Poverty line income in 2012? The number of poor in Malaysia increasing or decreasing

The BN government happily tells us that our poverty rate is dropping. Reading a lot of speeches and reports we see how thanks to the BN government, our poverty rate has dropped...we are given statistics (percentages) of how much it has dropped - BUT the question is always what exactly is that poverty line income that is being used. How is it calculated? Is it reasonable? What was the earlier poverty line incomes? How do you even derive this percentages showing dropping poverty rates... is it based on a survey of all Malaysians, or just a sampling, and if a sampling what the number sampled, etc. Was it just workers in the public sector and their families that were sampled? Malaysians need to know all this - our trust and belief in the ruling government and its Ministers are faltering...trust is disappearing....and only transparency may help regain some of the lost trust.

The state’s poverty rate dropped from 24.2 per cent in 2004 to 19.7 per cent in 2009, Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman disclosed yesterday. He said the marked decrease in the poverty rate is in the interior areas which recorded a 13.2 per cent reduction from 29.0 per cent in 2004 to 15.8 per cent in 2009. - Government Transformation Program Website, Borneo Post, 7/9/2012, Poverty rate drops drastically in interior – CM

What is Malaysia's poverty line income? The Human Resource Minister said that it was RM720 in a speech on August, 2010, but then a Malaysian Insider report, aparently in reliance with the 10th Malaysia Report released on June 2010, and the New Economic Report released in April that year tells us that the poverty income line for Malaysia in 2009 is RM800.

"...The other reason is, according to our National Employment Returns 2009, 34% of 1.3 million workers in the study earn less than RM700. It could be more. Our Government has determined the poverty line to RM720, so we have by virtue of the wage mechanism itself, we are creating poverty in about 34% of people on the go, without doing anything else at all. So when the Government decided the poverty rate is RM720 and our wage mechanism by virtue implementation as we have, shows that 34-35% of below poverty line and that is something to do and to think about...." - 

SpeechBy Y.B. Datuk S. Subramaniam, Minister Of Human Resources National Minimum Wage Workshop, 4August 2010, Putrajaya International Convention Centre

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, those figures were for 2009, what then is the new poverty line income for 2012 - given that subsidies for sugar have been reduced, and certainly cost of living has gone up....oh yes, now we even have to pay that extra service tax...mmm 

The BN government really must be transparent as to how the poverty line income is calculated, and also reveal information about past poverty line incomes...and when it changed, etc. 

If Peninsular Malaysias, poverty line income is RM763, then...

“RM5.80 is supposed to pay for three meals, transport costs, rent, recreation and the other components for ONE person in ONE day. Tell me, can a Malaysian in the Peninsula even buy three meals a day on RM5.80?

Looking at the poverty income line for 2009, it is obvious that it is higher for Sabah (RM1048) and Sarawak (RM912), whilst for Peninsular Malaysia it is RM763.

So, how can the BN government justify setting the minimum wage for Peninsular Malaysia at RM900, and for Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territory of Labuan at RM800. Rightly, the minimum wages of workers in East Malaysia should have been so much higher at the very least equivalent to their poverty line income.

Someone told me once that to show a country's poverty rate is dropping is something that could very easily be achieved the poverty line income, or keeping the poverty line income low... Wonder whether that is what our government need to demonstrate how successfully it has eradicated poverty in Malaysia? What do you think?

How poor are we, really?

By Sheridan Mahavera

July 21, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, July 21 — The government likes to boast that Malaysia has almost erased poverty. It is the one unchallenged success that is shouted out again and again to show how far we have come since Merdeka.

The line is familiar: “In 1970, 49.7 per cent of households were living in poverty. Now it is only 3.8 per cent.” Or out of 6.2 million households, only 228,400 can be classified as poor.

These 228,400 are households that earn an average of RM800 a month and below.

Is RM800 a fair cut-off point? Because it effectively means that if a household of four earns RM900, RM1,000, or even RM1,500 a month, they cannot be considered poor.

If that is the case, then why are there more and more media reports of families complaining that they cannot make ends meet even when they earn RM2,000?

How did the government calculate and decide that RM800 is the poverty line?

Jayanath Appudurai, who writes extensively on poverty for the Centre for Policy Initiatives, believes that the government’s calculations are unrealistic.

Here, he argues that we need a new standard to measure poverty — one that more accurately represents the cost of food, clothing, rent and other basic necessities, and how much it takes for an average family of four to keep themselves afloat in today’s Malaysia.

Jayanath’s assessment is based on government data in its 10th Malaysia Plan (10MP) report released in June, and the New Economic Model (NEM) that was out in April.

The Poverty Income Level (PLI) is defined as:
“An income that is necessary to buy a group of foods that would meet the nutritional needs of the members of a household. The income is also to meet other basic necessities such as clothing, rent, fuel and utilities, transport and communications, medical expenses, education and recreation.”

Plainly speaking, the PLI is how much money in a month a Malaysian household needs to meet these eight components.

Though the Government calculates different PLIs for Malaysia’s three regions, the total average PLI is RM800.

For this demonstration, Jayanath uses the Peninsula PLI of RM763.

A household living in the peninsula is considered poor only if its monthly income is below RM763.

“The government claims that it uses a World Bank standard to measure PLI. But they do not reveal the actual methodology of how they arrive at RM763,” says Jeyanath.

The World Bank standard, Jayanath says, recommends that medium-income countries should calculate PLI based on US$2 (RM6.20) per individual per day. Meaning one person would need US$2 per day in order to meet both food and non-food necessities.

If that figure were used for Malaysia, a theoretical household of 4.4 people would then need RM858 a month to not be declared poor.

The government considers a household as comprising an average of 4.4 members, says Jayanath. (Total number of households divided by total population = 4.4).

The PLI of RM763, therefore, is translated into a daily income of RM25.45 that a household needs to meet the eight components such as food, rent, clothing and fuel.

“Or, that if a member of a household earns RM5.80 a day, they cannot be considered poor.

Since, according to the government, you are able to live on RM5.80 a day.

In other words Jayanath explains:

“RM5.80 is supposed to pay for three meals, transport costs, rent, recreation and the other components for ONE person in ONE day. Tell me, can a Malaysian in the Peninsula even buy three meals a day on RM5.80?

“In fact, I’d challenge our government ministers to try that,” said Jayanath

Jayanath says countries such as Britain and Australia calculate PLIs based on the median income of its households. The median income is a country’s total income divided by half.

