By S.C.
Key Budget Allocations
The budget allocations listed in the budget speech are indeed astonishing and represent a long litany of projects and allocations, the direct beneficiaries of which appear to be special interests and well connected individuals.
This should be no surprise as the budget has become the chosen means to distribute corporate welfare with a few sops for the public at large. One may well ask why billions more are being channelled to infrastructure at a point in time when the economy is in greater need to strengthen institutions, develop human capital and to widen the safety net programmes to protect the weak and the vulnerable elements of our population.
For instance, why is it necessary to have TNB invest RM5 billion to expand electricity generation and distribution given that overcapacity exists? Why is it that RM3.5 billion is allocated for infrastructure and basic amenities and training programmes and socio-economic projects to support implementation of private sector projects? Is not the private sector capable of undertaking these types of projects that benefit the sector? The Prime Minister announced that the Government will provide subsidies, incentives and assistance amounting to some RM2 billion to farmers and fishermen to safeguard their interests.
It is legitimate to ask why it is necessary to increase subsidies at a point in time when efforts are being made to scale back subsidies which amount to a very large component of Government expenditure (RM24 billion in total subsidies) of Government operating expenditure. How can this inconsistency be explained?
Although the Prime Minister took great pains to list at length the expenditure proposals and allocations — perhaps to project a “feel good” factor— he was somewhat cryptic in announcing the cuts in spending in the coming year. He announced that spending cuts would come from:
-
reduced operating expenditure, seen down by 13.7 per cent in 2010 at RM138.3 billion;
-
lower development spending, seen down 4.5 per cent to RM50.6 billion;
-
Further reductions in food and fuel subsidies which are projected to fall by 14.7 per cent in 2010 to RM20.9 billion.
No further details were provided as to the areas of expenditure cuts. The Prime Minister should table a paper providing full details concerning the proposed cuts. Transparency and accountability must exist if the credibility of the Government is to be enhanced.
The Prime Minister’s commitment to eliminate hardcore poverty by the end of the next fiscal year must be welcomed. However, it is somewhat incredible that it has taken over 50 years of BN rule and the spending of billions of ringgit to reach that stage! It is indeed a sad commentary that mega projects have been a higher priority than the elimination of hardcore poverty.
The recently released Auditor General’s Report has yet again castigated the Government for the lax procurement procedures that permit abuse and mismanagement of public funds. It is clear that the adoption of a system of competitive bidding in Government purchases would result in savings of billions of ringgit and reduce the extent of corruption.
Adopting such practices continues to be resisted vigorously by the BN Government. It is indeed scandalous that a basic measure of this nature does not truly feature in the Government’s agenda in order to achieve savings, cut waste and improve public administration. It is legitimate to ask as to why basic reforms of this nature are resisted. Is it because of the need to ensure that the few and favoured are protected at the cost of millions ordinary taxpayers?
Revenue Measures
The ballooning budget deficit can be rightly attributed to the explosion in spending. However, it is important that we take account of what has happened on the revenue side.
Over the years, the Government’s tax policies have become skewed. The nation has become more and more dependent on income from oil and gas revenues. These revenues are derived from the exploitation of wasting assets. Their misuse is depriving future generation of Malaysians of their patrimony.
Available data indicate that the contribution to total Federal revenues from this source exceeds 40 percent. As a consequence the tax base has become narrower. The narrowing of the tax base has also seen a shift in the tax burden.
Although no details are available, consumption taxes that fall on the shoulders of ordinary consumers have gradually increased while more and more concessions and rebates are extended to corporate entities. These distributions of the largess are justified by the Government on the grounds that the private sector needs to be encouraged and provided with incentives to invest and create employment. However, this assertion has never been tested by way of a rigorous study of the impact of tax policies on growth.
Evidence from other countries supports the view that tax incentives to businesses play a minor role in drawing FDI and in encouraging domestic private investment. Global studies of what drives FDI indicate that taxes play a small role in investment decisions. It is good governance, the existence of the rule of law and the absence of corruption and over regulation that have a vitally important role in private sector development.
