Mahathir continues to extol the importance of having a national car to promote local engineering development even as far more advance and wealthier nations around the globe have discarded their car production - an example being Australia.
So, let's have a look at what journalist John Teo has written in the NST, namely, Will we ever be free of national service to proton?: |
What engineering development when Proton couldn't even fix its notorious power-window problems |
Perhaps one of the more mystifying priorities of Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is his almost near obsession, since his return as the nation’s leader, with a new national car project.
There is no doubting his conviction that the engineering prowess a national car project supposedly engenders is one of the keys to the nation’s emergence as a modern state.
Dr Mahathir made general references to the arrival of the era of electric cars, which will eventually also run autonomously, suggesting that he is far from trying to relive an era of economic greatness built on heavy or mass industrialisation.
This is mystifying because in the new era of greater political openness and accountability that he himself has just engineered, Dr Mahathir appears determined to plough ahead with the car project despite almost universal disapproval from the moment he re-introduced the idea.
He has sought lately to rationalise the idea by suggesting that popular disapproval is the result of the gap between popular and government aspirations. In a sense, he is right.
Most Malaysian car owners had thought that after decades of putting up with Proton cars, they would have been liberated of their national service to Proton.
More national service then to a Proton successor?
The answer, thus far, has been an almost resounding and unequivocal “no”.
Malaysians might have quietly fumed and resented that the only car many of them could afford for a long time was a Proton.
That they quickly shifted to heavily-taxed, foreign-made sedans, or even made do with re-conditioned ones, as soon as they could afford to do so was a stinging rebuke to and an indictment of our long-protected national automaker.
But that Malaysians have also put up, grudgingly, with our Proton-centred universe suggests we cannot be persuaded on patriotic grounds for justified good reasons.
We cannot but help notice that in almost the same time Proton has been in existence, South Korean and Japanese cars had taken global markets by storm.
In fact, the trajectories of their cars’ progression were almost identical with their national trajectories from developing to developed-country status.
It is, of course, well and good that Dr Mahathir again takes to urging Malaysians to emulate the work ethic and cultural ethos of the Japanese and other East Asians.
But these East Asians are almost unique in having almost completely homogeneous national populations that are far more easily persuaded to work for the good of the nation.
Ours, on the other hand, is an almost uniquely heterogeneous nation that is struggling to
cohere to a single national identity.
The failure of Proton suggests that the attempt to transcend our cultural diversity through an appeal to overarching economic imperatives can be a costly economic exercise.
The Proton experience demands that we find out right from the outset the estimates of what another national car project will cost us in terms of capital costs, grants or subsidies, monetary sacrifices Malaysians will be called upon to shoulder again by being made or encouraged to buy them, and for how long such a state of affairs will go on.
Equally pertinent, but perhaps more difficult, may be finding the answers to the total cost in lost opportunities and efficiencies in other areas and sectors as we divert and devote resources and attention to another national car project.
At the end of the day, we must be able, with good conscience, to tell not just ourselves but to answer on behalf of our children and grandchildren if all those costs are worth paying for.
And if so, whether the great benefits of a successful national car project will materialise and we will be second-time lucky.
The odds may, indeed, be too great.
There is no doubting his conviction that the engineering prowess a national car project supposedly engenders is one of the keys to the nation’s emergence as a modern state.
Dr Mahathir made general references to the arrival of the era of electric cars, which will eventually also run autonomously, suggesting that he is far from trying to relive an era of economic greatness built on heavy or mass industrialisation.
This is mystifying because in the new era of greater political openness and accountability that he himself has just engineered, Dr Mahathir appears determined to plough ahead with the car project despite almost universal disapproval from the moment he re-introduced the idea.
 |
fCk you all, I know best |
He has sought lately to rationalise the idea by suggesting that popular disapproval is the result of the gap between popular and government aspirations. In a sense, he is right.
Most Malaysian car owners had thought that after decades of putting up with Proton cars, they would have been liberated of their national service to Proton.
More national service then to a Proton successor?
The answer, thus far, has been an almost resounding and unequivocal “no”.
Malaysians might have quietly fumed and resented that the only car many of them could afford for a long time was a Proton.
That they quickly shifted to heavily-taxed, foreign-made sedans, or even made do with re-conditioned ones, as soon as they could afford to do so was a stinging rebuke to and an indictment of our long-protected national automaker.
But that Malaysians have also put up, grudgingly, with our Proton-centred universe suggests we cannot be persuaded on patriotic grounds for justified good reasons.
We cannot but help notice that in almost the same time Proton has been in existence, South Korean and Japanese cars had taken global markets by storm.
In fact, the trajectories of their cars’ progression were almost identical with their national trajectories from developing to developed-country status.
It is, of course, well and good that Dr Mahathir again takes to urging Malaysians to emulate the work ethic and cultural ethos of the Japanese and other East Asians.
But these East Asians are almost unique in having almost completely homogeneous national populations that are far more easily persuaded to work for the good of the nation.
Ours, on the other hand, is an almost uniquely heterogeneous nation that is struggling to
cohere to a single national identity.
The failure of Proton suggests that the attempt to transcend our cultural diversity through an appeal to overarching economic imperatives can be a costly economic exercise.
The Proton experience demands that we find out right from the outset the estimates of what another national car project will cost us in terms of capital costs, grants or subsidies, monetary sacrifices Malaysians will be called upon to shoulder again by being made or encouraged to buy them, and for how long such a state of affairs will go on.
