We live in an age which excels in broadcasting slogans and
catchy phrases. Often we, the hearers, unconsciously ‘choose’ the meaning. A
good example is “People first.” What does it mean? Who are “the people”?
We most easily think of “the people” as ourselves, our “class”
of people. We forget that “the people” includes politicians, civil servants, police,
soldiers, bankers, businessmen, garbage collectors, drivers, investors, farmers,
etc., all with their dreams and goals.
Who’s poor?
All
of us fear being poor. That’s why we worry about increases in the price
of electricity, fuel, assessments and hikes in tolls. We recognize there
will always be rich
and poor. We hope the poor won’t suffer too much. We hope they will
grasp
opportunities and lift themselves up. We “do charity” now and then, and
shed tears of joy whenever we hear of someone doing good for the poor.
Yet, the question “who are the poor?” is not easy to answer.
One economist famously said “Poverty, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the
beholder.”
When, in our conversations, we try to define poverty, the
first thought that arises is lack of income or resources.
Eventually we end up
with a list of poverty indicators which are not much different from what we
find in academic discussions of poverty: “vulnerability to risks, powerlessness,
lack of personal freedom, social exclusion, etc.”
Such conversations often end with someone asking whether there is an official
definition of poverty. And, as soon as we hear it, we critique it.
Yet those
who work for government, e.g. in the Social Welfare Department, in the Housing
Department and in the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), have to work with definitions.
They need clear definitions in order to make decisions.
The statistically
poor.
So, according to officialdom, who are the poor?
I’ll start with
official data from the statistics department, published by the EPU.
Poverty Line Income
(PLI).
Malaysia began measuring the incidence of poverty in 1970. In 1977,
we introduced the PLI approach: any household which earns equal to or less than
the PLI – and the PLI varies according to where the household is located – is classified
as poor.
Household.
The PLI
is based on "household” income.
In 2005, when the current definition was finalized,
the “reference household” was made up of 1 male and 1 female aged 18-29, 2 boys
aged 3 and 9 and a girl aged 5.
For the reference household, statisticians and dieticians
estimated the expenditure for a healthy and balanced diet. This is called “Food
PLI.”
To this was added “Non-food PLI,” comprised of the expenditure
for clothing, housing, durables, transport and ‘others.’ The Non-food PLI is
based upon many inputs, including Household Expenditure Surveys, mathematical
models, tests, checks and reviews.
This is a summary of the PLI’s for 2005 (source,
Table 2.8 on page 47):
PLI
|
Urban
(2005), RM
|
PLI
|
Rural
(2005), RM
|
|
Food
|
Non-Food
|
Total
|
|
Food
|
Non-Food
|
Total
|
Maximum (WP Kuala Lumpur)
|
404
|
476
|
880
|
Maximum (Sabah)
|
420
|
382
|
802
|
Minimum (Kelantan)
|
373
|
245
|
618
|
Minimum (Kelantan)
|
352
|
220
|
572
|
The PLI is adjusted annually for changes in the Cost of
Living Index. The latest year for which I was able to locate figures is 2010,
only with this level of granularity (source):
|
Peninsula
|
Sabah
& Labuan
|
Sarawak
|
Malaysia
|
Incidence of poverty
|
2.0 %
|
19.2 %
|
5.3 %
|
3.8 %
|
No. of poor households
|
102,200
|
99,100
|
27,100
|
228,400
|
Mean PLI
|
RM 763
|
RM 1,048
|
RM 912
|
RM 800
|
Mean Per Capita PLI
|
RM 194
|
RM 225
|
RM 208
|
RM 198
|
According to officialdom in Malaysia, the incidence of
poverty in 2012 is 1.7
%, an improvement on the 3.8 % reported for 2010 (the figure reported for
1970 was 49.3 %).
Although Household PLI is the “official” way of reporting
poverty, it does not appear to be used by civil servants to make decisions.
Welfare department.
I’ve not been able to determine what welfare payments are “for the poor,” and
how “the poor” are defined and assessed. I’ve been told Welfare departments around the country do not use the PLI.
Low-cost housing.
According to some REHDA
materials on an EPU website, those who earn less than RM
1,500 per month ("low income households") qualify for low cost housing.
BR1M.
A ceiling of RM 3,000 per month is used for deciding which households qualify for BR1M cash
hand-outs “to alleviate the burden of low income earners.”
In his 2014 Budget speech, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib
Tun Razak announced another round of BR1M hand-outs.
According to a report in the Star
Newspaper, people can now register online to receive the hand-outs,
which are expected to flow to “5.9 million households” and “2 million
unmarried individuals”
in the country.
The hand-outs are for 3 groups of people:
First, households
with a total monthly income of RM 3,000 and less. It's claimed that 5.9
million households are eligible. The head of each household will
receive RM 600
(up from RM 500 previously).
Second, unmarried individuals. It's claimed that 2 million persons are eligible. Each
will receive RM 300 (up from RM 250 previously).
Third, people living alone who are aged 60 years and above. Each will receive
RM 600 (up from RM 500 previously).
Leaving aside the question of sensibility of hand-outs
as a means to alleviate hardships caused by increases in the cost of electricity,
tolls, fuel, etc., I wonder how the figures 5.9 million, 2 million, etc. were
computed.
Although a Barisan Nasional website says “80 % of the (sic) total
Malaysian households” will benefit, 38.8
% seems a better estimate, since according to the EPU,
that’s the percentage of households which earn RM 2,999 or less per month.
So, how do we recognize “the poor”? What’s the PLI? What do
you think it should be? How many people are poor? Where are they? How do civil
servants decide who’s poor for purposes of welfare, housing and BR1M? What does
“People first” really mean?
+ - + - + - + - + -
Note: Yesterday I attended "Workshop on Urban Poverty, Public Policy & Community Based Development" organised by COMMACT Malaysia, Economics Faculty and the Institute for Ethnic Studies, UKM.
Amongst other things, the workshop caused me to think about the statistical and administrative side of poverty.
In
a statement yesterday, the human rights group highlighted a High Court
decision to dismiss a civil suit against the government and police by
Ganga Gouri (right) over the death of her brother, R Gunasegaran.
He
said this in his debate speech at the MCA annual general meeting (AGM)
today, which he began by inviting the delegates to stand up and observe a
moment of silence for the late anti-Apartheid leader Nelson Mandela (right). 
