These people down south have a habit of doing things quietly. And they get the results.
We should learn from them especially on how to do things quietly but yet can still be successful.
I had the pleasure of visiting them a few years ago and was taken to a tour of their HQ in S'pore. One area that strikes me was how they manage their human capital so that their people will be at the fore-front of new developments in the industry i.e to become trend-setters instead of trend followers. From time to time they organise brainstorming sessions at the HQ and would call in their relevant GLCs to participate. For example, if they want to talk about fund raising, they would invite an expert to talk about the subject and then summon their finance heads from all GLCs to be involved. If they want to talk about HR matters, all HR heads from the GLCs are called in. For your info, an entire floor in their huge office is dedicated these theatrette-style rooms (like an MBA class) for these sessions.
In some countries, when you invite the head of a division of a GLC to attend a meeting, he simply delegates it to the 2nd in command. Then he or she will further delegate it to another person. Ultimately, the person who attends could be a junior executive who doesn't know head or tail of what the session is about. In the end, the discussion becomes a way street, instead of intended to be a meaningful discussion or a brainstorming session to generate new ideas.
Temasek buys 12% stake in Standard Chartered Bank
LONDON (Dow Jones)--State-controlled Singapore investment company Temasek Holdings Pte has acquired a 12% stake in London-based commercial bank Standard Chartered PLC from Malaysia's Khoo Teck Puat family.
Temasek bought 152.4 million Standard Chartered shares, bank spokesman Matthew Chan said.
"We are aware of the change in ownership of shares and we welcome Temasek as a long term investor," said Chan.
The Khoo family, Standard Chartered's single largest shareholder, has seen its holding increase in value by more than a third in the past five months as speculation has grown that it could be a takeover target.
The bank is an attractive asset given its broad exposure to emerging markets, which have once again become popular investment destinations in the past few years.
Ahead of the change-of-ownership announcement, Standard Chartered shares closed down 0.5%, or 7 pence, at 1523 pence.
Temasek's purchase of 152.4 million shares would be worth GBP2.32 billion.
In a joint statement, the Khoo family and Temasek said 152,399,222 shares, representing about 11.55% of Standard Chartered's share capital would be sold to Dover Investments, a wholly owned subsidiary of Temasek.
This would be added to the 0.07% direct and indirect holding of Temasek in the bank.
The transaction is subject to "relevant regulatory approvals in certain jurisdictions," the statement added.
The transaction comes about two years after the death of family patriarch Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat, who first bought shares in Standard Chartered in 1986 as part of a "white knight" strategy to thwart a takeover attempt from Lloyds Bank of the U.K.
He continued to accumulate shares over the years becoming the bank's biggest shareholder.
Standard Chartered traces its banking history back more than 150 years and has a global network of about 1,200 branches, including subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures, spread across 56 countries, according to its Web site.
In the year to December 31, 2005, the bank posted a 19% rise in pre-tax profit to $2.68 billion.
Standard Chartered is listed on the London and Hong Kong stock exchanges.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Privatization of Domestic Flight Routes???
Imagine if tomorrow the Govt says that it needs to create 5 new highways in Malaysia to meet the increasing demand for quality roads and connectivity from the public.
So the Govt. calls in 2 local construction companies and asks them to construct these highways by a certain date . The Govt knows where this 5 new highways will be located and which cities it will connect. But it says that it is entirely up to these two companies to work together to decide the relevant details like which company will construct which highway, how many lanes each highway will have, how much toll to charge the public, how long to charge etc. All the Govts needs from them is 5 new highways.
See the similarity between the above example and the issue of MAS/Air Asia domestic routes?
What we don't realise is that this is another form of PRIVATISATION; the Govt is actually privatising the domestic flight services!
But unlike in past privatisations, this time there is no tender at all (whether open or negotiated). More worryingly, the Govt has left it entirely to a private company to DECIDE the details like flight frequency, what aircrafts to use, how much to charge etc!
I guess it may take sometime even for the opposition members to realise that this is in effect a PRIVATISATION!
