I read with amusement the recent remarks by a few Ministers who were literary fighting for the rights of the non-Muslims which also,in this country, refers to the rights of the non-Bumiputras (Prince of the Earth).
With regards to sports betting which the Govt intends to introduce (via a monopoly licence to a crony),the reason being the non-Muslims',esp the Chinese,culture to gamble. What a sweeping statement. The Minister in the PM's dept even babbled on that the Govt can always introduce and enforce regulations to prevent the Muslims from being involved in the sports bettings and other form of gamblings. I wonder why didn't the Govt enforce it now for the existing 4-D,Da Ma Cai & Toto gamblings?
Even today, read what the Star reported,"Sports betting and gambling should be legalised and governed by proper laws and regulations, Information, Communications and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said on Wednesday. He added that tax collected from sports betting could be used for the welfare of non-Muslims under a Government escrow fund". What a nobel idea. How i wish there were more Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim.
In the light of the year in & year out complaints that many bright students were deprived the chance for the JPA scholarship (and the promise that all deserving students will get it),instead of solving the problem, the Govt thought it would be better if there were NO JPA scholarship...and presto, there will be NO complaints! I shudder to think what would Kepner-Tregoe do for a living if their Problem Solving and Decision Making strategy were so easily replaced just by eliminating the problem directly,as what our smart-alec Minister in the PM's Dept in the same breath, suddenly decided not to respect the rights of the non-Bumi apropos the PSD(or commonly known as JPA)scholarship issue & intended to do :
" The Govt had earlier announced that 1200 of the 1500 PSD scholarships would gradually be phased off from next year onwards. Minister in the PM's Dept Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said this was because the Govt could no longer afford to fund the studies of the growing population of bright students pursuing undergraduate studies abroad."
Deputy Education Minister, Wee Ka Siong would do better to see Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz about the MARA scholarships.
Is our dear Minister in the PM's Dept implying that there are no more growing bright students applying for the MARA scholarships?
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Saturday, 5 June 2010
I DIDN'T DO IT ON PURPOSE!
Two recent events really stumped me that there are still such uncouth people around the block.
A month ago,a 4-W drive parked beside my brand new car & two doors open simultaneously by the driver & the passenger. Bang! I quickly went back to look at my side of door & sure enough, there was a deep dent & paint peeling off. Told the she passenger beside the driver why she was so careless. She replied," Accident ma! i didn't purposely bang want! What to do ar!"
No apology, no nothing. And the driver husband just nonchalantly walked away as if nothing happened too!
I walked to the outside of the 4-W drive & the other car, a Mercedes Benz, had its rear view mirrow dented too! And the owner is nowhere in sight.
Then last evening, I heard a crash sound outside the house & rushing out saw a fat Form 2 boy bicycling away with her mother beside her scurrying away. And one of my flower pots outside the gate has been broken!
Told my missus & pointed to the boy still outside his house, about 6-neighbour houses away,"That fat boy did it".
The mother replied," Accident ma! he didn't purposely bang want! What to do ar!"
Deja vu. I rest my case. Period.
IN these two cases above, any sane person would have apologised & offer to compensate eventhough it would not be accepted & just forgiven because of the small amount involved.It would be left at that. It would be civil enough then. Don't you think so?
A month ago,a 4-W drive parked beside my brand new car & two doors open simultaneously by the driver & the passenger. Bang! I quickly went back to look at my side of door & sure enough, there was a deep dent & paint peeling off. Told the she passenger beside the driver why she was so careless. She replied," Accident ma! i didn't purposely bang want! What to do ar!"
No apology, no nothing. And the driver husband just nonchalantly walked away as if nothing happened too!
I walked to the outside of the 4-W drive & the other car, a Mercedes Benz, had its rear view mirrow dented too! And the owner is nowhere in sight.
Then last evening, I heard a crash sound outside the house & rushing out saw a fat Form 2 boy bicycling away with her mother beside her scurrying away. And one of my flower pots outside the gate has been broken!
Told my missus & pointed to the boy still outside his house, about 6-neighbour houses away,"That fat boy did it".
The mother replied," Accident ma! he didn't purposely bang want! What to do ar!"
Deja vu. I rest my case. Period.
IN these two cases above, any sane person would have apologised & offer to compensate eventhough it would not be accepted & just forgiven because of the small amount involved.It would be left at that. It would be civil enough then. Don't you think so?
Friday, 28 May 2010
ABOLISH SUBSIDIES TO REDUCE WASTE & INEFFICIENCIES!
So everybody would have known by now that the Malaysian Govt is going to gradually reduce & eventually abolish subsidies to a range of products & services.
Do not hit the panick button yet because there are some Mitigation Plans for low income rakyat to reclaim yet some money!(See table below;source:PEMANDU).
(CLICK image to magnify)
For the Mitigation Plan under Fuel & LPG,I am not sure what 'Single Vehicle Owner' means but if you are owning two vehicles now, you might want to transfer one to your wife or children now?
Mitigation Plans for these four items affect mainly the more than 60% of the rakyat of one race where their main livelihoods & services are dependable on. These mitigation plans will again need some braincracking and I think it will be back to square one as the definitions for the medical poor, low income household,fisherman & farmer remain as you thought it would be!
In Economics, a subsidy is a type of financial government assistance, such as a grant, tax break, or trade barrier, in order to encourage the production or purchase of a good. I thought this was I learned during my Economics lessons many donkey years ago, whereby subsidies will affect & assist in the Supply & Demand of certain essential goods & services, especially for those basic neccesities, like sugar,flour & rice. The problem actually lies in the control mechanism to prevent abuse of the subsidies, which the Govt said 'I have enough too'!
Apparently, the Govt thought they have had enough of these subsidies thing which are causing the loss of billions from the Govt coffer, stopping short of the subsidies given to other products/services,like the highway toll concessionaires and the independent power producers(IPPs). Of course, subsidies to cronies will continue because they are the ones who can manage the jobs well, as what one of our famous PM insisted.
At least the present PM is daring enough to push this subsidy thing though eventhough it is going to affect the BN in the next GE.
Do not hit the panick button yet because there are some Mitigation Plans for low income rakyat to reclaim yet some money!(See table below;source:PEMANDU).
