Election promises that are hardly progressive

 

From Kua Kia Soong

In the run-up to the 15th general election (GE15), we are likely to witness the various coalitions promising “the moon” in their yet-to-be-seen manifestos.

GE14 was perhaps the general election which blew apart the insincerity of Pakatan Harapan (PH) after they had won. Their prime minister-elect, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, scoffed at the idea that they had to make good on their election promises:

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Ads by 

“The pre-election manifesto is not a bible that has to be followed and abided by religiously.”

Populist policies espoused by politicians are not necessarily progressive. Progressive policies are those that manage our precious resources well for the well-being of all and make a significant and sustainable difference to the lives of the B40 as well.

Those populist policies which at first glance sound egalitarian, namely free water, toll-free highways and free tertiary education, are not progressive at all on closer examination.

There was a fourth policy, regarding the abolition of the goods and services tax (GST) by PH in 2018, which also failed to be progressive since it was the middle class and the rich who enjoyed the most from the removal of GST.

1. Toll-free highways

DAP’s Lim Guan Eng has already started the season’s populist promises by saying that PH will do away with highway tolls if they win. So, why didn’t they do it in 2018-2020? We will only know after GE15 if this promise will be made good.

The question is to what extent would this be a progressive move? Malaysians who care about fair wealth redistribution and a better public transport system must examine whether it is right for those who cannot afford cars to subsidise the middle-class car owners who use these highways.

Unsurprisingly, this populist demand will go down well with the middle- and upper-class car owners who benefit most from our ever-expanding highways.

The way the highways have been privatised to crony capitalists is a separate matter. Any toll collection should be undertaken by the government and not private concessionaires.

But why should the poor and all those who cannot afford cars have to subsidise highway users — which they effectively do if these highways are made toll-free?

Car-centric populist policies, such as cheap petrol, subsidised cars and never-ending highways in the sky, do not solve our transport woes. Rather, they result in increased congestion, heightened CO2 emissions and pollution, and fewer precious green spaces, all of which deplete our mental and physical well-being.

Progressive policies, as seen elsewhere, put people first, enhancing community-centric areas with accessibility to the network of alternative public transportation so that the need for vehicle ownership disappears.

Such a policy would mean saving billions now spent on new never-ending highways. And for those essential car journeys to city centres, carpooling and a congestion charge (as in Singapore and London) could make the Kuala Lumpur city centre a breathable pleasure to visit.

Such policies would thus improve the well-being of all urban dwellers. In addition, highway tolls could be waived to minimise the cost of using long-distance buses, and thus benefit the B40 and the less well-off M40. That would be progressive.

The automobile imposes immeasurably large environmental and health costs on society. Once we get people driving less, our air would be far cleaner and there will be more political will to build a more extensive public transport system that benefits everyone, especially the B40.

2. Free tertiary education for all

Another populist election promise is free tertiary education for all. This sounds like good, heart-warming stuff. Free tertiary education for the working class and the poor is of course progressive and laudable.

But if we provide free tertiary education for all, irrespective of their means, this is equivalent to the working class subsidising the rich and middle class. And why shouldn’t the rich pay more to subsidise the working class and the poor?

This is because the statistics show that individuals from middle-class backgrounds are more likely to go to university, and free tuition would mean that they would benefit more from the tax revenue that we all pay, including the B40.

A progressive way forward would be to provide free tertiary education to families on a means-tested sliding scale: For example, those families in the B40 should be eligible for totally free tertiary education while those from the M40 would pay tuition fees on a means-tested sliding scale and the T20 should pay full tuition fees.

This policy worked well in post-war Britain under the then Labour government.

3. Free water for all

First and foremost, water is a finite resource. In 2014, I described the free water policy by the Selangor PH-run state government as “populism gone mad” at a time when Selangor and other parts of the country were experiencing critical water shortages during the prevailing drought. The ensuing water crises were further warning that this populist policy is misplaced.

Free water is not like any other populist handout — there are dire consequences. The Orang Asli community in Kuala Kubu Baru had to sacrifice their traditional ancestral homes in 1999 in the construction of the Selangor river dam, alleged to be the only option to satisfy the water demands of the Klang Valley.

Even if some Malaysians remain unmoved about the displacement of indigenous peoples for dam projects, the personal and economic discomfort Klang Valley folk have experienced during water shortages ought to be enough to warn us all of the impending catastrophic water crises to come.

As this precious resource becomes increasingly scarce, it is clear that future wars will be fought over access to water. It is not a free infinite resource.

When water tariffs are too low (never mind free), consumers neither respect nor conserve water. The statistics on the water consumption rate of Malaysians speak for themselves. The current water shortage and looming water crisis has accelerated because of population growth and erratic rain patterns. The crisis should wake Malaysians up to the urgent need for water demand management.

Water demand management is a form of progressive taxation. It sets targets for per capita water use and reductions in non-revenue water. Malaysia is blessed to be among the countries in the world with abundant rainwater, yet we are the worst squanderers of this natural resource.

We have many times more water than most African countries and yet we are facing a water shortage crisis. According to Water Watch Penang, Malaysians are among the worst water wasters in the world, with a national average water consumption of 212 litres per capita per day, when 20 to 30 litres of water per person per day is considered adequate for basic human needs.

Urban Malaysians are worse – they use more than 500 litres per capita per day.

A comprehensive water demand management policy would include changes to building by-laws, through subsidising the installation of water-saving devices in business and residential properties and through giving industry incentives to switch to water-efficient technologies, besides incentives to household consumers to conserve water.

We have yet to see a serious water conservation campaign in this country, one which not only encourages household and industrial consumers to conserve but also provides imaginative fiscal incentives to conserve water without affecting productivity.

The same can be said for the lack of a serious energy conservation campaign. Unless this is done, we will continue to see the wasteful attitude to water usage in this country and the needless building of dams.

Giving away free water makes a mockery of water demand management. In fact, water demand management would involve making sure the middle class and the rich, who get their foreign maids to wash their precious cars every day, pay more for the luxury.

When Malaysians start collecting our plentiful rainwater for their gardening and cleaning needs, only then will we be on our way to becoming an environmentally conscious people and to have a sustainable lifestyle.

There must be a deterrent to anyone who wastes this precious resource, with a sliding scale of water tariffs to benefit those who are in the low-income bracket.

Thus, the B40 households would pay the absolute minimal water tariff while the T20 households would pay the maximum tariff. The M40 would have to pay a tariff that is somewhere between the two extremes, just enough to encourage water conservation.

To conclude, we should always be savvy about the promises made by politicians during elections. They are populist but not necessarily progressive for the community, for the greater society or the planet.

It is time we introduced means-testing in tertiary education tuition fees and other social services, such as public housing or social security benefits, as a means of progressive taxation to benefit the less privileged and to implement wealth redistribution. - FMT

Kua Kia Soong is a human rights defender and a former MP.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.