The PLI is two-thirds of the median income.
In Malaysia the median income is RM2,830. Using this method, the PLI would then be RM1,886.

In effect, this translates into RM14.20 per day for an individual to meet all their eight needs.

“Compared to RM5.80, is not RM14.20 a more realistic figure in terms of how much one needs per day in Malaysia?”

A former finance minister had once said, repeatedly, that if we were to revise how we measure poverty, our poverty rate would not be the vaunted 3.8 per cent. He is right, technically.

Jayanath’s calculations would put Malaysia’s poverty rate at somewhere between 31 to 32 per cent.

“Our poverty level looks good on paper but woefully ignores reality. We are so obsessed with selling this story that we are a success.”

Statistics are supposed to accurately measure our economic environment, so that in this case, pin-point policies to deal with poverty can be crafted.

The government has begun scaling back subsidies so that they would only benefit those they are meant for — the poor.

How is it supposed to do this if we cannot even accurately measure who the poor are? - The Malaysian Insider, 21/7/2010, How poor are we, really?

PTPTN - Student Loans Should Be Repaid Not Waived

Are we not talking about student loans that were given to students at institutions of higher learning who would now be diploma and degree holders, who certainly would also be earning reasonably good incomes, and as such I do not see why Malaysia (or the government) should excuse these persons from repayment of their student loans? The failure of the BN government was the neglect in pursuing those who defaulted in their loan payments - and this apparently has resulted in a sum of RM24.7 billion owed to the National High Education Fund (PTPTN) by these persons, who certainly will no longer still be non-income earning students.

Their failure in repaying their student loans, where I believe their repayment obligations were also made easier, i.e. by reasonable installment payments. PKR's proposal that this debt be 'written-off', and those that have paid up their loans be rebated is unacceptable. 

Remember, that in Malaysia, we have more than 30% of workers who earn below poverty line wages. The country also has a debt of about RM450 billion. And the Malaysian government, has been withdrawing subsidies even on necessary basic essentials which have cost an increase in the cost of living of the poor Malaysians and their families. Hence, that oil and gas revenue can and should be used for so many other things other than benefiting these persons who have abdicated on their obligations to repay their student loans.[ see Malaysia's Debt - RM450 billion, Singapore - Zero; Malaysia's Debt 54% of GCP, Indonesia only 24%, Singapore 0]

Wooing voters is one thing - but this certainly is not the way. I would be interested in also knowing how many of our MPs, ADUNs, Senators, Local Councilors, public servants, etc who have not settled their PTPTN Loans, and if they have not settled and have also failed in their obligations to make their regular installment payments, I would go as far as suggesting that they should even maybe be disqualified from running for public office. A failure to repay student loans, especially to the government and to student unions, is an act against the people of Malaysia, would you not say so...

PKR offers formula to settle PTPTN debt

Koh Jun Lin 11:26AM Apr 11, 2012

The RM24.7 billion owed to the National High Education Fund (PTPTN) by students can be financed with just RM2 billion per annum from oil and gas revenues over 15 years, said PKR.

Its strategic director Rafizi Ramli said that RM2 billion was a mere fraction of the government’s oil and gas revenues, which he said stood at RM59.8 billion in 2010, including taxes on foreign oil companies.

Speaking a dialogue session with students in Shah Alam last night, Rafizi said in response to demands for a formula to PKR’s claims that it would write off PTPTN loans to defaulters.

“In other countries, oil and gas revenues would be placed in a separate fund solely meant for investing in the future, such as in research or education,” said the former Petronas senior manager.

He also said that the RM43 billion cost cited by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak on Saturday was misleading, because that is only the sum approved, but not the sum disbursed thus far.

Rafizi pointed out that official PTPTN documents showed that as of March 31, 2010 the fund had only disbursed RM24.9 billion.

“RM43 billion is a lie. The prime minister clearly lied when he said RM43 billion. Perhaps he was lied to, or his spin-doctor misinformed him.

“PTPTN’s information clearly shows that it is only half of that,” he said.

Rebates for those who paid

As a last resort, he said PTPTN loans could be refinanced by issuing bonds.

To be fair to borrowers who are repaying or have repaid their PTPTN loans, Rafizi suggested that a rebate should be offered for the RM2.8 billion collected up to 2011, whether in part or in full.

In order to fund future higher education, he said that the government should reverse the trend of encouraging higher education to be undertaken by the private sector, which he said started in 1996.

He said the government should build ten new public institutions of higher learning over the next ten years, with the goal of accommodating 100,000 students. The cost of tuition and accommodation are to be borne by the government.

“The abdication of the responsibility of the government in providing higher education to the society will have a severe financial, societal, and especially economic impact 20 to 30 years down the line,” he said.

In addition, he said more funds could be made available by cutting wasteful spending, especially in defence expenditure.

Sustainability

Rafizi suggested that there should be a new education fund for students who opt to study in private institutions.

However, he said, there would be few applicants for this fund if students can find vacancies in their courses of choice in public universities that are free and of high quality.

This in turn would force private institutions to consolidate and improve their competitiveness, which he argued would lower the cost of higher education even for those who opt to study there.

When asked by a member of the audience whether his model of funding higher education is sustainable once oil and gas resources have depleted, Rafizi conceded that it would not be possible.

He said the quality of local public institutions of higher learning would need to be improved to the point where it could attract grants and endowment funds, hence become self-sustaining and able to offer its own scholarships.

“Now that we still have about 20 years oil supply, we cannot delay a drastic reform to improve our education.” - Malaysiakini, 11/4/2012, PKR offers formula to settle PTPTN debt

Malaysia's Debt - RM450 billion, Singapore - Zero; Malaysia's Debt 54% of GCP, Indonesia only 24%, Singapore 0

The failure of the UMNO-led coalition, today the Barisan Nasional government, is most shocking. Lack of transparency and accountability has kept us all in the dark. After all, this government has not openly told us too many important things about the state of our nation, and it so difficult to get 'basic data' about the state of Malaysia.

What is Malaysia's national debt? (Oh, we cannot be sure because of exact figures, because of the lack of transparency and accountability). For a long time, until about 1984 it was less than RM50bn, it crossed RM100bn on or about 1998, and in the last 14 years it has sky-rocketed to about RM450bn. (Badawi(2003-2009) Debt from about RM150bn to about RM350bn, and Najib(2009 until now) from about RM350bn - to now about RM450bn) - Blame should not rest on who was the PM then, but the entire cabinet and BN government...In the past, changing of a BN PM satisfied many who said 'give the new PM a chance', and this is wrong for the fault has always lied in the entire BN government - and its political parties - noting that they always had the option to 'speak out' or even leave BN but they did not and consented to what was being done...

