Stupid illogical and devoid of facts pro-poor policy by a Professor in Economics

 I did not realise how dangerous this article is until I read the pro-poor policy. It has never been sanctioned anywhere in the world, but was championed by racist bastards in DAP for many decades already. His statements are devoid of any fact at all.

 

Just because you are poor does not mean that you deserve government aid above those who are more capable of contributing more. This is standard practise as shown by awarding scholarships to deservings students, and even giving money to people regardless of poverty in UBI, Universal Basic Income, which is the main theory to prevent disasters as a result of automation.

 

 https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/12/money-for-nothing-is-finlands-universal-basic-income-trial-too-good-to-be-true

 

 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan005788.pdf

 

Pro-poor policies had been identified as failures especially in commuist countries that later turned into socialists. DAP turned to socialism when the chinese supported mainland China with its communist policies.

 

 “It will also lead to a more confident, cohesive and resilient multi-ethnic society without the country being labelled as one of the very few where affirmative policies are needed for the majority rather the minority group as seen elsewhere,” he added.

 

The above is also a very dangerous statement made by racists, and had no bearing to the meaning of affirmative action AT ALL.

 

For example, the minority chinese and indians in USA are never candidates of affirmative action. It is just ridiculous to apply affirmative action on a minority.

 

Affirmative action is only applied to disprivileged people, regardless of whether they are majority of minority. The disprivileged is due to past racist practises that are hard to control legally. In USA, it was the whites who are racists, but they happen to be the majority. In Malaysian, it is the chinese, despite being the minory, had managed to control the economy. 

 

It is ridiculous and racist to assume that the minory chinese are successful because they are intelligent and hard working, whereas the natives are not. It is their racism that contribute to a large extent to their successes at the expense of the natives.

 

Just look at the multinationals and the Malays in Singapore.

Any racism is a waste of natural resources. If the chinese were not racists, the natives could have contributed to greater utilisation of Malaysian resources, for the good of all Malaysians.

Pro-poor policies, if implemented fairly, will make it worse for the chinese, who by defintion are not really poor, compared to the majority of the natives. I said implemented unfarily because the urban people are given more emphasis, compared to the rural natives. The rural natives do not even have proper hospitals, schools and roads. 

 

By providing the roads, schools, and hospitals in the rural areas for the poor, there should be no money left for the urban poor, that already have good roads, schools and hospitals by being in the proximity of all these facilities.

As to evidences of racism, it is as clear as daylight, and yet, Malaysia still has not implemented any anti-discrimiantion regulations, unlike USA. Many capable Malays are denied places in Chinese companies, given various excuses that are not even valid. For example, ability to speak Mandarin. Many Malays were denied employment despite being able to speak Mandarin. As for Malays, why should they work for these racist companies which form the majority of the companies in Malaysia?

We identify the racist by the stupid, illogical and untrue statement that affirmative action is not for the majority. Nonsense. Affirmative action is to stop racism.

Google Search:

affirmative action

noun

North American

noun: affirmative action

1. action favouring those who tend to suffer from discrimination; positive discrimination.

    Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

   Dishonest and racist people may quote from this, without understanding it:

    
   

   affirmative action

   noun
   

   
   

   
   

   
   Definition of affirmative action 
   

   
   

   : an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

   
   

    

   
   

   "Members of minority groups" and "women".

   This is nonsense, because chinese and indians are never given any affirmative action privileges. Only Red Indians and Blacks. Not even Hispanics are given affirmative action, in general.

   
   

   And women, they are certainly not the minority.

   
   

    

   Follow the discussion here:

   https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Hispanics-a-part-of-affirmative-action-when-they-were-never-slaves

   
   

   Just like this racist chinese bastard.
   

   Cedric Chiu, Radar Engineer working on Weapons

   
   

   Answered Sep 15

   
   

   Originally, the idea of Affirmative Action is to help people under a systematic disadvantage, like kids from a former Slave Parents/Grand Parents.

   But as time progressed, it became a tool for "Racial Rebalance" of a organization (like a Soft Quota).

