LETTER | Ever heard that politics and law are two sides of the same coin? In the Malaysian context, politics influence law and it can be the other way round too. I will come back to this point later.

The so-called "back door" government just announced the "Pakej Rangsangan Ekonomi Prihatin Rakyat" (Prihatin) last week. The fiscal stimulus package is unprecedented, a whopping RM250 billion for a "war against invisible forces". It was designed so that no one will be left behind.

Well and good.

Immediate responses from critics range from how the plan will be financed to the package to be debated in Parliament.

It seems the debate is necessary to enhance the package so the people get the allocation as promised. Apparently, the opposition will guarantee cooperation to ensure the efficiency of the stimulus package and that there will be no leakages. Another opposition leader called for a two-day Parliament emergency meeting to approve the package.

Other groups have also called for the emergency Parliament sitting to discuss details of the package and amend it for the benefit of all Malaysians. Their worries include the transparency of the sources of funds, public delivery methods and accessibility to the neediest.

I tend to agree with these groups and the opposition. But what about the first stimulus package of RM20 billion announced by the interim prime minister (PM) on Feb 27? Did it go through Parliament? And how about the guarantee of no leakages? Even if we go to Parliament now, MPs have to observe social distancing.

By the way, though RM250 billion looks huge for the government to take on, the actual amount of fiscal spending amounts to RM25 billion only.

On the government’s side, care should be taken in making announcements. The speech-writers have to be careful of the words and figures used.

If "no one will be left behind", we should not be hearing things like "the government has asked small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to put forward a proposal on the type of help they need", four days after the announcement. And figures used must always be up-to-date and credible.

What worries me is what the finance minister said about our fiscal deficit for 2020. “Given what’s happening today [...] we are assuming we will end up with around a 4.0 per cent deficit”. A finance ministry spokeswoman confirmed this remark.

On Feb 27, the interim PM said, for the RM20 billion package, the fiscal deficit is estimated to slightly increase to 3.4% of the GDP compared to the original target of 3.2%. Since the bulk of the funding of the new package does not come directly from the government, how could the fiscal deficit jump to around 4.0%? Is the government forecasting or suggesting borrowers will default or was the earlier figure of 3.4% not correct?

It is great to hear that our stimulus package is higher than the UK's, the US' and Singapore's in terms of percentage of GDP but how do we compare in terms of the sources of funds? The EPF and the banks carry RM225 billion of the burden, even though the government will give its guarantee to the banks.

Since there is no parliamentary approval and the possibility of errors and omissions, the legal fraternity is going to have a field day by applying the tort of misfeasance. Misfeasance in public office is against the holder of a public office alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power.

In a landmark judgement last year, the Federal Court ruled that the prime minister (PM) and ministers are public officers who can be sued for misfeasance and the government can be held vicariously liable for any wrongdoing committed. The tort of misfeasance in public office is that in a legal system based on the rule of law, executive or administrative powers may be exercised only for the public good and not for ulterior and improper purposes.

However, this government is not the government that was voted in but is a government that cares.

All of the above will bring us back to the premise that politics and law are two sides of the same coin. And among lawyers, they have differing views too.

Whichever way they talk, they are looking at the same issue and so is Makcik Kiah. With bated breath, she will be waiting to know what will the overall benefits be to her family and whether she will still be delighted.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.