No rebate for PR is ‘discriminatory’

No rebate for PR is ‘discriminatory’

StarOnline Malaysia

Read my comments please:

Both of you are beating around the bush ( I don’t wish to use the word barking the wrong tree because it is rude and can cause misunderstanding esp. if you are over sensitive),


This Fuel rebate is for citizens only, present government is ‘correct.’ I am also a PR with five cars. I am in Malaysia for a quarter of a century. The real issue for you and me is to ask this xenophobic government why we are not given citizenship after all these years.


As we should not involve in politics of the host country esp opposing the ruling party is dangerous. We should all just pray for DSAI to take over the government. (But he need to control PAS DAP extremists and xenophobic politicians who just want to earn popularity by using racism. See this issue. They no longer dare to insult the other races from their citizens this is the time to HIT the foreigners. PR are also foreigners and safe soft spots to hit.



AS a person who has lived in Malaysia for the past 27 years, 16 of these as a permanent resident, I feel deeply offended, discriminated against, and hurt by the latest government rule that PRs don’t qualify for petrol rebates.

Considering that there are thousands of Malaysians who live and work overseas and who after only a few years of residence in their host country can enjoy the same benefits as citizens, and that Malaysia heavily relies on foreign trade to feed the national economy, the move to exclude foreigners living here from government benefits seems unwise and unjustifiable.

While raising petrol prices by 41% in one go was in the first place drastic, the lump-sum rebate is even more open to abuse. Smart ideas (by crafty Malaysian citizens) on how to take advantage of the newest aid available have already surfaced (see the Internet or join the queue at the nearest post office for details).

Under the circumstances, I’m curious to know whether is would cost the Government more to extend the rebate to permanent residents or to pay for the possible abuses of the benefit by Malaysian citizens?



I HAVE been living and working in Malaysia for over two years and find it shocking that Malaysia has decided that I do not qualify for a tax rebate because I am not a citizen.

During this time I have paid Malaysian income tax exceeding MR110,000 and road tax on two cars exceeding RM6,000.

It seems the Malaysian Government is perfectly content to take money from me in the form of taxes, but when it comes to paying money back in the form of rebates, I am discriminated against.

When a Malaysian citizen comes to my country to live and work, yes, they too must pay taxes. The difference is, when tax rebates come, they also are entitled to the rebates.


Kuala Lumpur.

Gov’t gives you a rebate but robs you on taxes

Malaysiakini letter by PSP | Jun 13, 08

The mainstream media should realise that the average per capita income in Malaysia is US$5,000 compared to Singapore’s US$25,000 when they make fuel subsidy comparisons with our neighbours south.


Thais do pay RM3.90 per litre of petrol but they also pay RM10,000 less for new cars over there. Driving licenses do not need to be renewed and they have no road tax. Plus you can drive from Hat Yai to Bangkok on a six-lane highway without paying any toll.

Malaysia has driving license renewals, road taxes and tolls everywhere. Singaporeans pay in their currency, so it is distorted when you keep quoting in the ringgit. Oil is still relatively cheaper for the Singaporean and they are not crude oil exporters.

Compared to oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia at 38 sen and UAE at RM1.19, our oil prices here are indeed high. On top of that , a Toyota Vios cost RM89, 000 here while only being RM62,700 internationally. Malaysian Vios owners are coughing up an extra RM26,300.

So the government gives you RM625 as a rebate but robs you of RM26,300 in taxes they collect when you buy the car. Where is the fairness in that? We should feel penalised.

Car taxation is government profit, fuel sales is Petronas’ profit which also translates into government profit. The government is ridiculing Malaysians by continuously pointing at the global fuel price changes. Malaysians are not stupid.

And which idiot economist pays rebates using the cubic capacity of the vehicle? An average office clerk may own a second hand 1300cc Proton Iswara costing RM7,000 (rebate = $625) while the ‘Datuk’s’ children can own a fleet of 10 new cars of BMWs, Audis and Volvos all less than 2000cc costing RM2 millions and get a total rebate of RM625 x 10 = RM6,250!

The word ‘subsidy’ has been brandished by the BN government as if it has so generously helped the rakyat and in doing so incurring losses. The BN government claims that it is a ‘subsidy’ because the oil is kept and treated as somebody else’s property.

By right, the oil belongs to all citizens of the country and the government is a trustee for the citizens. Thus, the BN government cannot claim that it has subsidised the citizens.

