Meiji University

　

Titleマレーシアにおける残余的福祉主義 -社会福祉アクタ

ーの価値観・考え方の影響-

Author(s) ファラ,シャミーン モハマド アシュレイ

Citation

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10291/21072

Rights

Issue Date 2020

Text version ETD

Type Thesis or Dissertation

DOI

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　https://m-repo.lib.meiji.ac.jp/

Academic Year 2020

Meiji University,

Graduate School of Global Governance

Doctoral Dissertation

Welfare Residualism in Malaysia:

Influence of Ideologies and Notions of Social Welfare Actors

Global Governance Program

Farrah Shameen Mohamad Ashray

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................... vi

DECLARATION ........................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................viii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... x

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background of research ................................................................................. 1

1.2 Problem statement .......................................................................................... 3

1.3 Research objectives and questions ................................................................. 8

1.4 Definition of terms ......................................................................................... 8

Social welfare, social welfare policy and social welfare system ............... 8

Residualism .............................................................................................. 10

1.5 Research methodology and data collection.................................................. 11

1.6 Significance of research ............................................................................... 12

1.7 Organisation of chapters .............................................................................. 13

2 CONTEXTUALISING SOCIAL WELFARE IN MALASIA: PAST AND

PRESENT ........................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 15

2.2 The transition from traditional, colonial to modern social welfare

arrangements ................................................................................................ 15

Traditional and informal systems in plural communities......................... 15

Set up of the formal welfare department.................................................. 20

The colonial notion of welfarism ............................................................. 22

Collaboration between state and non-state actors .................................... 24

2.3 Federalism and formal social welfare arrangements ................................... 26

The constitutional division of social welfare responsibility .................... 26

The gap between the aspiration of the Constitution and conflicts in the

current arrangement ................................................................................. 31

Social welfare funding in the multicultural society ................................. 34

Poverty eradication, cash handouts and welfare services ........................ 37

2.4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 44

3 LITERATURE REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK & RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 48

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 48

3.2 Social welfare theories from perspectives of welfare relations perspective 49

ii

Development of social welfare models and the influential factors .......... 49

Social welfare models in Asian countries from welfare relations............ 51

The ideas of welfare relations amongst various social actors .................. 54

3.3 Political behaviour of welfare actors: Public choice theory ........................ 57

3.4 Conceptual framework and operational assumptions .................................. 62

3.5 Research methodology ................................................................................. 64

Qualitative research approach .................................................................. 64

Research strategy ..................................................................................... 65

Elite interviews ........................................................................................ 67

Insider outsider role of the author as observant and interviewer ............. 72

4 INSTITUTIONAL LEGACIES AND SOCIAL-CULTURAL INFLUENCE

ON MULTIPLE SOCIAL WELFARE ACTORS ........................................... 74

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 74

4.2 The impact of institutional legacies and the social-cultural context ............ 75

Roots of present official thinking and ideologies towards social welfare 75

Influence of racial and religious polarisation on welfare actors .............. 89

Fragmented political ideology and belief axiom amongst social welfare

actors ........................................................................................................ 92

4.3 The impact of the interaction between the formal and informal sector ....... 97

Disconnectedness and delusion of partnership ........................................ 97

The conflict of burden of duties between the government and NGOs .... 99

The notions of formal actors towards the ability of NGOs .................... 104

Weak links of communication leading to fragmented visions between

parties ..................................................................................................... 106

4.4 Findings and discussions............................................................................ 107

5 INTERACTIONS OF THE MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNMENT ACTORS 110

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 110

5.2 Grave disconnectedness between federal and state actors and intra-agencies

leading to detachment with issues on the ground ...................................... 110

5.3 Different degrees of state government entry and involvement in the social

welfare sector ............................................................................................. 117

5.4 Fragmentation and lack of signalling at state government level from the

federal government .................................................................................... 120

5.5 The proliferation of political patronage and clientelism at the grassroots

level ............................................................................................................ 122

5.6 The ever-present zakat institution and mismatched expectations of its role

127

5.7 Findings and discussions............................................................................ 130

iii

6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 136

6.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 136

6.2 Policy implication ...................................................................................... 141

6.3 Academic contribution ............................................................................... 143

6.4 Limitation and further studies .................................................................... 144

References ................................................................................................................. 146

Appendix 1: Timeline of key events and milestones ............................................. 159

Appendix 2: Interview questions for fieldwork ..................................................... 165

Appendix 3: Consent for participation in interview fieldwork ........................... 167

Appendix 4: List of welfare portfolio ministers and their positions in political

parties ................................................................................................................ 168

iv

ABSTRACT

Malaysia has been facing a host of problems of social welfare, one of them the lack of access

to social welfare services and the over-concentration on cash handouts. The approach of the

Malaysian government has been described as residual and with the increase of demand for

government intervention because of the dwindling of traditional institutions like family, the

existing approach cannot sustain and will cost the wellbeing of the people. This study attempts

to provide an understanding of why social welfare has been deemed residual in Malaysia. The

assumptions of this research are first, institutional legacy and the social-cultural context of

Malaysia influenced the ideology and attitudes of the multiple social welfare actors; secondly,

the interaction of the formal and informal sector impacted the notion of the government's role.

Thirdly, it is assumed that the interaction of the multi-layers government actors fuelled the

welfare residualism in Malaysia. Through a combination of the concept of welfare relations

and the public choice theory, this research tried to find the factors that might have led to the

current condition though a document review which was triangulated by speaking directly to

thirty-eight elite social welfare actors from the grass-root level up to the top civil servants,

politicians and ministers. This study found that there are several distinctive dimensions, which

further complicates the administration of Malaysian social welfare. These are weak federal

governmental arrangements leading to federal-states conflicts, the existence of ethnic and

religious polarisation and a further weakening of policy by firm conviction among social

welfare actors, especially the politicians and bureaucrats, that the government should not be in

the business of providing social welfare service. This conviction is contested in this research.

In short, the notion of social welfare in Malaysia has not matured, while remaining as an area

of non-decision of decisions because of the attached 'stigma' such as over-dependence on

government, complacency and laziness. The study concludes that the pervasive notion of non-

responsibility of the government has caused social welfare policy to be shunned and to remain

v

as a non-decision of decisions across the different levels of government. The weak coordination,

dependence on the voluntary sector, and disconnectedness have fuelled the residual condition

and pattern. This study found that understanding the institutional legacies attached to the social

welfare actors gave insight into the complexity of the values and beliefs of the policy actors

and the challenges in the clashes of their preconceived notions and ideologies. This research

was able to obtain an understanding of the social welfare policy and the challenges in interfaces

of the different actors that have led to the residualism of the system.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I will like to take this opportunity to thank all the professors and staff at Meiji University,

Tokyo, who was supportive of me. I thank the government of Malaysia for the scholarship,

which enabled me to undertake this doctoral research. To my parents, brothers, family, friends,

PhD. colleagues and confidants, thank you. A special mention to my supervisors, Professor

Takafumi Kanemura and Professor Dr. Yuriko Minamoto; examiners, Professor Dr. Hideaki

Tanaka, Professor Makoto Nagahata, Professor Emeritus Dr. Kiyoshi Yamamoto (Tokyo

University), Professor Izumi Hoshino; and mentors, Distinguished Professor Emeritus Dr.

Akira Nakamura (Meiji University), Distinguished Professor Dr. Shamsul Amri Baharuddin

(National University of Malaysia), Professor Dr Ismail Baba, Professor Evelynn Naoumi,

Professor Dr. Kosaku Dairokuno, Dr. Akiko Hayashi and many others I couldn't mention here,

who relentlessly spared their time, wisdom and knowledge, I shall be forever grateful.

Finally, I would like to thank all my informants in this research, without whom this

research would not have been possible.

vii

DECLARATION

I, Farrah Shameen Mohamad Ashray, with this declare that this dissertation is entirely

my work unless duly cited/ referred. In the course of completing this doctoral program, I have

also published four peer-reviewed journal articles as follows:

1. Ashray, F.S. (2016). Social welfare funding: The unique role of zakat fund in Malaysia,

Journal of Urban Management and Local Government Research, 32(2), 43-62

2. Ashray, F. S. (2017). Personal social responsibility: Tendencies in donation giving

amongst Individuals in Malaysia, Research in Global Governance (1)

3. Ashray, F. S. (2017a). Social welfare in Malaysia: Role of government and voluntary

sector. International Journal of Social Policy and Society, 2017(13), 29-47

4. Ashray, F.S. (2018). Social welfare in Malaysia: Role of government. Advances in Social

Science, Education and Humanities Research, (191), Asian Association for Public

Administration Annual Conference (AAPA 2018), 10.2991/aapa-18.2018.40

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Title Page

Number

Figure 2.1 Structure and locality of the DSWM within the Ministry of Women,

Family and Community Development and the branches at state and district levels

(as of December 2017)

30

Figure 2.2: Structure of state governments in Malaysia including the welfare-

related actors and religious organisations

31

Figure 2.3: Sources of social welfare funding in Malaysia 35

Figure 2.4: Malaysian federal government expenditure for education, health and

social security and welfare as a percentage of GDP, 1997-2014

36

Figure 2.5: Author’s interpretation of the formal and informal institutional

changes related to social welfare in Malaysia

45

Figure 3.1: Conceptual framework 63

Figure 4.1: Author's analysis of the federal government's establishment of quasi-

welfare bodies to enable external support

76

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Title

Page

Number

Table 1.1: Paul Spicker's adaptation of Mishra's characteristics of three welfare

models

11

Table 2.1: Division of subjects in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957

28

Table 2.2: Institutional services by the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia by

region and categories as of May 2016

41

Table 3.1: List of informants interviewed by categories used in this research

68

Table 4.1: The movement of the welfare services from the colonial to the

establishment of the Department of Social Welfare from 1946 to 2018

79

Table 4.2: Excerpts of selected Malaysian Prime Ministers' speeches with the

indication of 'Welfare State', welfare notions and the burden of responsibility

81

Table 4.3: Comparison between federal politician, bureaucrats and NGOs

Perspectives

97

Table 4.4: Tax exemption claimed by individuals and corporate sector under

Section 44(6) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (Million/ USD)

99

Table 5.1: Comparison between federal bureaucrats' expectation of JKKK and

actual JKKK understanding of own responsibilities

113

Table 5.2: State government EXCO portfolio related to social welfare as of

February 2017

121

Table 5.3 Community base organisations (CBOs) that exist at the grass-root level

in Malaysia

123

x

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADS Administrative and Diplomatic Service

ASDev Alternative Service Delivery

BN Barisan Nasional

BNM Bank Negara Malaysia (National Bank)

BMA British Military Administration

CBR Community Based Rehabilitation (Pemulihan Dalam Komuniti - PDK)

CBO Community-Based Organisations

DGInc. Director-General of Social Welfare Incorporated

DSN Dasar Sosial Negara (National Social Policy)

DSWM Department of Social Welfare Malaysia

DO District Officer

DWO District Welfare Officer

EPU, PMD Economic Planning Unit, Prime Ministers' Department

E-Kasih Electronic Kasih Poverty Database (National Poverty Database)

GRLs Grass-root Leaders

ICU, PMD Implementation Coordination Unit, Prime Ministers' Department

ISM Social Institute of Malaysia

JKKK Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (Village

Development and Security Committee)

JPP Jawatankuasa Pembangunan Penduduk (Resident Development

Committee)

MAB Malaysian Association for the Blind

MPKSM Central Welfare Council

MWFCD Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development

MOF Ministry of Finance

MOH Ministry of Health

NEP New Economic Policy (Dasar Ekonomi Baru – DEB)

NGOs Non-Governmental Organisation

NSC National Social Council (Majlis Sosial Negara)

NGIs Non-Governmental Individual

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PKMD District Welfare Officer

PH Pakatan Harapan

PMD Prime Ministers' Department

PMO Prime Ministers' Office

PSD Public Service Department, Prime Ministers' Department

PSTA Public Sector Transformation Agenda 2011-2015

RM Ringgit Malaysia

RT Rukun Tetangga

SEA South-East Asia

SLBs Street-level bureaucrats

SIRC State Islamic Religious Council

SWO Social Welfare Officers

SWS Social Welfare Service

SWP2006 Social Welfare Policy 2006

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund

xi

UN United Nations

VWOs Voluntary Welfare Organisations

WEF World Economic Forum

YKN Yayasan Kebajikan Negara (National Welfare Foundation)

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of research

Although Malaysia has become one of the leading economies in South-east Asia, in tandem

with its economic growth, the government of Malaysia has begun to experience issues of

developed nations, ageing, low fertility rates, and smaller households. Furthermore, in 2015,

the World Economic Forum's Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2015 identified that

as a middle-income country, Malaysia ranks better amongst its peers in areas like basic needs,

employment, and access to healthcare but has a relatively weaker performer in healthcare cost,

pollution and social welfare (World Economic Forum (WEF), 2015; and Organization for the

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2016, p.116). Moreover, Malaysia also

faces a development gap between the more affluent and poorer states, and there is a demand to

improve social services (OECD, 2016, p.13).

Reflecting on the findings of WEF and OECD, it seems that while much has been

written about the success of Malaysia as a developmental state and its success in eradicating

abject poverty to 0.6 per cent in 2015, as compared with more than 60 per cent when Malaysia

gained independence in 1957 (Economic Planning Unit, 2016), a different scenario shows that

the government welfare spending on means-tested welfare cash handouts through the

Department of Social Welfare Malaysia (DSWM) increases every year, especially for the

elderly. At the same time, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) introduced the 1Malaysia Cash

Support (BR1M) pay-out in 2013 on top of existing welfare cash assistance programme, while

few state governments such as Selangor and Penang (both in 2008), introduced a variety of

non-means-tested and means-tested one-off cash assistance, for a broader range of recipients.

2

This suggests that the demand for social welfare cash support1 is increasing despite the federal

government claim that poverty is being eradicated. Furthermore, some state governments have

started to challenge the status quo by stepping up to participate more actively in social welfare

provision and are demanding autonomy to manage social welfare funds at the state level

(Borneo Times, 2013, 2014).

From another perspective, Ashray (2017) claimed that there is a shortage of public

welfare institutions (PWI) in Malaysia and a need for more financial support for the welfare-

related NGOs. As of July 2019, in a country with a population of about 33 million, there were

only 66 public welfare institutions (for juveniles, children, elderly, disabled, destitute) directly

administered by the federal government with the total maximum capacity of 5,100 people

(could cater for only 0.0154 per cent of the population). The lack of facilities, and also the

shortage of financial support to the third sector is just the tip of social welfare problems, ever

present and waiting to explode in Malaysia. Based on the above account, the question arises

then, why these issues have persisted despite the Federal Constitution in 1957 (hereinafter

referred to as the Constitution) having enshrined 'social welfare' is the shared duty of both the

federal and the state government?

In many countries, social welfare services are often being provided by the local

governments, which are entities nearest to the citizens. However, that is not the case in

Malaysia. The government has been providing welfare programmes for the vulnerable group,

whose attempts have been facing a host of impediments. Simply stated, the country has not yet

entrenched a government system, including the state government systems that can expand and

1 In this study, social welfare policy refers to the programmes and initiatives by the Department of

Social Welfare Malaysia which is a department under the Ministry of Women, Family and Community

Development whose clients/target groups are children, the disabled, the elderly, the destitute, the poor,

juveniles, and victims of catastrophe/ disaster, who are considered to be vulnerable cohort in the society.

However, this study will not include juveniles and victims of disaster.

3

deal with the rising welfare needs of the people, especially in terms of welfare services. Thus,

the author argues that the social welfare services in Malaysia need to be analysed through the

extent of the role of the government and its relations as well as interaction with other social

welfare actors. Since past research has concentrated on the effectiveness of cash handouts and

specific target groups, such as the elderly, children or disabled, and has overlooked the issues

of the administrative structure and the challenges of existing alongside other actors such as the

third sector, the author posits that the approach of this research is necessary.

1.2 Problem statement

There are a substantial number of issues in the area of social welfare in Malaysia. First and

foremost is the provision of social welfare services in Malaysia which cover from (1)

Incidences of neglect and abandonment of children (Singh, 2015), disabled and elderly have

increased over the years (Malaysiakini, 2018), compounded by the increase of the homeless

(Abdul Rahman, 2003, Department of Social Welfare, 2015, p.88; and Ghee & Raja Omar,

2014), (2) Absence and the future professionalism of the social service/ work service on the

ground (Baba, 1992; Ling, 2012; Sinnasamy, 2006; Sushama, 1985; and Teoh & Salleh, 2010);

(3) Fraudulent solicitation of funds from individual self-proclaimed welfare organisations and

charity scams (DSWM, 2017; and The Star, 2015); and (4) Orphans from the Voluntary Welfare

Organisations (VWOs) or Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) homes have exploited to

beg on the streets due to the lack of funds (Sinar Online, 2015; and Yaacob, 2019).

Despite this, the social welfare especially services are not considered and not identified

as one of the priority agenda in the government of Malaysia, as compared to the amplified and

proliferation of cash handouts for poverty eradication agenda since the New Economic Policy

4

(NEP)2 in 1970, after the racial riot in 1969. Poverty in Malaysia has been identified with race,

and the NEP was a policy that drove many prong programmes to lift the economic and wealth

status of the people, especially the Malays. The socio-political justification for NEP was:

'National Unity is unattainable without greater equity and balance among

Malaysia's social and ethnic groups in their participation in the development of the

country and in the sharing of the benefits from modernisation and economic growth.

National Unity cannot be fostered if vast sections of the population remain poor and

if sufficient productive employment opportunities are not created for the expanding

labour force' (Second Malaysia Plan, 1971, p.3-4)

Globally, the cost of funding social welfare is increasing. Governments with universal

systems such as tax-funded universal healthcare and pensions are facing challenges in

maintaining the sustainability of the systems (World Bank, 2014). In term of regimes,

developing countries are often seen to have less established social protection systems: leaving

their people to solve their problems while the government concentrates on means-tested cash

handouts programmes for the hard-core poor. This is not the holistic system that is

recommended by the United Nations, World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB).

Consequently, governments and scholars are paying more attention to non-state actors, non-

formal and more importantly, to traditional or religious mechanisms that have existed (Midgley,

2016). In the case of Malaysia, one of the traditional and religious mechanisms is zakat which

is a unique source of funding focusing on wealth redistribution that exists in Islamic countries

2 Others suggest that the NEP has contributed to racial polarisation and a feeling of marginalisation

among the non-Malays although there has been a change of mind-set. For example, Datuk Seri Abdullah

Ahmad Badawi, Prime Minister of Malaysia, in his maiden speech as United Malays National

Organisation (UMNO) president to the UMNO general assembly in 2004 stated ‘Let's not use the

crutches for support all the time, the knee will become weak’.

5

or countries with a Muslims presence (Ashray, 2016; and OECD, 2016). For example, Malaysia

has a pool of zakat sources, paid as a compulsory donation by Muslims. In 2014, the zakat

collection was equivalent to two per cent of federal government revenue and 14 per cent of

state government revenue in Malaysia. It is being distributed both in cash and to a certain level,

in-kinds assistance or services to identify recipients who are mainly from the vulnerable group

(Ashray, 2016) 3 . Zakat is being organised at the state government level in Malaysia, as

prescribed in the Constitution. However, OECD (2016) and Ashray (2016) opined that the

potential of zakat as a supplemental revenue source and complemental support mechanism for

social welfare deserves more attention and investigation.

More recently, the existing programmes have been challenged by the increasing

demand for state governments such as Sarawak and Sabah. These states demanded from the

federal government to allow autonomy for them to manage social welfare funds and allocations

because they claim that Putrajaya is too far removed to understand the local needs of their states

(Borneo, 2015). In 2016, the relationship between the federal government and the state was

once tested when the state minister of welfare openly disagreed with the federal government

Minister's mantra to stop building public welfare institutions and that families should be

responsible. This gave an indication that the so-called national strategies might not be

acceptable with the needs in the state, thus rejecting the one size fits all approach by the

Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development (in future 'the Ministry') (The

Borneo Post, 2016a and 2016c). The brewing conflict also suggests that the perceived and long-

revered stability in the relationship between the federal and the state government was

3 Recipients of zakat are pre-defined. They are call asnaf. The group able to receive the zakat are the

fuqara' wal masakin (hard core-poor and needy), muallaf (reverts), al-gharimin (those in dire debts),

amil (zakat collectors and administrators), ibnu sabil (travelers), al-riqab (those in oppressed conditions,

formerly for slaves) and fisabilillah (in the cause of Islam).

6

challenged. Federal bureaucrats were unsure how to react, especially when the political masters

were weighing the political risks of the negotiations.

Meanwhile, the conflicts and dissatisfactions between the states and the federal

government continued. The Ministry through the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia

(DSWM) instructed all 545 Community Based Rehabilitation Centres (Program Pemulihan

Dalam Komuniti – PDK- CBR) to register themselves as non-profit organisations, with the

intention to reduce their dependence on the government. This caused an uproar as most CBRs

in Malaysia are led by a committee of volunteers, and DSWM pays the CBR staff/ trainers at

the grassroots level. DSWM rationalised that this move will increase the accountability of each

CBR, especially on financial matters. However, the state governments of Sarawak and Kedah

requested to be exempted from this exercise due to the concern that CBRs’ struggling with

difficulty to fulfil requirements might need to close down or cease operations. This new

directive will adversely impact disabled people (Borneo Post, 2017d). The federal government

policy had once again caused confusion and frustration. They were perceived as being

disconnected from the real issues on the ground. This is another example of the federal

government's lukewarm position that opens the door for political horse-trading by the state

governments. The state governments claimed that this move would impact most disabled

children from low-income families who rely on CBRs as a centre of public service, as other

services are either too expensive or just geographically impossible to access. Other states, such

as Penang, had also contested and instructed state welfare officers to discard the directives from

the federal ministers regarding homeless issues in 2013 and 2015 citing the same reason that

the federal government do not understand the needs of the state and cannot impose 'one size fit

all policies' (Ashray, 2017; and Penang Institute, 2015).

On the other hand, institutional care, care policy or care services, is the most critically

inadequate support system for the community in Malaysia (MWFCD and UNDP, 2014, p.91).

7

The government, both at the federal and the state level, appears to hesitate and not identify

themselves as being responsible for the social welfare of the people but shows indication that

families should be responsible for their wellbeing of their own members. On the other hand,

institutional care, care policy or care services, is the most critically inadequate support system

for the community in Malaysia (MWFCD and UNDP, 2014, p.91). Cash support on its own is

not sufficient because care work for elderly, sick, disabled and children (child care and transit)

has caused women in particular to leave the labour force, become vulnerable and forced to be

unpaid care workers because of insufficient care support mechanisms. The above study is only

one example of the lack of social welfare services that have impacted the livelihood, wellbeing

and stability of families, especially low-income and the elderly. All these problems indicate

that the Malaysian government somehow has taken a very cautious, guarded and residual

approach in social welfare policy.

Based on the above account, the question arises then, why has these issues persisted

despite the Constitution enshrining that 'social welfare' is the duty of both the federal and the

state government. The question remains whether the current system of the governments

providing social welfare services is embracing the spirit of the Constitution that dictates both

the federal and the state governments, share the said responsibility. There is a gap between the

aspirations of the framers of the Constitution and the existing system, and even more so in the

relationship between the federal and the state governments in the area of social welfare. This

relationship leaves much to be desired and needs to be explored deeply because very little is

known about the workings and the realities of the residual social welfare phenomenon in

Malaysia.

DiNitto (2007), who studied and explained the phenomenon of social welfare and the

extent of the role of government, contends that the research on the social welfare policy needs

to include actors beyond the government to enable an adequate explanation and analysis of this

8

multi-faceted topic. In the case of Malaysia, in addition to bureaucratic and administrative

structure, legacies of traditional and colonial-era in the peculiar Malaysian plural society should

be considered. The social order in Malaysia, determined by the existence of the monarchy, the

federal system, political scenario and the parliamentary democracy, also affects the behaviour

and values that are appreciated and socially accepted. It is evident that governments played a

relatively small role in social welfare and still sees itself as a 'last resort'. However, reasons for

the apparent continuing Malaysian government promotion of a residual approach and what are

the factors that underpin this phenomenon need clarification.

1.3 Research objectives and questions

The grand aim of this research is to examine the phenomenon of the social welfare system in

Malaysia, how it works, what are the strong notions underpinning the reality of why the social

welfare system in Malaysia has developed as it has now; cautious and residual. Hence, this

study will endeavour to answer the following research question:

What are the key factors that have influenced the social welfare residualism in Malaysia?

1.4 Definition of terms

Social welfare, social welfare policy and social welfare system

Midgley4 (1997, p. 5) defined the concept of social welfare as, 'a state or condition of human

wellbeing that exists when social problems are managed when human needs are met, and when

social opportunities are maximised'. Although this definition is quite broad and inclusive in the

4 Midgley's views are considered in this study because he is a prominent scholar who has

copiously worked on several areas of social welfare studies including the impact of colonialism

on welfare provision in developing countries in Asia.

9

sense that human wellbeing is the central concept of social welfare, the author agrees with this

definition as outcomes of social welfare.

Social welfare policy, on the other hand, was defined by DiNitto (2007, p. 2) as

'anything the government chooses to do, or not to do that affects the quality of life of its people'.

Another definition of social welfare policies is offered by Andreβ and Heien (2001), who

suggest that they involve '… guaranteeing a basic income, providing jobs for all, supporting

children from low-income families to go to university, or reducing income differences' (p.339).

Indeed, the range of public services which is commonly labelled as a form of social welfare is

quite extensive and complex (Richan, 1988).

To implement social welfare policy, a social welfare system should be established,

including laws or procedures prescribed by governmental entities, implementing bodies of

welfare actors and other necessary resources. The fundamental issue for social welfare is

political as it involves people who will benefit or people who will lose (Garland, 2016; and

Rochefort, 1986). Political organisations, pressure groups, VWOs or individuals including

international movements, could also define and highlight problems and change the course of

the definition of local policies by making the decision or by not making the decision (Bachrach

& Bratz, 1970). To a certain extent, the action and inaction in social welfare policies and

services, related directly to the politician, bureaucrats and the recipients as the internal players,

nearest and perhaps most influential to the political masters, could also exert the same effect.

It is constructive to emphasise the point that the formulation of social welfare policies

is a response to conditions that are perceived by policymakers and the public alike as social

problems (Segal, 2010). To this extent, it is fair to say that social welfare policies are socially

constructed in a certain social welfare system. Their existence is owed to a set of normative

expectations determined by societies themselves that evolve. Some issues are considered

10

wicked problems and social welfare is often complicated and easily considered 'a wicked

problem'5 (Gregory, 2018, p. 27).

Residualism

In 1958, Wilensky and Lebeaux coined the term residual welfare as a contrast to the idea of

institutional welfare. Residual welfare refers to services offered as a safety net, for those who

have no other kind of provision available; it is 'residual' because it deals with those who are

leftover or a specific predetermined group/ cohort targeted via a certain measurement. Titmuss

(1958) defined the minimal intervention of the government as 'residualism', compared to a more

active institutional approach. The residual approach or residualism refers to government

support for people's wellbeing as a safety net of last resort (Andersen, 2012; Garland, 2016;

and Titmuss, 1974). It is the opposite of universal approach where social welfare is provided

for virtually everyone in a society, rich or poor, and is considered part of what the society

should be providing for its citizens. When the government chooses to let the society or

community take charge, and the government takes a back seat, the situation is called

residualism (Abu Bakar Ah, 2002).

In 1981, Mishra discussed residualism and created categories to define residualistic

patterns of social welfare models (Mishra, 1981, pp.101-134). Spicker (2005) further

elaborated on Mishra's study. Spicker adapted Mishra (1981)'s three welfare models (Table 1.1).

Other than low intervention from the government, the role of non-state actors such as welfare

organisations, family and society is primary wherein socialist welfare models, non-state

services are marginal. With regards to this typology, Goul-Anderson (2012) argued that most

5 Wicked issues or problems has become a term used to describe complex issues that involves to many

parties and has several facets/ dimensions, making it either too expensive, too complicated to solve or

takes too long to show results, thus often abandoned or set aside.

11

countries start with the residual approach because of the economic situation but gradually move

to expand the services, but might have different ranges of time in its transfers or transform

between one model to another.

Table 1.1: Paul Spicker's adaptation of Mishra's characteristics of three welfare models

Source: Spicker (2005)

1.5 Research methodology and data collection

This study employs the qualitative method to obtain an in-depth understanding of the subject

of the research with emphasis on the related document review and individual views. By using

elite interview and observation, it allows the author to investigate and understand the

phenomenon in its natural settings with realities, based on the meanings people bring to them

(Van Evera, 1997, pp.52-53; and Van Thiel, 2014, p.54).

It is crucial for the study to embark first on a historical trace of the social welfare system

in Malaya to understand the evolution of the system in its entirety. Then, based on extensive

document reviews, issues of residualistic approach are identified. To interpret the reality,

12

interpretive social sciences includes interpretation of the past (history), interpretation of events,

and decisions and actions of participants'6 (Frederickson et al., 2012, p. 9).

The past studies on social welfare in Malaysia have shown grave weaknesses by being

confined to very narrow areas or sub-areas with limited samples of welfare recipients of

specific localities (Bakri, 2016) or specific groups such as social workers (Jayasooria, 2016;

and Ling 2012 or voluntary sector. Data in this study, therefore, relies on document analysis

that is later triangulated heavily on 38 elite interviews which are semi-structured in-depth

interviews of purposively sampled four main groups of participants: federal and state

government politicians; federal and state government bureaucrats; grass-roots leaders (GRLs)

and street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) to ensure robustness in qualitative studies with interviews

(Mason, 2010). To increase reliability, NGOs and Non-Governmental Individuals (NGIs) or

sometimes called as social activists are included in the study also to function as a tool for

triangulation. Data were collected in the Federal Territory of Putrajaya and Kuala Lumpur, and

states of Penang, Selangor, and Perak.

1.6 Significance of research

This study seeks to interpret social welfare phenomena in Malaysia through historical tracing

of institutions related to this sector and viewing the social welfare system through the eyes of

the social welfare actors7 within the hierarchical setting in Malaysia. The role and notions of

the government and other actors in this area could be established explicitly by the integration

of actors such as the federal and state politicians, bureaucrats, the SLBs, the NGOs, and the

6 In this study, the words ‘participant’ and ‘informant’ are used interchangeably to represent the

interviewees in this research, unless otherwise stated. In this particular context, the word participant has

a broader meaning to include actors or stakeholders of a specific area of research. 7 The non-state actors or the third sector in this study is considered as one of the social welfare actor in

this study. They also function as a triangulation tool against the state actors interviewed in this study.

13

GRLs. Additionally, the incorporation of state government will bring in, for the first time, the

real aspirations of the Constitution into the discussion of a comprehensive social welfare

system in Malaysia. The design of this study has enabled the elucidation that the various actors

in the social welfare sector are motivated and limited by their self-motivated issues, agendas

and interests, as presented by the strong notion of 'self-preservation', to answer the question of

why the social welfare in Malaysia has been residual.

This study also contributes to the expansion of the discussion on social welfare systems

in countries with the significant presence of the Muslim community and primarily, of pluralistic

societies and to a certain extent touches on the role of zakat institutions within the ambit of

social welfare policy in Malaysia, which appear to have been treated separately because they

are seen as a religious entity and a responsibility of the state government; connected to the

Sultans' powers and discretion. Previous studies have primarily neglected to include zakat

organisations as another institution that also interacts closely with other actors in the field of

social welfare (Ashray, 2016).

The time-frame of the research of also contributes to the uniqueness of this study

because the fieldwork was conducted less than a year before Malaysia experienced a

monumental historic change of government from Barisan Nasional to Pakatan Harapan in

May 2018. This research could be the only one that managed to capture the Barisan Nasional

government's aspirations for social welfare in Malaysia before it lost in the May 2018 election

after its 61-year rule.

