GST finally.....

The nature of Good and Service tax ( or Value Added Taxes) , is a universal taxes that charged taxpayer on how much they spend instead of how much they earned.

1. There will be an one-off inflation as soon as the taxes is implement. ( for a 4% GST, expecting a 5 % increase on goods and 10% increase on service ). As the taxing structure is complicated, the task to avoid double charging will be, difficult.

2. By universal taxes, it means people normally dont pay taxes, ( ie unemployment workers, retire worker, low income worker, in-loss Small and Medium Enterprise, charity organization ) one way or another, ended up paying taxes as they shouldnt.

Hence, combined 1 and 2, i would strongly againts it unless thats the drastic measure have to take to control budget deficits.

And combining with my previous post, thats mean
First, a strong signal for future budget control is necessary to convince us that gov wont misused our money. (like what National Audit Firm reveal every year)
Second, some sort of measure must be present to cuishion those hard-core poverty againts the predicted inflation, and carefully watched so that it wont be misused.
Third, by taxing every consumer in this country, we should gain a higher voice on government expenditure, through watch dog, budget control committee and all sort of means.

But the underlying key is, are we mature enough, to put aside all the racial disputes, self educate ourself towards the every detail of gov operation, and think rationally?

Before GST , lets talk about Budget ....(1)

Malaysia is going to implement its first Good and Service Tax sooner or later. Before talking about the pros and cons . lets have a flashback on some facts, and roles of government.

Fact 1, Malaysia Gov budget is to be 190 billion rm, which acounts to 27 % of Gross National Income.

Fact 2, on the 12th consecutive year of budget deficit, the gov have a projected 5.6% budget deficit of Gross National Income, which equivalent to a mounting of 300 billion rm of national debit. ( each malaysian bear roughly rm 10,000 above. ) . In 2010 year, the gov spending on interest alone will be 16 billion rm.

Fact 3, According to DAP alternative budget 2010, the glowing budget deficit is due to uncontrolled fiscal discipline in 3 areas , namely expenditure to emolument ( namely payment and allowances etc for gov servant) from Rm 14.0 billion to RM 36.20 billion. and expenditure for supplies and service from RM 5.2 billion to RM　２５．９　billion, and expenditure for subsidy from RM 5.2 billion to RM 25.9 billion ( typo?)

Implication one, besides trimming out the fats hidden under the government budget ( ie, wasted and unnecessary expenditure) , to close the deficit , or reduce operating cost as DAP provisioned, we need to cut the crude oil subsidy from RM 33.0 billion to RM 13.0 billion....


Now lets do the Maths,
To have the power to propose those budget changes, DAP and Pakatan Rakyat have to win the General Election.
The DAP and Pakatan already winning support on majority of city dweller in the north Malysia, where people pay the taxes most and enjoy benefit least, according to the electoral structure in Malaysia, they need support from Johor, Sabah, Sarawak, Pahang and Terengganu. Places where the people pay less taxes and enjoy more benefit .

By taxes i mean tolls and income taxes and other etc, by enjoyment i mean petrol price subsidy and other subsidy etc....

Any proposed change to budget to control deficit will hurt a large amount of special interest group. Which surely vote for existing gov.

The Key is those people from remote area, terengganu, pahang, sabah and sarawak where their votes carry heavier weight than others, the DAP proposed to strip off the subsidy and replace it with a bracket of Social Welfare benefits instead. This message needs to be deliver clearly to the locals. Or else only the ist part of statement will be used by Gov as publicity. But the problem is, The Pakatan Rakyat is weak at local political organization in this area

And here came the Biggest problem, from what the outsider saw ( and it does ), Pakatan Rakyat is still a coalition formed based on political interests instead of common principle and vision. The pakatan was held largely due to the charisma of Ex- Deputy Anwar Ibrahim, and with his age and reputation falling ( due to the fallacy of 916 change of gov) , there is no clear energetic and powerful successor among the parties that can forged further the three party together. Not to mention PKR and DAP still lack the right inside structure to lure ambitious youth and talents.

And , Not to mention the Islamic nation visioned by PAS is indeed in conflict with the principle DAP held, without solving those internal and external problems, Pakatan Rakyat will still be a tool to broke Gov 2/3 majority in Parliament instead of an alternatives...

Most important, even if we somehow voted Pakatan Rakyat to be federal gov before they solved their problems, the risk of letting an unprepared party to rule is far dangerous. Take Taiwan Opposition party as example...

Cutting Carbon emmission among developed, a prisoner Dilemma...

If you noticed European Union Target for cut of carbon emmission, you might came across the following weirdo:

The European union promises to cut 20 % o carbon emission by 1990 level, and 30% if other Wealth Nation follow suits.

I called that Prisoner Dilemma, recalled from wikipedia

" Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act? "

To Cut Carbon emission, you either need to change your lifestyle, using greener alternative source to generate electricity, and replacing old, carbon intensified machine and devices with a new one. These total package of 'Green technology ' dont come cheap , and sometimes many time more expensive than conventional technology.
Hence, to force the society to adopt the 'Green Technology' , governments have only two way.

