Window dressing
By Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Daily
Translated by Dominic Loh
Finally, the sound-insulated Putrajaya begins to hear the outside voices, and has come up with unimpressive 11 austerity measures.
What austerity measures?
Cutting back 10 per cent of ministers’ entertainment allowances, 5 per cent of government department electricity bills, 30 per cent of senior civil servants’ highway toll subsidies… and the adoption of the “national blue ocean strategy”?
But is anything being saved at all?
By cutting back 10 per cent of ministers’ entertainment allowances, they may now go for Angus beef, which is 10 per cent cheaper but tastes just as good as Kobe beef. By cutting back 5 per cent on electricity bills, Putrajaya’s offices are still very cold, and by cutting back 30 per cent of toll subsidies for senior civil servants, members of the public can only keep their fingers crossed that highway tolls do not go up too much.
Perhaps Putrajaya has tried to show some kind gesture of going through the thick and thin with the masses. But from the first measure to the eleventh, they are more like designed for window dressing than bringing any actual benefit to the rakyat, especially the last “blue ocean strategy”, which really takes on the look of a New Year gift wrapper!
Malaysians feel that they are living in the “red ocean” instead of Putrajaya’s “blue ocean”. The austerity measures proposed by Putrajaya would not fatten the national coffers any bit, and will not make the rakyat live a little more comfortably.
Instead of cutting back on the ministers’ entertainment allowances by 10 per cent, why not just abolish the vehicle APs of the privileged few?
Instead of reducing the electricity bills of government offices by 5 per cent, why not rationalise TNB’s profitability and bring down the rate of electricity tariff hike?
Instead of trimming the highway toll subsidies of senior civil servants by 30 per cent, why not review the contracts signed with highway concessionaires?
While just as many middle and low-income families suffocate under the rising costs of houses, cars, tolls, electricity tariff and what not, the government’s “subsidy rationalisation” rationale is anything but convincing.
While “subsidy rationalisation” is indeed necessary to fix the country’s public debts and deficits, it should be implemented on the basis of sound resource and expense management.
What I’m trying to say is that the government should do more than just this to show that it stands alongside the people in hard times. It must at least exhibit some genuine sincerity.
