I refer to the Malaysiakini report Insulated fish box issue settled: Noh .

The furore about the insulated fish boxes are over. Initially, when I read about the boycott, I was furious as I saw it as another business attempt to scupper a government move to protect consumer interest.

Then the nail was hit on the head. This was about giving someone an exclusive contract to make money out of the customers by getting the government to sanction a monopoly.

It’s good that the powerful fishermen importers group put up a battle and won and now others also can supply these fish boxes which means it will most certainly reduce the cost.

I hope all other pressure groups and business councils will also watch closely any new initiatives and evaluate if it is for consumer interest or for churning out more fat cats.

Our country is littered with these sort of methods - new initiatives are cleverly disguised to hide the actual reason for these proposals to the government that have been adopted without much care for the consumers.

These proposals include the medical examination for maids that has increased costs, the MyKad introduction, the ability to renew road tax without the grant (though even in the post-office which is government-owned one still can’t do it), medical waste disposal, supply of medicine to government hospital etc.

The list goes on and I am sure there are many others we don’t even know or realise. I wish some lawyers or pressure group will take all these cases to court as it is in the federal constitution that one cannot be discriminated against so by the giving of contracts to just one party. Surely that’s discrimination?

By the way, can someone enlighten me on how ridiculous it is for one particular outfit to cliam that they are ‘e-government providers’ when the only services they offer are road tax renewal and summons payment? This should be against the Trade Description Act, shouldn’t it?