Targeting T20 isn't reform - it's political theatrics

 

YOURSAY | 'T20 are net contributors to public revenue.'

Remember corrupt ex-PM? Harapan Youth to Umno counterpart on 'T20 fuel cut'

Grizzled Warrior: The proposal by Umno Youth chief Dr Akmal Saleh to strip the T20 of RON95 subsidies deserves scrutiny - not because the intention is wrong, but because the framing is lazy, the execution risks are real, and the political lineage of this idea is inconvenient for those now endorsing it.

• The economic case is weaker than advertised

The touted RM1.5 billion monthly saving assumes a clean, functional mechanism to identify and exclude T20 users - one that does not yet exist for RON95. Malaysia’s targeted diesel subsidy took years to operationalise and remains imperfect. Savings are theoretical until the system works.

There is also a definitional problem. T20 is a household income bracket, not a measure of disposable capacity. A dual‑income household barely above the M40 ceiling is technically T20.

A single professional supporting dependants may have less discretionary income than many in the M40. Income brackets tell us nothing about actual ability to absorb higher fuel costs.

Government data shows average Budi95 usage is about 100 litres monthly, with nearly 90 percent consuming under 200 litres. The T20 are not disproportionate consumers of subsidised petrol. The “fiscal leakage” narrative is far louder in politics than in reality,

• The governance concern

The T20 are net contributors to public revenue. They fund B40 transfers, cash aid, and the civil service wage bill. To frame removing their subsidy as equity ignores that they already subsidise everyone else through taxes. Taking away and giving back is not redistribution. It is “wayang” (theatrics).

• No one is lily white

Akmal’s call to “re‑rationalise” subsidies are not new. It is a retail version of a narrative the prime minister has pushed since taking office. Anwar Ibrahim repeatedly framed the “maha kaya” (ultra-rich) as indifferent or exploitative, without defining who qualifies.

The ambiguity was politically useful. Umno Youth simply replaced “maha kaya” with “T20” and presented it as policy. The intellectual lineage is unchanged; only the messenger has shifted.

Pakatan Harapan Youth chief Woo Kah Leong’s objection that hostility solves nothing is fair - but ironic, given the coalition’s own role in normalising that hostility.

• What should be said plainly

Targeted subsidies are correct in principle. But implementation requires honest definitions, honest mechanisms, and honest acknowledgement of who funds the system.

The T20 are not the enemy of fiscal sustainability; they are often its foundation. Stripping their subsidy while continuing the “maha kaya” narrative is not reform. It is scapegoating dressed as prudence.

And those now objecting to Akmal’s proposal should admit this conversation began at the top of their own government.

Undecided: I agree to most of the points raised. Both Akmal and Woo statements are not without basis, but they should not be discussed through a racial lens. For T20 to be excluded is in my view not a good way. Maybe T5 or T10 as they are in a better position to afford it.

However, Woo should not goad Akmal by challenging him to put it in Umno's manifesto as Akmal is also excluded.

Kita Orangbiasa: The T20 pay high taxes to support and fund the subsidy for M40 and B40. How illogical can it be to withdraw the subsidy for the T20.

Well coming from Akmal and Umno, it has to be silly.

LimeHorse5802: I agree that the T20 should not be singled out for fuel subsidy removal, but not for the reasons raised by Woo. His argument is largely political and centred on the legacy of 1MDB and the corruption associated with a former prime minister. While that episode undeniably damaged Malaysia, reducing every fiscal debate to 1MDB risks obscuring a deeper structural problem.

Malaysia and Norway both emerged as major petroleum producers in the 1970s, yet their economic trajectories diverged sharply. Norway built long-term fiscal resilience and one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds.

Malaysia, however, exhibits many symptoms of what economist Richard M Auty described in the term called “The Resource Curse”: delayed reforms, weakened competitiveness, dependence on resource revenues, and the rise of politically convenient but economically distortive policies. Like it or not, Malaysia has experienced elements of this cycle.

Some argue that Malaysia is now a net oil importer and therefore cannot rely on the old petroleum narrative. That may be technically true, but the issue is not today’s production balance.

Decades of resource dependence have already shaped Malaysia’s fiscal habits, industrial policies, subsidy structures, and political decision-making culture. These institutional effects do not vanish simply because the country’s net energy position changes.

When fiscal pressures rise, the easiest political response is often to target the T20, even though this group already contributes significantly to direct taxes, consumption taxes, and economic activity. Is it unreasonable for citizens - who are collective owners of national resources - to receive some benefit from oil revenues through subsidies?

The same structural issue appears in Malaysia’s electronic vehicle policy. The government promotes energy transition, yet policies such as the RM250,000 CBU EV threshold place many imported EVs out of reach even for a large segment of the T20.

This suggests that policy is driven not only by transition goals but also by the need to protect domestic industrial ecosystems from open competition.

Resource revenues have long provided enough fiscal cushioning to delay difficult reforms, leaving consumers to bear the cost through higher prices, reduced competition, and slower technological adoption. Protecting local industry is understandable, but protection cannot become permanent insulation.

The debate should therefore move beyond “rich versus poor” or endlessly revisiting 1MDB. The real question is whether Malaysia is finally prepared to undertake the structural reforms needed to escape the long shadow of the resource curse. - Mkini