Friday, June 13, 2008

The Fatal Remedy

Granted, the price of crude oil as on Wednesday (June 4) was US$125 (RM404) per barrel and has been increasing ever since. A saving of RM13.7 billions were expected when the announcement of the fuel subsidy cuts were made on that historical day. Petrol prices were raised by 41% to RM2.70 from RM1.92 effective June 5, while the price of diesel was increased by RM1 to RM2.58, a jump of 63%.

As if that wasn’t excruciating enough, the government simultaneously announced that effective July 1, electricity rates will be raised by 18% for households and 26% for industrial and commercial users. A double whammy!


Inflation floodgate opens wide
The impact? Doubtless, a wide-ranging ramifications for both consumers and businesses. The various daily media carry the full impact of this unfolding catastrophe. The cost of living and cost of doing business, already escalating, will soar up even higher! After foolhardily opening widely the floodgate of inflation, the BN government is now desperately mitigating its full knock-on impact through various rebate measures. Weird.


One could vividly recall that Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Shahrir Samad was repeatedly saying that there will be no fuel hike right up to late Wednesday morning. It will not be raised until August, he reassured. Well, one could equally recall the promise by the deputy premier during the launching of the BN manifesto on February 2008 that there shall be no fuel hike in 2008. After a four- hour cabinet meeting on that historical Wednesday the premier frantically made the bizarre announcement, as if an Armageddon is to befall the nation, if we failed to do so.

The question one wishes to ask the premier would definitely be, why took on such drastic action? Irresponsible, if I were to be polite and or plainly reckless, if I were to be in my parliamentary or default mode. While the knee-jerk response of the rakyat was to immediately make a beeline for the petrol stations up to 1 am on Thursday morning, rest assured that the rakyat is not taking this lying down, this time round.

No matter how the government attempts to rationalize its action, the public will not stomach it. Especially not after the last general election where the BN not only suffered a bloody-nose but was literally ‘massacred’. They now come face-to-face with a more well-informed citizenry or a more ‘enlightened’ voters. Thanks to the ‘New Media’ that has empowered the rakyat to make informed decisions. That’s why they simply couldn’t hoodwink them anymore, not anymore.

The attempts at comparing our petrol prices with non-oil producing neighbours like Thailand and Singapore were both ludicrous and pathetic. Let’s not compare with the affluent OPEC states. To cite but a few examples Nigeria is charging her citizens at RM0.32 per liter and Iran at RM0.35 per liter. Indonesia that has become an oil-importing nation is charging RM1.85 per liter. President Chevez could maintain charging the Venezuelans RM0.16 per liter and the economy still remains robust.

But before we go on the debate, let’s get a few things straight.

Macroeconomics 101 - Subsidy or no subsidy
Firstly, subsidy or no subsidy is a matter of choice for the government of the day, as is also on taxation and all its various types; the direct or indirect tax. To increase or reduce it is also a matter for the government of the day to decide. These are the stabilization policies with which any government is capable of ‘moderating’ so as to achieve certain targets in the macroeconomics, namely growth, inflation and employment. This simply put, is the Fiscal Policy, while the government could also moderate the Monetary Policy that involves the money supply and changes in the interest rate by the BNM.

Getting into the debate proper, any subsidy or a payment by a government agency to producer of goods, intended to make prices lower is beneficial for the rakyat. The subsidy will also have the effect of raising the income of the rakyat. The fuel subsidy, being an important component of all products of food, transport and services, is undoubtedly important, as it not only makes the fuel prices lower but more importantly it avoids the inflationary pressure once the price of fuel is raised, when the subsidy is reduced or withdrawn.

Let’s hear the government side of the argument. The subsidy is no longer tenable because of the spiraling global crude oil prices. The government would have had to spend RM33 billion for the fuel subsidy this year, if they have not cut its subsidy by RM13.5 billion. The fuel subsidy, said the second Finance Minister is equal to our development budget annually. We could ill afford this. We could do a lot more with that money. Admittedly logical and sound but do we end there?

The real beneficiaries
Well, in May 2006, the government reduced its subsidy by RM4 billion promising to upgrade the public system of transportation. Is our public transport better off or worse off now? So were the less-off segments of our society or the marginalized rakyat aided by the cut in the subsidy after all, as they presumably will be utilizing the public transport most? So where did the RM 4 billion go to? So, who were the real beneficiaries? By extension, who will be the beneficiaries of the current subsidy cut of RM13.7 billions? Which lucky (read crony) companies will be awarded new projects and who benefited most from insider information and racking in millions on the TNB shares that shot up after the announcement on its tariff increase?


By the way, we are still a net exporter of oil. The Petronas Group delivered another record performance for the financial year ended 31March 2007, amidst a more complex and increasingly challenging global oil and gas industry environment. A total revenue of RM184.1 billion were recorded with a Profit Before Tax of RM76.3 billion. Petronas has a total asset of RM294.6 billion.

Talks of Petronas’ oil drying up come 2014 are contrary to its report. Even the Minister is selectively ignorant. The Group’s continuous effort to replenish the nation’s hydrocarbon resources have resulted in a fairly constant reserve life for Malaysia – an average of 20 years for crude oil and condensates and 34 years for natural gas reserves respectively, at current rate of production. One of the Group’s significant achievements in the Exploration and Production sector during the year was its success in replacing more hydrocarbons than what was produced in Malaysia, with a respectable Reserves Replacement Ratio (RRR) of 1.8 times, which is among the highest in the industry (based on 2006 report).

Let’s do a back-of-the-envelope arithmetic together. Incidentally an audited account of Petronas has never been presented in Parliament. We are often told that we produce 650,000 barrels of crude oil per day, while consuming approximately 400,000 barrels. We have still a net of 250,000 barrels to be exported per day. We were also told that for every US$1 increase in crude oil price, we are in to make an extra RM200 million per year approximately. Hence, from the last fuel hike back in May 2006 when the crude price of oil was US$65 per barrel, with US$125 per barrel as on last Wednesday, the increase is US$60.

Assuming, not much changes in every other costs, we should have made a whooping RM12 billion from the price hike in global crude oil from May 2006. With the willingness of the ‘repentant’ PM and his ‘remorseful’ Cabinet to be on ‘austerity drive’, ie 10% cut in various allowances after their last bad outing in the 12th GE as an ‘atonement’ for all their excesses and ‘sins of omission and commissions’, we are in to save a cool RM2 billion. Wish they knew about ‘austerity’ a lot earlier. Hundreds of billions could have been saved and invested in our Sovereign Funds for our grandchildren! Mind you, Malaysia has one of the highest resources per capita in the world. But where are we now?

