By Assoc. Prof. Dr. Firdausi Suffian
Malaysia’s fiscal consolidation is not unfolding on stable ground. It is taking place on a tightrope, where every step towards fiscal discipline risks public pushback, and every delay risks eroding economic credibility. The central question is not whether reform is necessary, but whether it can be sustained without undermining growth, public trust, and political legitimacy.
Recent fiscal trends suggest that the government is moving in the right direction. Malaysia’s fiscal deficit peaked at 6.4 per cent of GDP in 2021 before narrowing to 5.5 per cent in 2022 and 5.0 per cent in 2023. In 2024, the deficit improved further to 4.1 per cent, outperforming the initial target of 4.3 per cent. The government now aims to reduce it to 3.8 per cent in 2025, in line with its medium-term goal of bringing the deficit below 3 per cent. This trajectory reflects a clear commitment to restoring fiscal discipline and strengthening investor confidence.
However, fiscal consolidation in Malaysia is constrained by structural limitations on both the revenue and expenditure sides. The country’s tax-to-GDP ratio, which stood at around 13.1 per cent in 2023, remains among the lowest in ASEAN. This reflects a relatively narrow tax base, closely linked to income levels. Efforts to raise wages, including through minimum wage policies and broader economic reforms, are therefore critical not only for improving household welfare but also for expanding the government’s revenue base over time.
On the expenditure side, operating spending continues to place significant pressure on public finances. Emoluments and administrative costs have grown steadily, at times approaching the level of government revenues. Addressing duplication across ministries and improving efficiency in public service delivery have become key priorities under Budget 2026 and the 13th Malaysia Plan (RMK13). Without meaningful expenditure reform, fiscal consolidation risks being driven solely by revenue measures, which may not be sustainable.
Yet the most politically sensitive and economically complex aspect of fiscal reform lies in subsidy rationalisation. For decades, subsidies have played a central role in cushioning the cost of living for Malaysians. On average, subsidy spending ranged between RM23 billion and RM25 billion annually over the past two decades. However, the COVID-19 crisis exposed the vulnerability of this approach, with total subsidies surging to nearly RM80 billion in 2022. Diesel subsidies alone increased from RM1.4 billion in 2019 to RM14.3 billion in 2023, highlighting the unsustainability of blanket subsidy regimes.
The government has since taken steps to rationalise subsidies in a more targeted manner. The removal of blanket diesel subsidies in 2024, which saw pump prices rise from RM2.15 to RM3.35 per litre, was accompanied by targeted support for 33 categories of essential commercial vehicles to mitigate cost pressures. More recently, the BUDI95 initiative introduced a quota-based system for RON95 petrol, allowing eligible Malaysians to purchase fuel at RM1.99 per litre while non-citizens pay market prices. By capping subsidised consumption at 300 litres per month, the government aims to reduce leakages and generate fiscal savings estimated at up to RM4 billion annually.
These measures reflect an important shift from universal to targeted subsidies. While such reforms are necessary to preserve fiscal space, they also carry political risks. Subsidy rationalisation directly affects household expenses and business costs, making public acceptance a critical factor in determining the success of fiscal consolidation.
Complicating this balancing act is an increasingly uncertain global economic environment. As a trade-dependent economy, Malaysia is highly exposed to external shocks. Ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have pushed oil prices towards USD100 per barrel, increasing the government’s potential fuel subsidy burden. Estimates suggest that fuel subsidies could reach between RM18 billion and RM20 billion at this price level, and rise further if oil prices continue to climb.
At the same time, evolving global trade dynamics, including tariff uncertainties and shifting supply chains, pose additional risks to growth. Trade disruptions can raise production costs, fuel inflation, and dampen investment sentiment, all of which have direct implications for fiscal performance. Slower growth would weaken revenue collection, while inflationary pressures could force the government to expand support measures, further straining fiscal space.
In this context, fiscal consolidation cannot rely solely on short-term adjustments. Strengthening domestic economic fundamentals is essential. Industrial upgrading, particularly through the implementation of the New Industrial Master Plan 2030 (NIMP 2030), will be critical in moving Malaysia up the value chain and enhancing economic resilience. Investments in skills development and talent upgrading can support higher wages, which in turn broaden the tax base and reduce long-term reliance on subsidies.
On the external front, diversifying export markets while deepening regional integration within ASEAN offers a practical pathway to sustaining trade and investment flows. The Kuala Lumpur Declaration on ASEAN 2045 underscores the region’s commitment to building a more integrated production network. Malaysia is well positioned to benefit from this shift by strengthening its role as a connector economy within regional supply chains.
Ultimately, sustaining fiscal consolidation requires more than technical policy measures. It depends on consistent economic execution, predictable policymaking, and a stable political environment that fosters investor confidence. Fiscal discipline, public welfare, and economic growth are not mutually exclusive, but managing them simultaneously demands careful calibration.
Malaysia’s fiscal reform is therefore not a straightforward path towards deficit reduction. It is a continuous effort to maintain balance in a shifting and uncertain landscape. Like walking on a tightrope, progress is possible, but only with steady footing, clear direction, and constant awareness of the risks on either side.
The author is Political Economist at Faculty of Administrative Science and Policy Studies, UiTM Sabah, and External Advisory Board University of Nottingham Malaysia & University of Sultan Azlan Shah
About The Author
