Okay, folks, I will be off to Kuala Terengganu tomorrow with a friend to check out the by-election scene. All the hotels are likely to be full, so I will take a tent along and just rough it out. It will be a homecoming of sorts, as I lived in Kuala Terengganu for two years, going to Standard One and Two at the Sultan Sulaiman Primary School. I must check out our old house there to see if it is still standing….
In the meantime, this was was taken from a posting by Pelanuk on the Berita Malaysia email list. Did the Pas administration in Terengganu, without the benefit of oil royalties, actually do better than Umno in reducing poverty in the state?
> Staronline today reports Terengganu MB Ahmad Said as saying that “claims
> that the Terengganu Government is rich but its people are poor are all
> lies”, that “poverty rate had been reduced from 89.9% since independence to
> only 13%”.The curious thing is that by the BN government’s own figures, the poverty rate in Terengganu:
1995 — 23.4%
1999 — 14.9%
2002 — 10.7%In other words, in the *four* years under the BN, from 1995-1999, the poverty rate fell by 36%, or an average of about 9% per year, while in the *three years* under PAS, it fell by 28%, or an average of just over 9% per year.
In 2004, the poverty line was revised, and we were not given the poverty rate according to the old poverty line for comparison with the above. However, we now know that the new rates for Terengganu are:
2004 — 15.4%
2007 — 13.0% (as reported above, and this is for 2007 since that was the year in which the Household Income Survey was conducted).So, in the *three years* of the return of BN rule, the poverty rate fell by only 16%, of just over 5% per year.
By a coincidence, we have a direct comparison of the first three years of PAS in Terengganu and the first three years of the return of BN to Terengganu — and it’s a most unflaterring comparison for the BN.
PAS was denied the petroleum royalties, were faced with the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, and yet in their first three years, the poverty rate fell 28%. In contrast, the first three years of the return of BN, with all the petroleum royalties, and in relatively easier times, saw only a fall of 16%. And those first three years of the return of the BN saw plenty of money to throw on the Monsoon Cup, on the Crystal Mosque, and what not. Wow!
It’s even worse when we consider that the 2004 15% poverty rate meant that around 30,000 household in Terengganu were poor. Since even the poor don’t have zero income, let’s assume that they need an average of around RM500 a month or RM6,000 a year to come up to around RM1,000 a month household income. RM6,000 x 30,000 = RM180 million a year, i.e., less than the RM300 million spent on the Monsoon Cup. Now why couldn’t they have done with a less costly Monsoon Cup, say, RM120 million, and distributed the balance? Then there would be zero poverty in Terengganu. And since the poor and low income would have spent all that RM180 million, it would have been a stimulus to the local Terengganu economy at the same time — so it wouldn’t have been money given away, but a way to generate economic activity while wiping out poverty. And they could still have their Monsoon Cup!
So, who’s lying???
Related posts:
If leaders are content to live in spartan surroundings but with dignity, the country/state will always do better.
When the leaders climbed up the political ladder by buying their positions and/or votes, then we have the mess that we have now. Even then, we have some people who would defend corruption God knows to what end.
The shameless way with which UMNO withdrew the royalty payments is typical of the thickfaced politics this group practices. Tunku and Onn Jaafar would be turning in their graves right now to see what UMNO has turned into.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
good analysis…
1 year after Terengganu under PAS fell, I went to KT in 2005 from Penang… and in the bus, there was this an elderly Indian Doctor from Penang who has a clinic in KT… from our conversation i told him about the oil royalty… in his opinion he said, the total annual oil royalty is less than the “cukai Pintu for residential” which PAs abolish… I told him.. that “cukai Pintu only amount up to RM30 million” and oil royalty at that year was RM800 million plus.. and he was shocked to know that….
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All these statistics prove nothing and does not give the real scenario. As we know, Malaysia has no minimum wage and a large proportion of people cannot make ends meet.
