Baca sebelum marah.

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2331192317603627388.post-74162004223064629212008-06-23T03:12:00.001+12:002008-06-23T03:44:49.934+12:00Baca sebelum marah.Is it fair to bash Petronas? As with other news, my father sent a text message asking me to browse through <a href="http://biz.thestar.com.my/bizweek/story.asp?file=/2008/6/21/bizweek/1441051&sec=bizweek">Bizweek</a> of the Star on June 21st. Thought it would be one of the hard-to-understand revelations of how the oil and gas business is run but nope, just a very clear and concise set of information on why we should not just whack, then ask questions later. I HAVE always tried to be frank on business issues. I have no problem highlighting business missteps and poor business decisions and strategy. Over the last two weeks, following the hike in fuel prices in Malaysia, there has been a lot of public anger and frustration looking for the right punching-bag. Petronas is now a prime target for the general public and political opposition to focus their venom at. Is it fair? Has Petronas been badly managed? If they had been poorly run, then yes, bash away. Let’s be clear. Don’t whack first and then ask questions later.Petronas has always published solid annual reports in accordance to international accounting standards and reporting requirements. It’s all there on their website. The information provided is deemed sufficient to raise billions of dollars from international banks. Or else, banks will not be lining up to provide credit to the corporation. So far, it appears that what most of the criticisms have been focused on are the “additional information” – do they have planes?; how much do they spend on the philharmonic orchestra?; and what’s the senior executives pay? – to name a few. We have to remember that how much they pay to the government is not determined by Petronas. It’s decided by the government. Hence if you want to attack Petronas, it ought to be on how well they manage the operations, and did they fritter away funds at unnecessary expenses. Whether the funds had been deployed properly by the government is a separate issue and that does not involve Petronas. Let’s get the nitty-gritty out of the way. Executive planes – even if they have it, it’s a necessary business investment for a company like Petronas. Petronas is not a Malaysian oilfield business entity but has operations in over 30 countries. Its not like the executives are flying to LA to buy art or visit their second home. Philharmonic orchestra – If Petronas had not invested, we would not have a world class concert hall and an orchestra that is of international standards. Should we even have a world class concert hall? That’s like asking if we need to have good museums. If we had a few great concert halls and a half decent orchestra that is of international standards, then yes, Petronas would have been throwing funds at superfluous needs. Some critics scoffed when they heard that members of the orchestra are paid between RM20,000 to RM30,000 a month, and the majority of them are foreigners. When building something of international stature, then international benchmarks (which includes salaries) will have to be used to draw them in. Then you ask, “Why so many foreigners?” One would be naive to think that we can start an international standard orchestra dominated by Malaysians. This is not another Malaysia Boleh project.Read more <a href="http://biz.thestar.com.my/bizweek/story.asp?file=/2008/6/21/bizweek/1441051&sec=bizweek">here</a>. "To the general public, it may appear as if Petronas is staffed by fat cats sitting around twiddling their thumbs, signing joint ventures with foreign big oil companies to drill for oil in Malaysian waters. They pump, we sell – surely its easy money. If Petronas had done just that, we would have been a net importer long ago. Petronas had reinvested well, with solid operations in Turkmenistan, Egypt, Cuba, Chad, Vietnam, to name a few. Petronas is to these countries, what Shell and Exxon are to Malaysia.""The other often cited criticism is how other oil producing nations can still maintain selling fuel at deeply subsidised rates to their people. Why can’t Malaysia do that anymore? Answer – it’s a simple maths equation which has not been properly communicated. It depends on the ratio of total net export to domestic consumption. If it’s 1:2 it means if we consume 1 million barrels, we are net exporting 500,000 barrels, which is not a lot of net exports. Some countries have a ratio of 5:1 which is to say they may be consuming 1 million barrels but they are net exporting 5 million barrels. Suffice to say, some countries benefit a little but some benefit enormously. Malaysia is at the shorter end of the curve." Eheh.Hazwani Hashimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11110579749934765530noreply@blogger.com