The Prime Mister made much of the need to develop and put in place a new economic model but gave no details of what would be incorporated in such a model. Lest it become yet again another slogan, the Prime Minister should begin the process by instituting a full and rigorous study of the tax system. A new system of taxation that reduces the dependence on oil and gas revenues, that provides a more balanced burden sharing and does away with “corporate welfare” for the chosen few is urgently needed. These measures are imperative in order to set the stage for a new economic model.
Turning to the new revenue measures announced by the Prime Minister, it is clear that little or no thought has been given to the impact of these taxes on the overall macro-economic picture. With the projected cuts in public spending, the economy will face a contraction – in effect the stimulus will be withdrawn. Economic revival in 2010 will thus critically depend to a larger extent on the revival of private consumption. Yet, the imposition of the tax on credit cards and the re-introduction of the real estate tax will impact adversely on households and directly and indirectly curb household expenditures. This is clearly a contradiction between policy goals and government actions.
The other tax changes impacting on individuals e.g. the reduction in the income tax rate from 27 to 26 percent and the level of exemptions announced in the budget are for the most cosmetic and offer marginal relief to hard pressed workers. In any event these changes will benefit the narrow band of high income individuals and have no impact on the bulk of wage earners and small traders.
Studies indicate that the income disparities between the rich and the poor have widened in Malaysia. Indeed, Malaysia has one of the worst income distribution patterns in the region. The budget sadly contained no measures to address this issue. Cynically, not even a mention was made of this grave issue.
#1 by limkamput on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 9:27 am
Certainly prolong and large deficit is unsustainable and unacceptable. But this government has been incurring deficit since 1998 whether the economy was doing good or bad. During many of those years since 1998, it was claimed that deficit as percent of GDP has come down. But this was achieved with the massive securitization of government assets and injection of Petronas dividend. I understand now the government is again looking at some prime land in KL for sale again.
There is another issue which I would like to highlight. Don’t be fooled by deficit coming down as the percentage of GDP. If you look at the absolute amount of deficit, it has been consistently staying above RM20 billion a year. In fact in recent years, it has escalated to more than RM40 to RM50 billion. Please bear in mind that deficit are “real” number while GDP numbers are at best “guesstimate”.
For 2010, the deficit of 5.6% GDP is a forecast number announced during the Budget when it has the attention of everybody. In the course of the year, there are bound to have supplementary budgets, i.e. the government spending first and seeking approval from the parliament later. The actual 2010 deficit could be very different from the forecast. For example, the 2009 forecast deficit was much lower than the now estimated 2009 deficit of 7.4%. The same situation may happen in 2010 if the expenditure is deliberately “under-estimated” in the Budget just to look good. We have to wait and see.
Lots of government spending were indeed wasteful and in many instances constituted transfer payments which have little impact on generation income and capacity building. It is not the size of the spending; it is how the spending is done. If a laptop was priced as RM40,000 a unit, it is inefficient spending. With such an exorbitant price, may I know how many laptops the government can buy even though the allocation provided was large? The next is spending effectiveness. If lots of government spending have gone to conducting endless and meaningless seminars in the hotels instead of building more roads or cleaning up all the clogged drains, no amount of money would be sufficient to run this government. Where did the bulk of money in the stimulus packages go to? Let me see, grants to certain privileged people, “seminaring” at expensive hotels, putting up colourful lights, furnishing offices (have you seen Liow Tiong Lai’s office in video?), building ugly cement features all over the country, recruiting and paying people who has no work.
If we have less money, we must prioritise, redeploy, and be more frugal and stringent. I strongly believe we can achieve the same objectives with less money, if only we know how to manage better. I think all these were not emphasized.
#2 by jbozz on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 10:42 am
Hail the new Dictator! Let the neo Nazi decide the fate of 23 million Malaysian.
