Saturday, March 10, 2018

Again, for GST

Sufiyan Abas, who is an accountant and vice-president of the Organisation for National Empowerment (ONE), has written A Case For GST in FMT yesterday (in full as follows):

We welcome the opposition’s manifesto presented last night. Now, I would like to zoom in on their offer to abolish the goods and services tax (GST).

If we care to read the long version of the manifesto, under Promise 1 page 16, they plan to abolish the GST but revert to the sales and service tax (SST) system. So consumption tax will still be retained. 

Is this the right move? What exactly is the difference between GST and SST? Aren’t we all just paying tax either way? 

The push to abolish GST came from the perception that it increases the price of goods and services as we must pay an additional 6% on our purchase price.

However, little do we realise that before GST, we had been paying consumption tax under the SST regime. SST was just hidden, GST is not. The change from SST to GST in 2015 was just a change in tax system.

The question is, do the rakyat still need to pay tax if we abolish the GST? The short answer is yes. In fact, prices might even increase.

See the example below:

more expensive if GST removed

The old SST system is a tax on accumulated cost. SST is already imposed on the first RM (cocoa supply). Later in the supply chain, SST charges tax on the cumulative cost of RM2 (by the time chocolate is made in the factory).

This means that SST has taxed the first RM (cocoa supply stage) twice! 

By the time the chocolate is sold at a shop, SST has been charged on the first RM thrice (cocoa), and the second RM (manufacturer) twice. This is what we call the “cascading effect”, which proves that the SST is a flawed tax system. 

On the other hand, the GST makes sure we do not get taxed more than once. Under the GST system, a single 6% tax is levied at every level of production. It is applied equally throughout the supply chain’s value add – to the supplier, manufacturer and retailer. 

Should we go back to the SST?

Moving back to the SST would be like reversing our progress at a time when more than 160 countries around the world have turned to the GST system.

Why did they do so? Because there is consensus among economists and international organisations that the GST has no cascading effect, and is more transparent and regulated.

Moving to SST from GST is like reverting from a round wheel to a square one.

A standard 6% tax will be implemented from supplier to consumer, rather than the SST where pricing of the product can be changed and determined by the manufacturer because they are the only ones who get taxed. There were common cases where manufacturers did not disclose their SST rate and pocketed the so-called “taxes” collected from consumers.

Some would then ask, if the SST makes goods more expensive, how is it that prices of goods were cheaper before GST when they were under SST?When we look at it objectively, GST is the way forward. Many today are against the GST because it appears on our bills, reminding us that we are paying tax. Under the SST system, sellers are not required to state the tax. But while that may appease some, we are paying tax all the same.

There can be two answers to this, the first and most notorious being profiteering. Middle men have taken advantage of GST to inflate prices and shift the blame towards the tax. The second reason is, GST is just more efficient at collecting taxes as it is governed by a robust system.

At the end of the day, no one likes paying tax. But abolishing GST does not mean abolishing tax. GST will merely be replaced by SST. If they really want to abolish consumption tax, it would be better to retain GST but zero-rate it, then to mislead the people by replacing it with SST.

The opposition needs to be honest with the people. Surely they are aware of the flaws in the SST system. So do they really believe in this system or are they abolishing GST (to replace it with SST) purely to fish for votes?
There are two takeaway points. First, GST will be abolished only for SST to be reintroduced, hence consumption tax is here to stay

Second, SST is flawed and resurrecting it would be an irresponsible thing to do. The policies crafted for our country must be #ForwardLooking. Not backward. That is why it is imperative to have a #ForwardTogether mindset for the sake of our future.


PKR has been most strident in promising to get rid of GST. The end result of removing the GST is we will return to a worse tax system with some goods being at far higher prices.

I have been a long advocate of GST. It doesn't matter whether the government is Pakatan or BN, GST serves the people and nation better.

Let's no longer have bullshit-news about astronomical prices on kerang, kembong, prawns and petrol anymore. Don't listen to the misinformation of those anti GST advocates.


  1. Those who promote FAR need to be honest with the people.

    Many businesses are finding it extremely onerous to claim their input tax, a full scale tax audit being triggered when they claim for it. IN THEORY, Input Tax should be returnable as a matter of administrative routine to a business which has paid it up front in the price of its purchases.
    In effect GST is being charged TWICE for the goods that END consumers buy.