Double standard or Double talk is bad. Market price for car if market price petrol

If Car import duty, Sales tax and AP fees are combined, we are paying 50% more for the cars. As we used to take loans for five to 9-10 years, the interest payment is the same as the amount we borrow. With that extra RM 50,000.00 to 250,000.00 we could pay the 100% present market prise for few dozens of years.

If the government agree to sign any international document or treaty like Free Trade Agreements, should not cheat the International community by charging import duties by other names or categories. Because of that Thailald was asking RM 200 million compensation for this kind of action. Tun Dr M’s refusal to accept the Petronas and a state government agreement could also made the people’s trust in government’s promise or even the treaty. So after FTA, other countries start to charge Malaysia’s goods with other form of sale taxes, would you just sit and accept?



et us pay the market price for the cars and we are willing to pay market price for petrol

Malaysia Today letter By A concern citizen, Car Duty vs Fuel Subsidy, Where Had The Car Duty Gone To?

An estimated of RM 162 billions had been collected over the past 22 years. Actual figures could be much higher..

Recent fuel hike had sparked anger across the country asking Petronas account to be made available for public scrutiny to justify why the government cannot continue to subsidy the fuel. May be all these while, Petronas may not be footing 100% of the fuel bill, is the car owners had paid in advance for fuel subsidy in form of import and excise duties for both local and foreign mad vehicles, as suggested by one article published in the Star recently, and republished by Malaysia Today.
Following up on this topic, I had done a little research myself, and may be others had already done it but did not get highlighted in a wider angle. I had visited the website of Malaysia Automotive Association to get the statistic of total vehicle sale from 1986 till 2007, to get a broad idea of estimated excise and import duties might have been collected by the government since the inception of Proton, as the import duties were imposed for the excuse of protecting our new start up that suppose to make our nation pride in years to come. Well, Proton is not an issue for our discussion here, so we will not talk about it’s success or failure and the failure cost to the rakyat. Let’s us guestimate how much we had contributed to the government coffers since 1986.

Total vehicle sales since 1986 amounted to 6,264,910 units, both passengers and commercial vehicles included. (Source:

). Assuming the ratio of 60% of total vehicles being locally produced, and rest of them are being imported. Also assuming average duty collected from local car is RM 10K each, and RM 50K for imported vehicles. Please note that I had made broad assumption, as the actual figure was never reported by the government in their annual budget and accounts.
An estimated of RM 162 billions had been collected over the past 22 years. Actual figures could be much higher as import tax was relatively high in the 90s before we signed the ASEAN free trade agreement. Where had the money gone? How much fuel subsidy had been given by the government on fuel after being offset by the car duties?

Such amount can be used to build a comprehensive rail network comparable to Japan and Europe, where almost all major cities are connected by rails. An efficient metro networks can also be build in Klang Valley comparable to London, Hong Kong and Singapore.

I hope the MP will continue to ask for actual figures in the Parliament and show to the rakyat that the car duty and Petronas proceed had been used in an accountable way.

see also:

‘Let me pay market price for cars too’


Kenny Gan:

  • I don’t mind paying market price for petrol provided I can pay market price for cars.
  • Currently, our cars are anything but ‘market price’.
  • We have one of the highest car prices in the world due to our abnormally high import duties on foreign cars.
  • I’m not talking about luxury cars either, half of what we pay for a basic family cars goes to tax.
  • The tax component of a car will pay for the extra cost of unsubsidised petrol for the life of the car!

In a country where public transport is abysmal and most people have no practical choice but to own cars, middle-class families are being pushed to the wall. Subsidised petrol helps to offset the high installments car owners have to fork out monthly to pay for their overtaxed cars.

Many owners have to take a nine-year loan just to pay off a basic car. On top of that tolls are a heavy burden to motorists and threaten to keep going up due to one sided deals signed with toll concessionaires.

The government can do nothing about the world price of crude oil but high car prices and high tolls are definitely self-inflicted. Lack of investment in public transport rubs it in. Is this lack of urgency to improve our public transport designed to help Proton sell more cars?

The government has forced the public to own cars by mismanaging the public transport sector, inflicted a high prices for cars, burdened the motorists with extensive toll roads and now wants market price for petrol. Is this a caring government?