1Malaysia 2Perak 3Katak
#3 by Godfather on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 11:48 am
Look closely at the boards of GLCs like TNB and KTM. There’s always a Chinaman and an Indian there. Sometimes these individuals are total unknowns in industry or commercial circles. Do you know why they were put there or who put them there?
During Mamakthir’s time, there were pressure from minority BN component parties to have their nominees on the boards of GLCs, especially those with high expenditure budgets, so that these component parties could also noiminate their contractors for such expenditure. Mamakthir would hand out cookies this way to appease people like Ling or Semi Value, but the bulk of the contracts would always be decided by UMNO. This practice continues to this day under Najis, and hence there will always be capital expenditure in any budget. Furthermore, the concept of open tender would never be implemented, and overpricing would never be eliminated.
#4 by tenaciousB on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 12:38 pm
just like ananda krishnan who’s the brainchild behind astro and maxis and all the satellites malaysia ever sent into space. i wonder where’s the bumi fellow? and airasia that single handedly overthrew the national carrier malaysian airlines..boohooo, what a joke, where’s the bumi again?
#5 by tenaciousB on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 12:42 pm
In fact i suggest airasia should be the national airline carrier. MAS is such haphazardly managed by bumis that it’s a joke just like proton is. lol
#6 by undertaker888 on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 1:55 pm
we live in this country long enough to know if it involves an umnoputra in charged of a company it is doomed to fail with 99.9999% probability. Gaya mesti ada, rugi tak apa. Gobermen boleh bail out.
Some companies are making money not because of efficiencies or innovations but merely based on monopoly and protectionism. An example is tenaga. More profits to them mean naik harga. The rakyat has no choice but to pay. Po-rah!!
#7 by k1980 on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 2:09 pm
Oh Jib, please award me a contract to supply RM42,000 laptops to government departments. After merely 1,000 such orders, I can afford to close shop and retire on the millions in my bank.
#8 by dbgovt1 on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 3:44 pm
“There are currently 9.8 million principal and 1.3 million supplementary credit cards issued at the moment, according to statistics from Bank Negara.
Going by these figures, the Government stands to earn about RM555mil every year from the soon-to-be imposed tax.”
So with those figure 10% into pocket…kaya lor…
#9 by LG on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 8:06 pm
If you look into the details of the 2010 budget, you can see Najib is like Prince John robbing the poor and giving it to his rich cronies.
He’s totally opposite Obama today Robin Hood. An example the tax deduction who benefit the most – the rich and the richer and the richest, of course. Unlike Obama would tax the rich and give them to the poor.
The RM 50 tax for a credit card who will suffer the most. The poor shouldn’t have any credit card. We the lower income group must carry cash instead of card – for the rich to rob? The annual inspection for car more than 15 year old by Puspakom who suffer the most and who will gain the most – AP extend 2015???. I can see many poor probably will lose their old cars. They can afford to buy a bicycle cos’ now is more taxing for those who ride motorbike using RON 95 instead of RON 92.
The property gain tax who suffer the most. The seller will probably transfer the cost to the buyer. Somebody got to lose the money. Who is gain the money? And so on ……
Yes, in the budget Najib slyly give some candies in exchange and keeping bragging that he is taking care of the poor.
The revenue gain thro’ taxes by the Government for what purposes? to buy submarines, helicopters, etc at a ridiculous high prices ( billions or ringgit ) with direct negiotiation instead of open tender and called that Government’s official secret??? Mega projects like PKFZ with so much corruption yet MACC cannot singled out any culprit .. A laptop RM 42,000? Plundering Rakyat money! Yes he going to make only his cronies an extra super high income group.
#10 by monsterball on Sunday, 1 November 2009 - 10:47 pm
I have never been interested in UMNO’s budget.
Selfish ulterior motives to cover up…to benefit few and to squeeze water out of stone….to beef up UMNO’s kitty….to fool ordinary Malaysians….all there.
