1.​When the idea of a national car was mooted, it was met with widespread criticisms and cynical comments. We were a third world country and we know nothing about motorcar manufacturing. Our market was tiny. It would be a waste of our money.

2.​It was easier to simply buy imported foreign-made cars. At best we could import CKD (Completely Knock-down packs) and assemble the cars here. That was as much as our agriculture-based economy could do.

3.​But we did talk even at that time of industrialisation, of being an industrial nation. How do we become an industrialised nation if we have no industry other than assembling electronic components.

4.​Malaysia has always been and it still is a trading nation. Buying things from foreign countries must result in outflow of funds. This would be bad for our balance of payment. Our trade would be in deficit. Trade deficits are not sustainable. We cannot generate enough wealth internally to pay for our imports. Our raw materials, such as rubber, tin and palm oil exports cannot earn us enough to pay for imports. We will be in deficit.

5.​To prevent this we can do two things. We can limit imports or we can increase exports. Among the items which absorb funds in large amounts is the import of cars. The purchase of cars involves large sums of money. When we buy foreign cars there would be a big outflow of funds.

6.​In those days we could not think of exporting Malaysian made cars in order to increase the inflow of funds and have a healthy trade balance. Still if we produce our own cars and our people buy them then much of the money would stay in the country. There would be less outflow, less tendency to have deficits.

7.​But could Malaysian made cars compete in the domestic market against foreign imports? They could if the price is right. To ensure right prices the Government had to tax imports at a higher rate.

8.​This was not going to be welcome by Malaysian consumers. But all countries wishing to promote local automotive industry had no choice but to make imported cars costly. Japan and Korea had done this. Other countries simply make it bureaucratically difficult for cars to be imported. Apart from taxes on foreign cars, standards were raised in foreign countries so that imports find difficulty to qualify. The standards were raised periodically so that foreign cars wishing to enter the market have to be upgraded continuously.

9.​Any nation wishing to go into an industry dominated by foreign imports will not be able to match the imports immediately. When, after World War II Japan decided to build cars, the design was atrocious and the quality inferior. The Datsun Bluebird seemed to be an inferior copy of the British Hillman. The car was imported into Malaysia but was not well accepted despite the low price.

10.​But we all know how much the Japanese cars have improved. They not only meet the standards of European cars but are often superior to many of these cars. Today no one questions the quality of Japanese cars. Even though the price is no longer low they are able to penetrate foreign markets. Clearly it takes time to improve locally produced manufactured goods to match imported goods. To have an industry, especially automotive, time is required to achieve world standards and to be competitive.

READ MORE »

1. Dasar kerajaan untuk menjadikan Malaysia negara berpendapatan tinggi (high income country) tentulah diterima baik oleh rakyat. Tetapi kita harus ambil kira kesan pendapatan tinggi, terutama dalam bentuk upah dan gaji kepada kos sara hidup Negara.

2. Apabila upah atau gaji dinaikkan tidak dapat tidak kos barangan dan khidmat akan turut naik. Kenaikan ini akan mengurangkan dayabeli (purchasing power) berbanding dengan pendapatan yang dinaikkan.

3. Kita tahu benar negara-negara yang pendapatan amat tinggi dari segi upah yang diterima tetapi taraf hidup mereka jauh lebih rendah dari kita. Pendapatan tinggi semata-mata tidak bermakna kekayaan dengan taraf hidup yang tinggi.

4. Yang akan menjadi kehidupan kita setaraf dengan negara maju ialah daya beli pendapatan kita yang sama tinggi dengan dayabeli penduduk negara maju. Kenaikan pendapatan tanpa kenaikan dayabeli tidak bermakna sama sekali. Sebaliknya ia akan menghalang pembangunan Negara kearah sasaran menjadi Negara maju.

5. Negara-negara yang ditakrif sebagai negara maju tidak sahaja memiliki pendapatan per kapita yang tinggi tetapi mereka memiliki daya pengeluaran (produktiviti), yang tinggi dengan kemajuan mereka dalam bidang ilmu pengetahuan, kecanggihan dan kebesaran industri serta perniagaan dan perusahaan. Negara mereka dilengkapi dengan infrastruktur yang canggih dan mencukupi untuk keselesaan hidup rakyat serta membantu aktiviti perniagaan dan perusahaan. Infrastruktur ini termasuklah jalan-jalan yang menghubungi semua bandar dan kampung, bekalan api dan air, khidmat pelajaran dan kesihatan dan lain-lain. Banyak terdapat Negara yang berpendapatan amat tinggi tetapi tidak dianggap maju.

6. Kita perlu pisah kemajuan sesebuah negara daripada pendapatannya yang tinggi. Walaupun negara maju biasanya disertai dengan pendapatan yang tinggi bagi semua rakyat, tetapi pendapatan yang tinggi dengan sendirinya tidak bermakna Negara sudah maju.