If you notice, sometimes we tend to avoid using words or phrases that may result to our audience unnecessarily reacting negatively to our views / proposals.
For example, after Barings Bank in Singapore was brought down by Nick Leeson, the word "derivatives" is a taboo. So if you were a treasury officer then and had to market derivatives to your corporate clients, you simply didn't call it"derivatives". Call it other names such as structured products etc. Why? Because the word "derivatives" would unnecessarily trigger a negative reaction from your clients leading to them not buying your product.
Similarly, the word "bail-out" is a taboo. "Privatisation" is also a taboo. These words will immediately trigger the public's reaction to a chain of events in the past, possibly leading them to react negatively.
But we should try to be smarter. Just look deeper. What matters more is actually the "description", not the phrasing.
So the Govt. calls in 2 local construction companies and asks them to construct these highways by a certain date . The Govt knows where this 5 new highways will be located and which cities it will connect. But it says that it is entirely up to these two companies to work together to decide the relevant details like which company will construct which highway, how many lanes each highway will have, how much toll to charge the public, how long to charge etc. All the Govts needs from them is 5 new highways.
See the similarity between the above example and the issue of MAS/Air Asia domestic routes?
What we don't realise is that this is another form of PRIVATISATION; the Govt is actually privatising the domestic flight services!
But unlike in past privatisations, this time there is no tender at all (whether open or negotiated). More worryingly, the Govt has left it entirely to a private company to DECIDE the details like flight frequency, what aircrafts to use, how much to charge etc!
I guess it may take sometime even for the opposition members to realise that this is in effect a PRIVATISATION!
If you notice, sometimes we tend to avoid using words or phrases that may result to our audience unnecessarily reacting negatively to our views / proposals.
For example, after Barings Bank in Singapore was brought down by Nick Leeson, the word "derivatives" is a taboo. So if you were a treasury officer then and had to market derivatives to your corporate clients, you simply didn't call it"derivatives". Call it other names such as structured products etc. Why? Because the word "derivatives" would unnecessarily trigger a negative reaction from your clients leading to them not buying your product.
Similarly, the word "bail-out" is a taboo. "Privatisation" is also a taboo. These words will immediately trigger the public's reaction to a chain of events in the past, possibly leading them to react negatively.
But we should try to be smarter. Just look deeper. What matters more is actually the "description", not the phrasing.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Compete with SIA???
Before that, let me just regirtitate on the VSS issue. My only disagreement with MAS VSS announcement is that I think whilst the VSS is a necessary part of the restructuring for MAS, I'm just shocked to see the big number for the VSS.
When Telekom did their VSS, they only targeted 3,000-4,000 and out of their staff strength of 30,000. Imagine if Telekom were to force to give up part of its business (say all fixed line businesses in KL & Selangor) to another competitor, I'm sure then Telekom would have to lay off far more staff. Since MAS was forced to give up over 75% of their domestic routes by the Govt, logically more staff will be retrenched than what was initially required.
This is where you question the wisdom of the Govt's decision.
A few questions arise when you read the article below.
1. Haha..how can they both compete with SIA? This is the dometic market where 99.9% routes are now controlled by MAS & Air Asia. I don't see SIA in the picture anywhere. So why make a big issue and spin it as though we're out to compete with SIA. The battlefield with SIA is actually in the international routes, not the domestic market! And in the international market, even MAS and Air Asia are competing with each other.
2. Now Air Aisa will manage 99 non-trunk routes and the rural air services on behalf of the Government. What does "on behalf of the Govt" mean?
3. Does it mean that the Govt will continue to subsidise certain domestic routes? Why is Air Asia given the job even though MAS requested that they still manage these routes? I think MAS even said they can do it without subsidy. Any sense why they were denied this?
Flying together
By B.K. SIDHU AND GOH EE KOON
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia's two airlines – Malaysia Airlines (MAS) and AirAsia Bhd – have pledged to work together and promised to give airlines in Singapore including Singapore Airlines (SIA) a run for their money.
