A look at the major oil production situation elsewhere

I have just read this from Malaysiakini's beritamalaysia section and I think it helps in our understanding of our country's fuel price policy. As I have mentioned in my earlier post, I cannot understand why higher prices for oil to a net exporter of oil cannot translate into bumper profits for Petronas to take care of the subsidies. I would tend to think after reading that open letter, that perhaps our oil reserves are in fact running too low for comfort!:

View From Britain

Your Majesty, We Have Gone Mad

An open letter to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: Our prime minister isurging you to increase production of oil. Please ignore him. Like the other leaders he is delusional, and is no longer competent to make his own decisions.

GEORGE MONBIOT

Your Majesty,

In common with the leaders of most western nations, our prime minister is urging you to increase your production of oil. I am writing to ask you to ignore him. Like the other leaders he is delusional, and is no longer competent to make his own decisions.

You and I know that there are several reasons for the high price of oil. Low prices at the beginning of this decade discouraged oil companies from investing in future capacity. There is a global shortage of skilled labour, steel and equipment. The weak dollar means that the price of oil is higher than it would have been if denominated in another currency. While your government says that financial speculation is an important factor, theBank of England says it is not, so I don't know what to believe. The major oil producers have also become major consumers; in some cases their exports are falling even as their production has risen, because they are consuming more of their own outpu.

But what you know and I do not is the extent to which the price of oil might reflect an absolute shortage of global reserves. You and your advisers are perhaps the only people who know the answer to this question. Your published reserves are, of course, a political artefact unconnected to geological reality. The production quotas assigned to its members by Opec, the oil exporters' cartel, reflect the size of their stated reserves, which means that you have an incentive to exaggerate them. How else could we explain the fact that, despite two decades of furious pumping, your kingdom posts the same reserves as it did in 1988?

You say that you are saving your oil for the benefit of futuregenerations. If this is true, it is a rational economic decision: oil in the ground looks like a better investment than money in the bank. But, reluctant as I am to question your majesty's word, I must remind you that some oil analysts are now wondering whether this prudence is a convenient fiction. Are you restricting supply because you want to conserve stocks and keep the price high, or are you unable to raise production because your fabled spare capacity does not in fact exist?

I do not expect an answer to this question. I know that the true state of your reserves is a secret so closely guarded that oil analysts now resort to using spy satellites to try to estimate the speed of subsidence of the ground above your oil fields, as they have no other means of guessing how fast your reserves are running down.

What I know and you may not is that the high price of oil is currently the only factor implementing British government policy. The government claims that it is seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by encouraging people to use less fossil fuel. Now, for the first time in years, its wish has come true: people are driving and flying less. The AA reports that about a fifth of drivers are now buying less fuel. A new study by the Worldwide Fund for Nature shows that businesses are encouraging their executives to use video conferences instead of flying. One of the most fuel-intensive industries of all, business-only air travel, has collapsed altogether.

In other words, your restrictions on supply – voluntary or otherwise – are helping the government to meet its carbon targets. So how does it respond? By angrily demanding that you remove them so that we can keep driving and flying as much as we did before. Last week Gordon Brown averred that it's "a scandal that 40% of the oil is controlled by Opec, that their decisions can restrict the supply of oil to the rest of the world, and that at a time when oil is desperately needed, and supply needs to expand, that Opec can withhold supply from the market." In the United States, legislators have gone further: the House of Representatives has voted to a bring a lawsuit against Opec's member states, and Democratic senators are trying to block arms sales to your kingdom unless you raise production.

This illustrates one of our leaders' delusions. They claim to wish to restrict the demand for fossil fuels, in order to address both climate change and energy security. At the same time, to quote Britain's department for business, they seek to "maximise economic recovery" from their remaining oil, gas and coal reserves. They persist in believing that both policies can be pursued at once, apparently unaware that if fossil fuels are extracted they will be burnt, however much they claim to wish to reduce consumption. The only states which appear to be imposing restrictions on the supply of fuel are the members of OPEC, about which Gordon Brown so bitterly complains. Your majesty, we have gone mad, and you alone can cure our affliction, by keeping your taps shut.

Our leaders, though they do not possess the faintest idea of whether or not the oil supplies required to support it will be sustained, are also overseeing a rapid expansion of our transport infrastructure. In the United Kingdom we are building or upgrading thousands of miles of new roads and doubling the capacity of our airports, in the expectation that there will be no restriction in the supply of fuel. The government's central forecast for the long-term price of oil is just $70 a barrel.

