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. Dzulkefly Ahmad in Malaysiakini

Someone calling himself Lemon:in Malaysiakini I am just taking what our PM said with a pinch of salt. No even worth my time commenting. ‘Not getting married’, ‘Not dissolving parliament’, ‘No fuel hike after election’ and now (ta da!) ‘no more fuel hike this year’.

This article below, I received from a friend, the origin is not known, I therefore cannot attribute nor give credit to the author of the article.

Today Tenaga stock rose by about MYR1.00. Volume traded in excess of 35 million units.Yesterday Tenaga stock was suspended. (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? Dzulkefly Ahmad in Malaysiakini )

Put these points together.

1. If you know that an announcement would be made on Wednesday that TNB rates will be revised upwards you would surely buy Tenaga shares on Tuesday.
2. If you own an investment bank or have sufficient credit line with an Investment Bank you would have bought as much as you could knowing that the price will surely go up.
3. Since you have to pay within 3 days (T+3 rule), you would have planned to sell on Friday? So you could have bought 1 Million Tenaga shares on Tuesday and sold it today for a cool MYR 1 Million profit without paying any money (perhaps some borrowing costs for 2-3 days).
4. Of course none of us are privy to the announcement of the fuel hike, but the family of some people are are privy to it.
5. Of course none of us have a large credit line with an Investment Bank but the family of the PM owns an investment bank.
6. Why the surprise announcement on 05 June when the PM has said that it would be in August ? Well you can only make a big and quick profit if you control the timings and surprise others.
7. For those in the know (the powers that be and their cronies) this has been one hugely profitable week buying and shorting the related shares. The poor rakyat had to queue just to fill up their tanks and perhaps save between MYR20-MYR100.

Now read below..... Need those who are knowledgeable, on basic economics of crude, fuel etc to comment.

WHAT IS NEVER MENTIONED IN Mainstream Media like NST/TheStar/ Utusan/BH are these facts....

Malaysian PerCapita Income USD 5000 VS
Singaporean PerCapita Income USD 25000

Further The Star made a comparison of prices in Thailand , Singapore and Indonesia . For Thailand it is quoted at RM3.90/liter, however are they aware that in Thailand new cars are cheaper than Malaysia by RM10,000? They pay only one life time for their driving license? No renewal fee after that? Also that goes for road tax as well? And do TheStar also aware that you can drive all the way from Hadtyai to Bangkok on a six lane highway without paying any Tolls ??!! Whereas here in Malaysia you have to pay yearly renewal for road tax , driving license and TOLLS, TOLLS, TOLLS!!!

For Singapore how can you quote RM 5.20 ? Please quote in Singapore Dollars because they are earning in Sing Dollars. You might as well say Europeans are paying RM10/liter. RM5.20/liter = Sing $ 2.20/liter, still cheaper than Malaysia in view of fact that Singapore is not a crude oil exporter. Are you saying that you fill up petrol in Singapore by paying Ringgit?

In an economy, dollar to dollar must be compared as apple to apple. Not comparing like durian in Malaysia is much cheaper than durian in Japan !! Of course-lah, Japan is not a durian producer!!! Comparing Malaysian durian with Thai durians make more sense!! For Indonesia we might say, is cheaper there at RM2.07/liter but compare that to their level of income!

Now, let us compare the price with OIL PRODUCING countries:

UAE RM1.19/litre
Eygpt RM1.03/litre
Bahrain RM0.87/litre
Qatar RM0.68/litre
Kuwait RM0.67/litre
Saudi Arabia RM0.38/litre
IranRM0.35/litre
Nigeria RM0.32/litre
Turkmenistan RM0.25/litre
Venezuela RM0.16/litre
MALAYSIA RM2.70/litre

RM 2.70!!! Individual perspective:

As of last month a Toyota Vios would 'cause a damage' of about RM 89,000. In the international market, a Toyota Vios is about USD 19,000. USD 19,000 = RM 62,700 (using the indicative rates of USD 1 = RM 3.30) That makes Malaysian Vios owners pay an extra RM 26,300. This RM 26,300 should be cost of operations, profit and tax because the transportation costs have been factored in to the USD 19,000. RM 26,300/ RM625 petrol rebate per year translates to a Vios being used for 42.08 years.

I do understand that the RM 625 is a rebate given by the government, but it also means that one has to use the Vios for 42.08 years just to make back the amount paid in taxes for the usage of a foreign car. Would anyone use any kind of car for that long? Now with these numbers in front of us, does the subsidy sound like a subsidy or does it sound like a penalty? This just seems to be a heavy increment in our daily cost of living as we are not only charged with high car taxes but also with a drastic increase in fuel price.