Never been sincere. That’s their mentalities and attitudes…..the trademark of all UMNO politicians and minsters. Naturally…Najib have to be the best in all those qualities to be UMNO PM.
#11 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 7:34 am
Budgets (not just in third world or developing countries like Malaysia but also first world like for eg the USA) will favour “special interests and well connected individuals” with some “balance” of show of “protecting the weak and the vulnerable elements of our population.” We question the balance but cannot eliminate the “special interests and well connected individuals” parts.
For it is natural that politicians in political power just like businessmen in corporate/economic power will look to stay in power and the only way to do this is to create networks between government and business that support each other in the best tradition of the culture of “Crony Capitalism”!
So a politician calling the shots will, in distribution of budget allocations, skew in favour of areas benefiting their political and business patrons in appreciation of political loyalty and campaign contributions although all the time justifying these areas under national and public interest.
If for example party chieftains and their business patrons in Johore – the bastion of UMNO – need projects/contracts etc then allocate benefits of budget to Iskandar! Or if some relative or friend or business crony involved in big way in an industry/business, give tax relief for that.
How to avoid political corruption when winning elections and thereafter staying in power requires money, someone out there has to raise it for you, and no one will do it for you without quid pro quo something something given in return? The world especially those of capitalistic system revolves around this politics/business incestuous relationship, the captains of both sides need each other to stay at the helm (at publics expense). You go to a socialistic/communist country like Vietnam or China – is it any different? Here the central politbureau/committee will do the same more directly with less pretentions and hypocrisy!
Just so we don’t think that it happens only in 3rd world like here, take two simple examples in (say) the bastion of 1st world democracy, the United States.
Under bush Administration: first start a war in Iraq in some unproven justification of Saddam having Weapons of Mass Destruction. After overthrowing him have a govt agency – the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) – tasked with reconstruction of Iraq. Then allocate money from budget to CPA as defence expenditure before awarding jobs and no bid contracts to Halliburton connected to leadership by way of either Vice president Dick Cheney’s association and/or campaign contributions. Busdh installed cronies in all corners of the government, regardless of their qualifications.
So People got angry, and demanded change from Republican President to Democrat’s Obama. Any difference? He has more cronies than Bush. Campaign contributions getting him to power top the list of all presidential candidates! He does not need to return favours? Tell that to the Marines!
The latest: Chicago Mayor Richard M Daley backed Obama in presidential primary. Obama praised Daley for stewardship of Chicago, headed for Copenhagan to bring to Chicago Olympic circus of $4 billion contracts. Taxpayers in cash strapped Chicago with ½ billion deficit are worried but what to do? Who stands to benefit? The cronies of Obama & Daley including developers and PR consultants who contributed to Obama’s campaign and eventual victory.
Thats the real world (not Utopia) anywhere.
Only a difference in scale, degress and disguises that distingish whether one way is blatant/crass and the other more sophisticated (for the “people’s interest”) – but basic modus operandi of politicians the same!
#12 by Taxidriver on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 7:41 am
RED DOT=Lee Kuan Yew……Wow!…..Goh Chok Tong…..Wwoow!!…..Lee Hsien Long…..Wwooow!!!
BOLEHLAND=Mahalteh…..Wahlah!…..Droollah…..Wahlia!!…..Najis…..Wahlan!!!
#13 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 8:00 am
In the Utopian world, we think of best system and best practices. We see through rose tainted lens and talk and measure in idealistic and ethical terms in fashion of Utilitarianism formulated by John Stuart’s father Jeremy Bentham – that what counts in ethical terms is that which benefits the greatest number in society and country. This is an aspiration, and it is needed because in reality, it is law of the Jungle, and within a system you either take advantage or are taken advantage of. Most times we’re both depending which aspect is more pronounced. As a voter one’s hard earned tax money is often frittered by those political custodians to their and their cronies/supporters own benefit. On the other hand those of us who could forge liaisons and alliance with politicians or their cronies will benefit from the contracts/licences awarded or their spill-overs. If one does not take advantage of the latter how does one compensate for one’s other marginalized role of being an ordinary voter taken advantage all over the place by direct or indirect taxes? The accounts don’t balance! One can rail as a critic against cronyism political corruption etc but the system, though mutating in different guises and forms, speaks the same language of “take advantage or be taken” and does not change. Anywhere. So many are both critics of system and also hypocrites seeking benefits from it. Reality (as distinct from cynicism) forces one to be so. So don’t take matters so seriously.