One is to heavily subsidized the green technology , by research funding, promised electricity price buying and so on. But given the large scale of the Green technology needed for adoption to cut carbon emission, this would be very costly. ( Think of amount of rm spent on petrol subsidized in Malaysia. )

Another is to raise the market price of conventional technology, through tax on carbon emission fuels ( Petroleum) , tighter emission control on machine and devices,
and a cap and trade system, etc. As a results, consumer force to paid directly in order to meet carbon emission target. And industries hurt because higher market price for technology means losing competitiveness.

Thus came the scenario now facing, if only European Union taking the steps toward carbon emission cuts, it industry lose while other developed countries industrial thrilling because their cost of production cheaper. Hence came the prisoner dilemma, either everyone cooperates, ( promise to cut carbon emission) , hence reducing burden on industrial each countries beared. or everyone defects, leaving carbon emission cut a cheap talk.

And , till now, the biggest player, USA , still showing stronger sign of defecting instead of cooperating. Thats the biggest problem...

The dilemma of Joe the plumber....

Would you support government raised tax on firm that earn over 250000 a year so that company make profit less than that can have a tax break?
The answer is yes if you know you cant make it, the answer is no if you know you will make it.

So problem, when do you know whether you will make it or not? When the economic is doing well, most people will be optimistic about their future, hence they wont support the plan. But when economy is going down, people will become pessimistic, hence they would support the plan.

Going back to the root of the problem, should the people who work hard to earn more, pay more tax and bear more social responsibility? I am not going to judge it , but some point of view....

First, the design of capitalism system is that people who work hard will earn more than the others. and hence, as a results, the rich appeared to be using more public resource ( ie, police, road, government service, etc) . Shouldn't they pay more?

Second, by contribute more , the rich help to create a better and fairer platform for the poor. So that they can have a same starting point, to avoid polarity in wealth distribution. History show that when wealth distribution are not equal, revolution tend to occur which harm the rich. Hence, by paying more, the rich are actually insuring their properties.

The First Amendment...

What we lack is not only the first amendment, but also the spirit to guard it, and the goodwill not to abuse it...

what is first amendment? as quote from wikipedia.
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the Establishment Clause) or that prohibit the free exercise of religion (the Free Exercise Clause), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Why is first amendment so important?
Because if there is no first amendment,
A nation can force the minority to practise religion habits of the majority public event, making people who wish to out from majority religion difficult, or practising law base on religion which not applicable to others...

if there is no first amendment,
A autocrat can rule a country without being challenge, the democracy system no longer democracy as the ruling party can suppress the voice of the opposition by controlling the media, shutting down websites, blog , etc ,

if there is no first amendment,
Media will not able to observe and report the misbehaviour of government servant when their licent is controlled by them, as a results, inefficient , corrupted servants can remained at their post without being challenge,even their boss cant control them , as happened in China,

if there is no first amendment,
the majority race can suppress the minority through published racist view, they can accused others racial being guilty , or ignored others right as they hold the political power... And the politikus can simply maintain their power by promoting hatred toward other races, so that he will be look like a hero and popular among his races...

if there is no first amendment,
The intellectual will afraid to voice opinion on government project, or critized the government, as they will afraid being arrested by government, or loosing job and business just because others afraid to hire or do business with them, which in turn results in governor never improve their service...

If there is no first amendment, different group of people will keep on fighting, instead of communicating with others, as they never heard others voice in...

Many rulers and politician argue that if first amendment is abused , will cause racial riot and destroy the social harmony. Infact, they just dont understand the spirit of first amendmend. " i strongly disagree with you, but i will defence your right to speak with my life. " The existing of first amendment require as to be rational. That is, dont over reacted, or counter with violence when others say something that you are discomfort with.

Some says, if freedom of speech fully practised, people can make accusation, liar, or speech promoting racial hatred without being punished. For that, they still dont understand freedom of speech. First , the line drawn on what can be said and what cannot is based on ethnic, that is you can quetions others race priviledge but not attacked them personally. Second, all accusation made to person must come with solid proof, where you cant accused at your will . Third, what you said should be truth, or atleast close to it. Or else you must ready to face legal action.

The problem here, however, is how to draw the line. And who have the right to justified and draw it. The answer, is however, based on universal law, that besides truth and proper reasoning, you dont want others to said to your face, you should allow anybody, including yourself , said to other. Which is called respect.

I hereby challenge you to challenge, question , or discussed with me on the topic. But not without truth and proper reasoning!

thought on monty hall problem

i originally think that staying at my choice have better chance to win, but now, switching have 2/3 chance of winning compared to staying which only 1/3.

One interesting thought:

Let say between Abd, Anw and Naj , one of them is the "car" , which can truly lead the country. Now , we have choosen Abd. By some mean , the host ( god or Allah or whatever) , open another door Naj and show goat behind( indicate Naj is not the car) . So does switching to Anw lead a better chance to win the car ( a better leader)?
interesting, isn't it?

y 831 not 916?

