 08?
    Berapa jumlah pengguna kenderaan in 98 vs 08?
    Berapa harga pasaran minyak in 98 vs 08?
    Berapa harga padi dunia in 98 vs 08?
    Berapa harga keluli in 98 vs 08?
    Berapa harga barang2 mentah lain (gandum, gula, bijirin lain) in 98 vs 08?
    Berapa harga minyak sawit dunia in 98 vs 08?
    Berapa banyak govt spent on subsidy (petrol, minyak masak,roti,beras,gula etc) in 98 vs 08?
    Cukup la byk ni, sebenarnya list ni non exhaustive, tak larat nak tulis semua
    
    All the questions above have a direct impact on inflation. I’m sorry to say that u don’t even have a basic knowledge on economy. Comparing 98 crisis with what we’re facing now without taking into considerations my list of questions above is totally foolish.

19. By bongkersz on 12:17 AM, July 21, 2008

    Dear Simple Economy,
    
    Thanks for the clarification. I already suspected you must be working with Petronas or in the industry. Glad you can share some pointers with us. I actually wrote few posts on fuel subsidies, I would be happy if you can drop by and give your valuable 2 cents on my post.
    
    http://bongkersz.com/2008/06/19/the-truth-about-fuel-subsidy/
    http://bongkersz.com/2008/06/24/shahrir-confirmed-kickdefellas-finding-no-fuel-subsidy-in-budget/
    http://bongkersz.com/2008/06/26/how-much-actually-the-government-spent-on-fuel-subsidy/
    
    I probably made some mistakes in my calculation or assumptions, but I will never know until someone pointed it out for me :) Especially on the part
    
    "that the oil companies in Msia sell the petrol at market price (current price as at 11 July is rm3.36 per litre). The govt will then pay the difference to the oil companies. Imagine how big is the leakage?"
    
    Since you are a Petronas employee you probably have better access to information, as what we had so far are statements from politicians - mostly half baked information and it it hard to do any reliable calculation. If you don't mind, please share with us, how much of refined petrol we produce and consume in a day? Then how much of the estimated consumption of refined petrol is obtained from other oil companies excluding Petronas? From that, probably we can do some simple calculation on the subsidies given.
    
    If what you said is true, then supposed the fuel subsidy should only be given when there customer buy their petrol from other oil companies except Petronas, agree? Where the government paid the difference between market price and the price at pump to them. Then the subsidy should be even less!! How many percent of domestic consumption are supplied by other oil companies excluding Petronas? From this, the amount of oil supplied by other oil companies x (RM3.36 - RM2.68) is the total subsidy, which can be very much less than what quoted by the government.

Post a Comment