(CLICK image to magnify)
For the Mitigation Plan under Fuel & LPG,I am not sure what 'Single Vehicle Owner' means but if you are owning two vehicles now, you might want to transfer one to your wife or children now?
Mitigation Plans for these four items affect mainly the more than 60% of the rakyat of one race where their main livelihoods & services are dependable on. These mitigation plans will again need some braincracking and I think it will be back to square one as the definitions for the medical poor, low income household,fisherman & farmer remain as you thought it would be!
In Economics, a subsidy is a type of financial government assistance, such as a grant, tax break, or trade barrier, in order to encourage the production or purchase of a good. I thought this was I learned during my Economics lessons many donkey years ago, whereby subsidies will affect & assist in the Supply & Demand of certain essential goods & services, especially for those basic neccesities, like sugar,flour & rice. The problem actually lies in the control mechanism to prevent abuse of the subsidies, which the Govt said 'I have enough too'!
Apparently, the Govt thought they have had enough of these subsidies thing which are causing the loss of billions from the Govt coffer, stopping short of the subsidies given to other products/services,like the highway toll concessionaires and the independent power producers(IPPs). Of course, subsidies to cronies will continue because they are the ones who can manage the jobs well, as what one of our famous PM insisted.
At least the present PM is daring enough to push this subsidy thing though eventhough it is going to affect the BN in the next GE.
Monday, 26 April 2010
KAIZEN- what the Japs didn't tell you.
KAIZEN - as what most of you may know, is the Japanese management system of Continuous Improvement.
As contrast to the American system where there is quantum leap in improvement & the Chinese where the improvement is reformative (kai ge), the Japanese continuous improvement is a series of slow, slow improvement over a long period of time. That's why if you work in a Japanese company, you must improve (it is compulsory; in fact you need to churn out a Kaizen report every month without fail)but as long as you have a small result reported, it suffices. It keep you on your toes....that's where creativity comes in.
However, having worked in Japanese factories all my live until I retired, Kaizen results are very misleading indeed.That's why in world productivity reports by manufacturing companies over the world, Japanese companies,like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Suzuki, etc always lead in the productivity figures & subsequently by countries, Japanese always lead the pack whenever the data are released by the Americans or by the Japanese productivity centre.
I could not get the latest figures published (something is wrong..anybody have the data?) but the 2002 figures may suffice as a guideline:
The Jap Productivity Centre reported that Japan ranked 18th among 30 OECD countries in productivity in terms of GDP(using dollars & PPP) over the Labour Force Employed.. Japan at USD54,264 was LAST among 7 major industries by countries. Among the non-OECD countries,Hong Kong & Israel were ranked high at USD50,000. China was ranked 51 out of 58 countries...which is a lot for everyone to ponder,seeing that for the last 10 years, China has consistently raked up more than 8.5 productivity growth rate,e.g. between 1990-2002, China was ranked 1st out of 81 countries in terms of growth rate at average of 8.5% while Japan was ranked at 37th at average of 3.7%.
However, in terms of Physical Labour Productivity, Japan was ranked 3rd out of 37 countries!With Ireland at No.1. In terms of productivity in Manufacturing Industries, Japan ranked 3rd out of 22 countries. This Physical Labour Productivity is measured by using Output over Amt of Invested Labour Hrs,i.e. man-hrs, NOT over Headcount.
Now for my scepticsm at the labour productivity data reported by the Japs:
owing to the immense pressure from top mgmt to churn out an impressive Kaizen results, and hence a high productivity figure,local mgmt have no choice but with the close-one-eye explicit approval from the Jap mgmt, the input man-hrs are mostly manipulated to denote a lower number. So,instead of man-hrs, headcounts are used! Of course, using Headcounts as input is allowed in productivity calculation but the unit of measurement differed & have to be specified instead of misleading the overall figures as XXX/man-hrs. What actually happened was that Japanese companies almost invariably depend on overtimes for their daily output. This is also the pressure on local mgmt to reduce labour intake & hence, a lower headcount reported in Japanese countries.In fact, when I was in Japan on numerous occasions since 1975 up to 1991, I have personally experienced the daily 3 hrs overtime which the supervisor will go around taking names 10 minutes before time-out. Most workers have to comply or else....That's another reasons why most Japanese never return home to their wives & families before 8pm. Either they are at work, or they are at other outlets (Pachinko,entertainment outlets,etc)or they will feel ashamed if neigbours see them home early.
Coming back to my experience,sometime overtime working hours are not computed into the overall productivity calculations but nevertheless, the units employed are still "per man-hr" (which should have been "per person"!)
The one other factor which the Jap mgmt would like to mislead the world at large is out-sourced labour,which directly affected the productivity calaculation:
Almost all Jap factories whether in Japan or overseas out-sourced their labour by about 40%. These out-sourced labour (in Malaysia,we called them 'contract labour')usually worked in the manufacturing factories concerned;they sometime wear the same uniforms as the factories employees but some out-sourced labour have their own separate uniforms. There are reasons to the choices.
These out-sourced labour are paid a flat rate (to their bosses).Their bosses in return may pay their employees overtime rate as necessary. However,note that the Jap manufacturing factories compute their labour productivity based on the flat rate which are normally lower than the standard rate paid to their own employees (less the compulsory employees fund, insurance, etc).
One important factor to note is that invariably, not all the out-sourced labour work time are taken into consideration when computing the labour productivity results;in fact, they are not reported at all...they are reported as overhead expenses! Of course, these out-sourced labour work tome calculation are selective & may vary each month; e.g.the main assembly line workers may be considered as direct labour & their work time taken into consideraion but the sub-assembly work labour may be discarded completely.
Out-sourced labour may also be equal to out-sourced work, whereby most of the components purchased are supplied in sub-assembled forms, thus reducing the number of direct labours required in the plant. Ingenious!
So now you know what I meant. In the past, the Americans & the World have been throwing accolades at the Japanese for their strict work ethics & high productivity figures..but I say, don't be misled; what you see is not what you get.
This is not to say that the Japanese Kaizen mgmt system is no good..in fact I love the system because it makes everybody on their toes & really comes out with monthly improvements, no matter how small they are. There are no chances for lazy bones if their intentions are just to come to the factories & just perform their daily chores.
