Let’s face it, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and highway tolls are not popular, while the Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) is being looked at with disdain, especially by those not receiving it.
The GST, BR1M and highway tolls are a political trifecta of sorts — you place your bet that they will deliver the votes come election time. For politicians, making the right noises on these three may get them the appropriate headlines.
The establishment of a new political party, and alliance, and the anticipation of a general election provided an opportunity to take out the proverbial political chestnuts.
Not many people like the GST and toll for an obvious reason — we do not want to part with our money. I don’t like them, too, but grudgingly admit their necessity.
The GST is said to bring in RM40 billion to the government’s coffers. Now, some politicians promised to scrap it once they come to power. How will they fill up the RM40 billion hole in the national budget?
Does it mean the roll back in individuals’ or corporations’ income taxes following the implementation of GST will not come to fruition? Will there be a new, better, broad-based consumption tax, where everyone who can afford contributes to nation building?
The GST has shown to be our saviour the past couple of years of not so good economic times, when corporations paid less taxes, and royalties, such as from oil and gas, were on the decline. In fact, it kept us solvent, and the country ticking, regardless of a drastic fall in other revenue.
In the 1980s, the government embarked on the then controversial privatisation policy, which essentially transferred assets and services to the private sector in the hope that their economic potentials could be unlocked and their services, improved.
The other key objective is to direct government spending and resources to more pressing social and economic issues. The private sector, tapping non-government fund, would offer products and services that the government would have difficulty in meeting at the speed and quality needed.
One of the consequences of this policy was private roads and highways, in which the owners and operators had the right to impose charges for use of their assets. Most of these roads were in urban areas, especially in the Klang Valley, for obvious reasons — they are great catchment areas with million of cars and people, but more important, they
are in desperate need for road solutions that the government could not provide because of its other obligations.
As private enterprises, they raise funds for the building, maintenance and operation of their roads, and in return, they collect tolls over their concession periods. Investors, at home and abroad, gave out loans and bought bonds issued.
As a result, one could not just cancel or buy out existing contracts or bonds and debt papers without
any cost or consequences to the nation.
Incidentally, the softening of some opponents to BR1M — it could be retained if it is done correctly — is a tacit approval, grudgingly, that maybe, there is something to the aid scheme.
Their suggesting that seven
million Malaysians, of all political leanings, who received it last year, are cheap by being susceptible to “bribes” of a few hundred ringgit, is taking their condescension of us voters too far.
Anyway, those complaining about BR1M are likely not recipients, and could not know the impact of even a small amount on individuals or families.
One cannot dismiss the RM40 billion hole in our revenue every year, nor the billions needed to nationalise the 30 or so highways, without telling us how and what the consequences are on us.
This reminded me of United States President Donald Trump’s promise of building a wall, a beautiful one at that, along the US-Mexican border to stop illegal immigrants, and getting the Mexicans to pay for it. It really sounded good on the campaign trail, but really?
If we have issues with how the government is spending the money, whether it is lavish or unwise, then we take it up via a political process during the elections.
The issue of government revenue, which is to make sure the country functions and keeps on ticking,
however, should be separated from this.
Whoever runs the country, can
only do so if there are enough funds. If you have problems with the GST, for example, fix it and resist the temptation of using tax cuts as lures for votes.
We should expect a lot of maturity and sensibilities from our leaders from both sides, and they must be circumspect and not too enamoured by bright lights of the populist wave.
Promise us the goods, but tell us how, too.
Zainul Arifin, a former NSTP group managing editor, is now a social media observer