Over the past few months I have been trying to discover how the government derives this optimistic view. In response to a parliamentary question, it reveals that its projection is based on "the assessment made by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its 2007 World Energy Outlook." Well last week the Wall Street Journal revealed that the IEA "is preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast". Its final report won't be released until November, but it has already concluded that "future crude supplies could be far tighter than previously thought." Its previous estimates of global production were wrong for one simple and shockingreason: it had based them on anticipated demand, rather than anticipated supply. It resolved the question of supply by assuming that it would automatically rise to meet demand, as if it were subject to no inherent restraints.

Our government must have known this, but it has refused to conduct its own analysis of global oil reserves. Uniquely among possible threats to the economy and national security, it has commissioned no research of any kind into this question. So earlier this year I asked the department for business what contingency plans it possesses to meet the eventuality that the IEA's estimates could be wrong, and that global supplies of petroleum might peak in the near future. "The Government," it replied, "does not feel the need to hold contingency plans". I am sure I do not need to explain the implications, if its forecasts turn out to be wildly wrong.

Your majesty, I recognise that this is not among your usual duties as the ruler of Saudi Arabia. But I respectfully beg you to save us from ourselves.

Yours Sincerely,

George Monbiot

www.monbiot.com

Leadership by example, PM should fly economy

This morning, a friend texted me about the expected increase in fuel prices tomorrow, the August date being a red herring, to avoid people rushing to fill up. Now that it has been confirmed, I think the petrol stations would have been dry by now. I am still trying to imagine the impact of the following:

Rm2.70 a litre for petrol and Rm2.58 a litre for diesel from midnight
- an increase of 40% and 63% respectively and I believe our inflation rate will continue to stay at 3%?

While our PM and DPM jet around in their government provided planes and vehicles, we have to change our lifestyles. I hope our PM can continue to sleep well while we ponder whether to take the car or cycle to work, or in my case, for breakfast. Going to KL by car is prohibitive now and going by bus is dicey. The fast train service using the double-tracking is unavailable for another 2 years.

I would have supported the decision for reducing the subsidies, if not for the many instances of wastage by the BN and Petronas as instructed by BN. Can someone enlighten me why higher prices for oil do not translate into bumper profits for Petronas which could have taken care of subsidies?

My friend, BH had forwarded the following email, supposedly by a civil servant, in response to PM’s request for ideas on how to tackle the subsidy problem:

My two cents.

The PM has asked us civil servants for ideas on ways to tackle the subsidy problem amidst the rise in the price of fuel and food. How thoughtful of him. I wonder why he didn't ask for our ideas when he was initiating all those corridors, North, South, East and West. If he had asked us for ideas then, now he wouldn't have needed to ask for ideas any longer.

Well anyway here are some ideas from a layman, common civil servant who is not an economist, who has no experience running a country but all the same someone who is not blind to what is going on in this country.

Hey I am not blaming you for the increase in the price of crude and food for you are not that important so as to have an impact on the price of crude and food in this world. I feel sorry for you to have been cornered such that you have to ask us for ideas. I am sure you would get many ideas from us civil servants and I am more sure you are not going to pay any heed to them because any idea coming from us would involve prudence, something considered a sin to be even whispered in your circle of people.

Nationalise Petronas which should have been the case in the first place. By this I mean, all income from Petronas goes straight into the treasury's coffers. Heck, Petronas doesn't even have to pay tax. All profit goes straight into the governments bank account.

If a road costs a million a mile than pay only a million a mile for it. The present trend of paying 3 million a mile so that some UMNO bigwigs and some well connected businessman could enjoy a lavish lifestyle at the expense of the people should stop immediately. The same goes to buildings and whatever that needs to be built. You save billions here.

Stop centralised contracts for the supply of stuffs to all government agencies. All government agencies should be allowed to buy stuffs at current market price rather than wait for them to be supplied by a central contractor who charges 2 to 3 times the market rate. More billions saved here.

Negotiate directly if there is a need to procure military hardware so that we don't have to bear hundreds of millions of ringgit in payment of commissions. It doesn't matter who pays the commission because once commission is payed that amount is factored in the purchase price. It doesn't matter if the party who receives the commission is local or foreign. Don't be stupid and don't pretend to be stupid.

