Has the budget deficit becomes unsustainable?
It is well-known that if the current mega-national budget deficit is not trimmed markedly in time for the 13th general election, it will become a mega-election issue.
Also, the current feverish efforts in attributing the large subsidy as a major cause of the national budget deficit, as well as inviting the public to comment on the subsidies, are clever ways in shaping public perception on the cause-and-effect linkage, some quarters argue.
Some are also wondering why the deafening silence on the perceived direct correlation between high public spending and national budget deficit. They also wonder why the latter had increased markedly, and which periods (ie, which particular months and years) did public spending show a sharp increase.
Why the borrowing and who were the real target groups of the pump-priming fiscal efforts? Equally important, what are the tangible outcomes, including the impact on the national budget deficit ratio as a percentage of gross domestic product? Has the budget deficit becomes unsustainable?
Then, there is this reported statement that 'the public would have the final say on whether expensive subsidies would be cut'. How will Malaysians know the public actually are in favour or otherwise? In the first place, is there an independent, thorough and professional survey being conducted on the subsidy issue?
Can a one-day event to gather public feedback be regarded as a proper sample size for about 28 million of Malaysians? Is the survey scientifically conducted? Will the method of survey and the findings be up for public audit by independent and professional parties?
Some quarters are also concerned that a rather limited number of survey participants are being solicited for their views, which later are used to shape or justify a major public policy relating to subsidy reduction.
The above seems to be a double-edged sword - if the policy action is justified on (limited) public feedback that says 'go ahead and cut the subsidies', then the national budget deficit numbers are likely to look good and show a downward trend over the years. However, those directly affected by the subsidy cuts are unlikely to be happy, and this may have an impact on the ballot box.
However, if the subsidies remain because 'the public wants it this way', the national budget deficit will balloon. The public will then become the scapegoat(!), and some quarters might argue that those entrusted to manage the taxpayers' money will have the opportunity to 'wash its hands clean'.
Hence, it is vital to establish objectively as to why the huge national budget deficit has become the issue.
The conclusion of the matter is that this subsidy thing is not as straight-forward as it might first appear. One would need to read between the line and behind the line! Can anyone enlighten us further?
Also, the current feverish efforts in attributing the large subsidy as a major cause of the national budget deficit, as well as inviting the public to comment on the subsidies, are clever ways in shaping public perception on the cause-and-effect linkage, some quarters argue.
Some are also wondering why the deafening silence on the perceived direct correlation between high public spending and national budget deficit. They also wonder why the latter had increased markedly, and which periods (ie, which particular months and years) did public spending show a sharp increase.
Why the borrowing and who were the real target groups of the pump-priming fiscal efforts? Equally important, what are the tangible outcomes, including the impact on the national budget deficit ratio as a percentage of gross domestic product? Has the budget deficit becomes unsustainable?
Then, there is this reported statement that 'the public would have the final say on whether expensive subsidies would be cut'. How will Malaysians know the public actually are in favour or otherwise? In the first place, is there an independent, thorough and professional survey being conducted on the subsidy issue?
Can a one-day event to gather public feedback be regarded as a proper sample size for about 28 million of Malaysians? Is the survey scientifically conducted? Will the method of survey and the findings be up for public audit by independent and professional parties?
Some quarters are also concerned that a rather limited number of survey participants are being solicited for their views, which later are used to shape or justify a major public policy relating to subsidy reduction.
The above seems to be a double-edged sword - if the policy action is justified on (limited) public feedback that says 'go ahead and cut the subsidies', then the national budget deficit numbers are likely to look good and show a downward trend over the years. However, those directly affected by the subsidy cuts are unlikely to be happy, and this may have an impact on the ballot box.
However, if the subsidies remain because 'the public wants it this way', the national budget deficit will balloon. The public will then become the scapegoat(!), and some quarters might argue that those entrusted to manage the taxpayers' money will have the opportunity to 'wash its hands clean'.
Hence, it is vital to establish objectively as to why the huge national budget deficit has become the issue.
The conclusion of the matter is that this subsidy thing is not as straight-forward as it might first appear. One would need to read between the line and behind the line! Can anyone enlighten us further?
Comments