Fwd: 129 MPs voted for price hike are betraying the voters' wish

Tuesday June 24, 2008  -- The Star Online

129 voted for, 78 against governments motion on price hikes

THE Prime Minister passed his first test of confidence in Parliament when a motion which the Government tabled was passed with a convincing majority.

One hundred and twenty-nine Barisan MPs voted in support of it while 78 Opposition MPs voted against.

More details at

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/24/parliament/21636398&sec=parliament

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Date: 06/13/2008 08:42AM
Subject: Fw: For your knowledge.......amazing homework....

Today Tenaga stock rose by about MYR1.00. Volume traded in excess of 35 million units.Yesterday Tenaga stock was suspended.

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. Â So you could have bought 1Million Tenaga shares on Tuesday and sold it today for a cool MYR1Million 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 the PM 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 in know of the 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 economy, dollar to dollar must be compared as apple to apple. Not comparing like durian in M'sia is much cheaper than durian in Japan !! Of course-lah, Japan is not durian producer!!! Comparing Malaysian durian with Thailand durian 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 fwd

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.

M'sia 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 sell 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 earn 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!

129 MPs voted for price hike are betraying the voters' wish

Tuesday June 24, 2008  -- The Star Online

129 voted for, 78 against governments motion on price hikes

THE Prime Minister passed his first test of confidence in Parliament when a motion which the Government tabled was passed with a convincing majority.

One hundred and twenty-nine Barisan MPs voted in support of it while 78 Opposition MPs voted against.

More details at

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/24/parliament/21636398&sec=parliament

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Date: 06/13/2008 08:42AM
Subject: Fw: For your knowledge.......amazing homework....

Today Tenaga stock rose by about MYR1.00. Volume traded in excess of 35 million units.Yesterday Tenaga stock was suspended.

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. Â So you could have bought 1Million Tenaga shares on Tuesday and sold it today for a cool MYR1Million 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 the PM 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 in know of the 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 economy, dollar to dollar must be compared as apple to apple. Not comparing like durian in M'sia is much cheaper than durian in Japan !! Of course-lah, Japan is not durian producer!!! Comparing Malaysian durian with Thailand durian 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 fwd

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.

M'sia 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 sell 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 earn 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!

Federal Constitution has no special rights and privileges for Malays

Article 153 of the Federal Constitution -- All Malaysians have equal rights

Let's rekindle the spirit of reformation for restoring equal rights and privileges of the non-Malays in accordance with the Federal Constitution. Are you ignorant of the Federal Constitution that grants equal rights under the law? There are no special rights and privileges for the Malays but merely safeguard the "special position of" the Malays under Article 153 of the Constitution. The keyword is "safeguard" and not to provide nor grant new rights. Often times it has been quoted out of context to support one's agenda. So how does the marginalization and erosion of the rights for non-Malays come about? Find it out if you are interested. This is an email currently in circulation, please read, copy and paste to pass on if you think it is helpful.

Date: 07/04/2008 08:16AM

Subject: Fwd: Article 153 of the Federal Constitution -- All Malaysians have equal rights ... that's what it says......

There is an awakening to the reality of who the Malaysian is, the subject of equality of the races and what the Constitution really says. In the light of this, there have been many questions raised about the NEP and why some Malaysians are more equal than the others. The Constitution says very clearly that all Malaysians are equal. Read on. We need to know our rights under the Law. 50 years of misdeeds have been ingrained into our belief system. Don't think it can be erased in one day. It will take time. But we must acquire the knowledge necessary as it is the truth that will set us free.......... That alone is the beginning.

Pls. pass it on.... so that others may know....

This article was originally written in December 2004! It is quite long, but read it and you will find out that there is no such thing as Malay special rights and privileges; Article 153 merely states 'the special position of the Malays' .

Saturday, December 04, 2004

Unveiling the truth of Malay 'Special Rights' .... - Kim Quek

The recurring issue of Malay 'special rights' was again brought into focus when Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang moved to reprimand Higher Education Minister Shaffie Salleh in Parliament on Dec 1st for the latter's recent racial utterances.

