The government is misleading us about the hike in petrol prices and RON rating

By Dr Adrian Wong

The government continues to lie ….

Here’s an update on the issue (http://forums.techarp.com/adrian-wong/25510-government-misleading-us-about-hike-petrol-prices-ron-rating-2.html#post353057)  

Quote:

PETALING JAYA: There has been no increase in the prices of foodstuff and necessities following the price hike of RON95 fuel by five sen. Domestic Trade, Co-operative and Consumerism Ministry secretary-general Datuk Mohd Zain Mohd Dom said the new price of RON95, which is RM1.80 per litre, was the same as the old price of RON97. Since Sept 1, RON97 has been upgraded as a premium product and its price had increased from RM1.80 to RM2.05. “About 90% to 95% of users will be using RON95, so there should be no reason for anyone to increase the prices of food items,” he said. Some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had claimed that the fuel increase had caused prices of other items to increase, but Mohd Zain said such a view was baseless and illogical. “I get reports from our branches nationwide four times a day, and there has been no report of inflation due to the fuel hike,” he said. He added that RON95 fuel contained a new additive, the EURO2, which made it more environmentally-friendly than RON97 without affecting its performance.

Note that Datuk Mohd Zain claims that RON95 petrol has a new additive called the EURO2. That is not true.

The new RON95 petrol merely meets the Euro 2 (1996) for passenger cars, which calls for a maximum CO emission of 2.2 g/km.

AFAIK, the composition and quantity of petrol additives are proprietary and unique to each producer. There is no such thing as a EURO2 additive, nor is there a standard additive package for all RON95 petrol.

As for prices going up because of the hike, well, that remains to be seen. However, we have seen in the past how even hawkers use hikes in petrol prices to justify price increases. These increases never go away, even after petrol prices drop. So I wouldn't consider fears of further price increases baseless and illogical.

Of course, we all hope that Datuk Mohd Zain is correct. After all, he seems to know things that we mere mortals are not privy to, like the new EURO2 additive.

—–

Here's an interesting comment by someone called one box :

Quote:

Dr Wong, I am not sure if I have missed anything in your article but I don’t see a big issue with The Star report that you have loathed so much. If fact, I support this as a good move by the Government to curb the subsidy. If we don’t need RON 97 why are we paying for that? I also feel that you are reading too “technical” into the article. Let me reply to your 5 points: 1.(Wong) RON97 petrol, before and now, is the same product. It was not “upgraded” as the writer mentioned. One Box> I think you have misunderstood the “upgrade” means here. It means RON97 is now being sold at at higher price. Nothing wrong with the use of “upgrade” here. It is a matter of choice of English. 2.(Wong) The statement that RON95 will be capped at RM 1.80 is nothing more than an attempt to cover up the price hike OB> I don’t think there is any attempt to hide the price hike. We all know there is a price hike 3.(Wong) RON number does not measure the octane “quality” of the fuel. The octane rating is a measure of the RESISTANCE of petrol to premature detonation. It has nothing to do with fuel quality OB> depends on the definition of “quality” here. It will provide a higher power if your car can take advantage of the higher compression ratio. I would assume higher power can be translated to “quality”, don’t you agree? If it is lower quality, would it be sold at higher price? 4.(Wong) RON97 has “stronger” ingredients? A higher octane rating merely means the fuel is more resistant to premature detonation. It doesn’t mean the fuel is stronger or has stronger ingredients OB> Again, as I mentioned earlier, it can withstand “higher compression ratio”. That can be translated as “stronger” or "quality" don’t you agree? From a layman’s point of view. 5.(Wong) RON92 is NOT leaded petrol! Leaded petrol has been discontinued in Malaysia for years. RON92 is simply unleaded petrol with a Research Octane Number of 92 OB> This point you are correct Out of the above 5 points, you have made mistakes in 4 points. The Journalist has made 1 mistake. So you lose, Leong Hung Yee wins.

First off, this is not about winning. This is about delivering accurate information. Do note that Leong Hung Yee is a trained journalist with an editor to watch over his work. It is HIS job to report facts accurately.

I agree that removing the subsidy is ultimately a good move. However, the government should come right out and say it, instead of lying their way through.

I agree that we should not pay for RON97 if we do not use it, but you missed the point – why should we pay RON97 prices for RON95 petrol?

As for your assertion that I'm reading too technical into the article, that's nonsense. The truth is the truth. UNLESS you are a spinmeister, of course. Then everything is in shades of gray!

1. Your English needs to be "upgraded", my friend. The definition of "upgrade" is "To raise to a higher grade or standard". How can you (or the government or the Star) say that selling the SAME RON97 petrol at a higher price is an "upgrade" when nothing about the product has changed? In fact, it has neither been upgrade or downgraded, only sold at a HIGHER price.

2. I don't see the government openly announcing that they increased the price of RON 95 petrol by 5 sen. What I see is the government (and/or the Star) trying to justify the increase by saying that :
– it will be capped for the rest of the year (when the government already promised to do so earlier at RM 1.75 per liter),
– by associating RON 92 petrol with leaded petrol (blatant lie),
– by claiming that global oil prices have doubled since the time the government promised to cap it to RM 1.75 per liter (lie as well, as the global oil price is only around US$ 60 per barrel)

There is a difference between announcing a price hike (because they want to reduce the subsidy) and trying to lay the blame on other factors.

3. Fuel quality is distinctly different from octane rating. Imagine if I taint RON 95 petrol with methanol or ethanol. The octane rating goes up, but the fuel quality and energy content goes down. If that's not convincing enough :

Quote:

Octane rating does not relate to the energy content of the fuel. It is only a measure of the fuel's tendency to burn in a controlled manner, rather than exploding in an uncontrolled manner.

4. Just like in No. 3, you can translate it into whatever you wish, but the truth of the matter is RON97 is no stronger than RON95. They both have the same energy content. The only difference is the octane rating.

With that said, let me save you the trouble of responding. If you wish to argue semantics, please don't bother. I'm not here to win any arguments, just to point out FACTUAL errors in the government's points, and the Star's report.