Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

Prime Minister Najib - Fiscal discipline and efficiency for Malaysia first!

Reading Time: 4 mins

In Brief

Historically, Barisan Nasional’s (BN’s) fiscal management has failed in two related ways.  They have displayed no fiscal discipline, and their public service expenditure has been highly inefficient and corrupt. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib’s decision to introduce a Goods and Services Tax (GST) is therefore premature. Before introducing a GST, Najib must first demonstrate to the Rakyat that he has the ability to reform BN by reining in fiscal deficits.

A historic lack of fiscal discipline

There are two conventional approaches to fiscal policy: a balanced budget approach, where the government spends only what it earns or a counter-cyclical approach, where the government accumulates surpluses during high growth periods to use as deficit spending during recessionary periods.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Up until now, BN has chosen neither approach.

Malaysia has recorded high growth rates every year since independence in 1957 except for 1985, 1998 and 2009. With average annual growth rates of approximately 6.5 per cent, one would expect Malaysia to record a fiscal surplus over the period. But the converse is the case. Malaysia’s fiscal deficit hit a twenty-seven year high in 2009 at 7.4 per cent of GDP.

The primary reason for this huge fiscal deficit is that spending has exceeded revenue. Although federal government revenues have increased since 1957 by approximately 3 per cent per annum,  this spectacular rise in revenue has been exceeded by an even more spectacular rise in expenditure, which reached a colossal RM220 billion in 2009.

More specifically, this increase in spending corresponded to BN’s need to ‘finance’ its ‘New Economic Policy’. This ‘New Economic Policy’ began in the 1970s, when the government got involved in the economy through state owned enterprises (SOEs) to promote ‘Bumiputera’ interests. The SOEs were a colossal failure. Then, in the 1980s, Prime Minister’s Mahathir’s venture into heavy industries caused a fiscal crisis. Finally, since the financial crisis of 1997/98, the BN government has been pump priming the Malaysian economy to keep it afloat.

Highly inefficient and corrupt public fiscal management

BN has historically engaged in extremely inefficient public expenditure. There are two types of public expenditure – operating expenditure for the maintenance of existing goods and services, and developmental expenditure to create new goods and services that enhance the productive capacity of the economy. Despite extensive privatisation, in Malaysia operating expenditure has unacceptably kept pace with increased revenues, while development expenditure has not.

A key reason for this is that the public sector has expanded uncontrollably. Malaysia boasts the largest public sector in Southeast Asia. Yet it still faces shortages in critical areas like doctors, nurses, mathematics and science teachers, which suggests a serious misallocation of resources. There must be a serious reduction in the number of Malaysian ministries, agencies, statutory bodies and ultimately civil servants. Wages must be linked to productivity to extricate the public sector from the low-wage, low productivity trap that it finds itself in. This would also reduce the currently high level of income inequality afflicting the public sector.

Another important reason for ballooning public expenditure is the collusive behaviour among public sector, the BN and private sector – best illustrated by the ongoing Port Klang Free Trade Zone (PKFZ) scandal. The auditor general’s annual report reveals that all forms of government procurement – tender, open tender, quotations, and direct purchase – are currently prone to abuse. Kickbacks, rigged bids, the use of ‘shell’ or ‘front’ companies, excess payments and misrepresented facts seem to be the norm rather than the exception. The Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMUDAH), set up by BN to facilitate business, has estimated that corruption could be costing Malaysia approximately RM10 billion a year – about 1-2 per cent of GDP. In the book ‘Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir in Turbulent Times,’ Barry Wain reported that Mahathir squandered RM100 billion or more through corruption and mismanagement.

This evidence suggests that the BN cannot be trusted with the nation’s finances. Given the current problems afflicting the public sector, the benefits of any new tax would also be dissipated and so would not solve Malaysia’s fiscal problems. Furthermore, based on its past record, BN would likely raise the GST tax rates to meet unrestrained spending habits.

Prime Minister Najib must focus on putting his house in order before considering implementing the GST or any other new taxes. In discussing fiscal reforms, he must reach out to the opposition. After all, they represent half of Malaysia’s voting population. Only after this occurs should the introduction of a GST be countenanced.

This article first appeared here in Malaysiakini.

5 responses to “Prime Minister Najib – Fiscal discipline and efficiency for Malaysia first!”

  1. This polemic about the wasteful and wicked ways of the BN government in Malaysia contributes nothing to analysis of Malaysia’s development problems or to rational debate about the rights or wrongs of Prime Minister Najib’s plan to introduce a GST. There is no reasoned discussion of Najib’s plans for reform of NEP or fiscal strategy. Among the other profundities in this piece, Lopez makes the breathless observation that ‘the primary reason for this huge fiscal deficit is that spending has exceeded revenue.’ Well, yes! What we’ve come to expect from EAF is objective analysis not unreasoned polemical diatribe. Lopez should try a bit of analysis before he’s given another chance to sound off naively about the Malaysian Government’s malfeasance.

  2. Dear Amy,

    Thank you for your kind comments.

    (1) If you carefully read the article, you would notice that I have suggested that the government first:

    (i) plug leakages – official and unofficial;
    (ii) improve efficiency of the public sector by moving away from its objective of using the public sector as a means to control decision making by employing bumiputeras compliant to government objectives;
    (iii) reducing the size of the public sector;

    Please read the Malaysian Auditor General’s report to understand what I mean that the government can save billions in taxpayers money by doing the above.

    (2) I have not said that Malaysia does not need a GST. What I have said is that before implementing the GST, the government should implement the above first. Secondly, should the government choose to implement the GST, it should consult the opposition.

    (3) Finally, a government that cannot show fiscal restraint, cannot be trusted with the imposition of new taxes – would you not agree with that.

    Regards
    Greg

  3. If the numbers from the post are correct, then 3% per annum increase in federal revenue does not seem to be particularly spectacular, when compared to 6.5% per annum economic growth.

    While there may be inefficiency and structural issues related to federal expenditure, it appears that the share of federal revenue in GDP must have fallen substantially.

    Was 2009 an anbnormal year in terms of the economy due to the GFC?

  4. Yes Lincoln, that is the key point – how does a country that has recorded average growth rates of 6% on average record serious fiscal deficit.

    The answer may lie in the following:

    1. Growth has been driven by investments – public & private. But the quality/efficiency of public investments in Malaysia is questionable. The saving grace is that Malaysia has significant trade surplus.

    2. 2009 budget was abnormal for two reasons – the GFC and the threat of a possible takeover of government by the opposition.

    Read this article:http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/17/malaysias-misplaced-economic-priorities/

  5. Greg, PEMUDAH is Special Taskforce to Facilitate Business, whereas PEMANDU is Performance Management and Delivery Unit. These are two different units with two different functions.

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.