Soundbytes I Like to Hear Coming from Budget 2027

There has been much talk about taking Budget 2027 to the ground, listening to different groups and understanding their concerns before the Budget is finalised.

I welcome the sentiment, although consultation with industry, businesses and the public before a Budget is hardly a new practice. Governments have always needed to hear from those who will ultimately be affected by their policies.

What interests me more is what we hear when the Budget is finally delivered.

Budget speeches are inevitably filled with economic terminology. Fiscal consolidation. Productivity. Competitiveness. Targeted subsidies. Structural reform. High-value investment. Human capital. All are important. But most Malaysians are not economists. 

A family is more likely to think about the grocery bill, petrol, rent, school expenses and medical costs. A young graduate is thinking about getting a decent first job. A small trader is thinking about whether there will be enough customers next month. An SME is thinking about wages, electricity, financing, compliance and whether it can remain competitive.

Economic policy may be complicated. The aspiration behind it does not have to be. So, if I were to make a personal wishlist of the soundbytes I would like to hear coming from Budget 2027, these would be among them.

“We listened. Now we act.”

This is perhaps the simplest. After several years of reforms, rationalisation and institutional changes, it is understandable that many people want to see where all this is taking them.

Reform is often explained in terms of institutions, fiscal sustainability and long-term economic benefits. Those are necessary considerations. But eventually people want to know whether reform changes something they experience in their daily lives.

That is why I like the thought behind “We listened. Now we act.” Not because listening is new. It isn't. But because the real test of consultation is whether the eventual priorities reflect what has been heard.

And listening should not mean every request gets accepted. With limited resources, choices have to be made. The value of listening is that those choices can be better informed.

“Growth must show up in the payslip.”

This is probably my favourite. Malaysia can point to GDP growth, foreign investment, semiconductor expansion, artificial intelligence, the digital economy and the energy transition. All are important if Malaysia is to remain competitive.

But ask an ordinary worker what economic growth means and the answer may be much simpler:

Does my income improve?

There is a growing recognition that the quality of growth matters as much as the headline growth rate. Investment needs to create productive employment. Productivity needs to improve. Skills need to match the jobs being created. And, ultimately, workers should have a pathway to better wages.

That makes this soundbyte particularly relevant: Growth must show up in the payslip. It turns a macroeconomic aspiration into something a worker can understand.

“Every ringgit saved must return to the rakyat.”

Subsidy rationalisation is one of those issues that can easily become a technical argument. How much does the Government spend? How much leakage is there? How much can be saved? How much fiscal space is created?

But there is another question that matters to ordinary Malaysians:

What happens to the money that is saved?

If subsidies are better targeted and leakage reduced, the public should be able to see the benefit elsewhere—through better healthcare, education, public transport, targeted assistance or other measures that reduce pressure on households.

The argument therefore becomes less about “cutting subsidies” and more about making sure that savings are recycled into things that matter.

Hence, every ringgit saved must return to the rakyat.

“The M40 must not be forgotten.”

There is a tendency to discuss assistance in terms of the poorest households and the vulnerable.

That is entirely understandable. But middle-income households can also find themselves under considerable pressure. Housing, childcare, education, healthcare, transport, insurance and debt commitments can consume a substantial proportion of household income. A family can be above an assistance threshold and still have very little financial resilience.

This does not mean that everyone should receive assistance. It simply means that the Budget needs to recognise the difference between income and financial capacity. A soundbyte such as “The M40 must not be forgotten” captures that concern without turning it into a demand for blanket subsidies.

“A degree must lead to opportunity, not just a certificate.”

This one is for the younger generation. For many young Malaysians, the difficult part is no longer simply obtaining an education. It is making the transition from education to economic independence.

The labour market is changing rapidly. Artificial intelligence, automation, digitalisation and new business models are changing the nature of many jobs. That means education and training cannot operate in isolation from what employers actually need.

A young person needs more than a certificate. They need a pathway into employment, meaningful work, income progression and, where appropriate, entrepreneurship.

Hence, a degree must lead to opportunity, not just a certificate.

“Train for the jobs Malaysia is creating.”

This follows naturally. Malaysia is trying to attract investment in semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, AI, energy transition and the digital economy. 

The country cannot build these industries simply by announcing investments. It needs people with the skills to fill the jobs. That makes the effectiveness of TVET, apprenticeships, reskilling and industry-linked training particularly important.

I would therefore like to hear less about how many people have been trained and more about what happens after the training.

• Did they get jobs?
• Did their wages improve?
• Can they progress?

The simple version is Train for the jobs Malaysia is creating.

“Less red tape. More time to earn.”

This is one that small businesses will immediately understand. For a large corporation, a new compliance requirement may be an administrative cost. For a micro-business, it can be a major burden. A small retailer, food operator, service provider or online entrepreneur worries about licensing, taxes, digital compliance, wages, rent, electricity, financing and finding customers.

Sometimes the most useful form of government assistance is not another grant. It is making it easier and cheaper to operate legitimately. That is why I like: Less red tape. More time to earn. It captures the practical meaning of regulatory reform better than a paragraph about improving the business ecosystem.

“Every ringgit must earn its place.”

Finally, there is the fiscal reality. There will always be more demands than resources.

Healthcare needs more. Education needs more. Infrastructure needs more. Households need relief. Businesses want incentives. Young people want opportunities. States and regions have development needs.

At the same time, the Government has to maintain fiscal credibility and manage debt and operating expenditure.

So I would like to hear a simple principle: Every ringgit must earn its place. Not necessarily because the Government should spend less on everything, but because every allocation should have a purpose.

The question should be: What outcome does this ringgit buy?

• Better healthcare?
• Better education?
• A productive business?
• A better job?
• Higher wages?
• Better infrastructure?
• Greater resilience?

That is a language ordinary people can understand.

And finally: “Today's Budget must create tomorrow's opportunities.”

This perhaps brings everything together.

A Budget cannot simply be about making today's problems slightly less painful. It also determines the economic opportunities available to the next generation.

The young Malaysian entering the workforce today will live with the consequences of today's education policies, infrastructure investments, fiscal decisions, industrial strategy and energy choices for decades. So there needs to be a balance between immediate relief and long-term transformation.

Families need help with today's pressures. But their children need better skills, better jobs, better incomes and a more productive economy tomorrow. Today's Budget must create tomorrow's opportunities.

These are not economic theories. Nor are they meant to replace the detailed analysis that economists and professionals will inevitably undertake.

They are simply the soundbytes I would like to hear. Because at the end of the day, a Budget is not experienced as a fiscal deficit percentage or a development expenditure number. It is experienced through the price of living, the size of a payslip, the availability of a job, the ability to run a business, the quality of public services and the opportunities available to one's children.

Perhaps the most useful soundbyte of all is therefore not about the size of the Budget. It is about what the Budget is trying to achieve:

Less pressure. Better incomes. More opportunities. Less red tape. And better value from every ringgit.

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road