Anyone....Japanese factories? You may also use these methods to improve your company's productivity rate too.
As contrast to the American system where there is quantum leap in improvement & the Chinese where the improvement is reformative (kai ge), the Japanese continuous improvement is a series of slow, slow improvement over a long period of time. That's why if you work in a Japanese company, you must improve (it is compulsory; in fact you need to churn out a Kaizen report every month without fail)but as long as you have a small result reported, it suffices. It keep you on your toes....that's where creativity comes in.
However, having worked in Japanese factories all my live until I retired, Kaizen results are very misleading indeed.That's why in world productivity reports by manufacturing companies over the world, Japanese companies,like Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Suzuki, etc always lead in the productivity figures & subsequently by countries, Japanese always lead the pack whenever the data are released by the Americans or by the Japanese productivity centre.
I could not get the latest figures published (something is wrong..anybody have the data?) but the 2002 figures may suffice as a guideline:
The Jap Productivity Centre reported that Japan ranked 18th among 30 OECD countries in productivity in terms of GDP(using dollars & PPP) over the Labour Force Employed.. Japan at USD54,264 was LAST among 7 major industries by countries. Among the non-OECD countries,Hong Kong & Israel were ranked high at USD50,000. China was ranked 51 out of 58 countries...which is a lot for everyone to ponder,seeing that for the last 10 years, China has consistently raked up more than 8.5 productivity growth rate,e.g. between 1990-2002, China was ranked 1st out of 81 countries in terms of growth rate at average of 8.5% while Japan was ranked at 37th at average of 3.7%.
However, in terms of Physical Labour Productivity, Japan was ranked 3rd out of 37 countries!With Ireland at No.1. In terms of productivity in Manufacturing Industries, Japan ranked 3rd out of 22 countries. This Physical Labour Productivity is measured by using Output over Amt of Invested Labour Hrs,i.e. man-hrs, NOT over Headcount.
Now for my scepticsm at the labour productivity data reported by the Japs:
owing to the immense pressure from top mgmt to churn out an impressive Kaizen results, and hence a high productivity figure,local mgmt have no choice but with the close-one-eye explicit approval from the Jap mgmt, the input man-hrs are mostly manipulated to denote a lower number. So,instead of man-hrs, headcounts are used! Of course, using Headcounts as input is allowed in productivity calculation but the unit of measurement differed & have to be specified instead of misleading the overall figures as XXX/man-hrs. What actually happened was that Japanese companies almost invariably depend on overtimes for their daily output. This is also the pressure on local mgmt to reduce labour intake & hence, a lower headcount reported in Japanese countries.In fact, when I was in Japan on numerous occasions since 1975 up to 1991, I have personally experienced the daily 3 hrs overtime which the supervisor will go around taking names 10 minutes before time-out. Most workers have to comply or else....That's another reasons why most Japanese never return home to their wives & families before 8pm. Either they are at work, or they are at other outlets (Pachinko,entertainment outlets,etc)or they will feel ashamed if neigbours see them home early.
Coming back to my experience,sometime overtime working hours are not computed into the overall productivity calculations but nevertheless, the units employed are still "per man-hr" (which should have been "per person"!)
The one other factor which the Jap mgmt would like to mislead the world at large is out-sourced labour,which directly affected the productivity calaculation:
Almost all Jap factories whether in Japan or overseas out-sourced their labour by about 40%. These out-sourced labour (in Malaysia,we called them 'contract labour')usually worked in the manufacturing factories concerned;they sometime wear the same uniforms as the factories employees but some out-sourced labour have their own separate uniforms. There are reasons to the choices.
These out-sourced labour are paid a flat rate (to their bosses).Their bosses in return may pay their employees overtime rate as necessary. However,note that the Jap manufacturing factories compute their labour productivity based on the flat rate which are normally lower than the standard rate paid to their own employees (less the compulsory employees fund, insurance, etc).
One important factor to note is that invariably, not all the out-sourced labour work time are taken into consideration when computing the labour productivity results;in fact, they are not reported at all...they are reported as overhead expenses! Of course, these out-sourced labour work tome calculation are selective & may vary each month; e.g.the main assembly line workers may be considered as direct labour & their work time taken into consideraion but the sub-assembly work labour may be discarded completely.
Out-sourced labour may also be equal to out-sourced work, whereby most of the components purchased are supplied in sub-assembled forms, thus reducing the number of direct labours required in the plant. Ingenious!
So now you know what I meant. In the past, the Americans & the World have been throwing accolades at the Japanese for their strict work ethics & high productivity figures..but I say, don't be misled; what you see is not what you get.
This is not to say that the Japanese Kaizen mgmt system is no good..in fact I love the system because it makes everybody on their toes & really comes out with monthly improvements, no matter how small they are. There are no chances for lazy bones if their intentions are just to come to the factories & just perform their daily chores.
Anyone....Japanese factories? You may also use these methods to improve your company's productivity rate too.
Monday, 19 April 2010
Who invented the Pen Drive?
I happened to see a programme in Astro AEC today which highlighted the inventor of the pen drive was a young engineer from Sekinchan in the State of Selangor in Malaysia!
His name is Khein-Seng Pua. However, he migrated to Taiwan & the pen drive invention is accredited to the company he worked in.
Now this is very interesting indeed. There were a lot of contradiction as to the invention of the pen drive & nobody wants to be left out, Samsung, IBM, etc
See link here http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/macri-group/message/3978?threaded=1&var=1&p=13. to read some interesting correspondence from another Malaysian inventor Robest Yong who hails from the Methodist Secondary School, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia.
His name is Khein-Seng Pua. However, he migrated to Taiwan & the pen drive invention is accredited to the company he worked in.
Now this is very interesting indeed. There were a lot of contradiction as to the invention of the pen drive & nobody wants to be left out, Samsung, IBM, etc
See link here http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/macri-group/message/3978?threaded=1&var=1&p=13. to read some interesting correspondence from another Malaysian inventor Robest Yong who hails from the Methodist Secondary School, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
HULU SELANGOR BY ELECTION ON 25/4/10
Clear cut winner - Zaid.