    1. I have helped a friend prepare his quarterly GST returns since Q4 2016 and how it works IN PRACTICE is that yes he pays out 6% GST as input tax on his purchases and remits only the difference between the 6% GST collected - i.e. his output tax and his input tax to the Customs through his bank.

      It's a simple and straight forward process.

      Unfortunately, the Customs' description of "claiming back" in its documentation and website is misleading. His input tax "reimbursement" is deducted from the output tax he pays to Customs and meanwhile, he has additional funds from GST collected in his bank account to roll over, until he has to make a quarterly remittance to Customs.

      His company is profitable, so his output tax collected is more tan his input tax paid out, though I must plead ignorance as to a company which has paid out more input tax within a given quarter than the output tax it had collected.

      In this case, it may have to go through the onerous task you describe to claim back the balance of its input tax paid out and if this case persists over several consecutive quarters, the company could be on its way to bankruptcy pretty soon but not because of GST.

    2. Correction:-

      "His input tax "reimbursement" is SUBTRACTED from the output tax COLLECTED, SO he ONLY pays THE DIFFERENCE to Customs"

    3. How about giving us some ACTUAL examples of the cases you described.

  2. I too have heard of claims by businesses about how the introduction of the GST has "burdened" them, how it has "affected" sales, how it "ties up GST paid for purchases before "it is returned to them by Customs" and so forth and at one time I believed all this chatter.

    More recently, I began to help a friend prepare his company's quarterly GST returns by keying in the sales invoice and purchases invoice figures into a GST spreadsheet, so can see that the spreadsheet automatically subtracts the GST he has paid on supplies and services purchased from the GST collected from sales of his goods and he only needs to remit the difference to Customs Malaysia, which worked out as 4.1% his quarterly revenue before GST in his fourth quarter 2017 GST return.

    So Customs "reimburses" GST he has paid on purchases by deducting it from the GST he has collected upfront from his sales, thus requiring him to remit only the difference to Customs.

    So during each quarter, he actually has additional funds from GST collected to roll before he must remit it to Customs.

    The same GST formula applies to all parties in the supply and distribution chain, except for a company with an annual turnover of under RM500,000 which does not need to register for GST and does not collect GST - such as a small retailer for example.

    In this case, the small retailer would pay its supplier the 6% GST and pass the cost on to its customers without charging them GST.

    Now this is where prices could be inflated under the pretext that it is "due to GST".

    There can be several reasons as to why prices of items were cheaper before the introduction of GST, the above possibility being one of them.

    Another is that the ringgit exchange rate weakened dramatically against the US dollar from RM3.03 on 4 May 2013 mid-2014 to RM4.48 on 1 January 2017 and has only strengthened to RM3.91 on 10 March 2018 and since many goods produced in Malaysia contain imported inputs which are priced in US dollars, their end price would rise in ringgit terms due to the higher cost of inputs in ringgit and end users must bear these higher costs. The chart in the link below illustrates this point.

    Anyway, prices of goods on the shelves had been rising even before GST came into effect in Malaysia from 1 April 2015, so even if there was a slight increase in prices after GST was introduced, however it is the weakened ringgit, not the introduction of GST which resulted in rising prices.

    Thus if blame is to be apportioned anywhere, it should be on the weakened ringgit and those responsible for its weakening.

    On of the factors is the price of Brent Crude oil which fell to less than half its price before mid-2014 and now has recovered to around 60%, which means that Malaysia's economy relies too much on the oil price, and who is to blame for this.

  3. govt revenue from gst is 41b vs sst 17b, who paid tis additional tax? biz or rakyat? bodoh punya akauntan.

    1. gst is inescapable - makan yang tre-GST, kena.

      that's why the government gets more compared to pre GST when SST was non transparent

    2. Many of the grumbles over GST are very likely due to businesses which had so far managed to avoid paying SST or who avoided paying SST by cooking the books.

      I suppose business owners who had cooked the books before would like to see GST revoked so they can get back to cooking the books again.

      As for a consumer, I never saw the SST charged listed on receipts for many of my purchases and payments, unless it was for drinks at a pub or a more upmarket restaurant.

      Yes, consumers everywhere pay GST for items such as cigarettes and so forth, where previously they did not pay SST or did not know that they were paying SST.

      Previously people used to complain that most Malaysians did not pay income tax and now when most Malaysians are taxed on certain items, besides essentials they complain that most Malaysians are being taxed.

