When the national Budget is tabled in Parliament, as Budget 2027 was in the Dewan Rakyat on Oct 9, public attention naturally turns to what we will receive.
Are there tax cuts? Cash assistance? New subsidies? Higher allocations for education, healthcare or infrastructure? Which sectors gain and which do not?
These are important questions. But there is another way of looking at the annual Budget that receives less attention.
A national Budget is also an exercise of public power.
The government does not own the money it proposes to spend. Much of it comes from citizens and businesses through taxes and other forms of revenue. When expenditure exceeds revenue, the government borrows, creating obligations that will ultimately have to be borne by the country and potentially future generations.
This is why the Federal Constitution places public finance within a legal framework.
Article 96 provides, broadly, that no tax or rate may be levied by or for the purposes of the Federation except by or under the authority of federal law. Article 97 provides for revenues and moneys raised or received by the Federation to be paid into and form one fund, known as the Federal Consolidated Fund, subject to the constitutional exceptions.
Articles 99 and 100 then bring Parliament directly into the process. Article 99 provides for the annual financial statement setting out the Federation’s estimated receipts and expenditure to be laid before the Dewan Rakyat. Article 100 provides for a Supply Bill covering expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund that is not already charged to it.
These provisions remind us of something fundamental. Public money is subject to law because public money involves public power.
The Executive has an enormously important role in deciding priorities and proposing how money should be raised and spent. But Parliament is not intended to be merely the venue in which those decisions are announced. It has a constitutional role in authorising expenditure and holding the Government accountable for its financial choices.
This is where law and politics inevitably meet.
Every Budget involves political choices. Giving more money to one area may mean giving less to another.
A subsidy may assist one group while imposing costs elsewhere. Tax concessions encourage particular activities. Development expenditure determines which infrastructure is built and where. Social assistance reflects judgments about who needs help and how much help the country can afford.
There is nothing inherently improper about politics influencing a Budget. Governments are elected partly because of the policies they promise to pursue. A government without political priorities would hardly be a government at all.
The difficulty arises when legitimate political considerations become confused with partisan electoral advantage.
With the next general election inevitably part of the political landscape, Budget 2027 has been described as an “election budget”.
That description should not, in itself, determine whether a particular measure is good or bad. A cash payment does not become economically irresponsible merely because an election is approaching, just as an infrastructure project does not become necessary merely because it is described as development.
We should examine the substance.
Does the expenditure address a genuine public need? Is it sustainable? Does it improve productive capacity or merely produce a temporary feeling of prosperity? If additional expenditure requires more borrowing, what obligations are we passing on to Malaysians who may have had no voice in today’s political decisions?
This last question deserves more attention.
Governments operate within electoral cycles. National finances do not. Debt incurred today can survive several governments. A politically attractive benefit enjoyed now may eventually have to be paid for by people who were children when the decision was made.
That does not mean governments should not borrow. Borrowing can be entirely rational, particularly when it finances productive investment whose benefits extend into the future. The concern is whether future obligations are being incurred for sound national purposes or principally to satisfy present political demands.
The law’s relevance to politics becomes clear here because it asks us to look beyond the immediate political argument. It examines the institutions through which power is exercised, the legal limits on that power and the mechanisms through which those exercising it are held accountable.
The courts, for example, are generally not there to decide whether a government has chosen the best economic policy. Judges are not substitute finance ministers. But questions of legality and constitutionality are different matters. Public power, including power over public finances, must still be exercised according to law.
Parliament therefore carries a particularly heavy responsibility during the Budget process. Government MPs should not regard scrutiny as disloyalty, while opposition MPs should not oppose measures merely because they originate from the Government. Both sides should ask whether public money is being raised and spent responsibly.
Citizens should do the same.
As we continue examining Budget 2027, we should look beyond the question, “What am I getting?”
We should also ask: Where is the money coming from? Why is it being spent this way? Is the expenditure sustainable? Who ultimately bears its cost? And will this decision still look sensible after the next election is over?
Those questions lie at the intersection of law, politics and public money.
And they remind us that a national Budget is not simply an annual distribution of benefits. It is an exercise of power and responsibility on behalf of the people.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent those of Twentytwo13.