Many of the Indian votes will undoubtably go to Zaid. BN's Kamalanathan candidacy was decided by the UMM..NO warlords as usual...it's my say or we opt for an UMM..NO guy.
Look how confident was this Semi Value right from the beginning when he declared,' Hulu Selangor candidate will be Palanivel from MIC!' You see, right from the beginning on April 2, Rocky http://rockybru.com.my/2010/04/new-face-of-mic.html. has leaked out the news that Kamalanathan will be BN's choice & when Semi Value knew that he has no clout over the EM..IC, he timidly backed off & announced,'We will abide by BN's choice.' Since when has Semi Value being so accomodating? Now that his tail has nowhere to be hidden, he self-consoled that Palanivel will be the next president of EM..IC when he retires in 2 years time!! Come on, does he thinks that the members will abide by his command to have no-contest for the next Presidency? What, another non-MP & Minister for the Presidency?
Latest is that Palanivel may be offered a Senator's post to placate him...& he seems happy at it, why not?
I have personally seen how the folks of Hulu Selangor suffered at the hand of the 6 Million Dollar Man MTM when he was disgraced by MM many years ago....all hell broke loose and the properties at Bukit Beruntung & Bukit Sentosa plummeted like 9 pins. Bkt Beruntung & Bkt Sentosa never regain their heydays & great master plans & if you were to cruise the hollow sleepy towns now, you will see rows & rows of abandon housing projects everywhere. People remember. If the Govt is serious about developing the areas, it should not depend only on the MP of the constituency. Of course, the people were taught a lesson but once bitten is twice shy.
The 3 State Assemblies under the Hulu Selangor's constituency are all under BN, so it doesn't make sense for the voters to vot in a BN candidate again. I think to prevent the comeback of the BN 2/3 majority in Parliament & maintain a proper check & balance in the Govt, PR will win thumb-up with improved majority.
Come Apr 25 & cast your polls here.
Many of the Indian votes will undoubtably go to Zaid. BN's Kamalanathan candidacy was decided by the UMM..NO warlords as usual...it's my say or we opt for an UMM..NO guy.
Look how confident was this Semi Value right from the beginning when he declared,' Hulu Selangor candidate will be Palanivel from MIC!' You see, right from the beginning on April 2, Rocky http://rockybru.com.my/2010/04/new-face-of-mic.html. has leaked out the news that Kamalanathan will be BN's choice & when Semi Value knew that he has no clout over the EM..IC, he timidly backed off & announced,'We will abide by BN's choice.' Since when has Semi Value being so accomodating? Now that his tail has nowhere to be hidden, he self-consoled that Palanivel will be the next president of EM..IC when he retires in 2 years time!! Come on, does he thinks that the members will abide by his command to have no-contest for the next Presidency? What, another non-MP & Minister for the Presidency?
Latest is that Palanivel may be offered a Senator's post to placate him...& he seems happy at it, why not?
I have personally seen how the folks of Hulu Selangor suffered at the hand of the 6 Million Dollar Man MTM when he was disgraced by MM many years ago....all hell broke loose and the properties at Bukit Beruntung & Bukit Sentosa plummeted like 9 pins. Bkt Beruntung & Bkt Sentosa never regain their heydays & great master plans & if you were to cruise the hollow sleepy towns now, you will see rows & rows of abandon housing projects everywhere. People remember. If the Govt is serious about developing the areas, it should not depend only on the MP of the constituency. Of course, the people were taught a lesson but once bitten is twice shy.
The 3 State Assemblies under the Hulu Selangor's constituency are all under BN, so it doesn't make sense for the voters to vot in a BN candidate again. I think to prevent the comeback of the BN 2/3 majority in Parliament & maintain a proper check & balance in the Govt, PR will win thumb-up with improved majority.
Come Apr 25 & cast your polls here.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
1Malaysia....race is still first?
I read with disgust our DPM's announcement that he is a Malay first & Malaysian second.
Malaysian DPM says he is a Malay first but that does not mean that he is not a Malaysian at heart.
He said he would be shunned by all the Malays if he were to say that he is a Malaysian first & a Malay second.
And the next day our PM was caught in the trap when he ran to support the DPM that what the DPM said was not wrong.
There goes our 1Malaysia concept. Might as well throw it down the drain.
I have always believed that our new PM is treading a middle path & avoiding stepping on the toes of the other ethnic minorities in the country. The latest NEM unveiled shows a lot of promises but they are all yet to be seen whether they will be implemented, what with all these over zealous civil servants around, including some VVIPs.
Our DPM hails from Johore. Recently, a Minister admitted that there were only 11 Chinese & 109 Indians working in the civil services in Johore! Of course, the usual remark is ' there were very few non-Malay applicants' which most of us do not deny. Non-Malays will never be promoted by merit in the civil services & it is now to be seen whether the new NEM will rectify this bias.
Coming back to 'I am Malay first', the DPM also says that the Indians will aslo say they are Indians first.....how odd? How sure was the DPM? He proceeded to chide Lim Kit Siang that the latter will not tell him he does not struggle for the Chinese community? Now this is a very odd comparison indeed. Does the DPM meant that because he struggled for the Malays, then he is Malay first? Period.
I will always say that I am Malaysian first & Chinese second, so do a lot of my other Chinese & Indian friends. I have been to a few countries, Japan, China, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong; when people asked me who am I, it is an automatic ' I am a Malaysian'. Try saying ' I am a Chinese, Indian or Malay' & see what response you get from your overseas friends. Saying that you are a Chinese, Indian or Malay will simply connote a racist or racial intonation. Your overseas friend will immediately conjure a picture of Malaysia being full of racial sentiments & problems. Therefore, if one says ' I am a Malay first', then enough said. I would not be surprised if this is blurted from Ahmaid Ismail or Ibrahin Ali but not from any high ranking Ministers in the country.
Everywhere in the world, the citizens are so proud to be associated with their countries. " I am an America", "I am an African", "I am a Singaporean", " I am an Indonesian", etc. Make it clear, you are always a Malaysian first, then your stocks come next, be it a Chinese, Indian , Malay, Kadazan, Iban, etc.
Hidup 1Malaysia !
Malaysian DPM says he is a Malay first but that does not mean that he is not a Malaysian at heart.