Our back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that this could take care of the RM13.7 billion in the extra subsidy required as to take for the increase in the global crude oil price. But this surely wasn’t the way the government would like to go. She has in fact taken a ‘bold’ step in an attempt at dismantling the entire fuel subsidy approach which she now neither believes to be any longer tenable nor desirable.

The PM’s Waterloo
While this writer may be willing to concede that subsidies especially coupled with the multi-layered price-control and the BN’s APs cum monopoly policies, have created huge distortions in the economy, misallocation of resources, leakages, huge bailouts and protection of uncompetitive industries, doing it the ‘BN Way’ may be more aptly described as the ‘medicine killing the patient’ – The Fatal Remedy!

The writer can’t help sharing that he has a hunch that the premier is again deliberately ill-advised as to ‘finish-him-off’ altogether, albeit politically. So the BN’s remedy may turn out to be equally fatal for him – his Waterloo of sort.

Given a citizenry that has long been pampered by the BN misguided populist policies on price control and subsidies, the need for a more holistic and integrated policy change is all the more pressing. With it, would be the need to revisit the concept of prioritization in development, of sustainable growth, of attaining global competitiveness, of avoiding crony practices, of avoiding wastage and excesses and remaining prudent both in fiscal and monetary policy and exercising good governance. The long-outstanding dire low wages scheme needs to be revisited. Above all, we would like to remain caring and yet provide opportunities for all to be enterprising and competing fairly. The Pakatan Rakyat federal government will surely like to do it “Our Way”.

A thorough deliberations and discourse is surely in order. Not here though. As for now, the writer’s critique on the fuel hike hinges on the fact that the policy changes are indeed precipitating the disastrous cascade of fatal injury to all. To the lower-income groups, talk of changing lifestyle is simply nonsensical.Recalling a parliamentary debate, a BN minister explained that food accounts for the 33% of the CPI, while fuel, transport and communications contributed 15.9% of the CPI weights. With a 41% petrol hike and up to 26% in electricity tariff, we are about to witness an inflationary pressure that may very well be unprecedented. Some are already predicting it to be as high as 7%.

With the government admitting that private consumption accounted for more than 50% of the GDP and growth is essentially domestically driven, we are now set to witness a slowing down or a meltdown of the economy. With lower disposable income and a rising debt burden, weaker private consumption growth, the impact on the overall macro-economy will be even more gruesome.

It doesn’t really matter to the rakyat whatever the growth number or CPI may eventually be. However, it certainly will hurt them most when food could no longer be on the table, as the exorbitant prices will be very prohibitive while the holes in the pockets getting deeper. The knock-on social impact, on the back of an already overburdened nation plagued with crimes, are both immensely scary and onerous.

In this sense, the policy prescription has been regrettably irresponsible and ostensibly reckless.


Destroying Malaysian Temples




A nation is as rich as its geography; and geography is enriched when it is overdetermined.

In this respect, we in Malaysia are – or were – rich indeed. Rich because of the fact that being located as we are at the crossroads of Asia this patch of earth was the meeting point of so many cultures and civilisations that stretched from mainland China to South Asia, Central Asia, the Mediterranean and Europe.

Looking back at the maps (both oral and graphic) left since the days of Ptolemy and others, we see that this was indeed a land blessed in many ways. Across the archipelago we find some of the greatest kingdoms and empires that have ever graced the earth of humankind: Angkor, Majapahit, Srivijaya, Langkasuka, Khmer, Mataram, Vijaya, Champa, Indrapura… the list goes on endlessly. Nor were these settlements isolated: They traded with the empires of China and the numerous dynasties that ruled over mainland India and Lanka. During my trip to Sri Lanka earlier this year, I stood amidst the ruins of the great monasteries of Anuradhapura, and sat awhile in thought as I contemplated the journeys that were made by the monks of Lanka as they travelled all the way to Java, bringing with them the Theravada tradition as well as a sprinkling of Tantraism along the way. In turn the landscape of Southeast Asia bears silent witness to the great migrations of the past, with the great temple complexes of Pagan, Angkor and Borobudur reminding us of the days when the peoples of Southeast Asia were indeed global in outlook and their daily lives. No, we were never a parochial lot, us Southeast Asians.

Sadly, geography has not evolved a means of defending itself against the writing of a political and politicised history, and landscapes have precious little means to defend themselves against the onslaught of ideological reconstructionism. Southeast Asia today remains a contested landscape though the contestation in question has less to do with the scramble for resources but more with the need to erase the past in order to plant ever more firmly the stamp of the present.

We should have seen it all coming when, in the 1970s and 1980s the region was swept by a new wave of conservative religiosity that was wedded to the interests of sectarian politics: The great temple of Borobudur was the first victim, when it was bombed by radical Islamists who claimed that the time had come to ‘cleanse’ Indonesia of its Hindu-Buddhist past, and that the destruction of the magnificent Buddhist monument would signal the coming of a new age. Some of the more radical Islamists were undoubtedly disappointed that millions of tourists were flocking to the country to see Borobudur in all her glory, and were not equally awe-struck by the Soviet-realist statues and monuments of Jakarta dedicated to the inflated egos of Indonesian politicians, or worse still, the painfully ugly utilitarian-modernist edifices built by Saudi money in the same capital…

In Malaysia we have come to hear similar voices being raised. Not too long ago a prominent religious scholar and politician known more for his arcane knowledge of Djinns and other assorted spirit-folk uttered the lament that a town up north was still named ‘Indera Kayangan’; and in his speech stated quite bluntly that the name of the town should be changed to something more Islamic to mirror the mood of the day. (One wonders what would serve as an appropriately Islamic name then, as if pronouns had a religious identity…)

Of late we have also witnessed the sad spectacle of the erasure of history in no uncertain terms: The destruction of Hindu temples all over the Peninsula has been cited as a case in point, though in practically every case of Hindu temple demolition we have been told that it was for the sake of ‘development’ and that the temples in question were illegally built anyway. One wonders if the foundations of Angkor Wat or Borobudur were laid on legally-sanctified ground as well, or whether those who built them had applied for planning permits.