 

"...By the end of 2011, we can expect Malaysia's debt to reach RM450bn..." - and Singapore has NO debt?

 

 

"...the debt at the end of 2012 will be only 54 per cent of our GDP, which is relatively low compared to the current crisis nations like Greece and Italy. (GDP is a measure of the total value of all the goods and services produced in a year in the country.) While it may not reach the levels of Greece by 2012, at our current rate of borrowing it won’t take long before we become another Greece. Just to put this in perspective, our giant neighbour, Indonesia has a debt of only 23 per cent of GDP! Singapore has no debts.

Remember as your debt increases, the interest rate for new borrowings just keep increasing.

A major factor is the large leakage in government spending due to corruption and wasteful spending that has been highlighted by the Auditor General year after year in his annual reports. It has been estimated that we can easily save RM25-30bn without changing any of the deliverables if we can get rid of corruption and cronyism.

Read more about this in the following article that appeared in ALIRAN Monthly - written by a learned man who should know what he is talking about.

Towards a bankrupt Malaysia?

By Aliran, on 26 December 2011

 

Subramaniam Pillay looks at the worrying rising trend of federal government debt and wonders if Malaysia will go bankrupt. At our current rate of borrowing, it won’t take long before we become another Greece. 

 

 

Figure 1: Outstanding debt of the Malaysian federal government - Source: Bank Negara Malaysia

That the budget that was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat on 7 October 2011 was an election budget is very clear. There have been numerous detailed comments on the budget by politicians and analysts (since then). In this article, we are just going to focus on one of the long term issues from the budget. It concerns the increasing debt burden of the federal government. 

How big is the government debt?

The accompanying chart shows the federal government’s outstanding debt at the end of the successive years. As can be seen, the debt has been increasing since 1970. From the detailed data available form Bank Negara’s website, in 1991, it reached a temporary peak of RM99bn and then decreased to RM90bn by 1997. From then, it has been virtually doubling every five years. By the end of 2011, we can expect the figure to reach RM450bn. 

In other words, since the Asian crisis of 1998, we have been growing by borrowing heavily. In the 10 years since 1999, our debt has quadrupled. If we continue on this path, by 2020, our national debt will reach RM1.6 trillion. If our population is 40 million then, each Malaysian will have a debt burden of more than RM40000 and this does not include our own personal borrowing. Assuming an interest rate of 5 per cent, paying the interest alone will cost the taxpayers RM80bn per year!

The government has been reassuring us by saying that our debt is manageable. It argues that the debt at the end of 2012 will be only 54 per cent of our GDP, which is relatively low compared to the current crisis nations like Greece and Italy. (GDP is a measure of the total value of all the goods and services produced in a year in the country.) While it may not reach the levels of Greece by 2012, at our current rate of borrowing it won’t take long before we become another Greece. Just to put this in perspective, our giant neighbour, Indonesia has a debt of only 23 per cent of GDP! Singapore has no debts. 

The federal government debt alone does not tell the full story. Many government-owned enterprises also have borrowings. If these figures are included, then the total debt would be much higher. It is difficult to get the complete data on these borrowings.

Why has the debt been growing so rapidly?

Since the 1998 Asian Financial Crisis, the government expenditure has consistently exceeded its revenue by a considerable margin. For example, in 2011 the spending is estimated to be RM229bn while the revenue will be only RM183bn. So the shortfall of RM46bn has to be met by borrowing.

Of course it is not expected that the government balances its books every year. Prudent economic management requires the government to balance its budget over an entire business cycle. So we can have deficits during bad years and budget surpluses during good years. Since 1998, we have had at least two business cycles; yet every year without fail we have had budget deficits!

This is evidence of fiscal irresponsibility. Here is a government which does not know the meaning of saving for a rainy day. A good example is the situation in the current year.

Table 1 shows that the actual revenue for 2011 is going to be higher than the budgeted figure by RM17.6bn. This is mainly due to the increased income from the rise in oil prices in 2011. The federal government relies heavily on different forms of revenues (corporate tax, petroleum profit tax, royalties, Petronas dividends etc.) that originate from the production and export of oil and gas in Malaysia. The proportion can be 30-40 per cent of the total government revenue. Thus a rise in the world price of oil translates directly into higher income for the government. So essentially, we had a windfall income.

What would a prudent government do with this windfall? It would reduce the planned borrowing. But that’s not our BN government’s way of financial management. Uncannily, the increase in the actual spending is going to be the same amount of RM17.6bn! When asked about this at one of the post-budget forums, a Treasury official explained that it was mainly due to higher spending on salaries and increased subsidy for petrol and diesel. We can understand the increased subsidy but why the higher salary? Did we just increase the size of the bureaucracy? This is a clear case of a government which has no control on its spending.

Why is the federal government spending more than it earns?

There are a few reasons for this consistent imbalance. A major factor is the large leakage in government spending due to corruption and wasteful spending that has been highlighted by the Auditor General year after year in his annual reports. It has been estimated that we can easily save RM25-30bn without changing any of the deliverables if we can get rid of corruption and cronyism. Transparent practices like open tendering can cut down the cost of much of the procurement and project spending.

In addition, spending can be reduced on military procurements. If a fraction of the money that is saved here can be used to improve the quality of our diplomats in Wisma Putra, we can avert any potential threat to national security. We can also cut down on the excessive use of foreign and local consultants by the government for work that ought to be done by the civil service. Reduction of subsidies to the operators of privatised projects such as the independent power producers and toll road operators will also narrow the deficit.

Another reason for the deficit is the under collection of revenues including income tax and customs duties. Better compliance to and enforcement of existing laws and provisions can increase government revenue. It is common knowledge that many business operators evade paying their full share of income tax by under declaring their true income. Similarly, evasion of customs duties is rampant due to corruption in the Customs department.

What will happen if the debt keeps increasing at the same rate in future?

As the debt gets larger, interest payments will take an increasing share of total government spending. Table 2 shows this clearly. 

If the government continues with the trend of the past 13 years, by 2020 we may be spending about 18-25 per cent of the operating budget on interest payments. In fact as the borrowing increases, the government will be forced to pay higher interest rates to borrow more because its credit rating will be downgraded. (For example, in Europe, currently the German government can borrow at around 2 per cent per annum while the Italian government has to pay about 7 per cent for its loans.) So the interest cost will rise exponentially.