He said he would be shunned by all the Malays if he were to say that he is a Malaysian first & a Malay second.
And the next day our PM was caught in the trap when he ran to support the DPM that what the DPM said was not wrong.
There goes our 1Malaysia concept. Might as well throw it down the drain.
I have always believed that our new PM is treading a middle path & avoiding stepping on the toes of the other ethnic minorities in the country. The latest NEM unveiled shows a lot of promises but they are all yet to be seen whether they will be implemented, what with all these over zealous civil servants around, including some VVIPs.
Our DPM hails from Johore. Recently, a Minister admitted that there were only 11 Chinese & 109 Indians working in the civil services in Johore! Of course, the usual remark is ' there were very few non-Malay applicants' which most of us do not deny. Non-Malays will never be promoted by merit in the civil services & it is now to be seen whether the new NEM will rectify this bias.
Coming back to 'I am Malay first', the DPM also says that the Indians will aslo say they are Indians first.....how odd? How sure was the DPM? He proceeded to chide Lim Kit Siang that the latter will not tell him he does not struggle for the Chinese community? Now this is a very odd comparison indeed. Does the DPM meant that because he struggled for the Malays, then he is Malay first? Period.
I will always say that I am Malaysian first & Chinese second, so do a lot of my other Chinese & Indian friends. I have been to a few countries, Japan, China, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong; when people asked me who am I, it is an automatic ' I am a Malaysian'. Try saying ' I am a Chinese, Indian or Malay' & see what response you get from your overseas friends. Saying that you are a Chinese, Indian or Malay will simply connote a racist or racial intonation. Your overseas friend will immediately conjure a picture of Malaysia being full of racial sentiments & problems. Therefore, if one says ' I am a Malay first', then enough said. I would not be surprised if this is blurted from Ahmaid Ismail or Ibrahin Ali but not from any high ranking Ministers in the country.
Everywhere in the world, the citizens are so proud to be associated with their countries. " I am an America", "I am an African", "I am a Singaporean", " I am an Indonesian", etc. Make it clear, you are always a Malaysian first, then your stocks come next, be it a Chinese, Indian , Malay, Kadazan, Iban, etc.
Hidup 1Malaysia !
Sunday, 27 December 2009
GST in Malaysia - Consumer woe
Malaysia's decision to implement the GST (Goods & Service Tax), come 2011 is a bit too hasty.
For some of the 143 countries who has implemented it, I say well done. Most countries started straight from the GST, unlike Malaysia who has the existing Sales Tax & Service Tax at 10% & 5% to be morphed into the single GST at 4%.
For the current 10% Sales Tax, the Ring-system is usually applied whereby in the ring of sellers to buyers, only one seller is entitled to collect the 10% Sales Tax on behalf of the Govt. while the rest are exempted.
For the GST system, at every stage of the seller-buyer transaction, a flat 4% will be collected without fail. Invariably, at the end of the line, the consumers will feel the pinch of the prices of goods to be borned.
In case most of you do not know, in the GST system, manufacturers will have no worry at all because they are allowed to 'offset' the 4% paid which they will be paying by the 4% they will be collecting when they sell.
In theory, the net selling price at the consumer end would be lower than the existing price because at each end of the selling-buying stage, the 4% would translate into a lower selling price for the next stage, in fact by about 15.6%.
However, in reality, especially in the short term, most sellers would want to maintain their absolute profit margin rather than to their profit margin rate. ( e.g. an absolute profit of RM10 calculated from 10% of selling price of RM100, would be better than a profit of 10% of the new reduced selling price of RM99).
It is hope that the short term immediate gain by the sellers ( retailers, especially) would be tapered off in the long term when new product pricings are recalculated by the manufacturers according the 4% GST rate.
After all, wouldn't a lower selling price translate into an increase of sales?
Hopefully so.
For some of the 143 countries who has implemented it, I say well done. Most countries started straight from the GST, unlike Malaysia who has the existing Sales Tax & Service Tax at 10% & 5% to be morphed into the single GST at 4%.
For the current 10% Sales Tax, the Ring-system is usually applied whereby in the ring of sellers to buyers, only one seller is entitled to collect the 10% Sales Tax on behalf of the Govt. while the rest are exempted.
For the GST system, at every stage of the seller-buyer transaction, a flat 4% will be collected without fail. Invariably, at the end of the line, the consumers will feel the pinch of the prices of goods to be borned.
In case most of you do not know, in the GST system, manufacturers will have no worry at all because they are allowed to 'offset' the 4% paid which they will be paying by the 4% they will be collecting when they sell.
In theory, the net selling price at the consumer end would be lower than the existing price because at each end of the selling-buying stage, the 4% would translate into a lower selling price for the next stage, in fact by about 15.6%.
However, in reality, especially in the short term, most sellers would want to maintain their absolute profit margin rather than to their profit margin rate. ( e.g. an absolute profit of RM10 calculated from 10% of selling price of RM100, would be better than a profit of 10% of the new reduced selling price of RM99).
It is hope that the short term immediate gain by the sellers ( retailers, especially) would be tapered off in the long term when new product pricings are recalculated by the manufacturers according the 4% GST rate.
After all, wouldn't a lower selling price translate into an increase of sales?
Hopefully so.
Monday, 21 December 2009
HONEY, I shrunk the Chinese!
The sharp reduction of Chinese as a population ratio is contrary to natural growth patterns and an anomaly due to institutionalized discrimination. The present Chinese condition requires them to speak better BM to fit in.
No greater love hath man and moms than they lay down their life savings for their children to study overseas and emigrate.
Between March 2008 and August 2009, some 50,000 students sailed from our shores, Deputy Foreign Minister A. Kohilan Pillay told Parliament last week. The Star speculates that many will not return. Star editor Wong Sai Wan wrote: “… some even admitted that they had already applied for their PR visas”.
They are among 304,358 persons registered with Malaysia’s representative offices abroad over the past 18 months. A review of statistics will help us to interpret this unique Made-in-Malaysia export of roughly 17,000 units of human capital on average a month.
Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, the Chinese are the largest outflow and also experiencing the biggest change in demography.