One such case is the Sri Mariamman Muniswaran temple, located at Batu Lima, Jalan Tampin, near Seremban. Historical records of the estate that used to sit at the site indicate that the temple was built around 1870-1890, and so the temple may be anything between 110 to 130 years old. Furthermore the temple – a modest structure with a simple roof sheltering the image of the local deity – is backed by a spectacular specimen of the Banyan tree species, a sprawling mass of vegetation that would bolster the claim of its relative antiquity. Even more interesting is the fact that during my visit there a couple of weeks ago, I found a tiny Chinese shrine situated behind the temple and tree, with – of all things – what appeared to be a small statue of a Javanese King as the primary totem of devotion! Here was multiculturalism at its best and most unapologetically hybrid. The combination of Hindu, Chinese and Malay elements was evident for all to see, including those who seem bent of levelling the structure down for the sake of road expansion.

Those who speak the jargon of legalese may be able to understand the rationale for its scheduled demolition. In fact on 26 February 2005 the temple structure was smashed by men wielding sledge hammers, though it was immediately rebuilt by regular devotees who visit the temple. The fate of the tiny temple is now being decided in the courts, though opinion on the matter remains divided.

Partisans to the development argument will undoubtedly claim that the loss of one more temple would make no difference to the landscape. After all, many others have fallen under the hammer and the bulldozer, so why not this one? But here one is forced to interject by stating the obvious. It has often been said that such ‘Indian temples’ are an eyesore, that they have been built illegally, that they somehow do not ‘match’ with the overall flavour and patterns of the Malaysian landscape.

Lest it be forgotten, let us remind ourselves of some basic facts:
Firstly, these are NOT ‘Indian’ temples that are being destroyed, but rather Malaysian temples that are just as much a part of the Malaysian cultural-religious landscape as any other mosque, church or pagoda in the country. To call them ‘Indian temples’ would suggest an Otherness and alterity they do not profess nor possess. They were built by Malaysian Hindus on Malaysian soil and are therefore a part of the Malaysian landscape.

Secondly the recognition of the Malaysian character of these temples would mean recognising that Hinduism has been and remains part of the cultural fabric of Malaysian society, and is not some alien faith and cultural system that was transplanted to the country yesterday while we were all sleeping. There is nothing new, odd, alien or unusual about Hinduism in Malaysia. In fact it counts as one of the foundations of Malaysian and Malay identity and has been part of the organic culture and history of the Malaysian peoples more than any other belief and cultural system. The Malay language itself is proof of this, and if you wish I can cite you a Malay sentence that is made up almost entirely of Sanskrit words: “Mahasiswa-mahasiswi berasmara di asrama bersama pandita yang curiga”.

Thirdly, the defence of these temples should be seen by all Malaysians as a Malaysian concern, and not that of the Hindus of Malaysia solely or exclusively. Living as we do in a country whose history is being diluted on an hourly basis, we all need to recognise the fact that this land of ours is rich in culture and history only as long as we collectively preserve and protect it. The systematic destruction of the spiritual landscape of Malaysia should therefore be seen as a Malaysian concern, for all Malaysians; and this should not be pathologised as simply a ‘Hindu’ problem, or worse still, an ‘Indian problem’. (To which one might add that there are no ‘Indians’ in Malaysia save for those who carry Indian passports and happen to be citizens of India. The rest are Malaysians who may or may not identify themselves as believing, practising, nominal or even atheistic Hindus.)

In short, what we are witnessing today is the destruction of Malaysian temples, and that is why we Malaysians should be concerned. It doesn’t matter what religion you may or may not choose to profess: this is an issue that needs to be addressed by us collectively. To recognise that these temples are Malaysian temples means locating them here, at home, as part of our collective identity and what defines us as what we are. Today the temple bells are being silenced; and my world – and yours – is poorer as a result.










Monday, June 09, 2008

Tun Mahathir explains - Oil Prices


The price of crude oil has increased by 400 percent in the last three years. It follows that the price of products must increase, sooner or later. In other countries petrol prices had already increased. In the United Kingdom one litre of petrol sells for more than one pound sterling or RM7. In the United States it is about RM5.

That the price in neighbouring countries has gone up is shown by the rush to fill up by Thai and to a lesser extent Singapore vehicles.

The Government has now announced an increase in petrol price by 78 sen to RM2.70 per litre, an increase of more than 40 per cent.

I may be mistaken but there seems to be less vehicles on the road today. But obviously that is not all that will happen. All other consumer goods, services and luxury goods would increase in price.

The cost of living must go up. Put another way there will be inflation and the standard of living will go down.

Obviously our increase in petrol price is far less than in the United Kingdom or the United States. But our per capita income is about one-third of theirs. In purchasing power terms our increase is more than in the UK or the US.

The increase hurts but the pain is greater not just because of the increase percentage-wise is higher than in developed countries but because of the manner the increase is made.

A few days ago the Government decided to ban sale of petrol to foreign cars. It flipped. Now foreign cars can buy again. Flopped.

Knowing that in a few days it was going to raise the price and foreigners would be allowed to buy, why cannot the Government just wait instead of banning and unbanning.

But be that as it may what could the Government have done to lessen the burden on the people that results from the increase in petrol price.

In the first place the Government should not have floated the Ringgit. A floating rate creates uncertainties and we cannot gain anything from the strengthened Ringgit. Certainly the people have not experienced any increase in their purchasing power because of the appreciation in the exchange rate between the US Dollar and the Ringgit.

Actually the Ringgit has increased by about 80 sen (from RM3.80 to RM3.08 to 1 US Dollar) per US Dollar, i.e. by more than 20 per cent. Had the Government retained the fixed rate system and increased the value of the Ringgit, say 10 per cent at a time, the cost of imports, in Ringgit terms can be monitored and reduced by 10 per cent. At 20 per cent appreciation the cost of imports should decrease by 20 per cent. But we know the prices of imported goods or services have not decreased at all. This means we are paying 20 per cent higher for our imports including the raw material and components for our industries.

Since oil prices are fixed in US Dollar, the increase in US Dollar prices of oil should also be mitigated by 20 per cent in Malaysian Ringgit.

But the Government wants to please the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and decided to float the Ringgit. As a result the strengthening of the Ringgit merely increased our cost of exports without giving our people the benefit of lower cost of imports.

This is not wisdom after the event. I had actually told a Government Minister not to float the Ringgit three years ago. But of course I am not an expert, certainly I know little about the international financial regimes.

I believe the people expect the increase of petrol price. But what they are angry about is the quantum and the suddenness. The Prime Minister was hinting at August but suddenly it came two months earlier, just after the ban on sale of petrol to foreigners.

If the increase had been more gradual, the people would not feel it so much. But of course this means that the Government would have to subsidise, though to a decreasing extent.

Can the Government subsidise? I am the “adviser” to Petronas but I know very little about it beyond what is published in its accounts. What I do know may not be very accurate but should be sufficient for me to draw certain conclusions.

