This is a terrible question, but not for the reasons given.
EDIT: It has been correctly pointed out in a comment that only I had initially declared this question to be "terrible." I find it terrible because it was apparently given on an exam and has no unequivocally correct answer. This does not entail a criticism of the original poster. Nor did I mean to imply that Andrew was criticizing the original poster for the ambiguity of a question that was posed to the original poster. I apologize for inadvertently implying that Andrew meant anything other than a criticism of the student's teacher. There have been other criticisms of the question, such as misspelling and mangling a stock phrase, but I find them petty. END EDIT.
Passive imperatives are allowed in English. Some examples follow.
"Publish and be damned." One of my favorite quotations.
"Please be advised."
"Be gone at once and never darken my door again."
Passive imperatives are rare and perhaps a bit old-fashioned, but it is incorrect to imply that they are impossible. (I recognize that the comments and answers have not explicitly stated that passive imperatives are grammatically impossible, but I fear that is how a learner will interpret them.)
Moreover, it is clearly true that the general sense of "waste not, want not" can be expressed passively: "if naught is wasted, naught will be wanted." Admittedly, the imperative form has been lost as has the concise vigor of the saying.
And finally I agree that this particular saying cannot be recast using passive imperatives. The reason for that, however, is that imperatives must have as their implied subjects sentient beings, such as people or animals. (There is an exception with regard to personified things.) The implied object of "waste" and "want" is money or food or some other thing viewed as a thing of use.
I am sorry to have to disagree with people whose views I generally admire, but I think this question requires a subtler answer than it has yet received.