Proportion of Chinese in Malaysia total population
Year Percent
1957 45+
1970 35.6
1980 32.1
1991 26.9
2000 24.5
2010 22.6*
2035 18.6**
+ Decimal point is approximate
* Projection by Department of Statistics
** Projection in The Population of Malaysia (ISEAS)
In the 80s decade, the Chinese had a negative net migration rate of -10.6 percent. “Between 1980 and 1991, the [Chinese] migration deficit was estimated at 391,801 persons as against a national increase of 777,339 persons,” statistician Tey Nai Peng found in his study.
Chinese annual growth rate also showed a consistent drop, recording only 53 percent between 1990 and 2000 during a period when the national population grew 123 percent.
Tey said in his paper ‘Causes and consequences of demographic change in the Chinese community in Malaysia’ that “the fertility of the Chinese declined from 4.6 children to 2.5 children between 1970 and 1997”. Comparatively, total fertility rate for Malays in 1987 remained a high 4.51 when TFR for Chinese was 2.25.
Changes in the states
It is no longer true that Penang is a Chinese majority state. In 2010, Malays in Penang are projected to be 670,128 persons – outnumbering Chinese at 658,661. Between 1991 and 2000, Penang had an average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent but Penang Chinese only 0.7 percent.
Perak has significant numbers of Chinese but still, Chinese registered a negative growth of -1.0 percent in 1991-2000 whereas the average annual rate of Perak population growth was a positive 0.4 percent.
The Department of Statistics records that in the 1990s, Chinese fell in number in Kelantan, Terengganu and Perlis too. In Malacca, Negri Sembilan and Pahang, Chinese were practically stagnant.
In Sabah, Chinese were 23 percent of the population in 1960 but shrunk to 10.1 percent in 2000. “In contrast, recent immigrants and refugees, with a population of 614,824 persons in 2000, form close to a quarter of the total population, or more than twice the size of the long-settled Chinese community,” writes Danny Wong Tze-Ken in his paper ‘The Chinese population in Sabah’.
The situation in Sabah is largely a result of ‘Project M’ giving Indonesians and Muslim Filipinos Malaysian ICs. Overall, the abnormality of a shrinking Chinese population ratio can be traced to government policies that actively discriminate against this community.
Small families, ageing parents
By year 2000, Chinese were mainly concentrated in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. The Klang Valley accounted for 38 percent of all Chinese in the Peninsula. Nine out of 10 Chinese today are found in urban areas, concentrated in the major cities.
In the dozen years between 1980 and 1991 when the Malaysian population increase nationally was 4,634,500 persons, Chinese increase was only 530,400 persons. Or looking at it another way (as indicated in table below), the Chinese are merely doubling in absolute numbers when the population will have quadrupled.
Numbers of Chinese in Malaysia
Year Chinese (million) Total population (million)
1970 3.6 10.5
1980 4.4 13.7
1991 4.9 18.4
2000 5.7 23.3
2010 6.5 28.9 *
2035 7.7 41.1 **
* Projection by Department of Statistics
** Projection in The Population of Malaysia (ISEAS)
It is conspicuous that among the younger age cohorts, Chinese are an even smaller proportion of the national average. On the other hand, among the elderly [60 years and above], Chinese constitute 5.4 percent of the population, as against the national average of 5 percent.
Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, Chinese have the highest proportion of the elderly. “It is found that most of the ‘clients’ in nursing homes are the Chinese,” observes researcher Philip Poi Jun Hua in his essay 'Ageing among the Chinese in Malaysia: Some trends and issues'.
This situation affecting the Chinese community, with parents either in nursing homes or ‘home alone’ in Malaysia whilst the children are abroad, has ironically come about due to education as a main contributory factor.
“The Chinese community places great emphasis on education but the escalation in the cost of acquiring an education might have compelled young couples to limit their family size,” surmises Tey.
Because educated Chinese women are in the workforce as well as limiting themselves to only one or two children, Chinese couples have more money to spend on each child’s education.
This is in a way a lose-lose scenario because the couple would then tend to over-protect the single offspring – do recall China’s one-child policy outcome of producing Little Emperors – and the well-educated child is more likely to emigrate.
Self-interest vs community concerns
“All my friends plan to leave Malaysia,” a private student in the offshore campus of a premier Australian university in KL declared to me just a couple of months ago.
These youths have cogently articulated why they intend to vote with their feet. Aside from the various reasons we’re all familiar with, I’d like to introduce here the theory of ‘placelessness’ which Lee Boon Thong links to the Chinese condition.
In his paper ‘Placelessness: A study of residential neighbourhood quality among Chinese communities in Malaysia’, Lee observes that Chinese in cities have subordinated neighbourliness and personal ties to the pursuit of personal advancement.
The move to new urban and suburban residential neighbourhoods – where availability of Chinese food and access to shopping malls are often major considerations – is accompanied by other shifts, among them the increasing “technopolistic grip” [orientation towards digital entertainment] and losing some of their traditions [e.g. ancestral worship], especially if they convert to Christianity or Islam.
Lee describes the new society resulting from intense urbanization as one breeding individuals who are more self-centred, more covetous, less considerate and kiasu to boot. “Self-interest overrides almost everything else that concerns the welfare of the community.”
He also says that if the trend persists of residents in emerging neighbourhoods failing to develop ties that bind and a sufficient sense of commonness in community life, then “urban Chinese are at risk in producing a pseudo-progressive society that appears to be outwardly prosperous through its middle-class façade but in effect lacking social coherence and a sense of shared ‘placeness’ for the neighbourhood”.
Commonality as militating factor
Further aggravating this estrangement is a social milieu that is changed, parallel to the pronounced changes in demography. It is projected that while the annual growth of Bumiputera in the next decade (2011-2021) will be 1.98 percent, the corresponding growth of Chinese will be 0.73 percent.
Saw Swee Hock in his 2007 ISEAS paper ‘The Population of Malaysia’ projects that by year 2035, Malaysia will have a population of 41 million, 72.1 percent of them Bumiputera. By then Islam would have stamped a thorough dominance on the physical and moral landscape of the country.
Concomitant to this development is the fact that in the mainstream of all spheres of life and particularly official domains, the predominant speech community will be Malay.