This will leave much less money for other social and economic spending. It will also widen income inequality as the government will have to cut spending on many public goods like education, health care and public transport. At the same time, the interest it pays goes mainly to foreigners and the better off segment of the population.

What is even more worrying is that given our large revenue from petroleum-related sources, we should not really be running deficits. It is only a matter of time before we run out of oil and gas and thus become net importers of these two commodities. When that happens, our budget situation may become very critical.

A prudent Malaysian government would have saved a sizeable portion of the petroleum revenue from the past few decades as a fund for rainy days. Many other countries have done this. Norway is a prime example. Abu Dhabi is another country which has a huge sovereign wealth fund set up from its petroleum windfall. Botswana in southern Africa saved its windfall earnings from the discovery of diamonds and invested it abroad for its long-term well being.

Unfortunately, we are governed by a spendthrift government which is beset with problems of corruption and incompetency. Unless the situation changes, we are leaving a huge burden to our children and grandchildren. They are not going to forgive us if we do not try to change the situation.

Dr Subramaniam Pillay, an Aliran exco member, is an adjunct associate professor with the School of Business at the University of Nottingham Malaysia.

###

Media, especially the mainstream media, failed not just to reveal the truth - especially of the failings of this government, and certainly have also failed to play the role of being a 'check and balance' to this government. Why? Fear of having their publishing permits revoked? Or because the ownership and control is pro-establishment - making main stream media just the mouthpiece of the ruling government, or more accurately of the BN government or maybe not even that but the PM and the BN leadership. I doubt that they will even carry the voices of dissension within UMNO and/or the other BN component parties. 

KR1M - a bad policy decision and detrimental to the small sundry shops..

KR1M - Kedai Rakyat 1 Malaysia allegedly is selling household products at a lower price that products available normally in Supermarkets and sundry shops - but my concern is for the owners of the 'kedai runcit'...the sundry shops - would this not be detrimental to their making an income... After all, they already find in most hard to compete with the supermarkets...and the hypermarkets...and now our BN government is competing with these small businessmen through their KR1M shops and this is wrong.

Is the government using the people's money to subsidize these products only available to some specified shops (or are they manufacturing these cheaper products themselves...) - this is so very wrong.  This seems to be the BN government's solution to the increased cost of living.... it is so unjust - and will have a serious implication on the small time business people running those little 'kedai runcit' in towns, small towns, housing estates, kampungs...Best to just subsidize basic products needed by every household - and this will reach the poor for sure... Not all kampungs, towns and other areas where the poor live have these KR1M shops...

And about these products, how exactly are the prices kept low - is the materials and products use of low quality? Maybe consumer groups should be looking into this... OR is it that manufacturers of the other products are just charging too high... maybe this too may need to be controlled..

Worst affected by the government's actions will be the small time business people who really are already struggling to make ends meet. It is good that some local councils do consider the welfare of these people - and not approve the giant hypermarkets like TESCO, Giant, etc set up their outlets in some towns. This is good for our concern is not just to get cheaper products to the consumer - but also the welfare and the well-being of the small business persons.

While we are talking about this - it maybe time for the BN government to intervene to make sure that the bigger Supermarkets do also take and market products of everyone, especially locally manufactured products. Now, these Supermarkets control too much - and they kill certain manufacturers by just not taking and selling their products in their supermarkets...and they improve the profits of others that they do choose... Sadly, in many places there is not much option - and businesses and brands can just be killed by actions of these giant supermarket chains....But then, our BN government is just too scared to interfere with the businesses of these giants, who many a time are owned by people outside Malaysia...

Our Minister talked about the budget meal - but then, we cannot find them in the KFCs or shops - just this stall and that small stall - funny projects wasting a lot of time and money... Price Control is only option, and this needs government subsidies - and this should be for all basic food and household products...and also medicines...

Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob is now saying that the price of vegetables, etc is on the rise because of floods in Thailand - the question is why has the Malaysian BN government struggling to ensure that Malaysia is self-sufficient with regards to rice, vegetables, etc - Many farmers could have been given necessary land for farming - but no, it is so difficult for farmers to get land, and many end up 'trespassing' on State land or wherever to plant their vegetables... This is a sector that needs to be heavily subsidized (even the US and Europe subsidizes food production) but alas in Malaysia, food is not a priority and preference is cash crops for export... Our weather is good, and it can be done... Buy the food at high price, and then the government could sell it back to retailers ...after all, that is what they are already doing, buying it from other countries and reselling it at lower prices...   What about doing the same for Malaysian farmers...

I am really angry with this BN government - they remove subsidies - and then we find out they wasted millions and millions of ringgit through 'corruption' and other wrong moves. So many of these wastage have recently been highlighted but sadly nothing is done to the guilty - the relevant Minister, DG or Head of Department must be penalized - sacked or even transferred... but they do not do this, and next year we find the same kind of wastage...Maybe, it is time for the people to voice out come next GE...

Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob has denied that household products sold under the Kedai Rakyat 1Malaysia (KR1M) brand are more expensive compared to similar products sold at hypermarkets.

He said the opposition’s allegations on the matter were baseless, saying comparisons should be made “apple-to-apple”.

“Any comparison should be as a whole taking into consideration weight, packaging and most importantly quality,” he told reporters in Kuala Lumpur today.

He was commenting on claims by DAP national publicity chief Tony Pua that a price comparison showed there was little difference in prices of household items sold at KR1M outlets and at Carrefour hypermarkets and that some of the items were in fact much cheaper at Carrefour.

Ismail Sabri stressed that from the beginning, his ministry had fixed the prices of KR1M products to between 30 and 50 percent lower than their branded counterparts but not products sold under house brands like in Carrefour.

He said the opposition was trying to mislead the people by making unfair comparisons in terms of contents (weight and volume), nutritional information besides promotions that were held.

On escalating prices of essential items as a result of the flood disaster in Thailand, Ismail Sabri said his ministry was monitoring the situation closely to ensure consumers’ interests were protected.

