What is a ‘people-friendly’ budget?

The government recently tabled and will likely pass the Budget 2016, the first of the 11th Malaysia Plan, in Parliament.

It’s become an annual ritual of sorts. In the run-up to the budget, the prime minister officiates Barisan Nasional (BN) component annual general meetings. He receives requests from the various parties. He then promises to look into these requests, indicating usually that his hands are tied to the relative amount of support he garnered from those communities.

He will then without fail declare that it will be a "people’s" or "people-friendly" budget. Not a year passes by without it being a "people-friendly" budget. However the definitions of which people, whose people and what "friendly" means remain quite a mystery.

Does it mean people-friendly where it is meant for people, as opposed to animals, or plants or minerals?

Does it mean people-friendly where upon receiving the awesome, wholesome good news of the budget, people will be much happier and therefore friendlier to one and another?

Or maybe they would be friendlier and warm up to the government?

Does it mean people-friendly, where people who are friendly get the most from the budget?

Definitions have never really been a Malaysian strong point. After all, until today we still cannot decide on what is seditious and what isn’t.

The good prime minister will then usually dress up in a smart traditional outfit, carrying a "heavy" bag of "goodies" to Parliament. Hundreds of thousands of people will then wait with bated breath to see if the budget affects them or not.

Students will await freebies or discounts on college and university fees and allocations for scholarships. The business community awaits tax breaks or the loosening of conservative business restrictions.

Government servants await their bonus announcements and whether they can look forward to any increments that year. Retirees from the government await their usual token sum, usually is a fraction of what their serving duty juniors are getting.

Drinkers and smokers hope and pray to God that their sin tax will not increase.

Within half an hour after the budget, national TV stations will hold discussions with panellists, usually academics and economists, on budget rights, and most will receive the budget positively, albeit with minor criticism.

The next few days after the budget, the post-announcement rituals take place. Some quarters announce their dissatisfaction over the budget. Various ministries then respond and smoothen things over.

Usually, political parties friendly to the government record their appreciation to the government and try to claim credit for allocations for various religious and racial groups, as indication of their tireless efforts in securing those allocations from the government.

And of course, no sitting opposition would ever be impressed with any government budget. If they were, they wouldn’t be sitting on the opposition bench anymore.

But is this the best way to do things?

As a nation, why are we still drawing up the budget by race?

While the Bumiputera or Orang Asli's separate allocation is understandable, why is there for instance separate small medium enterprise (SME) allocations between the Chinese and Indians?

If things like PR1MA and BR1M can be, much to its credit, race-neutral, why the need to distinguish between races for things like aid programmes?

While appeasing various communities under our colonial system may have worked, should we not be looking at economic requirements based on needs rather than ethnicity?

Do we assess the efficacy of government programmes before deciding to continue with them or not? For example, complaints by the medical community on 1Malaysia clinics, or reports of abuse of the 1Malaysia book vouchers?

While universities should be encouraged to source for their own endowments – and the larger universities have proven themselves in this area – was it a good move to reduce allocations for the smaller and less established universities, especially with increasing costs and devalued ringgit?

No one budget can please everyone. On a positive note, we seem to be maturing on some fronts: the recognition and steps taken to close the deficit gap is a positive move that should be given credit, as is the move to reduce the number of taxable services under the goods and services tax (GST).

However, perhaps better consultation with the middle- to lower-income population wants would place the government in better touch with realities on the ground – such as the very real effect of the weakened ringgit and lower spending power.

A road map that showcases the long-term strategy of the 11th Malaysia Plan as opposed to tactical piecemeal announcements on an annual basis would enable the people to better plan their own financial strategies – and make the "people-friendly" budget... a bit more… "people friendly". – October 27, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.