Why Can’t We Use Palm Oil as Fuel?

 

While Malaysia sits on large palm oil stockpiles (exceeding 3m tonnes), the decision not to aggressively funnel it into car fuel is driven by a mix of stalled infrastructure, powerful export economics, technical limitations, and policy inertia. 

Palm oil is already used in biodiesel, but the scale is deliberately constrained. 

1.    The Infrastructure Bottleneck 

The most immediate hurdle is that Malaysia simply cannot physically blend higher concentrations of palm biodiesel fast enough. The nationwide standard remains B10 (10% palm biodiesel, 90% diesel), while the planned upgrade to B20 has largely stalled. Former minister Teresa Kok noted that critical depots in Bintulu, Sandakan, Tawau, and Kota Kinabalu lack sufficient blending capacity or are awaiting upgrades. Rolling out higher blends requires synchronized upgrades across feedstock supply, quality control, and logistics—a costly and slow process the government has been hesitant to fully fund.

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel 

 

2.     Export Revenue vs. Domestic Fuel 

Malaysia produces roughly 20 million tonnes of palm oil annually. Only about 1 million tonnes currently goes to biodiesel, while 15–16 million tonnes are exported, generating massive foreign exchange (palm product exports hit RM112.4 billion in 2025). Using that stockpile domestically for fuel would mean sacrificing high-value export revenue. Furthermore, high Crude Palm Oil (CPO) prices (frequently above RM4,000/tonne) make biodiesel expensive relative to fossil diesel, often requiring subsidies or tax waivers that strain government finances.

 

3.    Technical & Engine Limitations 

Palm biodiesel has poor cold-flow properties due to its high saturated fat content. It can congeal at low temperatures, which is why Malaysia restricts biodiesel to B7 in highland areas while allowing B10/B20 in the lowlands. Additionally, some auto-manufacturers have historically objected to higher palm biodiesel blends due to concerns over long-term engine fouling and viscosity issues. These technical constraints make a rapid, nationwide shift to high blends less straightforward than simply burning the stockpile.

 

4.    Supply Chain & Economic Factors 

Refining into Biodiesel: Palm oil must first be processed into Palm Oil Methyl Ester (PME) or biodiesel rather than used raw. 

Blending Limits: Malaysia implements controlled blending (such as B10, B15, and rising targets) to balance engine safety, vehicle manufacturer approvals, and supply chain readiness before pushing toward higher mixtures like B20 or full B100 pilots. Our R&D is not yet scaled up to meet higher mixtures hence the low blending levels.

 

5.    Policy & Strategic Priorities 

The government has chosen to prioritize energy exports and food security over aggressive domestic fuel substitution. Palm oil is a strategic export commodity, and policies like the National Energy Transition Roadmap (NETR) are now channelling investment toward advanced biofuels (like Sustainable Aviation Fuel) rather than just road transport biodiesel. There is also a "food vs. fuel" tension, as palm oil is a staple cooking ingredient, and diverting too much to fuel could drive up domestic food costs. 

In short, the 3+ million tonnes in storage reflects a surplus of a valuable export commodity, not a free pool of fuel waiting to be burned. Until the blending infrastructure is upgraded, the price gap is closed, and engine compatibility is fully addressed at scale, Malaysia will likely continue to treat palm oil primarily as an export earner rather than a primary motor fuel.

The Slow Rot

 

We are witnessing the slow, agonising death of all the pledges. The unspoken agreement that we would be a nation of budi bahasa, of patience and of quiet dignity is being shredded publicly. And we are not even blinking. We have become a nation of moral accountants, tallying up who owes what based on race, religion, and political allegiance. This is opposed to what is right or just. The evidence is not just in the courts; it is in our social media feeds, and in the behaviour of many citizens who have learned to cheer for the convicted. 

