Comments on: Kenyataan Media: Harga Minyak Perlu Diturun Segera!

By: echopena

echopena — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:08:46 +0000

Assalamu’alaykum datuk seri,
1. Bagaimana untuk berhubungan dengan datuk seri melalui email?
2. Yahoogroups itu masih wujudkah?

By: voicofthevoicless

voicofthevoicless — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:53:32 +0000

To noorhidayat, the first point in your argument of a higher oil price does not apply to Malaysia. The prices of automobiles are already high to begin with (because of our “beloved” auto company proton). That reason alone is enough to slow the demand for automobiles. Plus, thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s road tax, insurance, (increasing number of) tolls, traffic jams.

By 2011, there is a strong possibility that alternative fuel would be introduced considering the current high oil price and the situation in Iraq.

To me, the reason for the refusal to lower the price of oil per-liter in Malaysia is due to building of a second bridge in Penang and RMK-9.

I also agree with zahirÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s view about the chain effect.

By: the __earthinc » Blog Archive » [981] Of Anwar Ibrahim just lost half of my support

Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:10:42 +0000

[...] Anwar Ibrahim calls for a reduction of retail prices of gasoline. I’d imagine such call would introduce more subsidy to already heavily subsidized prices in Malaysia: Kerajaan sepatutnya merendahkan harga runcit petrol di Malaysia berikutan penurunan harga minyak mentah sedunia, keuntungan Petronas yang meningkat dan kadar inflasi yang tinggi. [...]

By: noorhidayat

noorhidayat — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:01:49 +0000

bah.. so many errors.

Shouldn’t we actually decrease that consumption?

I typed “strong” because of the html code.

By: noorhidayat

noorhidayat — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:58:58 +0000

Yes that’s right, but the benefits of increasing petrol price is actually a good idea, imho. First of all, we look at the benefits of actually pushing down the consumer’s thirst for automobiles. We know that cars and jams is an issue that we need to solve, else, we’re going to have a cloudy future.

Secondly, we look at our fuel consumption. It’s increasing by the day! And if I’m not wrong, according to a journal, our petrol consumption is going to increase so much that by 2011, we’re going to be a next importer. Shouldn’t we actually strong that consumption?

Thirdly, though cost of production is actually passed down to the consumers, can’t we have a body that monitors how much of these costs is increased? We try to minimize it and then we increase subsidiary to neccessicities such food in order to benefit all citizens regardless of income level. Putting subsidiary to only fuel benefits more of mid-level to high-level income citizens and actually ignore the rural folks who rarely uses fuel in their daily life. However, putting subsidiary into for an example, food, would mean cheaper access to food that these rural folks have never tasted before - which to me, sounds fairer.

By: zahir

zahir — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:46:03 +0000

Saudara noorhidayat, as an Economic student, I am sure that you also know that price of petrol has chain effects on consumer products, such as food. The government has many other source to increase the GDP.
You cannot purely put theory into practicle. It does not work most of the time.

By: noorhidayat

noorhidayat — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:38:10 +0000

As a student of Economics, don’t you think that putting the fuel price at a higher price will actually benefit the citizens? It’s a paradox, but, with lesser subsidiary, that means, the government can sped more, which means the component of GDP is actually increasing. Transfers, such as subsidiary only hurt the National Income no?

Instead of lowering the price of fuel, I actually prefer prices of food to be subsidiarized.