THE government has announced that more than 14.2 million people are using the Budi Madani RON95 (Budi95) subsidy, involving more than 13.4 billion litres of RON95 petrol.
While the government may point to these figures as evidence of fiscal savings, it cannot ignore the wider impact of the policy on household budgets and the cost of living.
Reducing fuel subsidies may ease the government’s expenditure, but higher fuel costs do not stop at the petrol station. They ripple through transportation, logistics, food and everyday necessities.
Ultimately, the greatest burden falls on households with the least capacity to absorb rising costs, particularly the B40.
The government may save on subsidies, but if Malaysians then pay more for goods and services because transportation and operating costs rise, are ordinary people genuinely better off?
The monthly 200-litre RON95 limit is also a concern for those who depend on vehicles to earn a living and manage their daily responsibilities.
Petrol is not a luxury for employees, small business owners, sales personnel, delivery riders and other working Malaysians. It is a basic cost of getting to work and generating income.
Does the government seriously believe that the answer to fuel pressures is for Malaysians to abandon their cars and rely on motorcycles instead?
Can a motorcycle carrying two people realistically replace a family car used to commute to work, send children to school, care for elderly family members, buy groceries and manage the demands of everyday life?
Such thinking is detached from the realities faced by ordinary families.
The results of the Johor and Negri Sembilan state elections should also be taken seriously. Voters have already sent a clear message about their concerns, particularly over the rising cost of living, economic pressures and policies that directly affect their daily lives.
The MCA Economic and SMEs Affairs Committee therefore reiterates our call for former Deputy Finance Minister Lim Hui Ying to explain who advised the government to change the existing fuel subsidy policy.
Was the recommendation made by a consultancy firm, an external institution or a government-appointed team? What data, economic projections and impact assessments were used to justify the decision?
A policy affecting the daily expenses of millions of Malaysians cannot simply be formulated behind closed doors and presented to the public as a fait accompli (done deal)
Malaysians deserve transparency on the rationale, evidence and decision-making process behind such a major policy change.
The government must not balance its books by making the B40 balance theirs. A truly people-centred policy should lower the cost-of-living burden, not shift the government’s savings onto household budgets.
A healthier fiscal position means little if ordinary Malaysians are left with less money in their pockets at the end of each month.
DATUK IR LAWRENCE LOW
MCA Economic and SMEs Affairs Committee chairman
MCA vice-president
