Since Malaysia Airlines (MAS) came into the limelight for the wrong reason, numerous statements have been made by our leaders over its future.  

A few weeks ago, a couple of ministers said MAS should be left on its own, implying that there shall be no further bailout by the government. Then, there was this proposal to privatise MAS yet again to overcome its woes.  

Recently, the PM has come up with another statement that “we are not closing MAS for now”. In between these conflicting and inordinate observations and announcements, MAS shares, as traded in Bursa Malaysia, have gone up and come down like a roller-coaster. Some would have made a nice sum and some would have lost. But that is besides the point.  

The point is, have our leaders been properly briefed? Have they thought through the issues involved?

MAS has many stakeholders - customers, employees, suppliers and shareholders - which require careful management. Confidence plays an important role in any situation, what more when the company is already under enormous pressure.

I don’t claim to know much about the airlines or its operation. But as I read through the comments and observations being highlighted each day, I think they, too, do not know much.

They gave various reasons for MAS’s poor performance, ranging from fuel prices, load factors, unfair contracts, competition, to state ownership vis-à-vis privatisation, et cetera.

MAS was state-owned, privatised and then de-privatised. Over the period, I have lost count of the number of bailouts and the amount of public fund involved.

How then could another privatisation make any difference?  In contrast, SIA was “state-owned” and “state controlled”. Did the airlines suffer from any hiccup due to 'traditional diseases' associated with state-owned enterprises that were being tossed about now?

What about load factors and competition? Was MAS disadvantaged in any way given its “national carrier” status? Growth of air passengers and cargoes has continued to rocket in recent times. If other airlines and new airlines have continued to take advantage of the growth, why was MAS unable to do it?

Fuel prices were often cited as another factor affecting MAS. But are fuel prices not a common factor that affected all airlines? Did MAS have to pay higher fuel prices when compared with other airlines? If so, why?

Unreasonable union demands and high wages were also quoted as reasons for MAS’s lackadaisical performance. Did MAS employees really get much higher wages than other airlines? What was the percentage of wages to total operating expenditure or revenue? I was told MAS pilots have not had their bonuses for umpteen years.

Yet another reason given was the unfair supply/purchase contracts which MAS is apparently saddled with. On the surface, this would seem a reasonable explanation.

But why would MAS persistently and consistently enter into unfair contracts?  If MAS is closed now (as suggested) and a new company is formed to take its place, how would future contracts avoid the same predicament if the whole philosophy of managing state-owned or privatised enterprises has not changed?

I do not claim to know the answers to the problems in MAS, far from it in fact. But I think the reasons and the solutions being tossed about can’t solve the problems there either.  

In many ways, the problems in MAS are a miniature of moral hazard, of poor governance, incompetency, and even of wrong business ethos fast emerging in our country.

It is a complex problem which requires elaborate and sophisticated solutions. I think we have to learn to ask the right questions first.  A right answer to a wrong question is still wrong.