   So Hispanic is part of Affirmative Action Bonus, not because of the "Systematic Disadvantage" standpoint, but for "Racial Rebalance" Stand point.

   It is kinda Ironic, Since Asian actually had a systematic Disadvantage against them (Asian Exclusive Act that lasted till the 1940s, and Japanese Concentration Camp of the 1940s), but today they are being punished under Affirmative Action.. It clearly spells out the fact, that people (schools, companies) care more about their Image (Racial Rebalancing) than actual historic remedy.

   
   

 

Focus on reducing income disparity

The Pakatan Harapan government should focus on reducing income disparity between the rich and poor, regardless of race, in its pursuit to eradicate poverty, said economists. NSTP picture by ASYRAF HAMZAH.

By AYISY YUSOF - October 29, 2018 @ 12:14pm

KUALA LUMPUR: The Pakatan Harapan government should focus on reducing income disparity between the rich and poor, regardless of race, in its pursuit to eradicate poverty, said economists.

The New Economic Policy (NEP 2.0) must be amended based on the gains of the old NEP that has substantially closed the gap between the majority and minority ethnic groups.

Sunway University Business School economics professor Dr Yeah Kim Leng suggested that a pro-poor or inclusive NEP should be emphasised to strengthen Malaysia’s socio-economic foundations.

“This could help to shape more sustainable and resilient economic policies for Malaysia to attain high income status by 2024, as envisioned in the mid-term review of the 11th Malaysia Plan,” he told NST Business recently.

Yeah said the government’s intervention programmes like education, employment and business quotas and fiscal as well as financial incentives would raise the income of the bottom 20 per cent (B40) group.

“The attention on growth with equity should still be the primary policy focus. Without growth, restructuring of the economy and raising the living standards will be much harder and less sustainable,” he added.

Yeah said greater transparency and accountability will be important for the people to eliminate the identification of race with government policies.

He noted that steady economy growth over the years has strengthened labour demand which in turn has increased the ethnic diversity of employees in most organisations across sectors and industries.

“An inclusive and pro-poor NEP will foster national integration and equitable income distribution between and within each ethnic group.

“It will also lead to a more confident, cohesive and resilient multi-ethnic society without the country being labelled as one of the very few where affirmative policies are needed for the majority rather the minority group as seen elsewhere,” he added.

Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) executive director Professor Dr Zakariah Abdul Rashid, meanwhile, said socio-economic development in the current context of Malaysia was all about growth with equity as outlined by Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

“Now everything lies on the implementation of good strategies. Bumiputera should also get its equal share of the prosperity of economic growth and development of the country,” he said.

Zakariah said the country’s largest Bumiputra population cannot be left behind economically for sustainable and stable economic growth of Malaysia.

“While subscribing to the principle of a free market, the strategy should be equally friendly to the major racial groups which have significant political and economic presence,” he said.

Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd chief economist Dr Mohd Afzanizam Abdul Rashid said the NEP 2.0 seems to be a delicate balance between promoting an equitable economic growth and instilling financial discipline.

“The government is committed to reducing the level of its debt and plugging any loop holes in spending,” he said.

“In this regard, the development of Waqf asset such as land and cash can be the right policy tools which can be harnessed to complement fiscal policy.”

Afzanizam said through Waqf, redistribution of income and wealth can be more equitable and effective, and would lessen the need to introduce new taxes as the wealthy could be more than willing to take part.

MIDF Research chief economist Dr Kamaruddin Mohd Nor concurred that the NEP 2.0 should make way for the poor to better themselves and improve their livelihood.

“Education, training and income generating programmes with direct assistance and guidance are vital to raise their income.

“Assessing the effectiveness of existing programmes and their respective weaknesses are key elements to ensure the success of the programme,” he said.

Kamaruddin said the improvement of the rakyat’s wellbeing, regardless of social orientation, should be the government’s primary objective.

“Equitable distribution of wealth should be promoted via various skill enhancement programmes to enable faster social mobility.

“More customised social economic programmes are essential to address unique characteristics of various categories of the rakyat,” he said.

