[ Laman Ehwal Semasa ReformIS ]

The MALAYSIAN

Date: 11 Aug 1999
Time: 10:28:22
Remote User: -

Comments

The MALAYSIAN Justice, progress, unity Issue No. 13 – 10 August 1999 No money for public services? Really? Alternatively, say the RM10 billion which Bank Bumiputera has cost the people had been properly invested, instead of being used to cover losses due to foolish schemes. Then, taking a modest ASB dividend of ten per cent, it would have yielded RM1 billion in dividends every year.

There are less than three million pupils in primary school in any one year. The RM1 billion in dividends would be enough to provide over RM300 to each pupil a year. In addition to the normal budget for primary schools, this would be enough to provide completely free -- no additional fees, free textbooks, even a couple of sets of uniforms -- education to every primary school pupil.

Clearly, there would have been enough money -- if only it had been used for the needs of the people. Now add in all the billions used for the other bail-outs, the billions lost by Bank Negara in currency speculation, the billions expended in grandiose buildings and so on.

Clearly, it’s not a question of no money to sustain public services in health and education. Instead, it is a question of priorities -- the needs of the public come a far second to the needs of the cronies and the ego of the leader. Don’t forget -- whether it’s for public services, or for bail-outs and grandiose buildings, it’s still we, the citizens, who pay through our taxes.

When they talk about savings made through corporatisation and privatisation of private services, we pay through increased charges, through tolls and what-not. When they waste the savings in bail-outs for their failed silly schemes and in fulfilling their grandiose ambitions, we pay again through our taxes and through lost benefits.

This is called a smart partnership? From their point of view it is -- they think they have outsmarted and made fools of us. It’s time for the people to form a new partnership. The existing one has become too expensive. Even if we like them, we really can’t afford them anymore.

Housing: a national disgrace Recently, a big show was made about a new government initiative on low and medium cost housing. This is said to be proof of the present government’s commitment to the needs of the people.

This is to be welcomed if it is a serious effort. The record, however, leaves plenty of room for doubt. Just take the record of the current Seventh Malaysia Plan, 1996-2000. According to the Plan, the public sector is to build:

? 35,000 units of housing for the poor; yet, by end 1998, only 13,000 units had been built; ? 170,000 units of low and low-medium cost housing; yet, by end 1998, only 37,400 units had been built; ? 20,000 units of medium cost housing; by end 1998, 24,000 units had been built ? 5,000 units of high cost housing; but, by end 1998, 9,245 units had been built

So, the public sector managed to greatly over-achieve in high cost housing, and grossly under-achieve in housing for the poor and low and low-medium cost housing. Yet, the government goes around demolishing squatter housing -- the result of the government’s total failure to meet even one-quarter of its target of low and low-medium cost housing more than half-way through the Seventh Plan. And they talk grandly of family and family values -- what family life can there be without adequate housing?

And it’s been the same story in every plan. Clearly, the lower and lower middle income groups, the majority of the people, have counted for nothing with this government, except during elections when their vote is needed.

For decades, the leadership of the BN government has neglected affordable low- and medium-cost housing. Plan after plan regularly report the extent of the shortfall between word and deed. Lower and lower middle income families see their hopes of house ownership recede. Every time, affordable housing was made available for applications, there would be a stampede for the forms.

Given this record, it is clear that the recent initiative is a response not to the crying need for affordable housing -- that need has been very, very clear for decades now.

Instead, it is a response to the massive criticism of the new palatial residence of the prime minister, as well as a clear upsurge of support for the opposition.

In other words, the upsurge of support for the opposition has forced the government into addressing the pressing needs of the people, needs which it had previously ignored. This, again, is a benefit -- although we think it’s only temporary -- of a strong opposition.

One thing you can be sure of: Do not for a moment believe that this initiative will be pursued with seriousness if the opposition does not receive convincing support in the coming elections. The previous record makes that very clear.

So, you’d be better off to vote the Barisan Alternatif in as the new government. You can then be absolutely sure that affordable housing will be a priority programme. Just curtailing the tremendous wastage of public funds alone will see to it that there will be sufficient funds -- even for a subsidy. And making sure that suitable state land is used to the public benefit, and not given out cheaply to cronies, will ensure that the cost of housing is kept reasonable.

Feeding frenzy and wounded tigers Given announced and unannounced acquisitions and mergers, it does look very much as if the select few are out on a feeding frenzy. Bad enough as this may be, it is made worse by the fact that this is not so much the feeding frenzy of healthy sharks, but of wounded tigers.

And we all know the mortal danger that wounded tigers pose to the nearby community. We also know the only viable solution to the threat of wounded tigers: put them out of the misery with due speed. Any sense of pity or half-hearted measures and one is faced with even greater wanton destruction.

END Visit our website at: http:// berita.webjump.com/

Readers are urged to print, copy, forward and distribute 'the Malaysian', especially to those who may be interested. We would appreciate receiving e-mail addresses to which we can send this daily newsletter directly.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Last changed: August 11, 1999