We have high-profile politicians, charged with corruption that would make a pirate blush, walking into courtrooms like they are attending a wedding. They are greeted with garlands and cheering followers. They are feted, funded, and in some cases, literally bankrolled by the very public that claims to despise them. 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law 

When a convicted leader’s fine is paid by donations, while a child with leukemia begs for RM50,000 on a crowdfunding page, we have lost our moral compass. We have decided that the crime is not the corruption, but the crime is being poor, being sick, or being powerless enough to need help. 

The ignorance of the masses is not the chilling part; it is the intelligence of the enablers. We see lawyers, academics, and professionals, people whom we turn to when in trouble, defending the indefensible with straight faces. They will tell you that "everyone does it," or that "at least he delivers," or worse, that "the other side is worse." 

This does not reflect on the intelligence of these people. I would say this is chosen blindness. It is tantamount to putting your hands over your ears, so you don’t have to hear the screams of the dying in hospitals, the underfunded schools, or the crumbling infrastructure. 

We have become a nation of people who cannot see the trees for the wood—we are so obsessed with the "big picture" of racial supremacy or political survival that we have lost the ability to see the individual acts of rot that are eating away at the foundation.

 

We hear the phrase rule of law thrown around like confetti, but the reality is that it is no longer about justice, it is about whether you have the right connections or your case is politically convenient to pursue. Underneath all of this lies a toxic undercurrent - the belief that corruption, extremism, and ingratitude are acceptable if they serve the narrative of racial or religious supremacy or political ambitions. This is heading towards tribalism with morality, honour and dignity thrown out of the window. 

The problem with our country is that generally, smart ones are not running the government. They are not running the agencies. Instead, we see loyalists, of sycophants, of those who will not rock the boat, placed in key positions. We have rewarded mediocrity and punished meritocracy. We have chosen obedience over competence, and we are paying the price in lost opportunities. Malaysia may not be falling but I would say it is sinking slowly with politicians spending more time fighting for power and positions. The good and honest ones meanwhile are told to be patient and wait for the next election as they claim things will get better. 

We need to stop being nice and gentle. We need to start being furious and register our outrage. We need to demand that competence replaces cronyism, that integrity replaces identity, that the rule of law applies equally to the powerful and the powerless. The question is not whether Malaysia can be saved. The question is whether we have the courage to save it—or whether we will continue to be nonchalant and donate to very people who are robbing us blind, while our children beg for medicine in the streets. 

The choice is yours and mine, but we are running out of time. 

Reference:

OPINION | The quiet rot is setting in, but Malaysians are not blinking, Parkaran Kutty, Newswav, 8 Oct 2025

Foreign Direct Investment: 2001 - 2025

 

Foreign direct investment has flowed into the world's largest economies as well as smaller regional hubs of business activity such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland or UAE. For those countries that are heavily dependent upon foreign investment, the spread of protectionist sentiments in many countries is a growing cause of concern.

 A cursory look at the chart below and if you combine China and Hong Kong, the total is US$5.6 trillion which exceeds the US.

 Reference:

 Post by Michael Weidokal on LinkedIn

Jobs of 2030?

 The jobs of 2030 may already be here. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 gives us a glimpse of where employers expect job demand to move by 2030.

On the growth side:

-Big data specialists
-FinTech engineers
-AI and machine learning specialists
-Software developers
-Cybersecurity specialists
-Data analysts and scientists

On the declining side:

-Bank tellers
-Data entry clerks
-Cashiers
-Administrative assistants
-Accounting and bookkeeping clerks
-Telemarketers

AI, automation, digital banking, self-service systems, and data-driven operations can reduce the demand for some routine tasks while increasing demand for workers who can manage technology, analyse information, solve problems, and make decisions. This doesn’t necessarily mean “AI will take your job.”

It may mean something more important: Your job may change before you are ready for it. It means strengthening digital skills, analytical skills, communication, problem-solving, technical education, and lifelong learning. Because the future of work isn’t simply about more jobs or fewer jobs. It’s about what kind of jobs we create—and whether workers can move with them.

The biggest labour-market risk may not be that AI replaces workers but that workers are left behind while the economy moves forward.