In the recently concluded UMNO annual assembly, Shaffie vowed to never admit any non-Malay students to the public funded Universiti Institute Teknologi Mara (UiTM), and he also undertook to ensure that in spite of the current meritocracy system of university intake, Malay students would always exceed 55%, which was the percentage stipulated under the previous quota system.

Proposing the motion, Kit Siang described these policy statements as shocking and extremist. He exerted that apart from damaging Malaysia's international reputation, they undermined national unity and integration and lowered competitiveness all round.

Opposing the motion, MP Ahmad Shabery Cheek (UMNO, Kemaman) accused Kit Siang of stirring up racial issues and challenging Malay 'special rights', for which Ahmad quoted Article 153 of the Federal Constitution which prescribed these rights.

Kit Siang denied these accusations and asked the newly appointed Speaker Ramli Ngah Talib for a ruling as to whether the motion was deemed seditious. The Speaker remained silent. As expected, the motion was eventually rejected in view of ruling party BN's overwhelming majority.

Forty seven years after Independence, racial issues continued to monopolise national politics, and championing Malay rights remains the single dominant ideology of the only ruling power that this independent nation has known, UMNO. Thousands of speeches have been made championing this Malay cause, using various terminologies such as Malay 'special rights' , Malay 'special privileges' or simply Malay 'rights', often invoking the nation's Constitution as the legal back-up. But, of the thousands of politicians who have used these terminologies, how many have read through the Constitution to find out what these 'rights' really are? Very few, perhaps!

Our Constitution is printed in a small booklet that can be bought for about RM10 in the book shops. Buy one copy and read through to find out what it says about these 'rights'. After all, these issues have been the hottest favourites of our politicians ever since our Independence. Aren't you curious to find out?

If you have read through the Constitution to look for an answer to these Malay 'rights', perhaps the first thing that has struck you is that, familiar terminologies such as Malay 'special rights', Malay 'special privileges' or Malay 'rights' are no where to be found in the Constitution. Instead, we only find the term "the special position of the Malays", which appears twice, in Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 153, which is titled 'Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc, for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak'.

(The natives of Sabah and Sarawak were only incorporated into the Constitution upon the formation of Malaysia in 1963, during which Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore were merged with Malaya to form Malaysia . In this article, the words 'the natives of Sabah and Sarawak ' will not be repeated after the word 'Malay' when I quote from the Constitution, for abbreviation purpose).

MP Ahmad Shabery Cheek has of course correctly pinpointed Article 153 as that part of the Constitution upon which Malay 'rights' were founded. But has he read and understood the full meaning of Article 153?

Anyone who has read through Article 153 might be surprised to discover that the provisions favouring Malays are in fact quite moderate, and certainly no way as stretched out in intensity and scope as our politicians would want us to believe. Similarly, those provisions protecting the non-Malays as a counter-balance to the special position of the Malays under this Article are also surprisingly quite well conceived and fair. In fact, when read in conjunction with Article 8 (Equality) and Article 136 (Impartial treatment of Federal employees), Article 153 cannot be construed as having significantly violated the egalitarian principles of our Constitution, contrary to common perception.

Since the egalitarian nature of our Constitution is largely intact, in spite of the presence of Article 153, then why should it have acquired such an adverse reputation as the legal root of all kinds of racial inequalities in this country?

Answer: The fault is not with our Constitution, but with our politicians twisting, misinterpreting and abusing it.

It is perhaps high time we get to the bottom of Article 153.

Clause (1) of Article 153 states: 'It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article'.

So, the first understanding that we must have on Article 153 is that it is meant to protect the interests of not only the Malays, but also those of the non-Malays.

