Balancing the success report

IT is most heartening to read that the National Transformation Plans have borne fruit and propelled the economy towards achieving the status of a high-income nation.

This claim is supported by an array of statistical data such as the gross domestic product (GDP), gross national income (GNI), mean household income, investments, number of jobs created as well as some subjective analyses such as reduction in crime and poverty rates as well as customers’ satisfaction.

These are valid markers that can be utilised to indicate the health of the economy. By themselves, these macro figures may not be able to present the true situation for they only deal in averages. However, what was presented was only one side of the story, mainly the macro perspective. There is a need to balance it not only with the micro aspects but also the other macro attributes that counterbalance the appraisal.

There is no doubt that the NTP has borne fruit but the benefits are not equitably distributed. For example, the national transportation plan with reference to the LRT is confined mainly to the Klang Valley. Other cities and rural enclaves in the peninsula and Sabah and Sarawak suffer from vehicular congestion and connectivity.

It is worse in the Sabah and Sarawak hinterland where the main forms of connectivity are rivers and dirt roads, posing problems in linking towns and villages.

According to Bank Negara, 30% of people living in cities and their adjoining areas are earning below the mean national income.

A mean national income is an average figure and the almost RM7,000 cited as GNI does not translate to every citizen earning that amount of money. The middle 40% (M40) and bottom 40% (B40) may be earning anywhere between RM1,000 and RM9,000 while the elites earn millions.

So, when you add this income disparity and divide by the number of wage earners, you get the average. There may be other statistical tools to correlate this figure but it does not show the actual situation.

Another element that is needed in the report is equating the numerical income to its purchasing power. What is important is the real money value, that is the amount of goods one could get with the numerical figure. Thus, the real money value is the more appropriate determinant of a highor low-income nation.

The computation of GDP, GNI, mean monthly income and investments is theoretically sound and does give an indication of the state of the economy, as would the appraisals by international rating agencies. But relying on these figures alone to indicate a prosperous economy may not relay the actual situation.

Living conditions in Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya and the main cities in Peninsular Malaysia may support the prosperity these statistics suggest. But beyond these affluent boundaries, different economic paradigms and visuals emerge. Among them are pictures of families trying to eke out a living in the face of ever-increasing prices, stagnant salaries and the erosion of the purchasing power.

There is a need for a balanced report on the NTP that would also highlight the economic conditions of the B40 and M40 rather than showing just the picture of a healthy economy by mentioning decline in poverty and crime rate, and increase in investments and the number of jobs.

We would like the NTP to succeed but its implementation has to be assessed in an accountable and ethical manner, with the report showing both the strengths and weaknesses of the plans. And more important, the report should show how the plans have affected the middle and lower income groups.