      If taxing the rich to support the poor is the objective, I'm all for it but be open and upfront about it, like British Labour Party politician Denis Healey.

      "We shall increase income tax on the better off so that we can help the hundreds of thousands of families now tangled helplessly in the poverty trap by raising the tax threshold and introducing reduced rates of tax for those at the bottom of the ladder. I warn you, there are going to be howls of anguish from the rich. But before you cheer too loudly let me warn you that a lot of you will pay extra taxes too."

      Denis Healey, Speech to the Labour Party Conference at Blackpool (1 October, 1973).

      Soon after, Healey became the U.K.'s Chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to a Minister of Finance) from 1974 till 1979.

    3. "bodoh punya akauntan."

      Thank you very much! I really appreciate the insult.

      FYI. I am not an accountant nor have any accounting qualifications. If I had, I'd be very much richer than I am now.

      It is believed that GST was introduced to make up for revenue lost due to the low oil price, which was part of a geo-strategic war between the traditional drilled oil producers, such as members of OPEC and the new oil producers who employed the more expensive hydraulic fracturing method or "fracking" to extract oil from shale.

      The traditional oil producers believed that by depressing the oil price, they could put the frackers out of business.

      It's believed that some traditional oil producers also financed NGOs and lobby groups which opposed fracking as being environmentally damaging, and these included some leftist groups which thought they were fighting the petroleum capitalists when they were being financed by another faction of petroleum capitalists.

      So be wary about becoming someone's useful idiot.

    4. "I really appreciate the insult."

      just to confirm, i suppose Sufiyan Abas is not u?

    5. at the same time can u elaborate y gst revenue is much more? in order for me to understand u clearly when u claim "If taxing the rich to support the poor is the objective, I'm all for it"

    6. "I suppose business owners who had cooked the books before would like to see GST revoked so they can get back to cooking the books again."

      cook book mean off book transaction, this need the scheming of both supplier n customer, a bit difficult to do in both sales / vat tax, most do it is to evade income tax.

      sales tax have too many exemption, lmw, ftz, cf5, tariff code etc. all this almost can be recover via gst, except some via ats status allowed by custom to ease cash flow, n there is no motivation for biz to reduce/evade gst since it is borne by consumer.

      in short, gst is one of the best system to fuck the consumer kawkaw. the relevant question is who suffer the most under gst regime? the rich?

    7. "just to confirm, i suppose Sufiyan Abas is not u?"

      No I am not Sufiyan Abas, my mistake in assumption that you were referring to my comment and not the blog post.

      I missed something during a discussion at my remisier's CNY open house yesterday (Sunday 11 March) - i.e. that the 6%GST is cumulatively passed down the supply chain plus with the markup until it reaches the consumer.

      One of the guests suggested that SST is applied once at point of sale.

      Manufacture sells an item to distrubutor for RM10 plus 6%GST = RM10.60 each.

      Distributor marks up that item by 10% = RM11.66 and sells it to dealer plus 6% GST for RM12.36 (after rounding up)

      Dealer marks up item by 10% = RM13.60 (after rounding up) and sells it plus 6% GST to consumer at RM14.40 (rounded down to nearest 5 sen)

      Thus even whilst each party in the supply/distribution chain deducts the input tax from the output tax before remiting the balance to Customs, however few parties in the distribution chain will pass on the savings to the party downstream until it it reaches the consumer.

      So you are right in saying, "in short, gst is one of the best system to fuck the consumer kawkaw. the relevant question is who suffer the most under gst regime? the rich?", and the poor feel the pinch more than the rich.

      Coming down to my statement, "If taxing the rich to support the poor is the objective, I'm all for it". By that I mean progressive income tax according to personal and business income level, with the tax revenue being used to help the poor with subsidies on certain essential items, public services such as affordable public housing, free or affordable public transit, free public education, free QUALITY public health and so forth.

      I am not for GST/VAT in principle but only wanted to highlight the actual facts behind how it works versus misconceptions about how it burdens busineses.

      However, I am fine with it being abolished but where it still applies, the proceeds should be returned to the people through provision of such public services. AFter all, I pay a pretty hefty medical health insurance to a private insurance company, so I do not mind paying a higher tax in return for free quality public healthcare. (The irony of it is that the number of private hospitals and healthcare facilities mushroomed during the tenure of Malaysia's only prime minister who is a medical doctor).