Do away with PLKN which serves no other purpose but to enrich cronies and kill young ones who could otherwise be productive in later years.

Get your people to go after all tax evaders. Many highly connected businessmen are not paying the amount of tax that they should be paying. They are fooling the government left right and centre and you just take it because these people are important to you to maintain your lavish lifestyle and also they supply you the much needed funds come election.

Please for god sake do away with money and time wasting official ceremonies where canopies are rented at exorbitant prices; food given out free to people who are not actually hungry but because some officials could make a bundle by negotiating for it; halls or convention centers need to be rented out at very high price and the giving out of expensive gifts. We seem to have a ceremony for everything and when Ministers are invited lots of time is wasted not to mention the expense.

Be business friendly by having a clean government with a clean and trustworthy judiciary. This will definitely attract foreign investments, which creates jobs and with jobs, more taxes collected.

Be self reliant in food production. Do away with BERNAS once and for all. Encouraged padi planting even in states controlled by the oppositions. If there is still a need to import rice, no monopoly should be given to any party to import this item. No permit should be needed to import.

These are some of the suggestions that this stupid government servant could think of right now but maybe some of my friends could come out with some more. Yes, I know they are not going to listen but then at least we have done our part.

Meritocracy remains a sensitive word...

when used on entry requirements to institutions of higher learning and entitlement to scholarships.

I am referring to Malaysiakini’s Vox Populi: 'PSD scholarships: Publish names, results' and 'Wee: PSD scholarships should be given on merit'.

Our political leaders should be able to take the bull by the horns and deal with these problems unless they admit they do not have the political will.

Meritocracy is made out to be a dirty word as though it means only the non-Bumis are going to grab them all. If this perception is true, then there are serious faults in their mindset and being defeatist is one of them.

While compromise might be necessary, it should not be at the expense of quality. Once we have decided on the minimum requirements, there should be no exceptions. After 50 years, it should be clear to the people, that if the individual is not up to it, there is no point in giving him or her the chance. Let it be known that the opportunities are there and he has to make the grade.

Similarly, the scholarships are available to them, and it is up to them to go for it by working hard to achieve the grades set. Many people believe that the drop in standards of education and qualifications has a lot to do with tinkering by the examiners at the behest of political leaders.

According to PT Tan: “Looks like those in charge of uplifting academic achievements cannot understand the difference between a bursary and a scholarship. Scholarships are strictly based on merit, nothing more. Meaning the best gets it, period. Bursaries are for those who need financial help to carry on their normal studies and may not necessarily be for top students only.”

Whatever it is, our government should try to meet the needs of all those who qualify, based on the set criteria like minimum grades, parents’ incomes and so on. The people would wish those who have the means, do not compete with those without. It is not uncommon to find Ministers’ children getting scholarships due to their influence and even able to choose the country of their choice! While it might be unfair to discriminate against them, some ministers are wealthy for all to see and this is the cause for complaints. It is up to the conscience of the Minister whether he wants to displace someone more deserving under the circumstances.

I know of a relation who is a Professor in a local university and her husband worked for a quasi-government body. Their elder son applied for scholarship to study medicine and was given a different course instead. He applied on his own and obtained admission and for unknown reasons, he was offered the scholarship. The reasons could be, if they had to show a few to be given to non-Bumis, he seemed most deserving, based on merit as well as his parents’ occupations. A couple of years later, his younger brother’s results were just as excellent, and he was offered a scholarship but the parents did not feel nice to accept another offer and rather gave the chance to someone else! This is an example of selflessness, which we should emulate.

What I find confounding is that while we are short of medical doctors, we refuse to offer more scholarships to those deserving cases. In a matter of years we would have more doctors. Yet, we rather offer to those foreign doctors who have yet to comply with our requirements for local practice.

We are also prepared to offer unusually good terms to entice those who are well established abroad, to come back. For long term planning, I am sure it is better to offer opportunities to those who made the grade, regardless of race, than to try and attract people who left because of unfair conditions and who are already earning way beyond what we can offer locally.

I know of someone who made good in IT in the USA and was offered a salary of between Rm10,000 to Rm20,000 per month to help our MSC programme. Even in USD, the salary offered was way below what he used to get!