Roughly Malaysia produces 650,000 barrels of crude per day. We consume 400,000 barrels leaving 250,000 barrels to be exported.

Three years ago the selling price of crude was about USD30 per barrel. Today it is USD130 – an increase of USD100. There is hardly any increase in the production cost so that the extra USD100 can be considered as pure profit.

Our 250,000 barrels of export should earn us 250,000 x 100 x 365 x 3 = RM27,375,000,000 (twenty seven billion Ringgit).

But Petronas made a profit of well over RM70 billion, all of which belong to the Government.

By all accounts the Government is flushed with money.

But besides petrol the prices of palm oil, rubber and tin have also increased by about 400 per cent. Plantation companies and banks now earn as much as RM3 billion in profits each. Taxes paid by them must have also increased greatly.

I feel sure that maintaining the subsidy and gradually decreasing it would not hurt the Government finances.

In the medium term ways and means must be found to reduce wasteful consumption and increase income. We may not be able to fix the minimum wage at a high level but certainly we can improve the minimum wage.

Actually our wages are high compared to some of our neighbours. The investors who come here are attracted not by cheap labour but by other factors, among which is the attitude of the Government towards the business community and the investors in particular.

From what I hear business friendliness is wanting in the present Government – so much so that even Malaysians are investing in other countries. There are rumblings about political affiliations influencing decisions. Generally Government politicians are said to be arrogant.

Malaysia is short of manpower. The labour intensive industries are not benefiting Malaysians. Foreign workers are remitting huge sums of money home.

The industrial policy must change so that high tech is promoted in order to give Malaysians higher wages to cope with rising costs of living.

The world is facing economic turmoil due to the depreciation of the US Dollar, the sub-prime loan crisis, rising oil and raw material prices, food shortages and the continued activities of the greedy hedge funds. The possibility of a US recession is real. In a way the US is already in recession. The world economy will be dragged down by it.

Malaysia will be affected by all these problems. I wonder whether the Government is prepared for this.

We cannot avoid all the negative effects but there must be ways to mitigate against them and to lessen the burden that must be borne by all Malaysians. I am sure the Government will not just pass all these problems to the people as the review of oil prices every month seem to suggest.




Tun Dr Mahathir

Tun Mahathir explains - Sad Scenic Bridge

TDM expose all that he knows about the misuse of the Rakyat’s money.


In response to the above request TDM would like to identify initially four of the instances where the Government of Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has misused public money.


What TDM wrote in his blog, chedet.com would not be based on speculation or suppositions or possibilities. They are the things which are public knowledge and can be verified.


TDM needed to explain in detail. So TDM decides to deal with one subject at a time.


However, here are the list of four specific instances;


1. The cancellation of the bridge to replace the Malaysian part of the Johore Causeway


2. The postponement of the double-tracking and electrification of the railway line from Johor Baru to Padang Besar

3. The sale of M.V. Agusta for one Euro

4. Wang Ehsan which has been expended on Terengganu which the new Menteri Besar claims is not Wang Ehsan but Federal Fund.


Cancellation of the Bridge to Singapore

The Singapore Government had not objected to the building of the Malaysian bridge to replace the Malaysian half of the causeway.


This bridge would be 25 metres above the water to allow for small ships to pass through after removal of the Malaysian half of the causeway. The Second Link is also 25 meters above the water surface. So the vessels can pass through the Tebrau Straits without obstruction by the causeway.


This bridge is very essential as the traffic in Johor Baru has increased and there is a permanent traffic jam caused by the North-South flow to and from the causeway and the East-West flow between the Eastern and Western parts of Johor Baru.


An elevated road is needed to be built above the East-West traffic for access to and from the causeway. Such a road would result in a part of the Johor end of the causeway becoming useless as the elevated road must land some distance from where the causeway joins the mainland. A full-length bridge to Singapore would enable a gradual rise for lorries to climb and boats to pass underneath after the causeway is removed.


Since Singapore refused to jointly construct a straight bridge to replace the causeway, a bridge with 25 meters clearance for boats to pass has got to be long enough for lorries to make a gradual climb.


The answer was to lengthen the bridge by a curved design. As for the railway line a swing bridge can be opened or closed for ships or trains to pass through.


To cut a long story short work on the curved bridge was stopped so that Dato Seri Abdullah’s Government could offer to sell 1 billion cubic metres of sand, and overflight rights for Singapore military aircraft over Johor Baru if Singapore agreed to a straight bridge.


Someone stood to make a lot of money selling 50 million cubic metres of sand per year for 20 years to Singapore for land reclamation. This was a very attractive offer as the reclaimed land can sell for 3,000-5,000 Singapore dollars (about RM6,000-RM10,000) per square metre. The Singapore Government stood to make an enormous amount of money selling this land. They therefore agreed to the straight bridge.


That dredging sand from the seabed would cause erosion of the coast, destruction of fish breeding grounds and deprive Johore fishermen of their livelihood were not of concern to the Government of Dato Seri Abdullah.


Fortunately the Johor people misbehaved. They objected to selling sand and overflights.


Abdullah frustrated that his scheme was blocked then punished the Johore people by cancelling the bridge project altogether. No straight bridge, no curve bridge either.


The result is that more than RM1 billion have been wasted building the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities, foundation and work on a new railway station, pilings and preliminary works on the road linking the CIQ to the bridge and compensations to the contractors because of the cancellation of the projects.


The CIQ building is now a white elephant, unused and yet have to be maintained costing hundreds of thousands of Ringgit a month.


Clearly Dato Seri Abdullah has wasted public money. All because he was angry with the Johor people for not enabling one billion cubic metres of sand to be sold to Singapore and the profits thereof.





Tun Dr.Mahathir

Tram in our city - Penang

Several Penang-based bloggers and websites simultaneously launched a “Penangites for Trams” campaign, lead by anilnetto.com





We hope more and more bloggers and webmasters - especially all those who care for Penang - will join in the campaign by placing these graphics on their blogs or websites. You may link the graphic to the URL for this post or choose to link to any other article or post extolling the benefits of trams. Leave a comment here and you will then be added to the list below of blogs/websites supporting the campaign.

This will help to raise awareness of the viability and economic benefits of trams. Of course, trams work best as part of an integrated public transport system, complementing an efficient and extensive network of buses.

Fittingly, the latest issue of business weekly The Edge carries a full-page article in support of the re-introduction of trams in Penang.

Join in the campaign and pass the word around.