#14 by Mist on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 8:55 am
Does bad and corrupt practices (pork-belly politicis) elsewhere be something that we want to emulate ? Granted that it is in the nature of man to be selfish and self-serving but this should not stop us all from asking hard questions and demanding honest answers. The amount of money that is wasted away without any rhyme or reason demonstrated the degree of incompetence of the BN government.
This budget seem to be like a patchwork guilt without any sound fundamentals or direction. It certainly add a new meaning to “people’s first” refrain – tax the poor people first.
#15 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 9:12 am
///Does bad and corrupt practices (pork-belly politicis) elsewhere be something that we want to emulate ?///
The question of emulating does not arise : why would we want to emulate that which we are doing pretty well by ourselves?
To cite examples in US (or elsewhere) has the more limited objective of bring perspective that these sort of things (political corruption and mutual reinforcements between politicians and business) have been going on since time immemorial, subsisting in different degrees, guises and forms and not just due to our unique perversity here.
#16 by undertaker888 on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 10:06 am
//Thats the real world (not Utopia) anywhere…jeff
You are right to a certain extent. But in the USA, they impeached their President for over stepping their boundaries, do they not?
If there is any scandals like we have in Malaysia, their President would be impeached long time ago.
But here in Bolehland, it seems like the more bad they do, the more powerful they became. This is like Nazi or gangster politics.
#17 by OrangRojak on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 10:18 am
“To cite examples in US”
You don’t think US is a poor example to cite? I suppose it’s the most ‘obvious’ example, if only because it’s perennially so ‘in our faces’.
There are places that seem to try harder. Perhaps that’s why they don’t seem so familiar! Some of the Scandinavian countries have a long tradition of more respectable government. Canada puts some effort into it, and nearer to home, New Zealand is a ‘local hero’ when it comes to socially respectable governance, isn’t it?
Perhaps we should have the ‘corruption map’ printed in poster format and shipped to putrajaya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png
#18 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 11:57 am
///But in the USA, they impeached their President for over stepping their boundaries, do they not?/// – Undertaker 888
Thats true, Rule of law better respected there, and a TBH scenario will deserve better forensic experts.
“To cite examples in US” – You don’t think US is a poor example to cite? – Orang Rojak
Neither a poor or best example to cite. Agree it is the most obvious example (champion of democarcy and all that).
It is true that Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, Switzerland Canada are better examples – the problem with US is that its a bastion of Capitalism with (scale-wise) mega corporate/business interests that seek to collaborate with the politicians. Besides they have their campaign and fund raising rules that facilitate money politics so to speak. Human nature wise, its same anywhere.
#19 by limkamput on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 12:59 pm
//Budgets (not just in third world or developing countries like Malaysia but also first world like for eg the USA) will favour “special interests and well connected individuals” with some “balance” of show of “protecting the weak and the vulnerable elements of our population.” We question the balance but cannot eliminate the “special interests and well connected individuals” parts.//
Someone must come out in the open and say exactly what he wants to say or who he represents. It is useless to hide in ambiguity. Is he condoning or justifying abuse of budgetary process. To me he is, but of course he will deny it again, saying he has never justified anything or that I have lousy English to understand him. Look, i am not born yesterday. We know abuses happen everywhere, but it is the degree. Who is talking about utopian world here? If you are happy that the degree of abuse happens here is like anywhere else, then I have no stuff further to add. But please don’t pick a worse case scenario to compare. If we ever want to compare, we should compare with the best. But never mind lah, just compare with our nearest neighbour is enough.