 

Reference:

Post by Thomas Lazaro III

Source: World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025; Economic Planning Council

GDP Growth of Southeast Asian Countries (1994-2025)

 

Three decades. One region. Very different economic stories. Just have a look at Southeast Asia in 1994. Malaysia had a GDP of around US$74 billion. By 2025, it had grown to roughly US$437 billion — about 5.9 times larger. That sounds impressive.

And it is. But look at the rest of the region.

🇻🇳 Vietnam: 31.6×
🇲🇲 Myanmar: 19.0×
🇰🇭 Cambodia: 17.8×
🇱🇦 Laos: 11.2×
🇮🇩 Indonesia: 8.5×
🇸🇬 Singapore: 7.2×
🇵🇭 Philippines: 6.7×
🇲🇾 Malaysia: 5.9×
🇹🇭 Thailand: 3.9×

So here’s the question I find more interesting: It’s not simply, “Did the Malaysian economy grow?” It did. The question is: Why did other economies grow faster?

Over three decades, countries made very different choices about:

• industrialization
• exports and global value chains
• infrastructure
• human capital
• investment
• productivity
• technology
• institutions
• and the sectors they chose to develop

And this is where GDP growth becomes more than just a number on a chart. Because economic growth eventually shows up in everyday life: more productive jobs, higher incomes, better infrastructure, more businesses, and greater opportunities.

But there’s another important caveat.

A larger GDP does not automatically mean people are better off. These are nominal GDP figures, so population growth, inflation, and exchange rates matter. And GDP per capita can tell a very different story from total GDP.

Still, the long-term comparison raises a question worth asking:

If our neighbours were able to expand their economies several times over, what can Malaysia learn from the differences in their growth paths?

We shouldn’t look at the numbers simply to celebrate or criticize.

We should look at them to understand what happened. Because the real economic question isn’t “Who grew the most?”

It’s “What made that growth possible—and can we replicate the parts that worked?”

 

Source: SEAsia.stats research. 2025 figures based on projections from the World Bank, IMF,

and other economic databases,as indicated in the infographic.

 

Reference:

Post by Thomas Lzaro III on LinkedIn

Malaysia’s Poverty Gap in Schools is Huge!

 

The Programme for International Student Assessment is run by the OECD, a group of mostly wealthy countries that compares living standards and policy performance worldwide. The results confirm something uncomfortable: a student’s family background remains one of the strongest predictors of academic performance in Malaysia. 

Socioeconomically advantaged 15-year-olds – the top 25% by family wealth, parental education and home resources – outscored their disadvantaged peers, the bottom 25%, by 82 points in science (see graph above from Pisa 2025 results). What this means in real-world terms is deeply concerning. Under standard Pisa methodology, 20 score points roughly represent one year of schooling. An 82-point gap therefore equals about four years of formal education. Malaysia’s poorest 15-year-olds are four years behind their wealthier peers – a gap we cannot afford to ignore. 

This is what experts call the ‘inverse care law of education’, or the ‘social determinants of education’. Children who need the most support, resources and high-quality teaching are the least likely to get them. Nearly two-thirds – 63% – of Malaysia’s most disadvantaged students failed to reach even baseline science proficiency, known as Level 2, in 2025. One in 10 disadvantaged students, however, scored in the top quarter for science – proof that academic resilience is possible despite socioeconomic disadvantage. Such gaps exist in many OECD countries – the average difference there is 85 points. But that should not be a comfort. 

These are the children Malaysia has been leaving behind for years. The gap narrowed modestly between 2018 and 2022 but has since widened again. By 2025, it was back to nearly 2018 levels. 

This points to an uneven education system. Students from disadvantaged homes are less likely to have the resources, environments and support that lead to strong academic outcomes. 

To assess progress, we need to use disaggregated Pisa scores and educational outcomes data broken down by socioeconomic status. While all students need support, resources should target those furthest behind and schools serving lower-income communities. Funding should follow need with more funds for schools with high numbers of disadvantaged students. 