We could have tap on those who did their first degree on their own overseas and need scholarships to do their post-graduate or other specialist courses, on the condition that they work for the government for a number of years.

In the meantime, countries like Singapore, Britain, USA and Australia, can easily attract the disillusioned Malaysian students, causing brain drain to our country, thanks to our insecure and narrow-minded leaders.

Perhaps, we can look at it with pride that we are generous in freely exporting brainpower while offering employment to our neighbours’ overpopulation!

Dealing with our conscience

A few years ago, I asked my daughter Cheng, whether I should change my mindset just to prove that I can be money conscious and grab whatever opportunities that come along, to see if I could make millions like what people around me did. She replied, “Pa, I rather you remain as you are, with principles.”

I used to work for my brother’s small development companies. I could have done what some used to do, taking advantage of under-counter money since the demand far exceeded supply. But I played by the book and left it to him to decide who should get the units for non-Bumiputeras. While on this, I cannot help thinking Pak Lah reminds me of him, the incorrigible ‘Mr. Nice’ even when there is no hope for any changes.

For example, even when the units were allotted and letters of offer were issued, he would still give others hope with replies like, “I will see what I can do” or “When there are rejections, I will let you know”.

As a manager, I could not bear to see the ‘white lies’ being said and ‘false hopes’ given to those eager to own their first house. To me, the longer one continued with the lie, the greater the disappointment. Why not be honest about it from the start?

I could have learnt the ropes from him since he was known for his efficiency in obtaining Certificates of Fitness. For all those in the know, there was no magic in dealing with government bureaucracy. Call me naïve, or one without business sense, but I just could not get into the act.

I met my 80-year old school senior again on Sunday at his favourite complex, Amcorp Mall, which is within walking distance from his house. Incidentally, the Mall is owned by another school senior, Tan Sri Azman Hashim, who is his junior.

This time, he told me a story about his one-time junior who rose through the ranks to become a bank manager. It was a classic case of rise and fall as a result of dishonesty. As an example, he asked him to share in their office lottery pool in the then Social Welfare which paid a first prize of Rm375,000, a big sum then. He got a shock when told that one-tenth of that prize was pittance to him! Years later, he met him again and it was just months after he was sacked for using bank’s name to speculate in the stock market.

I was prompted to write on this subject by Dr. Azly Rahman’s article which first appeared in his column in Malaysiakini and now in Malaysia Today:

Should I cross over for those millions?

You will die satisfied that you have not sold your soul to any other party in whose ideology you actually do not subscribe to. These 'party jumpers' have no clear intention, just clear benefits for themselves.

That is a two million ringgit question.

How much does one get for 'crossing over' these days? I do not know. But if there are millions of ringgit involved, this nation will continue to rot as corrupt politicians continue switching allegiances, getting appointments to good positions, and making horror decisions for you and your children.

We must destroy this culture and heal anew.

We were convinced things will be better after the elections. We were sure that the revolution was going to benefit the masses and no party hopping would occur.

We are wrong. Things are getting more complex, in a complex time of rising prices.

This is my template letter to anyone on the verge of party hopping for money:

Dear sir/madam,

Don't make this mistake.

Don't do it if it's for two million ringgit. Stay to be free, and speak up against internal party corruption.

You will die satisfied that you have not sold your soul to any other party in whose ideology you actually do not subscribe to. These 'party jumpers' have no clear intention, just clear benefits for themselves.

Principles not resource

If resource is the issue, think of how you can take your party to newer heights without more money. Make your party appeal to the younger generation. Know your party's roots and make it dynamic.

You may not have the money, machinery, and the media at your disposal as means to influence the masses, however you have the will. Focus on helping people and problem solving at the grassroots level. 'Small is beautiful'

Think about the 'class' struggle we are in. Prevent a generation of our children from the dehumanisation of a new class system. Worker rights need championing in this globalised economy and you can win them their minimum wage for starters.

Figure out how to deliver what you promised and will promise, and find your place in the party's equation. Phenomenological questions that can help you understand your existence and purpose. Without it you are just part of a game of hypocrisy.

Don't flatter yourself with state honours and your finer language. You are not meant to be a 'yes man/woman' for powerful people and make others beg for your favour. Politics is about doing societal good not Machiavellian scheming.

A simple life is a virtuous life. Love others and commit yourself to good.

