Monday, June 12, 2017

Revising the minimum wage levels in Malaysia


Imagine that you are the sole breadwinner in your family. You earn the current minimumwage of RM1,000 to feed a family of 4 living in Kuala Lumpur. How would you plan your daily expenditure and the expenditure of your family? You have only about RM8 per person per day to spend.

That was the underlying context for the “Poverty Line Challenge” organised by Suaram Penang for the past two consecutive years, which challenged participants to survive on only RM7.5 per day for five continuous days. This may be just a five day challenge to some, but in reality, 1.6% of households[1] (or about 106,800 households) in Malaysia had earned less than the minimum wage of RM900 per month in 2014. For the lowest expenditure class of households, on average they would spend 28% of their earnings on food and beverages, 30% on housing and utilities and another 9% on transport[2].

This begs the question of whether the minimum wage of RM1,000 is sufficient for a household living in an urban area.

According to the National Wages Consultative Council of Malaysia[3], the objectives of the minimum wages policy are to i) ensure basic needs of workers and their families are met ii) provide sufficient social protection to workers iii) encourage industry to move up the value chain by investing in higher technology and increase labour productivity and iv) reduce nation’s dependence on unskilled foreign labour.

Malaysia began implementing the minimum wage effective from January 1st 2013, where the monthly minimum wage in Peninsular Malaysia was RM900 and for East Malaysia, RM800. Effective since last year July, the monthly minimum wage was adjusted to RM1,000 and RM920, respectively. Under the minimum wage legislation, the minimum wage levels shall be reviewed every two years.

Critics blame this policy for harming the economy and forcing some businesses to close thus creating more unemployment. Some cast doubt because they feel that the labour productivity increases do not match up with the wage increment. On the other hand, others claim that the minimum wage is set too low and as such does not help the workers to cope with higher living cost in Malaysia. Proponents of a higher minimum wage, such as Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) and opposition parties repeatedly urge the government to set it at RM1,500 .

Figures from the Labour Force Survey seem to show some of the benefits of the minimumwage policy. This policy may be partially responsible for the improvement in labour force participating rate (LFPR) from 65.6% in 2012 (pre-minimum wage policy) to 67.7% in 2016. The implementation of the minimum wage policy also coincided with an increase in women’s participation in the labour force, where female LFPR reached 54.3% in 2016, up from 49.5% in 2012. The number of employed persons in Malaysia also increased from 12.8million in 2012 to 14.2million in 2016. This clearly shows that employment opportunities and labour participation in Malaysia were not negatively affected by the minimum wage policy. While the minimum wage policy has brought more socioeconomic benefits than harm, the current system in Malaysia is still far from ideal. Allow me to illustrate further.

The current minimum wage rates are only applicable to West and East Malaysia, as 2 general territories. However, inter-state difference is wide. For instance, is it fair to have workers in the Klang Valley and in Kelantan both receive the same amount of minimum wage? Even within a state there is huge disparity in living expenses: taking Selangor as an example, residents in Bandar Utama (an affluent township located in Petaling Jaya district) and Sungai Besar (a rural township in Sabak Bernam district) would have vastly different levels of living costs.

It may be true that some firms might consider laying off its workers due to cost saving when minimum wage is implemented. However, if the firm knows that the minimum wage level for rural or semi-urban area is significantly lower, they might consider moving into and setting up the business there, thus more job opportunities could be brought to the area.

Another issue is the fact that the current system does not distinguish between workers’ age. Employers are often reluctant to pay inexperienced ‘freshman’ workers too highly. In this case, a lower but reasonable wage for young workers may be a good balance. This also allows for the setting of a higher minimum wage at a later age, when the workers are more likely to shoulder bigger financial responsibilities for family needs. In United Kingdom, the government gazettes the National Minimum Wage hourly rates of £5.6 (RM30.33) to £7.05 (RM38.19) for 18-20 to 21-24 years old employees, respectively. However, the National Living Wage is applied to employees of age 25 years old and above, set at hourly rate of £7.5 (RM40.62).  Even more impressive is the fact that the UK minimum wage rates are adjustable or reviewed every half year. Can Malaysia emulate the same “age-sensitive” model?

One may have reservations and might worry that this proposal would complicate matters for the authorities and employers. One needs to be reminded that some countries set the minimum wage rates even according to different demographics, such as India, which has more than 1,200 rates across the country. I do not propose that we wholly follow the case of India, but at the very least, rates should be refined down to state or district level.

Many countries set the minimum wage at 30-60% of the median wage of their country. Thus, if our government takes 60% of the median household income[4] (RM4,585) divided by average number of wage earners per household (1.8), the minimum wage should be RM1,528. If we take the UK standard at 44%, then it would be RM1,120.