“Right now, my ministry is waiting for feedback on the prices of imported items like vegetables, fish and other food products from the Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Ministry as such matters come under their purview,” he said. _ Malaysiakini, 10/11/2011, Ismail Sabri denies KR1M products are pricey

DAP’s Beruas MP Ngeh Koo Ham has demanded that the Ministry of Rural and Regional Development answers for nearly RM500 million in alleged irregularities, failing which the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) should investigate. - Malaysiakini, 10/11/2011, MP demands answers over RM500mil 'losses'

PKR is puzzled how despite an alleged scaling-down of the National Feedlot Corporation’s (NFC) production target, its soft loan from the government remains unrevised.

“Why isn’t the soft loan allocation not reviewed? Why is it still at RM250 million? Why is it not scaled-down?” secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution asked during a press conference in Parliament House today.

Saifuddin (left) argued that if the production targets were really revised downward, then the budgetary requirements should have been reduced as well.

"If from 60,000 (head of cattle) was scaled down to 8,000, then the soft loan should be reduced (in similar proportion), based on Veterinary Department estimates," the parliamentarian posited.

He was responding directly to arguments by BN backbenchers earlier today that the NFC production target of 60,000 has been scaled down to 8,000 as per the revised production targets.- Malaysiakini, 9/11/2011, Full-blown funding for scaled-down NFC target?http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/180882

BN parliamentarians today defended the funds and discounts the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) gave to its allied companies, saying the allocations were justified by its real scope of work.

Rebutting claims by the opposition, Rembau MP Khairy Jamaluddin said the RM81.2 million channelled to National Livestock & Meat Corporation (NLMC) Sdn Bhd and the RM3 million discount accorded to Real Food Company (RFC) Sdn Bhd, “served multiple objectives”, not just to process raw meat. ...As for the NLMC, the RM81.2 million loan was not merely for the production of raw beef but also for infrastructure, to open up market access and to purchase cattle from satellite farms served by the NFC.

Speaking to reporters in the Parliament lobby, Khairy said RFC, the sole distributor of beef from NFC, received discounts of RM3 million that was eventually passed down to the distribution network.

“Some of the buyers from RFC are hypermarkets such as Jusco, Carrefour, Cold Storage and Giant, farmers markets, the food and beverage industry and downstream food processing companies,” said Khairy.... { What about the small shops, mini markets,...etc????) - Malaysiakini, 9/11/2011, Discounts, loans to NFC sister firms justified, say BN MPs

Questions: Are all these companies government owned companies? Or merely 'government-linked' companies, where there are other 'private' shareholders, be it persons or entities? What is the salary of the CEOs? What are the allowances that Directors got? Who are these Directors? 

We really need to have Parliamentary Select Committees set up - who will conduct public inquiries into all these alleged wastage...possible corruption? Bring the people involved - the CEOs and the Directors - let us hear their answers... now all we have is this BN MP or that defending them....and this is not good...

And the price of bread have gone up 10 cents

Well, what used to be RM2.30 for a small loaf is now RM2.40 - it may be 10 cents only but it again increases the overall cost of living....

Prices are increasing - what next electricity rates, ASTRO,....

And we still do not even have minimum wage - despite the fact that the government is fully aware that 30% plus of workers in Malaysia earns less than poverty rate wages....

BN lied - they increased the price of RON95 petrol

The Malaysian UMNO-led BN government told Malaysians to shift from RON97 to RON95, with the assurance that the government will continue to subsidize RON95 but not RON97 - and many did despite the damage that may arise by the changing of petrol type/grade... and now, the again rise the price of RON95 - the government lied....

PUTRAJAYA: The prices for RON95 petrol and diesel will increase by 5sen per litre at midnight (12.01am Dec 4) while the prices of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and sugar will be up by 5sen and 20sen per kg respectively.

RON95 would be raised to RM1.90 per litre from the current RM1.85 while price of diesel would be retailed at RM1.80 per litre. LPG and sugar will cost RM1.90 and RM2.10 per kg respectively.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala Idris said the price hike was the second wave of the subsidy rationalisation programme.

Prices of RON95 and diesel went up by 5sen per litre while sugar and LPG were raised by 25sen and RM10 on July 16 for the first wave of the programme.

That resulted in total savings of RM779mil. This time around, Idris said the savings is expected to be RM1.18bil.

Idris said the savings would be channelled towards improving urban transportation network, rural basic infrastructure and roads, education and efforts to combat crime.

He added that the increase was very minimal and should not hurt the people.

“I think it is fair to the rakyat. I believe people will be able to accept it,” he told a media briefing on the second wave of subsidy rationalisation here Friday.

Idris said the Consumer Price Index could be contained in view of the low increase and declined to disclose the amount of subsidy the government would have to pay for the items.- Star, 3/12/2010,Price hike for RON95, LPG and sugar

Discriminated Again: KL continues to get preferential treatment

Many may not have experienced the rail service on the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia to realize that it really has not improved much since the British gave us independence. Whilst most countries in the developed and developing world are developing their rail network and quality of trains, Malaysian government still ignores this. There has been no new railway links - like from Kota Baru to Johor Bahru passing through Kuala Trengganu (capital of Trengganu), Kuantan (capital of Pahang) all the way to Johor Bahru. No rail links linking the East Coast to the West Coast - from Kota Baru we still have to go south and turn at (or take a new train at) Gemas to go to Kuala Lumpur. We know also that for development, a rail link is essential as it is so easy to transport container loads of products to ports, etc... and, looking at this coming budget, we see that the Federal Government continues to discriminate against the East Coast states of the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak. The preferential treatment to Klan Valley continues - maybe now more focused on Kuala Lumpur.

There are 28.5 million Malaysians - and only about 10% is in KL. 

Well, the government is going to spend more money in "Mass Transit System", another foolish 100 storey building ....

The Mass Rapid Transit project is to be implemented beginning 2011 with a private investment of RM40 billion and is targetted to complete by 2020...

RM5 bil new tower in KL

• A new landmark, the Warisan Merdeka, to be developed by Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB), is expected to be completed in 2020 and will include a 100-storey tower, the tallest in Malaysia, which is to be completed by 2015.

• It will stand on land adjacent to Stadium Merdeka and Stadium Negara. Both stadiums are to be retained as national heritage sites....

RM50 million to construct several shaded walkways in the Bukit Bintang-KLCC vicinity...- Malaysiakini, 15/10/2010,  Salient points in Budget 2011

100 storey building - why? We have no shortage of land like Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan - and really do we not worry about earthquakes, fires, etc. What about the safety....and the other impacts of such a building? More cars....more traffic jam. Environment pollution...and why is the government spending money for this. Let the private developers spend their own money... and who is going to build this? Malaysians? Or some foreign company... I am sure that there is already a glut as far as office spaces are concerned - so why are we talking about a building even taller that the Petronas Twin Towers....

