The government spends RM3.4 billion annually on LPG subsidies. With a population of around 36 million, that’s approximately:

RM3.4 billion ÷ 36 million = RM94.45 per Malaysian per year

Apply some logic:

After removing the subsidy, will the average person end up paying more or less?

If the average Malaysian ends up paying more than RM94.45 annually due to inflation or price hikes, then removing the subsidy achieves the opposite of its intent—especially for B40 and M40 groups, many of whom rely on outside food because cooking isn't economical for single or dual-income households.

Let’s run the numbers:
If the cost of a meal increases by RM1 per plate:

2 meals/day × RM1 = RM2/day
RM2 × 30 days = RM60/month
RM60 × 12 months = RM720/year

Of course, not everyone eats out every day. Assume 30% of the population eat outside.

0.3 × RM720 = RM216/year

Clearly, with a RM1.00 hike, a person could end up paying almost 2 x more than what they "gained" from the subsidy cut (RM216 vs RM94.45).

So the key question becomes:

Does this subsidy removal really reduce government spending, or does it merely shift the burden to the people without net savings?

If it’s merely a transfer mechanism—removing RM3.4B from public subsidy but forcing civilians to pay RM7.7B in cost increases—then it’s not cost-effective. In fact, it's economically regressive.

My gut feeling tells me they will say we need to pay for the loan taken for 1MDB. It's so easy to push all the blame onto that.

If they don't flame that, then maybe we can get around 2mil/bed = 1700 beds hospital. If one new hospital says 80 beds, maybe we can get 21 nos of new hospitals ?