1.7 Organisation of chapters

This dissertation consists of six chapters. The first chapter provides an overview of the study.

It describes the background of the study, including the research question and objectives as well

as the research scope and methodology applied. In Chapter Two, which serves to understand

14

the structural preconditions in Malaysia by tracing the historical, administrative evolution and

social-cultural context within key institutions of social welfare, it explores the background of

the institutional structure of the multiple tiers of government and multiple social welfare actors

in Malaysia, as well as the adaptation of the roles of social welfare actors. It also provides a

historical perspective of social welfare in Malaysia with the purpose of delivering a solid

understanding of the past and present structures, presented by the different levels of

government and the various actors of social welfare within the ecosystem. At the end of this

chapter, issues of each structure at the federal and state government are highlighted, and the

locality of each social welfare actor is brought forward in connection with its role and

relationship with other actors. The third chapter discusses past studies and deliberates on the

philosophical underpinnings for this study. The research methodology, conceptualisation of the

research and how data has been collected is presented at the end of this chapter. The approach

will provide the lens looking into the structure of social welfare mechanism, relationship, and

interaction of the social welfare actors in Malaysia. Chapter Four and Five presents the analysis

of the data according to the assumptions that have been established at the end of Chapter Three.

Both document analysis and elite interviews triangulated and presented based on the three

assumptions. Chapter Six concludes the study, provides policy implications and the limitations

of the study. References and appendices are provided at the end of the document.

15

2 CONTEXTUALISING SOCIAL WELFARE IN MALASIA: PAST AND

PRESENT8

2.1 Introduction

This chapter ascertains the extent of residualistic approach of the Malaysian government to

identify the issues of the social welfare system. To do so, firstly, historical evolution from pre-

colonial traditional era, throughout the colonial era to the modern era will be discussed,

including interaction among state and non-state actors in the voluntary sector, which play

essential roles in social welfare services in pre-colonial times in Malaysia up until now.

Subsequently, the formal and informal social welfare arrangements in federalism will be

studied to determine and explore the concerns peculiar to Malaysia that need further

investigation. The last section of this chapter will discuss the main issues and overarching

assumption of this study before looking into related literature in the next chapter.

2.2 The transition from traditional, colonial to modern social welfare arrangements

Traditional and informal systems in plural communities

Before foreign powers came to the states in Malaya, the monarchs (mainly called known as

Sultans) ruled each state through absolutism and feudal systems (Anderson, 1974; and Kratoska,

2001). At the same time, the traditional communities, self-help groups, and family-based

support systems existed, influenced by religious teachings such as Islam and Hinduism as well

as the voluntary and Christian missionary from the European colonies (Mair, 1944; and Shaffie,

2006). These traditional and informal systems existed in communities, supported by

community leaders, village heads (penghulu) and Muslim religious leaders who were also in

charge of several tasks such as the collection of tithe/ zakat, and various forms of tax. For

8 Parts of this chapter has been published by author in Ashray (2018) and in Ashray (2017)

16

instance, as early as 1667, the Sultan of Kedah enacted a law for zakat collection and

distribution, and Kelantan had a State Enactment for zakat collection and distribution as early

as 1917 (Abdul Rahim, Ahmad Razim, and Abdul Wahab (2019). Orphans or poorer children

were admitted to establishments with accommodation: school and religious learning facilities

such as madrasahs or pondok, churches and temples (Shaffie, 2000).

Since the Malayan Peninsular houses a few trading ports, it has always been exposed

to immigrants, foreign traders, and various religions. Being strategically located and blessed

with natural resources, naturally, the Malay States were the melting pot of all races. Hence, the

element of multi-culturalism and multi-religiosity is not new to the Malay States. Furthermore,

as the whole peninsula of Malaysia (herein interchangeably called as the Malay States) was

colonised by several powers (Portuguese, Dutch, British and Japanese) but retained their own

Malay rulers in the different states. Consequently, these states had a variety of administrative,

sub-systems and social arrangements for welfare-related matters depending on the capacity of

the economic systems, diversity, and existing rule of local laws and norms, although through

absolute power, by the Sultans9. After the mass migration of the Chinese and the Indians who

came in as labourers, the range of the racial and cultural plurality was mainly in the urban areas

or within confined spaces, such as townships with certain specific ethnic centric economic

activities or in specific

Even before colonisation and the introduction of labour-intensive activities, there were

already traders and merchants in the peninsular Malay States. Their activities grew with the

approval of the Sultan and local leaders/ aristocrats, through offerings of tax and gifts.

9 The traditional institutions in the Malay states goes back a long way. For example, in the state of Negri

Sembilan, the first written Constitution was written in 1773 and a ‘federal system’ known as the Pagar

Ruyung Dynasty was created by Raja Melewar. The system was partially the basis for the current

Malaysian federal constitutional monarchy which practices rotational monarchy. The federal system is

older than the American federal system. Further references can be made at History behind Negri's

unique selection of ruler, The New Straits Times, 29 December 2008.

17

Mercantilism was vast, but the wealth was not well distributed amongst the native indigenous

people. Even after the British occupied Malaya, powers in some British protectorates over the

Islamic religion and Malay culture remained with the Sultans, indicating that the centrality of

certain powers remained in the palace. The necessary arrangement between the local leaders

(Sultans and aristocrats)10 and the British was that cultural and religious matters remained with

the palace (Means, 1991), which led to the 'divide and rule' form of ruling. Naturally, the

Malays and indigenous people continued to live within a 'secured' feudal system being loyal to

the Sultans. This social order is still embedded in the current society because the feudal

institutions still exist and impact the everyday lives of the Malay and Muslims. The Sultan

remains the caretaker of the official religion, which is Islam, other than being the head of the

state. In a nutshell, absolutism existed together with religious practices and beliefs, including

welfare-related beliefs.

However, the same feudalistic structure did not exist for the Chinese migrants, forcing

them to create their own communal system of survival and economic wellbeing (Kratoska,

2011). Concurrently, Chinese secret societies11 and business councils provided welfare support

for the Chinese communities, including funeral services and schooling expenses (Comber,

1959). An example is the establishment of the Kuala Lumpur Tung Shin Hospital12 in the 1880s,

where a special ward was dedicated to the poor (Kim, 2015 and Kratoska, 2011) and even

earlier, a so-called traditional medical facility funded by taxing the sale of pork (Kennedy,

10 At some point, the Malay aristocrats who are nearer to the community and owned land also became

the targets of British merchants and business communities to open their land to plantation, mining and

other more economically viable activities. 11 Further references to the role of Chinese secret societies can be seen in a book by Comber, L. F.

(1959). Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya. A Survey of the Triad Society from 1800-1900 12Tung Shin Hospital is still a much revered hospital in Malaysia, offering not only modern medicine

but also traditional Chinese medical and traditional methods such as acupuncture and Chinese herbal

medications. The hospital does not only serve the Chinese community but open to everyone.

18

1962; and Turnbull, 1977) 13 . In 1877, the Department of the Chinese Protectorate was

established first to break the stronghold and dependence of the Chinese migrants on the secret

societies. The secret societies were involved in organised crimes, and the Protectorate need to

break the dependence to address the various issues of the Chinese migrants such as prostitution,

abuses of Chinese coolies and human rights of workers, riots of the Chinese migrants and

misuse of drugs (Comber, 1959 and News Straits Times, 1877)14.

Parallel to the religious-based voluntary movement, or as Midgley (1997) termed it

religious philanthropy, labour based welfare sub-systems were also being established for the

estates and plantation workers, who were mainly from southern India. Employers in Malaya

were made responsible for providing healthcare, and even maternity leave rights, housing,

crèches (day-care centres) and schools. These requirements and rules were put in place due to

the intervention by the Indian government which was concern about the welfare and rights of

the Indian workers (Mair, 1944, p.61-63)15. Stress was put upon employers to be responsible

for the welfare of the workers through a system called Kangani16 and group leaders instead of

fending for themselves. They are monitored through the Migration Labour Office (Mair,

13 Further reference on ethnic medicine and colonial health activities can be seen in Ooi, G. L. (1991).

British Colonial Health Care Development and the Persistence of Ethnic Medicine in Peninsular

Malaysia and Singapore. Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 29, No.2, September 1991 14 The Protection of Chinese and Chinese Interpretation

https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes18771215-1.2.4 15 Presently, such practices are still available in estates such as in United Plantations (UP) where a fully

functional hospital has been established in 1928 and an old folk's home for the retired workers since

1967. Referred to http://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/features/2013/08/26/clean-and-green-all-the-

way/ and Annual Report 2016 at

http://www.unitedplantations.com/Files/PDF/Announcements/UP-Annual%20Report%202016.pdf

(p.71-77) 16 The Kangani system is a form of supervision system in the Indian migration system. The Kangani

deals with the landowner and becomes the leader in the groups of labourers, other than being responsible

to report to the Immigration Office.

19

1944).17 The legacy of this practice during the colonial times is still reflected in several laws

and regulations related to estate and plantation labour rights18.

The locals (Malays) on the other hand, continued to remain in the traditional feudal

system and 'religious philanthropy schemes' as coined by Midgley (1997). They were not

exposed to any forms of new or 'modern' welfare support systems, as explained above, nor did

they seem to organise themselves, in contrast to the minorities (Chinese and Indians) in the

Malay States who appeared to have organised special arrangements for the welfare of their

vulnerable members. The Malays continued to live in communities or villages headed by the

village elder (Ketua kampong) who often reported to aristocrats or the Sultan (Gullick, 1958,

pp. 21-22). This different situation in the societal treatment of social welfare and community

support may have been the case because Malays reside with their own families on their

ancestral land. At the same time, the Chinese and Indian migrants are separated from their

families and mother country, thus forcing them to establish some sort of support system for

themselves (Blythe, 1959) other than being more economically precious to the British colonials

as claimed by Talib (2015)19. Due to the pressures of bad working conditions, the labour

unions which mainly represented the Indian and Chinese migrant labourers revolted only in the

1940s because they were reluctant to unionise in the earlier times (Abu Bakar Ah, 2002, 2006;

17 A detailed record of workers and their development (including marriage, accidents and death) were

collected and carefully recorded to be presented to the British India government, periodically. 18 ‘The Workers (Minimum Standards of Housing) Act, 1966, and the Workers Regulation, 1966,

prescribed minimum standards of housing for plantation workers, and required employers to provide

nurseries, allot land to workers and their dependents in the place of employment, and provide for related

incidental matters. In 1990 these laws were replaced by the Workers Minimum Standards of Housing

and Amenities Regulation, 1990, under which every plantation family and individual has a basic righto

reasonable accommodation and a suitable living environment. Despite this, workers' houses on

plantations generally fall far below these standards.’ Further reference can be made at Ramachandran,

S., & Shanmugam, B. (1995). Plight of Plantation Workers in Malaysia: Defeated by Definitions. Asian

Survey, 35(4), pp.394-407. doi:10.2307/2645803 19 The British allowed the establishment of such organisations but later renounced these organisations

for the fear of the rise of communism.

20

and Jomo and Todd, 1994). As the country started to develop, this movement of the labour

unions of the migrants and the push of the working class Malays earlier on led to the forming

of the Employment Provident Fund (EPF) in 1951 in Malaya; one of the earliest provident fund

in the world (Jomo and Todd, 1994).

Concurrently, with the establishment of the colonial government in Malaya, the

Christian missions and their voluntary societies became more evident in the Malay states, in

addition to the charity organisations that were being set up by the merchant community.

Institutions such as the Monfort Brothers Home for Boys (French-based), St. Nicholas School

for the Blind in 1926 (Kratoska, 1998; and St. Nicholas School for the Blind, 2007, 2011); Red

Cross (now Red Crescent Society) were established in 1940 in British Borneo (Sabah and

Sarawak) and 1940 in Penang Straits Settlement; and the Salvation Army was established in

1939, amongst others. These organisations are either Christian missions of a local chapter or

voluntary organisations with headquarters overseas. Some even received funding from the

Queen's Treasury in England. Over time, these services expanded and opened chapters in a few

states within the Malay States. The local chapters provided welfare services such as orphanages,

homes for the elderly, and shelters, other than missionary schools. Davis, Doling and Zainal

(2000), Jones (1952) and Tang (2011) claimed that the onset of colonisation also imported the

British Imperial welfare model including the voluntary and charity sector onto Malaya, and its

other colonies.

Set up of the formal welfare department

The country was in chaos after the end of World War II: high unemployment, mass cases of

malnutrition due to long term rationing and shortage of food, child hawkers and labour, war

victims, comfort women, a smallpox epidemic and the communist movement were among the

problems plaguing the Malayan population, particularly in urban areas (DSWM, 2016;

21

Kratoska, 1998; and Harper, 2001). Another critical problem at that time was the adverse

conditions of the labourers of the Siam – Burma Death railway20 that involved, disabled and

malnutrition men, their widows or orphaned children 21 . In Malaya, the British Military

Administration (BMA) then set up a relief department to take care of the existing problems,

but the relief offices quickly transformed its function to a dole 22 office. Other than that,

remedial work was also hindered by the lack of both financial and human resources. Thus, the

BMA was unable to develop more efficient and innovative methods of training of the people

who could provide support to the vulnerable groups. Thus, training programmes were provided

for the local women by ex-Red Cross members and missionaries, exposing them to Western

education and ways of doing things, which later proved useful in addressing the issues of local

women, prostitution, and child welfare (Harper, 2001).

On 10 June 1946, Welfare Department of Malaya23 was established to overcome famine,

poverty and provide aid for war victims (Aspalter, 2016 and DSWM, 2016)24. The birth of a

dedicated welfare department strengthened the cooperation with the existing voluntary sector,

volunteers and trained nurses from the British Army. Two years after the establishment, local

welfare staff were trained at the London School of Economics with basic skills in youth,

industrial, and rural welfare (Shaffie, 2003, and DSWM, 2015). This was the start of formal

public welfare and social work in Malaya and subsequently, for Malaysia (Ashray, 2018). The

20 The Ramakrishna Mission Boys Home in Singapore is one example of a home managed by Hindu

priests (swamis) to give care and protection to children who were left orphaned and destitute because

of the Siam-Burma Death Railway. 21 Personal communication with Mr. Sharudin Shar Kassim, former Director General of DSWM (2014-

2016), dated 30th September 2017. 22 Dole is a termy mainly used in the British colonies and in Britain to refer to cash handouts. However,

it often gives a negative connotation especially after the Thatcher administration. 23The Governor of Malaya appointed J.A. Harvey to head the first Welfare Department of Malaya with

the help of Captain Mohamed Salleh (the first local Malaysian to be appointed). 24 Further reading about the administrative system before Merdeka (Independence) can be found in J.

M. Gullick (1997). Prelude to Merdeka: Public administration in Malaya, 1945–57, South East Asia

Research , 5(2), pp. 155-173

22

setting up of the welfare department by the British was also a way to win back the hearts of the

people after the war and as a war relief, not with the intention to increase the wellbeing of the

people (Abu Bakar Ah, 2011, 2006, and Shaffie, 2006).

The colonial notion of welfarism

As seen above, the voluntary sector helped trained and set-up the welfare department. Later,

several other voluntary organisations were created and headed by the wives of heads of the

BMA or the Colonial office, such as the Welfare Council of Malaya (WCM).25 To collect funds,

the WCM received the money raised from the sales of stamps. Harper (2001) reported that the

pioneers of WCM intended to lessen the dependency on the BMA for assistance. WCM offered

a deal when the Malayan Welfare Fund was established, and the BMA government had counter-

offered a dollar for every dollar contribution until the end of 1949. The Fund received the

support of the Malayan Union Governor, Sir Edward Gent who agreed 'appealed for the

contributions to a special fund to be devoted to the alleviation of distress throughout

Malaya…reopening of orphanages of all races… providing free milk for malnutrition children

and opening of communal restaurants…' (The Singapore Free Press, 1946, p.5).26

Talib (2016) and Shaffie (2006) shared a view that the British did not contribute much

to establishing a social welfare system in Malaya. Shaffie found that no specific welfare model

was created by the British for Malaya and as a result mainly followed the British welfare ideas

and accepted the role of the voluntary organisation (especially for the welfare of children). In

her dissertation, she argued that the government took 'residual approach' and remain 'minimalist

25 CWC later developed to be the Majlis Pembangunan Kebajikan Sosial Malaysia (MPKSM) or Central

Social Welfare Council of Malaysia. WCM was headed by Lady Mountbatten, the wife of the Viceroy

in Burma (Aspalter, 2016) 26 Further reference can be obtained from the Philately Association website at

www.exonumi.com/philately/malayan_welfare_fund accessed 12 December 2017

23

in welfare provision' for the children during colonial times. Talib (2016) went on to claim that

the British Administration only created welfare support for foreign labour because they were

more valuable to the economy than to the locals.

In short, the British took the Malayan society for granted before the Japanese

occupation, but wanted to redeem the trust and the same time increase control because of the

advent of communist insurgency in the region by creating the Welfare Department of Malaya

after the war in 1946 (Shaffie, 2000). Communist insurgency in Malaya and subsequently in

Malaysia which continued until 1989 is considered a black spot in the history of the country

and the government has remained very cautious about the spread of any form of communist

ideology and association until even today (Povera, 2019)27. Parallel to claims by Shaffie and

Talib, Tim (2012) in his research about the history of social welfare of Singapore, noted that

although the Beveridge Report in 1946 was influential in forming the welfare foundation and

services in the UK, reluctance to carry it out was evident in the British Colonies, where the

public welfare services started mainly as war relief for the Burma Death-Railway victims and

wide-spread malnutrition instead of a development tool.

The notion of reluctance of the British government to invest in social growth was also

indicated by Thuraisingam28 , a former British Administration officer who later become a

prolific Malaysian politician. Thuraisingam recognises that there was a general reluctance to

publicly fund social welfare programmes by the British Administration which led him to

become one of the principal authors of the Social Welfare Lotteries Bill, which later transpired

27 Further reference on Communist insurgency in Malaya and Malaysia can obtained a Masters

Dissertation entitled Malaysia’s Experience In War Against Communist Insurgency and Its Relevance

To The Present Situation in Iraq by Major Nazar bin Talib in 2005, available at

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a505882.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020) 28 The biodata of Dato’Sir Ernest Emmanuel Clough Thuraisingham can be obtained from

http://www.thuraisingham.org/ (accessed 15 February 2018).

24

as the Social and Welfare Services Lotteries Act 1952. Referring to the Lotteries Bill,

Thuraisingam stated:

'Lotteries are here with us, and they are being abused, and it is the concern of the

Government that it should regularise these things that do exist around us whether

it is moral or otherwise, and we have the assurance of the Hon. Chief Secretary

that the Government is considering tightening up Lotteries so that every lottery that

is run in this country will be used for the benefit of this country and for the country's

poor….

Source: (http://www.thuraisingham.org/)

It can be seen that the reluctance of the British to allocate more for social welfare

development led to a sort of a 'crowd funding model' which is the birth of the Social and Welfare

Services Lottery Act 1952 that collected welfare money from the locals and lottery buyers to

address welfare issues, instead of utilising government resources, which were controlled by the

British Administration (Ashray, 2017). This lottery model and establishment of Director

General of Social Welfare Incorporated (DGInc.) under the Director-General Incorporated Act

1948– a private arm, was also implemented in another British protectorate, Hong Kong. The

establishment of the welfare stamps in 1946 to reduce dependence on the BMA, the DGInc. in

1948 which allows profit-making activities and the welfare lottery law in 1952 indicates that

the British government did not have the intention to use the government revenues to fund the

development of social welfare but continued to create crowdfunding platforms to source

donation and money from the society to address social issues.

Collaboration between state and non-state actors

The motivation to collaborate with NGOs seems to be the natural way in Malaysia, mainly

because of the strong connections between the DSWM and welfare-based NGOs from the

beginning of its establishment back in 1946. For example, in the same year of the establishment

25

of DSWM in 1946, the Central Welfare Council (MPKSM) was established and was later

officially registered in 1966 under the Registrar of Societies Act. The earlier activities of this

council were funded by the welfare lottery, not the government revenue. Amongst the services

provided by the Council was the management of two types of homes of the elderly, which are

Rumah Sejahtera and Pondok Sejahtera. When it was established in 1954, ninety per cent of

the earliest residents of Rumah Sejahtera were foreign labourers who were poor, destitute and

did not have any relatives in Malaysia (MPKSM, 2016).

Previous studies on welfare NGOs have focused on specific services provided by NGOs

or in specific NGOs managed institutions, especially in the field of social work (Hatta and Mat

Saad, 2014; and Jayasooria, 2016), accounting and accountability of NGOs governance of

specific NGOs (Othman, 2012), political connections and their transparency (Hasnan et al.,

2012). Ashray (2018) attempted to fill the gap by trying to understand the relationship between

the government and the welfare-related voluntary sector (VS) by tracing the historical relations

and studying the gap in the institutional services. She found that the existence of VS before

formal statutory government services may have resulted in indirectly creating a level of

dependency of the government to the services provided by the VS. She went on to say:

'…It is possible that the dominance and prominence of the voluntary sector in this

sector have been taken for granted and assumed to continue by the government.

This also could be the factor the government has yet to resort to privatising any

welfare institutions or welfare services because the VS is seen as a strong provider

or actor of institutional services, voluntarily. Although there exist government

created platforms such as Director-General of Social Welfare (Incorporated) Sdn.

Bhd. established way back in 1948 and YKN established in 1981, which could be

tools for diversifying the forms of services by the government; unfortunately, these

platforms were never taken advantage of…'

Ashray (2018) argued that the government has yet to accept and acknowledge the

general strength of the third sector due to the 'perceived' lack of capacity, capability or

26

suspiciousness may be caused by the lack of understanding, jealousy, difference or rift between

these state and non-state actors. Secondly, it may also suggest that the government is choosing

to regulate the sector less to allow flexibility, innovation, and ease of providing services.

Thirdly, it might also suggest that since there is a substantial level of dependency by the

government on the specific critical services of the VS (in this case institutional services) that

the government is reluctant to invoke any hostility with the VS by over-regulating them. Thus,

the government continue to focus on cash supports and welfare handouts. However, even after

independence, the level and form of relationship between the government and the welfare-

related VS are still very less understood, although the government (Ministry and DSWM) often

claim that the NGOs are their 'strategic partners', 'smart-partners' (DSWM, 2017, 2019 and

Karim, 2015) and 'stakeholders' (DSWM, 2011).

2.3 Federalism and formal social welfare arrangements

The constitutional division of social welfare responsibility

The establishment of the Constitution of Malaysia 1957 as the supreme law of Malaysia acts

as the controller and guide to the relations between the people, the federal government and the

state governments. The Constitution contains a list of subjects that are divided between the

federal, and state governments as the subjects that are to be shared between both 29 . The

schedule is divided into major three lists: the federal list, the state list and the concurrent list.

The subject of study in this research, which is 'social welfare' is listed first under the concurrent

list; a shared duty between the federal and the state governments, while other areas such as

29 Article 73 to 79 of the Constitution elaborates on the division of legislative powers between the state

and the federal government. The subject matters to be legislated by the federal and state governments

are enumerated in the Ninth Schedule. Further references on the Constitution of Malaysia can be

obtained from Harding, A. (1996) Law, Government and the Constitution of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,

Malayan Law Journal

27

health and education are duties of the federal government (Table 2.1). The rationale was to

allow the states to be able to offer more services tailored to the needs of the locals without

limiting the state governments (The Reid Commission Report 1956, p.51-52)30. Islamic related

matters, including family matters like marriage, divorce, and child custody, fall within the locus

of the state governments, under the State List. Islam is being invoked here because it is the

official religion of Malaysia and almost 60 per cent of the population are Muslims. Furthermore,

some related Islamic institutions have direct relations with the federal and state governments.

This study will make references to religious-related issues regardless of Islam or other religion

whenever necessary.

30 The Reid Commission Report 1956 30 explained the rationale of placing social welfare in the

Concurrent List (p.51-52) as follows:

‘…117. We recommend that social welfare should be put in the Concurrent List of subjects.

We think that the Federation should be entitled to determine and carry out national policy

in this matter but that there may well be cases where by reason of local circumstances a

particular State wishes to introduce and is able to afford some particular form of social

service not dealt with by federal legislation, and we see no reason to prevent such a State

from moving in advance of national policy. The effect of putting this matter in the

Concurrent List would be that the Federation would be entitled later, if it saw fit to do so,

to assume general responsibility for that form of social service and supersede the State

Enactment. For similar reasons we have included town planning in the Concurrent List.’

28

Table 2.1 : Division of subjects in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957

Source: Federal Constitution Malaysia, Ninth Schedule

Figure 2.1 shows the federal structure of the Ministry and departments in charge of the

portfolio of 'social welfare' in Malaysia and its branches at the state and district levels.

Meanwhile, Figure 2.2 depicts the state government headed by a Sultan or Governor in a

structure that responds to state agencies, district, and village committees (JKKK) who are

considered a grass-root leader and State Islamic Religious Councils (SIRCs) that manages

zakat collection and distribution31.

It can be seen in Figure 2.1 that DSWM is the only federal department under the

Ministry that has its functions down to the district level, showing how close they need to be to

31 SIRCs via the zakat organisation are also members of two important coordination platforms. Firstly,

the District Poverty Eradication Focus Group (chaired by the District Officer) and secondly, the State

Poverty Eradication Focus Group (chaired by the State Secretary), where all issues related to poverty,

the vulnerable group and assistance are discussed and coordinated at a ‘one-stop center’ platform. The

DSWM is also a member of the focus group. This is where the role of zakat can meet, complement and

serve the demands in state

29

the clients on the street level, performing their task based on the laws and the written national

policies32. The Ministry is headed by a Minister who is a politician, and the Secretary-General

of the Ministry, who is a public servant comes from the Administrative and Diplomatic Service

(ADS). The DSWM is headed by a Director-General who mainly hail from the Social Welfare

Service. However, earlier Director-Generals of Social Welfare also included officers from the

ADS, which means that they did not have any social work background or training33. As of

August 2019, DSWM has almost 7,000 SWS officers compared to only about 5,000 welfare

officers in the year 2011 for the whole of the country. The 7,000 SWS officers currently serve

in the headquarters in Putrajaya, 15 state governments, 104 PKMDs and other social welfare

establishments and gazette posts all over the country34. The main clients of DSWM are children,

women, girls, elderly, persons with disabilities (PWDs), the poor, homeless and destitute

persons, victims of disaster and VWOs.

32 The only other unit of federal agency that is closest to the community/ grassroots level is under the

Ministry of Health that has District Health Offices, District Clinics and community policlinics which

will not be the major research agenda in this study. 33 There is a huge difference between ADS and SWS. Officers from the ADS can move from one

ministry to another, and their head of service is the Director General of Public Service who also heads

the Public Service Department, Prime Ministers’ Department. 34 The headquarters of DSWM also has one legal unit and statistical unit.

30

Figure 2.1 Structure and locality of the DSWM within the Ministry of Women,

Family and Community Development and the branches at state and district levels (as of

December 2017)

Source: Created by Author

Under the federal government, there are seven laws directly under the purview of the

DSWM which are Director-General of Social Welfare (Incorporated) Act 1948, Destitute

Persons Act 1977, Child Care Centre Act 1984, Care Centre Act 1993, Domestic Violence Act

1994, Child Act (Amendments) 2016; and Persons with Disabilities Act 2008. Malaysia has

not managed to enact a law to govern the profession of social workers although the proposal

for the act has been pushed several times since the late 1990s (Baba, 1996 and Sushama, 1985).

The main clients of DSWM are children, women, girls, elderly, PWDs, the poor, homeless and

destitute persons, victims of disaster, and VWOs (DSWM, 2015). In 2016, another new group

31

was added, which victims are of human trafficking (DSWM, 2016). In this study, the focus will

be on the vulnerable group; not including the juveniles and victims of disaster.

Figure 2.2: Structure of state governments in Malaysia including the welfare-

related actors and religious organisations

Source: Author's analysis and adaptation of Ashray (2016)

The gap between the aspiration of the Constitution and conflicts in the current

arrangement

The question remains whether the current system of the governments in providing social

welfare services is embracing the spirit of the Constitution that dictates both the federal and

the state governments' share of the said responsibility. There is a gap between the aspiration of

the framers of the Constitution and the existing system, even more so in the relationship

between the federal and the state governments in the area of social welfare, is still much to be

desired and much to be explored because very little is known about the workings and the

realities of the social welfare phenomenon in Malaysia. For example, in the state of Sarawak35,

35 Sarawak is a state almost as big as the whole of Peninsular Malaysia. Sarawak is located in the Borneo

Island together with another state of Malaysia, which is Sabah. Sarawak and Sabah both share borders

32

after the state government elections in 2015, requested more autonomy from the Federal

Government that would enable direct decision-making for the wellbeing of their people (The

Star, 2015).36 In 2016, the relationship between the levels of governments was tested once

again when the Sarawak's State Minister of Welfare openly disagreed with the policy of the

Federal Minister of the Ministry to stop building public welfare institutions and emphatically

declared that families should be responsible for their welfare especially the elderly.

The conflict indicated that the federal's so-called strategies and notions might not be

acceptable and not suitable to the needs in the state, thus rejecting the 'one size fits all'

approach by the Ministry (The Borneo Post, 2016). Ironically, both the federal and the state

ministers are Sarawakians from the same political party. The Sarawak state government later

entered into a negotiation with the federal government to gain more autonomy to make

decisions in spending their allocated budget in social welfare policies starting from 2015 (The

Borneo Post, 2016a). The perceived and long-revered stability in the relationship between the

federal and the state governments was challenged. Sarawak was a safety deposit for the

Barisan Nasional ruling party to remain in power. It may seem that the states of Sabah and

Sarawak demanded their rights under the name of 'devolution,' but in 2018, they started to also

invoke 'rights' under the Malaysia Agreement 1963.37 However, social welfare service as an

agenda was again neglected in the discussion. The request by the state government of Sarawak

then opened a floodgate of issues. It encouraged another state government, Sabah, to voice

with Brunei and Kalimantan, Indonesia. Sabah and Sarawak joined to form Malaysia in 1963, 6 years

after the independence of the Federation of Malaya in 1957. 36 The late Adenan Satem, Chief Minister of Sarawak demanded from the federal government to devolve

more powers to the state of Sarawak including full power to organise resources (financial and human

resources), amongst others. 37 Malaysia Agreement 1963 is an agreement between the Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak

upon joining and forming Malaysia, in 1963. Although Malaya gained independence in 1957, Sabah

and Sarawak gained independence from British by joining Malaya only after a referendum.

33

out their concern that the social welfare programmes created in Putrajaya38 were not suitable

for their people. They argued that the state government knew better for their local people

(Borneo Post, 2015, 2015a, 2016a, and 2016c), echoing what Sarawak had claimed. These

instances exemplify displeasures over several issues which could be areas of implementation

and service delivery of social welfare programmes in Malaysia.39 The constant tussle between

the federal and the state governments is a warning symptom that suggests a void between the

increasing demand from the people and the decreasing supply of the existing social welfare

policy.

A conflict can be identified between the aspiration of the Constitution, the Reid

Commission Report (1956) and the existing system, and even more seriously, the relationship

between the federal government and the state government informal social welfare management.

Increasingly, the areas of conflict have only been amplified notably between the state and the

federal level. The dissatisfaction expressed by the state government has resulted in the

emergence of a conflict between state governments and the federal government in many

instances. The conflicts will only continue to increase, as more complex social welfare issues

other than political issues which are bound to appear. What are the factors that have led to these

conflicts? Existing research has not focused on the factors. However, some research such as

Abu Bakar Ah (2006) and Shaffie (2006) have explicitly stated their opinion of the residual

approach of the Malaysian government. They, however, did not look at the deeper and

38 Putrajaya is the new administrative capital of Malaysia. The Prime Minister’s office and most of the

Federal Ministries have their office in Putrajaya. Putrajaya is a Federal Territory on its own since year

2000. 39 The state of Selangor started a programme called Inisiatif Peduli Rakyat (Caring for the People

Initiative) in 2008 while the Penang State government started the Equitable Economic Agenda or

Agenda Ekonomi Saksama (AES) and i-Sejahtera in 2008, which are non-means tested cash handouts

programmes. During the data collection of this study, both state governments were led by the opposition

government (Pakatan Rakyat) to the federal government (Barisan Nasional or known as the National

Front).

