近期财政预算案公布后，数名来自平面媒体及社交媒体的记者联络我，要我回应。以下是我就此发表的评论。
正如预期，马来西亚最新公布的财政预算案带有选举导向，尽管财政部声称，这份预算案是在过去各届预算案奠定的基础上继续推进。
显而易见的是，其中一些基础早已需要全面改革，甚至以全新的制度取而代之。
有两个问题尤其突出。首先，尽管马来西亚在表面上采用中度累进的个人所得税制度，但其整体缩小财富不平等的能力，却弱于许多区域国家及其他中高收入发展中国家。
马来西亚个人所得税最高税率为30%（年收入超过100万高收入者），但与泰国（最高税率约35%）、韩国（约38%）等邻近区域发展中及新兴经济体相比，我国这一税率相对偏低，也低于中高收入国家的整体平均水平。对收入最高的10%群体征收更高的税率，不仅在政治及财政层面具有合理性，也有助于擦亮希盟的改革招牌。
另一个错失的良机，是政府未能处理公共部门采购中的滥权、资金流失及管理不善问题。据估计，这些问题每年令国家蒙受400亿至600亿令吉的损失。由于公共采购约占政府每年公共开支预算的40%（每年支出超过1500亿令吉），因此，这仍是制度性财务损失及贪腐行为冲击最严重的领域。
最新的财政预算案本应成为推动结构调整的有力工具，透过提出具体的立法及财政框架，精简营运成本，并采取有针对性的措施，使官联公司及公务体系更精简、更有效率。这可以包括取消联邦法定机构与旗下500多家官联公司的重叠管辖职能，从而节省可观的开支。此举也能确保公共财政更加透明，并有助于防止暗中补贴或纾困表现欠佳的官联企业。
最后，若能全面削减官联公司及部分法定机构10%或以上的营运预算，并将节省下来的款项重新分配至医疗、房屋及社会福利领域，将足以证明政府不只是停留在政治改革的口号上，而是真正展现改革决心。
值得注意的是，营运开支已增至3768亿令吉，较2026年修订后的3382亿令吉营运预算增加3.8%；与此同时，国内许多民众仍须应付不断上涨的生活成本与通货膨胀。
对我建议的回应，当局没有作出任何回应，这并不令人意外。
然而，社交媒体上出现了一则回应，或许能让这个议题继续受到公众关注。
以下摘录自媒体平台网站Newswav刊登的一篇贴文。
评论作者南纳石卡兰（Nganasekaran）在题为《600亿令吉的消失戏法，然后把它称为官联公司》的文章中写道：
本周，经济史学家、前联合国区域顾问林德宜博士，也是这个国家少数仍然敢于公开针砭时弊的人，审视了2027年财政预算案，并提出了一个激进得近乎粗暴的建议。
他说：削减官联公司及法定机构10%的营运预算。把省下来的钱投入医疗、房屋及社会福利。
就这样。这就是那个激进的想法。把钱从那些不断流失资金的地方拿出来，交给真正需要钱的地方。在马来西亚，这种想法竟然算得上革命性的思维。
先来看看背景。10月9日公布的2027年财政预算案，联邦政府营运开支达3768.4亿令吉，较去年的3630.6亿令吉增加3.8%。我们花更多钱来维持同一栋房子的运作，屋顶却依然漏水。
而且，漏水情况还相当严重。林博士估计，公共采购中的滥权、资金流失及管理不善，每年令国家损失400亿至600亿令吉。请慢慢再读一遍。400亿至600亿令吉。每一年。就这样消失了。
公共采购约占政府开支的40%，每年支出超过1500亿令吉。用林博士的话来说，这就是受到制度性财务损失及贪腐行为冲击最严重的领域。换成比较客气、带有联合国风格的说法，就是这里是任人取用的自助餐台。
600亿令吉可不是四舍五入时可以忽略的零头。这笔钱足以打造一套全新的公共医院体系、修复巴生谷所有人民组屋，甚至还有馀钱，为每一名马来西亚人提供一张真正管用的MySalam医疗保障卡。但我们却把钱花在每个交通锥要价200令吉的采购上，还在浮罗交怡举办为期三天的进修营，讨论廉正问题。
接下来，就是这场戏的明星：官联公司。500多家官联公司。500多家。
实际上，没有人真正知道这500多家公司的完整名单。官方甚至没有一份完整的名册。这就像《精灵宝可梦》，只不过所有“宝可梦”都是房地产部门和餐饮子公司，而你根本不知道它们的存在。
我们有七个母体机构——国库控股（Khazanah）、国民投资机构（PNB）、雇员公积金局、公务员退休基金局（KWAP）、财政部公司（MOF Inc）、武装部队基金局（LTAT）及朝圣基金局。它们有自己的子公司，而子公司又有子公司。
等你追查到最底层，可能会发现一家公司的业务，只是管理某栋大楼的停车场；那栋大楼属于一家酒店，酒店又由一家种植园公司持有，而种植园公司则隶属于某个原本应该保障军人退休生活的基金。
林博士的论点很简单：这些机构的职能存在重叠。用学术界的说法，就是“为什么有17家公司在做同样的事情，却全部做得一塌糊涂？”他主张精简机构、提高透明度，并减少对表现不佳的官联企业提供隐性补贴及纾困。
隐性补贴和纾困。这句话倒是很适合印在我们的旅游宣传手册上。
让我来列出这场“名人堂”的名单。按照亏损额排名，亏得最多的排在最前面，因为马来西亚人最喜欢看排名榜。
文章随后列出亏损最严重的企业名单，最后提出以下建议：
那么，解决办法是什么？林博士并不是要求一场革命。他只是要求给这套体系“剪个头发”——削减10%的开支。从这个拥有500个脑袋、连自己究竟是酒店集团、棕油公司还是停车场营运商都搞不清楚的九头蛇式机构网络中，削减10%的开支。
把这笔钱投入医院，让那些等待六个月才能接受膝盖扫描检查的病人不必再苦等。把钱投入房屋建设，让月入5000令吉的年轻夫妇不再连蕉赖一间700平方英尺的小公寓都买不起。把钱投入社会福利，免得我们最后什么事情都得另设一个基金来筹款。