Equally pertinent, but perhaps more difficult, may be finding the answers to the total cost in lost opportunities and efficiencies in other areas and sectors as we divert and devote resources and attention to another national car project.
At the end of the day, we must be able, with good conscience, to tell not just ourselves but to answer on behalf of our children and grandchildren if all those costs are worth paying for.
And if so, whether the great benefits of a successful national car project will materialise and we will be second-time lucky.
The odds may, indeed, be too great.
Tua Tiaw Sai: We left you at 3.85, today the ringgit is 4.15, are you going to blame me for that as well?
ReplyDeleteHe forgets to mention that during his tenure as FM/PM the ringgit flirted just below 4.5 on a number of occasions and only recovered because of Bank Negara intervention.
He is diverting attention from the revelations of "The Billion Dollar Whale". He has no plausible defence to the allegations contained within.
I've just finished reading the book and I'm mad. Not just at the Tua Tiow Sai but his entire cabinet which should be lined up in a line and ......
TDM won't have the years required to deliver Proton 2.0 in his current tenure. He needs someone to champion it beyond his years.
ReplyDeleteSo who will step forward and actually implement, ie carry forward to fruition? Beyond just mouthing support for now while he is PM but can change opinion later. Which businessman brave enough to put forth the money. Which GLC? Zeti in PNB? Khazanah? EPF?
Anyone from TDM's cabinet?
Not Guanee, he already said no public funds will be involved, if there ever is a 2.0.
Not Azmin Ali, if he harbours any hope to become PM. Political suicide.
Anwar? He has other priorities.
Even UMNO / BN won't support. What about PAS? Do they even matter?
Our children and grandchildren will be doing National Service for 1MDB, because the last debt payment is due 2039.
ReplyDeleteTo add to that, babies as yet unborn will be doing National Service for China for the HSR and ECRL.
Current outlook is neither projects will ever recover their cost through revenue...so National Service it will be to pay back China.
Now it is given Protiga a racial dimensional twist!
ReplyDeleteWakakakakaka……
"But these East Asians are almost unique in having almost completely homogeneous national populations that are far more easily persuaded to work for the good of the nation.
Ours, on the other hand, is an almost uniquely heterogeneous nation that is struggling to
cohere to a single national identity.
The failure of Proton suggests that the attempt to transcend our cultural diversity through an appeal to overarching economic imperatives can be a costly economic exercise."
Wakakakakaka2…… what a blur-sotongish insight from a hp6 'economist' turned wordsmith!
Oui…… haven't u noticed that the dominante trajectories of Jappan/Korean cars’ progression that were almost identical with their national trajectories from developing to developed-country status - ARE built on exporting the finished product to oversea market?
Ditto with the might of the US marketing economic when EVERYONE agree that US is a racial melting pot.
Where's that racial dimension that u r trying so hard to put credit too in the case of bolihland?
Proton failed bcoz of ketuanan mentality - promoting useless sycophants to position of power (technical & management). It has ZILCH relationship to the country's racial composition.
Iff Proton was given to Rin Kei Mei to manage freely then, bolihland wouldn't have a 阿斗 that refuse to grow up!
It looks and smells like the old ways of Mahathirists corporate elites doing business is back again using TDM as their provider and partly appealing to his broken hope and pride of having a National car again after his dream Proton was forced to be sold to China's companies.
ReplyDeleteEntrepreneurs like Hendry Ford, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Geely etc rolled out their cars and were successful because all of them finally captured the car markets due to their business acumen in anticipating markets requirements and their continuous improvements in technological and engineering skills and the availability of a mass market in their countries.
If we look at Proton 1.0, the modus operandi was to make it a National car so that the risks of startup, capital financing, production/manufacturing, marketing, competition from other makes are all borne by the Govt. Then Proton was privatised and sold when all those entrepreneur risks were absorbed and was for one time successful due to the appeal of Nationalism from Malaysians. But it still failed finally when the Govt. could not sustained the subsidies and grants given each year and had to be sold to a China car maker. Part of the major reasons has to be economy of scales, lack of engineering and technoligical skills, poor cost management of production and manufacturing and the major reason being a lack of a mass market when Malaysia's population is just too small.
With Proton 2.0, it looks like a repeat of Proton 1.0 modus operandi but this time with an additional twist of appeal and reasoning that the mass market will come from Indonesia or China, it's electric driven, battery technolgy etc etc and thus may be more successful this time around.
Why must Malaysians via the Govt. bear again all these entrepreneur risks and see it later being privatised again to so called elitist Mahathirist entrepreneurs? What sort of entrepreneurship model is this? And how sure are they that the mass market required will come from Indonesia and China. Political arm twisting, corruption, trade-offs etc?
Why make Malaysians Nationalism and the Govt. as victims of Mahathirist's way of business entrepreneurship?
And why must the once disastrous failed dreams and hopes of a National car by TDM be revived again and at the expense of younger and newer generations Malaysians?
Those so called Mahathirists entrepreneurs who intend to revive this old business model again should, if they think it is viable, come out money from their own pockets, take the risks and enjoy the fruits if it is successful.
As Tun Daim said, of AI that "His time has passed", the same must also be said to TDM and Mahathirists "Their time has passed".
The New Malaysia and Malaysians are no suckers anymore.
Chameleons claiming to be Reformists temporarily to continue their old ways of politics and holding on to power and doing business the Mahathirists way is just not part of the New Malaysia.
PH voters and supporters are not turning back to the ways of Mahathirism. "That era is gone and past".