34

underlining issues that have caused the residualism, which have forced some state governments

forced to raise their concerns, because as most studies in Malaysia, only the federal government

role is being connected to the study of social welfare policy.

Social welfare funding in the multicultural society

Social welfare funding in Malaysia can be explored in another less studied area, zakat; the

religious arm at the state government level that is involved directly with eradication of poverty,

redistribution of wealth and providing social services. Ashray (2016) in her study entitled

Social welfare funding: The unique role of zakat fund in Malaysia argued that multicultural

societies have resources other than the national revenues and formal human resources that

contribute to the social welfare assistance in the societies but are less understood and studied,

probably because of the claimed 'sensitivity' of religious matters, complex inter-governmental

relations between federal and state, and the promoted dichotomy: 'separation of church and

state.' Ashray (2016) tried to discuss social welfare from the perspective of financial sources

by including sources that traditionally less related or connected with social welfare which are

the state government and zakat agencies. She pointed that the zakat does not exist in the main

accounts of the government but exist in separate accounts of each SIRCs, at the state

government level, raising the argument that the actual country's expenditure on social welfare

in Malaysia could be more than reported because the expenditure of state governments and

zakat has not been included. Figure 2.3 below is the depiction of the various sources of social

welfare funding in Malaysia, which involves multiple layers of administrators in multiple

institutions in various layers of government and society.

35

Figure 2.3: Sources of social welfare funding in Malaysia

Source: Ashray (2016)

In another study of welfare in Malaysia, Mohd (2012) claimed to discuss 'welfare' by

also including other actors such as the Employees Provident Fund and Pension Fund for the

public servants but not the role of state government and zakat. Mohd (2012, p.117) looked at

the employment and labour-related support structures and argued that the Malaysia welfare

regime is 'productivist' rather than socially oriented. This view about Malaysia being a

'productivist' state was supported by Khoo (2015) who regarded Malaysia has always taken a

productivist approach in every policy, thus the foundation of the social policies made in the

country is also based on that philosophy, including social protection or social welfare policies.

The assumption is that the government has concentrated on development and policies that are

based on physical infrastructure and investment, and less on social welfare (Abu Bakar Ah,

2006, Handayani, 2012, Khoo, 2015 and Mohd, 2012). More recently, Khalid (2014) and

Gomez (2016) claimed that inequality is still a critical issue in Malaysia, citing that the NEP

above all other issues has many leakages and that political intervention, patronage, and

clientelism have caused the perpetuation of it.

From the financial perspective, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) country database

in Figure 2.4 shows the Malaysian federal government expenditure on the social sector against

GDP, which is divided into third sub-sectors: education; health; and social security and welfare.

36

The percentage spent on social security and welfare40 has been maintained at about an average

of 1 per cent for almost 20 years since 1997, the lowest compared to the expenditure for

education and health, and much lower than the expenditure of developed nations which are

about 25-30 per cent of GDP.

Figure 2.4: Malaysian federal government expenditure for education, health and social

security and welfare as per centage of GDP, 1997-2014

Source: Asian Development Bank (2016), graph created by author

Comparative studies of social welfare systems in various countries have argued about

who can best provide more allocation for social welfare (Hatta and Subramaniam, 2015). In

the report by Handayani who used the report of ADB, the term social protection used by ADB

incorporates three main policy categories, which are social insurance, social assistance, and

lastly labour market programmes (p. 6). ADB claimed that the trend is prevalent in SEA that

the coverage gap is wide except for Singapore, the only country with the highest income and

40 To find the nearest data to depict the expenditure of the Malaysian government on social welfare, the

author uses the ADB data although social security can be included in social welfare, the author uses the

term defined by ADB database in this figure.

37

the lowest number of population. The example given was that social insurance programmes

benefits one million beneficiaries compared to 29.7 million population (in the of the report),

compared to Singapore where 1.8 million out of 3.8 million benefits from social insurance

programmes that are wide-ranging compared to Malaysia's Employee Provident Fund (EPF)

and public sector pension, highlighting that narrowing the gap in beneficiaries for Malaysia.

Most countries, to maintain the robustness of the charity and voluntary sector, have

been generous with their tax incentives. Ashray (2017), in her study, found that the multi-

religious individual Malaysians, while being generous, do not pay much attention to the tax

exemption policies. The motivations are religious and humanistic value-laden rather than

stimulated by tax exemptions. The finding of this research gave a strong indication that

donation giving (charity), which usually fuels NGOs and NPOs activities could continue to

flourish in Malaysia. On the other hand, Ashray (2016) tried to bring a different perspective by

seeing zakat, a religious tax as a form of social welfare resource for the country (Figure 2.3).

Poverty eradication, cash handouts and welfare services

Khalid (2014) on the other hand, explained that the structural formation of the economic

policies in Malaysia, which he sees as not congruent and having focused too much on wealth

creation, had left vulnerable cohorts of the society with less access to social welfare support,

due to incessant the lack of prioritisation in this area. He went further and claims that social

justice in Malaysia will deteriorate if issues about inclusivity and social support are abandoned

in the nation's development agenda. In the same voice, Gomez went on to claim that while

wealth distribution and the related policies in Malaysia have achieved some level of success,

they have created spatial inequality, especially in a few Malay dominated states. Jomo and Wee

(2014, p.48) indicated that:

38

'… Privatisation gave priority to profit maximisation, at the expense of social welfare

and the public interest, except on the rare occasions when the former and the latter

coincided; hence, for example, only profitable new services were introduced rather

than services needed by the people, especially the poor, unless required by the terms of

privatisation…’

This argument is parallel to those raised earlier by Abu Bakar Ah (2006) and Embong

(2002) who agreed that social welfare had been abandoned in the development of Malaysia,

due to the fear of the creation of entitlement or a hands-out dependent society specifically to

eradicate poverty, in line with neo-classical capitalist school. In terms of its welfare spending,

in line with the claim made by Omar (2003), Ragayah et al. (2002) argued that the Malaysian

government has maintained a cautious distance from involvement in social protection

expenditure because, historically, this ideological stance may be traced back to the Communist

insurgency period of 1948–1960, during which trade unions and socialist parties were labelled

as leftist insurgents and posed political threats.

Furthermore, the way the British and the US handled these leftist insurgent elements in

Indonesia and elsewhere may have also prompted the Malaysian decision-makers to adopt this

overcautious, aloof posture. Ragayah et al. (2002) supported her argument by adding that lack

of trade union penetration and civil organisation, over time, was another reason why social

pressures for state welfare provisions were quite contained and restricted, thus resulting in

limited social security provisions in Malaysia. As can be seen here, issues of communist

insurgency and socialist ideology, as well as trade union penetration, were identified to be

underlining reason for the over cautiousness of the government.

Poverty eradication studies have also been given more priority in Malaysia. Ozay

Mehmet is his book entitled Development in Malaysia: Poverty, Wealth and Trusteeship in

39

1986 criticised the NEP that aimed to redistribute wealth and remove racial identification with

economic sectors and claimed that Malaysia although independent is still organised and

administered in a colonial way. He claimed that economic elites in Malaysia replaced the

colonial masters by behaving like them by continuing cheap labour policies and giving ‘lip-

service’ for poverty eradication. Mehmet (1986) set out to say further that a network of

institutions (quoted military, religious, bureaucratic and political) where created by the elites

that put higher concentration on their benefits at the expense of the poor and the vulnerable.

That is why Mehmet claimed that colonial behaviour remains in Malaysia and will continue as

a creeping issue fuelling inequality (Mehmet, 1986).

As mentioned earlier in Chapter One, although hard-core poverty seems to have been

eradicated based on the claims by the federal government, the proliferation of cash handouts

continues, on a bigger scale, not only by the Federal government but also by the state

governments41. To illustrate, in 2015, 78 per cent of the budget of the DSWM goes to funding

the cash handouts which is determined according to the national Poverty line index as the basis

of means-testing (DSWM, 2016). Other than cash handouts, care policy, or care services is the

most critically inadequate support system for the community in Malaysia (MWFCD and UNDP,

2014, p.91). The study which is a collaboration between MWFCD and UNDP also pointed out

that cash support on its own is not sufficient to support the existing issues in the society because

41 Cash handouts in Malaysia are not written in any law but are based on approvals from the MOF or

through Cabinet approval. After approvals are obtained, the Director-General of Social Welfare or the

Secretary-General of MWFCD will release an administrative order instead of a law. This is another

unique characteristic of the welfare cash handout that is unique in Malaysia. At the same time, the

Secretary-General of MWFCD as the finance controller of the ministry could also approve a certain

amount of increase or decrease if necessary and is within the existing budget. Cash handouts are

categorised under operation cost that is administered, approved and managed by the MOF, as compared

to the development budget (funds for physical development and research) which is managed by the

Economic Planning Unit (EPU, JPM).

40

care work for elderly, sick, disabled and children has caused women in particular to exit labour

force due to insufficient care support mechanisms.

This is only one example of the lack of social welfare services that have impacted the

livelihood, well-being, and stability of families in general, what more low-income,

marginalised, and the elderly. It can be argued that the family in Malaysia is the central welfare

provider, both in monetary terms and in the provision of social care (Da Vanzo and Chan, 1994;

and Schulz, 1997). However, with urbanisation hitting almost 75 per cent in 2012 and migration

in Malaysia for education and employment purposes, the family structure, as well as living

arrangements, have been changing. Schulz (1997) supporting this, argued that the dual

processes of rapid industrialisation and urbanisation might have a detrimental effect on the

ability of the family to offer support to those more vulnerable members.

The inadequateness of the care services and the limited residence capacity and public

welfare institutions were also highlighted by Ashray (2018). She showed that some regions in

Malaysia do not have specific types of public welfare institutions. This scarcity depicts the

difficulty of access to services when urgently needed and suggestive that there are difficulties

for welfare officers who are SLBs at the states to do their job and attend to welfare cases. In

2015, there are 66 public welfare institutions (PWI) (for juveniles, children, elderly, and disable,

destitute) directly administered by the DSWM, a federal government department 42 . The

maximum capacity of the 66 PWIs is 5,100 people. However, not all states have these facilities.

Comparatively, the total registered care centres managed by the NGOs and the private sector

for the elderly are 270 with 6,083 residents. While, a total of 1,200 children/orphans resides in

15 institutions of DSWM, (which are also not available in all states), NGOs have 927

42 In 2007, the number of welfare institutions were 60 with 104 district welfare offices throughout the

country (DSWM, 2007, p.22). In that 2007, the development budget was RM464 million (84 per cent

of the MWFCD) while the operation budget was RM311.4 million

41

establishments with a total capacity of 27,441 (MWFCD, 2015, p. 86). The numbers above

show that the services from the VS overshadow the services currently provided by the

government. The scarcity of the services can be seen when the government welfare institutions

or PWIs are spread out by region or states (as seen in Table 2.2). East Malaysia, which consists

of two states, for example, have only one old folk’s home and two children's home managed

by the government, not including institutions managed by the state governments.

Table 2.2: Institutional Services by the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia

by Region and Categories as of May 2016

Source: Ashray (2018)

The difficulty in meeting the increasing demand for more complex and variety of

services can be exemplified by the multiple instances where vulnerable groups and individuals

in the society were unable to access public welfare services or social welfare services. If the

decision-makers can predict needs and costs (foresight), then the government is prepared and

not delayed, and service denials can be avoided. One example is the abandonment of a disabled

teenager by his widowed and sickly mother which led to his death (New Straits Times, 2014

42

and 2015), and more recently the plight of an elderly lady who did not know whom to turn to

when her husband suddenly became disabled and she was refused welfare support

(Malaysiakini, 2017; and The Star, 2017).

Meanwhile, conflicts and dissatisfactions continued to spread and continued to manifest

in other states too and local community-based programmes. The Ministry, through the DSWM,

instructed all 545 Community Based Rehabilitation Centres (Program Pemulihan Dalam

Komuniti – PDK (CBR)) to register themselves as non-profit organisations, to reduce their

dependence on the government. This caused an uproar as a committee of volunteers leads most

CBRs in Malaysia, and DSWM pays the CBR staff/ trainers at the grassroots level. DSWM

rationalised that this move will increase the accountability of each CBR, especially in financial

matters. However, the state governments of Sarawak and Kedah requested to be exempted from

this exercise due to the concern that CBRs struggling with difficulty to fulfil the requirements

might need to close down or cease operations. This policy decision will adversely impact

disabled people (Borneo Post, 2017d).

The federal government policy had once again caused confusion and frustration. They

were perceived as being disconnected from the real issues on the ground. This is another

example of the federal government’s lukewarm position that opens the door for political horse-

trading by the state governments. The state governments claimed that this move would impact

most disabled children from low-income families who rely on CBRs as a centre or public

service, as other services are either too expensive or just geographically impossible to access.

Other states, such as Penang, had also contested and instructed state welfare officers to discard

the directives from the federal ministers regarding homeless issues in 2013 and 2015 (Ashray,

2017; Penang Institute, 2015), citing the same reasons. Again, past research has failed to

incorporate few of the essential features of the social welfare, that is, the interconnectedness of

the other players and institutions such philanthropy, zakat and the role of the state governments

43

as well as the NGOs, and how these external institutions could play a role in supporting the

overall national/ federal welfare system that could be lacking in certain aspects.

In 1997, a book entitled Malaysia Today: Towards the new Millenium was published in

1997, with chapters in five main categories: (1) Economic Development, (2) Infrastructure

Development, (3) Industrial Development, (4) Defence and Foreign Policy, and (5) Malaysian

Experience. Only in the 41st chapter, under Malaysian Experience, Ghazali Yusoff authored

‘The Malaysian concept of Multi-religious and Racial Harmony.’ This choice of sections in

this book is another example of how the area of social welfare or related social agendas seems

to be invisible in the main agendas of development in Malaysia. The topic of Healthcare

(Chapter 28) was organised under the category of Industrial Development. Although the

President of the Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute (ASLI) in the preface of the book said

that this book gives insight to the foresight and future strategies, … This book reiterates that

Malaysia seems to accept ‘the concept of trickle-down economics’ and that investment can

increase employability, which consequently increases income and well-being. However, is this

the case? To find a trend in a sector that has close proximity to social welfare, it was necessary

to look at the health sector. The statement by the former Health Minister portrays how social

welfare through the health sector in Malaysia is still deemed to be highly relevant and

significant for the poor/ vulnerable and need to be continued even with the onset of the

corporatisation and privatisation policy, albeit them being important factors for the increased

investment of the country. Chua Jui Meng, former Minister of Health who was also the

President of the Malaysia Chinese Association (MCA)43 said:

43 MCA is one of the main component party in the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition which ruled

Malaysia for 61 years until 2018. Chua Jui Meng was the health minister from 1995 to 2004, the

longest serving health minister.

44

‘…The ongoing corporatisation and privatisation policy will dictate the

supervisory role of the Ministry’s will be to regulate and to monitor the healthcare

industry, primarily to safeguard consumer interest. The regulatory function will

ensure that the development of the corporatized and privatised bodies will not be

at the expense of the government’s social responsibility...’

‘…The government, through the Ministry of Health, will continue to monitor the

overall national health needs and ensure a good match of care need and supply.

The government will adhere to its responsibility in providing a safety net and in

subsidising those who cannot afford to pay as well as ensure equity of access to

health services….’

‘Inherent and underlying all the principles of the national health security fund will

be the concern that the less privileged and less-served shall not suffer and that

they are adequately provided for…’

(Chapter 28: Healthcare services into the 21st Century: Malaysia Today:

Towards the new millennium’, pp.235-236)

2.4 Summary

This chapter identifies four broad phases of institutional development and change in Malaysia

since pre-colonial times. For much of the nineteenth century, Malaysian institutions were those

of the British Empire, imported into Malaya then Malaysia but insufficiently adapted to local

conditions and needs. Post world war and independence showed some acceleration of efforts

in the field of social development in Malaysia, such as the establishment of the DSWM and

formalisation of other institutions including in the voluntary sector.

The summary of the institutional legacy is explained in Figure 2.5 which shows the

evolution during the pre-colonisation, colonisation and the post-colonisation period depicting

the different actors that have their power and interest spaces within the system. An important

point to note is that the difference in the management of the country and social order, the

45

introduction of federalism and political parties and modernisation of the governing structure

and tools, seem not to have had a significant impact on how social welfare is being dealt with.

The social welfare system in Malaysia could also be interpreted as not having growth or face a

reform because the system just naturally layered on top on each layer, retaining the old layer.

The layering to a certain extent has made social welfare actors contained in their layers to

actively jump or expand into the other layers or between layers possibly remaining within their

turfs, to secure their interests.

Figure 2.5: Author’s interpretation of the formal and informal institutional changes

related to social welfare in Malaysia

Source: Author

In this chapter, the situation and issues of social welfare in Malaysia have been

analysed both from traditional and formal arrangements in a plural society according to its

evolution. As showed above, even before colonisation, the traditional and informal systems,

such as self-help groups and family-based support systems existed, supported by monarchs,

community leaders, village heads (penghulu), and Muslim religious leaders. This is the

specific socio-cultural context that forms the peculiar social order in Malaysia. The social

order in Malaysia, the existence of monarchy, federal system and the parliamentary democracy

46

also affects the behaviour and values that are appreciated and socially accepted. This aspect

has been abandoned in the past studies of the administration of social welfare in Malaysia.

The notion of welfare in Malaysia has other elements and sentiments attached to it, which

could be different from the normal notion of social welfare elsewhere, although the word or

term ‘social welfare’ is similarly used. This study intends to fill that gap.

Under those circumstances, the main issues of the current situation of the Malaysian

social welfare system are identified as follows:

a. The notion of religious philosophy and familism remains as a critical support

system;

b. High level of dependency of government on non-state actors, which has continued

since colonial times;

c. There exist conflicts between federal and state government on the distribution of

welfare burdens; and

d. Limited resources, both in aspects of financial expenditure and facilities.

The underlying conditions of Malaysian society can be characterised as the embedded

social order of the Malays and indigenous people within a ‘secured’ feudal system loyal to the

Sultans. Foreign migrants and labourers belonged and organised themselves to a separate

system that is again very sectarian or ethnic-based, similar to the division that exists in their

religious practices, living conditions, employment, and economic activities. At the same time,

colonialism also imported European non-state actor charity and voluntary models.

An important point to note is that in the post colonisation, the introduction of federalism

and political parties and modernisation of the governing administrative structure and tools seem

not to have had a significant impact on how social welfare is being managed or dealt with. The

social welfare system in Malaysia could also be interpreted as less developed and not fully

47

entrenched because the pre-colonisation and colonisation period depended much on the

ethnically and traditional feudalistic community based and informal welfare support system

which is mainly collective in nature.

Harper (1999) identified the British stance on the government’s role on social welfare

to be residual, taking the example of the Malayan Union, as working less for ‘a system of state

aid and assistance, but for a system of direction and coordination and supplement to private

effort’ (p.60). He indicates that the official thinking of the British colonial government was

clearly to curtail the role of the government by choosing to supplement the current private effort

under the pretext of ‘destroying the people’s sense of personal responsibility’. Indirectly, this

official thinking seems to have elevated the role of civil society and individual responsibility,

curbing the role of government. The above could perhaps be the fundamental notion of the

DSWM which was created just less than a year earlier, in 1946 and 10 years before the

independence of Malaysia; and on a larger scale, the official welfare development and stance

which spread across the Federation of Malaya, then Malaysia.

Given that governments played a relatively small role in social welfare as a last resort

before economic development, the problem is that the Malaysian government still seems

somewhat cautious in expanding its social welfare provision and increasing its intervention

although unequal access seems to persist. The author assumes that the residual state of the

social welfare service, as the lukewarm attitude towards issues of social welfare (as claimed by

previous studies), is a consequence of deeply embedded conviction within its bureaucracy and

political masters that social welfare is the duty of the families and individuals and that social

welfare is not the duty of the government. As Jacob et al. (1996) mentioned, the attitudes of

people may represent a significant obstacle to providing social welfare services (p.152).

48

3 LITERATURE REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK & RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

As discussed in Chapter Two, the current status of the social welfare system in Malaysia can

be characterised as ‘residual’, and somewhat cautious about increasing its intervention,

although Malaysia has become one of the leading economies in South-east Asia. By reviewing

historical evolution from traditional, colonial to modern social arrangements in a plural society,

and welfare arrangement under the federal system, the author assumes that the institutional

legacies and the social and cultural context may have somehow influenced the notions and

values that underpin the growth of social welfare system in Malaysia. In order to investigate

how those residualistic ideological formations of the Malaysian government and the multiple

social welfare actors within the ecosystem are socially constructed, in this Chapter, the author

reviews the literature on social welfare theory especially from welfare relations perspectives,

as well as political behaviour theory of public choice to formulate a conceptual framework of

the dissertation. Based on the framework, the final part presents the research methodology

adopted in this study.

The idea of ‘welfare relations’ used by Chan (1998) and Segal (2010) will be considered

in this study. Welfare relations concerns the distribution of welfare burdens and the division

of welfare provisions that ‘directly shape the public’s welfare ideologies and expectations of

different social institutions’ (Chan, 1998, p.279). As a by-product of social, economic and

political forces, welfare relations play a crucial part in the formation of the welfare system, and

also are ‘dynamic forces’ that will change according to the changes of social, economic, and

political context among various welfare actors (Chan, 1998). This idea of dynamic sources

changing according to the changes of the situational context amongst the actors somehow fit

the arguments of Shaffie (2006) and the multi-period Figure 2.5 presented in Chapter Two on

49

the context of Malaysia. Therefore, such a welfare relations perspective is quite significant to

clarify in the Malaysian context where social welfare system has naturally layered on top on

the old layer under the evolution from pre-colonisation to the post-colonisation period that

depended much on traditional and ethnical based informal welfare system as extensively

discussed in Chapter Two.

3.2 Social welfare theories from perspectives of welfare relations perspective

Development of social welfare models and the influential factors

Residualism, as shown by Spiker (1995, 2004), is a condition where the role of the state is less

active, minimalist and selective (Table 1.1 in Chapter One). Residualism is often the first

approach of any country (Andersen, 2017) which means that even countries that have a

comprehensive universal system would have started with residual welfare models. However,

by the end of the 19th century, social welfare distribution expanded in government sector

responding to the demand by the labour movement and political parties (Midgely, 2003, p.2).

The residual institutions laid the foundation for government involvement that is

institutionalism approach, in providing social welfare services along with industrialisation

during the 20th century.

Among the institutional approach, Wilensky (1975) tried to categorise welfare states of

64 countries to find the factors that determine the volume of welfare services. He found out

any factor of culture, ideology, political regime nor types of the economic institution does not

determine the volume of welfare state services, but a level of economic development and public

social expenditures matter. However, it is arguable whether the economic level and conditions

only can explain the development of the welfare models. For instance, according to the social

expenditure database of OECD, while the United States enjoys a higher GDP, the public social

spending of 2018 ranked 22nd amongst 37 member countries and regions. Many citizens feel

50

that residualistic position is desirable in the rural area, reflecting a core American value or

‘rugged individualism’ that eventually implies attitudes may matter to the form of welfare

model (Jacob et al., 1996). Barns and Srivenkataramana (1982) in their article on an

examination of the Wilensky’s theory, the differences of social welfare development might also

be accounted for in the differences between the internal dynamics of mono-ideological states

and multi-ideological states. These perspectives will help to analyse Malaysian residualism to

discuss notions of various stakeholders of multi-religious and racial society.

Early acclaimed works such as Titmuss (1965), Korpi (1985), Espring-Anderson (1990,

1998) developed social welfare models based on the labour movement in capitalist approach.

For instance, Esping-Andersen (1990) coined the names of three ideal-typical welfare (state)

regimes: The Liberal, Social Democratic and Conservative regimes. He uses various degrees

of decommodification against the market and social stratification of a country as the critical

measurement to assess the quality of the welfare state. In those three regimes, there is the belief

that the economic and social welfare domains should be separated, and common mechanisms

should exist to provide social welfare to citizens (Midgely, 2003). Decommodification

examined the extent to which an individual’s welfare depends on the market, and the impact

can be analysed in the extent to which the state sets limits to the treatment of humans as mere

commodities within capitalist labour markets (Wood and Gough, 2006). For the categorization

of the regimes, in addition to the indices related to market development and public social

expenditure, the typical underpinned ideologies and degree of involvement of families are also

included. The welfare regime indicates the totality of welfare output composed of government,

market and household, rather than public welfare alone (Esping-Andersen, 1990). The social

welfare activities are embedded within not only markets but also family/household systems,

which formulates the welfare relations of each state (Wood and Gough, 2006).

51

There are studies trying to identify different regimes or models of development of social

welfare in Asian countries (Chan, 1998; Kwon, 2009; Lee and Ku, 2007; Mok, Kuhner and

Yeates, 2017; and Shin and Shaw, 2003). Scholars have repeatedly insisted that the welfare

state cannot be defined and no coherent typology can illustrate an ideal welfare state (DiNitto,

2007; Greve, 1996; and Midgley, 1995). Midgley (2017) asserted that the western models of

welfare are thoroughly researched compared to Asian welfare models (p. 98). Institutionalism

dominated social policy in Europe, North America and other industrialized nations during the

middle decades of the 20th century (Midgley, 2003, p.3). However, much remains unexplored

in the case of Asia, including in Malaysia.

Social welfare models in Asian countries from welfare relations

The social welfare model in many of Southeast Asia and East Asia countries can be classified

as developmentalism that unifies socio-economic development. One of the ideas worth noting

in developmentalism is the ‘productivist’ approach, that is social investment-oriented by

promoting economic participation of people. A social programme is productivist if it invests in

what Amartya Sen’s approach of ‘human capabilities’ (Midgley, 2003, p.8). Human capability

approach by Sen (1992) is the idea to provide public space with appropriate social and

economic opportunities so that people can utilise those services for their well-being. In that

process, whether they can ‘participate’ in social and economic activities is the issue, and the

enabling environment within a certain cultural context or social fabric becomes one of the

critical factors when the transformation from residualistic approach to developmentalism or

reformulation of the welfare state model being discussed in Asian countries. The various

perspectives other than public social expenditures or labour movement should be considered.

For example, Hong Kong is a former British colony in Asia that has been labelled as

residualistic or minimalistic in its approach to social welfare (Chan, 1998; Tang, 2000, Chan,

52

2003; and Wong, 2008). Chan (1998) argued that the traditional strong dependence on the role

of the family had reduced the reliance of social institutions and the government other than the

marginalisation of welfare recipients that augments how people perceived the behaviour of

welfare seeking by encouraging self-reliance or in other words ‘independence’. Chan claims

that the above, by encouraging self-reliance and participation of family and the market in social

welfare, has minimised the expectation to the government from its people. However, Wong

(2008) claimed that Hong Kong’s government plays a more significant role than often

otherwise claimed. She alluded to the minimalist behaviour of the government to the colonial

path dependency in the arrangement of social welfare interventions. However, she agreed that

the role of the government had evolved especially with the economic achievements of the

country, although still yet to implement a universal welfare system. Here, the component of

the notion of familism and colonial legacy can be pointed out to examine the social welfare

model of Hong Kong. Familism, in a nutshell, can be defined as a cultural value that

emphasizes warm, close, supportive family relationships and that family be prioritised over

self (Zaretsky, 1976). However, he warned that capitalism will separate family and economy

further in the future and will disrupt the socialist movement that supports welfare, uniquely

universal welfare (Zaretsky, 1976, p. 23), indicating that familism and family as an institution

are not reliable as we can witness in the current situation.

In another country, Taiwan, that inherited the traditional cultures of Buddhism, Taoism,

and Confucianism, Chang (2010) in her study found that similar to many other East Asian

countries, people’s perceptions about the principles of justice usually relate to their beliefs

derived from the value systems under specific socio-cultural conditions of society. In many

East Asian societies, the traditional values of collectivism, responsibilities for the group, and

acceptance of hierarchies tend to prefer a more active role of government regarding the

institutional arrangement on wealth distribution. Thus, in these societies, individualism is often

53

frowned upon, but ‘independence’ or less dependency is hailed, although both might be seen

as contradicting. Wong (2008) claimed that ‘the values that underpin their social system are

strongly influenced by Confucian culture in Taiwan, which extol filial piety, self-reliance and

familial duty. Even their political values and systems lean towards conservatism and

authoritarianism’ (p. 3). Other than these values, in East Asian countries, economic

development has been taken as a priority strategy compared to social development, with a

mind-set that trickledown economics will positively impact the lower income cohort and

consequently increase the well-being of its people (Giugale, 2017; and Holliday, 2000).

Midgley in 2017 said the South East Asian models and values are less understood

(Midgley, 2017). Goodman, in 2015, joining in arguing that it is time for the world to look at

some ‘alternative models’ in Asia, by giving Singapore as an example (Goodman, 2015).

Singapore’s model of social welfare caught the eyes of the world because of its high economic

growth (Goodman, 2015). Singapore has approached its social welfare from an asset protection

approach by nationalizing and highly regulating its public housing programme (Mukul &

Nayantara, 2002) and organising the VWOs under a national council. Those VWOs are

subsidised and supported by the government from matters of finances, social work skills, to

management skills, amongst others (Singapore Ministry of Social and Family Development,

2017). On the other hand, Thio (2010), in the study of religious partnerships and relations with

the state in welfare services in Singapore, found that the relationship between formal and

informal social welfare actors shows that religious values still strives in modern developed

societies, even in secular countries like Singapore44.

44 The 1966 Constitutional Commission expressly describes Singapore as a democratic secular state as

compared to Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia which has Islam as their official religion, while Thailand

a Buddhism state.

54

The claims made by Goodman (2015) and Midgley (2017, 2015) pinpoint to the fact

that there are social welfare systems outside the western models that needed exploration and

investigation. So far, as discussed above, traditional beliefs of familism, religious notion of

Buddhism, and eastern philosophy of Taoism and Confucianism have somehow affected the

development of social welfare in some of the Asian countries under the productivist approach.

Another aspect that should not be ignored is the institutional legacies in those countries

experienced the era of colonisation. Noting that so far in Malaysia, most of the studies

concentrated mainly on micro poverty eradication and no researches done from perspectives of

institutional legacies and social and cultural factors, there is a research gap. Moreover, the

study on social welfare systems in countries with the significant presence of the Muslim

community and primarily, of pluralistic societies has not been found. Based on the above

arguments and what was found in Chapter Two of the need to look at the lukewarm attitude of

various welfare actors towards issues of social welfare phenomena, more in-depth investigation

to identify if the perceived lack of intervention or the residual role of the Malaysian government

has been attributed to ideologies or notions of actors constructed within historical, social, and

religious underlining factors.

The ideas of welfare relations amongst various social actors

Garland (2016) argued that welfare services, especially welfare handouts in modern states,

were similar in a certain sense to the feudal times regarding ‘buying' or retaining loyalty. In

feudal times, welfare services and social security maintained the loyalty to the lords or the

monarchs. In modern states, welfare services maintain loyalty to the political parties through

votes. This indicates the importance of politicians, political will and political agenda in the

dimension of social welfare, as much as in other policy agenda. Thus, any decision about

55

welfare services is fundamentally a political issue because it involves someone who will benefit

or lose (the benefit) (Garland, 2016).

This extensive policy area of social welfare includes a particular set of activities created

to cure an extensive list of societal ills (Breznau, 2010; and Richan, 1988), and to a certain

extent, prevent future catastrophes. To provide social welfare services, a complex organisation

of programmes, agencies, and different levels of government and non-governmental actors are

involved. O’Leary and Vij (2012) claimed that collaborative management patterns are less

known in developing countries, while Kim (2012) argued that being able to collaborate and

consider collaboration activities between the government and the third sector are important

skills of the current public administrators. To ensure that the public receives the deserved and

promised services, bureaucrats must possess the ability to achieve their own assigned task.