The current national minimum wage in Malaysia is set too low. If the lowest grade of workers from the Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai have enjoyed a minimum basic salary (including fixed allowance) of RM1,350[5] since 2012, there is no reason why the federal government cannot adjust the national minimum wage to an acceptable and fair level.

In setting minimum wage rates, the main consideration should be creating a social safety net that complements the existing social welfare system, which I believe is inadequate. The minimum wage should serve as a right for workers to avoid being exploited by the employers. Workers deserve sufficient wages to deal with basic living expenses, so they can live with assurance and dignity.


[1] Prices, Income and Expenditure Statistics Division, Department of Statistics Malaysia.[2] Household expenditure survey 2014, Department of Statistics Malaysia[3] T. Shanmugam, “Early effects and challenges of minimum wages in Malaysia: Sharing of pre & post economic and social indicators”, Presentation at the National Minimum Wage: Symposium & Policy Roundtable, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2-4 February 2016[4] Household Income And Basic Amenities Survey Report 2014, Department of Statistics Malaysia[5] “Dasar baru pro-pekerja 2012 MPSP, gaji minima RM1,350”, Bulletin Mutiara, 16 Nov 2011.https://www.buletinmutiara.com/dasar-baru-pro-pekerja-2012-mpsp-gaji-minima-rm1350/

Prudent, strategic planning required for medical housemanship programme

It is stereotypical of Asian parents to dream of the day when their child dons the white doctor’s coat or the green surgeon’s scrubs. In fact, there are plenty of opportunities for one aspiring to be a medical doctor in Malaysia.

Over the years, Malaysia has experienced a boom in the number of medical programmes offered by private higher education institutions in order to cater for this demand.  Parents typically invest a hefty sum into a child’s medical education, which would take 4 to 5 years to complete. From just one college (namely, the Penang Medical College) in 2001 to 11 private institutions in 2014, the number of medical graduates from private institutions entering the workforce is 26 times more than what it used to be in 2001. Those who did not enrol in local institutions may opt to study abroad in one of the 310 recognised foreign medical institutions, some of which have lower entry requirements than local institutions. The sharp surge in the numbers of medical graduates seeking housemanship positions has caused a glut in the public system. In 2015, Malaysian Medical Council provisionally registered 5,147 medical practitioners; only 4,121 housemen having completed and vacated the local positions in the same year.

In a recent interview, Deputy Health Minister Dr Hilmi Yahaya stated that out of a total of 10,835 housemen placed in 44 teaching hospitals and Royal Military Hospitals, only 48.6% medical graduates who went through Public Service Commission interview in 2016 obtained a place[1]. Meanwhile, the Health Minister Dr Subramaniam conceded that the waiting time forhousemanship placement was between 6 to 9 months.[2] This prolonged wait caused anxiety and stress to the housemen, as they were left with no means of income and risked losing touch with the knowledge and skills acquired during their years of study.

Since 2008, the duration of the housemanship programme has increased from one year to 2 years. Now, housemen are required to cover 6 disciplines for their postings, namely Internal Medicine, Paediatrics, Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Orthopaedics and Emergency Medicine (or 3 alternative choices of discipline). The total number and the turnover rate of house officer positions are determinants for a fresh houseman to secure a place in one of the training hospitals. On the other hand, the number of experienced specialists who are willing and able to supervise the house officers determines the quality of the housemanship programme.

Another difficulty lies in getting sufficient numbers of available specialists in each discipline. Within ‘Emergency Medicine’, MOH has only 139 specialists, and another 3 core discipline areas have less than 250 specialists each[3]. If one were to divide the aforementioned total number of housemen by 6 postings, there would be 1806 housemen on average seeking a placement in a certain discipline at any one point in time. Even if 100 specialists from a particular discipline enlisted as a mentor, he or she would have to supervise a group of 18 housemen on average. With such constrained resources, how could the training quality be good and sufficient under such circumstances? A study done in 2012 by the MOH further confirmed that in 48.4% of all cases, one mentor had to take on 6 mentees and above[4]. There were even cases of over 20 mentees to 1 mentor!

The ongoing ‘brain drain’ of specialists to the private sector and foreign countries is yet another issue contributing to the shortage of experienced specialists and consequently, poorer quality of training. It was found that between 2009 and 2013, about one-third of housemen reported to have extended their housemanship training at least once[5] ; 55% due to incompetence and the remaining 45% due to disciplinary issues. These “extensions” caused a bottleneck to the placement system within the training hospitals. Coupled with the large influx of incoming medical graduates over the recent decade, the training hospitals are becoming even more bloated and simply cannot catch up with the pace.

While the housemanship bottleneck issue cannot be solved overnight, policymakers should be more prudent in planning to anticipate the possible issues and prevent the situation from worsening. We recommend the following measures: Firstly, MOH should train more specialists and retain them in public sector. Besides that, MOH should also plan and design the housemanship programme better, especially to incentivise specialists to become mentors. In broader terms, the government should work with private sector hospitals, providing the latter with incentives to train housemen while sharing the cost burden of training. Finally, the MMC needs to have tighter regulations of local private and overseas medical education institutions to ensure medical graduates they produced are of desirable quality and not quantity.