7. Hasrat Kerajaan tentulah untuk menjadi bukan sahaja negara berpendapatan tinggi tetapi menjadi negara maju dengan kuasa dayabeli rakyat yang tinggi. Untuk ini tumpuan perlu diberi kepada usaha daya keluar (produktiviti) yang meningkat yang akan menyumbang kepada dayasaing (competitiveness) negara. Kenaikan dayasaing Negara-negara Timur inilah sehingga mengalahkan Negara Barat yang menjadikan beberapa Negara Timur maju.

8. Menaikkan pendapatan adalah mudah. Umpamanya apabila gaji atau upah minimum dinaikkan maka matlamat pendapatan tinggi tercapai. Tetapi seperti yang disebut di atas, kenaikan ini tidak menjadikan rakyat lebih kaya, disebabkan dayabeli tidak naik bersama pendapatan.

9. Umpamanya kenaikan upah minima katakanlah dari RM 700/- sebulan kepada RM 900/- sebulan akan membawa dua kesan. Mereka yang sedang menerima RM 900/- sebulan akan kecewa jika upah mereka tidak dinaikkan supaya yang berada di bawah mereka tidak mendapat gaji yang sama dengan mereka. Apabila gaji kumpulan ini dinaikkan maka yang dahulu mendapat upah yang lebih tinggi akan meminta kenaikan supaya jarak yang lama dikekalkan. Akhirnya kenaikan gaji minima kepada RM 900/- akan disusuli dengan kenaikan gaji atau upah di semua peringkat. Kenaikan yang menyeluruh ini tidak dapat tidak akan menaikkan kos pengeluaran semua barangan dan khidmat. Dengan perkataan lain kenaikan gaji dan upah, tanpa kenaikan produktiviti akan menaikkan kos sara hidup.

10. Yang kedua kenaikan gaji dan upah tetap akan menjadikan barangan dan khidmat yang kita beri kurang kompetitif di pasaran dunia. Pelabur tempatan dan asing juga tidak akan melabur dan yang menganggur tidak dapat bekerja untuk sara hidup mereka.

READ MORE »

1. The world is in a bad shape because politicians instead of journalists run it. I came to this conclusion after reading a copy of The Economist, the British magazine. The writers in the Economist seem to know everything that ails the world and they also know how all these ailment can be cured.

2. The copy begins with the front page illustration of the statue of Christ tumbling through the air from its pedestal on Sugar Loaf mountain in Brazil; down, I suppose to crash on Rio de Janeiro. I suppose it is to illustrate the grave situation in the country.

3. The articles on Brazil began with “Grounded”, followed by “A rough ride for (President Dilma) Rousseff”. Then “The price is wrong”, and an advice on agriculture, “Leaves Well Alone”, followed by “The Road to Hell”. “Money no Object” (on the football stadium), “Land of the Setting Sun”, “Look Good” followed by “Reality Dawns”. The articles describe all the wrong things that are being done by Brazil and how they should and could be corrected.

4. Other articles are entitled “A new Face of Terror” (which Western Governments do not know), “Sending the Wrong Smoke-Signal” (on E-cigarettes), “Angela’s Dilemma” (telling Angela Merkel to look to the Greens).

5. “Curb Your Enthusiasm” is to warn everyone not to put too much faith in Iran’s nuclear deal “and keep the sanctions on”. Cameron, the Prime Minister of United Kingdom is told to “Remember what you once were (the Prime Minister should reclaim the radical centre of British politics)”. “The Unquenchable Fire” is about the Al-Qaeda still being around and deplore the fact that Mr Zawahiri, its current leader is not dead yet. This seems like hinting that the United States should assassinate the Al-Qaeda leader as they did Osama Ben Laden. I suppose Zawahiri’s corpse would be dumped in the sea.

READ MORE »

1.      The British parliament, to the surprise (and probably relief) of Prime Minister David Cameron, rejected British armed intervention in Syria.  Then Barack Obama, President of America, decided that he would ask for Congress approval even for what he called limited military action against the Syrian Government despite his right to declare war without the approval of Congress.  In other words he is   not really willing.  It is a smart move on his part because if the venture fails Congress cannot blame him alone.

2.      It looks like the Western Powers have learnt something from their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They once thought that it would take only a few months of shock and awe to achieve regime change in these two countries.  In the event after ten years of war, after losing thousands of their own soldiers while killing hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis, devastating these countries, the regime changes have not resulted in the democracy they expected.  If at all the present situation in these two countries is much worse than before invasion and the regime changes.

3.      The hesitation over a military adventure in Syria, even a limited one is understandable.  Yes, the use of chemical weapons probably killed over a thousand innocent Syrians.  But already about 200,000 people have been killed.  Is it acceptable to kill unlimited numbers of innocent people with bombs, rockets and bullets but not with chemical weapons?

4.      If a military invasion is to take place surely it would cause more deaths, definitely more than the number killed by chemical weapons.  And supposing the arsenal of chemical weapons are hit, would it not cause even more deaths.

5.      Supposing limited war takes the form of assassination of the President, would the war stop?  Would the opposition take over the Government and set up a democracy?  The killings of Saddam and Ghadafi have not resulted in stability for their countries.  Even the removal of Hosni Mubarak has not resulted in Egypt being stable and democratic.

READ MORE »