However, they should be able to be the agent for collaboration, especially with non-state actors.

(Denhardt & Denhardt, 2009; and Salamon, 1987). Thus, a study of social welfare must include

the different actors and levels of government to deeper understand the local intricacies such as

relations, connections and collaborations amongst the players.

Chan (1998) posits that it is the welfare relations that curtail the role of the government

by ‘encouraging the welfare contributions of families and the market’ and residual model of

Hong Kong will continue (p.289). This argument is parallel to Kornawaski (2010) in his study

of the homeless situation in Hong Kong who found that the role of the non-state services that

overshadow the government could make the government rely on them and indirectly made the

government allocate lesser resources towards the homelessness issue. The issue of the role of

the government and the NGO is often seen and dealt with as though it is a chicken and egg

issue.

Under certain social welfare systems, decisions in social welfare policies made by

policymakers must match the needs of the public (Segal, 2010). To this extent, it is fair to say

56

that social welfare policies are socially and culturally constructed, owing to a set of normative

expectations determined by the members of the societies themselves or a group within the

society that evolves (Pierson, 2000). Thus, ‘… the social welfare policy-making process and

its outputs are critically related to contemporaneous attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions that are

prominent among diverse societal groups’ (Rochefort, 1986, p. 139).

The relationship between the central government and the state government, as well as

local government in the provision of public services, must not be ignored, especially in federal

nations. These actors in the government structure often have power tousles, overlaps, or

compete, especially in circumstances where different political interests are at play. Here, the

issues of devolution, decentralization, and collaborative government come into the picture.

However, who is the best service provider for social welfare? According to Pierson & Castles

(2007), the local government could be the best service provider in the case of social welfare

services because it has the proximity to its clients; otherwise, there is no meaning to its

existence. The principle of subsidiarity, which finds its roots in Catholic thought is close to this

idea of ‘proximity’ or ‘immediate’ of service providers.

The idea of welfare relations amongst various social actors fits into the exploration of

the reality and the actual meaning of the responsibility of social welfare in the different

institutions. The need for exploration of welfare relations in even more imperative in Malaysia

because of the richness, complex and peculiar institutional legacies and social order that exist

in an economically stable developing country that is rapidly facing global uncertainties.

Because of the multicultural context of the country, the relations between actors in Malaysia

would perhaps be influenced (expanded or limited) by elements such as religious and ethnic

sensitivities, various political interests, competition for resources and power and the diversity

of the structures within the administrative system.

57

3.3 Political behaviour of welfare actors: Public choice theory

Lavers and Hickey (2016) in conceptualising the politics of social protection expansion in low-

income countries, discuss ‘political settlements’ or bargaining framework to analyse how

politics shape social policy. They suggest to ‘incorporate an analytical focus on the role of

ideas in shaping the perceived interests of actors, driving policy change, and as frames, actors

use to justify decisions’ (p. 9). In this context, the ideas in shaping political behaviour and

ideology could play a significant role in the decision-making process.

In this section, to study how social welfare is managed in a public realm, the public

choice theory will be discussed. The theory was chosen because of its proximity to the concepts

of hierarchy, authority, customs, and limits of government involvement and disproportionate

decision-making nature of the administration. The author posits that public choice theory

including the discussions of behaviours of SLBs would be able to help capture and explain the

complexities of the Malaysian hierarchical structure that not only stands on modern legal

structures but feudal roots but one which is heavily embedded with ethnic pluralism and

religious elements within its institutions.

The Malaysian federal system is complicated because of the peculiar features of the

administrative structure that still co-exist with feudal laden elements. At the same time,

traditional and modern sub-systems have developed within a society which still functions

mainly along ethnic-based political alignment because of the nature of the multi-racial

population. All this then exist within a multiple-layer hierarchical administrative structure

which increases the complexity of the relations and power dynamics between the layers and

the groups that exist within those layers, especially in the less explored area of social welfare.

Each group or sub-group fights, directly or indirectly, to represent their interest and needs, or

the interest of the groups that they belong to, either in official or in personal capacity.

58

In line with the argument of Merton in Bureaucracy Structure and Personality in 1940

that actors of bureaucracy fend only for themselves, is the seminal work of Buchanan and

Tullock (1962), which introduced the public choice theory. This theory amongst others argues

that self-interest is the primary motivation of politics and that people will give their votes to

candidates who can provide them more access to monetary gains (for instance employment,

higher salary, cash handouts and better subsidies). Buchanan and Tullock saw both the

government actors and voters (who are citizens) as individuals with economic self-interest. The

public choice theory assumes that every person is individualistic and self-aggrandising. They

propose that collective group of people might also form a collective interest and behave

collectively against other groups, while also assumes that there should be institutional pluralism

to allow more choice of public goods and services, referring to blocks, lobbyist or pressure

groups. Public choice theory is against the idea of public interest theory which argues that

interest groups control the government process in line with the pluralist view that no one group

has complete control over the government, especially in democratic systems, what more

individuals.

As Garland (2016) and Midgley (2016) in unison have said that social welfare in itself

is a political creature because someone either benefits or loses in its cause, thus politicians are

cautious in making social welfare-related commitments. Further, once committed, a policy

related to welfare will be difficult to retract or repeal. Thus, social welfare is an issue of great

proximity to political masters. Garland (2016) argued that social welfare could never be

separated from politics because ‘it involves someone who will benefit and someone who will

not’ The argument by Garland further supports that decision making, especially on the part of

political leaders could not be based on rational behaviour. However, Niskanen (1971) argues

that personal benefit and collective benefit in terms of self-preservation is definite in any

bureaucracy when every organisation or sub-organisation would want to secure their turfs. In

59

his later studies, Niskanen (1977, 1983) claimed, self-preservation is only one of the problems

of bureaucracies; others could be lack of information or data sharing between the agencies or

organisations or hierarchies.

The voice of the people mitigates the selfishness of political actors and provide the

check and balance of power. However, Pontinen and Uusitalo in 1988 wrote that the supporters

of the welfare state tend to be found among the lower classes, i.e., among those who are more

vulnerable, with less education and lower incomes, and they are also the people who use and

need the public services most of all. Correspondingly, those in the middle and upper classes,

having higher education and locating in higher income brackets see themselves more as the

financial base of the welfare state and have a more critical attitude towards it. They also have

less practical experience with it and more chance of seeking assistance through private channels,

thus rendering them less sympathetic and empathetic towards redistributive policies. The

interest could also be influenced by other factors such as age and life experience. For example,

older men are less sympathetic to issues regarding childcare or maternity leave. It has likewise

been found that women, as providers of formal and informal care, are more favourably disposed

towards the welfare state than are men (Pontinen and Uusitalo, 1988). Giugale (2017) parallel

to Pontinen and Uusitalo (1988), agrees that less affluent societies and more impoverished

societies have low tendencies to make voice out or set demands towards political leaders or the

government. The above factors point to why demands of less affluent or disadvantage groups

are less highlighted and if highlighted, often die down quickly because political actors do not

see the direct incentives of it.

Interests and ideologies do not, however, appear from nowhere. A person's social status,

i.e., his or her position in the occupation, education and income structure of society, influences

his or her ideology (Cnaan et al., 1993, p. 123). Social status also influences interests and

indifferences, as mentioned by Crone (1993). Thus, in relations to Malaysia, as elaborated in

60

Chapter Two, the choices made could be influenced by the religious and cultural plurality of

the society, the divisions of power between the federal-state governments, the readiness and

capacity of the civil service especially the ADS and the social welfare services (SWS), the

strong demand for filial responsibility, the bargaining power of the voluntary welfare sector,

the position of power, the colonial baggage, the stigma of being stuck as a developing nation

and the fear the label of becoming a ‘welfare state.’

Denhardt and Denhardt (2009) warned that bureaucracy could harm individual freedom,

because of the rigid or specific unusual, irrational manner used in achieving organisation goals

or as Niskanen (1971) offered: to maximise budget and preserve oneself. Since Weber has

opened the gate to the ideal characteristic of bureaucracy, unforeseen consequences have

emerged when humans become dehumanised; because, after all, bureaucracy is a social order.

Merton (1957) demonstrates that bureaucracy with a comprehensive system of rules,

impersonalisation and high division of labour causes unintended consequences to the

bureaucrats. According to Merton (1957), bureaucrats no longer perceive the rules as a means

to an end but as ends in and of themselves and thus, the organisational attributes of bureaucracy

increase the displacement of goals as the rules become the end value to the bureaucrats.

Bureaucracy provides control and central direction to achieve objectives at the price of

inflexibility and limitation of response to changing problems.

Command and control, however, may limit the bureaucrats’ ability to respond

effectively to the clients. The clients could be the public they serve, political masters, other

public sector organisations or even voluntary organisations. In the case of highly complex

hierarchical structures, the nearest unit, and on the ground level working directly with the

public is always in contestation or being scrutinised. In his work on street-level bureaucracy,

Lipsky (1980) indicates that SLBs carry out jobs that involve high discretion and regular

interaction with clients. The work environment affects how SLBs perceive problems that entail

61

common patterns of practice. Lipsky claimed that SLBs often operates under the impression

feeling oppressed and not understood. At the same time, their working conditions usually suffer

from the scarcity of resources, increasing demand, vague and contradicting roles and

expectations, challenging to monitor own performance (perhaps due to too many urgent matters

and too many bosses) and faced with non-cooperative clients. Attempts to control the SLBs

hierarchically increase their tendency to stereotype and disregard the needs of their clients

(Lipsky, 1980). Since it would be erroneous to suggest that Lipsky advocated a high degree of

discretion for SLBs, it is critical to emphasize the need for implementation accountability. The

issue of accountability is always an ever-growing dilemma for SLBs. They face the critique of

a lack of accountability due to their relative autonomy and broad discretion (Smith, 2003).

Discretion, however, is vital in interpreting rules for policy implementation in order to

be responsive to the specific needs of different service beneficiaries (Goodsell, 1981). However,

inconsistent use of discretion can lead to inequitable policy implementation that may differ

significantly from policy intention. Lipsky’s previous work with Weatherly in 1977 on the

study of the implementation of a new, innovative state special education law in Massachusetts

discusses the dilemmas faced by SLBs, both administrators and educators (Weatherly and

Lipsky, 1977). The authors caution against the severe implications for those who seek to

introduce policy innovations with insufficient resources and guidance. Smith and Lipsky

(1993) extended their prediction on the frontline workers’ behaviour to non-profit organizations,

particularly those agencies processing clients’ information. Heavy processing and paperwork

lead to officials to decreasing screening requirements, withholding information and delaying

services or increasing waiting hours, all in the name of simplification of the process (Smith and

Lipsky, 1993).

In summary, previous studies have overlooked the role of multi-level government that

exist together with other actors such as the SLBs, voluntary organisations and grass-root leaders

62

in the social welfare in Malaysia. In short, the organisation of social welfare and the relations

between the actual actors of this crucial policy and public service is not understood. Practically,

in a condition where economies face scarce resources, governments should find a way to

maximize its resources by identifying the potential and existing ones, while maximising

methods to obtain the best outcomes. The author posits that there is a potential in the more in-

depth understanding of the interaction in the relations of the social welfare actors to understand

why social welfare has taken a residual approach in Malaysia. The public choice theory which

includes the bureaucratic theory and street-level bureaucratic theory could provide an insight

to the relationship between the multi-level social welfare actors that at every level of their being

makes decisions that impact the livelihood and wellbeing of every Malaysian.

3.4 Conceptual framework and operational assumptions

Using the concept of welfare relations, interaction among formal and informal actors that may

shape the ideologies and values of multiple level social welfare actors can be depicted as in

Figure 3.1. As discussed in Chapter Two, the dimensions of institutional legacies and social-

cultural context of Malaysian society are added as possible factors to influence those

interactions. The institutional legacy and social-cultural context in Malaysia, the existence of

the monarchy, federal system and the parliamentary democracy also affects the behaviour and

values that are appreciated and socially accepted. Public choice theory is also synthesised into

a conceptual framework to analyse the interactions between social welfare actors in multiple

levels of government. Past research failed to incorporate few crucial features of the social

welfare that is the interconnectedness and relations of the other players and institutions such

philanthropy, zakat and the role of the state governments as well as the NGOs. A combination

of these concepts and theories would be able to explain the complexities of the Malaysian

welfare system and influencing factors on residualism that not only stands on modern legal

63

structures but one which is heavily embedded with ethnic pluralism and religious elements

within its institutions (Forsyth & Chia, 2009).

The operational assumptions of this study to answer the main research question of ‘what

are the key factors that have influenced the social welfare residualism in Malaysia?’ are as

follows:

Assumption 1:

Institutional legacies, and social and cultural context affected ideologies and attitudes

of social welfare actors.

Assumption 2:

Interaction between the formal and informal sector may impact the notion of the role of

the government in social welfare

Assumption 3:

Interaction among the multi-layered government actors affected the residualism in

Malaysia

Figure 3.1: Conceptual framework

Source: Author

64

3.5 Research methodology

Qualitative research approach

This study is a research of Malaysia social welfare using a qualitative approach in which the

author explores phenomena through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple

sources of information from documents and reports, interviews and observation (Creswell and

Poth, 2018). The bounded case is the social welfare system in Malaysia. A properly conducted

qualitative study provides an understanding of an essential aspect of a new problematic

research area (Punch, 1998), to investigate and understand the phenomenon in its natural

settings with realities, based on the meanings people bring to them (Van Evera, 1997, pp. 52-

53; and Van Thiel, 2014, p. 54). The value of qualitative research lies in the particular

description and themes developed in the context of a specific site (Creswell, 2009, p. 193).

Qualitative researchers usually use the triangulation method with at least two resources by

different data sources and methods. The purpose of triangulating is to provide a confluence of

evidence that breeds credibility (Bowen, 2009).

In this study, related document analysis, individual interviews and field observations

are combined for triangulation to obtain an in-depth understanding of the subject of the research.

Document analysis is a social research method and an invaluable part of most schemes of

triangulation in the study of the same phenomenon (Bowen, 2009). The documents related to

those elements of the conceptual framework, namely, historical development, social order,

various welfare institutions by formal and informal actors, as well as the administrative

structure and political interrelations to deal with welfare issues are extensively reviewed.

Individual views will be obtained through purposive sampling of elite decision-makers

by interviewing them and observing them. This method provides a distinctive lens for the

readers to view and experience the participant’s world despite the frequent criticism concerning

its subjectivity. The justification used for interviewing actors who are individuals is parallel to

65

the argument of Buchanan and Tullock that each individual is their person, especially political

actors since they also exist in their respective formal institutions or office (Buchanan and

Tullock, 1962; and Munger, 2012).

The analysis and findings of the document review are then triangulated by interview

results to increase the reliability and depth of the overall findings. Construction of the

informants’ experiences and the meanings attached to them allows the author to understand the

challenges that the informants encountered to enable the cultural framing it was translated into

actions or non-actions. Informants of NGOs, NGIs and the GRLs are included to provide an

opportunity for further triangulation of the data provided by informants. By conducting this

process, the data from the document review is being enriched, and more in-depth interpretation

and observations could be provided to explain the phenomena (Bowen, 2009).

Research strategy

As outlined above, there are three assumptions in this research. The strategy of this research is

to undertake document review and triangulate the analysis against the purposive sampling of

elite interviews of 38 informants (Table 3.1 – will be elaborated in the next section). To

investigate the first assumption, an extensive historical tracing and document review was

undertaken and presented partly in Chapter Two, and a chronology of critical events is listed in

Appendix 1. In order to analyse the ideologies and notions of the social welfare actors that are

influenced by institutional legacy and social-cultural context, the primary documents being

reviewed are as the following:

a) Reid Commission Report 1956, Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957;

b) Malaysian Parliamentary Hansards (selected);

c) State legislative Assembly Hansards (selected);

d) UK Parliamentary Hansards and Colonial Archives (before 1957);

66

e) Singapore Parliamentary Hansards;

f) Eleven (11) Malaysia national five-year development plans;

g) Annual reports of government agencies, international organisations and NGOs;

h) Related laws and regulations, welfare-related written policies45;

i) Budget speech, speeches by various Prime Ministers, and

j) Government websites and newspaper articles.

From the document review, the author searched for pieces of evidence in forms of

patterns, centrifugal forces, actions, features and notions, and triangulated against the data from

the interviews. For assumption two, analysis of some portions of the above documents will be

used such as key speeches of the Prime Ministers and social welfare national policy and again

triangulated against the interview data especially from the NGO and NGI informants. For this

assumption, the author searched for forms of interaction in terms of programmes, activities,

and a connection between the formal and informal sector to give meaning to the relations

between them. Then the interview data is used to analyse if the findings in the document are

parallel or in conflict with the interviews to understand how the relationship between the formal

and informal sector has influenced the thinking of the government on social welfare.

Finally, for the third assumption, the author tries to interpret how the multi-layered

government actors’ actions have affected the residualism of social welfare in Malaysia by

focusing on the two main groups of actors; the federal and the state actors. Here, the findings

of the interviews are triangulated against data collected from various reports and some text

speeches of prominent leaders. Under this assumption, the author will try to identify peculiar

45 National Social Welfare Policy 1990, National Social Policy 2003, National Social Welfare Policy

2002, National Policy for People with Disabilities 1990 and revised version 2008, National Policy for

Elderly, National Policy for Children, and National Policy for the Protection of Children

67

SLBs and GRLs relations with other actors including politicians at both levels of government,

while identifying if community-level issues have its link to the central decision-makers at the

federal level. Here, in all three assumptions, the public choice theory and the bureaucratic

theory could be used as lenses to understand and give meaning to the attitude of the actors.

Elite interviews

a) Selection of informants

An important method used in this research is the elite interviews of people who have the power

to make decisions and are influential in their levels and organisations (Beamer, 2002; and

Marland & Esselment, 2018). To understand the phenomena and reality of a particular

condition; it is a generally accepted fact that the actors are the best providers of the information.

Thus, this study chose the policymakers and decision-makers as the primary source of

information. They are assumed to be knowledgeable and are considered official experts in their

field or area. As shown in Chapter Two, the realm of social welfare in Malaysia exists both at

the federal and state level. For the federal government, state governments and all agencies in

the state level are represented by politicians and bureaucrats who are ministers and top

bureaucrats, heading their organisation or unit.

For the NGOs, interviews involved executive directors, Chief Executive Officers

(CEOs), board member, a pioneer and principals; who are people directly involved in the

decision making and policy-making in each of their own NGOs, while having long experiences

and influential in their various fields or local area/community of work. Within these two major

sectors, the public sector was represented by politicians, senior public sector officials from the

federal government and the state government (including zakat organisation, district and GRLs).

Meanwhile, the non-state sector is represented by eight informants from the national level/

umbrella and local welfare-related NGOs, and a social activist or Non-Governmental

68

Individuals (NGIs). Table 3.1 depicts the various categories of interview informants. The

interview was conducted in mainly the English language but often, the Malay language, local

jargons, dialects have also been used. The transcripts retained the original interviews and

provided the translation.

As for the state governments, the research was undertaken in four states in Peninsular

Malaysia, which are Selangor, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur (FTKL), Perak and Penang.

Selangor and Penang are the two most prosperous and most developed states in Malaysia. At

the time of the data collection, both the states where under the administration of the opposition

party. Penang also used to be a Straits Settlement under the British Colony and is headed by a

Governor instead of a Sultan. Selangor and Perak, on the other hand, are being governed by a

state government that is headed by a Sultan, whilst the FTKL is the capital of the country and

is directly administered by the Ministry of Federal Territories.

Table 3.1: List of informants interviewed by categories used in this research

BUREAUCRATS

Federal Government Ministries and

Departments

State Government, agencies and

district office

1. Central Agency 1;

2. Central Agency 2;

3. Central Agency 3;

4. Line Ministry 1;

5. Line Ministry 2;

6. DSWM 1;

7. DSWM 2;

8. YKN 1;

9. State DSW 1;

10. State DSWM 2;

11. State DSWM 3;

12. PKMD 1;

13. PKMD 2;

14. State Government 1;

15. State Government 2;

16. State Government 3;

17. District Officer 1;

18. District Officer 2:

19. Zakat 1;

20. Penghulu District of Timur Laut (FGD)

THIRD SECTOR/ NGOs POLITICIANS

Registered Welfare Non-

Governmental Organisations/ Voluntary

Federal, State Government Ministers and

State Assemblymen

21. NGO 1

22. NGO 2

23. NGO 3

24. NGO 4

25. NGO 5

26. NGO 6

27. Federal Politician 1;

28. Federal Politician 2:

29. State Politician 1;

30. State Politician 2;

31. State Politician 3

32. State Politician 4;

33. State Politician 5;

34. Retired Federal Minister 6

69

NON-GOVERNMENTAL

INDIVIDUALS / SOCIAL ACTIVIST

GRASS-ROOT LEADERS (GRLs)

35. NGI 1

36. NGI 2

37. JKKK 1

38. JKKK 2.

Source: Author

Note: DSWM: Department of Social Welfare Malaysia, PKMD: District Welfare office, NGOs:

Non-governmental Organisation, NGI: Non-governmental Individuals

The differences between these three states are expected to represent the diversity of the

states in Malaysia. At the same time, examples from other states are also quoted whenever

appropriate. Interviews were conducted in the FTKL, Putrajaya, and the states of Selangor,

Perak, and Penang.46 Sabah and Sarawak (states from East Malaysia) are excluded due to the

limited resources of time and the different administrative circumstances under the Malaysian

Agreement 1963. Furthermore, both Sabah and Sarawak were still heated up on the issue of

autonomy from the Federal Government of Malaysia (which was mentioned in Chapter Two).

Compounded by the limitations of time and the complexity of the political debate of autonomy,

the author decided that it would be wise to keep the research to states in Peninsular Malaysia

and inclusion of East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) can be considered as a project for future

research. Nonetheless, throughout the study, time and time again, examples given also include

East Malaysia and other states, although none of the informants represents the states on an

official capacity. However, some of the key informants are from those two states.

Additionally, as NGOs are also service providers and lauded as ‘strategic partners’ by

the Malaysian government, they are also purposively included as samples in the interviews, but

46 The author also participated in three related discourses:

a. Monthly meeting of the Director of Social Welfare of Federal Territory with the Putrajaya

Office (observer);

b. Pangkor Dialogue on Social Agenda September 2017 :

c. Townhall session for National Social Council chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister of

Malaysia who is also the Chair of the National Social Council on 1st November 2017;

70

to also double-function as ‘triangulation input’ for the data collected from politicians,

bureaucrats, SLBs and GRLs. Only legally registered welfare-related NGOs are chosen for

samples47 . The names of the NGOs or charity organisation were then checked against the

websites and official registration before being approached through emails and phone calls.

Then, the list of NGOs providing welfare services from FTKL, Selangor and Penang

were short-listed and contacted. For this study, the author purposely chose NGOs that are

providing services to clients in institutions or at the clients’ homes, and are established for more

than ten years. For example, one of the NGOs has been providing services close to 100 years,

and another has been providing services since 1957. Welfare/ charity related NGOs that were

mainly active in advocacy programmes were excluded because they are relatively new and

often undertake programmes that are one-off. Finally, interviews were also conducted with two

Chairmen of Village Development and Security Committee (JKKK) in two states as they are

the layer of a government formed entity that is considered nearest to the people on the ground

(Sanusi, 1977) and referred to as GRLs in this study48.

b) Data collection process, saturation and trustworthiness

The main scope of questions used during the interviews was as follows:

a) The present condition of the social welfare policy in Malaysia;

b) Description of the role of the social welfare actors in welfare delivery;

47 For that purpose, a list of charity/welfare-related NGOs was obtained from the website of the Inland

Revenue Board and two websites managed by non-profit organisations at www.hati.my/ and

www.mycen.com 48 For this study, the author will use JKKK to represent the GRLs because they are the only unit

officially paid an allowance to undertake official duties and have been established since the early 1970s.

Each of these representatives will also have offices, mended by staffs. In short, these units often exist

in the same community with members of the community holding several overlapping posts. Each JKKK

receives an allowance of RM900 a month. Their manual and scope of work are provided by the Ministry

of Rural Development.

71

c) Problems faced by the social welfare actors across hierarchies;

d) The existing relationship with other social welfare actors and previous relationships;

and

e) What are the main challenges involved in the provision of social welfare policy?

The detailed list questions in Appendix 2.

The primary data collection phase started by identifying potential informants from each

major categories of main actors in social welfare services in Malaysia. The identification of the

main actors was made based on literature review, discussions and several meeting sessions with

social welfare-related government officials in Malaysia and Japan. By July 2017, emails were

sent, and phone calls were made to request for interviews. In the end, through snowballing and

recommendations, 38 interviews were conducted (37 face to face and one phone/skype) in

addition to one Focus Group Discussion (FGD). The function of the FGD was to clarify some

confusion, confirm specific data and to obtain additional information. All interviews were tape-

recorded, except for two open-ended interviews and one FGD with the officials of the Ministry.

Upon conducting the FGD, which was the final session, the information was found to be

repetitive, which led the author to decide that the data collection process has arrived at a

saturation point.

The author realised and was able to confirm that the research had reached its saturation

point as stated by Bertaux (1981) that data collection can reach ‘saturation of knowledge’ (p.

37) and stopped at 38 respondents following Guest, Bruce, and Johnson (2006). Meanwhile

Patton (2004) suggests that data collection has to continue ‘until the point of no redundancy’

(p. 45). During the process of the interviews and discussions, detailed notes were taken,

including notes on the observations of the environment and circumstances. Lilleker (2003)

aptly described the importance of interviews as ‘…insights into events about which we know

72

little: the activities that take place out of the public or media gaze, behind closed doors …

interviews can provide immense amounts of information that could not be gleaned from official

published documents or contemporary media accounts….’ (p. 208). The author continued to

communicate with the informants, mainly to clarify facts as was suggested by Rieger (2007).

Written consent forms were shared to the informants before the interview or during

initial communication, and signatures were obtained after the interviews. Each party kept a

copy of the same form. Permission to record the interview was again requested during the

interview session. The informants were advised that they have the right to refuse answering a

particular question or to request for the recording to be turned off at any time of the interview.

The informants' rights, interest and wishes were considered of the utmost importance when

reporting the data/ information collected.

Insider outsider role of the author as observant and interviewer

In qualitative studies, the ‘researcher’ as a person is an essential instrument of the research,

according to Van Thiel (2014, p.100). However, the social distance between the researcher and

the informants is often blurred. As Dollard (1949) offered, ‘…to do this type of research, [the

author] must pay the price of intense awareness of self and others and must constantly attempt

to define relationships which are ordinarily taken for granted...’ (p.20). Furthermore, the issue

of the position of the author is essential in this study because the author herself is a Malaysian

and was a public servant involved at the policy-making level related to community

development in Malaysia. That position allowed the author to have better access to some

information and statistics, understanding of the nuances, sub-texts, and inner-culture,

intricacies and complexities, as well as access to more comprehensive data collection

opportunities from prominent figures or local experts in the field. In this study, the author

73

positioned herself both as an insider and as an outsider. The author visited the sites and

conducted an observation of their work to understand the attitudes of actors.

For instance, the author visited welfare NGOs and met with state-level politicians,

leaders, and street-level bureaucrats that allowed her to stay on and observe their daily routines,

tasks, and meetings (as an observer). Four of the six NGOs invited the author to observe their

daily routines and activities of their organisation, meet with their clients, speak to the staffs and

observe how the day-to-day issues are dealt with. In most instances, the politicians at the state

level, GRLs, and NGOs were not aware of the author’s previous working experience, giving

her an opportunity of unbiased access of information without fear or ‘over-cautiousness’ of the

informants. Those exposures allowed the author to experience first-hand, the differences,

similarities as well as peculiarities between the different organisations, and political parties

represented, multiple levels of governments, and finally between the various visions/ aims of

each organisation. Besides, since the author is studying in Japan, but researching a topic about

Malaysia, it gives an outsider view of Malaysia and its social welfare administration and

approach in management. The author believes that she recognized more issues and differences

through her own living experience as part of the Japanese community and neighbourhood

member. This double exposure allowed the author to be more critical in interpreting the data

collected and in her observations.

74

4 INSTITUTIONAL LEGACIES AND SOCIAL-CULTURAL INFLUENCE ON

MULTIPLE SOCIAL WELFARE ACTORS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter consists of two parts. In the first part, the author will present the analysis of the

influence of institutional legacies and social and cultural context on ideologies and attitudes of

social welfare actors. Next, the analysis examines the interaction between the formal and

informal sectors and how that interaction impinged on the notion of the role of the government

in social welfare. The document review with historical tracing and the interviews conducted in

this research is utilised to give clarity to the degree influence of institutional legacies that

permeates from structures of legal, administrative, political, and financial perspectives through

the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial period (see 3.6.2 for research strategy). Institutional

legacy is traced through the document reviews and identified as such if there exist conflicts

concerning the idea or notion or the continuity of actor or institution that embody the idea.

Indeed, it cannot be denied that the institutional legacies intermingle and intertwine with

elements of the social-cultural context in Malaysia. Their existence certainly indicates a

complex system, compounded by racial and ethnic diversity, which is not only an attribute of

the community but also the main characteristic of party politics in Malaysia. These analyses

will lead to the discussions to verify the first and second assumption stated below.

Assumption 1:

Institutional legacies and the social-cultural context tend to impact the ideology and values of

multiple social welfare actors.

Assumption 2:

Interaction between the formal and informal sector may impact the notion of the role of the

government in social welfare

75

4.2 The impact of institutional legacies and the social-cultural context

Roots of present official thinking and ideologies towards social welfare

a) Colonial remnants of crowdfunding method to fund social welfare

It seems that there are convenient remnants of the crowdfunding method established

during the colonial period in order to minimize welfare dependence on the government that

retains the validity of its presents because it continues to facilitate, perpetuate and enable less

dependency on government. A few years after the DGInc. was established in 1948 by the British,

it was followed by the Social and Welfare Services Lottery Board in 1952 (later terminated in

1991 as discussed in chapter two) and much later, in 1982, the Ministry established a trust

body49 , the National Welfare Foundation (YKN). These three agencies under government

supervision and were created directly to support the social welfare development agenda in the

country, and it someway to prepare a platform for crowdfunding. They were allowed to

undertake profit-making activities (Figure 4.1). The establishment of the GDInc. was said to

be the inspiration for the formation of Malaysia Inc. under MOF, much later (MWFCD 1)50.

Although there exist government created platforms such as DGInc. (established way back in

1948, way before independence), and YKN established in 1982 (which could be tools for

diversifying the forms of services by the government). Unfortunately, these platforms were

never really used to advantage especially the DGInc. (DSWM 1 and DSWM 2).

Nevertheless, YKN struggled to find its place but faced constant setbacks from due to

the lack of financial resources, although they were allowed to source from the public and

corporate sector. One of the main reasons cited in the data was that sourcing public donations

49 The Trustee (Incorporation) Act 1952 allows the government to create entities of trust. Although

under the purview of the Minister in-charge of welfare matters, YKN and all other trust bodies

established under this act will need to submit their annual reports to the Prime Ministers’ Department. 50 To avoid confusion, the coding used for the informants of the interviews as listed in Table 3.1 is

presented in italics.

76

risks being unsustainable (CEO YKN). However, recent austerity drives by the government

(read MOF) have also rendered government funds as an unsustainable source because YKN

was expected to ‘graduate’ and no longer depend on government funding (CEO YKN and

Central Agency 2). The burning question that arises is, it is possible for YKN to be financially

independent? CEO YKN said that is will take some time before this can be made possible and

offered some possible reasons for this. Among the main barriers for financial independence

that were listed, was that YKN did not have full jurisdiction over the direction or future of their

own foundation. An example given was that they are still treated like another agency under the

MWFCD and is not only subject to their own YKN Board of Directors but also other

instructions of the Minister and the secretary-general of the Ministry. They also have to adhere

to petty and ceremonial administrative matters such as organising monthly gatherings with

Minister, taking turns with other sections of the Ministry to do ceremonial events which reduces

the ability for YKN to concentrate on their core business and duties. In the efforts to tow the

line, YKN accepts the instructions because they are a ‘trust body’ under the purview of the

Minister in charge of welfare (CEO YKN).