Tan, Joseph K: If the government would like to make fuel price as per the market price, firstly, it needs to reduce import taxes and excise duties for all passenger car to comply with the Japan- Malaysia FTA. At least, Malaysia can opt for cheaper hybrid cars which are good in fuel efficiency. And pay back to Malaysians the inflated taxes already imposed on car owners.

Kevin P: I was aghast at the above report. Hard cash back to the people is a good idea but to whom? Those who drive small cars and motorcycles? Good actually, but what about those that do not own a car or a motorcycle? Those who have been taking public transportation all this while?

What about the truly hardcore poor? I know that they will reveal it all ‘in due course’ but isn’t this method up for abuse? How are they going to manage the list of people that died? Are dead entitled to the cash as well?

Why can’t they sell off Proton and liberate the automotive market? Allow people to buy quality and more fuel-efficient cars without costing an arm and a leg. Why? RM56 billiion worth of fuel subsidy is about RM2,074 per Malaysian (regardless of age). They will need to study who are those that have been abusing the subsidies.

I am sure most families do not pump even RM4,000 worth of fuel a year. And that is for a family of four who are entitled to RM8,000 in subsidy.

CK Chim: A simple way to alleviate costs for vehicle-owners is to reduce or eliminate road tax and excise duty instead of sending postal orders, etc and creating an administrative nightmare for everyone. Whether one resorts to cash payments or whatever, its not a permanent solution as these will lead to a worsening traffic situation on highways and pollution to the environment.

There has been a lot of talk about the sad condition of our public transport system in major towns and cities. Do we realise that one of the main reasons for this is the promotion and proliferation of small vehicles? With a further move towards small vehicles (as people find it cheaper to own small vehicles), the public transport operators will not find it viable to invest on improving their public transport systems simply because passenger numbers are not growing.

What subsidy? No subsidy lah

Malaysiakini letter by Ganesh | Jun 13, 08

There is no such thing as subsidy for the oil that is produced in Malaysia. The term ‘subsidy’ has been royally used left, right and centre but no one is really sitting down and thinking hard and asking themselves, what is there to subsidise? Who is paying whom?


In actual fact, the hike in petrol price in Malaysia has nothing to do with a subsidy because we produce our own oil. An analogy – if you produce your own rambutans in your backyard, you are free to enjoy your own fruits. How can you tell people you are subsidising your rambutans or eating it at a subsidised rate?

In actual fact, there is no subsidy at all. It is called opportunity cost. Dr Mahathir Mohamad, being the Petronas Adviser and probably the only person who really knows the accounts, production and profit of Petronas, states that Malaysia produces 650,000 barrels a day of crude oil.

A total of 400,000 is used for local consumption in Malaysia (ie, the petrol we use), leaving 250,000 barrels to be exported. He further claims that these 250,000 barrels alone produced daily will bring Petronas about RM27 billion profit annually.

And this is assuming global oil price is US$130. If it goes up to US$200, you can imagine how much Petronas will make. And mind you, this is just the exported portion, in other words, this is just the excess 250,000 barrels exported alone.

So, what subsidy is there? There is no subsidy at all. The 400,000 barrels used in Malaysia is produced by Malaysia in the first place. We are producing our own rambutan ie, oil. What all the drama is about is the fact that Petronas wants to sell all the 650,000 barrels it produces per day at the global market rates of US$130 per barrel.

They want to reap even more profits. This is called opportunity cost and not subsidy. The 400,000 barrels per day consumed by Malaysians and sold at a cheaper rate can be sold at full market price to the global market.

To put is clearly, ‘opportunity cost’ – which would be the revenue that is being lost because the oil is being sold locally at less than the global market price. In other words, extra revenue that could have been earned – has been lost.

Unlike other oil producing countries which sell their oil cheaply to their rakyat, we on the other hand, are not bothered about our rakyat. Our petrol prices are either one of the highest or the highest in the world amongst all the oil-producing countries.

Don’t forget that we have one of the highest car prices in the world too, after Singapore. I think it is even higher than Singapore because the purchasing power of Singaporeans is much higher than Malaysians.

So a S$60, 000 Honda City in Singapore is not a big deal to a Singaporean earning about three times a Malaysian earns.

Please be reminded, too, that Petronas is government-owned so, again, what subsidy is there? Rakyat is not stupid lah; use proper terms, the correct term is ‘opportunity cost’. How are the young economics graduates from the local universities going to become good international economists when simple terms like ‘subsidy’ are confused as ‘opportunity cost’?



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: 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

%d bloggers like this: