The recent debates and discourses on the subsidy issue including the notion of a bankrupt state, drives home the point of changing lifestyles to meet the challenge of balancing the nation’s books. The citizens are being called upon to tighten their belts and curtail spending to combat the impending financial crisis.

According to many commentators, one of the reasons why we are in this state is the absolute mismanagement of our nation’s resources. A good current example is the new palace. The cost is said to have escalated from RM400 million to RM800 million. How did this happen and why?

Enough reasons have already been volunteered elsewhere. This is just one project and there are scores of other projects where there are equally alarming cost overruns. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that such cost overruns could easily add up to billions of ringgit. And these excesses must be paid for, but where will the money come from? One source, as we all know, would be from money meant for subsidies.

Now, let us just imagine, who will actually benefit from the cumulative cost overruns. Firstly, we need to realize who would have secured the contracts for the projects. As we all know, the politicians and their cronies would be at the forefront.

Then the repercussions of the cost overruns, ie, more money than originally agreed upon, need to be paid for – which ultimately means more profits for the contract beneficiaries. And there are many ways to spend the additional profit derived from the cost overruns.

New houses can be built, new cars can be bought, and more exotic holiday destinations can be sought. Maybe in some cases, even new spouses can be in the offing. In short, new and upgraded lifestyle opportunities could evolve for this small number of contract beneficiaries.

On the other hand, the diversion of subsidy money to pay for cost overruns could also have a negative impact on lifestyle. For the ordinary, wage earning, not so well connected Malaysian, the rising cost of living would mean the dreams of a long anticipated house renovation may have to be shelved or downsized.

Similarly, the upgrading from the 70cc bike to an old Proton Saga may have to be deferred or substituted with public transport and for holidays. So the average Joe would have to reconsider his lifestyle too, which unfortunately for him may mean downgrading. Thus, the withdrawal of subsidies impacts the lifestyles of both the rich and the poor, no doubt about it. The problem is that the majority has to suffer and sacrifice for the blunders (read: cost overruns) and benefits of a few.

So if the contract beneficiaries can curb their cravings for new houses, better cars and exotic holidays – in other words maintain their current life style – then perhaps cost overruns and unproductive projects can be avoided as well.

Subsidies need not be removed, and the average Joe may not be forced to downgrade his lifestyle either. In short, we could become ‘one’ happy country and there may not be a need for a lifestyle change after all.

It is time for the ‘few’ to think of the ‘many’ in their actions.