Figure 4.1: Author's analysis of the federal government's

establishment of quasi-welfare bodies to enable external support

Source: Author

Go

ver

nm

ent

stat

uto

ry/

qu

asi

bo

die

s Director General of Social Welfare Incorporated

(1948)

Social and Welfare Services Lottery Board

(1952 - terminated in 1991)

National Welfare Fund (YKN) 1982

77

In contrast, the same DGInc. structure of was established by the British in Hong Kong

is providing a multitude of services to the people and acting as a source of collected monetary

forms of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to fund NGO activities (Hong Kong Director-

General of Welfare Incorporated Annual Report, 2017)51. The establishment of welfare stamps

(explained in Chapter Two), DGInc., the welfare lottery board by the British and later the

establishment of YKN in 1981 by the Malaysian government is a manifestation that the

conventional thinking of reducing the burden of the government has spilt over and has

continued from the British colonial era through to the current Malaysian government. Although

the lottery board was finally terminated in 1991, the termination was a political move which

was primarily influenced by the revival of Islam in the national political scene, and the short-

lived Barisan Nasional –PAS alliance52, which condemned the lottery which is seen similar to

gambling (Ashray 2017; and Parliament Hansard 1990, 1991). The welfare lottery was said to

have been replaced by the Bank Simpanan National’s Skim Simpanan Premium (Premium

savings Scheme) that has lucky draws every year (Ashray 2018, and Parliament Hansard, 1990).

Again this reflects the fact that religious values compounded by an ethnic-based political party

system in Malaysia escalated the decision to terminate the Welfare Lottery Act in the

Parliament. However, it did not stop the government from continuing to create other platforms

to source funding from the public.

51 Further reference on the establishment of similar structures in British colonies such as Hong Kong

can be obtained from https://www.swd.gov.hk/en/textonly/site_aboutus/page_dswwelcome/ and

https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr17-18/english/counmtg/papers/cm20180110-sp062-e.pdf 52 Further reference of the revivalism of Islam can be obtain from Shamsul A.B. (1997). Identity

Construction, Nation Formation, and Islamic Revivalism in Malaysia in Islam in an Era of Nation-

States: Politics and Religious Renewal in Muslim, by Robert W. Hefner, Patricia Horvatich (Eds.);

University of Hawaii Press

78

b) The ambivalence of the national social welfare philosophy

The constant moving of the DSWM established in 1946, right after the war, from one

ministry to another over the years, especially after national elections, has created an unstable

condition not only for the DSWM but the social welfare policy and philosophy to grow and

develop in (Table 4.1). Furthermore, DSWM has been constantly paired with the ‘big giants’:

Ministry of Health, Social Unity, and the Ministry of Labour, where prioritisation of budget is

quite impossible when all three portfolios are important national agendas. Due to the constant

promotion and demotion of the DSWM (between a shared Ministry, to a full Ministry to a

federal department), development of the social welfare policy and sector can be described as

stunted, because along the way, institutional knowledge seems to have also suffered and been

diluted as it trickled down the line from the highest Minister to the lowest officials and welfare

officers at the district welfare office and could lead to the differences of understanding ad

interpretation of institutional knowledge and tasks (DSWM 4).

DSWM moved so many times that this resulted in the main policy aim of the social

welfare agenda and the parameters of the duties of the department/ ministry changing

constantly causing instability and confusion amongst its officers, and the other social welfare

actors (state governments, political parties, welfare recipients and NGOs). To exemplify this,

in the year 1962, Ong Yoke Lin, Minister of Health and Social Welfare53, answered questions

in Parliament mainly about health compared to welfare-related issues and even then outlined

the apparent fact that the government was at that time already reliant on non-state actors for

important functionary tasks54. Table 4.1 shows that the welfare portfolio has moved ten (10)

53 In this year, the health and welfare portfolio were under the same ministry. 54 Even at that time, in Parliament, when asked if the government planned to control growth of

population, the answer was: ‘…The Family Planning Association in the various parts of the country

have been doing very useful work. It is the Government's present policy to leave this field of work to

voluntary organisations…’ (Dewan Rakyat, 1962), showing that the government was also relying on

voluntary organisation on population control, not only on social welfare.

79

times over 70 years (since 1946). Other than the apparent instability of the official welfare

portfolio under the government, the welfare department has been led by more than 15 Ministers,

spanning 13 national elections which were mainly men in the beginning but later filled by high

ranking women ministers with a high post in their respective political parties (Appendix 4)55.

In the interview, DSWM 4 also shared his view that some of the earlier Director-Generals of

DSWM were from the Administrative and Diplomatic Service (ADS) and not from the Social

Welfare Service (SWS). According to him, the ADS Director Generals often filled the post ‘just

a few months before retiring’ reflecting that even the Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, Prime

Minister’s Department (PSD- Public Service Department) did not see ‘social welfare’ as a

critical agenda that needs a long term and stable expert leadership56.

Table 4.1: The movement of the welfare services from the colonial to the establishment

of the Department of Social Welfare from 1946 to 2018

55 This corresponds to the establishment of parallel units or bureaus in the ruling political party UMNO,

with the vision to function in line with the ministries which in this case was the Bureaus of Social and

Welfare under the Supreme Council (Torii, 1997, p.221). 56 The same issue was raised by informants regarding PSD policy to allow non-social work graduates

to work in DSWM although there are currently eight universities offering the programme, causing

DSWM to lose the expertise of ‘social work’ and professionalism. 57 In 1963, the services targeted at youth were taken over by the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports 58 Produced a National Social Welfare Policy (1990) signed by the Mr. Mustapha Mohamed, Minister

of the Ministry of Social Welfare Malaysia

Year/

duration

Name of ministry/ department Status

1840 Chinese Protectorate Representative office of Colonial

government

1912/13 Immigration office (for Indian Labourers) Representative office of Colonial

government

1930 Closed due to the economic crisis -

1936 Research Fund and the Colonial Welfare

Act Passed in the UK

Terminated

1946-1952 Department of Social Welfare Malaya Department under the British Military

Government

1952- 1956 Ministry of Industry and National Unity Federal Department under a Ministry

1956-1958 Ministry of Health and Welfare Federal Department under a Ministry

1958-1960 Ministry of Labour and Welfare Federal Department under a Ministry

1960-1964 Ministry of Health and Welfare Federal Department under a Ministry

1964-1982 Ministry of Public Welfare (Kebajikan57

Am)

Ministry

1982-1990 Ministry of Social Welfare Malaysia58 Ministry

80

Source: Table created by author from various sources: DSWM Annual Reports, (Doling and Omar,

2000), DSWM (2016) and personal communication

c) The proliferation of slogans and catchphrases

The constant changing of the organisational setting and leadership also corresponds to

the constant perpetuation of various slogans and catchphrases. One example is such as ‘Caring

Society’ in Vision 2020 policy in the year 1991, which outlined and highlighted that family

should be the ‘first point of welfare support’, ‘lazy natives’, ‘poor people are lazy’, and the

‘government is the last resort’ (Handayani, 2010; Kandiah, 1992; and Mohd, 2014). As

mentioned previously, Malaysia was dominantly ruled by one party, Barisan Nasional, for 61

years at the federal level and in most of the states until 2018, and all the Prime Ministers came

from the same political party which is UMNO. Throughout the years, different views and

explicit rejections of certain ideologies have been shared on the notion of welfare, ‘welfare

state model’, and burden of responsibility, which are reflected in the national approaches and

policies are shown in excerpts of speeches long-serving Prime Ministers in Malaysia. One

constant point is the encouragement of the VS to be more active, the catalyst of change and

self-reliant which first appeared in the 1967 speech of Prime Minister Abdul Razak in a national

conference of social welfare (Table 4.2).

Another example is ‘caring society’ a term that appeared in the Vision 2020 inaugural

speech of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 1991 entitled The Way Forward (when social

welfare, DSWM function was part of Ministry of National Unity and Social Development).

The vision outlines nine challenges for the nation, and the seventh challenge focused on the

responsibility of the family institution (Mohamad, 1991). Later, Prime Minister Mahathir, who

is the longest-serving premier, for 22 years, again mentioned in 2002 that he rejects socialist

welfare state models where workers are favoured (Mohamad, 2002). As seen in Table 4.2, over

1990-2004 Ministry of National Unity and Social

Development

Federal Department under a Ministry

2004 –

current

Ministry of Women, Family and

Community Development (MWFCD)

Federal Department under a Ministry

81

twenty years, the main theme of the speech has been somewhat consistent that the notion

toward welfare is less involvement of government and therefore, welfare responsibility should

be borne by whole society and family that eventually leads to the rejection of western welfare

state model. It can be seen later, in this chapter and in Chapter Five that politicians and

bureaucrats keep parroting the same words of the Prime Minister.

Table 4.2: Excerpts of selected Malaysian Prime Ministers’ speeches with the

indication of ‘welfare state’, welfare notions and the burden of responsibility Year Prime Minister/

Event

Excerpts Theme

1967 Abdul Razak

Hussein/

Speech at the

Conference of

National Welfare

on 27th April

1967

‘…But my real definition of social welfare is not so

much what the government does, but the contribution

which can be made by voluntary organisation. And

what I mean by voluntary organisation is real, one

hundred per cent voluntary service…’

There has been tendency in the past for welfare

organisations to become glorified ‘post offices’,

depending on government funds, and their function being

merely to re-distribute government funds; but for a

democratic country for u to survive, we need our

voluntary organisations to have functions more than

that of a ‘post office’. They must become dynamic and

self-reliant…’

‘…a developing country like ours demands greater

initiative and sacrifice in the fields of voluntary

services…’

‘I visualize voluntary organisations playing the role of

catalyst, becoming the ‘boosting charge’ for

development. To play this role will require a change from

the concept of social welfare as a narrow public

assistance to constructive approach to community

organisation in the solution of social problems (p.163)

(National Archives, 1968, pp. 157-165)

Importance of

voluntary sector

instead of

government in social

welfare

Voluntary sector to

be self-reliant

Voluntary sector to

be the catalyst and

boosting charge for

development.

1991 Mahathir

Mohamad

Speech at the

launch of

Yayasan Ubaidi59

‘…The ‘welfare state’ ideology by the western world,

which developed a society of recipients has contributed

to the creation a society which is not willing to put effort

to work and eventually affect a country’s development.

Even developed countries have become weak because of

this attitude. The recipients should only be the ones who

are struggling to make ends meet, and they are expected

to pay back to the provider when they are able to do so.

(Translated from Bahasa Malaysia by author)

Promotion of the

notion of

selectivism/

residualism

Rejection of the

western model of the

welfare state

59 Launch of a foundation founded by philanthropist Tan Sri Ubaidullah bin Kadir Basra

82

Year Prime Minister/

Event

Excerpts Theme

‘…This situation will eventually give rise to a

philanthropic society, which will not frustrate the less

fortunate because of the abundance assistance available

for them. A society like this will still be a just and happy

society ... '

(Translated from Bahasa Malaysia by author)

Promoting the idea

of altruism &

philanthropy.

Belief in trickledown

economics.

‘…since the country achieved independence, and the

launch of NEP, many Malaysians have become

successful and have enjoyed many luxuries. Those who

have been successful have the social responsibility to

help members of the community who are less

fortunate. We must not only depend on the

government to help this group...’

(Translated from Bahasa Malaysia by author)

Promoting giving

back to society as a

‘duty’.

Not depending on the

government.

1991 Mahathir

Mohamad at the

launch of Vision

2020

An equality of individual income as propounded by

socialists and communists is not only not possible, it is

not desirable and is a formula for disaster.

But I do believe that narrowing of the ethnic income gap,

through legitimate provision of opportunities, through a

closer parity of social services and infrastructure,

through the development of appropriate economic

cultures and through full human resource development, is

both necessary and desirable.

Rejection of

socialism and

communism ideals

Ethnic wealth

disparity closed by

expanding social

services

The seventh challenge is the challenge of establishing a

fully caring society, a social system in which society

will come before self, in which the welfare of the people

will revolve not around the state or the individual but

around a strong and resilient family.

Caring society

concept

Welfare revolves

around family and

not state or

individual.

2002 Mahathir

Mohamad/

Budget Speech

‘…Having said that, I hasten to reassure the business

community that we do not believe in a socialistic

welfare state where workers are favoured, and

businesses are discriminated against…’

Rejection of

socialistic welfare

state

2012 Najib Razak /

Budget Speech

‘…Recently, there are groups trying to promote the

concept of a welfare state. We congratulate them, as they

only now realise this concept. However, the Government

has long implemented various programmes to safeguard

the rakyat’s (people’s) welfare…’

Government has

implemented many

programmes for the

welfare of the people

2012 Najib Razak/ ‘…any attempt to turn Malaysia into a welfare state could

result in an economic disaster. He was reported to have

said that welfare states would eventually lose their

competitive advantage due to the onset of

complacency…’

(Is Malaysia a welfare state?, The Edge, 10 July 2012)

Rejecting ‘welfare

state.’

Welfare state creates

complacency

2017 Najib Razak ‘…with a population of more than 32 million people, it is

impossible for the government and its agencies to take

care of the welfare of every single citizen. Thus, this is

where NGOs can play a role in assisting the government

in helping those in need. That is why NGOs and

voluntary organisations that do not take profits can

The task of welfare is

not only on the

government but also

NGOs.

83

Year Prime Minister/

Event

Excerpts Theme

help in looking after the welfare of the unfortunate

such as the homeless, the elderly and orphans.

“The government encourages the establishment of more

NGOs so that the government can notice those in need.

The government also hopes that it can cooperate directly

with NGOs to implement more welfare programmes…’

The government

hopes to corporate

with NGOs

2019 Mahathir

Mohamad/

Speech to

Monthly

gathering at

Prime Ministers

Department./ 2nd

December 2019

‘…The poor will remain poor if they continue to rely on

the government and monetary aid like the 1Malaysia

People’s Aid (BR1M). The government, including

ministers and civil servants, need to impress upon the

poor that they cannot be uplifted through mere

subsidies and assistance.

Why are they poor? Because they are unproductive and

do not contribute to society in a way where society

would repay them.

There is a place for both the poor and the wealthy. The

wealthy must also work to help the poor…’

The poor must not

rely on cash support/

subsidies.

Politicians and civil

servants must

promote the idea of

less dependency.

People are poor

because they are

unproductive.

The wealthy must

also look after the

poor.

Source: Author’s compilation from www.pmo.gov.my and National Archives (1967).

For instance, before the introduction of this new mantra of the future modern and

resilient society of Malaysia, the First National Conference on the Caring Society was held in

Kuala Lumpur on the 5-6th December 1990. The conference’s selected papers were published

in The Caring Society: Emerging Issues and Future Directions by the Institute of Strategic and

International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia with the support of Friedrich-Ebert Striftung in 1992, a

year after the declaration of Vision 2020. In this compilation, the National Social Welfare

Policy of Malaysia 1990 was printed in its entirety. The policy mentioned the collective

responsibility of every member of society, including the government and private sector for

achieving national development and to ensure social harmony. ‘Caring society’ or Masyarakat

Penyayang as a term and slogan caught on, and the government built a few complexes known

as ‘caring society complex’ around the country as a community centre to encourage community

activities, including housing office of NGOs and creating 47 Social Reference Centres or Pusat

84

Rujukan Sosial in communities under the development plan (Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010,

p. 331). The trend of focusing on cash handouts is similar at both the federal and the state

governments, even in state governments that are ruled by opposition parties. Policymakers have

used several terms such as ‘loving/ caring society culture’ (masyarakat penyayang /budaya

ikram), helping one another (tolong menolong), ‘inclusive development’ and slogan/ catchy

phrases- moto of DSWM: ‘Welfare is a joint responsibility’ (Kebajikan Tanggungjawab

Bersama).

The author found that most participants in this research raised the issue about the

skewed mindset of politicians and top bureaucrats towards social welfare, as an example,

Central 2 in his words offered that:

‘… Even when we talk about growth, we talk about capital, labour and

economic part but not the social welfare…welfare often has a bad stigma...if

you want to talk about it, you don’t look sophisticated and up to date… what is

up to date is Industrial Revolution 4.0, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing,

volunteerism…but sadly, not welfare… so it becomes a topic we less address

even here at the central agency level’

The interventions of the political masters usually are not contested by the bureaucrats

because most of them claimed that they are ‘serving the government of the day’. Political

influence in the bureaucracy in Malaysia is strong and often difficult to separate. In the social

welfare sector, the line is also very much blurred that have caused many decisions taken to

have a dark cloud over it. One example shared by an informant of the Department of Social

Welfare (DSWM 1):

‘…since the election is near, we have received unofficial instruction that we are not

allowed to stop existing cash handouts for existing welfare recipients. This is

common when general elections are upcoming to reduce voter backlash’….

85

d) Phenomena resulting from attitudes towards social welfare: cash handouts and

public welfare institutions (PWIs)

When approached, all the politicians and bureaucrats only spoke about cash handouts

that are a form of social welfare rooted in the colonial notions of welfare discussed in Chapter

Two, when being approached and spoke less about welfare services. Often the author had to

specifically ask about social welfare services, to induce discussion about welfare services. This

phenomenon shows that the idea of cash handouts is so akin to and synonymous with ‘social

welfare’ rather than social welfare services. Thus, even in sharing the challenges of social

welfare policy- issues of a lack of financial resources, a backlog of cash handouts applications,

misused of cash handouts, and the intervention of politicians in the distribution of cash

handouts are often raised. In contrast, issues related to social welfare services are rarely raised

by politicians or central agency officials and are only highlighted by individual street-level

bureaucrats (SLBs).

If we take an example from the social service sector, as a comparison, the number of

establishments related to day-care centres (for children below four years) increased from 2,121

(2010) to 3,194 (2015) which is an increase of 8.5 per cent (Department of Statistics Malaysia,

2017). Residential care services60, yet, on the other hand, recorded an increase of 4 per cent

from 202 (2010) to 491 (2015). Yet, 119 of them are being managed by non-profit

establishments in 2015 (p.189), while the rest are private entities. Clearly, inequality of

accessibility to service is a matter that has not been addressed in Malaysia. Another example

of the distribution of PWI based on regions and types of target groups shared in Chapter Two.

60 In the Economic Census: Health and Social Work Services 2016 by the Department of Statistics

Malaysia, residential care activities include nursing, supervisory and other types of care such as

residential care activities for the elderly and disabled, orphanages, welfare homes services, drug

rehabilitation centres, palliative or hospice and other residential care activities. The establishment must

be supervised by the DSWM and other agencies (p.49)

86

Another example is Table 2.2 in Chapter Two shows the weak distribution of the institutions

throughout the country. One wonders what the reason or rationale of the distribution was.

However, one can argue that the distribution is not based on needs, but the actual reasons

remain unclear. Therefore, the question must be asked about why the government is not

responding to DSWM 1 and DSWM 2 said clearly:

‘…the welfare institutions of the government are the last resort. The government

have no intention to built more homes, especially homes for the elderly and

orphanages. We want society to be more responsive and responsible…’

‘…our policy is that families should provide care for the elderly. We stress that the

government is the last resort. Our welfare NGOs also have to do more for the

community. The government should only regulate, not provide the services. We need

to move towards that. We are exploring the idea of privatising our homes to the

NGOs, and the newly ‘Alternative Service Delivery’ stated in our 5-year plan. We

still don’t know the modus operandi in detail, but I think it’s worth exploring.

DSWM cannot run and regulate PWIs at the same time…’

The insufficient number of PWIs also indicates that the federal government believes

that families are capable of caring and providing support for family members when social

welfare research suggests the opposite, and the current perception seems to be that the

government is not prepared to address the problems. From another view, it can be argued that

since there are states without PWIs, the state governments and the parliamentarians at the

Dewan Rakyat have not been fighting and highlighting the strong need for it. NGOs 1 agreed

that not many want to admit the problems of social welfare:

87

‘… the government have a problem admitting its weaknesses. As long as we are

in denial, we cannot solve anything…’

NGI 2 connected the lack of action to the habit of waiting for instructions from Minister,

linking it to the feudal thinking that he claims still exist within the society:

‘…we need to be honest with our community problems. We cannot close our

eyes and ears and hope God will solve our problems. If we continue to make

decisions by still waiting what the Ministers will say, we are still living in a

feudal state…’

The unequal distribution of PWIs, described in Chapter Two, by Ashray (2017) and

discussed above, also has implications of accessibility for both the vulnerable groups and the

welfare officers. All welfare officers at the state and district levels claimed that the lack of

PWIs that cater to different needs have caused them to continue to be unable to protect their

clients. In most instances, PKMDs resort to getting help from VWOs but only if there are

vacancies. Many times, VWOs cannot accept the request because each VWOs have their board

of directors and their target groups (DSWM 4), and they are accountable to those principles.

Most of DSWM and MWFCD informants indicate that they face budget constraints

while pressured continuously to come up with ways to reduce expenditure by foregoing some

existing programs because ‘the government do not have money’ and ‘austerity drive’ at every

budget year or cycle. One MWFCD elucidated that:

‘…Only 70-80 per cent of the welfare budget would be approved and every year

there will be shortage of welfare budget that calls for a request for the

Supplementary Budget to the parliament in the middle of the year’…

88

DSWM 4 supported this claim by saying:

‘…after the austerity drive (langkah penjimatan) by Ministry of Finance, some of

our programs had to take a back seat. One example is the Annual CSR Award,

where we award NGOs and the corporate sector for their welfare work. This is an

important way to engage them (NGOs and the corporate sector) continuously and

increase awareness, but we need to stop because we don’t have enough allocation

and need to prioritise the cash handouts’…

Consistently, five informants from the government (MWFCD 1, MWFCD 2, DSWM 1,

DSWM 2, Central Agency 1) keep mentioning and repeating that the ‘government do not have

money’ or ‘we need to reduce expenditure’. However, another DSWM 3 offered a different

view:

‘…We always have problems getting allocation. At budget screenings, MOF officers

often don’t really understand our programs and initiatives as they move (Transfer to

another department mainly because of promotion exercise) quite frequently…but

BR1M which is the baby of Ministry of Finance (MOF) was approved easily. In fact, it

is puzzling because the recipients of BR1M are not the hard-core poor of Malaysia61.

We (welfare scheme under the DSWM) have families and people who depend on

monthly cash handouts to live and eat, and yet the allocation is being cut… BR1M

allocation is way higher than the allocation we receive, but we are serving more

recipients. BR1M is also subjected to the different means-testing method, managed by

MOF and tax agency (Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia). ’…

61 BR1M is a scheme that gives cash pay-out to specific households, students. It was one of the Barisan

Nasional (ruling party) manifesto in the 12th General Elections.

89

It can be seen that public social welfare is suffering from several critical issues.

Other than the apparent prioritisation of cash handouts, the scope of work of the social

welfare officers on the ground seems to face many unaddressed challenges. The thinking

that ‘the government is the last resort’, which was repeatedly stated by both politicians and

bureaucrats throughout the interviews, is quite clearly manifested through the lack of

actions, and lack of internalisation of the issues of the social welfare in the various scenario

exemplified above, including the introduction of BR1M which seemed to receive less

approval by the welfare bureaucrats. The lack of the ability to internalise the issue can

perhaps be attributed to the fact that, for the longest time, the idea that the third sector or

the community should be responsible is already deep-rooted.

Influence of racial and religious polarisation on welfare actors

One of the main barriers or issues that consistently arises throughout the research is religious

constraints which extend to the matter of donations and in certain conditions, great suspicions

and distrust of specific organisations that have religious affiliations. There was ingrained

suspicion that mainly originated from a distrust in the existing welfare relations and most

instances obtained through the interviews were seen to have their roots in racial and religious

polarisation. State bureaucrats and SLBs raised a few matters related to racial and religious

issues in the management of social welfare in their experience. According to them, the lack of

PWI in each state has continuously challenged the ability of the social welfare officers to

provide shelter, especially temporary shelters for victims of abuse, abandoned elderly and

children. In some instances, SLBs will try to get the local VWOs to house or provide services.

However, because VWOs have their own rules and target groups, thus VWOs are unable to

cater or assist emergency cases from the DSWM.

90

Most of the times, the limitations and concerns are related to religion and racial reasons

because many of the VWOs are organised along ethnic centric or religious centric lines.

Therefore, more often than not, the victims or clients had to be sent to a PWI far away,

sometimes in a different state, separated from their own families (spouse/ siblings/ mother and

child) causing other complications. This same issue of lack of availability of public welfare

institutions was raised in parliament in 1962 when DSWM could not place orphans because of

the lack of availability in the public orphanage (Parliament, 1962). Although the issue of

ethnicity or religion was not raised, but the lack of accessibility could have been attributed to

the unavailability of public welfare institutions, which is still an issue now, almost 40 years

later. Another NGO shared how religious polarisation and prejudice have impacted the NGOs

affiliated to him:

‘…Now with polarisation, things are even worst. I will give you an example. St

Nicholas Home for the Blind used to have many students and requests. But then

after some time the students are lesser and thought that the student are going to

KL….after investigation, it was discovered that a school for the blind in Alma

(run by Ministry of Education), the headmaster apparently does not want

anything to do with St. Nicholas, because it’s an Anglican church-based. It is

unbelievable! Did he even visit on check on St. Nicholas?

If he does, he will know that 1/3 of our staff, teachers and students are

Muslims. There is a surau (prayer room): which other non-Muslim organisation

will provide a prayer space? The food is halal food too. There is so much

prejudice (sounded frustrated and sad)…sometimes gearing towards hate…you

see what the headmasters says is important. What the headmasters say, goes!

When we have people with power and position does that, it is sad. My NGO faces

the same thing. We are often misunderstood, but not as bad as St. Nicholas

because we are secular …’

91

Still, on the issue related to religion, the issue of zakat usage has also been raised but

only by a few bureaucrats. One federal bureaucrat from DSWM strongly believes that zakat is

not something the federal government has control of. Thus, the federal government must not

rely on the zakat collection. He indicated that since religion is a matter of the state government

(as enshrined in the Constitution), it will be ‘complex to deal with the palace’. Central 1 offered

his view that the Chinese community is more organised and need less intervention from the

government compared to other races especially the Malays because ‘they are better at taking

care of themselves by organising associations and financial resources’. He felt that the zakat

collection should be used to ‘empower the community’ because zakat being at the state

government level are nearer to the people. However, Central 1 thinks that ‘state governments

should move (lead) the idea because the federal government might be reluctant to allocate

more financial resources in this financially- constraint state of the country’.

He went on to expand:

‘If everyone plays their role… there will be no poverty in Malaysia… For

example, the hard-core poor should not be a problem in Malaysia anymore. We

have a lot of resources, but the federal government is not going to spend more

money because of the financial constraints…’

‘Mosque62 and zakat should be more accessible to the people. The mosque are

rich and keep their money in fixed deposits. That should not be the way; they

should use the mosque collection to increase the well-being of the people around

them…but I wonder if the mosque management think that way…maybe the

62 Further investigation on the issue of funds managed by mosques found that there are issues that has

been raised about the expansion about the usage of the funds. Further reference can be made at

http://www.sinarharian.com.my/kolumnis/farush-khan/kenapa-masjid-simpan-banyak-duit-1.794798

(why mosques are keeping too much money?). Because of the fear of misuse of funds, several State

religious organisations such as in Perak, Selangor and Melaka have released guidelines for usage of

funds including matters pertaining to investment and savings in fixed deposits.

92

federal government should be the one leading the way… organising and giving

them (mosque administration) more awareness…’

Two major points can be identified from here. Firstly, the religious and ethnic

sensitivity in the management of social welfare services is complicated because the leading

social welfare services providers are VWOs that have their own rules and parameters of their

association or organisation. Even if they are open to accepting other religion or ethnicities, the

VWOs are often worried about being attacked by religious or ethnic groups that are sensitive

about the suitability of religious diet, religious conversion (change of religion) and in case

death, the style of burial ceremony. This suspiciousness and cautiousness often render VWOs

to reject certain cases/clients to avoid problems. Secondly, rejection of SLBs on the ground

often causes problems to the social workers dealing with cases that need immediate action. If

this continues, and the author suspects it will, all across Malaysia, access to social welfare

services will continue to be a problem unless more PWIs are established because government

services do not separate religion or ethnicity and are accessible to all. Although religious and

racial centric welfare voluntary sector exist in Malaysia, some more robust than others, the

various sensitivity although sometimes unfounded and always blown out of proportioned

causing the victims to suffer and social welfare access again is a loss to the intended people

who need it. Thus, although the legacy of the voluntary sector is much applauded and depended

upon in Malaysia, the reality that is a new paradigm change is needed. Over dependency on

the voluntary sector is not rational for the future.

Fragmented political ideology and belief axiom amongst social welfare actors

Different political parties represented in the different state sampling in this study are hostile to

each other but interestingly are showing trends of behaving alike towards social welfare policy

and programmes. In other words, the by putting a focus on cash handouts and believe in the

93

ideology that government is not responsible for the welfare of the people, albeit the rampant

use of the word ‘inclusivity’, like a buzz word. The belief of majoritarianism is strong within

public officials – politicians and civil servants interviewed in this study, as illustrated by the

Federal Politician 2:

‘…how many per cent are they [referring to the PWDs]? They are a small

majority. We need to spend our budget on modernizing our rural areas. Our

country is still growing. That is the nation’s priority now…’.

Federal Politician 3:

‘…The government is not responsible for the welfare of the people. Government

support should be the last resort. The community must play its role…’

Central 1, 2 and 3 almost parroted the exact words of Federal Politician 2 and 3,

indicating a similar line of ideology. However, the difference was that Central 1, 2 and 3

quickly added that they realised the need to give more focus to social welfare but ‘…it’s

difficult because infrastructure development is priority… industrialisation takes

priority…because it is visible…’ (Central 1).

Parallel to the above citation of Federal Politician 2, NGO 1, 2 and 3 gave examples

of their plight for financial support, infrastructure enhancement and attention for issues related

to welfare support for parents or carers over the years, which mainly remain unattended to.

When asked to indicate why they think it is so, NGOs 1 and 2 said that not only the political

will (in terms of social welfare is weak), the other factors and actors that influence the will of

the politicians which are the bureaucrats and other pressure groups, which in the case could be

the VWOs, are similarly weak and less impactful. NGO 3 offered: ‘…the welfare-related NGOs

have spoiled the government… the NGOs has been doing the government’s job and will do it

by hook or by crook, so why the government has to step in?...’. NGO 3 also offered that the

experience being under two different ruling parties makes no difference because the welfare of

94

the people is still seen as ‘the last agenda… in meetings or in any policies… it is always an

afterthought’.

All informants indicated that the Malaysian development agenda has focused on

economic achievements and social welfare issues are not a priority. However, only the Federal

Politicians in this study think that it was justifiable to do so because other development agendas

are more crucial. The majority of politicians in this study think that distribution policies and

long-term special welfare programs should be done after the country has successfully achieved

development and wealth. NGOs represented in this study think that the government agencies

depend or are dependent on the acts of the welfare NGOs. At the same time, the majority of

federal government informants (bureaucrats) think that the community and family are

responsible for the social welfare services and not the government.

The difference is that the politicians were unapologetic about this choice of the decision.

