When authorities analyze complex issues of this nature, are they approaching them from a narrow, one-sided perspective, while overlooking broader, multi-dimensional viewpoints? For example, are they ignoring whether the issue is tied to Malaysia’s overall economic environment—marked by a lack of competitiveness and vitality, the long-term weakness of the ringgit’s exchange rate and purchasing power, and the fact that the average national income has never reached a First World standard?
Politics is the business of governing the people. Therefore, a professional and responsible government must first carry out macro-level and objective data analysis before implementing any new policy. Only through such diligence can it achieve transparent governance, benefit the public, and earn their trust. This is especially crucial in today’s era of information explosion, where big data analysis leads the way. Governments cannot afford to be careless in this regard—especially since even minors today know how to verify claims using Google, artificial intelligence, and other online platforms.
The kind of “keep the public in the dark” policies that could barely pass muster in the last century will definitely not hold up in this one—they’ll be exposed in seconds. Conversely, when a government tries to push forward a new policy while completely sidestepping big data, and instead cherry-picks isolated cases to stir public emotion, it suggests either the underlying data doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, or that the policymakers are deliberately distracting from the real issues, possibly with hidden agendas.
Take for example the controversial policy reform recently proposed by the Ministry of Finance, which seeks to emulate the civil service pension system by restricting a new group of Employees Provident Fund (EPF) members to only receiving monthly payments after retirement—no longer allowing them to withdraw a lump sum as is currently permitted. Although this is a major policy shift with broad and long-term implications, the justifications provided by officials have been vague and scattered. For instance, Deputy Finance Minister Amir Hamzah recently claimed: “The issue we currently see is that” some people “spend all their EPF funds shortly after withdrawing them at retirement, leaving them with insufficient savings in old age.”
But the key question is: who exactly are these “some people” the minister refers to? How many are there? If they represent only a small minority of EPF members, why should the majority be penalized and forced to bear the cost of a few? Doesn’t this contradict the democratic principle that the minority obeys the majority?
More importantly, when addressing such complex issues, has the government limited itself to a narrow lens while ignoring larger, more structural factors—such as Malaysia’s broader economic climate, long-standing currency depreciation and weakened purchasing power, and the inability of citizens’ average incomes to reach First World levels?
Another closely related factor is the country’s healthcare policy. While charges at public hospitals remain highly affordable, it is well-known that these facilities are overcrowded and inaccessible to many. This particularly affects many retirees who are elderly and in poor health. Due to the high costs of private healthcare, they are often forced to deplete significant—sometimes all—of their EPF savings to cover urgent medical needs and life-saving treatments.