      I first came to know about VAT in Britain back in 1973 when I bought a packet of fish and chips and wanted to sit down and eat it at a counter in the shop. The owner told me that if I ate in, I would have to pay VAT but if I took it away to eat outside, I did not have to pay VAT.

      However, even as a foreign student in the UK, I enjoyed free medical and dental treatment under Britain's National Health Service and some Malaysian students could rent council flats for two or more for around 14 pounds per week back then. However after Thatcher got in, the bedsitter for which I paid 6.00 pounds per week in the 1970s cost over 100 pounds per month in 1999 when I last visited.

      According to Wikipedia, VAT was introduced to Britain in 1973 as a result if it having joined the European Economic Community (European Union) and the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer set it at 10% (though I recall it was 5%) and in July 1974, Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey reduced it from 10% to 8% (according to Wikipedia.

      If a Pakatan government were to come to power in GE14, it should either abolish GST and make up for it with a progressive tax regime or if it stillretains GST insome form, it should exempt all essential items such as all fresh or processed foods, medical devices of all kinds (even medical gloves are currently charged GST), all cars, vans, lorries and motorcycles below a certain price or capacity, all public services such a transit and so forth.

    8. theoretically gst would not burden business, except administration cost n cash flow. the impact on biz is more on consumer sentiment n perception when they stop buying or buying less. to tax the people to finance deficit is a easy way out, do we need to be so merciful n magnanimous towards govt?

    9. IT.Sheiss: Your original description of the payment to Customs is correct. There is no cascading effect in GST. I do my GST submissions for my company every quarter. Businesses are even allowed to deduct most, if not all, GST paid for utilities, supplies, etc etc as input tax before submitting the balance to Customs. In effect, companies and dealers gets additional savings. But the problem is some dealers are profiteering and not passing these savings and deductions to the consumers and uses GST as an excuse to make more profit. And the common consumers, not knowing how the GST system and submission actually work, believe them when they said GST caused the rise in prices.

      Most of the daily food requirements for a family are zero rated, unless you eat at fancy restaurants. Most of the time I eat at coffee shops with mixed rice dishes and not subject to GST. Some say that the transportation cost is subject to GST, but that was also subject to sst before GST was implemented.

  4. In b4 Singapore will up their GST to 9% within 2 years.

  5. HY@8:10.. kalau begitu pemikiran kau, bodoh punya akauntan yang kau maksudkan itu termasuklah Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, United Kingdom, Australia, China, Japan.. Ya atau bukan begitu?

    1. i dun know abt other akauntan, but tis sufiyan memang bodoh. did u really read his example?

  6. A trapped traditionist mindset.

    GST was invented to collected more revenue, efficiently, for the govt.


    No. It's just a superficial side-product of u-buy-u-pay bourgeois thinking.

    The super riches have twisted 'subsidies' that they can exploit. The B40 faces all the blunt economic impacts.

    If a govt is well managed, govt expenditure can be minimized. If it can be minimized, then more tax revenues, like GST, r not necessary.

    Think out of the box lah.

    U ALL tak nampak the pink gajah in yr room & arguing about cockagroo!

    1. You must understand, we're a country of 30 million people, not 5 million like say- Norway.

      And even with its vast oil & mineral resources (like Malaysia) that can probably support its citizens tax-free for live, Norway still is one of the most heavily-taxed countries in the world with VAT of 25%.

      You think their people don't grumble about it? Sure they do, but they understand the need for it. GST/VAT has been acknowledged by world economists as a tool for equitable redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.

      VAT was introduced in Britain during their economic doldrums and vast income gaps during the 70's. Did they complain? Sure the did, but after the reality sinks in they innovated their businesses to compete and developed new channels of wealth creations. This only became possible becoz of their 20% VAT being channeled for better education (they had a high drop out rate then).

      6% GST is not enough for free tertiary education, and neither should it be that way. Reality dictates, nothing free is worth anything in the world.

    2. See what I meant by traditionist?

      Why Norway, UK & all those developed countries? M'sia, same economic status with them ke?

      These developed countries r in general economically prudent. But their political systems DON'T allow them the chance to test new economic theory.

      Have u tracked any comparative GST data said in Cambodia, Thailand & Colombia? Yes, they have GST too. But, in their economy GST ONLY hits the tourists & the rich!

      A, B, C & D r using GST to improve their revenue collections, so X, Y, & Z MUST also implement GST to increase tax collections.