这并不复杂。但在马来西亚，简单的事情之所以变得复杂，是因为复杂的事情能让那些头脑简单的人赚钱。
希望这篇贴文能促使更多人开始提出正确的问题。
林德宜《2027年预算案：对我建议的回应》原文：2027 Malaysian Budget : Response to My Proposal
Following the approach to me by several journalists in the print and social media on the recent budget, I sent this comment
As expected, the latest Malaysia budget is an election slanted one though the Finance Ministry has claimed to build on the foundations laid by previous budgets.
What's clear is that some of these foundations have long needed overhauling if not replacement.
Two stand out. The first is that although we have a moderately progressive personal income tax structure on paper, its overall ability to reduce wealth inequality is weaker than many regional peers and upper-middle-income developing countries.
Malaysia’s top personal income tax rate peaks at 30% (for high earners exceeding RM1 million). This is relatively low compared to neighboring regional developing and emerging economies like Thailand (top rate around 35%) and South Korea (around 38%), or broader upper-middle-income averages. A higher tax on the top 10% earners would have been both politically and financially justifiable as well as burnish the reformist credentials of Pakatan.
Another missed opportunity was the failure to address public sector procurement abuses, leakages, and mismanagement. This has been estimated to cost the nation between RM40 billion and RM60 billion annually. Because public procurement accounts for roughly 40% of the government's yearly public expenditure budget (spending upwards of RM150 billion annually), it remains the sector most heavily hit by systemic financial loss and corrupt practices.
The latest budget should have served as a powerful mechanism to drive structural adjustments, offering concrete legislative and financial frameworks to streamline operating costs and make Government-Linked Companies (GLCs) and the civil service leaner and more effective through targeted approaches. This could have included doing away with the overlapping jurisdictions of federal statutory bodies and over 500 GLC sub-entities to bring considerable savings. Such a measure would also ensure that public finances are more transparent and help prevent hidden subsidies or bailouts of underperforming state-linked corporations.