The co-ordinated approach by the two Malaysian carriers, on top of the existence of a state-of-the-art airport in KL International Airport, will help to groom Malaysia's air service sector into a regional powerhouse.
"Watch out, Singapore. A strong MAS and AirAsia will pool their strengths and pose a threat to SIA. We will give Singapore a run for its money," said AirAsia group CEO Datuk Tony Fernandes.
THE FUTURE: Jala and Fernandes and sharing a light moment at their joint press conference in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.
The two chiefs – Fernandes and MAS managing director Idris Jala – came together at a joint press conference for the first time after the announcement of the rationalisation of the domestic air services sector on Monday.
Under the plan, MAS and AirAsia will ply 19 trunk routes that provide international connectivity and have a significant volume of business traffic.
AirAsia will also manage 99 non-trunk routes and the rural air services on behalf of the Government.
Jala said: "We do compete with SIA like any other airline. We collaborate with the same people where it makes sense and compete where it does not make sense."
At the press conference, both airlines would not commit themselves to whether airfares would rise or fall.
But Fernandes did point out: "It is not our philosophy to raise airfares. It is hard to determine what the average fares are, as we are adding new routes, but I think it would be around the RM156 to RM160 mark."
Later, he told The Star that there would be more low airfares for Malaysian travellers.
The two chiefs set a timeline of two weeks to a month to conclude discussions on various issues with regard to staff and fleet requirement, frequencies and capacities. AirAsia will also outsource the rural air services.
MAS said on Monday that it would axe 6,500 of its 23,000 employees.
"We have to right size the staff numbers and are working to determine precisely the quantity we need," Jala said.
"In two weeks time, we should be able to come up with the final numbers. It will be done in consultation with the union and staff and carried out in a humane way." (See StarBiz for more details)
On that issue, Malaysia Airlines employees have urged Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to intervene, M. KRISHNAMOORTHY reports.
MAS Employees' Union president Alias Aziz said: "The sharing of domestic routes is not win-win for both airlines.
"It is sad that the Government wants to help a private airline at the expense of MAS employees. It's not fair."
Transport Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy said that under the domestic rationalisation plan, MAS would reduce the number of its aircraft from 40 to 21, stations from 32 to 16, and manpower from 23,000 to 16,500.
On the employees who would be affected, he said: "We will discuss this matter carefully with the MAS management."
Chan said the Government would continue to provide subsidies for the rural air services, mainly served by Twin Otter aircraft, with an annual allocation of between RM10mil and RM15mil.
When Telekom did their VSS, they only targeted 3,000-4,000 and out of their staff strength of 30,000. Imagine if Telekom were to force to give up part of its business (say all fixed line businesses in KL & Selangor) to another competitor, I'm sure then Telekom would have to lay off far more staff. Since MAS was forced to give up over 75% of their domestic routes by the Govt, logically more staff will be retrenched than what was initially required.
This is where you question the wisdom of the Govt's decision.
A few questions arise when you read the article below.
1. Haha..how can they both compete with SIA? This is the dometic market where 99.9% routes are now controlled by MAS & Air Asia. I don't see SIA in the picture anywhere. So why make a big issue and spin it as though we're out to compete with SIA. The battlefield with SIA is actually in the international routes, not the domestic market! And in the international market, even MAS and Air Asia are competing with each other.
2. Now Air Aisa will manage 99 non-trunk routes and the rural air services on behalf of the Government. What does "on behalf of the Govt" mean?
3. Does it mean that the Govt will continue to subsidise certain domestic routes? Why is Air Asia given the job even though MAS requested that they still manage these routes? I think MAS even said they can do it without subsidy. Any sense why they were denied this?
Flying together
By B.K. SIDHU AND GOH EE KOON
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia's two airlines – Malaysia Airlines (MAS) and AirAsia Bhd – have pledged to work together and promised to give airlines in Singapore including Singapore Airlines (SIA) a run for their money.
The co-ordinated approach by the two Malaysian carriers, on top of the existence of a state-of-the-art airport in KL International Airport, will help to groom Malaysia's air service sector into a regional powerhouse.