As we both know, Malaysia was found on the date of september 16, not August 31 . However, as Malaya gained independent day at August 31, we , whether you are east malaysian or west Malaysia, both celebrate August 31 as our independence day and national day despite the fact that Malaysia was not even found on that day yet.

There may be several reason for that. First, as Malaysia political leaders, systems still concentrate on west Malaysia, the concept of Malaysia is defined based on west Malaysians point of view. Hence, it wouldn't be surprise as the west malaysian still thinking on themself that Malaysia ( not Malaya ) gained independence on August 31.

Second reason may be because of the conflicts between Malaysia and Singapore, Tunku Abdul Rahman and Lee Kuan Yew ( former singapore prime minister). When Malaysia was first found, the states include are Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak. Tunku initially want to put the founding date to be august 31, which is his birthday or his lucky number. However due to certain problem, Tunku agreed to postponed the date to September 16 as suggested by Lee Kuan Yew, without knewing the fact that September 16 was Lee's birthday. Hence, it would be rather sarcastic if we celebrate lee's birthday, which once regarded as tunku and Malay's enemy in the past 60-an to 70-an.

Third reason maybe the ruling political party, UMNO, want to maintain their dominance trough emphasizing on independence of Malaya but not founding of Malaysia. As we both know, UMNO played a major role in pushing Malaya towards the independent state. However the founding of Malaysia would not be a success without the support and effort of the GERAKAN, sabah and sarawak's political leaders. Celebrating September 16 will some how weaken the political rightness for Umno to claimed the ruling of the nation as it no longer the sole core party in pushing Malaysia towards founding.

The fact that many Malaysians do not aware that september 16 is instead our national day bring worries that our thinking still remain on pre independence Malaya . Where what we care for is based on racial but the whole Malaysian. It wouldnt be surprise if the text books history, the sultanese system, political and diplomacy system are based on West Malaysian's . Opposed the fact that sabah and sarawak should have the equal rights and power not only on the surface, but also inside the content of Malaysia.

Hence, unless we put the importance of september 16 over august 31, the concept of " Malaysia for Malaysians " is just a dream.

Malay Supremacy vs Islam Supremacy, interesting....

Politic in country M is funny, like a comedy series.

First, to counter the attempt of the opposition party led by Mr.A to overthrow the existing government, The party U inside ruling party proposed to form a collaboration with party P, under the name of Malay Reunion.

Threatened by this proposal, Mr. N. Aziz in party P counter back by proposing to form a whole new party based on Islam principle. i bet neither of the proposal will be realized in up coming time.

Indeed, Party P and Party U had collaborate before. However, due to different in principle, their " marriage " broke up. As party U focus on building a moderate islamic country which one race will have privilege, party P sought to build an islamic nation based on islam law which theoretically should teach all races equally.

On the other hand, the leaders in party U have their own position, power, and network of money. Dissemble the party and form a new party will mean all the leaders will need to start all over again, which do not guarantee their success. Hence, chance are little that they are willing to do so.

The situation here all depends on Mr. A and PKR, depends on whether Mr. A can grab a parliamentary seat, and gained enough support to form the new government . Whatever it is, it will not be good news for the minorities and democracy in country M, as both parties will continue to lean to the side of extremist to strengthen their support, like what happened during 2005 party U' s y0uth conference.

A giant douche and turd sandwich- the political dilemma in a M country....

Okay, i am afraid of being caught under ISA or akta hasutan, so for the following content i will just use some abbreviation where only the people know.

First, election is always a choice between giant douche and turd sandwich. In other words, the voter is always choose to vote between 2 rotten apple. The only different is that one apple rotten less, thats it.

For example, in a country M, the ruling party is well known of corruption, playing dirty trick( like sodomy, ISA etc), distributing sweeties during election time only, and wish to build a nation focus on one particular race only. While the opposition parties is known as hard to cooperate among each other, still not capable of ruling, and worse, starting to adopt the style and bad behaviour of the ruling party.

So, how do we choose between a giant douche and turd sandwich? A boy in southpark name Stanley Marsh faced the same dilemma as us before, and he gave the solution : Voted against those who threatening you during the election.

Besides choosing a leader, the meaning of the election is to sent a message to the future ruling party about what the voters dont want. In other ways, it served as the tool to control a government, especially in country M where there is always overlapping of power between execution , legislation and even juridical power. Which all of them are control by one party.
Hence, it will not be surprise when some member of ruling party threatened other races about reoccurring of certain event without being taken action. It will not be surprise that the federal government can punished the state government controlled by opposition party, ( like take away the petroleum tax, abandoned development plan, etc.) without receiving consequences.

Hence, election is the only way that we can do something to control the government. To be clear, in a country that exercising Westminster political system like country M, The existent of humble government servants, ensure that the shift of power after election go smoothly and thus reduce the damage when incapable politicians doing their jobs ( as for now). Hence, the parties compete in the election is always consist of giant douche and turd sandwich. The only difference is that we have to say no, when the ruling party goes wrong.