Poverty is a very relative thing and the poverty line definition is very important. It is now a well known fact that the poverty line should be RM2000 and not the ridiculous figure it is at.
Ask anyone, even in Terengganu, if you earn RM600, how to survive?
I hope the people in Terengganu realise that many of them are really living below the poverty line.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I ONCE AGAIN MAKE IT CLEAR, SIMPLE AS THIS, THE BARISAN NASIONAL CANDIDATE MUST LOSE. LOSE HIS DEPOSIT ALSO. AS AFTER ALL, HIS DEPOSIT PAYMENT IS THE PEOPLES AMOUNT I GUESS, AND I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT FUND SUCH … IN SUCH AN ELECTION THOUGH HE IS STANDING AT HIS OWN WILL UNDER BN, THROW HIM OUT BUT WITHOUT HIS DEPOSIT.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ANIL, ALL DA BEST IN YOUR TRIP, REMEMBER, TRY UR BEST TO SPREAD THE MESSAGE THAT MAKE SURE THE BARISAN CANDIDATE LOSES HIS DEPOSIT.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anil
I am sorry to say this but I think such article as this reflects poorly upon yourself. Perhaps you could have done some research and thinking before making such simplistic statement that do not befit someone as intelligent and articulate as you are. I wouldn’t have batted an eyelid had I heard this coming from some twenty-something you punks in a mamak stall. This is just a knee-jerk and cheapshot to take at BN’s record in Terengganu in view of the coming by-election.
First of all, the aid to Terengganu was not stopped during the PAS rule but distributed via a mechanism that the Federal govt set up. While PAS was complaining that this money is by-passing them, but in reality the money still flowed through for development projects. Only point that made PAS upset is their inability to use this money to reward their loyal supporters with contracts or divert some of it to the party coffers.
Second point is that PAS whether in Kelantan or Terengganu, never been and never will be big on developments or poverty reduction. For a fundamentalist party, modern education, wealth and modern technology is a threat. As such it has been spending its funds on religious schools, mosques and other otherwordly pursuits.
It is a common knowledge among the insiders that one of the way PAS came into power and retains it is via an elaborate system of education that extends cradle to grave. The students are brainwashed from TASKI. Even university students leaving Kelantan or Terengganu are no spared. They are subjected to pre-Uni courses that “prepares” them mentally and then even during their studies the students are contantly required to attend weekend “briefing” and given “guidance”. The same goes for overseas students too.
I have followed this party for the last 15 years and they have never changed. Their single-mindedness in pusuing their objective of turning Malaysia into an Islamic republic will never waver and they will sign a pact with their (enemies) even if that gives them the opportunity to achieve their prize of taking over the governments.
As such, all these talk about human rights, democracy, welfare state, anti-ISA are mere rhetoric to persuade the non Muslims to get them the power. Once they achieve their goals, there will be no more democratic elections or democracy but a rule by mullahs.
As such, I am shocked that you could even consider supporting PAS in the by-election just because you don’t like BN. Voting PAS is a vote for the end of democracy and human rights. They belong to the 15th century and have place in the modern, multi-ethnic and multi-religious Malaysia. If DAP think they can control PAS, they are mistaken. If the muslim votes goes to PAS and the others are split between DAP, PKR and BN then there is nothing that will stop PAS from forming an Islamic Republic.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OTK WHAT IS MCA STAND ON DR MAHATHIR DECLARATION MALAYSIA IS AN ISLAMIC STATE.????
OTK WHAT IS MCA STAND ON NAJIB SAYING MALAYSIA IS AN ISLAMIC STATE ???
OTK WHAT IS YOUR STAND ON DR.CHUA SOI LEK YOUR DEPUTY ????
I WILL VOTE PAS (PAKATAN RAKYAT ) ANYTIME HUDUD OR NO HUDUD.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
K writes:
“This is just a knee-jerk and cheapshot to take at BN’s record in Terengganu in view of the coming by-election.”