This fait accompli of demography dictates that the minorities have to be adept in the Malay/national language for any meaningful integration to occur. Otherwise, to borrow a turn of phrase from Lee, they will be living in “proximity without propinquity” or in other words, have trouble relating to the majority.
It is thus necessary that next generation Chinese be effectively multilingual and able to ‘code switch’, i.e. use different varieties of language in different social settings. If Chinese are unable create a connectedness especially across ethnic lines, this shortcoming would just be adding another factor to the myriad push factors driving young Chinese away. The statistics tell a very sobering story.
In another short 25 years, Chinese will only be a mere 18.6 percent of the population. They will soon fall below the sustainable threshold for propagating their culture, and their diminishing numbers will only increase the pressure for assimilation – something Chinese are reluctant to do.
Written by Helen Ang
Wednesday, 09 December 2009 13:30
No greater love hath man and moms than they lay down their life savings for their children to study overseas and emigrate.
Between March 2008 and August 2009, some 50,000 students sailed from our shores, Deputy Foreign Minister A. Kohilan Pillay told Parliament last week. The Star speculates that many will not return. Star editor Wong Sai Wan wrote: “… some even admitted that they had already applied for their PR visas”.
They are among 304,358 persons registered with Malaysia’s representative offices abroad over the past 18 months. A review of statistics will help us to interpret this unique Made-in-Malaysia export of roughly 17,000 units of human capital on average a month.
Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, the Chinese are the largest outflow and also experiencing the biggest change in demography.
Proportion of Chinese in Malaysia total population
Year Percent
1957 45+
1970 35.6
1980 32.1
1991 26.9
2000 24.5
2010 22.6*
2035 18.6**
+ Decimal point is approximate
* Projection by Department of Statistics
** Projection in The Population of Malaysia (ISEAS)
In the 80s decade, the Chinese had a negative net migration rate of -10.6 percent. “Between 1980 and 1991, the [Chinese] migration deficit was estimated at 391,801 persons as against a national increase of 777,339 persons,” statistician Tey Nai Peng found in his study.
Chinese annual growth rate also showed a consistent drop, recording only 53 percent between 1990 and 2000 during a period when the national population grew 123 percent.
Tey said in his paper ‘Causes and consequences of demographic change in the Chinese community in Malaysia’ that “the fertility of the Chinese declined from 4.6 children to 2.5 children between 1970 and 1997”. Comparatively, total fertility rate for Malays in 1987 remained a high 4.51 when TFR for Chinese was 2.25.
Changes in the states
It is no longer true that Penang is a Chinese majority state. In 2010, Malays in Penang are projected to be 670,128 persons – outnumbering Chinese at 658,661. Between 1991 and 2000, Penang had an average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent but Penang Chinese only 0.7 percent.
Perak has significant numbers of Chinese but still, Chinese registered a negative growth of -1.0 percent in 1991-2000 whereas the average annual rate of Perak population growth was a positive 0.4 percent.
The Department of Statistics records that in the 1990s, Chinese fell in number in Kelantan, Terengganu and Perlis too. In Malacca, Negri Sembilan and Pahang, Chinese were practically stagnant.
In Sabah, Chinese were 23 percent of the population in 1960 but shrunk to 10.1 percent in 2000. “In contrast, recent immigrants and refugees, with a population of 614,824 persons in 2000, form close to a quarter of the total population, or more than twice the size of the long-settled Chinese community,” writes Danny Wong Tze-Ken in his paper ‘The Chinese population in Sabah’.
The situation in Sabah is largely a result of ‘Project M’ giving Indonesians and Muslim Filipinos Malaysian ICs. Overall, the abnormality of a shrinking Chinese population ratio can be traced to government policies that actively discriminate against this community.
Small families, ageing parents
By year 2000, Chinese were mainly concentrated in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. The Klang Valley accounted for 38 percent of all Chinese in the Peninsula. Nine out of 10 Chinese today are found in urban areas, concentrated in the major cities.
In the dozen years between 1980 and 1991 when the Malaysian population increase nationally was 4,634,500 persons, Chinese increase was only 530,400 persons. Or looking at it another way (as indicated in table below), the Chinese are merely doubling in absolute numbers when the population will have quadrupled.
Numbers of Chinese in Malaysia
Year Chinese (million) Total population (million)
1970 3.6 10.5
1980 4.4 13.7
1991 4.9 18.4
2000 5.7 23.3
2010 6.5 28.9 *
2035 7.7 41.1 **
* Projection by Department of Statistics
** Projection in The Population of Malaysia (ISEAS)
It is conspicuous that among the younger age cohorts, Chinese are an even smaller proportion of the national average. On the other hand, among the elderly [60 years and above], Chinese constitute 5.4 percent of the population, as against the national average of 5 percent.
Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, Chinese have the highest proportion of the elderly. “It is found that most of the ‘clients’ in nursing homes are the Chinese,” observes researcher Philip Poi Jun Hua in his essay 'Ageing among the Chinese in Malaysia: Some trends and issues'.
This situation affecting the Chinese community, with parents either in nursing homes or ‘home alone’ in Malaysia whilst the children are abroad, has ironically come about due to education as a main contributory factor.
“The Chinese community places great emphasis on education but the escalation in the cost of acquiring an education might have compelled young couples to limit their family size,” surmises Tey.
Because educated Chinese women are in the workforce as well as limiting themselves to only one or two children, Chinese couples have more money to spend on each child’s education.
This is in a way a lose-lose scenario because the couple would then tend to over-protect the single offspring – do recall China’s one-child policy outcome of producing Little Emperors – and the well-educated child is more likely to emigrate.
Self-interest vs community concerns
“All my friends plan to leave Malaysia,” a private student in the offshore campus of a premier Australian university in KL declared to me just a couple of months ago.
These youths have cogently articulated why they intend to vote with their feet. Aside from the various reasons we’re all familiar with, I’d like to introduce here the theory of ‘placelessness’ which Lee Boon Thong links to the Chinese condition.
In his paper ‘Placelessness: A study of residential neighbourhood quality among Chinese communities in Malaysia’, Lee observes that Chinese in cities have subordinated neighbourliness and personal ties to the pursuit of personal advancement.