Finally an across the board cut of 10% or more in the operating budgets of GLCs and some statutory bodies and reallocation of the funding to the health, housing and social welfare sectors would provide evidence of the Government’s determination to more than political reform rhetoric.
Note that operating expenditure has risen to RM376.8 billion, marking a 3.8% increase compared to the revised 2026 operating budget of RM338.2 whilst much of the rest of the country has to cope with rising costs and inflation.
Response to My Proposal
Not surprisingly, there has been no response from the authorities
However one response has emerged in the social media which may keep this issue in the public eye.
The following excerpt is taken from the post which appeared in the social media website, Newswav.
Opinion writer, Nganasekaran in his article, RM60 Billion Money Disappearing Trick and Calling It A GLC, wrote:
This week, Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, economic historian, former UN regional adviser, and one of the few people in this country who still does math in public, looked at Budget 2027 and said something so radical it almost sounded rude.
He said: cut 10% of the operating budgets of GLCs and statutory bodies. Take the savings. Put it into healthcare, housing, and social welfare.
That’s it. That was the radical idea. Take money from places that lose it, and give it to places that need it. In Malaysia, this counts as revolutionary thinking.
Let’s set the stage. Budget 2027, announced on Oct 9, has a federal operating expenditure of RM376.84 billion. That’s up 3.8% from RM363.06 billion last year. We are spending more to run the same house, and the roof is still leaking.
And boy, does it leak. Dr. Lim estimates that abuses, leakages and mismanagement in public procurement cost this country between RM40 billion and RM60 billion annually. Read that again slowly. RM40 to 60 billion. Every year. Gone.
Procurement is about 40% of government spending, upwards of RM150 billion a year. It is, in Dr. Lim’s words, the sector most heavily hit by systemic financial loss and corrupt practices. Which is a very polite, UN way of saying this is where the buffet is.
RM60 billion is not a rounding error. RM60 billion could build you a whole new public hospital system, fix every PPR flat in the Klang Valley, and still have enough left to give every Malaysian a decent MySalam card that actually works. Instead, we use it to buy traffic cones at RM200 each and hold three-day retreats in Langkawi to discuss integrity.
And then there are the stars of our show. The GLCs. The 500+ sub-entities. Five hundred.
Nobody actually knows all 500 names. There is no official scroll. It’s like Pokemon, but all the Pokemon are property arms and catering subsidiaries you never knew existed. We have seven parents — Khazanah, PNB, EPF, KWAP, MOF Inc, LTAT, Tabung Haji — and they have children, and those children have children. By the time you get to the bottom, you have a company that manages the parking lot of a building owned by a hotel owned by a plantation owned by a fund that was supposed to protect the army’s retirement.
Dr. Lim’s point was simple: there are overlapping functions. Which is academic speak for “why do we have 17 companies doing the same thing badly?” Streamline them, he said. Improve transparency. Reduce hidden subsidies and bailouts for underperforming state-linked corporations.
Hidden subsidies and bailouts. Now that’s a phrase that should be on our tourism brochures.
Let me give you the Hall of Fame. Ranked by losses, biggest at the top, because we Malaysians love a ranking.
The article subsequently provides a list of the biggest losers and ends with this advice
So what’s the fix? Dr. Lim is not asking for a revolution. He is asking for a haircut. Ten percent. Take 10% from the 500-headed hydra that can’t decide if it’s a hotel group, a palm oil company, or a parking operator. Put it into hospitals where people wait six months for a knee scan. Put it into housing where young couples earning RM5k can’t afford a 700 sq ft box in Cheras. Put it into social welfare before we have to start a Tabung for everything.
It’s not complicated. But in Malaysia, simple things are complicated because complicated things make money for simple people.
Hopefully this post can start people to ask the right questions.
本文观点，不代表《东方日报》立场。
要看最快最熱資訊，請來Follow我們 《東方日報》WhatsApp Channel.