      ABC&D could be a matured economies so wealth disparity amongst the citizens is SMALL. Besides, most of them have well structured social welfare schemes.

      XY&Z could be a 3rd world developing countries. The income disparity between the M40 & B40 is huge. Besides, the social welfare supports r either poor or nonexistent.

      Note, the super-richs have been excluded here as they r the abomination in taxation theory!

      A consumption tax like GST puts more loading factors into the living expenses on the B40 than the M40, even when the B40 r supposedly consumed more zero GST rated consumption items.

      Supposedly - bcoz in REAL commercial world, no items r purely catch&sell ( thus qualified for GST zero rate) directly from source to consumers. All additional processes, along its way to market, add GST!

      A very good example of this inherent taxing is indirectly reflected in the
      govt revenue from gst is 41b vs sst 17b, who paid tis additional tax? biz or rakyat?

      Both, biz & rakyat. At the same time more taxing items compared with sst era.

      As for Sufiyan Abas, let's just termed him as an accountant only bn will employ!

      Thus, the total fallacy in arguing that since there are 160 countries in the world that have implement VAT/GST, is must be wrong!

      Developed economy is too tied up with the two traditional schools of economics theory developed in the late 19th & early 20th century.

      Their citizen have been 'bribed' with conventional economic packages for a long time. Any DRASTIC changes in these economic packages, due to unorthodox & untested economic theory will definitely cause the reigning govt to collapse.

      Hence, the comfortability with both classic economic theories & political necessity ONLY allow them to play/manipulate around these two opposing economic concepts. They r NOT willing to take any 3rd alternative.

      Without the support of the govt, there ain't any economists experimenting with ANY outside the box new economic theory.

      There MIGHT be a chance with the new Chinese-style socialist economic theory that's been carried out in China now. Hopefully, it could be applied & tweaked subsequent to apply to other situations. But, it would take many years for it to be accepted worldwide!

    3. "A consumption tax like GST puts more loading factors into the living expenses on the B40 than the M40, even when the B40 r supposedly consumed more zero GST rated consumption items. Supposedly - bcoz in REAL commercial world, no items r purely catch&sell ( thus qualified for GST zero rate) directly from source to consumers. All additional processes, along its way to market, add GST!"

      Thats what the businesses wants you to think: that price increase is purely from GST. Read "There can be two answers to this, the first and most notorious being profiteering. Middle men have taken advantage of GST to inflate prices and shift the blame towards the tax."

      What was previously an opaque system that channels the sales tax collected into their pockets is now open for scrutiny under GST. With this added pressure to honestly report their tax collection, their profit margins are now hit, thus "The second reason is, GST is just more efficient at collecting taxes as it is governed by a robust system."

      What went wrong was the Government did not have the mechanism to prevent post-GST profiteering by these bloodsuckers. Under a more autocratic government, the price could have been fixed by them and the consumers will not see any increases, thus will not make the government a scapegoat.

      BR1M was then launched to correct this for the B40, but by then the propaganda campaign by them bloodsuckers and oppositionist has already anchored into the mindsets.

    4. The fallacy of wide-spread COMMON superficial understanding & the inability to analyze deeply leads to disguised 'logical' arguments!

      Profiteering CAN be a reason, but imbedded within the theory of GST is profiteering monitoring.

      "What was previously an opaque system that channels the sales tax collected into their pockets is now open for scrutiny under GST."

      The process of multi-levels taxing improves the transparency of profit margin manipulations. Any over profiteering becomes transparent upon casual inspection. But, 2 factors lead to its failure:

      1) strong implementation of profiteering checks reduced the amount of tax collection. This is against the aim of GST!

      2) the multi-level margin checks will complicate the tax collection & implementation cost of GST.

      Hence, this important factor of profiteering monitoring IS never mentioned & implemented by ANY GST countries in the world.

      Thus, given the business processes & human greediness, GST conveniently helps to increase prices in many cases.

      This is also the REASON why inflation increases at the onsetting of GST.

      "What went wrong was the Government did not have the mechanism to prevent post-GST profiteering by these bloodsuckers."

      Some countries, especially the matured economies,only then starting to tweak the taxing processes to reduce overpricing. Open market competitions also help to bring down the margin once again. But, the overall effect is still prices increments.

      M'sia is a strongly protected market (APs!), coupled with corrupted & inefective officers, such govt & marketing mechanism's CANNOT happen. GST can only help common prices to spiral upward.

