Will there be accountability from subsidy removals?

 

In February 2010, Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob, who was then the domestic trade, consumer affairs and cooperatives minister, chaired a long and absorbing discussion on the removal of subsidies.

The room was packed with high-level government officers, and I was one of the few "outsiders" who were invited to discuss the issue, and there was diversity in the responses.

For too long, we have been used to and have adapted ourselves to the "subsidy mentality". For too long, the government has adopted the "rob Peter to pay Paul" theory. For too long, we have lived in comfort zones knowing well that the government would intervene to afford us "protection" when prices go up on the global commodity markets.

Increasing taxes or cutting subsidies are never popular measures and are painful too for the government as well as the people.

Subsequently, I penned an opinion column and, among others, I noted: "No one will object to cuts in subsidies if they know that the money will be used rightfully on projects that benefit the nation and the people as a whole.

"It was even suggested (at that meeting) that the money 'saved' from such an exercise should be put into a separate account and the government be transparent and accountable in the use of the 'savings'. If five sen is saved from sugar, let the public know how it is spent."

I posed a number of questions: "Why should the owner of a Perodua Kancil (that's what he can afford) be subsiding the owner of a Hummer who overtakes him on the highway?

"Why should the tobacco farmer in Pasir Mas who cycles to his farm subsidise the city folk who even drive their BMWs from their homes to the nearby sundry shop?

"Why should the man tending his fish pond in Malim Nawar subsidise the owner of a limo who is chauffeur-driven to a six-star restaurant for his dinner in Kuala Lumpur?"

Scoring brownie points

Twelve years later, we are at it again – removing subsidies because there was no follow-up on the discussions, and it was business as usual in the government.

On May 19, Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Alexander Nanta Linggi said the government has been able to keep the subsidy system that allows people to purchase essential items at affordable prices, despite global uncertainties.

It is difficult, he said, to continue selling necessities at cheap prices amid the bleak global economic situation.

"There are a lot of contributing factors to this situation, among them the rising prices of raw materials around the world, the drop in currency, conflicts among producing countries and others," he was quoted as saying.

For good measure, and with the general election impending, like many politicians, Alexander did not miss scoring brownie points: "The people in the country are very fortunate that the government can maintain the subsidy system for some essential needs to ensure the well-being of the people is protected."

Later, Finance Minister Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz dropped a bombshell of sorts saying that the government is expected to fork out more subsidies this year - RM71 billion, with petrol subsidies alone touching RM30 billion amid the rise in crude oil prices.

So, it can be said that the government will continue to give the same fuel subsidy to the delivery men and to those having a fleet of luxury cars in underground garages.

Finance Minister Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz

System lacks integrity

We have been told that a mechanism is being worked out, and it will be interesting to ask how soon such a system will be implemented. This is compulsory and loaded – have we not heard of numerous grandiose plans being announced that never saw the light of day?

Now that the government has removed subsidies to chicken farmers amounting to RM729 million, it will be interesting to ask how this "saving" will be used to alleviate the burden of low-income earners.

Because when there's money, there will be abuse and misuse. Our system lacks integrity, and the lists of applicants have in the past been bloated and inflated by those responsible for drawing them.

In one case, the list for one village increased from about 50 to over 200 because someone had added on names of relatives and friends after hearing of an impending "welfare assistance".

So, it is a difficult call for the government, especially at a time when certain leaders are clamouring for the dissolution of Parliament.

But the least the government can do is to be accountable for the savings from the withdrawal of subsidies to chicken farmers. No blanket political statements that "we will give the aid directly".

The government should open its books on the expenditure and, with modern technology, account for every sen. After all, some elected representatives post such details on their websites, and there is no reason for the government not to do so.

Otherwise, it will end up spending it on yet another 100-member rombongan (entourage) overseas junket. - Mkini

---

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist and writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.