I refer to the Malaysiakini report Petrol subsidy scheme retained, painful option ahead .

It is quite odd that the withdrawal of the two-tiered petrol subsidy scheme was only reported by one English newspaper. It is also very strange that no member of the authorities were either quoted or came out to claim credit for ‘responding to the call of the people’ against such a scheme.

Many owners of ‘old bangers’, cars over 10 years old, Mercedeses, Volvos, BMWs, etc of more than 2000 cc have stated their case against the scheme. Other citizens have highlighted the possible wanton abuse of the scheme quoting abuse of the relatively simple subsidy of fuel for fishermen as an example.

They and the media have highlighted foreign lorries, vans and cars with modified giant tanks filling up on our subsidised fuel to sell at a good profit back home and that this has been going on for decades with impunity for most of them.

Still others have commented on the impracticability of using MyKads as a mechanism of control and the potential abuse of this method. Not to mention the need for electronic readers of the MyKad at each and every petrol station.

How many of these devices do we need? And how long the queues will be before each and every car can fill up and drive off?

Frustrated Malaysians took the view that they would rather forgo the subsidy and pay unsubsidised fuel rates based on floating market rates to avoid such leakages in order that the country as a whole does not lose out.

Just days before the newspaper broke the story (without identifying a specific spokesman or a political leader), our political leaders still continued to ‘sell’ the benefits of the two-tiered scheme, trying to convince the population at large the need for such a scheme.

This although the PM had already announced the worst was over in terms of the financial crisis which started in 2008. I wonder whether the consultants involved of the civil servants really know what they are doing.

Is their strategy based on getting public feedback? Or a detailed study of facts and figures on whether any specific recommendation will overburden the already marginalised? Or is their interest only to limit damage to a minority (no matter how big the number can be) because they are not that vocal?

Finally, may I ask whether another plan is being proposed or that we have seen the death knell of the two-tiered scheme? Or will we be paying according to the market float? Also, are our planners knee-jerking to situations or are they actively initiating solid plans to move the country forward?

May I also suggest that wiping out corruption, nepotism and abuse of power may be able to save much more to finance the running of this country than implementing additional burdens on the populace.

One member of the public has indeed advised us that if sales tax were to be properly administered, the country would have collected more than 500 times in revenue. Anybody listening?