Has Dr Mahathir Mohamad intentionally become the new patron saint for transparency and good governance or has he unintentionally opened Pandora's box for the exercise of ministerial discretion to be subject to public scrutiny and accountability?
The answer is actually neither.
His interest in whether the AP allocation is based on a rational differentia or arbitrary criteria of family relations or past services rendered in Miti is only to the extent that someone unwarrantedly implicated his son's name in the receipt of APs.
His main grouse is focused on the negative impact such proliferation of APs has on the market share of the national car which is his brainchild and legacy. He is not interested in Miti's allocation of bumiputera shares or for that matter, other ministries' allocation of contracts, licences and approvals per se.
Neither is the government interested, as a general policy consistent with its mantra of transparency and good governance, to subject the exercise of ministerial discretion to public disclosure and accountability.
Miti makes an exception in the case of the AP allocation because of the stature and respect of Mahathir as ex-premier and elder statesmen to whom many in power are beholden to for their positions. Plus Mahathir demanded for it.
For more than 20 years, the national car has received government protection by way of 50 percent excise tax rebate and high tariffs on other imported makes which the Malaysian public is forced to subsidise. Yet today, Proton still cannot hold its own in terms of market share. Who is to blame?
One can speak of the indiscriminate proliferation of APs or that imported cars are priced too cheaply in circumvention of the stiff tariff regime because of the collusion between importers, foreign suppliers and errant custom officers to under declare their actual invoice price in evasion of substantial custom duties.
But what is the root cause f these so-called malpractice if it were not for a fact that there is a consistent strong demand for imported makes in preference of the national cars?
It has been argued in defence of Proton that as a result of purchasing expensive parts locally, it is unable to compete with cheap imported cars from South Korea and China and also that Proton had to conform to a high local content of 80 to 90 percent.
The supply of Proton parts is by local suppliers who are appointed by Proton, aren't they? What kind of suppliers are appointed? Isn't this infrastructure of suppliers selling expensive parts set up by Proton under the watch of the previous administration?
If the previous administration encouraged bumiputeras to join in the national car project by becoming auto parts suppliers despite many totally lacking the experience, why complain about expensive parts and marginalisation of the national car's position?
For too long we have not differentiated between assembly and manufacture especially for engines, the heart of a car. Today, Proton's Gen 2 boasts Malaysia's first homegrown Campro 1.6 litre four-cylinder engine supposed signifying the evolution of Proton from a vehicle assembler to a full-fledged world-class car manufacturer.
The market seems to be not so receptive. The Malaysian Automotive Association (MAA) has said that president Proton cars have lost their market share in the first six months of this year ( though Perodua vehicles saw an increase).
Instead of forcing the market to accept an entirely 100 percent made national car, why not give Proton a chance to collaborate and have a strategic alliance with other established car manufacturers like Volkswagen AG to regain market favour and acceptance?
For more than 20 years (and for too long) it has been foisted upon us in nationalistic terms that we have to subsidise and support one man's aspiration (even after he had left office) without regard for market realities and sentiments in this age of globalisation. How long is this to continue?
