OCTOBER 28 ― The prime minister has just presented the Budget for next year. As expected, his critics have thoroughly dissected it, pointing out several problems.

I tend to agree with several of the criticisms but should also point out that in economics, mismanagement aside, there are also unseen factors to consider.

In 2016, the Budget actually had to be rethought given that the price of crude oil plunged. Whether or not the right solutions were given to this issue, the fact remains that there will always be unforeseen factors which may throw your budget into disarray.

The Budget for 2017 has several issues. The one I would like to focus on is the promise of several “goodies” for civil servants. Their housing loans have been increased. They are now given higher loans for vehicles and even RM5,000 every three years for smartphones!

I had to reread that when I first saw it. Smartphones are useful, sure but in these difficult times is this a priority? This is the first and most obvious clue that these “goodies” are politically motivated.

I am no economist. In fact, before the global recession in 2008, my knowledge of economics was pretty basic. But the global recession affected me and so piqued my interest a great deal.

I was perplexed at how even economists disagreed about how to get the global economy out of the doldrums. It was a subject the BBC was touching on every single day.

Time after time we hear of retrenchments, businesses closing and people losing their homes. But that’s only the bad news. The good news was, people were adapting to the adverse situation and coming up with new solutions to the problem.

One particularly ingenious solution, I thought, was using the internet to sell one’s skills. A group of young adults launched an English teaching package whose medium was Skype. Using their native knowledge of English, it sold very well in Asian countries.

Economics is based on simple input and output. If you spend more than you earn, you will be in debt. It is really as simple as that. If you had a hundred ringgit and spent it all enjoying yourself, the money will not replenish itself.

What if you used the money to purchase an ice grinding machine and ingredients to make air batu campur (ABC)? Well if you made a really good ABC and positioned yourself really well, you would recover the initial hundred ringgit and make more money on top.

If you had staying power and your ABC was famous in the Klang Valley, you may even become rich and open branches elsewhere. London has a famous ABC and patrons would come from every corner of England to have their three syrup-based delight. Word travels fast when makan is involved!

Back to our civil servants example above, are we getting the most out of our hypothetical hundred ringgit? If the objective of the economic programme is to create a sustainable Malaysia, hopefully not dependent on hand-outs nor on natural resources (which is what the K-economy philosophy is all about) then is our civil service actually returning on the investment? Many would say “no” and with good reason. The efficiency of the civil service in the perception of the rakyat is quite appalling, anecdotal evidence would suggest.

I am not saying that civil servants nor, as a matter of fact, any Malaysian does not deserve material comforts. Indeed we all do, regardless of race or religious or the sector we work in.

What I am asking, rather, is whether or not our skills and energies are being put to good use in the civil service. Many people would answer in the negative and I would agree. Perhaps it is better to train these civil servants in skills which may actually earn some income. Even skills which are socially condescended such as making nasi lemak can make one economically sustainable, as the prime minister extolled in the Budget speech!

Economics is the basis of life itself. With proper management and a bit of luck, one can live a good life and enjoy material comforts. Economic mismanagement and inefficiency, on the other hand, can sound the death knell for a nation. It would be best if we put all our resources to the best use.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.