Well, one knee-jerk reaction by the MB deserved a knee-jerk reaction, no? Surely you don’t dispute the figures? One way or another, UMNO from 2004-2007 does look bad, no?
As for
“First of all, the aid to Terengganu was not stopped during the PAS rule but distributed via a mechanism that the Federal govt set up. While PAS was complaining that this money is by-passing them, but in reality the money still flowed through for development projects. Only point that made PAS upset is their inability to use this money to reward their loyal supporters with contracts or divert some of it to the party coffers.”
K, you realise what you’re saying? UMNO out of power in the state actually got the funds to the people. UMNO in power in the state apparently kept the funds for themselves.
So, you are actually saying that the people of Terengganu, in present circumstances, would be economically better off getting PAS in, as that would make sure that the funds actually flow to them!
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come what may, Barisan Rakyat must vote for PAS/PR.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By not voting bn, we are saying NO to money politics, corruption, isa and never enough plundering. So vote for DAP, PKR & PAS for democratic and human rights!
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PAS do not have the money, as the oil royalty NEVER goes to PAS state gov.And yet PAS managed to do something.As PAS did abolish “cukai pintu”.
Royalty money was controlled by another feds board which claims doing “developments” for the state.
The monsoon drain cup ? or doing masjid kaca? is development?
Those are white elephants.
the comment left by ‘Kr” , i do not know what to say.
As “K” did NOT gave what sort of tangible “development”.
The money is nearly 1 billion per year.
Now, the money is with umno and what they did with it?
And theres nothing wrong voting for PAS.
At least PAS never points their forefinger at me and tells me you balik cina, you balik India. PAS is good enough.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
cut the mess out by NOT voting farid! make him lose his senatorship forever
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is beside the point. If we want change, then voting PAS is the only way. Send the Message to UMNO and BN.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I totally agree that we have to support PAS, to get real change.
p/s – but to hafizwm, i don’t believe that Farid will lose his senatorship. UMMO is merciful & forgiving party. If the man with 2x muhammad can have a cabinet position without standing for election, there’s still hope for Farid to get a senatorship for his good effort.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Pelanuk
If you want to talk specific, no problem. It is often said that some people manipulate stats to suit their purposes and I am afraid this is a classic case. Let’s analyse the data.
Let’s look at the data of % of poverty rates.
1995 – 23.4% (BN)
1999 – 14.9% (BN)
2002 – 10.7% (PAS)
2004 – 15.4% (PAS) New PLI
2007 – 13.0% (BN)
Based on the above, there was a steady reduction in the poverty at a rate of about 9% annually from 1995 to 2002. And then in 2004 there was a new PLI methodology was introduced, thus the poverty rate actually deteriorated to 15.4% from a low of 10.7% in 2002. This is because the Poverty Line Income (PLI) for Terengganu was increased from Rm 543 to Rm 662 (the std for for rural area) which is a whopping 21.9% hike.
As such, naturally the subsequent improvements will be slower than the 9% that was achieved under the old PLI. In this case, the improvement has now reduced to 5%.
The 2nd fallacy of your argument is that the improvements should be linear. Any statistician, sociologist or economist will tell you that in real world the improvements are often follow the law of diminishing returns, ie, the improvements tend to be smaller over time.
Your comparison of PAS’ and BN’s results based on different PLT stds and different period of time is highly misleading that no economist or statistician would endorse or consider as statistically sound or ethical.
Another factor that I had pointed out is that much of the poverty reduction and eradication programs were from the Fed govt that was channelled thru programs like FELDA, RISDA, FELCRA, AIM, PPRT,etc which continued unabated during PAS rule.
Even if PAS introduced revolutionary new strategies, these are hardly likely to produce results in a few mths. From the stats the stable rate of improvemeny in the period of 1995 to 2002 indicate that there was probably a continuation of programs rather than introduction of new ones in eradicating poverty.
As I had mentioned, PAS was and is never big on poverty reduction as they would rather keep the people poor and uneducated in order to maintain control over them. The only exception is religious studies of course.