"Watch out, Singapore. A strong MAS and AirAsia will pool their strengths and pose a threat to SIA. We will give Singapore a run for its money," said AirAsia group CEO Datuk Tony Fernandes.
THE FUTURE: Jala and Fernandes and sharing a light moment at their joint press conference in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.
The two chiefs – Fernandes and MAS managing director Idris Jala – came together at a joint press conference for the first time after the announcement of the rationalisation of the domestic air services sector on Monday.
Under the plan, MAS and AirAsia will ply 19 trunk routes that provide international connectivity and have a significant volume of business traffic.
AirAsia will also manage 99 non-trunk routes and the rural air services on behalf of the Government.
Jala said: "We do compete with SIA like any other airline. We collaborate with the same people where it makes sense and compete where it does not make sense."
At the press conference, both airlines would not commit themselves to whether airfares would rise or fall.
But Fernandes did point out: "It is not our philosophy to raise airfares. It is hard to determine what the average fares are, as we are adding new routes, but I think it would be around the RM156 to RM160 mark."
Later, he told The Star that there would be more low airfares for Malaysian travellers.
The two chiefs set a timeline of two weeks to a month to conclude discussions on various issues with regard to staff and fleet requirement, frequencies and capacities. AirAsia will also outsource the rural air services.
MAS said on Monday that it would axe 6,500 of its 23,000 employees.
"We have to right size the staff numbers and are working to determine precisely the quantity we need," Jala said.
"In two weeks time, we should be able to come up with the final numbers. It will be done in consultation with the union and staff and carried out in a humane way." (See StarBiz for more details)
On that issue, Malaysia Airlines employees have urged Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to intervene, M. KRISHNAMOORTHY reports.
MAS Employees' Union president Alias Aziz said: "The sharing of domestic routes is not win-win for both airlines.
"It is sad that the Government wants to help a private airline at the expense of MAS employees. It's not fair."
Transport Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy said that under the domestic rationalisation plan, MAS would reduce the number of its aircraft from 40 to 21, stations from 32 to 16, and manpower from 23,000 to 16,500.
On the employees who would be affected, he said: "We will discuss this matter carefully with the MAS management."
Chan said the Government would continue to provide subsidies for the rural air services, mainly served by Twin Otter aircraft, with an annual allocation of between RM10mil and RM15mil.
WAU - Special Cause???
If you read this statement carefully.
"MAS is slated to spend RM800mil to RM1bil for the exercise to close down its operations in 99 points and trim its workforce and this amount is expected to be paid by the government given that MAS would be "curtailing the widespread asset unbundling (WAU)'' plan".
Keyword here is the "WAU agreement".
Recall that over a month ago, MAS proposed to convince PMB to sell PMB's planes, and even though those planes now rightly belong to PMB, 80% of the money from the sale will come back to MAS! This is allegedly also according to this WAU agreement.
Don't these special clauses in this WAU agreement sound pretty suspicious?
So I'm not suprised if tomorrow suddenly MAS says it now owns PLUS highway, KLCC or Twin Towers, arising from some special clause in this WAU agreement!
"MAS is slated to spend RM800mil to RM1bil for the exercise to close down its operations in 99 points and trim its workforce and this amount is expected to be paid by the government given that MAS would be "curtailing the widespread asset unbundling (WAU)'' plan".
Keyword here is the "WAU agreement".
Recall that over a month ago, MAS proposed to convince PMB to sell PMB's planes, and even though those planes now rightly belong to PMB, 80% of the money from the sale will come back to MAS! This is allegedly also according to this WAU agreement.
Don't these special clauses in this WAU agreement sound pretty suspicious?
So I'm not suprised if tomorrow suddenly MAS says it now owns PLUS highway, KLCC or Twin Towers, arising from some special clause in this WAU agreement!
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
MAS to Offer VSS
If I'm not mistaken, I recall MAS MD said a few months ago that no Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) was necessary. I also recall Paklah said it was good that MAS has a plan to turn itself around.