At the same time, bureaucrats at the federal government, especially at the DSWM and state

governments, indicated that they see social welfare being used as a tool of the elites (politicians

and top bureaucrats). Another interviewee (DSWM 1 and Central Agency 2) alluded to the

notion of the laziness of the poor people, quoting (and misquoting) research of a prominent

economist and developmentalist in Malaysia; Royal Professor Ungku Aziz63 and a Quranic

verse that ‘God would not change the life/ luck of a person unless the person strives for it’.64

After confirming with relevant literature and several other scholars (through verbal

communication), the author found that Royal Professor Ungku Aziz never claimed that the poor

people are lazy or morally indolent. He, however, found in his research in Terengganu fishing

63 After confirming with relevant literature and several other scholars (through verbal communication),

the author found that Royal Professor Ungku Aziz never claimed that the poor people are lazy or morally

indolent. He however found in his research in Terengganu fishing village that the people have weak

organisation skills, and where living in conditions of malnutrition, bad health conditions and in an evil

cycle of debts and compounded by sickness or bad quality of life. 64 Al-Quran, Surah Al Ra-ad, verse 11.

95

village that the people have weak organisation skills, and were living in conditions of

malnutrition, adverse health conditions and in an evil cycle of debts and compounded by

sickness or lousy quality of life. This misquote on the finding of Royal Professor Ungku Aziz

and the belief in the idea that poor people are lazy was evident throughout the interview, and

surprisingly was also indicated and suggested by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in one of

his speeches (Table 4.2).

Moving on, Central Agency 2 said that in Malaysia, it seems that the over-concentration

on poverty eradication has caused the welfare aid program and almost all other programs for

the bottom 40 per cent of the population to be cash-based or focused.

‘… it is the easiest. People want quick results, especially politicians, and there

are targets to achieve’….

This could also be the reason why there are poverty eradication committees that exist

at the district (chaired by District Officer), state (chaired by Chief Minister or State Secretary

– depending on the state (and up to the Federal government (chaired by the Director-General

of ICU, PMD) to escalate the poverty eradication agenda. However, poverty eradication is very

context-specific and cannot be solved by cash handouts only (DSWM 1 and 2). At the same

time, informal instruction from political masters not to terminate/stop welfare recipients,

especially when the national elections approaches, often disrupts the task and cause frustrations

amongst the welfare officers (DSWM 1 and 2 and State Government 3). Because of this ongoing

mindset from the part of the government, NGOs 1, 2 and 3 have indicated that the government

machinery has been very lackadaisical in the area of social welfare services and have used it

only for political gain and recognition.

On the other hand, the State Government 1 and 2 think that they are currently doing

enough within their capacity due to ‘monetary limitations’ and concentrates on cash assistance

instead of services. They in unison opined that the federal government should spearhead the

96

provision of social welfare services and cash handouts because of the state government do not

have the financial capacity to do so.

MWFCD 2 shared about championing the welfare agenda in parliament or cabinet

‘…Younger politicians don’t have an agenda that they fight for. They just follow

whatever the party leader says. During my days, each of us has clear agendas that we

want to achieve and although we are in the government, we push for that agenda, we

do not lose sight of it. Women, children and welfare issues are not very popular, thus

don’t often come up in parliament. I hope to see deeper welfare issues being debated

in parliament. But we need to have informed parliamentarians and with the right heart

and mind…’

Poverty is seen like an overly prioritised agenda over the years. Findings indicated

that the agenda of ‘poverty eradication’ has, in a way swallowed the social welfare agenda

and made it a ‘forgotten agenda’. As indicated by an MWFCD participant:

‘… well, you can see how the government (referring to MOF and the Prime Minister

who is also the Minister of Finance) give priority (or not give priority) to the issue

related to community development and social welfare: it is always the last part in all

the budget speeches (given by the Prime Minister). In fact, we already know the

sequence, year in year out…. However, the budget theme says ‘inclusive

development….its just a buzz word…’

Above is another example of how although the word inclusivity was used many times,

but remains rhetoric and lip-service. All VWOs indicated that that the social welfare sector in

Malaysia is a too well-abandoned area in the nation’s development. The situation is worsened

when the VWOs work in services to the less fortunate group seen as crowding the services of

97

the government, leading the government sector to believe that the ‘vulnerable group has been

taken care of by the community’, thus the government ‘can concentrate elsewhere’. Table 4.3

shows different views and picture of politician, bureaucrats, and NGOs towards each other.

Table 4.3: Comparison between federal politician, bureaucrats and NGOs perspectives

Theme Views of Federal Politician and

Bureaucrats (representing the

government) to NGOs

Views of NGOs to Federal Politician and Bureaucrats

Dependency The NGOs complement the

government; they are our

partners

We need the support from the government…we what

them to visit us, and tell us how to be better…

Sometimes we also need to meet other NGOs; the

government never call us ….at least we can share our

experiences and learn from each other….not just once a

year for so-called budget consultation

Financial

stability and

sources

NGOs can get money from the

‘rich people such as royalties

through donation.’

We are doing the government’s job… we need security

that we can support and continue our work… we cannot

be in anxiety to close down anytime…

Because of fundraising takes so much time, we cannot

concentrate on planning and increasing our skills... and

you know, special care like we do is not cheap.

Rehabilitation and speech therapy is not cheap…’

Prioritisation ‘The government needs to

organise the NGOs and give

them leadership. They are

important to social welfare. They

are supporting what the

government cannot do. They can

reach out to people that the

government could not’

‘Government is lackadaisical. Social welfare is not

priority...always last...always an afterthought….we need

to make it an important agenda…’

Source: Created by the author from interview citations

4.3 The impact of the interaction between the formal and informal sector

Disconnectedness and delusion of partnership

The SWP 2003 indicated that the ‘NGOs are the partners of the government’ (p. 16). A grant

scheme is created for the NGOs registered with DSWM (called VWOs), and the grant is created

on the principle that the third sector is the ‘partner’ (rakan kongsi) of the government in the

provision of welfare services (Department of Social Welfare Malaysia, 2019). Returning to the

area of social welfare under DSWM, ‘VWOs’ as a term specifically, is not defined under any

laws in Malaysia, as the term for NGO or NPO in Malaysia. DSWM however, established the

98

term VWOs as an official definition that VWOs are any welfare-related organisation that is

registered or established under Malaysian Law as undertaking welfare activities or was

established with the purpose of undertaking welfare related activities. Grants have been given

to welfare organisations by the government, both federal and state governments.

Retrospectively, in 2004, Mahathir administration announced a package to support registered

welfare-related organisations to raise funds through bonds from the Bank Simpanan Malaysia

(Budget Speech, 2004, p. 44). NGO 4 raised issues that constraint the development of social

welfare in Malaysia:

‘Given the nature of our kind of society which is still very feudal in many ways…

Look at the hierarchy and the social order in our communities. You and me are

different… the bulk, say of the Malays, especially in the rural areas still say ‘Daulat

Tuanku’ (hail the king). Given that background, things have to be top-down;

decisions, rather than bottom-up. That being so, this is critical in social welfare

and related areas. The policies need to be correct, and I’m not convinced that

although we have a Ministry of Women, Family and Social Welfare and that sort

of thing... I’m not at all convinced that their hearts are really there. Until the

mindset of the government is in the right place, I don’t think we can hope for any

improvement.

‘…As long as the politicians are not interested things will not fly. As a result, the

professionals also don’t have their hearts in it. Also, the government signed a lot of

platitudes, signed a lot of international conventions, for example, at least 2 per cent

of PWDs in the public sector, but what is the reality? It is not even 1 per cent. We

spent billions for infrastructure, but do you spend for the PWDs? Often than not,

the spending or initiative for PWDs is an afterthought….’

As above mentioned, NGOs showed their grievances against the Ministry in many ways.

99

The conflict of the burden of duties between the government and NGOs

Presently, the welfare organisations are so varied and so broad in Malaysia that it is impossible

to capture them in a holistic manner. However, the welfare organisations that receive tax

exemptions under the Income Tax Law 1967 could give some indication of the development

and trend pertaining to this sector. The table below shows the amount claimed by donors from

individuals and corporate companies for charity organisations. The amount claimed in tax

deductions and exemptions in the year 2013 and 2014 are almost similar to the amount of

annual budget allocated to DSWM by MOF.

Table 4.4: Tax Exemption claimed by individuals and corporate sector under

Section 44(6) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (Million/ USD)

Donor Types Amount claimed by donors in million (RM/

USD million) under S.44(6) of ITA 1967

2012 2013 2014

Individual 50.93 269.05 378.62

Corporate/ company 825.62 1,070.22 901.36

Total 876.55 1,339.27 1,279.98

Source: http://www.bheuu.gov.my/pdf/SimposiumNPO/2017/Seksyen%2044[6]NPO-Cukai-

dan-Pemantauan.pdf65

Grants have been given to welfare organisations by the government, both federal and

state governments. Retrospectively, in 2004, the Mahathir administration announced a package

to support registered welfare-related organisations to raise funds through bonds from the Bank

Simpanan Malaysia (Budget Speech, 2004, p. 44). NGOs or administratively termed as

65 The data was presented by the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia at the Non – Profit Organization’s

(NPO’s) Symposium 2016: By The People, For The People organized by Legal Affairs Division, Prime

Minister’s Department (BHEUU, JPM) on Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at Islamic Training Institute of

Malaysia (ILIM), Bangi, Selangor.

100

VWOs66 were also allocated grants67 to establish homes for the elderly, protection centres for

children and single mothers as well as for haemodialysis. The trend to allocate grants to VWOs

continues and was made one of the building thrust of the social welfare services at the federal

government level through the DSWM. By doing so, the DSWM also perceives the VS as both

their clients and partners; clients because DSWM provide some of them with annual grants

and partners because the VS is a co-provider in the same sector of social welfare.

State politician 3 (State Assemblyman) offered a perspective on the issues of

availability/ access to social welfare services and the danger of over-dependence on NGOs:

‘…in my area, we work together with the PKMD. .but this is a slightly rural area…

services are not as quick…plus we have a lot of elderly who live alone…there are

nobody to even check on them…how much can you expect a neighbour to do… if we

hope for NGOs, this is rural area… flood-prone.. which NGO will operate here? I

feel that as long as the government is collecting tax, the government is responsible

for the welfare of its people. So the government must think of how to provide the

services…NGOs will operate where it is convenient for them, but the government

must think for all strata…’

66 DSWM uses the term VWOs, which differentiates the for-profit and non-profit NGOs for welfare

related NGO that provide free services or minimum paid welfare services. ‘VWOs’ as a term

specifically is not defined under any laws in Malaysia, as the term of NGO or NPO in Malaysia. DSWM

however, established the term VWOs as an administrative definition to mean any welfare related

organisations that is registered under the Registrar of Societies Act 1966 or established under other

Malaysian laws, which has welfare orientation to give protection, rehabilitation and develop any of the

groups of the community, similar to the core business of DSW (DSWM 3). 67 ‘The Government acknowledges and appreciates the spirit of volunteerism and commitment shown

by various voluntary organisations. In this regard, an allocation for an operating grant of 22.9 million

ringgit and a development grant of 6 million ringgit are provided to 375 voluntary welfare organisations.

Among the new facilities, four day-care centres for the elderly managed by NGOs are expected to

commence operation by 2002. A new institution, Kompleks Penyayang BAKTI Sungai Buloh has been

established to provide care and protection for children, the elderly and single mothers’. 10 Budget is allocated for voluntary organisations to provide hemodialysis services’. (Budget speech

2004-p.53) accessed http://www.treasury.gov.my/pdf/budget/speech/bs02.pdf

101

Central 1 believed strongly that welfare NGOs are the ‘heart’ to the social welfare

services. They are the best to complement the government, but NGOs must be supported,

organised and given some upskilling. NGO 3, however:

‘…Despite the mess that the country is in, the corruption, the injustices, our

people are not hungry and desperate enough. Thus, they will not rebel. You have

to have an extreme situation, to have an extreme reaction.

Likewise, the NGOs, despite all my complaints, my NGO is still surviving. We are

already 25 years. But we are surviving because of the donations and charity we

can get from our donors. We have loyal donors. If we depended on the government

for funding, we would have ‘tutup kedai’ (closed shop) a long time ago…’

State politician 4:

‘…The government can only support the welfare NGOs to a certain level. Some

of them are already benefiting from quit-rent exemption by local governments.

The state puts aside a sum of money every year for NGOs. Of course, they have

to apply. On average we give about RM5,000 (approximately 1800 USD a year)

if it (their activities) suits our policy or focus in that year. Of course, we give to

NGOs that support us (not the opposition party)’…

From NGO 3’s perspective as well:

‘…I saw the Welfare State Director once after he was appointed. He came to

visit the facilities and left without ever coming back. We, as an organisation,

prefer to write directly to the Ministry or Minister (instead of the state-level

office). Of course, our hopes are not so high for any action to be taken’…

For the VWOs, the anxiety is caused by the constant uncertainty of the availability of

the grant as it is an annual grant. Therefore, trust issues remain to exist, although both need to

co-exist in the sector of social welfare services (University Utara Malaysia and DSWM, 2010).

All NGOs interviewed in this research also raised and indicated the same trust issues, some in

more frustration compared to others. The main reasons cited are the 6-8 month anxiety cycle

102

every year after the application of grant, the belief that some VWOs who have close

connections with political masters have a better chance and the bureaucratic issues about the

balance of unfinished grants to be returned to the government. Some VWOs also indicated that

they could not rely on an uncertain source especially when they cannot be sure when they can

get the funding, thus choose not to apply for the grant to save the ‘hassle’.

There is a recurring element of trust and blame throughout the interviews. Cynicism

towards the public sector and politicians could also strongly be felt: from the bureaucrats

themselves (in the form of self-criticism and self-reflection) and the NGOs. In a few instances,

NGOs and NGIs indicated that they do question the visits made by politicians and top

bureaucrats to their establishments. NGO 1 indicated that:

‘…Once, a deputy minister came with mock cheques and the press, not even

20 minutes, they left. They (politician and entourage) didn’t even visit the

students or our facilities. But, we are used to it, this often happens. We are

often used for political promotion’…

On the other hand, NGO 2 expressed that:

‘…we do not receive any visitor from the government. We are licensed under

two (2) laws, but both agencies never visit to monitor or evaluate us. Sometimes

I wonder if they remember we exist. We are doing what the government should

be doing, which are providing welfare service. If we mistreat or do something

wrong, nobody knows. Sometimes it is frustrating’…

NGO 1 used the term ‘zombie’ to reflect how certain politicians or bureaucrats that

have visited them officially or have corresponded with them. The NGOs felt that the issues

that are being faced by them are not acceptable and should be dealt with more empathy and

deeper understanding from the politicians and bureaucrats. NGO 2 said that they (he and the

several NGOs that he belongs to) are like ‘professional beggars’ indicating that they have to

spend too much time thinking of solving the financing matters when they are supposed to be

103

giving more attention to their core business, which they think is ‘…is actually the duty of the

government…’

NGO 3, agreed and many times reiterated that:

‘…80 per cent of my headache and heartache is funding and wishes to spend

more time to give better services to the kids’...

Government affiliated agencies, including zakat agencies only recently (quoted as a

few months ago), contacted to understand the role of NGO 4, when they are one of the oldest

VWOs in the state. NGO 4 indicated that maybe because they have the connection to the church,

the zakat agency did not make any communication with them. However, ‘the recent

development is more positive’ (NGO 4).

‘Cash is king’ track of mind is very clear amongst the politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs

and grassroots leaders. However, NGOs and NGI quickly identified the equal importance of

welfare services that are lacking and non-existence in their respective areas of work and in

their localities. According to NGOs and NGI informants in this research, they agree in unison

that the government especially the politicians cannot identify that services are lacking, due to

the inability to admit the weakness of the government in the provision of services or support

in-kinds. NGI 1 expressed his frustration with the Member of Parliament in his area and the

DSWM as follows:

‘…we need a hotline that will address people who are hungry and have no

food…even the State Assemblyman do not care. He wants to know first if those

people asking for help are voting in his constituency...

Welfare office work only office hours! We do not have their mobile numbers. So

Facebook and Twitter are the best! Fast and immediate because it can go viral

very quickly. The beauty is that we can garner help form the public instead only

from the government agencies…’

104

The notions of formal actors towards the ability of NGOs

The call for the transformation of the civil service was the mantra of the 6th Prime Minister

Najib Razak and his elite consultant team called PEMANDU68 and National Strategic Unit: the

Secretariat for the Blue Ocean Strategy69 in the MOF. This mantra that the future development

of Malaysia will be led by the private sector was also embedded in a document called the

Government Transformation Programme (GTP), launched in the year 2010. In response to that,

alternative service delivery (ASDev) was a term introduced in the 11th Malaysia Plan

(Economic Planning Unit, 2015, p.112). It was clearly stated as‘…partnership with NGOs…’.

In interviews with DSWM, the term ASDev kept being used by the officers indicating and

giving the idea that public welfare services should be outsourced or privatised as a method of

ASDev with the main aim is to ‘reduce government expenditure and welfare’. However, since

no public welfare service has gone through this process, it is unknown if their belief that

privatisation will reduce the cost is valid.

Consequently, the public sector transformation agenda (PSTA) was launched in 2011,

was led by the PSD, under the Prime Ministers’ Department. PSD’s role was to coordinate the

line Ministries programs and monitor the projects. One of the main transformation agenda is

again ASDev, being in line with the 11th Malaysia Plan. The question was, how this term ASDev

is being translated for the welfare sector? The DSWM translated this to mean that the services

of social welfare will no longer be provided by the government but by the private sector,

volunteers and VWOs. This was clear when the DSWM explained proudly that a paid service

68 PEMANDU is an entity similar to the British Service Delivery Unit under the Blair Administration.

PEMANDU was established in 2006 as a CLBG headed by Idris Jala, former CEO of Shell Malaysia

and Malaysia Airlines. PEMANDU employed from both the private and public sector and was

minimized to unit under the Prime Ministers Department in 2017. 69 National Blue Ocean Strategy is a public service agenda in Malaysia during the premiership of Najib

Tun Razak. Professor Chan Kim (one of the author of Blue Ocean Strategy) was the special advisor to

the Najib Administration. The secretariat of NBOS was stationed in the Ministry of Finance under the

National Strategic Unit (NSU).

105

was launched as a trial for respite care in the Sri Kenangan Home for the Elderly70 in Cheras,

Selangor. The Minister, however, interpreted the lack of takers of the paid respite pilot program

differently. She claimed that the shortage of takers was because families and children in

Malaysia are ‘still caring and have a high sense of responsibility towards their parents’.

Pursuant to that, the author checked the website of the home of the elderly where it can be seen

that the promotion appears to be lacking and DSWM officers themselves were not very eager

for the programme to be launched for fear of a double standard. At the same time, some DSWM

officers strongly felt that ‘…the government should not be doing and mixing business with

welfare services.’ On a different note, another Director in DWSM indicated that:

‘…we still don’t have welfare NGOs that are capable of running public welfare

institutions without the financial support of the government. Therefore, if we want

to outsource a particular public welfare institution to them, we must rethink to the

main reason for that action. We have never done it and if we do, we must be able to

commit a stable financial support mechanism for the NGO. Otherwise, I am not

confident.…’

It can be seen that even within DSWM, the idea of charging, privatising the PWIs or

outsourcing welfare services, especially their PWIs are not very well met and accepted, maybe

due to lack of understanding. One director of DSWM questioned the aim of ASDev propagated

by the federal government:

‘…Why are we doing it (referring to charging respite care services)? At the moment,

the full services for elderly institutions are not enough throughout the country, but

people are not keen to be institutionalised, but there is a need. Another reason is

that a court order is needed before a person can be admitted into an institution.

Once they are admitted, they sign off their rights to administer their property and

70 Sri Kenangan Home for the Elderly in Cheras became a pilot project since 2016 for paid respite care.

(Personal Communication, Director for Planning, September 2017)

106

wealth to the government. I was told that this regulation was established to deter

admission and discourage family members……but I wonder if that practice is still

valid and relevant’…

Weak links of communication leading to fragmented visions between parties

NGO 1 and 2 who often attend consultation sessions with the federal government (MOF and

MWFCD) specified that they are often frustrated with the sessions especially when the

Ministers or Secretary Generals only give opening remarks and leave the sessions to more

junior officials, indicating lack of interest on the side of the Minister in charge. NGO 2 groused

that:

‘…More often than not, the same issues are being raised over the years, and

every time there is a new minister, the process starts again from A. That is why

we cannot progress!’. For example, I think my NGO colleagues and I have

raised the issue of the annual grant for many-many years, but the government

seemed unable to understand our problem. Sometimes I wonder if it’s

productive to attend the meetings. However, we want to be kept in the loop and

want to remain visible (to the ministry and government). After all, what we are

doing is for the betterment of our clients’…

The relationship with the welfare-related third sector is erratic in Malaysia. The only

consistent element is that the government needs them to remain to provide the services, but the

distrust from the side of the government towards the VWOs remains a consistent factor for

various reasons ranging from financial integrity to sensitive religious matters. Although the

words partners, smart-partners, stakeholders are being used, they seem to be only

‘catchphrases’ or ‘feel-good words’. The main reason is there has never been a platform where

the welfare technocrats, politicians and NGOs sit-down to sort out their relationship and

dependency towards each other, except for the matter of grants. Although DSWM has a section

called ‘Community Development’, it’s the main function is to process the VWO grants. The

107

MWFCD, too, do not have a specific unit or officer assigned to look into ensuring the close

interaction and connectivity with VWOs, never mind what more other NGOs related to other

functions such as women, gender or family. Another main factor identified is the lack of

capacity and confidence of the bureaucrats to communicate and collaborate with VWOs, who

can sometimes be cold, suspicious of public servants or more professional or highly specialised

in certain fields than bureaucrats.

4.4 Findings and discussions

The document review with historical tracing and the interviews conducted in this research has

helped to clarify the influence of institutional legacies and social and cultural context as well

as interactions of formal and informal actors on ideologies and values of multiple level welfare

actors. The findings of this chapter show that the influence on the beliefs and actions of key-

actors are both positive and negative. Thus, the interactions and interfaces of the key-actors

across the multi-level governance structure have bearing on the overall orientation and

ideology towards social welfare system in Malaysia. These in themselves provide a background

for the relationship between the government and the other actors.

As discussed in this chapter, the institutional legacies of the administrative structure of

the constant moving of the DSWM from one ministry to another over the years, and lack of

leadership, especially after almost every national election, have created an unstable condition.

The unstable condition impacted not only the DSWM but the social welfare sector

professionalism, and the growth of a steady and healthy political philosophy discussion of the

social welfare. In addition, as discussed in Chapter Two, the informal social welfare services

in Malaya provided by the third sector was well established even before independence,

indicating that the traditional system and voluntary institutions (which were mainly racial and

faith-based), precedes the modern social welfare establishment of the government and precedes

108

the notion that social welfare is the responsibility of the state as a public service. This connotes

that welfare funding was also less dependent on the government coffer but was heavily sourced

through means of voluntary donations, philanthropy and to a certain extent, faith-based alms

such as zakat. Both the instability of institution and less dependence on government sector are

also an indication of lack of political will that leads to social welfare categorised as an area of

decision of non-decisions.

Another major finding in Assumption Two is the existence of a ‘delusion of partnership’

with the third sector and government actors, although the relationship with the third sector can

be identified as vital in the scenario of social welfare in Malaysia. Findings suggest that through

institutional legacy, the existence of NGOs before the establishment of formal statutory

government services have resulted in indirectly creating a level of dependency of the

government on the services provided by the NGOs: not the opposite as has been suggested by

many scholars (Antrobus, 1987; Lee, 2008; Mulligan, 2011; and Seibel, 1990). It is believed

by most bureaucrats, that NGOs are complementing the government, not the other way around.

Prime Ministers have also clearly stated that the voluntary sector is the ‘catalyst’ that should

be self-reliant rather than depending on the funds of the government. At the same time, recall

that one NGO ‘claimed that they are doing the job of the government’, claiming that the

government has been lackadaisical on matters of social welfare. The long dominance and

prominence of VWOs in this sector may have been unconsciously taken for granted by the

politicians and bureaucrats, and VWOs are assumed to be continuing to be a reliable provider

of institutional services, albeit as a voluntary actor, by the government at both the federal and

state levels. Such an assumption could be the factor behind the government’s seeming

reluctance to resort to expanding social welfare services or privatising any welfare institutions

or welfare services (except for the trial pilot project for the paid respite care in RSK Cheras in

109

2017) and the lackadaisical approach to social welfare which reflects the residualism approach

in its entirety.

The findings suggest that the following areas are particularly problematic in present

social welfare in Malaysia. The issues of non-decisions of decisions come to the fore. It is as if

social welfare is a system is stuck in time and remains as an area of non-decisions of decisions,

parallel to the argument of Bachrach and Bratz (1970), who define non-decision making as

‘…a decision that results in suppression or thwarting of a latent challenge to the values or

interests of the decision-maker’… (p.44). They argued that there are non-pursued agendas (in

Malaysia’s case this could be exemplified by the quote from the Director-General of Social

Welfare Incorporated, National Social Welfare Policy 1990, and National Social Council) that

have equally important values in investigations pertaining to decision making and non-decision

making that are less spoken about; ‘the less apparent but nonetheless extremely important face

of power’ (Bachrach & Bratz, 1970, p. 9). They used the idea of ‘mobilisation of bias’ by

another author; Schattschneider (1960, p. 71) who argued that ‘… all forms of political

organisation have a bias in favour of the exploitation of some kinds of conflict and the

suppression of others because the organisation is the mobilisation of bias. Some issues are

organised into politics while others are organised out....’. The author concurs with the

categorisation of bias by Schattschneider being applied to social welfare in Malaysia,

concluding saying that it is the policy that has been ‘organised out’ not only by the political

masters but also by the bureaucrats, for reasons that will be discussed further on.

110

5 INTERACTIONS OF THE MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNMENT ACTORS

5.1 Introduction

The ideologies and values of social welfare actors that are affected by institutional legacies and

the social and cultural context, as discussed in Chapter Four, also may influence

intergovernmental relationships. It is assumed that the interaction between the critical state and

federal actors in playing their respective roles as prescribed by the Constitution seems to be

disconnected. In this chapter, the interactive process of different actors in the multiple levels of

governments will be analysed, based on document analysis and interview results of elite

informants (see 3.6.2 for research strategy), applying the concept of welfare relations and

public choice theory to verify Assumption 3. The multi-level government actors are the federal

government politicians and bureaucrats, and the state government politicians, bureaucrats,

SLBs and GRLs (refer to Table 3.4). Since VWOs exist at the ground level and often deal with

the state-level officials, reference is also made to them whenever necessary.

Assumption 3

Interaction among the multi-layered government actors affected the residualism in Malaysia

5.2 Grave disconnectedness between federal and state actors and intra-agencies

leading to detachment with issues on the ground

Sarji (2016), a former Chief Secretary of the government of Malaysia wrote in his book that

the 3rd Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdul Razak in 1970 while addressing the public servants

‘characterised ‘seven deadly sins’ for civil servants to recognise then to avoid. The sins were

as follows:

‘…inter-departmental jealousy; lack of coordination between departments; lack of

full cooperation on a day-to-day basis between government officers in different

departments and those working on the ground (also termed as street-level

111

bureaucrats in this study) mostly caused by an imperfect understanding of each

other’s tasks; pride; lack of planning; lack of master plan; and lack of sufficient

directive control’ Sarji (2016, p.7-8).

Intergovernmental jealousy and lack of coordination are apparent in the relationship

between the state and federal actors. Unlike for health and education where they are the duties

of the federal government, it has been established that social welfare is a shared duty, and the

justification is as stated by the Reid Commission (discussed in Chapter Two). More importantly

during the data collection, it was found that despite being a shared responsibility, no platform

gathers and connects the state government and the federal government on matters about social

welfare, unlike the existence of National Forest Council or National Land Council that has a

dedicated channel and secretariat at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, at the

federal government and representatives of the state government as members. Recent federal-

state meetings seem to discuss mainly infrastructure and mega projects (DSWM 2 and Central

Agency 1). This indicates that the social welfare agenda is either seen as an operational matter

because of the perpetual perception on the concentration of cash handout and that social welfare

issues are always dealt on a case by case basis and never given systemic treatment, due to the

risk of disrupting the complex relationships it entails.

Disconnectedness can also be seen in the contradictions on the basic comprehension of

duties. The grass-root leaders (GRLs/ JKKK) and the street-level bureaucrats (Penghulu and

District Welfare officers) seemed to have a different understanding of their role compared to

what is being expected of them by the state officials and the central government bureaucrats.

At the same time, there is a massive mismatch of what the central government officers think

the PKMD duties are, and what they are doing. This is a result of the lack of job rotation

experience by most welfare officials at the headquarters and the superficial understanding of

ADS (Administrative and Diplomatic Service) officers leading the line ministries and central

112

agencies (Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning Unit and Implementing Coordination Unit)

as well as stationed as District officers in non-federated states.71

However, some level of mismatch of expectation is anticipated in a complex system

and a hierarchy, especially when it involves the lowest level of the hierarchy in administration,

but the evidence gathered is rather alarming and shows signs of the tendency to blame each

other (Table 5.1). This situation occurs because there are too many agencies and ministries

involved in ‘coordinating the poverty eradication’ and social welfare implementation

programmes, including the political branches of each political party and arms of the ruling

political parties. Each agency has different aims and visions, serving different political masters

and employers while at the same time, becoming members of the community at the grass-root

level. The situation is compounded by the reality that most SOPs and guidelines at the street

level and grass-root level are created by federal bureaucrats that are usually from the

Administrative and Diplomatic Service (ADS) and are not trained for specific areas like social

work but more as managers or generalist (Central Agency 1).

71 Federated states in Malaysia have their own state civil service thus have very limit ADS officers

serving at the state level except in branches of federal agencies. On the other hand, non-federated states

have ADS officers serving at state government level up to the district level although they are federal

creatures and their career path, promotion and transfer are determined by the Public Service Department

in Putrajaya.

113

Table 5.1: Comparison between federal bureaucrats’ expectation of JKKK and actual

JKKK understanding of own responsibilities

Theme Bureaucrats’ expectation of JKKK Actual JKKK understanding of own

responsibilities

Scope of

duty

‘The head of the block (block of public

housing or low-cost housing in this case)

is supposed to highlight the issues related

to welfare.’

- CEO YKN

‘We help the people if there is death….fire

or any other catastrophe.’

- JKKK 1

‘We (the District office) expect the JKKK

to inform of the vulnerable / cases. That

is their duty.’

- District Officer

We don’t visit homes of the poor or

elderly, that is the duty of the DSWM, not

us. However, I do not think they (DSWM)

do it because they are too burdened with

their jobs in the office.

- JKKK 2

Source: Created by the author from interview citations

Indeed, the SLBs indicated that the issues are worse than expected or usually discussed

because other existing community leaders are expected to ‘work together’ under the spirit of

‘welfare is a joint responsibility’; the moto of MWFCD and DSWM. On the idea of working

together, DO 1 (District Officer) shared a story:

‘…when I did a walkabout in the village (doing fieldwork), accompanied by the

JKKK, I was briefed that the village was free from hard-core poverty. All cases have

been dealt with and under the observation of the PKMD. Suddenly, we saw a man in

filthy clothes taking a bath in a ditch. I asked the JKKK and was given an unexpected

answer. The JKKK explained to me that the man is mentally ill and lives alone in a

house that his parents left him. His neighbours give him food.’…

DO 1 was surprised that the grass-root leaders (JKKK) did not see the case as hard-core

poverty but saw it as a mentally ill patient that they did not have to report. He continued:

‘…We (District office) expect the JKKK to raise cases in need, but that is not usually

the case. There was a case where a family lost their house in a fire. They received

assistance, and the government through the district office helped to rebuild their

114

house. Not long after that incident, the school opened, and we found out that the

JKKK cannot connect the dots between the welfare needs of the kids and the

upcoming school season. That is the reality. The JKKK have preconceived and

restricted assumptions about ‘poverty’…maybe because this committee is named

‘Poverty Eradication Committee at the district level’…

The District Office is the last bureaucratic arm that officially has a Poverty Eradication

Committee at the District Level (which reports to the state Poverty Eradication Committee

chaired by the State Secretary and in some states by the Chief Minister). It can be seen that the

village representatives (JKKK) define poverty eradication in a very limited and isolated way

to the extent that ‘mental retardation’ and inability to care for oneself cannot be identified as a

social welfare case or a case deserving investigation by the welfare district officer who is also

a member of the same committee. There are no other committees or platforms other than those

two committees at the state level. The rest are one-off, ad-hoc or case-based interventions.

