Why Fuel Subsidy Reforms Are So Hard to Explain in Times of Crisis?

Every time there is a major external shock—war in the Middle East, disruptions to oil supply routes, or sudden spikes in global crude prices—governments around the world face the same difficult task: explaining to the public why fuel subsidies must be reduced or restructured. 

On paper, the logic is straightforward. When oil prices rise sharply, maintaining low retail fuel prices through subsidies becomes increasingly expensive and fiscally unsustainable. Yet, despite repeated explanations, many governments struggle to convince the public. Protests emerge, criticism intensifies, and policymakers are accused of failing the very people they are trying to protect.

This recurring communication breakdown is not simply a failure of messaging or intelligence. It reflects a deeper and more predictable reality about how people think, feel, and respond under pressure. Understanding this helps explain why even the most rational policies are often met with resistance.

The first challenge lies in how people experience loss. When fuel prices increase, the impact is immediate and personal. A driver sees the higher price at the pump, pays more out of pocket, and feels the strain almost instantly. This is not an abstract concept—it affects daily life, from commuting to food costs. 

RCI on Corporate Mafia: A Cure, or a Convenient Distraction?

In Malaysia, few phrases carry as much political drama as Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI). 

Invoke it, and the message is clear: something is deeply wrong, and only the highest level of scrutiny will do. Yet, as history shows, the call for an RCI is not always about justice—it is sometimes about optics, timing, and political advantage.

Today, calls for an RCI into an alleged Corporate Mafia echo loudly across segments of the political and civil society landscape. Among those advocating such a move are groups and figures like Democratic Action Party (DAP), Rafizi Ramli, Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism, and Lawyers for Liberty. 

Their argument is familiar that public confidence is low, institutions may be compromised, and only an independent commission can uncover the truth. It is a compelling narrative—but is it the right tool for the job?

Changing Nature of Employment: Government’s role for the next generation

In recent weeks, global developments have reminded us how interconnected the world economy has become. Rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have raised concerns about higher oil prices, inflation and the stability of financial markets. 

In Malaysia, political discussion has also shifted somewhat. Instead of the usual debates centred on race and religion, public conversations have increasingly focused on economic issues such as the rising cost of living, investment and economic reforms. 

In this environment, it is timely to reflect on another important issue affecting society: the changing nature of employment.

Naimah Daim: “Smoke, Dry Ice, or Fire?”

When individuals facing asset forfeiture and potential legal exposure hire sophisticated international communications teams, coordinate media timing, and engage multiple institutional channels, it is reasonable to ask whether the objective is merely reputation defence — or whether it is to raise the political cost of continuing the investigation.

The public reaction to allegations linking Naimah Daim to a supposed effort to destabilise the government has been swift: disbelief, dismissal, and déjà vu. Many instinctively framed it as another recycled political script, evoking the early defensive chorus during the 1MDB scandal — when critics were accused of plotting regime change rather than exposing financial misconduct.

But déjà vu can be intellectually dangerous. It tempts us to conclude before examining.

ART: We Didn’t Kowtow — We Calculated

There are moments in public policy when you don’t need to argue anymore. You just lean back, sip your kopi, read the headlines — and whisper, “I told you so.”

The recent decision by the United States Supreme Court striking down former President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff move was one of those moments. Because suddenly, all those who were shouting that Malaysia had “kowtowed” to the United States over ART are looking… slightly less certain.

You remember them. The opposition politicians who saw weakness everywhere. The conservative voices who declared sovereignty under siege. The opportunists within the ruling coalition who mistook theatrics for strategy.

Apparently, some believed that dealing with Trump was like negotiating a municipal by-law or unregistered temple. It wasn’t.

When Hong Kong had no Yee Sang: A Malaysian Awakening

In the late 1990s, I was working in Hong Kong, just before the historic 1997 handover from Britain to China. Like many Malaysians abroad, I carried with me a suitcase full of assumptions — especially about food. 

After all, Hong Kong was the beating heart of Cantonese culture. If there was any place outside Malaysia that would understand our version of Chinese cuisine, surely it would be there.

One evening, friends visiting from Kuala Lumpur asked if we could order fish in belacan sauce — the kind regularly served at the old Hotel Equatorial Kuala Lumpur. The waiter looked puzzled. We tried to explain: sambal, shrimp paste, spicy, fragrant. He shook his head politely. No such dish.

It was our first gentle reminder that what we thought of as “Chinese food” was, in fact, something uniquely Malaysian.

The bigger revelation came during Chinese New Year.

Azam Baki, Velocity Capital and the Politics of Selective Outrage

The Bloomberg report alleging that Tan Sri Azam Baki owned 17.7 million shares in Velocity Capital Berhad has predictably ignited a media and political storm. Within hours, the narrative hardened: the MACC Chief Commissioner had breached a 1993 civil service circular, and therefore his integrity was in question.

But when the noise settles, a more uncomfortable question emerges: are we dealing with a clear governance breach, or another episode of selective outrage shaped by politics, timing, and institutional backlash?