Another Version of 22 Years of Bullshit?

(OnDaStreet’s Note: This is not personal, it is just a matter of idea of an article. No intention of starting a blog war.)

It was months ago when I started and one of my earliest blog pal is Wenger J Khairy. I have to say that his writings need some intellectual thinking and admired some of his aprroach of thinking.

However, for some reason of his perception towards Tun Mahathir, he wrote “22 years of bullshit” (which he has keep in the box since the blog contained the article has been deleted) which I encountered with “22 years of bull?“.

Few days ago, he wrote “Choose Isa because he did not cost you RM 21billion” to justify nomination of TS Isa by highlighting what have been incurred during Tun Mahathir’s premiership. His article is as follows:

Tun Dr Mahathir has made his case against choosing Tan Sri Isa as the candidate for the Bagan Pinang by election. He claims that Tan Sri Isa is a tainted candidate and choosing him will show that UMNO is a corrupt party.

Actually, what is Tan Sri Isa’s high crime? Giving money to politicos who have to spend money taking care of the juak. And why do they have to spend money, and a lot of it.

Imagine if the cost of the vote was tied to the price of a car, perhaps the latest Honda, something like a indexed linked fun.

TS Isa’s problem is no longer of ethics, its of cost. We all know about A/Ps. We all know about the high tax placed on foreign imports. We all look enviously at our neighbours driving the latest cars on our roads, and picking up the speed bill, whilst we are still paying off that New Saga we bought 3 years ago.

Imagine if we did not have this Mahanomics brain child, and the laws of the free market was in place.

What loss is to the country?
The argument was made that with Proton, we would have the necessary technical expertise to undertake many great things, like send a man to the moon. The fact remains we had to pay the Russians RM 10 million to send our man into space. We have to fork out RM 300 million a year to launch the Formula 1 1Malaysia programme, and at the same time rely on our ex-colonial masters to run the technical show.

So what actually we have gained?

I can tell you how much we lost.
Imagine that if there was not this Mahanomics brain child, car prices was 25% lower. It is the most conservative estimate. Just for your info, on current prices, without this Mahanomics invention g for the price a Satria Neo, you could own a Honda Civic.

Take a look at the table below. It is the summary of Car loans outstanding on the bank books for the last 3 years.

Every year we pay RM 30 billion on our cars, of which RM 27 billion is to amortize the principal, and RM 3 billion is interest. At the same time, banks originate about RM 32 billion a year in new car loans. The total loan book for cars stands at around RM 111 billion as of July 2009, or 15% of the total loans outstanding in our banking system.

Now RM 32 billion a year is the price for all the new cars bought in that year, but what is its actual value? We know that the price is abnormally high due to Mahanomics, but assuming there was no Mahanomics, we could surely bring down the price by 25%. That means instead of having to spend RM 32 billion a year on new cars and RM 31 billion to pay off the cars we already “own”, we would instead only need to spend RM 23 billion respectively.

Thats a huge savings. It actually translates to RM 21 billion for the last 2 1/2 years. This RM 21 billion would have remained in households, could be used to purchase local goods and services, support jobs and increase quality of life.

I have even ignored the multiplier effect in the economy!
Surprisingly some young bright economists seem to think highly of this man. Maybe we should ask him to write a paper on Mahanomics for his dissertation!
So perhaps, if it was not for Mahanomics, people will find it easier to survive. Maybe, is it fair to say, the original money politic instrument was the A/P itself?

And surely, Tan Sri Isa would not need to buy any support to win the VP position a couple of years back. Even if he did, he would not have had to pay so much.

Of course, being thought of comparing apple to apple, not chicken to duck, I have dropped my thoughts on this article:

Dear Wenger,
As usual, the article of yours need some thinking and considered as brilliant. However, I can’t help but to ask this..

By way of your writing, it is as if TS Isa is running against Tun Mahathir.. why do you make comparison to what have been incurred by Tun as Prime Minister for 22 years and TS Isa as MB? Is Tun was trying to put himself as candidate that lead you to make the comparison to justify choosing TS Isa?

Make no mistake that I have nothing against TS Isa. I have also reserve my opinion against the nomination of TS Isa as I am more interested in observing campaigns by both coalition for their candidate.

My question is posed to ask the relevancy to compare expenditure of ex-PM and ex-MB. It is like comparing cost of Rolls Royce and Proton.

Frankly speaking, while typing this comment, my mind kept being reminded how you made comparison of Malaysia with Gabon and Bostwana to justify your reason (remember “22 years of Bullshit”? A copy of rebuttal still exist in my blog to what you have written).

Anyway, just my two cents of thoughts.

Have a nice day!

~ OnDaStreet

I do hope this is not just another type of “22 years of bullshit”… And actually.. I wonder, why compare TS Isa and Tun.. is Tun running for the nomination? Or is it Tun for the DUN seat.. or Pakatan?



6 thoughts on “Another Version of 22 Years of Bullshit?

  1. This is Mr Wenger J Khairy’s reply for the record:

    Dear Ondastreet,
    Once again a great pleasure to have you comment here.

    Well TS Isa was part of the story, but not really the whole focus of the story. (Its a classic Wenger tactic of which I am gulity as charged)

    The larger story is as follows. I am really really pissed off with the Mahathrist supporters; in fact I will rather leave Tun alone, but every time I read an article on the Mahathrists blogs that seem to make him out to be something he isn’t and pours scorn on Pak Lah, I get very angry. So I decided that as long as they do that, I will attack based on facts.

    My gut feeling is that we have a seriously wrong model. But I have to prove it first to myself and then if I am convinced I will actually show it to the world. If I am wrong, then some bright spark who is a Tun supporter can tear my argument to pieces. In fact I directly challenged a superstar Economics grad who is a bona fide Tun supporter to attack my conclusion.

    But there has been nothing. It seems that support for Tun is like support for Michael Jackson, form over substance. Once again, heck I don’t mind, if they support Tina Turner, but when Tun supporters behave in an arrogant manner, they need to be taken down a peg or two.

    But the larger issue of an economy headed in the wrong direction still remains. That is unfortunate.

You are part of people on the street. My opinion might not as good as yours. Come, please share your thoughts with us!!!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s