More often than not, SLBs sense that most unsuccessful policies and regulations made

in Putrajaya did not consider the local/ grass-root level idiosyncrasies, peculiarities and issues.

At the same time, although state welfare directors are dispatched from the headquarters of

DSWM, the SLBs, DOs and NGOs in this study indicated strongly that the welfare directors

are ceremonial creatures that appear during ceremonies and are seldom seen at other times. On

the other hand, the ‘disconnectedness’ of the federal government from the realities on the street

level could be confirmed when as a whole, the federal government bureaucrats seem to have

high expectations of state government and NGOs.

The federal politicians and bureaucrats (Central Agencies, MWFCD and DSWM)

appeared to fail to understand and consider that the local issues have varying degrees, according

to the different states, locality and strata within the states. More interestingly, none of the state-

115

level politicians and agencies has the detailed local statistics on the elderly, PWDs, bedridden,

homeless, mentally challenged persons, children, number of single-parent families or one-

person households (their area of administration). What they have are statistics of people who

are already in the system, such as welfare recipients, zakat recipients or those already updated

in the E-kasih system. According to Central Agency 1, E-kasih is a database of people receiving

poverty eradication and social welfare support which is funded and managed by the ICU, PMD

at the federal level, and updated by the branches of ICU, PMD at the state level. So E-Kasih

is a collaborative effort of both the federal and state agencies.

Central Agency 1 insisted that ‘…we have had E-Kasih, which is an

internationally award-winning system. All the government agencies are supposed to

use it, even at the state government level. We expect them to use it and update it…we

now even add people who receive zakat money. ...yes we hope it is updated to avoid

overlap of recipients…’

The above indicates that even the central information system for the district level is still

dependent on the system created by the federal government and managed by a federal

department branch at the state level. Thus, E-Kasih system and the poverty eradication

committee meeting at the state level are the only two platforms that feedback into the federal

system. However, as seen earlier, because they carry the tagline of poverty eradication,’ the

social welfare agenda seems to be disconnected and ‘invisible’ from the bigger agenda and

picture of social welfare. Thus it can be concluded that there is no specific platform that

discusses ‘shared duties’ for social welfare between the federal and the state actors.

Recall that in Chapter Four cash handouts seem to be the method of popular choice by

almost all politicians and bureaucrats. However, state government 2, 3 and PKMD 2 indicated

that cash handouts are all credited through bank accounts now. Throughout Malaysia, almost

116

100 per cent of the payments are made online, so the welfare officers do not have to go on the

ground anymore to check upon the processes and the receipts of the handouts by the recipients

while undertaking casework. The concentration and focus given on this type of social welfare

approach indicated that the government machinery still has an embedded belief that the well-

being of the people is important but does not need monitoring rather it should be done on a

case by case basis. Bureaucrats raised the issue of the added of the work increasing

complexities and growing high demand as well as the expectation of their already existing

workload. All state-level welfare bureaucrats indicated that they are spending too much time

in the office and at the desk, or attending ceremonies not directly related to their core business

when they are supposed to be on the ground doing case-work or other welfare-related tasks.

Welfare bureaucrats also agreed that the burden of the job and the increased

complexities of each case is compounded by the need to attend meeting and events (which are

not related and related to their core duties which are social welfare) have made them distant

from their core duties. That is why the welfare officers do not do casework / social work

anymore and reluctantly label themselves self reflectively as ‘desk-bound’. Subsequently, the

DSWM (at the headquarters) became aware of this problem and interestingly, made it official

in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that the welfare officers do not have to review

casework and visit homes or welfare recipients unless there is a request or report. Compared

to federal bureaucrats, the State Politicians and State Government bureaucrats also identified

with this issue instantly, because the federal bureaucrats appear to be unaware of the realities

on the ground.

Grass-root leaders, JKKK 1 and 2 also indicated the same, and sympathetically and

repeatedly mentioned their observation of the complexity and burden of the PKMDs. The same

observation on the ‘lack of appearance of the welfare officers on the ground’ was also indicated

by VWOs who expected more interaction with DSWM and PKMDs. SDSW also indicated that

117

they are also becoming too ceremonial as they have to attend many functions and ceremonies

for officiating programmes or being officiated by politicians or chief Ministers.

DO 1 confirmed this state of affairs:

‘I have to attend at least 50 meetings a week………in most meetings, a

representative of welfare office is there...’

State politician 1 and 2 indicated that they visit the vulnerable cohorts in their

constituencies. However, SLB 1 and 2 indicated that the habit of walk-abouts by the Federal

and State Politicians every time they visit their electoral constituency is more like a ‘ritual’

rather than a systemic investigation or conduit to understanding the needs of the community,

SLBs and the GRLs. Surprisingly, State Bureaucrats 1 indicated that top or federal bureaucrats

from central agencies and ministries also behave like politicians and often expect VIP

treatments rather than wanting to solve the actual issues happening on the ground. When asked

further about space to raise problems faced on the ground, SLBs 2 and 3 informed that they

are expected to solve them. If they cannot, they try to find a solution without escalating the

issue to the federal level because ‘…it is as though I cannot solve problems. So I use my

contacts and own networking...’ (SLB 3).

5.3 Different degrees of state government entry and involvement in the social welfare

sector

Some state governments have taken some proactive roles in the area of social welfare

assistance compared to others. In the state of Penang, Selangor and Melaka, several innovative

initiatives did take place, starting in the year 2008, which is after the 12th General Elections.

State governments have also embarked on several initiatives related to mitigating the welfare

of the people. In 2015, the state of Penang announced that all PWDs or residential with PWDs

are given a 50 per cent discount from paying quit-rents (Golongan OKU nikmati potongan

118

cukai taksiran 50 peratus, Bulletin Mutiara, 2018). While in 2017, a 90 per cent discount for

conversion cost (to be paid to the local government) was announced for residential units that

have been converted as care centres, including elderly nursing or child care centres

(Pengecualian sepenuhnya tukar guna bangunan pengusaha taska and pusat jagaan diseru

daftar segera, Bulletin Mutiara, 2017). The decision was made to encourage registration under

the law and to reduce the cost burden of interested parties, especially for care centres managed

by NPOs. Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur gave exemptions to all welfare organisations

from paying quit-rents and NGOs were allowed to occupy state government land without any

rent. MAKPEM in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur and TASPUTRA PERKIM72 are some examples of

welfare-related NGOs that operate on government land. Bus fares for Rapid KL and Rapid

Penang buses was discounted for PWDs with Identification Cards (ID) issued by the DSWM

since 2008 (Thanasayan, 2008). In 2016, the state of Penang even committed to increasing the

monthly allowance for low-income families managed under the SWD. This move made the

Penang state welfare assistance to be the highest in terms of amount in Malaysia (State

Bureaucrat 4).

However, there were complaints that only registered voters in these states were allowed

to receive these handouts because each application needed the electoral confirmation. This rule

of electoral confirmation shows that although DSWM has means-testing based on income, the

state governments such as in Penang and Selangor created another rule which is an electoral

confirmation. This means that non-registered voters cannot have access to the state government

programmes, as this is vastly a political move. However, the states which are now led by

opposition parties to the federal government are implementing the same tactics.

72 Website of TASPUTRA PERKIM retrievable at http://tasputra.com/

119

This suggests that political creatures still behave similarly although they belong to

different parties; looking at social welfare schemes as a political incentive. Interview with

EXCO Selangor confirmed this:

‘…We don’t give to those who support the ‘other side’. Also, we asked them to

come to our event so that they know the face of their ADUN (State

Assemblyman)… So they know who to vote next time’….

The actions taken at the state government level indicates that political interest to gain

votes still engulfs the thinking behind the decisions taken by the politicians and bureaucrats as

both federal and state governments have ‘to serve the government of the day’. Also, it is clear

that although at the state level, similar at the federal level, cash is king is still the central

ideology, thus state governments still give priority to cash handouts as compared to welfare

services in an effort to standardise services being rendered between federal and state

government. State governments still look at the federal government for financial support and

policy direction although there are some pieces of evidence that some wealthier states have

started to provide more by expanding the welfare programs and cash handouts, or increasing

the amount contributed in the state welfare programmes. It can be seen that the state

governments from the opposition parties also used the expansion of social welfare programs,

especially handouts as a political tool to show that there are more empathetic to the plight of

the less fortunate and vulnerable in their respective states. The move could be seen as a positive

move away from the thinking of residualism which will also impact the federal government

horizontally because the federal government led by another political party will not want to be

seen as implementing the similar programme as their political rivals in the state governments

or not offering better deals for the people at large.

120

5.4 Fragmentation and lack of signalling at state government level from the federal

government

At the state government level, the elected state assemblymen form a State Legislative Council

similar to the Cabinet arrangement at the federal government level. From the political

perspective, elected representatives exist in each local assembly area (State Assemblymen-

ADUN) exist within a Parliament (Member of Parliament - MP). Each Parliament might have

more than one State Assembly under it, although the representatives might not be from the

same political parties. Each ADUN and MP receives allocation other than salary. As an example,

in 2017, the state of Selangor annually allocates RM800,000 to each ADUNs while RM200,000

to ADUNs from the opposition parties. At the same time, an MP from Selangor receives RM300,

000 annually to be used in his/ her Parliament (Budget Speech, 2017). The practice of allocating

different allocation to opposition elected representatives is a common practice not only at the

state government level but also at the federal government level.

No state politicians mentioned the welfare NGOs or the relations with welfare NGOs

in the state until coaxed. They indicated that the state does not have enough revenues and

human resources to increase social welfare support and services, but said that the federal

government should do more instead of them. State politicians claim that there is no avenue for

discussing social welfare issues or welfare policies with other actors such as NGOs or

philanthropist, except at several committees for poverty eradication and women development.

State governments also do not have a platform where they can raise issues to the federal

government, although ‘social welfare’ is a shared duty listed in the Concurrent List of the

Constitution. It was clear that not all state politicians (although some are holding welfare

portfolios) are aware of the extent of the services and the issues of the welfare NGOs in their

own states except for two, who indicated that there is an urgent need for caseworkers on the

ground to be always available to work in the community. Table 5.2 shows the name of the

121

portfolios of various states in Malaysia with the name of the portfolio for social welfare or

related area. It can be seen that only Pahang has the portfolio under the Chief Minister while

most state welfare EXCOs are women. Only Penang has the ‘caring society’ in the name of its

portfolio and has two EXCO assigned for welfare-related duties.

Table 5.2: State Government EXCO portfolio related to social welfare

as of February 2017

No. State EXCO Portfolio related to welfare Chairman of

EXCO

committee

Gender of

Chairman

1. Penang Welfare, caring society and

environment

EXCO

Committee

Male

Women, family, community

development

EXCO

Committee

Female

2. Johor Women, family and community

development

EXCO

Committee

Female

3. Selangor Health, Welfare, Women and

Families Affairs

EXCO

Committee

Female

4. Perlis Women, family, community, social

welfare and social cohesion

EXCO

Committee

Female

5. Kelantan Development of women, family and

welfare

EXCO

Committee

Female

6. Sabah (Ministry of) Community

Development & Consumer Affairs

State Minister Female

7 Sarawak (Ministry of) Welfare, community

well-being, women, family, and

child development.

State Minister Female

8. Perak Women, family, community

development, welfare, housing and

local government

EXCO

Minister

Female

9. Kedah Women development, agriculture,

entrepreneur development, and

social welfare.

EXCO

Committee

Female

10. Pahang Education, religion, land, forest,

investment, natives, welfare, social

cohesion, and NGO.

Chief Minister Male

11. Negeri

Sembilan

Welfare, family and community

development

EXCO

Committee

Female

12. Terengganu Health, women development, family

and community development

EXCO

Committee

Female

13. Melaka Women, family development, and

welfare.

EXCO

Committee

Female

Source: Author’s analysis from various state governments website as of February 2017

122

PKMD 1 also indicated that the current welfare officers are occupied with ceremonies,

meetings, and too-desk bound and thus, incapable of spending more time with the people who

need social welfare support, monitoring and follow-ups on casework. State governments have

shown additional efforts. For example, the state government of Sarawak under the SDSW

operates welfare institutions homes; Seri Kenangan Home in Kuching and Sibu for the elderly,

a children’s home in Sri Aman and a rehabilitation centre in Samarahan73.

5.5 The proliferation of political patronage and clientelism at the grassroots level

Social welfare’s proximity to political aspirations, creating ‘voting blocks’ have always caused

any decision about social welfare to be always more complicated. Thus reform is challenging

unless a desperate condition presents itself. The grass-root social welfare in Malaysia can be

described as unorganised, and there are too many champions. Currently, there are several grass-

root organisation/ neighbourhood units created by several government agencies for several

different functions at the community level which in this study is termed as Community Based

Organizations (CBOs). What is clear from Table 5.3 is that the centrality of instruction, control

and formation for most of the CBOs still lies and originates with the federal government. For

example, for women: Amanita (by Royal Malaysian Police), Jiranita (by Department of Social

Unity, Prime Ministers’ Department), and PERWANI (by Department of Women Development,

Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development). For men or more neutral

membership with allowance, there are at villages the JKKK (Village Development and Security

Committee – organised by the Ministry of Rural Development and paid allowances by the ICU,

PMD), and at housing areas, the Rukun Tetangga (under the Department of Local Government,

neighbourhood associations (registered with local governments) and residents representative

73Personal communication, Sarawak State Welfare Office, March 2018.

123

committee (Jawatankuasa Perwakilan Penduduk – JPP) under the Ministry of Urban

Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government.

On top of that, there are kariah 74 divisions that relate to the Muslim community

activities that are also related to the management of mosques or other religious spaces. The

state religious councils pay Kariahs and mosque committee allowances under the state

governments. Table 5.3 below shows the various CBOs that are being established by various

departments/ministries by the federal level government and locally organised kariah by the

Muslim community. PKMD 1 informed that most of the members of the CBOs are usually the

same members because only a handful of community members ‘are interested’ and ‘like to have

power in the community’.

Table 5.3: Community Base Organisations (CBOs) that

exist at the grass-root level in Malaysia Year

Established

Name of

Community

based

Organisation

Membership/

Locality

Type of CBO Appointing

Authority

Allowances

Traditional Kariah/

Mosque

committee

Committee of the local

mosque (at every

mosque) traditionally

organised within

societies but later

supported by the

government as a mode

of regulation and

security/ subversive

Non-

registered

entities

State government:

State Religious

Department and

Council

Paid by

each State

Religious

Department

1972 JKKK (since

1972)

Location

predetermined based

on election

constituency

CBO created

based on

election areas

Federal

Government:

Ministry of Rural

Development

Paid by

ICU, PMD

1975 Kawasan

Rukun

Tetangga

(KRT)/

Neighbourhood

watch

(established

1975)

KRT is established

under a parliament law

CBO with

location

predetermined

by the

government

authority

Federal

Government:

Headed by

Director General

of Rukun Tetangga

in the Unity and

Integration

Department, Prime

Ministers’

Department

Paid by the

state

government

And each

RT to

receive an

annual

grant of

RM10,000

74 Kariah are members of the community that congregate at a particular mosque nearest to them

124

Year

Established

Name of

Community

based

Organisation

Membership/

Locality

Type of CBO Appointing

Authority

Allowances

1980 PDK

(Community

Based

Rehabilitation-

CBR)

At almost all electoral

constituency

Service-

oriented and

tools/

curriculum

supported by

DSWM

Federal

Government:

Department of

Social Welfare

Malaysia

Daily salary

for contract

staff

2014 JPP

(established

2014)

At least ten members

in any housing/

residential area

CBO/

residential

area/ flat

building

Federal

Government:

Ministry of Urban

Well-being and

Local Government

Purely

voluntary –

No

allowance

*Jiranita Women

neighbourhood group

Federal

Government:

Unity and

Integration

Department, Prime

Ministers’

Department

2015 Komuniti

PEWANI

(established

2015)

At least five members

of the community with

the intention to

increase awareness of

domestic violence,

child abuse and

increase women

empowerment.

This group is hope to

be the eyes and ears of

the MWFCD.

Federal

Government:

Department of

Women

Development,

Ministry of

Women, Family

and Community

Development

Grant for

the program

provided by

the

application.

Source: Created by the author based on ministries websites and personal communication with public

officials as of August 2017.

JKKK 1 and 2 indicated that they are the agents for the government to spread

information to their village. They see themselves as the ‘eyes and ears for the government.’

Both GRLs perceive their boss as the ICU, JPM instead of the Penghulu, who is under the

District Office. However, JKKK 1 also said that he assists the ADUN and MPs, due to their

connection and post as the head of UMNO branch in the area. Each branch (cawangan) of the

UMNO has a JKKK unit. However, JKKK receives their monthly allowance from the Ministry

of Rural Development, which is managed at the state level by ICU, PMD (Table 5.3).

125

In terms of social welfare, both JKKK strongly stressed that they could only identify

the people who are in need, but they are not trained social workers and that each of them (JKKK

members) have their own profession. They indicated that no one comes to follow up with each

family to offer emotional support or other services which the people in need hope for.

Regarding the compilation of information in the village, JKKK 1 indicated that the JKKK

recently were briefed to include cases other than poverty in their village profile. He also

indicated his sympathy towards the burden of tasks of the district welfare officers (PKMD) in

his area:

‘…the PKMD is the one doing the report; he is also the one making the mention

in front of the judge, he is the one doing the investigation, he also attends the

District Poverty Eradication Meeting, he is also the one attending a meeting on

Independence Day celebration (which has nothing to do with his core studies)…

he also has to attend court for adoption cases or escort juvenile; they seem to

have a large array of duties’ …

The biggest challenge highlighted by the grassroots leaders, JKKK is similar to

the challenge raised by the DSWM officers at the state and the PKMD. All of them

indicated two major issues: (1) insufficiency of social welfare cash support that causes

the SLBs and GRLs often faced with criticism or verbal attack from the beneficiaries;

and (2) citizens do not know their rights.

‘…The UMNO branch do not discuss the matters to social welfare because

everybody thinks it’s the duty of the welfare department. Even people don’t think

of zakat first. I guess we know that there is the NGOs and the welfare

department…’

‘…I think the citizen of Malaysia is not demanding, maybe they feel that the

system is enough,… maybe conditions are not yet critical…the people or

126

community at the ground seems already comfortable ‘mangli’75. Our community,

especially in the villages, are still thinking like a third world country...not like you

and me …who have seen the world…’

When the author inquired further if issues that they have raised to the author are

discussed in the their affiliated political party meetings, no concrete answer was obtained but

they indicated that they had discussed the idea that ‘welfare of the people is important’ but not

the details. According to them the political party meetings primarily discusses strategies of

winning elections. The same response was obtained from JKKK 1 and JKKK 2 who are UMNO

branch leaders of their respective areas when asked about if ideas and policies of social welfare

are being discussed at branch meetings.

The close and intertwined political networks within the community and self-interest

within the community leaders and people with position (politicians, bureaucrats and NGO

leaders) at the state level mean they have not shown enough strength and will to push the social

welfare agenda to transform or move away from the residual states. Time and again, there is a

realisation that there is much to improve, but nothing comes of it. There is a but perhaps due

to the long embedded shared social welfare philosophy of 61 years of Barisan Nasional’s

leadership which have also been ingrained in the DSWM and the ADS up to the district level

and the various CBOs which are led mainly by the federal government, and perhaps because

of this, the notion of non-responsibility of the federal government is also shared by the state

governments.

75 Mangli is a dialect word used to portray no change, mundane routine state of conditions or mind.

127

5.6 The ever-present zakat institution and mismatched expectations of its role

As mentioned in Chapter Two, zakat lies within the powers of the state government, except in

the Federal Territories and state without Sultans, where religious matters fall directly with the

Supreme Sovereign or known as the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA). Central bureaucrats have

a mixed response to the zakat issue; most central government bureaucrats responded by

wondering why zakat has not been organised in a better way to support poverty eradication and

provide more social support to the states. One interviewee even raised the question of why

zakat organisations are not running old folks homes or orphanages, just like some welfare

institutions currently managed by VWOs and related religious organisations such as Christian

missions.

Another interviewee Central 1 indicated in the same tone that ‘…zakat organisations

must diversify its services…’, implying that although in some states, zakat organisations are

innovative, establishing and managing old folks homes (Selangor), orphanage, boarding

schools for children from low-income households and dialysis centres (Penang), sponsoring

cataract surgeries (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur), women protection shelters (Johor) and

low-cost housing (Selangor), the expectation towards the role of zakat is even higher. From

another perspective, it can be assumed that the central bureaucrats are less aware of the actual

realities on the ground, although they are officials directly related to the social welfare sector.

On the other hand, an interviewee from DSWM believed that with the total collection

of zakat annually and the money spent on social welfare and poverty eradication in Malaysia

poverty should have been eradicated long time ago:

‘We (Malaysia) should have achieved zero poverty a long time ago. Malaysia

should have been like Baghdad at one time, where people are prosperous and no one

was eligible to receive zakat anymore (indicated that although zakat was collected

but there were no more poor people or sickly who needed zakat’

128

The bureaucrats appear to share a collective perception that the zakat money seems to

be used more for investment for buildings, or procuring assets such as land rather than actually

spending it on the asnaf76. In contrast, the SLBs felt strongly that the zakat money often acts

as a buffer or immediate fund while waiting for the DSWM to process the welfare case but

often is short term and low in amount. However, the zakat is said to have too many rules and

regulations in its screening, and are often one-off types. One PKMD described zakat in a

somewhat surprising way:

‘…The zakat agency has some overlapping duties with us (welfare officers) in some

ways. The difference is that we are trained in social work, and they are not. So they

go and give cash or a food basket, and that is it. They are not expected to continue

to monitor the case.

‘…However, as a social welfare officer, the expectation is different, but it is

impossible for me to attend to all the new (welfare reports) and need for review

cases. Maybe the zakat officers could also be our eyes and ears, but unfortunately,

we haven’t come to that stage of coordination…’

After all, who are we (district welfare officers) at the district level to suggest such

a thing? …its quite difficult especially when it involves zakat money because it has

religious sensitivity too…the zakat funds is not really ‘public money’…’

The complete absence of understanding that social welfare policy and issues transcend sectors

may be lacking in the minds of the social welfare actors because of the over prioritisation of cash

handouts and lack of professionals in the field including in the zakat agencies. Because of the modern

idea of separation of state and church which is strong among the bureaucrats who are majority Malay

Muslims, the idea of zakat being part of social welfare solution in Malaysia is still tread upon quite

cautiously perhaps due to the linkage of matters about Islam remains with the Sultan at the state level.

76 Pre-defined group of recipients under Islamic law.

129

Recall that in Chapter Four that Central 1 indicated that it is complex to deal with the palace and that

the federal government cannot dictate and depend on the revenue of the zakat collection because they

belong within the power of the state governments. However, the federal governments have actually

shown an indication that they want to have a say in coordinating the zakat. Thus, although the role of

the state government seemed central in the administration of zakat through the state enactments, in 2004,

the Prime Ministers Department established Department of Waqf, Zakat and Hajj (JAWHAR), at the

federal government level to coordinate activities of SIRCs (Ashray, 2016). The establishment of

JAWHAR suggests that there is a realisation of how precious and important zakat is to the

country at the federal government. However, how much the influence of JAWHAR have on the

state governments’ management of zakat is unknown.

Zakat 1 said that although his organisation attends the meeting at JAWHAR, because

the zakat is collected and managed by each state and not at the central government in Malaysia,

each state has different management visions of the fund while having different amount of

collection between states which leads to capacity differences in the level and type of welfare

services to the people. When asked about how much communication is done with state

bureaucrats and SLBs, Zakat 1 indicated that they try to ‘do their work’ with their own

resources, but meet up with state officials and SLBs in meetings on poverty eradication chaired

by the District Officer. Zakat 1 indicated although his organisation has mainly concentrated on

cash handouts, he and the neighbouring states’ zakat organisations have recently discussed

about the lack of elderly homes or respite care for the elderly especially for the Muslims.

According to him, the private sector Chinese, Christian and Hindu care homes are increasing

but not for the Muslims. In addition, according to the survey done by his organisation, Muslims

have less capacity to enter paid/ private services. He believes that the zakat organisation can

do it but is afraid of the buy-in of the state governments because state government would want

the zakat organisation to introduce a model that is profit-based instead. Again, the lack of

relatability of bureaucrats and politicians to the realities on the ground is apparent and shows

130

that there is a vast communication breakdown within the said agencies leading to an inability

to connect the dots, thus ending up with the malfunctioning of the system.

5.7 Findings and discussions

Social welfare exists in a predetermined structure by the Constitution, which is a shared duty

between the federal government and the state governments, as presented in Chapter Two.

However, the results from the interviews show that although the government actors are aware

of this shared duty arrangement, both levels of government seem unclear about their own way

to implement or work out the prescribed arrangement, in connection with other actors.

Consistently, the federal politicians and central bureaucrats do not relate or connect social

welfare policy or its implementation with its constitutionally assigned partner: the state

government. The view and practice of shared or collaborative governance of social welfare is

limited although the officials of both federal and state are intermingling. Federal government

officials only see the ‘concept of shared responsibility’ from two main angles; (1) maintaining

the branch office (including salary) and (2) cash assistance share of the state while seemed

distant about what is actually happening on the ground. In this situation, the federal bureaucrats

see themselves differently compared to the state government bureaucrats. This is reflected

through the inability of most federal bureaucrats and politicians to relate and connect their role

at the central government and the realities of public service delivery at the grass-roots level,

and vice versa.

The study started with the assumption that interaction between the key state and federal

actors in playing their respective roles as prescribed by the Constitution seems to be not fully

entrenched, and under-developed and thereby affected the residualism of social welfare in

Malaysia somehow. Political interest contributes to the social welfare-related decision making

in Malaysia, especially in the reinforcement of prioritisation of cash handouts and poverty

131

alleviation policies. Indeed, weak coordination between inter-governmental relations is a

constant issue that has been observed throughout the research. It manifests itself in many ways.

An important observation in the discussion about the interaction of the multi-layered

government actors of social welfare is that the local government has no part in this picture of

servicing the public, unlike in most developed countries. Thus, because of this practice and

tradition, politicians are resistant to any change in the social welfare policy, because any change

means someone will lose, while someone will benefit (Garland, 2016). In this case, politicians

benefit from directly giving welfare handouts compared to the bureaucrats who are considering

issues of quick transfer of allocation, innovation, the safety of bulk of money if it were to be

carried and distributed by hand, accountability and transparency issues and so forth. In order

to maintain patronage, politicians prefer to resort to rebranding or renaming of programs such

as KAR1SMA or TASKA 1Malaysia and holding one-off projects or functions instead of

changing, replacing, creating or terminating programs that are deemed or identified as

ineffective. As Garland (2016), claimed, the authors concur that ending public welfare

programs especially, ending cash assistance seems forbidden and politically detrimental. The

notion of self-interest and self-preservation can be determinants of political behaviours.

The study has found that there exists a conflict in the beliefs towards the ideas and

implementation of social welfare between the federal bureaucrats, politicians, and the SLBs,

as well as the GRLs. Lack of leadership caused by continuous instability of the government

approach towards social welfare policy has led it to be fragmented, unstable, and ultimately it

has become a weak and powerless sector. Due to its weakness and a vacuum of clear welfare

principle, social welfare programmes have been used as a tool for political patronage, hence

the constant rebranding of cash handouts programmes or policy layering but never the

expansion of welfare services, indicating the tendency to reinforce the same strategies. The

political connection of the grassroots leaders shows that political appointees (JKKK in this

132

case) at the grassroots level will only reaffirm that political interest remains active as a factor

especially in determining social welfare accessibility and equal chance.

The issue of ‘self-preservation’ as described by Niskanen (1971) and Hood (1992) is

seen very strong within the actors in this field particularly at the state level. The public servants

and officers of the DSWM clearly behave collectively to self-preserve their pride and image of

the organisation rather than the service to the public, as Weber in 1905 pessimistically

mentioned in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Translated from

German version)77. However, this tendency for self-preservation is weaker amongst the SLBs

at the district level who work directly with the actual cases, victims, NGOs other governmental

agencies and local politicians, as compared to the federal bureaucrats both at the MWFCD and

DSWM.

One explanation could be that the federal bureaucrats are seen as ‘policymakers’ while

the state government agencies see themselves as ‘implementers’, especially the SLBs. At the

same time, the Ministry sees DSWM as technical experts in the field of social welfare

(technocrats) and implementers of the social welfare programme, although they are both at the

federal level. On the other hand, the central bureaucrats (EPU, ICU, PSD and MOF), who are

mostly from ASD or career bureaucrats, see the line ministries and all the agencies under them

as ‘implementers of national policies’, ‘regulators’ and ‘service providers’. In this case, the

social welfare sector is situated in a complicated condition because other than being a ‘shared

responsibility’, and social welfare policy is often defined freely especially by parties who

would like to benefit from the connotations of welfare.

There are several reasons why politicians and bureaucrats appear to be lacking in

awareness of the need to coordinate to enable effective decision making in social welfare.

77 Translation of the original by Talcott Parsons

133

Firstly, similar to the challenges mentioned in Chapter Four, social welfare reform, no matter

how small, entails complex relationships, demands highly skilled human resources and requires

a makeover of critical structures and intricate sensitivities. At this moment, there are already

signs of this shown by some state governments which have challenged the status quo and

residualistic approach of the federal government, showing an indication that the aspiration of

the Reid Commission Report 1956 is indeed before its time. The problem with this situation is

that, as highlighted in OECD (2016), only wealthier and more affluent states can offer this

additional expansion of social welfare support (although mainly cash) and incentives to

encourage the informal sector, leading to the possibility of unequal access to social welfare for

Malaysians.

Another reason at the state level could also stem from the involvement of the palace in

matters related to social welfare and zakat management (especially in states with Sultans). It

adds to the complexity of political and public service bureaucracy and all the existing

coordination and implementation issues on the ground, and due to the sensitivity of the Sultans

as the caretaker and keeper of the religion of Islam other than as the Head of State. However,

in states that have proactive Sultans, coordination can be seen to be increasingly strengthened

by the instructions from the palace, not only amongst the state agencies but also with between

federal agencies. A good example is the State Government of Perlis where the Crown Prince

leads bicycle troops of volunteers and government officials to go deep into villages and rural

areas to find the poor, vulnerable and the asnaf. However positive, honourable, and

commendable the initiative is, the main aim of social welfare policy as written in the SWP in

2003 is to attain social justice. Therefore, programs and initiatives cannot be ‘a person’s hobby

or favourite past time, nor a person’s preference’ because they cannot be sustained. It may start

that way, but consistency and equality of access to social welfare programs and services must

be the underpinning principle that could be carried through, and not a personal hobby or interest.

134

The third reason could be due to the prevalent centralisation and top-down approach

the information from the actors at ground level seem to find a hard way reaching top politicians

and bureaucrats as the elites (politicians and federal government bureaucrats) have remained

as the primary decision-makers in social welfare. The system is highly centralised at the

Ministry, remains top-down, in a comfort zone, similar to the feudal times where traditional

welfare regime centres on families and the feudal lords. In these modern times almost 70 years

after Independence, this study agrees with Mehmet (1976) and Crone (1993) that the feudal

lords have been replaced by political parties, which in this study provided evidence for the

social welfare case at the state and grass-root levels. At the lower levels, politicians both from

the federal and state benefit through seemingly ‘generous’ welfare schemes created by the state

government to ‘top-up’ the limited amount provided by DSWM at the federal level. An

invisible linkage exists that fits the definition of patronage clearly because before cash handouts

are being banked-in to the clients, politicians often have one-off events at their constituencies

to distribute the cash handouts.