With all the numbers listed out, I urge all Malaysians to join me in analyzing the situation further. Car taxation is government profit, fuel sales is Petronas' (GLC) profit which also translates into government profit. The government may ridicule us Malaysians by saying look at the world market and fuel price world wide. Please, we are Malaysians, we fought of the British, had a international port in the early centuries (Malacca), home to a racially mixed nation and WE ARE NOT STUPID!!!

We know the international rates are above the USD 130/barrel. We understand the fact that the fuel prices are increasing worldwide and we also know that major scientist are still contradicting on why this phenomenon is happening. Some blame Bush and his plunders around the world and some blame climate change and there are others which say petroleum 'wells' are getting scarce.

Again we go back to numbers to be more straight forward, 1 barrel = 159 liters x RM2.70/liter = RM 429 or USD 134. On 1 hand, we are paying the full cost of 1 barrel of crude oil with RM2.70 per liter but on the other hand the crude oil only produces 46% of fuel. Malaysia sells crude oil per barrel at USD130 buys back Fuel per barrel at USD134. And not forgetting, every barrel of fuel is produced with 2 barrels of crude oil. 1 barrel crude oil = produce 46% fuel (or half of crude oil), therefore 2 barrel crude oil = approximately 1 barrel fuel. In other words, each time we sell 2 barrels of crude oil, equivalently we will buy back 1 barrel of fuel.

Financially, Malaysia sells 2 barrel crude oil @ USD 130/barrel = USD 260 = RM 858 then, Malaysia will buy back fuel @ USD 134/barrel = RM 442/barrel Thus, Malaysia earns net extra USD 126 = RM 416 for each 2 barrel of crude sold/exported vs imported 1 barrel of fuel !!! (USD 260-134 = USD 126 = RM416)

So where this extra USD 126/barrel income is channeled to by Malaysian Govt???????? ?

Another analysis:

1 barrel crude oil = 159 liters. 46-47% of a barrel of crude oil = fuel that we use in our vehicles. 46% of 159 = 73.14 liters. @ RM 2.70/liter x 73.14 liter = RM197.48 of fuel per barrel of crude oil. This is only 46% of the barrel, mind you. Using RM 3.30 = USD 1, we get that a barrel of crude oil produces USD 59.84 worth of petrol fuel (46% of 1barrel). USD 59.84 of USD 130/barrel turns out to be 46% of a barrel as well.

Another 54% = bitumen, kerosene, and natural gases and so many more. And this makes a balance of USD 70.16 that has not been accounted for. So this is where I got curious. Where is the subsidy if we are paying 46% of the price of a barrel of crude oil when the production of petrol/barrel of crude oil is still only 46%?

In actual fact, we still pay for this as they are charged in the forms of fuel surcharge by airlines and road taxes for the building of road (because they use the tar/bitumen) and many more excuse charging us but let us just leave all that out of our calculations.

As far as I know, only the politicians who live in Putrajaya and come for their Parliament meetings in Kuala Lumpur (approximately 60+ km) are the ones to gain as they claim their fuel and toll charges from the money of the RAKYAT's TAX.

It is so disappointing to see this happen time and time again to the Malaysian public, where they are deceived by the propaganda held by the politicians and the controls they have over the press.

Which stupid idiot economist equates rebates for rich or poor with the cc of the vehicles? An average office clerk may own a second hand 1300cc proton Iswara costing $7,000 (rebate = $625) while the Datuk's children can own a fleet of 10 new cars of BMW, Audi and Volvo all less than 2000cc costing $2 millions and get a total rebate of $625 x 10 = $6,250! Wow what kind of economists we are keeping in Malaysia ...wonder which phD certificate that they bought from...

Misleading concept of Subsidy:

The word "subsidy" has been brandished by the BN government as if it has so generously helped the rakyat and in doing so incurred losses. This simple example will help to explain the fallacy:

Example:
Ahmad is a fisherman. He sells a fish to you at $10 which is below the market value of $15. Let's assume that he caught the fish from the abundance of the sea at little or no cost. Ahmad claims that since the market value of the fish is $15 and he sold you the fish for $10, he had subsidised you $5 and therefore made a loss of $5.

Question : Did Ahmad actually make a profit of $10 or loss of $5 which he claimed is the subsidy?
Answer: Ahmad makes a profit of $10 which is the difference of the selling price ($10) minus the cost price ($0 since the fish was caught from the abundance of the sea). There is no subsidy as claimed by Ahmad.

The BN government claims that it is a subsidy because the oil is kept and treated as somebody else's property (you know who). By right, the oil belongs to all citizens of the country and the government is a trustee for the citizens. So as in the above simple example, the BN government cannot claim that it has subsidised the citizen!