While I don’t endorse BN, but I think voting for PAS just because we don’t agree with BN is highly dangerous policy to pursue. Putting PAS into power is an irreversible move and these fundamentalists have no place in a modern, multi-ethnic and multi-religious 21st century Malaysia.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ideological parties, when they are in
coalition with other political parties, tend to moderate
their positions.PAS won’t be an exception.
Ideological parties include socialist as well as
confessional (religious) parties.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
K — you want to play games with numbers, we can. But the fundamental fact of the matter is that T’ganu is a disaster zone, and that’s the context.
1. at the per capita gdp level, T’ganu is way above the country average. Yet it has amongst the highest poverty rates in the country — and except for the 5 years under PAS, that “achievement” is all UMNO’s, counting from the start of NEP in 1970. Now what does that tell you?
2. with the revision in the PLI in 2004, at the peninsula wide level, the poverty rate increased from 3.1% to 3.6%, i.e., by some 20%, more or less in line with the increase in the PLI. but in the case of T’ganu, it increased by at least 50% (if one takes the count from 2002 and assume there was no decline between 2002 and 2004), and possibly doubled, if one assumes that it continued to decline at the same rate from 2002 to 2004.
3. aiya, trying to be clever with that linearity thing. Hey, man, it looks like from 1995 to 2002 it went down from 23.4 to 10.7 in pretty linear fashion, averaging around 9% p.a. But, never mind. Let’s assume you are right about non-linearity. So, a drop from 23.4 to 14.9% (Umno) should be easier that that from 14.9 to 10.7% (PAS), by *your* argument. Wah! the achievement under PAS is even more impressive — the rate was maintained when it should have slowed down, by your argument. Nothing like an opposition win to focus the minds of umno/bn, taking your argument about the continued flow of anti-poverty programmes. Don’t squirm. You asked for this. Umno, in power, faced with the easier part of the curve of diminishing returns, couldn’t perform. Put in PAS, and since you say it was Umno/BN that carried out the anti-poverty thing, they did a great job.
4. but the programmes you reach for — FELDA, FELCRA, etc. Look, the big developments were pretty much done by the early 1990s — as can be seen from the great increase in the population from 1980-1991 (in-migration), and the tiny increase from 1991 to 2000 (out-migration).
In any case, guess what? The years from 1995-99 were a bull-run for CPO prices, but 1999-2002 saw CPO prices averaging more than 50% down. From peak to trough, it went down from USD700/t to just over USD200/t. Yet the years 1999-2002 saw a continued decline in the poverty rate at the same rate as from 1995-1999 when, by your own reckoning, it should have been easier to bring down the poverty rate. As Tina Fey might say, go suck on it.
In short, even if i accept your argument that it’s not valid to compare 1999-2002 with 2004-2007, then, by your own argument of diminishing returns and what not, coupled with the additional information i give above, the reduction when PAS was in power from 1999-2004 looks even more remarkable. And, if, as you say, this was all Umno’s doing — great! it looks like they do a better job in opposition than in government!
5. but is the 1999-2002 and 2004-2007 comparison invalid? note, i did not make a point about the poverty rate going up — that would have been an invalid point since it was measured on a different yardstick. i made the point on rate of reduction, and note that in terms of percentages (or of number of households in poverty, remember, there was a very small increase in population from 1991 to 2000), we are on the same part of the curve: from 14.9 to 10.7 for 1999-2002, and from 15.4 to 13.0 for 2004-2007.
So, rather than trying to confuse the picture, and since you seem to have knowledge, maybe even access to the raw numbers, go show that indeed the comparison is invalid on your grounds of being on different parts of the curve.
6. ok, my argument was about the poverty rate, triggered by the MB’s stupid statement. As for the politics, I don’t personally care much for PAS. But, really, your argument about irreversibility is all in your head, no? The good people of Kelantan and Terengganu have the signal honour in the peninsula of being the only people who, until 2008, had the confidence to know that they can vote governments in and out of power.
