TRIM TO THE BRIM

ARE we seeing the dawn of the age of the food stamps in our shores? It does seem likely following reaction to the continued award of BR1M (Bantuan Rakyat Satu Malaysia – the acronym by which welfare allowances are disbursed nationally); which has been retained and improved in the 2015 Malaysian Budget.

Observers and commentators who voiced concern over such state-sponsored aid have mooted the counter idea with the aim of weaning its recipients off welfare.

This heightened interest is only to be expected as yet again, the national budget being tabled leaves the nation still in deficit – albeit lower than this year’s allocation.

Methinks running the nation is not quite unlike managing one’s own family – hungry mouths to feed, squabbling siblings to separate and bawling infant to placate.

The breadwinner and finance director – dad; mostly; brings home the bacon. It is often left to mom to divvy out to the various `spending units’. The basic inescapable rule of thumb being – what goes out, has to be balanced by what comes in.

But alas; maybe thankfully so; the nation’s finances is governed by a different set of rules. The holder of the purse – and the purse strings; can spend more; and invariably does; over and above what’s available in the kitty.

None but the most financially-disciplined of nations consistently propose balanced spending as the feature of their annual budgets.

Students of economics – who develop their own fiscal appetite, dependent on their teaching heroes – would have field day debating on the pros and cons of over or underspending. In class, there’s no running away from the nurturing of the ideas of Adam Smith or develop tolerance for the tinkering of JK Galbraith.

A happy balance perhaps is when one strikes a middle ground between the two.

From where we are, it would require the embrace of principles of book balancing as set out by monetarist adherents of Milton Friedman. I doubt anyone shares the same level of aversion to debt as that shown by Milton’s most famous disciple – the late great Margaret Thatcher.

To be sure, Thacherite thought is not for the liberal `bleeding hearts’ but when it comes to looking after the nation’s coffers, who can doubt the efficacy of her tight rein on the national purse.

We do not countenance the super tough strictures she chose – consigning up to three million Brits on the scrapheap of the dole queue. This caused deeper rifts between the conservative half of the nation from its socialist working classes.

She stuck to her guns and by and large, she and her cohorts who stuck to the simple `corner-shop’ mentality of living within ones means won the day.

It is for her; squirreling away for a rainy day and getting on by dint of one’s own sweat and toil

While we do not expect to drive the whole nation to the heights of Ghandian asceticism (but then again; why not); we do want a certain level of thriftiness.

So one item of news that caught my attention amidst all the post-budget follow-up was a response from the Consumer Association of Penang (CAP).

It penned a statement following the speech made by Perak Sultan who regally pronounced that he frowned on the practice of handing out souvenirs to guests of honour at official events.

I cannot for the life of me understand the reasons behind this practice. The exalted guests are the last person in any official functions who needs another tacky plaque or shiny pewter mug.

Being in the media, I am on the receiving end of such orgy of gift giving. The media is an easy target for corporates eager to get positive publicity from the media contingent.

It is deemed the accepted way to curry favour from the media, beholden to the hosts through the liberal dispensing of the goodie bag.

In some countries, the practice is de riguer; with both receiver and giver in full embrace and tolerance of the practice.

I had a rather enterprising colleague who; on his retirement, opened up his garage-cum-storeroom and organised a jumble sale of sorts; to get rid of all those souvenirs.