#20 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 3:23 pm
///To me he is, but of course he will deny it again, saying he has never justified anything or that I have lousy English to understand him/// – LimKamPut
Wrong – you don’t have lousy English : just lousy understanding!
#21 by Jeffrey on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 4:07 pm
For examples:-
//We know abuses happen everywhere, but it is the degree.// – Lim Kam Put. However I already said in posting #10 – “Only a difference in scale, degrees and disguises that distingish whether one way is blatant/crass and the other more sophisticated (for the “people’s interest”) .
///If you are happy that the degree of abuse happens here is like anywhere else, then I have no stuff further to add./// – Lim Kam Put.
Where did I say I was “happy” with degree of abuse happening here is like anywhere else????
///But please don’t pick a worse case scenario to compare./// – Lim Kam Put
It depends on why one is comparing – is it for (i) a perspective of where one stands in relation to the average of others or (ii) to improve oneself against a benchmark?
First of all (i) is not the same as (ii). To confuse (i) = (ii) is muddled thinking.
Secondly, whether (i) or (ii), it is questionable whether one should pick as reference particularly the ” best ” ie our nearest Southern neighbour just as it is questionable to pick, as reference, the “worst”.
Thirdly, whether our nearest Southern neighbour is really the “best” amongst all countries, that is another question for another debate, another day (though it is conceded it is definitely far better than us!)
So I still don’t see what’s your gripe. You don’t seem to have a full and objective comprehension of what yoiu read or the issues raised. The earlier mentioned are just some examples.
#22 by limkamput on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 6:31 pm
When the author of this piece said there are abuses in Malaysia, what is the point of you saying there are worse cases elsewhere? The author and most of us in this blog are interested in the state of affair of here – Malaysia, NOT elsewhere, got it? Worse still, why is there a need for you to say perhaps even the champion of freedom and democracy is also not the best example we can draw? What are you trying to insinuate – that Malaysia is not that bad after all? Who do not know that Malaysia is the worst? The issue that Malaysia is not the worst is NOT the issue here. We are interested in the abuse of budgetary processes here and despite the fact that everywhere has it to some extent, we are not satisfied and we want something done. So concentrate what are the areas where the abuses have occurred or highlight some of the solutions you can think of to make Malaysia better. You want KPI, here are some for you. It is not I have poor understanding. Don’t try to keep insulting me. It is you – the master of deception or camouflage.
#23 by limkamput on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 6:41 pm
sorry repost, just to make it clearer:
When the author of this piece said there are abuses in Malaysia, what is the point of you saying there are worse cases elsewhere? The author and most of us in this blog are interested in the state of affair here – Malaysia, NOT elsewhere, got it? Worse still, why is there a need for you to say perhaps even the Champion of freedom and democracy is also not the best example we can draw? What are you trying to insinuate – that Malaysia is not that bad after all? Who do not know that Malaysia is the worst? The issue that Malaysia is not the worst is NOT the issue here. We are interested in the abuse of budgetary processes here and despite the fact that everywhere has it to some extent, we are not satisfied and we want something done. So concentrate what are the areas where the abuses have occurred or highlight some of the solutions you can think of to make Malaysia better. You want KPI, here are some for you. It is not I have poor comprehension. Don’t try to keep insulting me. It is you – the master of deception or camouflage.
#24 by alaneth on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 9:10 pm
Simple reason for this budget – There is no General Election next year or the following year. No need to ‘please’ the rakyat.
But if there is a GE the next year, the budget the preceding year will be full of goodies although the economy is gloomy. Then Najib will say to journalists ‘Oh, it is not because of the election, but the rakyat deserves better’…..
#25 by Onlooker Politics on Monday, 2 November 2009 - 11:44 pm
“Studies indicate that the income disparities between the rich and the poor have widened in Malaysia. Indeed, Malaysia has one of the worst income distribution patterns in the region.” (S.C.)