So, yes, while I might agree that PAS thinking can be whacky — but really no more whacky than Umno’s race-based thinking which also has no place in a modern, multi-ethnic, multi-religious 21st century Malaysia — unlike you, I have nothing but respect for the simple political sophistication of the people of Kelantan and T’ganu. They have shown themselves more sophisticated than the “sophisticates” of the Klang Valley who, until 2008, got fooled time and time again into believing they had no choice but to vote Umno/BN!
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pelanuk
It is often said that half knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge. The problem in Malaysia is that people tend to politicise every issue to align with and support their political beliefs. Ethics and integrity is thrown out. I am not taking a political stance but purely an objective and mathematical approach here. And based on that I hardly think Terengganu been a disaster in terms of poverty reduction and the data do not support your assertion.
1. GDP per capita : Terengganu indeed has one of the highest GDP/capita among the Malaysian states. But I think you have an erroneous idea on what is GDP or GDP/capita. GDP is just a measurement of all economic activities and is not a direct reflection of the poverty rates or income level. GDP/capital being a mathematical average/mean of GDP can be highly misleading especially so in developing countries. Just to provide an example, Melaka and NS with much lower GDP/capital have far lower % poverty.
2. I am not sure what you trying to prove here. This number or % of change is absolutely meaningless. The new poverty % was derived from a new base and do not indicate any change to the underlying data. It is like saying that a person had grown shorter when converting his height from centimeter to inches.
3. Suggest you re-read my earlier post. I had been saying all along that irrespective of the period of time, the poverty reduction programs were implemented by the Federal govt. If there were some new programs introduced by PAS govt, we should have seen an even bigger improvement than 9% during PAS rule. However if there were some programs initiated by PAS, please be free to share it with me.
4. You are wrong again. The poverty reduction programs are on going and in fact they have been given renewed push under Badawi (ECER is one example). Secondly you reference to CPO prices is also highly misleading since palm oil never been big in Terengganu unlike in some other states.
5. I am also talking about the rate of improvement and not the absolute value as well.The improvement rate after 2004 was slower due to the drastic upward revision in PLI for 2004 (change in base) and then also due to the law of diminishing returns. This is basic maths.
6. This is another assumption that has no basis. I do not think the people of Kelantan and Terengganu are motivated by some high democratic ideals in voting govts in and out. I hardly need to tell you that these folks have simpler needs and wants in life and things like democracy and human rights rank way down in their list of priorities. No one in their right mind would call PAS as a progressive party by any standard (unless of course they are the Talibans or their Wahabbhi brothers). As for race-based parties, well, reality is that there is not a single political party in Malaysia that represents all ethnic and religious groups fairly. I simply do not buy the propaganda being mouthed by Anwar when on the ground the reality is the PR govts in the 5 states are being run not much different from BN previously.
I am waiting for the day when I can finally vote for a party that truly represents all Malaysians.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] statistics never lies. The Star recently reports Terengganu MB Ahmad Said as saying that “claims that the [...]
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
K, the correct saying is “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. But as Bob Marley sang, “who the cap fit, let him wear it”.
1. GDP/capita: yes, it is not a reflection of the poverty rate, BUT it is a reflection of income level at the mean. You ever seen a country with a lower GDP/capita having a higher mean income than one with a higher GDP/capita? Now, if a state with a lower GDP/capita has a lower poverty rate than one with a higher GDP/capita, the first thing one would look at is the income distribution. It suggests that the state with the higher GDP/capita has a more unequal income distribution. Then one would look at the policies and programmes and ask why that higher GDP/capita isn’t being translated into a lower poverty rate. Suggest you go back and understand the way in which GDP is estimated and what it means. You surely know that scholars use the GDP figures to check the household income survey figures?