Given that housemanship training is the bedrock of good skills and professional development for medical officers, government has to ensure that medical graduates receive proper skills training and have an overall satisfying experience during their housemanship period. After all,housemanship training is an important quality safeguard of the provision of medical services to the general public.


[1] “More slots at training hospitals opening up for housemen”, The Star, 15 March 2017
[2] Hashini Kavishtri Kannan, “Med students told: Don't work illegally, wait for housemanpostings”, New Straits Times, 3 August 2016
[3] National Specialist Register, valid as of 24 Feb 2017
[4] Ang K.T. et al., “Mentoring Junior Doctors in Public Sector Hospitals, Malaysia”, Institute for Health Management, 2012

[5] Norrina J. et al., “Housemen Extension: The Concern of All”, Institute for Health Management, 2014

政策和公共知识份子的角色

如何鼓励人民多乘搭公共交通,从而解决塞车问题?消费税当初应该推行吗?推广医疗旅游会否损及本地人在私人医疗服务上的利益?哪个是永续发展的模式,以确保自然环境与人文精神可被维护及发扬光大?

以上的问题都牵涉到政策讨论:有些具有政治意识,有些则可放在非常技术的层面来探讨。政策影响可大可小,大至决定你在这片国土上的个人身份权利,主宰你的衣食住行;小则跟你没直接关系。无论是良策或下策,有些政策的影响深远至几代人的事,例如70年代的新经济政策;有些政策则会带来永久性不可逆转的改变,比方说允许油棕种植业开辟原始森林的土地政策。

在我国,政策的拟定一般惯性是由上而下产生的。有时候纯粹是政治人物的个人意愿或突发奇想,例如英文教数理政策。一旦政策没经过仔细研究和深思熟虑,没以数据事实和扎实理论为根据推算未来,该政策的失败风险机率颇大。那么最后由谁来收拾烂摊子,代价由谁来负责?当中的问责追究机制,人民除了可委托反对党,本身能不能亲自有效地监督政府的表现?

在一些民众的认知里,政策似乎归属于政治圈子内的话题和权力而已,他们觉得遥不可及,也无从改变结果。遥不可及或源自于有些政策的技术复杂度,导致某些人因无力全面解读而放弃参与讨论。再说,对国家政治制度已失去信心和希望的大有人在,他们甚至认为讨论政策无济于事因为上台的还会是同一集团的同一批人。

前联合国秘书长科菲安南曾说过:“知识就是力量,信息就是解放。教育是进步的前提,对每个社会和家庭都一样”。同样的道理若用在我国的政治和民主教育,有何不可?倘若人民能掌握议题、对政策了解得更多,就能更自觉本身的权利,不会轻易被忽悠受摆布。如此一来,众人更能组织起兴论力量来反对和抵挡不合理不正义的政策,这就是民主成熟、理智进步的社会象征。

政策的讨论虽可在咖啡店里口沫横飞道长短,或在豪华酒店的会议厅里滔滔不绝,到底最后结果怎样还是得回到重点看论政策的人有没做足功课,拿出专业精神实事求是,分析解说能不能信服大众。没错,政策研究是一门学问。我身为槟州州政府的智库和公共政策研究中心的政策分析员之一,除了要做好这门学问,更有责任把思想种子散播出去,以期能发扬新观点促使它影响或改变这社会,达到一定的功用。要取信于社会大众,除了要使用易懂的语言持续性地与公众沟通交流,更重要的是能坚持把住本身的客观专业,公正不阿、问心无愧地交代和捍卫本身的研究结果。

既然是由公费资助的政策研究,必然要有其公共利益,研究成果也理应与公众公开分享。换言之,我是纳税人的雇员,终须对公众负责。而我在其位谋其事就得尽其责,成为公共知识份子之一。那么,我唯有走出冷气房面向大众,才能有效地做到坐言起行。


如果政策是个大版图,围绕着这个大版图的策议者对于时局布阵,防守进攻略都必须拿捏清楚。细节可有错但不能全盘皆落,至少大方向没走错。就如刘备三顾茅庐拜访诸葛亮留下后来的《隆中对》,从此奠定了刘备的蜀国在三国天下定局的立足攻略基础。又称《隆中三策》,诸葛亮提出先取荆州为根基,再夺益州为鼎足补给后方,进而角逐中原的战略构想。若说槟城是我们发挥影响力的出发点根据地,角逐政府决策的中原是我们的理想。那么,我们该有什么政策攻略打造一个进步有希望的马来西亚?我的研究院同僚们将在接下来每逢周日与大家谈政策,叙说故事。


刊登于《東方日報》東方文薈版2017年6月11日