      Bloodsucker? Any businessman Worths his sock, will DO likewise to take the opportunity. Maximizing profit in business is in the blood of business IF that's what u meant by bloodsucking!

      All said & done, this is HOW GST helps to increase prices - by introducing opportunities for businesses to take!

    5. Correction:

      Thus, the total fallacy in arguing that since there are 160 countries in the world that have implement VAT/GST, is must be right!

    6. "coupled with corrupted & inefective officers, such govt & marketing mechanism's CANNOT happen"

      I disagree, Malaysia's way of implementing GST has been proven to be very efficient in tax collection. Everything is computerised so there's no running away, furthermore when taxman comes a calling, the proof of innocence lies with the alleged tax evader, so once GST comes into picture, businesses no longer can easily hide their hidden profits that was previously declared as Sales Tax but not remitted to IRB. (Admittedly, there are still avenues for creative accounting, but that requires skilled accountants that only big businesses able to hire.)

      The knock on effects are these bloodsuckers now have to raise prices to maintain that profit margin, which caused the overall increase in prices. While its counter-intuitive to free-capitalism, a profit controlled transition phase could have spare the Government of the rakyat's ire.

      Probably the only country that can successfully implement GST/VAT and NOT burden the people is China, with their vaunted systems of oversight to prevent such abuse. Ironic isn't it?

    7. Wakakakaka…… argued for the sake of arguing!

      Tin kosong!

    8. There is no point in arguing with someone who has nothing to add.

  7. CK wrote:-

    "Thus, the total fallacy in arguing that since there are 160 countries in the world that have implement VAT/GST, is must be right!"

    Agreed, it does not mean that just because 160 countries have implemented GST/VAT, means that it is right.

    GST/VAT works against the principle of taxing the wealthier to redistribute wealth to the poorer either in the form of financial assistance or affordable or free public services, public housing and so forth.

    GST taxes the poor and rich the same, say for a can of sardines which is subject to GST in Malaysia, since it is a processed food, whilst imported prime steak is not subject to GST because it is a fresh food.

    Britain was forced to implement VAT after it joined the European Economic Community since the EEC (now the European Union) required the implementation of GST/VAT.

    We need to look further back as to the original intentions of GST and knowing the neo-liberal policies of the EU, it looks like VAT/GST is a neo-liberal measure to include the lower-income and poor in more tax collection, as these countries reduce taxes on businesses and the wealthy.

    This runs counter to the social-democratic principles KTemoc stands for.

    BTW. What are the two economic theories you mentioned?

    I'm not optimistic that Malaysia will implement the current China-style - Socialism with Chinese Characteristics economic theory.

    I recently discovered a Learning from China blog. The post below explains why China is still on the socialist, not capitalist road, albeit in its own unique way based upon the current material (objective) and subjective realities in the world today, not in Russia 100 years ago or not when the PRC was formally established on 1 October 1949, even though these policies were mostly right for the objective and subjective realities of their place and time but may be wrong for the objective and subjective realities of different places and times.

    And its home page:-

    Also, John is right that whilst in theory GST serves as a mechanism to check profiteering, however in practice the Malaysian authorities do not have the mechanism to monitor and check profiteering or do not have the interest and will to do so, especially when many of those tasked with enforcing it willing accept under the table settlement.

    1. Not undertable settlement per se, but Kastam do not have the manpower to oversee and verify in detail ALL goods and services do not have excessive profiteering post-GST. Its quite hard to do settlement becoz GST will show the ins and outs. Only that creative accountants can cook the books to remit a lower GST return. That becomes a 2nd problem to Kastam, they don't have the expertise to detect well grilled books.

  8. nothing much one can learn from china except authoritarian rule n one party state.

    1. Wakakakak……

      If u CANNOT fathom the ancestral teaching of Taichi, about good within evil & vice versa, then what have u learnt?

      There will be nothing worth learning from anyehere, for u!

    2. u dun taichi me la, i am still waiting for yr justification y authoritarian is fine in china but not in msia. bila mahu tunjuk ajar?

    3. Did u ask ME that question?

      Show lah!

    4. lets say i am asking now, is it too late?

    5. Since u r asking now, here it goes (from one of my earlier comments):

      Wakakakaka…… u must have a strong enmity against Nat, another pommie anmokauxai!