2. Sorry that you don’t understand. And no, it is not a question of measuring in cm and in inches. The reason for a the change in the PLI was because there was a sense that the old measuring stick was not a good measuring stick any more, not a good reflection of the realities. That’s not to say that the new PLI is a good measuring stick. But never mind, as long as we all agree to use that measuring stick, then it tells us what proportion of households fall below a certain level. Now, when we measure the change in the poverty rate, we use %. That takes care of the different measuring sticks that are used. Whatever, since you wanted to argue about diminishing returns, etc., I phrased the argument starting from your assumptions.
3. Man, you can’t go shifting your grounds. Earlier you resorted to diminishing returns. What that means, in the poverty context, is that it should be easier to reduce poverty when it is at a higher level than when it is at a lower level.
4. ECER? Can you tell us what’s been going on with ECER besides its announcement? Also, how does ECER count as a poverty reduction programme, other than the assumption that raising economic growth will reduce poverty? But then, as you yourself point out, T’ganu with one of the highest GDP/capita in the country also has one of the highest poverty rates. So, no, as is now acknowledged world-wide, even by the World Bank, growth alone is not enough.
As for oil palm, take a leaf from your insult about “half knowledge” and go check the figures. Johor, Pahang and Perak are way in front in terms of oil palm area. After that, guess who’s at the top of the rest in the peninsula? Yes, T’ganu! Go look at the MPOB figures.
5. Diminishing returns is something to be demonstrated, not simply assumed. The upward revision in the PLI in 2004 does not and should not impact on the poverty reduction rate, it just impacts on the rate or proportion under the PLI. So, what it tells us is that there were a whole lot of people who were between the old PLI and the new PLI.
To understand the situation, think of it this way.
Take two income lines, say, 500 and 600 a month. Let’s say that 10% of households are below 500 and 15% of households are below 600. So, 5% of households fall between 500 and 600. Now, let’s say you are able to raise that 5% above 600, then at the next measurement, you would have 10% of households below 500. What diminishing returns are you talking about? What’s the difficulty? We aren’t talking about raising a household from 200 to 600, but anywhere from 500 to 600 to above 600. So, also, under the 500 income line, the parallel situation would be raising those just below that, say 400-500 to above the 500 line. The two situations are parallel, indeed, more of a challenge for the latter than the former: do a simple calculation — to raise a household from 500 to 600 is to raise income 20%, whereas to raise a household from 400 to 500 is to raise income 25%. So, all else being equal, it should have been more difficult to reduce the poverty rate under the old PLI (your diminishing returns) than under the new PLI! Now do you understand?
6. Did i say anything about the good people of Kelantan and T’ganu voting for a concept called democracy? I said they had the good sense to know that they can vote governments in and vote governments out. In that sense, they have a better grasp of their power and their their rights, and also of politics. Until 2008, as you well know, most seats in Kelantan were won and lost at the margin — and, objectively, a way of keeping those YBs on their toes, as no one could consider their seat safe, other than Nik Aziz.
As for whether PAS is or is not progressive, that’s perhaps an irrelevant question at this juncture. Can voting PAS at this juncture serve a progressive purpose, esp in a context in which the choice is PAS/UMNO or PR/BN? And do stop mouthing the nonsense that comes out of those “western” hacks about Taliban and Wahabi. Hey, even the Wahabi, in their time, played a progressive role in the fight against colonial rule.
So, you want a party that truly represents all Malaysians. So do I. What are you doing about that? Voting UMNO?
This is a by-election. It isn’t going to change the government which, by the way, does not truly represent all Malaysians. But it sends a signal. Meanwhile, what truly represents all Malaysians is the ferment that has been going on now for a while — it’s that movement of Malaysians. And, unlike you, I have faith that this fractious, argumentative movement of Malaysians is preferable to the stupor we were in under Umno/BN and do not wish to return to that stupor. Suggest you read Khoo Boo Teik’s article in the recent Aliran Monthly.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pelanuk,
The difference between our approaches is due to the fact that you are trying to be a spin-doctor while I try to be a scientist.