So far, these are the bloggers and websites that support the re-introduction of trams in Penang:
1.Mustafa K Anuar
2.
Susan Loone
3.
Mucked in a Jam
4.
Penang Watch
5.
Kris Khaira
6.
Surind
7.
Anything Goes
8.
LAH-mour
9.
No Kacau and Don’t Kacau
10.
Stephen Doss
11.
Contemporary Malaysia
12.
Black and White (Justin Choo)
13.
The Kuala Lumpur Traveller
14.
Forest Explorers
15.
Apprize
16.
News for Malaysians
17.
Wartawan Rasmi Laman Reformasi
18.
DanielYKL
19.
Lucia Lai
20.
I am a Malaysian
21.
Carol and Jeffrey’s Big View of the World
22.
Lestari Heritage Network
23.
Motivation in Motion
24.
World Messenger
25.
Brand Bounce
26.
Sources of Life
27.
Maaran Matters
28.
Messy Christian
29.
Sivin Kit’s Garden
30. anilnetto.com


Come on, together we can bring the trams back to Penang!

In case you are wondering what advantages trams bring, here’s a list from the City of Edinburgh Council website.

Benefits of trams
The number of residents, visitors and businesses are expanding, especially in key areas such as the Waterfront and west Edinburgh.

While growth is good for our economy, it also means our roads will get busier and journeys longer without a new transport choice. Trams can carry large numbers of people quickly and efficiently.

Trams don’t take up a lot of road space but they do carry a lot of people. As Edinburgh continues to grow, trams will be the most efficient way for people to travel about our city.

  • Trams show a city is a modern and well-connected place to do business which can lead to more investment, new jobs, regeneration and more prosperity for us all

  • Trams are an attractive option for motorists, with car users likely to be attracted to tram travel. Research shows 20% of peak hour and 50% of weekend tram passengers in the UK previously travelled by car

  • Trams enhance the urban environment and generate civic pride

  • Trams will encourage shoppers to travel to the city centre which can lead to more investment by businesses and regeneration. Dublin saw a rise of between 20% - 50% in pedestrian footfall figures on Grafton Street, the city’s main shopping thoroughfare. Some retailers reported a 25% increase in trade

  • Residential and commercial properties may see prices increase beside tram routes. In some cities with trams, house prices have risen by up to 15% and rental prices by up to 7%
  • As trams run on electricity, there will be no emissions from the vehicles themselves

  • Trams will be accessible to everyone, with benefits of low level boardings at every stop and other easy-to-use features which particularly help the disabled and less mobile

  • Trams will be safe to use as, in addition to a driver, every tram will have a passenger attendant on board to check tickets, answer passenger queries and ensure no anti-social behaviour occurs

  • Trams will offer concessionary fares








by anilnetto.com

Gerakan - The time is now

Barisan Nasional is coalition of many independent parties. Some are raced-based, like Umno, MCA, and MIC. Some are supposed to be multiracial, like Gerakan, PPP and most of the parties in Sarawak and Sabah. It is, in fact, a loose coalition. There is no BN constitution or a common ideology governing the coalition. Each component party has its own constitution which lays out how each party is to be run, disciplinary matters regarding each party, membership, party elections and so on. Each party also has its own ideology.

For example, Gerakan’s ideology is to fight for a fair and equal society in a non-racial manner, whereas the race-based parties stress on the protection of the rights of the race the party represents. For example, Umno will fight for the rights of the Malays and MCA that of the Chinese and MIC that of the Indians. The membership and structure of each party is also very different. So it is quite correct to say that BN is a loose coalition and is not a single party.

Because of this, disciplinary matters are left to the individual party. Gerakan has its own disciplinary Board. MCA has its own and Umno has its own. Umno’s disciplinary board cannot interfere with the disciplinary matters of Gerakan, and Gerakan’s cannot interfere with disciplinary matters of MCA. The rules are supposed to be clear cut, so that theoretically, there should be no interference of one party into the affairs of another party.

However, in practice, one party is above all others, and that is Umno. Umno extends hegemony over all the others so much so a former president of Gerakan, in a recent interview, said that all the component parties are like ‘beggars’. Coming from the mouth of a former president of a component party and a former minister for over two decades, this cannot be wrong even though the grassroots of the component parties were never told of this before.

What was often told to the grassroots by leaders of these parties was that the leaders of these parties are ‘fighting very hard’ at BN council meetings or the cabinet, but nothing was said of the ‘begging’ inside BN council meetings or in the cabinet. Grassroots were also often told that all component parties are basically equal.

Gerakan’s Lee Kah Choon who was roped in by the new Penang government to help bring investments to Penang and offered a directorship of the Penang Development Corporation (PDC). This is a position like that of a civil service, and Lee’s acceptance was in no way hurting Gerakan. We must realise a politician’s first loyalty should be to the people. If by taking up the directorship of PDC (which is not a political appointment), Lee is able to contribute to the development of Penang, then no one should stop him from doing so. Sometimes, politicians must be prepared to go above partisan politics.

He was, however, forced to resign because after he announced his acceptance, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak immediately asked what Gerakan was going to do in Lee’s case. The rest is, of course, history with the Gerakan leadership issuing him a show cause letter with Lee chosing to quit the party rather than to play politics and reply.

Another case then arose involving Dr Tan Kee Kwong, who is the Gerakan Kuala Lumpur chairperson. He was invited to be the co-chairperson of a task force to oversee land matters in Selangor. This is an administrative position, again like that of a civil service. This position would have enabled him to tackle the problems faced by land owners in Selangor and increase the efficiency of the land offices, which will translate into a saving of time and money for the land- owning raykat. There will be thousands and thousands of beneficiaries if land offices can be made more efficient.

So, who will benefit? The people will benefit. Even the non-land owners will benefit because whatever cost that can be saved can be channeled to development of the state. Political parties exist because of the people. Without the people, there is no party. This is the most basic fact. So in helping to chair a task force which can help thousands of people solve their headaches and nightmares regarding land matters, why should disciplinary action be taken against Tan? Why can’t leaders of political parties be less partisan and work more for the people?

Gerakan leaders have publicly stated that they would go back to basics and go back to the people. Well, this is the best opportunity, in fact, to prove to the people that they are going back to the people by allowing their members to hold non-political administrative positions to help the people. To do otherwise will give a perception that the promise to go back to the people is only lip service. The first person to ask that action be taken against Tan is not from Gerakan but from outside Gerakan and he is Najib, the deputy president of Umno. If you have understood the setup of BN, then you will know that all parties are supposed to be equal and each party is supposed to ‘take care’ of its own members.

What has Umno got to do with Gerakan? This is an internal affair of Gerakan. Gerakan has its own set of leaders, its own set of rules and regulations, its own constitution, and its own disciplinary board. The party is big enough to take care of its own problems and its members. Why should Umno once again show its hegemonic streak in asking a non-Umno member to resign from his own party, when it is none of Umno’s business?

The last election saw the trend of the people abandoning Gerakan and voting for Pakatan Rakyat, mainly because of the perception that a vote for Gerakan or MCA is a vote for Umno. Is this perception really true? Gerakan leaders often tell their grassroots that they fight at BN council meetings and in the cabinet for the people’s interest and that a vote for Gerakan does not translate into a vote for Umno. However, by immediately issuing show cause letters in both Lee’s and Tan’s cases after Najib commented, they have inadvertently confirmed the perception that a vote for Gerakan is indeed a vote for Umno and that Umno is still dictating the terms to Gerakan. This is one of the main reasons the party lost so badly in the recent general election.

The party wants to reform, but reform starts with action and not from the lips. No amount of brainstorming or paying lip service to reform will endear the party to the people again. This perception that Gerakan is doing Umno’s bidding has to be gotten rid of. How to get rid of this perception? One way is to leave BN and be an own independent third force with the party supporting good policies of either Pakatan or BN, and criticising the bad policies of either coalition.

But the party leadership apparently is not ready to make this jump. Okay. That will leave them the second option - stand up to Umno and tell them to mind their own business. Stand up to them and say Gerakan is truly for the people and supports whatever is good for the people. It will not take action against members working for the benefit of the people. Only by standing up to Umno and showing the stuff that Gerakan is made of will the perception that a vote for Gerakan is a vote for Umno be changed.

What is the risk? I don’t see any risk at all BN cannot afford to kick Gerakan out because that would mean losing critical support when Anwar is threatening to entice 30 MPs to cross over. In fact by standing up to Umno and exerting its own right as an equal partner to Umno it can endear itself to the people once again and prove that this party is indeed keen to go back to the people, to go back to its ideology and go back to its grassroots.




Sunday, June 08, 2008

Lies about Malaysian Universities - Stupid move by government

There are three kinds of lies; Lies, LIES and STATISTICS.

And yes, I am calling the OIC University Ranking given in Parliament by the Minister above as LYING STATISTICS, because it gives an impression that the OIC ranking are ACCEPTABLE comparison against the THES statistics. I implore the readers to ignore the final half of the video, which was reported widely (the use of bad Tamil word, and Gobalakrishnan's whisper). Listen carefully to the BN Minister.

Here goes.

The world-wide recognized higher education ranking system, the Times Higher Education QS World Ranking, gives the following results for Universities ranking for 2007, as quoted by the Minister above:

UM is 246
UKM is 309
USM is 307
UPM is 364

Now, he claims that this is not too bad, because among OIC countries, the SESRIC body for the OIC reports

UM is 14
UKM is 12
USM is 41
UPM not ranked

The TRUTH is, our Malaysian Universities are unable to compete in the professional league. So we went and created our own league; the OIC league, an idea mooted by...who else? Malaysia!

The JOKE is, this Minister is either lying by omission, or he is ignorant.

Because the ACTUAL TRUTH is the following:
1. In the OIC ranking, there were only 84 Universities surveyed, because of "unavailability" of data from the possible list of 322 Universities. So we are top 50 of 84 Universities!
2. In the OIC ranking, the top 11 ranked Universities above UKM are
(1) University is Quaid-e-Azam, Pakistan
(2) Koc Univ, Turkey
(3) Razi Univ, Iran
(4) Tarbiat Modares Univ, Iran
(5) Univ Tabriz, Iran
(6) Hacettepe Univ, Turkey
(7) Istanbul Univ, Turkey
(8) American Univ Beirut, Lebanon
(9) United Arab Emirates Univ, UAE
(10) Suez Canal Univ, Egypt
(11) Kuwait Univ, Kuwait

Now, lets cross reference these Universities against the THES top 400.

What do we find? An earth-shattering news for those in the higher education ministry!NONE of these Universities are in the THES top 400 ranking!

The only "Istanbul" found is for Istanbul Technical University ranked at 390! But this is a different University than the one listed at number 7. I finally found Istanbul University at the 401-500 listing.

So I demand an explanation from the Higher Education Ministry:
1. Why are we worse off than the Universities ranked even worse in the THES system?
2. Why is the minister duping the MPs in Parliament by bringing up OIC ranking, when a pathetic 84 Universities took part in the survey?
3. How can the Minister blatantly give a FALSE impression that OIC ranking can be compared against THES, all in one single breath? These two rankings are worlds apart, in terms of the sample size, scientific methodologies, integrity and international acceptance!

Please answer ASAP. This is a subject of national interest.

Because if we keep going on like this, by comparing ourselves against the worst, instead of the best, our Universities will soon be kicked out of the top 500 list! Especially since NUS, which was part of UM before the separation of Malaysia-Singapore is at 33, while UM has been flushed down to 246!





Tides of Change
Rantings and Raving about Things That Matter!

JPA scholarships - beyond racial quotas

Previously, we discussed the political implications of the change in the racial quota for the JPA overseas scholarship allocation. In this article, we want to bring up certain weaknesses in regards to this scholarship which many politicians and NGO representatives do not bring up when supporting or criticizing the latest policy change.

These weaknesses cut across racial lines which should tell us that often, we have to take off our racial lens and look beyond them in discussing issues of this nature.

JPA offers two types of scholarships. They offer approximately 2,000 overseas scholarships and 10,000 local scholarships. The overseas scholarship is obviously the more prestigious scholarship and garners most of the public press and dissatisfaction.

Most of the public is unaware of the cost of the overseas scholarships. A conservative estimate is that one overseas scholarship costs roughly RM200,000. A degree in a university in London or in a top private university in the US would cost more, perhaps between RM300,000 to RM400,000. Using the lower and more conservative estimate, one cohort of JPA scholars would cost the taxpayers roughly RM400 million. While this pales in comparison to the billions of ringgit spent on oil subsidies, it is still no laughing matter.

So if Umno Youth proposes an increase in the number of overseas scholarships from 2000 to 3000, we are talking about an additional allocation of RM200 million, not an insignificant amount.

In addition, the public is probably unaware of the fact that the return on investment, so to speak, from the JPA overseas scholarship is almost non-existent. Almost ALL overseas JPA scholars do not end up working for the JPA or the government. Many of them choose to stay overseas. Those who come back to Malaysia often end up working for the private sector which provides better pay, working conditions and promotion prospects. (Those who are sponsored to do medicine may be the only exception)

Furthermore, almost ALL of these scholars who break their JPA bonds do not pay a single cent back. It is a standing joke among some JPA scholars that when they go back home, they notify JPA that they are back, submit an application form to the JPA and then wait for them to ‘lose’ these forms and release these scholars from their JPA obligations.

In other words, these scholarships are given away, more or less, for FREE to these scholars.

No structure
One may ask – why doesn’t the JPA ask these scholars to work for them or to work for another government department or ministry? The sad fact of the matter is that there is currently no structure within the public service that can fully utilize the skills and smarts of JPA scholars. Unlike the Singapore PSC, the equivalent to the JPA, scholars are not rotated and fast tracked within the different ministries that they might be allocated to.

In addition, there is probably very little appetite among some in the public service who do not want to see smart and capable JPA scholars coming in to ‘shake things up’ and possibly outshine them. Hence the current ‘close one eye’ policy of not forcing these scholars to work for the government or to ask them to pay the bond back in any form or fashion. Again, breaking the JPA bond cuts across racial lines which is not surprising given the current state of our policies.

Can Malaysia really afford this kind of policy? Even Singapore, by far a richer country than Malaysia, is not so generous in giving out scholarships to its citizens without having them to work for it or to pay it back. The Singapore government is infamous for chasing down bond breakers and forcing them to pay back the value of their scholarships, often at punitive interest rates.

There is a school of thought which says that the social benefits of sponsoring these scholars to go abroad and then releasing them to work for the private sector is more beneficial to the country compared to forcing them to work for the government. This argument is flawed in many ways.

Firstly, it ignores the fact that many JPA scholars do not even come back to work in Malaysia. Given that JPA does not release figures of where these JPA scholars end up working (one doubts if they even know), we cannot even be sure of the percentage of scholars who come back to work in Malaysia.

Secondly, it assumes that these scholars would not have been able to obtain other scholarships either from Malaysia or from overseas if the JPA scholarship did not exist. There are many other organisations in Malaysia which provides overseas scholarships such as Bank Negara, Petronas, Telekom and Tenaga, just to name a few. Some, especially Petronas, have much better track records of keeping their scholars or asking those who break their bonds to pay it back.

Thirdly, it assumes that the social benefits accruing from these scholars going overseas to study is somehow higher than if they had remained in Malaysia and did their degree in a public university.

This is hard to justify since a smart and motivated citizen would be able to contribute to society whether he or she studies abroad or at home. In fact, one can make the argument that the social benefit of a scholar staying at home would be greater than going overseas since this would increase the overall quality of students in our public universities.

Look beyond racial quota
The social benefits argument clearly does not hold water.

Some of the other criticisms of this policy change also fail to look beyond the racial quota. An example of this is the statement made by ABIM addressing its concern over this policy change on the grounds that the poverty level among Malays is higher than the other communities and indirectly arguing that Malays should be given the larger share of these scholarships.

What these critics conveniently ignore is the distribution of these scholarships among the Malays. In most countries where affirmative action is practiced, it is usually the middle and upper middle class of the targeted community that benefits from these policies. This is certainly the case in the US where minority students (Black and Hispanic) who are in the top universities come disproportionately from middle and upper middle class families. We would not be surprised if the same is found in the Malaysian context – that the JPA scholars, including the Malays, come disproportionately from middle and upper middle class families. Hence the argument that the previous racial quota should be maintained on the grounds of helping poor Malays is not a sound one.

It is a little saddening that ABIM, a well respected Muslim NGO, would want to deal with this issue that does not directly deal with the issue of Islam. Even from the perspective of justice, it seems that they like other Malay organizations, only care about the issue when changes in racial quotas are involved and totally ignore the distributional impact of policies within the Malay community.

Such arguments also ignore another related change in the JPA policy which is to automatically provide a scholarship to those with 10A1s and above and whose families earn less than RM1,500 a month, regardless of race. Surely such a means tested policy is more just than a blind racial quota from a progressive and an Islamic perspective.

More information is always better than less especially for those interested in researching this area. If the JPA were to collect and then release relevant data on the allocation of these scholarships – race, SPM results, family income, university, whether they return to Malaysia, where they end up working, etc… - then perhaps some of the doubts surrounding the JPA scholarship could be quelled. More importantly, it could guide us towards making better policies in regards to the JPA scholarship.

To summarize, there are more important issues surrounding the JPA scholarship other than the racial quota. Most important is the fact that the returns on investment from these scholarships is almost non-existent since these scholars don’t return to work for the government (if they do come back at all) nor do they pay back their bonds. Given the high cost associated with these scholarships, this situation is not tenable in the long run.

JPA scholarships - who loses, who wins?

Why this sudden increase in the non-Malay scholarship quota? What are some of the political implications arising from this policy change? Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, announced last week that the JPA (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam or Public Service Department) overseas scholarships allocation would be changed from a bumiputera-non-bumiputera ratio of 90/10 to 55/45.

This is a subject which is close to the heart of Kian Ming, who runs a blog covering education issues, together with PJ Utara MP Tony Pua. In this first article, we discuss the political rationale underlying such a move and what the political impact might be. In the next article, we move beyond the racial and political rhetoric and discuss certain shortcomings of this scholarship, none of which have been brought up by those who are supportive or protesting against this policy change.

The allocation of the JPA overseas scholarship is of symbolic importance for the Chinese and Indian Malysians, since year after year, complaints about top SPM scorers who are of Chinese and Indian descent failing to obtain the JPA scholarships are always featured in our newspapers. Indeed, Malaysiakini has seen a deluge of such letters from disappointed students and parents in the past month or so. (The actual number of non-Malays affected by this particular policy is actually quite small when considering the number of SPM students in one cohort).

This is not the first time that the BN has shifted its policy on the racial allocation of the JPA overseas scholarship. It was widely speculated that after the 1999 general elections, the number of JPA overseas scholarships given to non-Malays were increased. But that was never publicised in the same manner as this policy change and the more than four-fold increase in the number of scholarships given to non-Malays took many people by surprise, including Kian Ming, who has been following issues to do with education in Malaysia for some time.

Why this sudden increase in the non-Malay scholarship quota? What are some of the political implications arising from this policy change?

A charitable view of this policy change is that the government finally succumbed to public pressure and to rejecting the large number of otherwise qualified non-Malays and listening to their appeals, time and again.

Of course, one can also see this as a political move to appease the non-Malay voter base which abandoned the BN in large number in the previous election. By changing a policy which has symbolic value in the eyes of the non-Malays, the BN is hoping to win back the hearts and minds and votes among members of these communities.

A more cynical and perhaps nefarious view of this policy change is that it is a subtle political strategy by BN, more specifically Umno, to create a climate of fear among the Malays that their rights are slowly being eroded because of the rise in the power of Pakatan. Of course, this would require a lot of subtle maneuvering on the part of the BN since they are the ones who actually approved this policy change and not Pakatan.

Protests from the usual suspects
To be fair to the government, there actually has been a subtle shift in the language used in defining education policy over the past decade or so. While we may debate the comparability of the matriculation course which is largely taken by Malays, and the STPM course which is largely taken by non-Malays as the entry requirements to our public universities, the word used to define the entry process has been ‘meritocracy’ in the past few years.

This despite the initial protests by Umno Youth which still surfaces from time to time. One does not anticipate that the meritocracy process for entering our public universities will be changed in the near future. Similarly, one does not anticipate this JPA scholarship policy change to be reversed any time soon despite the protests from some of the usual suspects including Umno Youth, Abim and GPMS, just to name a few.

But even the reservations expressed by Umno Youth were couched in terms that were more ‘flexible’, in a manner of speaking. Their representative did not ask for the quotas to go back to the 90/10 allocation but instead proposed that the total number of scholarships should be increased and the allocation quota revised to 70/30 so that no scholarships would be taken away from the Malays while giving an additional allocation to the non-Malays.

Do we expect the non-Malays to respond to this policy change by swinging their support back to the BN? We think not.

It would take more than just one policy measure of this nature to win back the hearts and minds of the non-Malays. While this may have worked in the aftermath of previous elections when the non-Malay opposition parties performed well, we are in living in a different political environment. Pakatan can always respond to this by promising the non-Malays that they would implement a more equitable allocation policy across the board and not just for the JPA overseas scholarship.

One strategy used by PAS in past elections has been to ask voters and its supporters to take whatever goodies which the BN offers them, including free rice and the like, and then vote for PAS in the voting booth. It is not hard to imagine the non-Malays behaving in a similar fashion.

The reaction among the Malay grassroots has been harder to judge. Kian Ming senses a subtle and gradual shift in the Malay ground in terms of coming to terms with the eventuality of competing on a more level-playing field with the non-Malays beginning with the education realm. The fact that there has been a noticeable increase in the number of Malays performing well at the SPM level has perhaps helped assuage the fears among Malays that they cannot compete with the non-Malays.

The noticeable silence among the Pakatan parties will probably help in not making this issue one which the BN can capitalise on. DAP has not made any statements either in support of this policy perhaps because they do not want to give undue credit to the government, and PAS, not wanting to incite the Malay ground, has not made any statements critical of this policy.

Pakatan has also been helped by the fact that this issue has been overshadowed by other more demanding and headline grabbing issues such as the petrol price hike and the on-going speculation of political crossovers. Under more normal political circumstances, this policy change would have had much more political coverage.

Even more changes to come?
Is this a sign of the things to come, that there will be similar liberalisations in racial quotas in other areas be it in the education or the economic realm?

We are more guarded in this respect. As mentioned before, the push for more ‘meritocracy’ has been an ongoing initiative in the education realm. It would be a stretch to extend this to the business and economic realm, for example, at least in the near future. One would not expect government contracts or top government positions to be suddenly allocated in a more equitable fashion, many of them which currently are not even distributed according to a 90/10 ratio.

One also cannot discount the role of government agency here. Nazri has been consistently unpredictable in his policy statements and decisions but one thing that has been consistent about him is his desire for publicity. He could have pushed for this policy change not only because he felt that it might have been the expedient thing to do but that it would also garner him positive publicity, especially from the non-Malays. Other Umno politicians, who might not want to stick their necks out on the chopping block, would likely not do the same in other policy areas.

To summarise, the significance of this policy change should not be discounted, even if it is limited to one small area of education policy in this country. It is part of a more gradual shift in defining the terms of competition, at least in the education realm. Whether this will translate into the business and economic realms is harder to predict.

While the non-Malays would welcome this policy, the political circumstances of the day will limit the swing in their support back to the BN. The effect on the Malay ground is harder to judge but so far, the grassroot reaction seems slightly muted. It probably helps that the hike in petrol prices quickly knocked this particular issue of the front pages and minds of voters.



Another Malaysian Indian ignored by government

Mugilan Re Ko is geared to set himself apart from the common by pursuing his childhood fantasy: to look down at planet Earth from outer space.

MCPXThe 20 year-old aeronautical student is confident that nothing can hamper his dreams of becoming an astronaut by 2018.

“This has been my dream since I was five and I know I wouldn’t be happy unless I pursue my dream,” he said in an interview with Malaysiakini.

Amazed and captivated by a picture book on space travel given to him during his toddler days, Mugilan explained his only aspiration ever since was to be involved in exploring the universe.

The beginning
“My dad taught me to think big and to aim big. Nothing’s impossible when one’s heart is in the right place,” he asserted.

Mugilan said with the support of his parents and sibling, he was always encouraged to only work towards the best in pursuit of his dreams.

Educated in a SJK(T) Serdang, a Tamil medium school in Selangor, Mugilan is not what one would call a typical young Malaysian who is generally thought of being incapable of having such dreams.

After completing Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examinations in which he scored 11 As, Mugilan pursued his studies in a local private institution to complete the American Degree Transfer Programme (ADP).

Mugilan then enrolled into the top rated institute for aeronautical engineering in Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in the United States using just his academic merits in pursuit of his ambition.

Scholarships and educational grants
However, despite his excellent academic qualification, no scholarship grant or financial aid was given to Mugilan by the Malaysian government despite submitting numerous appeals.

“After finishing ADP in 2006, I appealed to the prime minister, the Education Ministry, the Malaysian National Space Agency and even private companies requesting for a scholarship or at least a loan which would have lessened my financial burden,” he said.

Although he was frustrated and dejected by the treatment he received, Mugilan said it never crossed his mind to give up and strengthened his resolve to discover other alternatives instead.

“I was able to secure a loan from Maju Institute of Education Development (MIED), some private funding and my father financed the rest,” he said.

Mugilan, who has another year to complete his aerospace engineering degree said he is actively pushing his studies towards achieving his dream.

“I’ll push my career towards my goal. If situations do not permit, I’ll pursue my dreams in another way. If one path fails, I’ll use another,” he added.

Although the Malaysian government has failed to assist this ambitious student, Mugilan said his loyalty to the country remains firm and he is not hesitant to contribute his talents in building the nation’s aerospace industry.