On tolled roads and fuel subsidies

By TK Chua

The opposition’s recent proposals to increase fuel subsidies and abolish tolls on certain roads have gained Barisan Nasional’s attention.

They consider these measures infeasible, not only from the financial point of view. They say the proposals will also increase carbon footprint and exacerbate climatic change and environmental degradation.

Put simply, tolled roads and reduced fuel subsidies could be used as a means to curb pollution and reduce carbon footprint.

I think public policies in this country are being discussed in a very piecemeal and inordinate manner.

Do we travel less when roads are tolled? All I know is, tolled roads are jam-packed every day. We travel because we need to.

Do we travel less when the price of petrol is high? In the absence of other means of transportation, again, we travel because we need to, unless we choose not to turn up for work or business.

Public policies must be formulated coherently and comprehensively.

When we talk about tolled roads, it must be linked to fair privatisation, reasonable tolls and decent alternative routes. Since when are tolled roads a means to discourage travelling, especially when public transportation is still not fully developed?

Just look at our tolled highways. Do we travel less because of the exorbitant toll rates? What choice do the people have?

Then, look at the price of petrol. Do we really use less petrol when subsidies are withdrawn? Maybe some leisurely travel will be affected, but for essential travel, demand is inelastic, at least in the immediate term.

When we talk about tolled roads and petrol subsidies, we must consider factors beyond pollution and climate change. When people are hurting, the last thing they have on their minds is climate change. Besides, I think many are sceptical that Malaysia has done very much for the environment, notwithstanding the cut in fuel subsidies or otherwise.

Do we use taxes on vehicles and fuel prudently? Have we used toll concessions to benefit the public or the concessionaires? Do we use the money collected to provide cleaner, better and more efficient public transport, both within cities and between cities? If no reasonable alternatives are available, it is impossible to expect the people to reduce their fuel consumption, regardless of the price.

I agree that fuel subsidies are a distortion to the economy. But to remove them without viable alternatives is also a distortion because different players in the economy are affected differently. Those who can’t pass on the cost to others will suffer the brunt of the subsidy removal. Similarly, unfair tolls benefit concessionaires and vested interest groups more than the public.

Please don’t always use the same argument that fuel subsidies have benefited the middle and upper class more than the poor. The middle class is the most productive class in the country – don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Also, please don’t always argue that tolled roads have brought enormous benefits to travellers. We know that; but we must look seriously at the efficiency and equity aspects of tolled roads. Please don’t argue that tolls are based on “cost-plus” when cost is a big question mark.

TK Chua is an FMT reader.

✍ Sumber Pautan : ☕ Malaysians Must Know the TRUTH

Kredit kepada pemilik laman asal dan sekira berminat untuk meneruskan bacaan sila klik link atau copy paste ke web server : http://ift.tt/2zNRueh

(✿◠‿◠)✌ Mukah Pages : Pautan Viral Media Sensasi Tanpa Henti. Memuat-naik beraneka jenis artikel menarik setiap detik tanpa henti dari pelbagai sumber. Selamat membaca dan jangan lupa untuk 👍 Like & 💕 Share di media sosial anda!