So if the original plan submitted by MAS has been "approved" in full by the Govt (remember, the Govt said it won't interfere in MAS) , then why does MAS need to make a u-turn now and now say that a VSS is required? And a shocking figure for the VSS i.e 6500 out of 23,000 staff to be offered!
Does this mean their original plan has been "rejected" or "amended" by the Govt?
MAS to offer VSS to 6,500 staffers
KUALA LUMPUR (AP) - MAS will offer a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) to 6,500 employees currently working on domestic routes the airline will no longer operate, MAS managing director Idris Jala said on Tuesday.
So if the original plan submitted by MAS has been "approved" in full by the Govt (remember, the Govt said it won't interfere in MAS) , then why does MAS need to make a u-turn now and now say that a VSS is required? And a shocking figure for the VSS i.e 6500 out of 23,000 staff to be offered!
Does this mean their original plan has been "rejected" or "amended" by the Govt?
MAS to offer VSS to 6,500 staffers
KUALA LUMPUR (AP) - MAS will offer a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) to 6,500 employees currently working on domestic routes the airline will no longer operate, MAS managing director Idris Jala said on Tuesday.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Lower Car Prices Good for us???
I think it's fair to say that the Govt made the assumption that the public will be very happy with lower car prices.
But honestly are we more happy, less happy or indifference at all? We're a sample of the population.
There are already X million cars on the road owned by Y million drivers like us. Most people would take bank loans to buy their cars. And I suspect most would have yet to settle their loans in full especially if their cars are new.
Even if we change cars and benefit from lower prices, we would also have to suffer a loss when trading in our current vehicles. So what does that make us? More happy or less happy?
I would argue that only those people who are upwardly mobile (economically) and intend to change cars will benefit from lower prices. But for those who can barely make ends meet and are stucked with their existing cars, they'll be on the loose end. Now they can't even dispose their cars coz they're worth less than their outstanding loans with the banks!
But honestly are we more happy, less happy or indifference at all? We're a sample of the population.
There are already X million cars on the road owned by Y million drivers like us. Most people would take bank loans to buy their cars. And I suspect most would have yet to settle their loans in full especially if their cars are new.
Even if we change cars and benefit from lower prices, we would also have to suffer a loss when trading in our current vehicles. So what does that make us? More happy or less happy?
I would argue that only those people who are upwardly mobile (economically) and intend to change cars will benefit from lower prices. But for those who can barely make ends meet and are stucked with their existing cars, they'll be on the loose end. Now they can't even dispose their cars coz they're worth less than their outstanding loans with the banks!
9th M'sia Plan
Since there's been a lot of hype to this 9th Malaysia Plan, I hope what will be unveiled by Paklah sometime this week will be in line with our expectations.
Perhaps we should find time to go through the previous Plan i.e the 8th Malaysia Plan to compare between what have been done and what will be done.
Below is the link to the previous Plan.
Bear in mind that there is a distinction between a REPORT and a PLAN in my view.
A plan focuses on the future, outlining the policies and strategies to be undertaken whereas a report is a summary of what has been done or achieved in the past. Whilst I don't deny that in the formulation of a good plan, historical data will need to be throughly evaluated, what is more important is that we focus on understanding what the future plans and strategies are. So we shouldn't feel intimidated if the new Plan (as like the old one) will be a few hundred pages long. We don't need to read word by word. Just focus on the future plans/strategies for each chapter.You'd be suprised to note (as I did when I went through the section on HCM/HR in the last Plan) that some chapters were more of a report than a plan!
Secondly, it's also useful to question ourselves how detail, logical and implementable are each of the strategies that will be outlined. If not, it'll just look good on paper, but pretty useless.
An area which Paklah has given a lot of emphasis is, for example, on human capital development. So it'll be interesting to go through the chapter on human capital in the new Plan to see what's in store. Then compare that with the same section in the last Plan.
http://www.epu.jpm.my/new%20folder/development%20plan/RM8.htm
Perhaps we should find time to go through the previous Plan i.e the 8th Malaysia Plan to compare between what have been done and what will be done.
