By TK Chua
When I read the news report, “Liow to talk to PM on Chinese school allocations”, I was deeply troubled. It calls into question the whole budgetary process on planning, resource allocation, approval and revision.
Every year, the Treasury spends an enormous amount of time and energy to prepare the budget. Sources of revenue and borrowing are elaborately identified to meet planned expenditures.
The budget, which contains estimated revenues, borrowings and expenditure, is presented to Parliament for debate, and if approved, will become the “financial plan” of the nation for the next one year. Operating agencies will carry out their activities based on budgets approved.
If a revision (a review or an adjustment) to the approved budget is needed due to changing circumstances or unforeseen factors, detailed consultations with operating agencies are necessary to ensure minimal disruption of services performed by the agencies concerned. In any ministry or agency, surely there are programmes and projects more urgently needed than others.
The education ministry was given billions (more than RM40 billion) in allocations in 2016.
What is puzzling is that the ministry’s budget cut included the RM50 million allocated for Chinese primary schools. Is the government saying that out of the RM40 billion allocation, they could not spare the RM50 million cut for Chinese primary schools?
I think most Chinese primary schools are already operating on a tight budget each year. An unplanned cut could jeopardise them from doing even the most basic.
The MCA president is most welcome to talk to the prime minister about this. I believe he is justly dissatisfied with the situation.
However I think the emphasis should include the most pertinent point – that the RM50 million allocated to Chinese primary schools was not a “special favour” but part of an approved budget for the year.
We do not formulate, announce, debate, and approve our annual budget for fun, do we?
TK Chua is an FMT reader.
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s (or organisation’s) personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.