HEALTHCARE, education and social infrastructure are usually universal benefits that we all automatically benefit from.
However, it is rather strange that in our society there is resistance to the idea of providing a basic income to all citizens universally.
Targeted benefits are the opposite of this. While it seems perfectly sensible to target very limited resources only to those that need them most, these tend to be unpopular policies.
Rooted in a mindset of scarcity, they sow suspicion, breed one-upmanship and are rife with criticism.
Similarly, means-tested cash transfer programmes also tend to be unpopular, leading to envy and a sense of something for nothing.
If cash transfers were made into a universal benefit, like a basic income, this perception may be different. So how would this form of universality work its magic?
With universality, we are no
longer divided into two camps of “deserving” and “undeserving”. There is no social stigma against recipients, no political tension, no complex
and intrusive applications to the government and no inspectors keeping a watch over you.
Many argue that the government has no place determining between the deserving and the undeserving anyway.
If giving cash to the “rich” does not sit right with you yet, consider the administrative cost savings that come with universality. How many man hours would be saved from trying to discriminate between rich and poor people if we simply included everyone?
Instead of suspicion, basic income would efficiently disburse an agreed amount to all, directly to their bank accounts or MyKad, without any middlemen or room for wastage, leakages and corruption.
Targeted benefits can feel debilitating when you are paid for being poor and when that payment is reduced when you progress through hard work to a marginally higher income. Instead of disincentivising progress, basic income does away with all disincentives by being universal.
By boosting social mobility without tinkering with anyone’s social status, there is no more one-upmanship – everyone gets it.
Universality is only one of five tenets of basic income. It also must be regular or monthly – paid in cash not tokens – vouchers or food parcels,
paid to individuals not heads of households and above all it must be unconditional.
These ideas are quickly gaining ground in Malaysia. Under Budget 2025, the unity government announced a significant boost to the Sumbangan Tunai Rahmah (STR) and Sumbangan Asas Rahmah (Sara) initiatives next year.
Total allocations increased to RM13 billion from RM10 billion and will benefit nine million people or 60%
of the adult population.
Financial assistance under the Social Welfare Department (JKM) will rise to RM2.9 billion from RM2.4 billion, enabling higher monthly welfare payments for the underprivileged.
A total of 4.1 million households will receive Sara cash transfers compared with 700,000 recipients this year, with a RM100 monthly benefit credited directly to their MyKad.
The maximum household assistance will increase to RM4,600, compared with RM3,700 previously. Combining all forms of assistance, no one in Malaysia needs to have an income of less than RM1,100 per month.
Including STR, Sara and JKM, a poor household with three children is eligible to receive over RM13,000 annually, compared to RM11,000 last year. Senior citizens living in poverty, will be eligible for over RM10,000 in aid annually, compared to RM8,000 last year. This is before accounting
for additional aid from state governments, Zakat or from foundations.
The progressive reforms of welfare assistance will still need to embed the basic principles of regular payments, paid in cash to individuals on a universal and unconditional basis, but Malaysia has already begun this journey and has the chance to be a leader in the world, creating magic from a universal basic income.
Lee Seng Kiat is a volunteer coordinator for the Basic Income Earth Network and Prof Geoffrey Williams is an economist and policy specialist. The views expressed
are those of the authors.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