Set a clear, time-bound target to significantly reduce the gap between disadvantaged and advantaged students. It may be better to measure this using Pisa’s baseline proficiency threshold, Level 2 – the minimum skill level the OECD considers necessary to participate effectively in society and further learning – rather than score points. 

Restore elite schools in each district/state where resources and outcomes are measured. Send disadvantaged students to these elite institutions with financial and material support. Education is a way out of poverty. 

Provide quality tuition centres at PPR flats to assist students overcome the disadvantage. Incentivise teachers in these centres for producing quality students. 

In the longer term is to scale-up every rural/urban school via technology for desired outcomes. And encourage parents to guide their children in new skill sets for the future. 

There is a lot of work to be done but nothing will move with the present Minister of Education. And unfortunately, PMX will continue to shield her. 

Reference:

Malaysia’s Poverty Gap in schools is not just wide – it’s huge, Amar-Singh HSS, ALIRAN,
25 September 2026

 

Is Malaysia’s Examination Grading System Flawed?

 

Malaysia's SPM grading system is doing something grotesque: it puts a student who scored 100 in mathematics and a student who scored 75 in the same "excellent" box. Then all our students are brilliant. 

This is the 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, the coddling of mediocrity, and the systematic burial of truth. And the destruction of a future generation. (This article is an excerpt of a Facebook post by IronPen. The views and information expressed here have not been verified independently)

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardized_test 

SPM uses a norm-referenced system. Your grade doesn't depend on what you scored. It depends on how you ranked against everyone else. If a student practices mathematics every single day, relentlessly, obsessively, until he can solve every problem perfectly—until he scores 100—he gets an A+. If another student barely scrapes by, scores 75, but happens to be in a cohort where the average is low enough, he also gets an A+. The system declares them equal. This is not a glitch. This is the design. 

The Ministry of Education calls it "standard-setting." It calls it "robust and professional." It points to the UK, the US, Australia, and Singapore and says, "They do this too." 

Singapore's Ministry of Education has stated explicitly: national examinations in Singapore 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 use bell curve grading. Every national exam—PSLE, O-Level, A-Level—is criterion-referenced. Your grade reflects your absolute mastery of the subject. It does not depend on how your peers performed. 

A Singaporean student who scores 100 gets the top grade because he mastered the material. A student who scores 75 gets a different grade because he mastered less. The system tells the truth. 

The UK does not use a fixed bell curve either. Grade boundaries are set after marking, using a combination of statistical data and expert examiner judgment. The goal is to ensure that it is "no harder or easier to achieve a given grade in one year than another." But here's the critical difference: the 𝗨𝗞 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀.. Students and parents can see exactly what raw mark was needed for each grade. 

𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀. SPM grade boundaries are adjusted based on cohort performance but are not made public. Students and teachers are left "in the dark."

Why would a system be designed to hide declining performance? There are only a few possible answers:

 

1.      -To protect the feelings of underperforming groups? It wants everyone to feel "𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵."

 

2.  -To protect the reputation of the education system. If grades honestly reflected the decline in mathematical mastery, the Ministry would have to explain why. The cohort system provides plausible deniability.

 

3.      -Both.

But the deepest damage is not what the system hides about the weak. It's what it does to the strong. Consider the student who scores 100 in mathematics. He practices every day. He solves problems until his fingers ache. He achieves perfection. Now consider the student who scores 75. He did enough. He passed. He is not mediocre, but he is not exceptional. The system gives them the same grade. 

Malaysian students who believe their A's in SPM Mathematics mean they are good at mathematics will enter university, enter the workforce, and discover that they cannot solve problems they have never seen before. They will struggle in STEM fields. They will be outperformed by peers from countries with more honest assessment systems. Meanwhile, the international community will continue to look at Malaysia's PISA scores—not its SPM results—when assessing the quality of its education system. 

The Ministry of Education can defend its "robust and professional" methodology all it wants. But when SPM says "excellent" and PISA says "below average," only one of them is telling the truth. And you know which one! 

Reference:

Facebook post by IronPen