Anwar's Election Result in Port Dickson

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/10/13/gods-will-that-anwar-leads-malaysia-says-nazri/

Hypocrites like Nazri and libelers like Saiful, thought they can fool honest people. They are wrong. They can only fool idiots and people with black hearts.

Many people, like Daim Zainuddin, accused Anwar of being a hypocrite by pretending to be better than he really is, meaning, by abstaining from women and alcohol, Anwar pretends to be holier than what he actually is.

Many people also accused Anwar of being power crazy, so impatient to gain power that Anwar is willing to sacrifice the Malay race by breaking its unity. Unity in disgrace is stupidity and cruel. Just because you are evil, do not expect other people to be evil as well.

That power craziness of Anwar is easy to prove to be false. Look at all the ass lickers in UMNO. They still remained with UMNO because they are the real power crazy people. Anwar left because he stuck to his principle. Justice and fairness above others, not even unity or power. Anwar could just have tolerated all the corruption and injustices around him, if he had wanted to become Prime MInister quickly.

If Anwar were the holy men type, he would have just joined PAS, where he was most welcomed, but he did not. Anwar enjoyed his life with activities such as horse riding where he broke his neck. I heard, Anwar even went Scuba diving.

Anwar even tolerated corruption around him as long as he is not aware of it. I heard that during the UMNO battle to capture Sabah from UMNO, Anwar's operation room smelled of money. Even in the PD election, he went to the Army camp and attend dinners sponsored by his supporters, which were questionable election practises by an incumbent political party. There were other practises that Anwar was accused of, which just proved that Anwar was flexible, not extremist. If you want extremist, go to PAS and DAP. Even, they were duped into doing questionable practises.

I still remembered very well why chinese hated Anwar. Anwar was deemed as racist for allowing non-Mandarin certified teachers to become Principals in Mandarin schools. Anwar should have stuck to fhis principle that the best qualified should be the leader, not based on some racial prejudice. True to his style, Anwar gave in. So now, the racist practises made victims of teachers like my colleague's wife, a Mandarin-speaking but not certified teacher, because she teaches English and Maths, will never be considered for promotion to become a Principal.

That is the weakness of Anwar. He is too flexible. In contrast to Mahathir. My nature of character favours Anwar's style, but that does not mean that success will be guaranteed. I hate Mahathir's style, but sometimes, that is what is needed.

Better Alternative to ROAD TOLLS based on Switzerland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OfpgOZdoY
I agree with Dr. Mahathir or even Najib. Ridiculous to remove tolls especially for people who do not use highways.
Unfortunately a promise is a promise. We can still fulfill the promise by twisting some of the words, while making highways more efficient.

Some highways need their tools to be removed because they are not conducive to free flow of vehicles. Also ;difficult to enforce the proposed method of charging highway use.
The solution is to use highway permits. Instead of tolls, use highway permits as used by Switzerland especially for tourists. We can do the same and charge tourists higher for the use of highways.
You may say it is the same as tolls, but not really. It does not stop the flow of traffic. It makes travelling to highways much faster and more efficient.
For tourists, it is not fair because we have to pay for the whole year when we only use it for two days, so I do not use it.
For the Malaysian case, we can make it more affordable by not breaking our finances. Special highway permits during special occasions, at rates that are much lower than current tool rates. We can even make it permit free for these occasions but this is not advisable.
Malaysians should pay some lah. It will allow more people to use the non toll roads, and it will not congest the highways so much also.
As for subsidizing the highway by lowering the cost of the permit, this is not true because under heavy use, the cost of tolls should be much less. More people using the highway the cheaper it becomes because highways do not consume much resources once built. Only depreciation and maintenance costs which should be much less once divided among more users.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorways_of_Switzerland
The Swiss autobahn/autoroute system requires the purchase of a vignette (toll sticker) — which costs 40 Swiss francs — for one calendar year in order to use its roadways, for both passenger cars and trucks.[4] The Swiss vignette is offered only as an annual toll sticker. Trucks also have to pay a toll based on the tonnage and the distance.