Most countries have Minimum Wage Laws, except Malaysia

Minimum wages - this is something that most countries already have in place. The object is for the State to stipulate a minimum wage that is fair and just sufficient for the worker to be able to have a reasonable life. The only consideration should be the welfare of the worker and their families/dependents, and nothing else. What we are talking about is minimum wages - not the actual wages that a worker should be getting. The purpose of stipulating a minimum wage is to ensure that workers are not exploited by their employers who want to pay an unjust low wage. 

Minimum wages should be different for different regions of Malaysia, and for the different kinds of work and sectors. India, another former British colonized nation, have had the minimum wage law since 1948 - Minimum Wage Act, 1948. There, the setting of the Minimum Wage is done by the State, and in 1996, the Indian Federal government as a matter of policy sets  a National Floor Level Minimum Wage (NFLMW).

It is 2010, and Malaysia still does not have a Minimum Wage law in place, and this is embarrassing.  

It should be an hourly or daily minimum wage that should be set. When it comes to piece rated, we should still pay them an hourly or daily rate just like what India does. 

For a start, as a matter of policy, the Federal Government should set maybe a  National Floor Level Minimum Wage (NFLMW), and thereafter the required Minimum Wage law should be enacted and passed. A time frame of 6 months should be given to ensure a comprehensive Minimum Wage rate is set based on the different regions, employment sectors, kind of work, etc. [Exclusions may be for certain types of very small businesses that employ 5 or less, that may(or may not) have a profit sharing scheme in place over and above the salary]. 

Minimum wages should be calculated having regard to an 8-hour working day, 5 days a week. 

Thailand has got legislation that provide for minimum wages, and different rates are set for different provinces with Bangkok  (206 Baht per day – approximately RM20-60) and the lowest is for the provinces of Payat, Pichit, Phrae and Mae Hong Son (151 Baht per day – approximately RM15-10). Different rates because consideration is also given to cost of living. As the cost of living increases, so does the rate. Thailand’s minimum wage law applies to all workers, local and/or migrant workers. 

Hong Kong – On 17/7/2010, minimum wage law has been passed. The law will require the task group to review the wage level once every two years. The first minimum wage level will be set in November. The current consensus ranges from the HK$24 (RM9.58) an hour backed by business interests to the HK$33 (RM12.78) as demanded by local unions. However, the law doesn't cover the nearly 280,000 mostly Filipino and Indonesian domestic workers who work as live-in help for Hong Kong families. They are currently promised a monthly minimum wage of 3,580 Hong Kong dollars (RM1,437.64). 

India – they have had  the Minimum Wage Act, 1948, Minimum wages are fixed by the State Governments, and for both non-agricultural sector workers and also agricultural sector workers. It is time based usually per day. When it comes to piece rated, section 17 of the Act states, “Where an employee is employed on piece work for which minimum time rate and not a minimum piece rate has been fixed under this Act the employer shall pay to such employee wages at not less than the minimum time rate. “ Besides regions, consideration is also given to the degree of difficulty of the work. For example, when it comes to excavation works, there are different rates depending whether it is soft soil, soft soil with rock or rock. There is also different rates for unskilled work, supervisory workers, clerical workers and highly skilled workers.  The act also provides for  regular review of rates, at least once every five years.

National Floor Level Minimum Wage – Since 1996, the Indian government as a matter of policy sets and National Floor Level Minimum Wage (NFLMW), and States are advised that their minimum wages should be above this. The NFLMW set in 2004 is Rs. 66 per day (about RM4.51) 

Philippines – their Labour Code, in Article 99 stipulates that, “…The minimum wage rates for agricultural and non-agricultural employees and workers in each and every region of the country shall be those prescribed by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards…” Daily minimum wage rates are set for the non-agricultural sector, agricultural sector (plantations) and agricultural sector (non-plantation) and it applies to employers that have 10 or more workers.  As an example for the national capital region, it is currently P404 (RM28.10), P367(RM25.53)  and P367(RM25.53)  respectively

Indonesia – there seem to be no Minimum Wage law but since 1990s, minimum wages have been set by the various different provinces. There are constant reviews, and in the 1990s only, the minimum wage tripled although real wages only doubled.  There is no national minimum wages. 

Other Countries :- The federal minimum wage per hour in the United States is $7.25 [RM23.16] ; in Britain, it's 5.80 pounds (RM28.75); in Canada, it ranges from 8 to 10.25 Canadian dollars (RM24.28 to RM30.99) depending on province; in New Zealand, it's 12.75 New Zealand dollars (RM28.75).

KUALA LUMPUR: Employers should back the government’s proposed minimum wage policy to ensure its smooth implementation hopefully by next year, said Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam.

He said employers should not be worried or regard the policy as hampering business.

“Our intention is not to burden the employers. We are only going to set a minimum level in terms of salary, and it is up to the employers to pay whatever amount beyond that level to their employees,” he told reporters here.

On Saturday, Dr Subramaniam was quoted saying that the minimum wage model would be across the board for all sectors but it would vary regionally.

Despite the Governments assurance that the minimum wage policy would not adversely affect the industry, the Malaysian Employers Federation is sticking to its stand that the policy would hurt local businesses and workers as it tends to benefit low-skilled and low-income foreign workers.

MEF executive director Shamsuddin Bardan was quoted as saying that the way to push for higher-income levels was not by basing it on a minimum wage but by increasing employee productivity and performance.

Dr Subramaniam said his ministry was still gathering feedback from various quarters to ensure that the policy on minimum wage would be well consolidated.

The minister is expected to table a paper on minimum wage to the Cabinet by next month.

He said the minimum wage policy was necessary as the salary structure in many sectors had not changed drastically over the years despite rising prices of goods.

“Salaries must commensurate with the increase in the price of goods and the higher standard of living,” he said, adding that the cost of living had escalated over the years.

However, he stressed that the increase in salaries should be in tandem with increase in productivity. — Bernama - Star, 20/9/2010, Back minimum wage policy, Subra urges employers

CAP : Resolve widening income disparity gap now

Resolve widening income disparity gap now

The difference between what the rich and the poor earn (the income disparity gap) remains wide and needs the government’s urgent attention.