      In the Westminster system, the prime minister of Britain (or even his PM counterpart in France) does NOT have any term limit to his prime ministerial office.

      The POTUS has a set term of two -
      first by gentlemanly behaviour, then by constitutional enactment. However there is an ONLY exception as in 1944, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt is elected to an unprecedented fourth term in office.

      Recently, the People's Congress of China reverses the 2-term limit of the presidency implemented by Dengxiaoping back to no term limit.

      Hmmmm……… political power enigma!

      1) that long tenure in high office lends substance to the old political adage that power corrupts, especially long term power.

      2) dictators bred long tenures.

      3) back to chicken or egg argument le.

      Which is right, which is wrong - hard to tell.

      Perhaps, the sole guiding principle SHOULD be the benevolent decency of the person in power!

    6. so how u make sure xi wouldnt turn into a mao or mahathir when he is getting old? the latter we still have a mechanism to vote him out, what abt the former? start a war?

    7. Yr pure ignorance about the governing processes of China put u in the same vent like M Pettis, who was based in Beijing & yet is so detached with things China!

      The post of country presidency in China is largely ceremonial - good as head representative of the country in visiting/receiving foreign high ranking dignitaries.

      The two real powerful positions in China administration r

      *General Secretary of the Communist Party of China

      *Chairman of the Central Military Commission

      All 3 posts used to have no term limit until Dengxiaoping limited the term of the presidency to two terms of 5yrs period.

      The potency of the other two posts can be deduced from the fact that when Deng retired from all govt positions he was still holding chair in these two critical posts, especially that of the Central Military Commission. What Deng said, things got done, even though he had no any official govt positions.

      The Western medias/中国通 SHOULD have know these facts for a long long time & YET said nothing about this specialized China administrative structure! Suddenly, they make a big issue out of it when Xi tweaks the structure!

      For very obvious reason - 'They' don't want China to have a strong leader.

      Russia Putin is already a huge headache for 'them' in holding on to their long held sopo-military supremacy. With the rise of China under Xi, their supremacy dream has crumbled completely!

      Xijinpeng already has the two critical posts in his grip, the inclusion of the presidency with no set limit term is just his way of telling the 'comrades' that he has the power to do what he wants - especially in purging high ranking corruption from the administration.

      There is a possibility that Xi could turn dictatorial, ONLY time will tell. But currently, it could also be benevolent both in policies applied within/without China.

      Modern China is a very different country as compared to the old. Mao would have cursed for the changes while Deng would really RIP.

      Benevolent authoritative leader will be gracefully accepted. Kleptomaniac dictatorial leader won't last, even with war. However, the current sopo developments in China have created a inherent preventative wall which makes the possibility of civil war very unlikely. A compromise WOULD have reached in such cases for a peaceful power transition.

      In such scenario, there is no difference from ANY other states that claimed to have a mechanism to vote out the trash.

      See the recent leadership change in South Africa for a possible outcome. Also see how difficult in M'sia for us to remove a kleptomaniac, useless & racist leadership even when the so called 'mechanism' is there!

    8. one of reason we have difficulty to remove a kleptomaniac is bec we hv people like u that tell us benevolent authoritative leader is fine.

    9. Waaaaaa…… u r getting the clue!

      To the blur-sotongs, ketuanan freaks & the zombies, their consideration of benevolence is very well summarised as:

      Biarkan orang luar masukkan rumah kita, menggeledah barang2 berharga serta menituri bini dan anak perempuan jikalau dia seummat dan bangsa!

      So, is this benevolence in yr mind?

      I guess it's unprintable lah!

      So if u like by all means join them, just DONT group me with them, OK?

  9. "nothing much one can learn from china except authoritarian rule n one party state."

    OK! Let me learn from China then.

    1. bro, joke aside, i supposed u can read michael pettis if u want to know more abt china financa n econ. not many talk marxism today in china, so i am a bit doubtful if learnfromchina truly know china, or mere academic masterbation.

    2. I read Michael Pettis quite some time ago.

      If I remembered correctly, I bookmarked him as a bull!

      Similarly, from what I have read yr write so far, u r EQUALLY a bull as of lyt as far as communist China issues.

    3. Just to add, the current Lanzhou & the Lanzhou I first came into contact years ago, is two very different places!

      The outskirt villages where I worked r full of life & energy now. The gray, down & hopeless stares of the olds & children have disappeared! There r more young enterprising people too, as compared with the old & children of the olden days.