The move to new urban and suburban residential neighbourhoods – where availability of Chinese food and access to shopping malls are often major considerations – is accompanied by other shifts, among them the increasing “technopolistic grip” [orientation towards digital entertainment] and losing some of their traditions [e.g. ancestral worship], especially if they convert to Christianity or Islam.
Lee describes the new society resulting from intense urbanization as one breeding individuals who are more self-centred, more covetous, less considerate and kiasu to boot. “Self-interest overrides almost everything else that concerns the welfare of the community.”
He also says that if the trend persists of residents in emerging neighbourhoods failing to develop ties that bind and a sufficient sense of commonness in community life, then “urban Chinese are at risk in producing a pseudo-progressive society that appears to be outwardly prosperous through its middle-class façade but in effect lacking social coherence and a sense of shared ‘placeness’ for the neighbourhood”.
Commonality as militating factor
Further aggravating this estrangement is a social milieu that is changed, parallel to the pronounced changes in demography. It is projected that while the annual growth of Bumiputera in the next decade (2011-2021) will be 1.98 percent, the corresponding growth of Chinese will be 0.73 percent.
Saw Swee Hock in his 2007 ISEAS paper ‘The Population of Malaysia’ projects that by year 2035, Malaysia will have a population of 41 million, 72.1 percent of them Bumiputera. By then Islam would have stamped a thorough dominance on the physical and moral landscape of the country.
Concomitant to this development is the fact that in the mainstream of all spheres of life and particularly official domains, the predominant speech community will be Malay.
This fait accompli of demography dictates that the minorities have to be adept in the Malay/national language for any meaningful integration to occur. Otherwise, to borrow a turn of phrase from Lee, they will be living in “proximity without propinquity” or in other words, have trouble relating to the majority.
It is thus necessary that next generation Chinese be effectively multilingual and able to ‘code switch’, i.e. use different varieties of language in different social settings. If Chinese are unable create a connectedness especially across ethnic lines, this shortcoming would just be adding another factor to the myriad push factors driving young Chinese away. The statistics tell a very sobering story.
In another short 25 years, Chinese will only be a mere 18.6 percent of the population. They will soon fall below the sustainable threshold for propagating their culture, and their diminishing numbers will only increase the pressure for assimilation – something Chinese are reluctant to do.
Written by Helen Ang
Wednesday, 09 December 2009 13:30
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Unemployed Graduates
Almost all those who attended the interviews I conducted recently were University graduates, eventhough the advertisement didn't specifically mentioned so.
What does this show?
It's an indication of the number of graduates our country is churning out yearly, unqualified to be blunt. Most of the interviewee (graduates) have just been in their current employment for about 6 months or so and most of them have been working in at least 3 companies prior to that.
This brings me to the subject of today- Unemployed Graduates: just how many are there & why are they there?
UNEMPLOYED GRADUATES*
In 2004, there were 4,594 unemployed graduates of which 163 were Chinese, 207 were Indians and 4,060 were Malays;
In 2005, there were 2,413 unemployed graduates of which 31 were Chinese, 70 were Indians and 2,186 were Malays;
In 2006, there were 56,750 unemployed graduates of which 1,110 were Chinese, 1,346 were Indians and 50,594 were Malays.
In 2007, there were 56,322 unemployed graduates of which 1,348 were Chinese, 1,401 were Indians and 49,075 were Malays.
In 2008 (as of June) there were 47,910 unemployed graduates of which 1,403 Chinese, 1,569 Indians and 44938 were Malays.
University & Percentage of Graduates Unemployed
Universiti Teknologi Mara 16.2%
Universiti Utara Malaysia 7.6%
Private Universities & Colleges 6.0%
University Teknologi Malaysia 5.7%
University Kebangsaan Malaysia 4.8%
University Pertanian Malaysia 4.5%
Other Public Universities 4.2%
Universiti Malaya 2.6%
Universiti Sains Malaysia 2.5%
Universiti Malaysia Sabah 1.8%
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa 1.8%
Foreign Graduates 1.7%
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak 0.9%
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris 0.2%
Others 39.5%
Out of the total unemployed graduates, 70% were from the Public Universities & 26% from Private Universities.
Remember also that prior to 1969 (year of the May 13 incident), there were just 2 Public Universities. Between 1969 & 1999, nine Universities were set up & thereafter another nine.
No wonder the friendly burgerman next door was a graduate.
What does this show?
It's an indication of the number of graduates our country is churning out yearly, unqualified to be blunt. Most of the interviewee (graduates) have just been in their current employment for about 6 months or so and most of them have been working in at least 3 companies prior to that.
This brings me to the subject of today- Unemployed Graduates: just how many are there & why are they there?
UNEMPLOYED GRADUATES*
In 2004, there were 4,594 unemployed graduates of which 163 were Chinese, 207 were Indians and 4,060 were Malays;
In 2005, there were 2,413 unemployed graduates of which 31 were Chinese, 70 were Indians and 2,186 were Malays;
In 2006, there were 56,750 unemployed graduates of which 1,110 were Chinese, 1,346 were Indians and 50,594 were Malays.
In 2007, there were 56,322 unemployed graduates of which 1,348 were Chinese, 1,401 were Indians and 49,075 were Malays.
In 2008 (as of June) there were 47,910 unemployed graduates of which 1,403 Chinese, 1,569 Indians and 44938 were Malays.
University & Percentage of Graduates Unemployed
Universiti Teknologi Mara 16.2%
Universiti Utara Malaysia 7.6%
Private Universities & Colleges 6.0%
University Teknologi Malaysia 5.7%
University Kebangsaan Malaysia 4.8%
University Pertanian Malaysia 4.5%
Other Public Universities 4.2%
Universiti Malaya 2.6%
Universiti Sains Malaysia 2.5%
Universiti Malaysia Sabah 1.8%
Universiti Islam Antarabangsa 1.8%
Foreign Graduates 1.7%
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak 0.9%
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris 0.2%
Others 39.5%
Out of the total unemployed graduates, 70% were from the Public Universities & 26% from Private Universities.
Remember also that prior to 1969 (year of the May 13 incident), there were just 2 Public Universities. Between 1969 & 1999, nine Universities were set up & thereafter another nine.
No wonder the friendly burgerman next door was a graduate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