In a fair and just society, economic growth should benefit everyone.  Unfortunately this is not happening in Malaysia in spite of years of economic growth. We have now an aristocracy of wealth where a small group of Malaysians are very rich (22 billionaires at the last count) whilst many others are barely scrapping by. We have on one hand people living in spacious multi-million ringgit homes whilst on the other hand there can be as many as 21 people crammed together  in a low cost flat.

The statistics prove that the inequality gap is a major problem:

•  The bottom 40% of households have an average income of RM1,222 whilst the top 20%  households earn an average of RM8,157 

•  58% of households earn less than RM3,000 per month. (In 2009, the government decided that any urban household with less than RM3,000 would  be considered poor)

•  Income growth has been strong only for the top 20% of Malaysian income earners, particularly since 1990

•  The disparity within the urban group remains high with no improvements in the last decade

In 2007, Malaysia’s Gini coefficient was 0.441 in 2007, an improvement of 0.462 was made in 2004.  However in 1990, the Gini coefficient was 0.442, which means that we have hardly made any progress in addressing the problem of income inequality since that time. (Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 representing absolute equality and 1 representing absolute inequality);

Much needs to be done to enable both the rural and urban poor to break from the vicious circle of poverty. Being poor, they face problems relating to nutrition, health and education. A significant portion of Malaysian children are undernourished with about 15% found to be underweight and stunted. When these children grow up without good academic qualifications, they end up with jobs that do not pay decent wages. They remain poor like their parents and so will their children and grandchildren unless the chain of poverty is broken.

It is not only a question of equity that all Malaysian should get to share the country’s economic growth. If the problem of economic disparity is not seriously looked into, it will lead to social problems for example increase in crime rates. Furthermore, the more equal societies grow faster than less equal ones.

The unresolved income disparity gap clearly shows that we have a structural problem. We should stop pursuing the model of economic development imported from the west but instead adopt a model which meets our own needs and beneficial to all sectors of the population

Thus the government should be spending more money on education and health care programmes specifically designed to help the poor.  It should also decrease disparities between rural and urban investments by ensuring that employment opportunities are more widely available in the rural areas.

Funds that are needed to run programmes to narrow the income inequality gap should come from the very rich, who after all have a moral obligation to help their less fortunate country men.

We recommend the following taxes be used to narrow the income inequality gap:

a) Inheritance tax/estate duty

Introduce either inheritance tax (which will be paid by the beneficiaries)  or estate duty (which is paid by the deceased’s estate).   Many countries (for example the USA, UK France, Germany, Netherlands and Canada) have implemented either the inheritance tax or the estate duty. Malaysia too had the estate duty until it was repealed in 1991.

The proposed inheritance tax /estate duty should have a low starting threshold and a progressive structure. Such a tax will help the country move towards a just society.

b) Personal tax

The government should stop reducing the personal income tax rate for the higher income earners. It should instead increase the rates to collect more funds for income redistribution.

Press statement, 22 July 2010

Remove subsidies of tolled-roads where there exist reasonable alternative public roads.

If the government want to 'cut subsidies', it should start by removing all subsidies in toll, for roads where there exist alternative toll-free public roads. All these money wasted in subsidies could have been better utilized up-grading and/or building alternative toll-free roads.

What are the toll-highways, where the government can stop subsidizing users?

Karak - Kuantan Highway - where one can still use the alternative roads from Karak (maybe even Bentong) to Kuantan. There is no reasonable alternative road from KL to Bentong.

North-South Highway - where there are lot of stretches where people can use alternative roads.

.....

Those who still want to use the tolled-roads could very easily pay. The drop in the number of road-users when subsidy is removed will, I believe, force the said companies to review their toll-rate, and maybe even reduce it. Market forces will determine 'toll-rates'...and we can certainly save a lot of money, which could be better used upgrading alternative roads...and other roads in the country. [The government should really bring back the JKR as it was before, with its workers and machinery and ability to build government roads. The practice of tendering out road maintenance ...and road building of public roads should be stopped. This will certainly save money...and bring about greater efficiency...

The principle is the same as healthcare. Government should provide free universal healthcare to all. Persons who want 'better' or wants to get healthcare elsewhere are free to get their healthcare from private hospitals, clinics, etc ..

It is also the same with education. Of course, there are Malaysians who would like to get 'better' education....and they chose to send their children to the private scholls, colleges, etc...and if you want to do that, you pay for it. 

Many a time this practice of going to private hospitals, clinics, schools, colleges, etc ...and not utilizing what has been made available by the government for the public is really  a 'class thingy'... a 'status thingy..' - but for those who want to indulge in such behavior, so be it - but the government should not be subsidizing them

Health - a reason given for pice hikes for sugar, but really this seems not true

One of the reasons being given for the price increase of sugar was that it was bad for health.If that be the case, then what the government should have done is to impose strict regulations on products using sugar.

Remember that increasing the price of sugar will automatically increase the cost of a lot of other products - including the teh tareks and kopi-O ice. 

Polls are being done to get the reaction of the people about the 'price hikes' - but wonder whether the poor in the rural and urban area are the subject of these polls. Of course the rich and the middle class, and/or public servants (who now receive good pay and have job security until retirement...pensions thereafter) may not feel the 'pinch'...the sufferings caused by these 'price hikes'. Our UMNO-led BN government is trying to sell 'price hikes' as something positive using the word 'subsidy cuts'... but the truth of the matter, is that it is really 'price hikes' and the majority in Malaysia suffers by reason of this.

What kind of regulations if health was a seriuous concern of the government?

1 - set the limit of sugar that is being used especially in canned  & bottle drinks - xxx gram per 100 ml, and also insist that all companies also produce "sugar free" or "less sugar" versions of their product.

2 - include also a notice just like that presently on cigarette packets - about the danger of consuming more sugar...maybe also with some scary pictures.

3 - for companies using an unhealthy amount of sugar in their products - a 'tax', whereby the money collected should be channeled to use for treatment of excess sugar diseases, dialysis centres, etc.

Reactions in a street poll to yesterday's fuel, natural gas and sugar price hikes were mixed, with many saying they have not felt the pinch yet, while others criticised the increases as unjustified.

All the respondents to the poll in Bangsar expressed shock over the government's sudden move, but not all felt that their current lifestyles would be affected.

“A five sen increment in petrol prices is not a big burden to the public in this day and age,” said 37-year-old civil servant Hasnulhasi Yasin.

Drinks vendor Mohd Sofian and restaurant owner Mohd Iqbal stressed that even though the price of sugar has increased, their prices would remain the same.