Below is the link to the previous Plan.
Bear in mind that there is a distinction between a REPORT and a PLAN in my view.
A plan focuses on the future, outlining the policies and strategies to be undertaken whereas a report is a summary of what has been done or achieved in the past. Whilst I don't deny that in the formulation of a good plan, historical data will need to be throughly evaluated, what is more important is that we focus on understanding what the future plans and strategies are. So we shouldn't feel intimidated if the new Plan (as like the old one) will be a few hundred pages long. We don't need to read word by word. Just focus on the future plans/strategies for each chapter.You'd be suprised to note (as I did when I went through the section on HCM/HR in the last Plan) that some chapters were more of a report than a plan!
Secondly, it's also useful to question ourselves how detail, logical and implementable are each of the strategies that will be outlined. If not, it'll just look good on paper, but pretty useless.
An area which Paklah has given a lot of emphasis is, for example, on human capital development. So it'll be interesting to go through the chapter on human capital in the new Plan to see what's in store. Then compare that with the same section in the last Plan.
http://www.epu.jpm.my/new%20folder/development%20plan/RM8.htm
Is the Govt Bailing-out MAS???
Has anyone ever figured what the term 'bail-out' means?
Since Paklah has said a few times in the past that the Govt will not bail-out MAS, I think it's important to understand what he means by that, and whether our understanding on this issue is the same as his.
Is granting a Govt loan (whether free or interest bearing) to a GLC not considered a bail-out?
Is granting a Govt. guarantee to a loan taken out by a GLC also not considered a bail-out?
To fully understand this concept of 'bail-out', we need to look at the opposite extreme of that i.e the concept of 'free maket forces'. This situation is when Govt is not involved in one way or another (whether financial or otherwise) in assisting a company to get out of its current difficulties. Then we can say there is no bail-out!
So it should be incumbent on any GLC like MAS to sort out its own problems WITHOUT resorting to ANY request of assistance of any sort from the Govt. What more if that assistance is financial in nature. And since Paklah has said in the past there'll be no bail-out of MAS, why is MAS asking the Govt for financial assistance? And how should the Govt respond?
So hopefully Paklah will be consistent in this respect. If he truly means no bail-out for MAS, then the Govt should leave it entirely to MAS to source the RM4bio required on its own. If more equity is pumped into MAS by the Govt, or a loan is extended (whether free or interest bearing) or a Govt guarantee given (either directly or through PMB i.e MAS parent company that is 100%owned by the Govt, or through any Govt agencies) for a commercial loan taken by MAS, then any of these is already considered a bail-out!
If Paklah wishes to help MAS in this aspect, then he should just admit that the Govt will be'bailing-out' the national carrier, and not say the otherwise for the sake of consistency.
Since Paklah has said a few times in the past that the Govt will not bail-out MAS, I think it's important to understand what he means by that, and whether our understanding on this issue is the same as his.
Is granting a Govt loan (whether free or interest bearing) to a GLC not considered a bail-out?
Is granting a Govt. guarantee to a loan taken out by a GLC also not considered a bail-out?
To fully understand this concept of 'bail-out', we need to look at the opposite extreme of that i.e the concept of 'free maket forces'. This situation is when Govt is not involved in one way or another (whether financial or otherwise) in assisting a company to get out of its current difficulties. Then we can say there is no bail-out!
So it should be incumbent on any GLC like MAS to sort out its own problems WITHOUT resorting to ANY request of assistance of any sort from the Govt. What more if that assistance is financial in nature. And since Paklah has said in the past there'll be no bail-out of MAS, why is MAS asking the Govt for financial assistance? And how should the Govt respond?
So hopefully Paklah will be consistent in this respect. If he truly means no bail-out for MAS, then the Govt should leave it entirely to MAS to source the RM4bio required on its own. If more equity is pumped into MAS by the Govt, or a loan is extended (whether free or interest bearing) or a Govt guarantee given (either directly or through PMB i.e MAS parent company that is 100%owned by the Govt, or through any Govt agencies) for a commercial loan taken by MAS, then any of these is already considered a bail-out!