Next, note the deliberate use of the words 'safeguard' and 'special position' (instead of 'special rights' or 'special privileges'). The choice of these words must be understood in the historical context of the drafting of this Constitution half a century ago when Malays were economically and educationally backward in relation to other races. It was thought fit and proper then that there must be 'safeguards' to protect the Malays from being swarmed over by other races. Hence, the creation of the 'special position' of the Malays, which was obviously intended for defensive purpose: to protect for survival. The impeccable avoidance of using words like 'rights' and 'privileges', and the choice of the word 'safeguard' were clearly calculated to reflect its defensive nature . Under that historical context, the provision of the special position of the Malays in the Constitution certainly could not be interpreted to mean the endowment of racial privileges to create a privileged class of citizenship.

Clause (2) says that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall safeguard the special position of the Malays by reserving positions 'of such proportion as he may deem reasonable' in a) the public service b) educational facilities and c) business licenses.

Clauses (3) & (6) say that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, for purpose of fulfilling Clause (2), give general directions to the relevant authorities, which shall then duly comply.

There is a separate clause covering the allocation of seats in tertiary education - Clause (8A). It says that where there are insufficient places for any particular course of study, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may give directions for the 'reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.'

As for the protection of non-Malays against possible encroachment of their existing interests, there are several provisions under different clauses in this Article, prohibiting the deprivation of the existing facilities enjoyed by them, whether in public service, education or trading licenses. Of these protective clauses, Clauses (5) and (9) are particularly significant.

Clause (5) consists of one sentence, which reads: 'This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136'.

Article 136 also consists of one sentence, which reads: 'All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the Federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.'

Clause (9) consists of one sentence, which reads: 'Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays.'

Reading Article 153 will not be complete without reading Article 89 (Equality). I will quote the more significant Clauses (1) and (2) of this Article in full, as follows:

Clause (1) states: 'All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.'

Clause (2) states: 'Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.'

Reading through these Articles of the Constitution, we are able to draw the following conclusions:

1. The present clamour for Malay 'special rights' as sacrosanct racial privileges of a privileged race, especially under the ideological ambit of Ketuanan Melayu (Malay the master race), is in conflict with the letters and spirit of the Constitution.

2. The special position of the Malays as prescribed under Article 153 of the Constitution is limited in scope to only the reservation of reasonable quotas in these 3 sectors: public services, educational places and business licenses. Hence, the present rampant racial discriminations practiced on almost every facet of our national life are mostly violations of the Constitution. Examples of these violations are:

a) Racial discrimination in the appointment and promotion of employees in publicly funded bodies, resulting in these becoming almost mono-raced bodies (particular so in their top strata). These bodies include: the civil service, police, army and various semi and quasi government agencies.

b) Barring of non-Malays from tenders and contracts controlled directly or indirectly by the government.

c) Imposition of compulsory price discounts and quotas in favour of Malays in housing projects.

d) Imposition of compulsory share quota for Malays in non-Malay companies.

e) Blanket barring of non-Malays to publicly funded academic institutions (that should include the UITM, which is the subject of debate in Parliament referred to earlier in this article).

f) Completely lop-sided allocation of scholarships and seats of learning in clearly unreasonable proportions that reflect racial discriminations.

3) Our Constitution provides for only one class of citizenship and all citizens are equal before the law . The presence of Article 153 does not alter this fact, as it is meant only to protect the Malays from being 'squeezed' by other races by allowing the reservation of reasonable quotas on certain sectors of national life. However, this Constitution has now been hijacked through decades of hegemony of political power by the ruling party to result in the virtual monopoly of the public sector by a single race. The ensuing racism, corruption and corrosion of integrity of our democratic institutions have brought serious retrogression to our nation-building process in terms of national unity, discipline, morality and competitiveness of our people.

4) At this critical juncture, when nations in this region and around the world are urgently restructuring and shaping up to cope with globalization, our nation stagnates in a cesspool that has been created through decades of misrule. Unless urgent reforms are carried out, beginning with the dismantling of the anachronistic racial superstructure, we are in for serious troubles in the days ahead.

Pls. pass it on.... so that others may know....