國油的錢去了那裡？

The above question is being posed at plenty of protests nationwide. In the wake of the 40% petrol price hikes, the question is pretty pertinent.

This might spark controversy, but I'm in principle not opposed to price increases - just as I hope the massive price increases in the US do something to precipitate more prudent driving practices here, I'd hope that the more wealthy at home will respond similarly. That being said, only the privileged can afford to "change their lifestyles", as the UMNO politicians would so poetically put it. Taxi drivers, hawkers, pasar malam pedlars, squeezers of kam chia chiap - how are they going to survive with fuel prices doubling (a 300% increase from just a few years ago)? Is the taxi industry going to see a massive exodus, with drivers switching over to lang chia (人車 - rickshaws)?

I have to wonder just how practical Anwar's promise to lower fuel prices is - the money really has to come from somewhere, and I wonder where he thinks that is. This Realpolitik analysis I think essentially accords with my opinions on the matter. However, I think they're possibly being overly conservative, particularly with respect to Petronas profits, and cleaning up corruption. On the first point, it may be true that Petronas' profits are already 'being used for something', to paraphrase. It's also true that Petronas doesn't have a monopoly on the local petrol market. However, there are some things worth considering:

1) What the hell are the "taxes, dividends and royalties" supposedly accounting for 50% of Petronas' gross profits being used to do? Pay CEOs and advisers? Just how effective is Petronas' R&D that apparently accounts for the other 50% of said profits? And for that matter, how wise is the budgeting for R&D? What percentage of profits are going to sponsor an F-1 team?
2) The point that a great deal of subsidies go to foreign oil companies appears sound. So why not subsidise Petronas petrol, and let Shell, BP, Esso and the lot rot? The US has been undercutting food prices around the globe for years, why not do the same thing with petrol? Then Petronas will see its local market share grow, it'll recoup some of its losses from the local market and in exchange can afford to export less and that might have some shot at stabilising the local supply. It really makes no sense to me that the government shouldn't use the national oil company to cover local demand before trying to generate revenue abroad. But perhaps that's the whole point - the government doesn't care about rationality. Just about siphoning off revenue.

I won't deny that these are entirely naïve opinions. I've long held a disdain for economics. However, the policies in place seem sufficiently nonsensical that my spouting a bit of crap might make the whole lot smell a bit better.

Hm, another point - the Realpolitikers don't think that cleaning up corruption in the govt will save RM50 billion. Entirely true. However, it'll save some amount, and more importantly, one would think that ensuring that money going into the government is going somewhere nominally worthwhile could be considered a goal worth pursuing. On that note, it'll probably (for the moment) be preferable to settle for kicking the corrupt out of power and just keeping them out, rather than spending goodness knows how much on legal fees to prosecute. I'm all for punitive measures, but in tight times, I'll settle for sacking them.

Of course, what the country really needs is to go back a few dozen years and get things right the first time. Since there's no hope of that, the only thing that will work for the moment is palliative care, while putting together sound plans for restructuring and reinfrastructuring, with the hope that one way or another, the cancer will be put into remission.