If Paklah wishes to help MAS in this aspect, then he should just admit that the Govt will be'bailing-out' the national carrier, and not say the otherwise for the sake of consistency.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Racial Politics
Good point raised by BBC Chairman on racial politics. Something to ponder.
BN Backbenchers' Club chairman Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad said: "Politics and politicians respond to the community and if a country is divided into different races, then you cannot expect them to be otherwise. "They should perhaps try to rise above it, but if you talk about Malay issues to the Malay community, is that playing racial politics?"
BN Backbenchers' Club chairman Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad said: "Politics and politicians respond to the community and if a country is divided into different races, then you cannot expect them to be otherwise. "They should perhaps try to rise above it, but if you talk about Malay issues to the Malay community, is that playing racial politics?"
Friday, March 24, 2006
After a long hideout...
Woww... its really been awhile since I last wrote on my blog. I mean I was really sad not being able to write anymore for reasons that I wish not to disclose here. But as for now, I think the coast is clear and therefore I'll continue writing...
So lately, there have a number of things going on that have quite interest me. Especially with the 30 cents hike in gasoline, TNB tariffs, Proton, MAS issues or should I say 'scandal' and not to forget AP's.
I'm really the kind of person who doesn't like to talk about a topic and leave it alone as it gets lesser attention from the media. Issues like AP has to be solved no matter what for the benefits of Proton and offcourse the nation automotive industry.
Recently, the government answered doubts from the public on the new automotive policyby announcing that APs are going to be abolished by 2010 while tax rates are going to be reduced. Oh no... I have less than 3 years to make money out of AP!!! hehehe...
Sometimes I wonder how come the Govt didn't use AP as mean to generate revenue for the Govt.
In the past, there were calls made for an auction process to be in placed. The process will then be transparent and the Govt derives an income from the sale of these APs. When the proces is transparent, there can be no leakages at all leading to abuse or corruption.
If 100,000 APs are issued in one year and if on average every AP can fetch RM10,000, the Govt get RM1bio additional money. Maybe this money can go into the RM4.4bio trust fund to improve the public transportation system rather than burden the public by a sudden hike in gasoline price. Or even better, use it to fund the fuel subsidy i.e reduce RM0.10 from the fuel price.
In the past there were allegations that APs were being traded and brokers made money. Even those who have no assembly plants or showrooms can become AP Kings.
Why is this still being allowed by the Govt by the continuation of this policy? Who benefit?
So lately, there have a number of things going on that have quite interest me. Especially with the 30 cents hike in gasoline, TNB tariffs, Proton, MAS issues or should I say 'scandal' and not to forget AP's.
I'm really the kind of person who doesn't like to talk about a topic and leave it alone as it gets lesser attention from the media. Issues like AP has to be solved no matter what for the benefits of Proton and offcourse the nation automotive industry.
Recently, the government answered doubts from the public on the new automotive policyby announcing that APs are going to be abolished by 2010 while tax rates are going to be reduced. Oh no... I have less than 3 years to make money out of AP!!! hehehe...
Sometimes I wonder how come the Govt didn't use AP as mean to generate revenue for the Govt.
In the past, there were calls made for an auction process to be in placed. The process will then be transparent and the Govt derives an income from the sale of these APs. When the proces is transparent, there can be no leakages at all leading to abuse or corruption.
If 100,000 APs are issued in one year and if on average every AP can fetch RM10,000, the Govt get RM1bio additional money. Maybe this money can go into the RM4.4bio trust fund to improve the public transportation system rather than burden the public by a sudden hike in gasoline price. Or even better, use it to fund the fuel subsidy i.e reduce RM0.10 from the fuel price.
In the past there were allegations that APs were being traded and brokers made money. Even those who have no assembly plants or showrooms can become AP Kings.
Why is this still being allowed by the Govt by the continuation of this policy? Who benefit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
