PAKATAN Harapan, the frontline opposition coalition, released their manifesto last week in the heels of Gabungan Kiri, a coalition of left-leaning organisations led by Parti Sosialis who launched theirs last month.

Compared to PSM’s, Pakatan’s was more comprehensive, but also more populist. While Pakatan hopes to pre-empt and hopefully outdo Barisan with their manifesto, Gabungan, fully aware of the fact it is impossible to form a government with five Parliamentary and twelve State seats, is banking on whoever forms the next government to adopt its ideas.

Both Pakatan and Gabungan advocate the abolishment of GST. While understood to be a populist choice, it should consider the amount of money already invested into implementing GST, by not only the government and the Customs Department, but private companies, shippers, financial service firms, service providers and so on. The cost of purchasing financial software, undergoing training and customising documentation could go into the millions for some companies.

Goods and Services Tax GST), per se, is not such a bad thing. It is sustainable, reduces reliance on natural resources, is less volatile, and covers a much wider tax base, making it harder to escape. In fact, it was advocated by some within Pakatan before it became an unpopular government decision. Perhaps instead of abolishing it completely, reducing it, or adjusting other taxes such as income tax and road tax would be a better choice.

If distribution of wealth and tax income between Federal and State governments are improved, this could also be used to lower or abolish property based taxes, especially those involving lower income families, or land taxes for agricultural purposes.

Moreover, prices that have shot up are unlikely to come down as profiteering businesses often use the opportunity to permanently raise their prices. Even if the prices were to come down by 6%, the initial increase would have already taken into consideration the investment and costs that businesses would have had to put in because of GST. We saw this during the sugar subsidy abolishment and during the oil price hike.

Many of the items in both proposals are good – the reform of public institutions is long overdue. Law reforms proposed by Pakatan are also something to look forward to; welcome is the regulation on party funding. However, the maximum assets owned should be far lower than the RM 1 billion and closer to the initial RM 500 million proposed by NGOs for the PDEA, which was received unenthusiastically by Pakatan during that time.

This is considering the number of political parties in Malaysia, and compared to assets owned by parties in larger, more mature democracies, like the UK or US. Governmental election funding proportional to votes as practised by the UK, should also reduce the need for parties to accumulate large assets for themselves. Charitable and educational offshoots of parties, can always be managed by a trust. Large funds only allow for larger parties to bully smaller ones into silence.

Some proposals, like uniform funds for schools and increase for affordable housing is crucial for uplifting the B40 segment. However, others like EPF deduction for housewives, should be made optional instead of mandatory, especially for this segment. As Pakatan is proposing to maintain BR1M, and assuming it is maintained at current rates, an RM2000 household, under Categories 1 and 2, via contra will be effectively have their BR1M income reduced to less than zero, and less than half, respectively.

Both manifestos include improving race relations and both plan on some form of statutory or legislative approach to it. Perhaps this could be complemented by encouraging companies, private organisations and political parties themselves to move away from a racial approach of solving problems, including the parties issuing the manifestos themselves.

There is nothing wrong with continuing good policies proposed by your political opponents. Sometimes this means populist ones like cash aid, free bus rides, cheaper or free utilities; at other times, unpopular decisions that are good for the country like restrictions on plastic bags, car-free weekends improving public transport, or even implementing a sustainable tax plan.

There is no shame in adopting and evolving the best, as the rakyat deserves good and responsible leadership – a manifesto should be a living document. On the other hand, nothing wrong in dropping less than popular decisions like free EPL matches, may help people see your overall vision better.

With two more coalitions – Barisan Nasional and Gagasan Sejahtera – due to release their manifestos soon, they should look on the rakyat more so than they do their opponents, which is what it should be all about. – March 13, 2018.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.