On the question of limited financial resources, here are some thoughts.

Leverage the Internet as a cheap and powerful tool of your campaign, while leaning on traditional methods of appeasing your constituency. Also the SMS system to mirror 'multilevel marketing' for effective campaigning.

Brainstorm with the young. Be creative. The greatest tool of human progress is the two pound universe one carries around - the human brain.

Past wisdom

The great soul MK Gandhi did not have much at his disposal yet he brought down the British empire. He was armed with a deep sense of spirituality and the principle of satyagraha.

Ahmad Boestaman, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Dr Ismail, Onn Jaafar, Nik Aziz, Lim Kit Siang, V Rajaratnam, and others have shown us what dignity and ethics mean. Learn from them but enrich these concepts of ethics to meet the needs of changing times without losing sight and vision of political realism. Learn from the many around you who are not servants of money.

However if you are logically convinced that your party is on the road to destruction due to massive corruption amongst its leaders, then by all means leave! You have one life to live - make it the best life, for yourself and for others. At a time when we have entered the world of multiculturalism, do not revert to blind ideology of racism.

Ultimately if you take those millions offered, sit in Parliament making decisions for our children, you will be a major crook who continues to rationalise his or her crookedness. You too will sink with the Bahtera Merdeka. The rakyat will help you sink with your two million, bahtera and all.

Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib's article which appeared in Malaysia Today is highly critical of Pak Lah's promises for reforms (excerpts):

Pak Lah's Reform? Hogwash, that’s what it is

We are hoping for a bunch of govt, appointed individuals to act as checks and balance against the government? Call me a fool but that to me sounds very logic defying

Many have been said about reforms being spearheaded by Pak Lah post 2004. But allow me to expose the fallacy of his reform programs. To me, the movements are far from reforms. In fact, they are just part of his political maneuvering to maintain his position as Prime Minister and President of UMNO.

Unfortunately, we do not see such step sponsored by Pak Lah and his cabal (otherwise known as “4th Floor Boys)”. In fact, soon after the election, when the newly elected Menteri Besar of Selangor officially requested for air-time on the radio that is operating from the State Administrative building, he was flatly turned down by Pak Lah’s regime courtesy of Minister of Information, Date Ahmad Sabery Chik.

The unpleasant gesture by the Minister of Information alone is testimony that freedom of media is not on the Pak Lah’s list of reform. Incidentally, during Sabery Chik’s S46 days, he is one of those who complain the loudest about the one-sidedness of Malaysian media. Now that he has a small window of opportunity, he blew it. I guess Ahmad Sabery Chik doesn’t think that integrity is an essential ingredient to life.

Now, why is freedom of the media an acid test? A prerequisite for reform? A must-have on the “shopping list”?. Simple. When there is free media, there is free flowing of information to the people.

The people, then, being properly and equally informed, will then be able to participate in the eradication of corruption, the improvement of public service, the fight against injustice and cruelty, the prevention of abuse of power.

Without the people’s involvement, all efforts towards reform are futile and mere political rhetoric. How can we hope for a small group of bureaucrats to act as a force of checks and balance against a corrupt regime standing in the current administration?

Malaysiakini report on the NUJ meeting with Zaid Ibrahim is another testimony that Pak Lah’s reform does not include freedom of the press and media. Zaid is quoted as saying:

"You must ask yourself first - do you take up an unpopular issue with your news owner?" asked Zaid in the dialogue, which was hosted by the NPC. “Don't assume all ministers are unreasonable," he said, receiving a chorus of boos from those in audience after his speech.”

It’s clear that from Zaid’s speech that media freedom is a very difficult topic to bring up with Pak Lah or with the government.

The Star's Zainah Anwar's take on Umno's situation

I am impressed with Zainah's objective look at the Umno's present situation, backed with some relevant statistics on GE 2008 from Merdeka Centre and the Institute for Strategic Analysis and Policy Research. I personally feel that the Malays are unduly worried with feelings of insecurity fed by myths and half-truths by self-serving politicians. Her article is likely to dispel such misinformation. Hopefully, others are just as convinced as me.

Excerpts from 'Umno needs to reinvent' under Zainah's column 'Sharing the Nation' which appeared in Sunday Star on June 1:

Umno must decide which road to take for it to remain the backbone of the Barisan Nasional. It cannot be all things to all Malays.

