The national debt is approaching RM1.4 trillion. Yes, it is large. Yes, it deserves scrutiny.
But Malaysia needs something more useful than another round of political arithmetic over which Prime Minister accumulated more debt.
Early this year, the Prime Minister's remark that there would be no new borrowing has been seized upon by his critics as evidence of another broken promise. It may well have been an unfortunate slip of the tongue, particularly when made in the heat of a political rally.
But it should not become a substitute for discussing the much more important question: What is Malaysia actually doing about its debt trajectory?
The government's stated objective over recent years has not been to eliminate borrowing overnight. It has been to reduce the pace of new borrowing, narrow the fiscal deficit and move progressively towards fiscal balance. The Public Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Act sets a medium-term objective of bringing the deficit to 3% of GDP or below and debt to no more than 60% of GDP.
The distinction matters because accumulated debt is a stock, while new borrowing is a flow. Malaysia can reduce annual borrowing while the outstanding debt continues to rise.
That is precisely what has been happening. Federal Government new borrowing declined from RM99.4 billion in 2022 to RM92.6 billion in 2023 and RM76.8 billion in 2024. The fiscal deficit likewise declined from 5.5% of GDP in 2022 to 4.1% in 2024.
Yet critics continue comparing the absolute increase in debt under successive prime ministers as though every ringgit borrowed today is a fresh discretionary decision by today's government.
That is not how sovereign debt works.
Old bonds mature. They are refinanced. The government still has to finance its current fiscal deficit and development expenditure. To repay every ringgit of old principal immediately from current revenue would mean finding the money somewhere else.
From where? SARA? STR? BUDI? Healthcare? Schools? Hospitals? Roads? Or higher taxes?
This is precisely why the comparison needs to be more sophisticated.
The same criticism applies to the argument that the previous government's RM600-odd billion debt could supposedly be "seen" in the infrastructure and development it produced, whereas today's accumulated debt cannot.
Today's government is servicing debt accumulated by previous governments while also financing today's commitments. Debt service itself is now a substantial claim on the annual budget.
The issue therefore cannot be reduced to asking what a particular administration borrowed. We must ask what the debt financed, what liabilities were inherited, what revenue was available, and whether the economy is growing fast enough to carry the burden.
There is historical irony here.
During GE14, the opposition's rhetoric around national debt included the politically potent RM1 trillion figure, although the official Federal Government debt at end-2017 was RM686.8 billion.
After taking office, the then Finance Ministry explained that the RM1.087 trillion figure combined direct Federal Government debt of RM686.8 billion with RM199.1 billion in government guarantees and RM201.4 billion in PPP lease commitments. There were contingent liabilities triggered to be liabilities post GE14.
Nevertheless, the lesson should not be which side was right. The lesson should be never mix different categories of liabilities simply to produce a politically attractive number. That principle should apply today as well.
How should Malaysia compare its debt?
A serious analysis should compare at least five things: debt-to-GDP, debt-to-government revenue, debt-service payments as a share of revenue, annual deficit and the rate of economic growth. It should also distinguish domestic from foreign debt, ringgit from foreign-currency exposure, and productive development expenditure from recurring consumption.
Malaysia's central-government debt was RM1.379 trillion in the second quarter of 2026 according to BNM's national summary data. Much of the debt is domestic and medium- to long-term, which makes the risk profile different from a country heavily dependent on short-term foreign-currency borrowing.
The real question is therefore not whether RM1.4 trillion sounds frightening. It is whether Malaysia can comfortably service that debt while continuing to provide public services, support vulnerable households and invest in future growth.
That brings us to fiscal room. Malaysia still has room. But it is not unlimited.
If debt service continues taking an increasing share of government revenue, every additional ringgit committed to debt servicing becomes a ringgit unavailable for something else. Eventually, fiscal policy becomes less about what the government wants to do and more about what it can afford to do.
That is why fiscal consolidation cannot consist merely of finding savings. The government needs more revenue, a larger economy and higher productivity.
Targeted subsidies can reduce leakage. Better tax administration can improve collections. But sustainable fiscal space ultimately comes from expanding the economic base: higher-value manufacturing, services, technology, investment, productivity and better-paid employment.
There is also an important political test here. The government should not practise fiscal prudence merely as an election narrative about correcting the mistakes of its predecessors.
Nor should the opposition condemn every tax increase, subsidy rationalisation or expenditure restraint while demanding more spending. Both positions are easy. Governing is harder.
Malaysia needs an honest conversation in which debt is neither exaggerated for political effect nor minimised for political convenience. The question should no longer be "Who created the debt?"
It should be:
What portion is inherited? What portion is new? What did we borrow for? What does it cost us to service? How much fiscal room remains? And what must Malaysia do today to ensure that the next generation inherits not merely a smaller debt burden, but a larger and more productive economy capable of carrying it?
That is the debt debate Malaysia needs — less blame, more arithmetic; less politics, more economics.
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
No comments:
Post a Comment