This debate has diverted and been muddied with you throwing in a lot of irrelevant facts and assumptions that the core issues have been forgotten.
Let’s go back to the basic issue at hand. Based on the data provided, you claimed that PAS has done better than BN in poverty eradication. To “prove” this assertion, you compared BN’s 2004 to 2007 data (5% annual improvement) versus PAS’ 1999 to 2002 (9% annual improvement).
Based on the above set of data, no honest scientist or statistician would make the same claim as you have. There are 2 reasons. Firstly there is just isn’t sufficient data to support to the conclusion. Second, logically the two sets of numbers cannot be compared as they are based on different yardsticks. In 2004 the PLI was revised upward, thus making a direct comparison invalid. We also do not know the data for 2003 and 2004 (using old PLI). For all we know, the rate could have gotten worse instead of improving.
The revision of PLI had 2 effects. First it increased the number of people who are considered poor. Secondly the PLI threshold was also raised to make poverty reduction efforts far more difficult. At this point I must say that my earlier point of the law of diminishing return might not apply here as the base has been changed.
Finally there is also an error in your data that I did not notice until now. The poverty rate for Terengganu in 2007 was actually 6.5% and not 13.0% as you stated here.
Returning to your comments about Kelantan and Terengganu people having grasp of their power and rights, well, this is again a sweeping comment without basis. It is ridiculous to assert that the rest of the country to be unenlightened in democratic process and rights just because they had voted the BN into power. People make their democratic choice based on their unique needs and wants, who are we to question their judgment?
As for Wahhabis, well they might have been progressive at their time, but that was back in the 15th century. I rather live under the “stupor” of BN/UMNO rule of 21st century than take my chance to live in an enlightened rule of PAS of the 15th century.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
K,
Now this is really becoming an exchange of diminishing returns! So this will be my last post on the matter.
When you can’t make the argument, you resort to name calling, self-anointing yourself as “scientist” and me, “spin doctor”. Really, you are more like all those highly paid “analysts” from all those investment banks and what-not who led us into the global economic pit we are now in.
But I’m glad the truth is out. Starting off with what seemed like an honest disagreement, you finally blurted out your pro-BN/UMNO stance. That’s good.
First, do read: the 13% figure I cited came from the MB’s statement as reported in the mainstream media. I don’t have access to the raw data since the BN govt does not provide access to it. Why a government would spend millions of ringgit to collect data which they then won’t provide open access to is one of those mysteries of Malaysian life. The MB apparently then released another figure, the 6.5% a couple of days ago. Now, which is the right figure? I, for one, would be happy if the government would just release the data set for public use.
But if 6.5% is the right figure, then we must salute the previous state government and the poor ex-MB got booted out for having done a stellar job! Why? Because from a state languishing in the worst third of the poverty rates, he out-performed the country and the peninsula in poverty reduction. Yet, according to Devamany (NST 27 Jun 2008), Terengganu had the *lowest* GDP growth rate in the country between 2004 and 2007. You will forgive me if I think the first figure the current MB released is closer to the right figure. Why? A state with the lowest GDP growth rate in the relevant period apparently out-performed in poverty reduction? There would have had to be a massive re-distribution programme. Last time I looked, there wasn’t.
Second, you evidently do not understand what you mean by “diminishing returns” for all your claim to expertise in maths. But, fine, I’ll accept your retraction of your earlier insistence on diminishing returns.
Third, you really don’t understand what you’re saying about comparisons. I did *not* compare poverty rates. I compared rates of reduction. And that’s a fair comparison. Take a look at the various Malaysia Plans. Or take a look at any number of publications. People are always comparing rates: rates of growth of GDP, rates of growth of population, rates of growth of incomes, inflation rates, etc. E.g., we do compare GDP growth rates for, say, 1984-87 and for 1987-90 even though the base was revised in 1987, or between 1996-2000 and 2000-2004 even though the base was revised in 2000; ditto inflation rates for 2000-2005 and 2005-to date, although the base was revised in 2005, and so on.