What one hears are emotional outpourings, with little analysis of verified evidence to support the assertions.

Let’s just take one popular bogeyman being used these days as desperate ethno-nationalists and power grabbers fly the flag of ketuanan Melayu and of “Malay rights under threat”. Let’s just look at the numbers.

The Malays make up the majority of the country’s 27.17 million population and the percentage will only increase substantially over the next decades given their higher birth rate.

Political power remains in Malay hands. In spite of the Umno losses, Malay Members of Parliament have actually increased from 123 in 2004 to 130 in 2008, while Chinese representation decreased from 61 to 53. Umno still received the highest number of votes among all the parties in the recent elections, at 2,381,725 votes, almost 30% of the total votes cast.

Together with PAS, which obtained 1,140,676 votes, these two Malay parties garnered 44.3% of the total popular votes. This is not counting PKR, a multi-racial party with a Malay base, which garnered 1.5 million votes.

Compare this to DAP’s 1.1 million, MCA’s 840,489 and MIC’s 179,422.

Just by sheer numbers alone, Malay rights would only be threatened if the Malays commit harakiri. Then, they have no one else to blame but themselves. The force of majoritarianism and the force of history mean Malay special interests as enshrined in the Constitution, which recognises the Malay polity of the land by making Malay the national language, Islam the religion of the Federation, the Sultans the constitutional monarchs, and the use of reservations to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, could be removed only with the consent of the Malays.

Divergent interests
What the largely conservative Umno members and its allies among the ketuanan Melayu ethno-nationalists still cannot get is the fact that the Malays no longer see Umno as the one and only protector of Malay interests.

Nor do they seem to understand the evolution in Malay society and the diverse and divergent interests that have emerged as a result of the success of the Government’s own policies to uplift the status of the Malays. The debacle of Umno is not the debacle of the Malays.

Clear-headed strategic planning cannot begin and end with just feedback from self-interested divisional leaders and Umno members still lost at sea after the political tsunami.

For the numbers look dire. Analysis by the Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research showed that of the 165 parliamentary seats in the peninsula, BN won 85 with only 48.7% of the popular votes and the Opposition took 80 with 51.3%. In the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, the Opposition won 10 of 11 seats with 62% of the votes. In 30 parliamentary seats, BN won by small majorities from 51 to 3,070 votes.

The BN indeed lost popular support in the peninsula, but our first past the post system delivered victory to the party. If Umno’s dire opponent in the past was PAS where state seats were won and lost by single and double digit differences, this time, it has to contend with another opponent, PKR.

Reviving the coalition
The faith most Malaysians had in a BN that could mediate and accommodate the competing interests of Malaysia’s diverse communities has collapsed. Umno as the dominant party plays a critical role in reviving the coalition and maintaining the balance so essential for its survival and continued relevance.

For in the new opposing Pakatan Rakyat alliance, Malaysian voters are being served with a possible alternative to power-sharing among the races and the sexes – where a Chinese or Indian can be the Speaker of state assemblies and a woman a Deputy Speaker; where an Indian can be Deputy Chief Minister; where civil society representatives can be appointed to local councils; and where Mentris Besar appoint more than the token one or two women to the State Executive Council.

The Malays in Umno might see this as a threat to ketuanan Melayu, but the Malays in the Pakatan Rakyat and the Malays who voted for change see this as a slow but necessary evolution towards a more just democratic system where rights are recognised on the basis of citizenship rather than just race, religion, or sex.

A growing segment of the burgeoning Malay middle class is confident and secure enough in their ability to stand on their own two feet and compete with the best in the country and the globalised world.

This Umno and the Government should celebrate for it is their policies that catapulted a generation of Malays into the middle class. The second generation of urban middle class Malays are now influencing political trends, and bucking the sensibilities of the traditional conservative, ethno-centric core of Umno.

Fifty-two per cent of the Malays surveyed did not believe that voting for the DAP made them traitors to the race. Preliminary findings show that most young Malays voted for the Opposition and more than half of PKR votes came from the younger generation of Malaysians across all races. In fact, 66% in the Merdeka Centre survey wanted the BN component parties to merge into one single multi-ethnic party.

Umno can choose to go either where the voters are or use the sledgehammer to bring the voters to them. The answer is obvious for the future of Umno and this country.