“I won't suffer any losses as a result of the sugar price hike. But it would mean less profit instead,” lamented Mohd Iqbal.

'Increases unjustified'

However, many disapproved, because they felt that the price increases were unjustified.

“The prices have gone up because the government is too comfortable now, but when things take a turn for the worse, they will lower the prices again,” said Vivekananda Sukumaran, a 22-year-old law student.

18-year-old marketing executive Mohd Harith added that the government did not offer sufficient reasons for the move.

“The government should match the prices with the public's earnings. Now, it would be difficult to enjoy drinks like we used to because sugar is more expensive”

On Friday midnight, the government raised prices of fuel, natural gas and sugar to reduce expensive subsidies.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak said that the controversial “upward price adjustments” would save the government more than US$230 million or RM750 million in subsidies this year.

RON95 grade petrol and diesel prices rose by RM0.05 per litre, whilst RON97 grade petrol will be floated according to market price.

Liquified petroleum gas went up by RM0.10 per kilogramme and sugar prices have increased RM0.25 per kg.

The government has however said it will still be spending RM7.82 billion until the end of the year on fuel and sugar subsidies.

The subsidy cuts are believed to be the first stage of the govenment's plans to reduce subsidies for essential goods as proposed by the Performance and Delivery Unit (Pemandu).

Idris Jala, Pemandu's chief executive officer had warned that Malaysia would face bankruptcy by 2019 and risk becoming like debt-ridden Greece, if subsidies were not cut.

If the only action of the government is to increase prices - then surely that is not because it is a caring government concerned with the health of its people.

Why can's we all have sight of the annual income-expenditure statement of the Federal Government, and State governments. Then, we will all be able to see where the money is coming from ...and how is it being spend - and we will be able to tell the government not to waste money of unnecessary things like military submarines, etc..- Malaysiakini, 17/7/2010, Price hike reactions: Some say 'unjustified'

What is the Pakatan Rakyat position on increased postal rates and 'privatization'?

The UMNO-led BN government has caused postage rates to double ....from previous 30 cents to 60 - 70 cents. Hello, that is almost the cost of a teh tarek.

People are not happy....and PKR says.... "State PKR Youth secretary Syed Mikael Rizal Aidid said the increase in postage charges would burden the people." What really is the position of PKR....and the Pakatan Rakyat.

Government seem to be trying to shift blame to Pos Malaysia - a private company.  

Remember, this increase will also affect the cost of subscribed periodicals, magazines, newspapers, etc... which will definitely go up. ALIRAN, Third World Network, Persatuan Pengguna, PAS - Harakah, etc..(the postal rates have doubled, i.e. from 25c to 50c. 

The Pakatan Rakyat government-in-waiting should tell us all in Malaysia what they would do when they  do come into power...

Maybe, nationalize Pos Malaysia - and reduce postage rates as it was (and if there is to be an increase - not more than 5-10 cents...- is that the Pakatan Rakyat position? 

Or Pakatan Rakyat does not have a position....

It will really be good if Pakatan Rakyat would tell us how they would do things differently

See also earlier posts:-CEO, not a Minister that tells us that postage rates will double in July. Has the BN government lost control of postal services/rates?

KUALA LUMPUR: Snail-mailers may be becoming a rare breed in the cities but people who still use the post office were upset when they were asked to pay more for their postage.

For Nur Izza Othman, a 27-year-old administrative assistant, the extra cost for standard mail was “not acceptable.”

“Maybe, if the tariff is increased by stages, it is all right. But the sudden increase is drastic,” she said, reacting to the 100% increase in the new postal tariff for domestic mail, which took effect from Thursday.

“People in the rural areas will be hit by the new tariffs as they still rely on slow mail,” she said.

Pos Malaysia has come up with the new postal tariff, which has raised the standard mail of up to 20g to 60 sen (from 30 sen) while those up to 50g now costs 70 sen (up from 40 sen).

Counting the cost: Clerk Punithaveni Pulinderan, 28, was unaware of the new postal tariff increase until Friday, when she made a trip to the Pos Malaysia headquarters to post a letter.

Sending of periodicals of up to 20g will now cost 50 sen instead of 25 sen.

The postal company expects its revenue to rise by 15% to 18% in each of two 12-month periods with the tariff hike.

This is the first time in 18 years that Pos Malaysia has revised the price of its domestic postage stamps.

Pos Malaysia said the increase was in line with the Government’s recent announcement to adjust the salary structure of postmen and counter clerks.

There was mixed reaction to the new postage costs when a team from The Star did a random check at the Pos Malaysia headquarters here yest erday.

“I think the price hike increase is necessary.

“We cannot call ourself a developed country if we continue to maintain third world prices,” said Patrick Samuel, 47, referring to the old 30 sen stamp rate.

“But I hope Pos Malaysia will provide quality services with the price increase,” the l ecturer added.

Mohd Izman, 26, echoed the sentiments.

“It is alright to raise prices as long as they (Pos Malaysia) use the higher revenue to improve customer service,” he said.

Foreign student Jeremy Gilbert, 20 who studies at the Nottingham University KL campus, felt that the 60 sen for standard domestic mails was still “very cheap”.

“The rate is still lower than anywhere else I have been, including Vietnam and La os,” said Gilbert, who was sending postcards to his family in England.

Pos Malaysia group head of corporate communications, Datuk Rohaiza Hashim said letters mailed on June 30 will not be penalised as they were mailed before the new tariff came into effect.

Despite the decline in mail volume, an across-the-board trend that is observed worldwide due to the digital age, Rohaiza also remained optimistic about sustaining Pos Malaysia’s revenue.

“We are continuously looking for ways to diversify our business and mail service will continue to be relevant, such as the use of parcel service in e-commerce,” she said, adding that 80% of Pos Malaysia’s customers were corporate bodies.

Rohaiza added that delivery to urban areas also far exceeded those in rural areas, with 85% of mail in urban areas.

Meanwhile, the Penang Pakatan Rakyat Youth secretariat held a demonstration in front of the former General Post Office at Lebuh Downing to object to the postage hike.

State PKR Youth secretary Syed Mikael Rizal Aidid said the increase in postage charges would burden the people.

About a dozen people staged the peaceful protest, displaying placards for 10 minutes outside the building, calling the public to protest against the hike by pasting the stamps upside down. - Star, 3/7/2010, Snail mailers upset at hike