The income disparities between the rich and the poor have been widening by the Finance Ministry’s granting 10 years’ tax exemption status to many corporate citizens, either under the MIDA pioneer industry status tax exemption scheme or under the approved food production project recommended by Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry. However, many of the companies which enjoyed such a tax-exemption benefit are actually commiting in the illegal money-laundering business for purpose of getting tax avoidance. Lack of transparency, lack of good governance and the obscene proliferation of corruption practices are indeed the main causes of capital flight and FDI withdrawal from Malaysia.
#26 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 6:25 am
Relooking at LimKamPut’s comments at #23 – the more I think of them, the less I think of the need to respond – as they appear like 2010 budget, all sound and fury, without substance, from someone making a moview review of the historical epic movie “Troy” through a 1971 Panasonic TV TR-001 — 1-1/2″ Screen instead of IMAX 3D.
#27 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 7:52 am
When we when into budget deficit in 1997 under Mahathir, Anwar was still finance minister and promised that the budget would be balanced in 3 years. He then faced sodomy charge and we have never had a budget surplus since then..
Every year we keep hearing BN PM saying that they will cut budget deficit. IT NEVER happened even under Badawi, what actually happened was that oil revenue shot up and covered a balloning deficit.
Honestly the only person that has ever cut a budget deficit was Mahathir and only when he first got into office. Even then it was a combination of budget cutting and raising revenue through privatisation.
Its not in our history to cut our deficit. And as far as spending is concern to favour the rich, its time immemorial if you look at Malay Sultanates themselves. Whatever proletariat tendencies of Malaysia govt budget is a legacy of the British rule..Without the British, there is no natural tendencies to be socialist with Malay rulers. Its why, coupled with Islamic influence, it was so easy to fight the communist here in reality among the Malays.
Getting the budget right? Its not in the culture nor the system..
#28 by taiking on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 9:13 am
Oi k1980. Apa-deh. Kalau u ada chance u betut betut makan. Kasi makan cukup cukup ma. 1000 laptops enuf ah? Sell them 100,000 laptops ma. Set u punya target tinggi tinggi. Whether they need 100,000 or not itu dia orang punya pasal. Know or not huh? U guna u punya contact kasi secure supply 100,000 laptops @ RM40,000. Then hoh u supply aja. Then sit and wait for money to come. But hey lemember hoh. This idea my one u know. If u fat-tat I want to chow-shui. 10% enuf for me lah. Wish u many many success.
#29 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 5:01 pm
I hope you would bring this up (if appropriate) – the reimposition of 5% Real Property Gains Tax (“RPGT”) is unfair. Though techically taking effect on 1st January 2010, it may likely trap all property tranactions entered by parties/public in Year 2009, even before the Budget Announcement that are completed/consummated in Year 2010!
This is because the chargeable gain upon which 5% RPGT is levied by Director of Inland Revenue crystallises at time when transactions are completed in 2010 and not in 2009 when they were entered into!
At the time transactions were entered into prior to Budget announcement there was no RPGT and nobody who entered into any transaction had made their investment/divestment calculations factoring in RPGT and its reimposition!
This is unfair when people are made to pay for something of which they have no prior warning, and the legal tax is basically a kind of retrospective levy in that sense outlined above.
Not only the Opposition but our Association of Accountants and Bar Council should make representations to the authorities that RPGT shall not be levied in all transactions entered into by parties with no notice of RPGT incidence before commencement of 1st Jan 2010 or at the very least transactions entered into before budget announcement.
#30 by Mist on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 2:39 pm
Perhaps so but what is unique about malaysia is the undisguised and blatant abuse of power and corruption. There is no longer a sense of shame. This is a result of a having the flu of corruption infecting our police and judiciary and other agencies that are supposed to ensure that such perversity, while not unique, is at best kept in check.