      From dirt poor to current well-being within 20yrs IS a miracle in poverty eradication.

      Surely, there r something been done right AND could be learn!

      Marxism is still there BUT with a Chinese twist!

      There is nothing wrong as the practical Chinese have been very good at absorbing workable foreign ideas & blending with theirs.

      If u have no real life experiences to compare than DONT.

      Books r, like I mentioned before - pure mental farts.

      If u eat (think) right then the fart (reasons) could smell terrible with loud sound.

      But then there r people out there who would take it as perfume & music, simply bcoz they have nothing to compare!

    4. in yr book, anyone that criticize communist china is a bull. so did the young enterprising people chit chat with u abt marxism?

    5. 1st where have I indicating that criticizing China is a full?

      All I ask, is 事实求是. Is that difficult for u?

      Of course I wouldn't miss the chance to talk to anyone, then & now, in Lanzhou. Hence my observation!

      Have u?

    6. i didnt. so did u all talk abt marxism?

  10. So yr rants r based on 3rd handed 路边社 infos!

    If u want to believe Michael Pettis, who's many 'insights' & predictions about China were proven to be fraudulent, then u SHOULD read Zhang weiwei for a different prospective.

    My last trip to Lanzhou last X'mas was under the invitation of the elders of a village some 20km outskirt of Lanzhou city.

    I was presently surprised that they still remembered me after I left some 10yrs ago.

    The village is more livable now for an internet freak likes me. 4G broadband is available & almost everyone is carrying a mobile phone - for communication, entertainment & Alipay/WeChatPay. Any 天猫 purchases from anywhere within China can be delivered to the village collecting centre via courier within 3days!

    The olds kept comparing how difference now & then. In between praising the govt for helping them.

    The youth were keen to find new opportunities for businesses within the village. Many were blurringly 宠洋, while some were obstinately pro CCP.

    These r the Chinese Marxism/socialism in play in modern day China if that's what u meant by Marxism.

    Theoretical Marxism is death in the wood long time ago when Karl & Engels formulated it.

    Similarly, capitalism has also lost its laissez faire competition long long time ago.

    Only fool would want to talk about both sopo concepts in their purest form!

    1. everywhere is mainlanders la, y u need to talk to them in lanzhou?

      zhang weiwei is a womao leader.

      reason i recommend pettis is he is not a chinese, secondly better to read one that is less east or west incline. keynes n friedman oso wrong in their prediction n theory, whi can be right all the time except mahathir n lge wakaka.

      "Only fool would want to talk about both sopo concepts in their purest form!" so did u read sheiss link or not, that is exactly what i am trying to tell.

    2. No…… I didn't read sheiss & don't intended to!

      Mainlander everywhere, so what? On the ground & near the heart that's the point! These 'outside' mainlanders, for whatsoever reasons, could also be the twisted source of 3rd handed 路边社 infos!

      U r getting very good at 套帽子!

      "Pettis is not a chinese, secondly better to read one that is less east or west incline."

      Zhang weiwei is no westerner, secondly better to read one that is less east or west incline.

      See the fraud in yr logic?

      The inexcusable part about Pettis is he IS so wrong about EVENTS (note the highlighted) so close to his surroundings. Either he is a sinology pretender or he has other reasons.


      Like kt, yr pet hatred blinds u singularly!

    3. 张维为,郑永年,宋鲁郑,李世默 r all wumao, do u need to talk to them on the ground to know that they r wumao? u dun need to visit the Manchester liar to know that he is a liar, u oso dun need to go aussie as well wakakaka

      pettis less bias. thats my view.

    4. U CAN keep to yr view, nobody is forcing anything down yr throat.

      Why keep 套帽子 for people who hold different opinions to yrs. If u think they r wumao, then what r u. Same as
      Lung Ying-tai - talk big, write nice but can't perform once given the task. Perhaps, vin is right. U people r NOT real!

      What rubbish u r talking about? I said go to the ground & talk to the people at the centre of the happenstance. AND u come back implying talking to the list of people u mentioned!

      R u confused or u r playing the same wakakakaking aka kt style?

      Mom is easy bcoz his writings r NOT farts but REAL shit materials created by dedak-induced thought.

      If u need to talk to him to judge how trashy r his articles then u have wasted yr education!

      Same issue with that fake kangaroo.

      Pettis IS a con, & that's my honest opinion.