This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on October 16, 2017 - October 22, 2017

The annual season of dishing out goodies is here again. Nope. I am not talking about the year-end holiday shopping sale, which is just around the corner. I am referring to the 2018 budget that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is expected to table on Oct 27 in his capacity as the finance minister. And it is widely seen as an election budget as it would be the last national budget before the current Parliament is dissolved by June 24 next year.

Different disciplines have different perspectives on government budgeting. To an economist, a budgetary process entails alternatives forgone and the rational allocation of limited public resources to satisfy unlimited societal needs. As from an accountant’s perspective, it is about the accountability and the variance between the projected and the actual resources expended on programmes and public policy.

Yet, in reality, we all know that it is the view of the politician that holds sway and the government budget is a political tool through which political objectives could be accomplished.

Najib recently openly announced that civil servants can expect “good news” in Budget 2018. This is expected as the 1.6 million-strong civil servants have long been regarded as “the safe deposit” voting bloc for Umno-led ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional.

In fact, since July this year, Najib has publicly pledged various programmes and aid for selected groups. For example, in July, he announced a package of six incentives worth RM1.59 billion for more than 110,000 Felda settler families. They include debt forgiveness, grants for replanting, housing loans and a special RM5,000 payout.

In the same vein, Najib announced that 80,000 non-pensionable armed forces veterans older than 60 will receive payouts under the 1Malaysia People’s Aid (BR1M) scheme.

Those who qualify for BR1M will receive RM1,200 while those who do not will get RM600 as long as they are older than 60. The total allocation for this is RM85.8 million.

Cash aid in the form of BRIM has become a fixture in our national budget. That is what we fear most about populism. What initially started as one-off or ad hoc cash aid measures to win elections have since become a permanent feature of the national budget. Many now worry that the battle to win over the hearts and minds of the rakyat is fast descending into a mindless competition to put cash into their pockets.

In a democracy, the natural tendency is for politicians to promise more and more to fulfil a multitude of the rakyat’s incompatible desires. To meet these ever-increasing promises, politicians are left with no alternative but to resort to printing money or borrowing, either directly through the state’s treasury or the numerous government-linked organisations.

Apparently, the government is well aware of the populism criticism. But arguing that Budget 2018 is populist would also be fiscally irresponsible. While the government has to be prudent in managing public finances, the people’s welfare justifies the inclusion of such aid programmes.

But populism aside, we must also fear the rise of another destructive political animal — client politics. This is a type of politics where an organised minority or interest group benefits at the expense of the public. Worse, these entitlement programmes tend to evolve into sacred cows that are beyond attack or are untouchable.

The political cost of going against the interest of populism and client politics would become so prohibitive that it would be close to political suicide for any politician to dare to challenge such sacred cows. If this were to happen, imagine how much damage the combination of the two political animals — populism and client politics — could cause our nation.

This probably explains why our great institutions — the judiciary, Parliament, a free press and family — are of profound importance. They provide the checks and balances against populism and client politics that are a potent force in a democratic system. They stand for values — decency, fairness, protection of minorities and freedom under law — that inevitably come under strain in a democracy.

The over-obsession with the political agenda in all aspects of public life, including the national budget, is dangerous. It is factually and patently wrong to assume that democracy is the same as liberty, tolerance and fairness, because these values were embedded in public service long before universal suffrage and the emergence of what we think of today as democracy.

In 1930s Germany, when Hitler came to power with a popular mandate, democracy was inimical to liberty and tolerance. The example of German fascism may be extreme but it is by no means unique. In almost all democratic systems, politicians, whether driven by noble intentions or not, in their pursuit of wider popularity and power, tend to oppress the minorities and deny them freedom in the name of rule by majority or the people.

Make no mistake about it, both sides of the political divide are equally guilty of playing the game of populism and client politics.

Now, with the general election looming on the horizon, the political vitriol continues to grow in a protracted build-up to polling day. This time around, we are definitely assured of a mother of all elections in the nation’s history.

The stakes are simply too high for not only BN and Pakatan Harapan as political coalitions but also their leaders Najib and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad on a personal level. Najib is fighting to renew his mandate with the rakyat to lead Malaysia for another five years while for Mahathir, due to his age, this general election is going to be his final opportunity to topple BN.

Worse still, the debate of politicians on both sides of the divide seems, thus far, to centre on promises of more goodies to the voters. And with both sides carrying political baggage, who is to say who is the “lesser evil”? The lack of meaningful debate on the merits and demerits of national policies is disquieting.

Populist politicians seem to reign the world over with national interest relegated to the back burner. In our case, we can’t help but miss those true politicians, who we used to have in abundance, the ones with the conviction and courage to do the right thing.

Khaw Veon Szu, a former executive director of a local think tank, is a practising lawyer. Opinions expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.