Fourth, the PLI is a monetary yardstick, so many RM a month for a notional household of so many persons. This is true of both the old and the new PLI. So, the difference between the old and the new is approximately what I gave in my example: between RM500 and RM600 per month (the actual official levels are RM543 and RM662, as you say). You insist that somehow it’s more difficult to raise someone from, say, RM650 to RM670 than to raise someone from RM530 to RM550, a difference of RM20 a month in either case. Prove it. Don’t just insist.
As I pointed out, if we assume that the poverty rate didn’t budge between 2002 and 2004, then apparently the revision in the PLI resulted in an additional 5% of households, i.e., these 5% of households had incomes between RM543 and RM662. OK, we do not know how these 5% were distributed in that range. But one thing we can say: on the face of it, it should be easier to raise someone from RM650 to RM670 than someone from RM530 to 550 if we are thinking of trying to do it through productive means rather than a hand-out. Why? Think about it. But my original post pointed out that the return of the BN/UMNO saw vast amounts squandered. I did a back-of-envelop calculation, assumed it would take RM500 on average to raise everyone to RM1,000 p.m. Now, we can do another back-of-envelop calculation: if they had just given out RM120 to every household below the new PLI, that would have wiped out the 5% increase resulting from the new PLI and immediately brought the rate down to 10%.
Fifth, you really don’t understand this business of the PLI and how to work with it. You say I can’t compare 1999-2002 and 2004-2007. I think I’ve taken care of that: to repeat, I’m not comparing the absolutes, I’m comparing the relatives. Then you say there is insufficient evidence to answer the question: In which period did the poverty rate come down faster? Unless you dispute that it came down by about 9% in the first period and 5% in the second, then 9% is faster than 5%. What more data do you want?
OK, so you say that this isn’t due to PAS, it’s all due to UMNO/BN. Now that’s spin. Isn’t it normally the case that what happens during the period that someone is in power attributed to that party? So we say Mahathir-this and Mahathir-that, good and bad. Of course Mahathir will want to accept the good and say the bad’s all someone else’s fault. But that’s spin. So also, you want to say that what happened under PAS was all UMNO’s doing, and what happens under UMNO is also UMNO’s doing.
As for not knowing what the 2004 figure would have been under the old PLI: Yes, we don’t know the actual figure, but we can say for sure that it wasn’t 15.4% or anything substantially near that. Why? If it were, then that would mean that the revision from RM543 to RM662 didn’t make any difference, i.e., you had no or very few households in that RM120 range. And if so, then your argument about substantially higher PLI, etc. falls to the ground: it made little difference. Moreover, the fact of the matter is that the period 1999-2002 saw a contraction in 2001, whereas that from 2002-2004 were years of decent growth. Even assuming that T’ganu also had the lowest GDP growth rate in the country, there would have had to have been a significant re-distribution of income upwards for the poverty rate to have risen in that period, i.e., the growth would have had to have been significantly anti-poor. You can’t have it both ways: either your UMNO/BN guys did their anti-poverty work in the period or they didn’t. All PAS had to do was to make sure that they didn’t introduce policies to skew the growth to the higher income and that would have been enough to see some reduction in poverty.
Finally, the hack that you really are is shown by your deliberate twisting of what I said about ibn Abd-al-Wahab. And, by the way, a scientist would at least get the basic facts right. ibn Abd-al-Wahab lived in the 18th century and, like it or not, was a sort of Luther, ranting against what he took to be the deviations from the fundamentals, wanting to do away with the cult of saints, etc. We may not like that, preferring the secularised corruption of the world — I know I do — but that should not influence historical judgment. As for today, that’s something that has to be sorted out, and it has to be sorted out at the popular level, not by fiat.
In any case, the progressive narrowing over the past few decades can be attributed as much to UMNO as to PAS. Open your eyes, man. Unless of course, you wish to invert things and say that although UMNO/BN was in power, it was really all due to PAS
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0