Nonetheless, the distance between the SLBs with their superiors at the state levels

(politicians and state director) and consequently the relationship with the headquarters in

Putrajaya, seems to burden the officials in their service delivery, in line with the argument of

Lipsky (1980) that said SLBs often feel oppressed. One of the burden is caused by the constant

worry of the federal creatures than are stationed to work at the state level or district level about

their promotion because they are far away from their own bosses at the Headquarters in

Putrajaya. Because of that, the state welfare officers tend to refuse raising issues they face on

the groun, fearing they might become ‘noisy’ officers because they might be ‘penalised’ at the

headquarters. Because SWS is a closed service cadre, the author observed that deep respect for

seniority and loyalty are traits that are very apparent amongst them, compared to the ADS

during the interviews.

135

Thus, this extended ingrained dependency could be the reason why the notion of non-

responsibility surrounds social welfare, and government actors are not actively trying to

promote a change of approach or at least challenging the status quo of the condition of the

social welfare policy now. Due to the embedded sense of habit that the community is capable

and that family should fend for themselves, even after the government was established and

political parties were created upon independence; introducing a new layer of political actors

who came with additional turfs, aspirations, notions, belief system, rent-seekers and interests,

the politicians and bureaucrats were incapable of visualising or imagining a system more than

the existing one. Because of the incapacity of visualising an alternative reality, the politicians

and bureaucrats of all level show features of resistance to change or adapt. In a way, since they

have no imagination, so they are incapable of comprehending complex issues thus incapable

or anything other than resistance.

136

6 CONCLUSION

6.1 Conclusion

The research question of this study is what the key factors that have influenced the social

welfare residualism in Malaysia are. To find the answers to this question, three assumptions

were established, which are as follows:

Assumption 1:

Institutional legacies, and social and cultural context affected ideologies and attitudes of social

welfare actors.

Assumption 2:

Interaction between the formal and informal sector may impact the notion of the role of the

government in social welfare; and

Assumption 3:

Interaction among the multi-layered government actors affected the residualism in Malaysia

Assumptions 1 and 2 were addressed in Chapter 4, while Assumption 3 was addressed

in Chapter 5. The evidence presented in this study was able to confirm that the ideologies and

notions of the multiple social welfare actors in Malaysia are impacted by the institutional

legacies that were reflected in the instability of the official thinking and position, the residue

of the crowd-funding model of welfare lottery, DGInc. from colonial times and the non-

existence of a system-wide accepted philosophy of social welfare. The reliance on the

traditional system and notion of familism explains the low priority given to the area of financial

and human resource (professionalism of social work), which were also constant themes

emerging. From the social-cultural context, the influence of racial and religious polarisation

compounded by the political ideology of the ruling government for 61 years, also seems to

137

have influenced the welfare relations between the various actors, and, especially the ethnic or

religious centric NGOs and the zakat organisations. This is because as Chan (1998) showed us,

the welfare relations also determine who gets what or deservingness, which might be laden

with founded or unfounded prejudice, as shown in this research. However, the belief is

sublimated to political convenience and expedience at elections, when the peoples’ welfare and

social inclusion agendas are made into the main political campaign slogans. Also, this belief

has been ingrained and sustained over time and reinforced continuously because the structure

of the traditional social welfare values and systems has continued to exist, although recently

there are showing signs of cracking.

Furthermore, the later developments are related directly or indirectly to social welfare

or wellbeing of the people, when the players and institutions which connects through the

welfare relations continued to pile on top of the existing structure. This perspective of welfare

relations throughout the three main period pre-colonisation, colonisation and post colonisation

as depicted in Figure 2.5 (Chapter Two), and this research was able to show that each layer

remains disengaged and separated from one another. Such a prolonged disconnectedness and

disengagement is the foundation of the creation of each separation of layers and entities related

to social welfare, which was designed to serve different purposes and the diverse set of groups

and sub-groups in the Malaysian society over the years. For this reason, the element of

‘disconnectedness’ was a widespread issue that was raised time and time again throughout this

research.

Moreover, in relation to Assumption 2, the author suspects that the disconnectedness is

not entirely by choice, because time and time again the informants are aware of the

disconnectedness but showed signs of deeply embedded consciousness that they are powerless

in the present environment, although they remain aware that they need to act. One possible

reason of feeling helpless is the fear to ‘disturb the hornet’s nest. Secondly, and the strong

138

‘power distance’ that exists between the multi-layer and multi-sector actors. This could be seen

in the lackadaisical attitude of mainly the bureaucrats and politicians who were ‘happy’ and

‘ever willing’ to say that the VS (which includes NGO and sometimes interchangeably use the

term community) need to take up the burden of the care of the vulnerable because the NGOs

can do better, and because they have their heart and mind into it.

Assumption 2 and 3 show that disconnectedness that exists between the social welfare

actors both horizontally and vertically has fuelled the lack of understanding, the increasing

hostility, distrust and growing inequitable access to services that could increase the inequality

of the society. This disconnect has also caused a significant loss to the society because available

resources and platforms which are nearest to the people such as the NGOs, NGIs, GRLs and

the zakat organisations are not maximised and left without clear signals and direction. This lack

of signals and clear direction, in turn, has led to the lack of checks and balances as well as

evaluation in the social welfare sector, causing this social welfare sector to be in, what this

study found it to be, an area of the decision of non-decisions, untouched, despite what is

enshrined in the Constitution, aspired to by the framers and was promised at the onset of the

creation of Malaysia.

These problems identified in this study points to the lack of maturity of the system and

the immaturity in the political discourse. This means that the social welfare actors, especially

the elite decision-makers in government, still do not think that Malaysia needs reform or change

of approach, despite the reality and happenings on the ground, which has caused the clashes

between the federal and state governments. This study found that there is a certain level of

relationship between the actors of social welfare, but the interaction between them is limited

by some pre-conceived and deeply rooted underlying ideas or notions that serve as barriers.

Such notions include deep mutual suspicions, anxiety, distrust, constant insistence on the

demarcation of duties (turf), and the idea of non-responsibility of government. The interesting

139

fact found is that, although the ruling federal government and the state governments were rivals,

they seem to hold on to the same values and beliefs. Thus it could be posited that there is no

strong opposite or contradicting position about welfare in Malaysia. Therefore, even if

governments change, it is likely that concentration and emphasis on cash handouts will

continue.

This research found that Malaysia is not short of the social welfare apparatus and its

social welfare delivery system has the potential to improve. However, it lacks the cognisance

and the culturally-wide acceptance that social welfare policy is as equally important as

construction and industrial development to develop a nation. As for the challenges facing the

social welfare actors, first, the study found that the politicians and bureaucrats have no deep

understanding of, appreciation of and empathy for the notion of social welfare as a development

tool or policy. Instead, they continuously see social welfare as a burden on the resources, and

the government as a whole and, indeed, seem to carry a fear of developing an endogenous and

indigenous policy. This is due to the shared notion that government is the last resort in cases of

social welfare, hence the ‘lackadaisical’ mode which can be related to the argument of public

choice theory that politicians and bureaucrats who are actors in a bureaucracy choose to self-

preserve their status and only fend for themselves (Merton, 1940). As Ragayah et al. (2002)

have found that there is a fear of introducing welfare policies that might create lazy citizens,

the author suspects that lack of courage of politicians and bureaucrats to move away from the

residual system has a similar underlining origin. It is the fear of the backlash on the existing

infamous affirmative action, the NEP, which rendered the ruling government Barisan Nasional

vulnerable to criticism for promoting and defending affirmative action as well as criticised for

having encourage lazy natives and a crutch mentality. This fear of backlash also has its roots

in fear of socialist ideologies which indirectly relates to issues of racial polarisation, again

igniting the discourse on the division of the wealth cake amongst the ethnicities, which has also

140

been a ‘wicked problem’ and a ‘super-sensitive’ issue in Malaysia. Looking at the time, the

interview was conducted and the political situation, the Barisan Nasional government tried to

preserve their ruling power by not bending to social welfare policies and concentrated on

industrial policies and infrastructural projects instead.

The application of the public choice theory and the concept of welfare relations to the

findings facilitated a greater understanding of on the phenomenon of welfare residualism in

Malaysia. From the lens of the public choice theory, the principle that bureaucrats and

politicians, including the public officials, are individuals with self-interests and efficient in

complex structures, was supported where the study found that there have been self-preservation

elements (my turf vs your turf principles) exhibited by the informants since before colonisation,

and it continued during colonial times and post-independence. This study also reinforces the

assumptions predetermined that people’s values do play a role in the implementation stage of

certain efforts or initiatives, and this case on social welfare matters.

Finally, the findings of the study were also in line with the notions of street-level

bureaucracy which argues that the lower-level government exhibit more discretionary elements

in undertaking their jobs or tasks than do the higher level (federal) government, while feeling

always burdened, as argued by Lipsky & Weatherly (1977) and Goodsell (1981). Thus, in

essence, the findings of the study as a whole have enabled an understanding of the workings of

the social welfare sector machinery in Malaysia, particularly the contention and conflicts

between the federal and state governments in addressing social welfare issues in this country.

Specifically, these findings support that social welfare is a sector that needs to be the closest to

the people and was run by the individuals in the government and individuals in NGOs, therefore,

an understanding of the beliefs and values of these people is crucial to determine the best and

most appropriate manner to administer social welfare for the best interest of the people and the

country. This study has provided insights that are useful for the understanding of Malaysia’s

141

multifaceted welfare systems. It also explains and provides a detailed background as to why

the country’s social welfare system, which exists within a hierarchical structure and complex

society, has developed in a residual way as it has up to now in Malaysia.

6.2 Policy implication

The first point: the government should realise that the existing welfare policies is not meeting

the aspirations of the constitution, Now, a more interventionist policy that better fits the

condition and reality of modern Malaysia needs to be considered. It should firstly be realised

that the structure of existing Malaysia's social welfare system is not yet fully entrenched and

matured. Both in the past and at the present time, the residual approach model, which seems to

be a residue of the past that was comfortable financially and administratively might be

successful, but is clearly in need of a transformation. This could be done by encouraging the

state governments to play a more significant role, which could be funded by the federal

government and co-funded through state-managed allocations including zakat and supported

by well-designed donation structure. After all, the Constitution states that social welfare is the

duty of both the federal and the state governments, enabling the government to be more

involved in providing actual services in Malaysia. Funding needs to be addressed, and the

potential sources are zakat and the local charity organisations. There is also a need to strengthen

the social work capacity and this could be done by strengthening the functions of local

government.

Secondly, the federal government even might consider devolving some of the functions

of the DSWM to the state and district levels to allow more discretion, flexibility and space for

innovation at units which are nearer to the people receiving the public services. The federal

government and the state governments could align their functions by mitigating collaboration

while bureaucrats should be encouraged and trained to be ‘organisers' of resources not just

142

within their department, ministry or cadre but beyond, including the NGOs. Another option is

to reactivate the DGInc. while, at the same time expanding the functions of the YKN. These

two platforms, however, must resist from being guided by profit-making or the principles of

CSR but ought to be used as a tool to expand the public services with equitable accessibility as

the core value.

Thirdly, there should be a formal platform where issues and problems on the

‘concurrent list duties’ in the area of social welfare on the arrangements of the state government

and the federal government and other players such as the YKN, DGInc, and also the voluntary

sector can be discussed. Therefore, a national platform that places the state government

representatives and the federal government together on the issue of social welfare must be

established sufficiently funded and supported by a strong research foundation. The

establishment of this platform must again be underpinned by the principles of equality of access

to social welfare as public service, human rights, and human service. A clear national

framework for the welfare-related activities, especially taking into consideration the

development of care policy should be established so that definitions, parameters, funding

mechanisms, and regulations could be put in place. With this in place, the sector could be better

accounted for, governed and regulated, while ensuring that vulnerable Malaysians could be

better served, sustainably. For this to happen, the social welfare policy cannot be seen as a silo

but needs to be dealt with in totality with other areas that are related to human services such as

health, education, and local government services.

Finally, capacity building is essential in social welfare services in the case of Malaysia.

The professional and skilled social worker must be developed to ensure in a way so that social

welfare and social work services provision closer to the community.

143

6.3 Academic contribution

This study has demonstrated the importance of analysing the social welfare policy together

with the different social welfare actors' perspectives and their different hierarchical standing.

In addition to the provision of some directions for future research, this study has made four

significant contributions to the literature on social welfare policy and bureaucracy,

intergovernmental relations, and partnership with the voluntary sector. The contributions

namely are; firstly, the informants were elite decision-making level players of the Malaysian

social welfare sector. This study should doubly contribute to the understanding of the

development of Malaysia and its actions as well as in-actions in the course of striving to become

a developed nation. Secondly, the target of this study is the social welfare of Malaysia with

multi-level informants in from Peninsular Malaysia. Although some western researchers have

conducted studies about policy implementation, this study has attempted to include the various

actors and highlighting the role, limits, notions, and characteristics of each actor and the

interfaces between them. As a result, the findings should enhance our knowledge of the role of

the politicians, bureaucrats, SLBs, GRLs and welfare NGOs at multiple levels of government,

particularly in federal types of governments and countries with large Muslim

Third, this study also provided a social welfare history of Malaysia of pre-colonial,

colonial and to post-modern state/ existing systems by discussing both formal and informal

systems; contributing to the social welfare field from the perspective of a modern Islamic

nation with pluralistic society, federal system post-colonial nations. Fourth and finally, this

study also identified the peculiarities in the complex inter-governmental roles of the state

government and the federal government that have never been raised in the social welfare

discourse, especially in Malaysia. Therefore, the findings of this study could offer insights into

the different dynamics, complexities, ideologies; and often chaotic scenarios that might be

144

useful to other countries facing vast migrations, mobility, and facing challenges of the sudden

expansion of ethnicities and religions.

The author believes that the findings of this study can provide a fresh perspective to the

discourse of the existence of an alternative model of a social welfare policy institutional system.

Finally, the investigation of the concept of welfare relations and public choice theory in the

realm of an elaborate complex government using a multi-faceted and challenging policy such

as social welfare policy, could attract other public administration researchers’ attention to

deepen the long-abandoned field in Malaysia.

6.4 Limitation and further studies

As in all research, it has its limitations. This research was aware of the international platitudes

directly affecting social welfare and the role of the professional social workers which might

have impacted domestic policymaking in the field of social welfare, but could not be addressed

in this study. Further, to build on this current research, quantitative research methodology such

as conducting a questionnaire survey on social welfare actors can be used to generalise the

findings.

The author was unable to include the states Sabah and Sarawak, which are states that

might experience a different institutional legacy and social-cultural context. It could be a

potential area of comparative study to see if Sabah and Sarawak experience the same welfare

relation related issues and conflicts as the states in West Malaysia. This potential future research

is compounded by the recent claim for more autonomy by these two states, as mentioned earlier

in this study.

While the author was finalising the dissertation, a monumental and historical event

happened in Malaysia. After almost 61 years of ruling Malaysia since independence, Barisan

Nasional lost in the 14th General Elections on May 9th, 2018. Future research can study this

145

critical juncture in the history of Malaysia, Based on the Election Manifesto and in the history

of the social policy of Malaysia. Future studies can have the chance to contest this study’s claim

that opposition parties ruling the states behaved similarly to the ruling parties, now that those

opposition parties are ruling. During the research, it was also found that there are sub-systems

of social welfare that exist in specific work environments such as in the plantations and in the

mining sector, which could also be considered for future research.

146

References

Abd. Samad, S. & Mansor, N. (2013). Population Ageing and Social Protection in Malaysia.

Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 50(2), 139-156

Abdul Rahim A. K., Ahmad Razim M.S. & Abdul Wahab M.A. (2019). Kutipan Zakat Pertanian

(Padi) di Negeri Kedah Darul Aman: Satu Analisis (Collection of agriculture zakat (paddy) in

the state of Kedah: An Analysis) in Malay Language, Proceedings of International

Conference on Zakat, Tax, Waqf and Economic Development (ZAWED) 2019, 1-2 December

2019, Langkawi

Abu Bakar Ah, S.H. (2006). Kebajikan Sosial: Aplikasi dalam Perkhidmatan Manusia (Social Welfare:

Application in Human Services) in Malay Language, Kuala Lumpur: University Malaya Press

Abu Bakar Ah, S.H. (2011). Kebajikan sosial: Teori dan praktis. (Social Welfare: Theory and

Practice) in Malay Language, Kuala Lumpur: University Malaya Press

Abu Bakar, M., & Abd Ghani, A. (2011). Towards achieving the quality of life in the management of

zakat distribution to the rightful recipients (the poor and needy). International Journal of

Business and Social Science, 2(4), 237–246

Abu Bakar, S.K.(2017). Ambiga: Parties in power have agenda to keep people poor. Free Malaysia

Today, 30 September 2017

Ali, A. (2017). State of Selangor budget Speech 2017, retrieved from http://azminali.com/ucapan-

belanjawan-2017-negeri-selangor-membangun-bangsa-memakmur-negeri/

Anderson, P. (1974). Lineages of the absolutist state. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press

Andreß, H.J. & Heien, T. (2001). Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of

Germany, Norway, and the United States, European Sociological Review, 17(4), 337-356

Antrobus, P. (1987). Funding for NGOs: Issues and options. World Development, 15(Supplement 1),

95–102. http://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(87)90147-1

Ashray, F.S. (2016). Social welfare funding: The unique role of zakat fund in Malaysia, Journal of

Urban Management and Local Government Research, 32(2), 43-62

__________ (2017). Personal Social Responsibility: Tendencies in Donation Giving amongst

Individuals in Malaysia, Research in Global Governance (1)

__________ (2017a). Social welfare in Malaysia: Role of government and voluntary sector.

International Journal of Social Policy and Society, 2017(13), 29-47

___________ (2018). Social welfare in Malaysia: Role of Government. Advances in Social Science,

Education and Humanities Research, (19), Asian Association for Public Administration Annual

Conference (AAPA 2018), http://doi.org/10.2991/aapa-18.2018.40

Asian Development Bank (2016). Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2015, Asian Development

Bank (ADB) Estimates using the Social Protection Index, Asian Development Bank

Baba, I. (1992). Social work- An effort towards building a caring society, in Caring Society:

Emerging Issues and Future Directions, Cho Kah Sin and Ismail Muhd Salleh (Eds), Kuala

Lumpur, ISIS Malaysia, 509-530

Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. (1963). Decisions and non- decisions: An analytical framework,

American Political Science Review, 57, 641–51.

147

Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. (1970). Power and Poverty: Theory and Practise. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Bakri M. N. I., Mohamed Osman, M., Bachok, and Shuid, S. (2016). An assessment service Delivery

of Social Welfare Department Dealing with Vulnerable and Disadvantages Group in Perak,

Procedia; Social and Behavioral Sciences 222, 203-210

Beamer, G. (2002). Elite interviews and state politics research, State Politics & Policy Quarterly,

2(1),86-96

Bentham, J. (1789). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, in J. Bowring (Ed); The

Works of Jeremy Bentham, London, 1838-1843; Reprinted New York, 1962

Bertaux, D. (1981). From the life-history approach to the transformation of sociological practices, in

D. Bertaux (Ed.) Biography and Society: London and Beverly Hills: Sage Publications

Blythe, W. (1969). The impact of Chinese secret societies in Malaya: A historical secret, London

Oxford University Press

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis: A qualitative research method, Qualitative Research

Journal, 9(2), 27-40

Buchanan, J. & Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional

Democracy; retrieved from http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1063/Buchanan_0102-

03_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Bulletin Mutiara (2017). Golongan OKU nikmati potongan cukai taksiran 50 peratus, retrieved from

https://www.buletinmutiara.com/golongan-oku-nikmati-potongan-cukai-taksiran-50-peratus/

Bulletin Mutiara (2018). Pengecualian sepenuhnya tukar guna bangunan pengusaha taska dan pusat

jagaan: diseru daftar segera, Retrieved from https://www.buletinmutiara.com/p-e-n-g-e-c-u-

a-l-i-a-n-sepenuhnya-tukar-guna-bangunan-pengusaha-taska-dan-pusat-jagaan-diseru-daftar-

segera/

Bulletin Mutiara (2017). Golongan OKU nikmati potongan cukai taksiran 50 peratus (PWDs enjoy a

50 per cent discount on quit rent), retrieved from https://www.buletinmutiara.com/golongan-

oku-nikmati-potongan-cukai-taksiran-50-peratus/

Chan, C.K. (1998). Welfare policies and the construction of welfare relations in a residual welfare

state: The case of Hong Kong, Social Policy & Administration, 32(3), 278–291

Chan, R. K. H. (2003). The Welfare State in Hong Kong, in Christian Aspalter (Ed.), Welfare

Capitalism around the World. Hong Kong, Casa Verde Publishing.

Chang, W. (2010). Religion and Preferences for Redistributive Policies in an East Asian Country,

Poverty & Public Policy, 2(4). http://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2858.1067

Cnaan, R.A. (1989). Public opinion and dimensions of the welfare state. Social Indicators Research

21, 297-933.

Cnaan, R.A., Hasenfeld, Y., Cnaan, A. & Rafferty, J. (1993). Cross-cultural comparison of attitudes

toward welfare-state programs: Path analysis with log-linear models. Social Indicators

Research (29), 123–152 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01077892

Comber, L. F. (1959). Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya. A Survey of the Triad Society from 1800-

1900, Monographs of the Association for Asian Studies—VI, New York, J. J. Augustin,

148

Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing among Five

Approaches. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks.

Crone, D. K. (1993). States, elites and Social Welfare in Southeast Asia, World Development, 2(1),

55-66

Crouch, H. (1996). Government and Society in Malaysia. Ithaca, Cornell University Press

Davis, A., Doling, J. & Zainal K. (2000). Britain and Malaysia: the development of welfare policies,

in J. Doling, and R. Omar. (Eds.), Social Welfare East and West: Britain and Malaysia,

Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Department of Social Welfare Malaysia. (2003). Human resource development for social welfare:

Malaysian perspective, Paper presented at the First ASEAN and Japan High-Level Meeting on

Caring Society, 5-7 November 2003, Retrieved on 11 May 2017 from

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kokusaigyomu/asean/asean/kokusai/siryou/dl/h15_malaysia2.p df

Department of Social Welfare Malaysia. (2011). Pelan Transformasi Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat

2011-2015 (DSWM Transformation Plan, 2011-2015) in Malay Language , retrieved on 11

May 2017 from www.jkmm.gov.my

Department of Social Welfare Malaysia. (2012). Annual Report 2011. Putrajaya.

Department of Social Welfare Malaysia. (2013). Annual Report 2013. Putrajaya.

Department of Social Welfare Malaysia. (2015). Pelan Transformasi JKM 2011-2015 (DSWM

Transformation Plan 2011-2015). Retrieved from

http://www.jkm.gov.my/jkm/uploads/files/penerbitan/pelan_transformasi_jabatan.pdf

Department of Social Welfare Malaysia. (2016). Department of Social Welfare Legacy Across

Generations, 1946-2016. Putrajaya: Department of Social Welfare Malaysia.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2014). Census 2010 Report. Putrajaya.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2014). Annual Labour Force Survey 2014. Putrajaya.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2017). Economic Census: Health and Social Work Services 2016.

Putrajaya: Department of Statistics, Malaysia

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2018). Social Statistics Bulletin 2017. Putrajaya: Department of

Statistics, Malaysia

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2017). Social Statistics Bulletin 2016. Putrajaya: Department of

Statistics, Malaysia

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2011). Social Statistics Bulletin 2010. Putrajaya: Department of

Statistics, Malaysia

Deri, M. (2017). Reassessing Malaysia’s social welfare policy. In MalaysiaKini. Retrieved at

https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/379820

DiNitto, D.M. (2007). Social Welfare: Politics and Public Policy, Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Dollard, J. (1949). Caste and class in a southern town. New York: Harper

Embong, A. R. (2007). Rethinking ethnicity and nation-building: Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Fiji in

comparative perspective. Kajang, Malaysia: Malaysian Social Science Association.

149

Embong, A. R. (2009). Malaysian Middle-Class Studies: A Critical Review. In Rethinking Malaysia:

Malaysian Studies 1 (pp. 107-123). Hong Kong: Asia 2000

Esping-Andersen, G. (1998). The Three Political Economies of the Welfare State, The Three Worlds

of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 9-38

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.

9-54

Fernandez, A. (1987). NGOs in South Asia: People's Participation and Partnership. World

Development 15(Supplement), 39-50.

Forsyth D. R. & Chia, Y. C. (2009). How should Malaysia respond to its ageing society? Medical

Journal of Malaysia, 64(1), 44-50

Frederickson, H. G., Smith K. B., Larimer, C. W.& Licari, M. J. (1996). The Public Administration

Theory Premier, United States: Western View Press

Garland, D. (2016). The welfare state: A very short introduction, Oxford University Press.

Ghee, W. Y., & Raja Omar, R. N. (2014). Homelessness in Malaysia : Victims of circumstance or by

choice ? Asian Journal for Poverty Studies, 1(1), 26–29.

Giugale, M.M. (2017). Economic development: What everyone needs to know, Oxford University

Press.

Gomez, E.T. (2009). The Rise and fall of capital: Corporate Malaysia in historical perspective,

Journal of Contemporary Asia, 39(3), 345-381.

Gomez, E.T. & Jomo K.S. (1997). Malaysia's political economy: Politics, patronage and profits,

Cambridge; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Goodsell, C. T. (2004). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Washington,

D.C.: CQ Press.

Goul-Andersen, J. (2012). Welfare state and welfare state theory. Working paper. Centre for

Comparative Welfare Studies (CCWS.) Department of Political Science Aalborg University,

retrieved from https://www.dps.aau.dk/digitalAssets/205/205089_80-2012-joergen--goul-

andersen.pdf

Greve, B. (1996). Comparative Welfare Systems: The Scandinavian Model in Period of Change,

Edited by Bent Greve (1996), Macmillan Press Ltd, Great Britain

Guest, G., Bruce, A. & Johnson L. (2006). How many interviews are enough: An experiment with

data saturation and validity; Field Methods 18(1), 59-82

Gullick, J.M. (1958). Indigenous political systems of Western Malaya, London: The Athlone Press.

Gullick, J.M. (1997). Prelude to Merdeka: Public administration in Malaya, 1945–57, South East Asia

Research, 5(2), 155-173

Handayani S.W. (2010). Enhancing Social Protection in Asia and the Pacific; Asian Development Bank

Harding, A. (2012). The Constitution of Malaysia: A Contextual Analysis (Constitutional Systems of

the World). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Harper, T. N. (1999). The End of an Empire and the Making of Malaya. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

150

Harper, T.N. (2001). Power and the People. In Rethinking Malaysia: Malaysian Studies 1 (pp. 203-

2014). Hong Kong: Asia 2000

Hatta, Z. & Subramaniam, J. (2015). Social Expenditures of Malaysia for the period 2008-2012.

OECD/Korea Policy Centre – Health and Social Policy Programme, SOCX Technical papers

(1)

Hatta, Z. & Mat Saad, Z. (2014). Social Work in Malaysia. In Aspalter, C. (Ed.), Social Work in East

Asia, (pp.105-122) Oxon: Routledge Ashgate Publishing

Hood, C. (1991) A public management for all seasons?, Public Administration. 69: Spring, 3-19

Hood, C. (1995). The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 93–109. http://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)

Jacob, S., Willits, F.K., and Jensen, L. (1996). Residualism and Rural America: A Decade Later, The

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 23(3), 149-160

Jayasooria, D. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals and social work: Opportunities and challenges

for social work practice in Malaysia. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 1(1), 19- 29,

http://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-016-0007-y

Jomo, K.S. & Wee, C.H. (2014). Malaysia@50: Economic development, distribution, disparities.

Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre

Jomo, K.S. & Todd, P. (1994). Trade Unions and the State in Peninsular Malaysia; Kuala Lumpur:

Oxford University Press

Jones, K. (1958). Social welfare in Malaya. Singapore; Kuala Lumpur; Hong Kong; Tokyo. Donald

Moore, Ltd.

Jones, M. & Lowe, R. (2002). From Beveridge to Blair: The first fifty years of Britain's welfare state

1948-1998, Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press

Josefina Erikson (2015). Ideas and actors in policy processes: where is the interaction?, Policy

Studies, 36(5), 451-467, http://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2015.1091067

Kandiah, M. (1992). The National Social Welfare policy, in Caring Society: Emerging Issues and

Future Directions, Eds Cho Kah Sin and Ismail Muhd Salleh, Kuala Lumpur, ISIS Malaysia,

pp.567-580

Kasipillai, D. J., & Rachagan, D. S. (2002). Tax Incentives and Corporate Social Responsibility. In

International Congress on Innovation and Regional Economic Development 2012. Hefei City:

The School of Public Affairs University of Science and Technology of China. Retrieved from

http://congress.ustc.edu.cn/

Kennedy, J.M.A. (1962). The History of Malaya: 1400-1959; Macmillan & Co., Durham, London; St.

Martin's Press New York

Khazanah Research Institute (2018). State of Household Different Realities, retrieved from

www.kri.org.

Khoo, B.T. (2003). Beyond Mahathir: Malaysian politics and its discontents, London: Zed Books

Kickert, J.M. W. and Van de Meer, Frans-Bauke. (2011). Small, slow and gradual reform: What can

historical institutional teach us? International Journal of Public Administration, 34, 475-485

151

Kim, T. (2009). State Provision via Voluntarism: The State-voluntary Welfare Mix in South Korea

(No. 2009–3). Tokyo.

Kim, W. (2009). Rethinking colonialism and the origins of developmental state in East Asia. Journal

of Contemporary Asia, 39 (3), 282-399

Kohli, A. (1987). The State and Poverty in India, New York: Cambridge University Press

Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research Paradigms and Meaning Making: A Primer. The Qualitative Report,

10(4), 758-770. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol10/iss4/7

Kwon, H.J. (1999). East Asian Welfare States in Transition: Challenges and Opportunities’, IDS

Bulletin 30(4), 82–93.

Kwon, H.J. (2001). Income Transfers to the Elderly in Korea and Taiwan, Journal of Social Policy

30(1), 81–93.

Lavers, T. & Hickey, S. (2016). Conceptualising the politics of social protection expansion in low

income countries: The intersection of transnational ideas and domestic politics. International

Journal of Social Welfare. 25.

Laws of Malaysia. (2009). Federal Constitution. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers

Laws of Malaysia (2006). Destitute Persons Act 1977. Government Printers

Laws of Malaysia (1967). Income Tax Act 1967. Government Printers

Laws of Malaysia. (1952). Director-General of Social welfare Incorporated. Kuala Lumpur:

Government Printers

Lee, A. (2017). Minister apologises over welfare officers' poor treatment of the needy, Malaysiakini,

Retrieved at https://m.malaysiakini.com/news/383515

Lemon, L. (2017). Applying a Mindfulness Practice to Qualitative Data Collection. The Qualitative

Report, 22(12), 3305-3313. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss12/14

Lilleker, D.G. (2003). Interviewing the political elite: Navigating a Potential Minefield, Politics,

23(3),207-214, http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00198

Ling, H. K. (2002). Social Work Practice in Malaysia: A vision of direction, In Social Work

around the world, Berne, International Federation of Social Welfare, p. 83-97

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New

York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lipsky, M., & Smith, R. S. (1990). Non-profit organizations, government and the welfare state.

Political Science Quarterly,104(4), 625-648.

Marland, A. & Esselment A. L. (2018). Negotiating with gatekeepers to get interviews with

politicians: Qualitative research recruitment in a digital media environment.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118803022

Mair, L.P. (1944). Welfare in the British Colonies. London: Oxford University Press

Majlis Pusat Kebajikan SeMalaysia (Central Welfare Council Malaysia) (2013). Meniti Hari

Menggalas Amanat Menjana Minda Prihatin: Kenangan 67 Tahun, Kuala Lumpur; Majlis

Pusat Kebajikan SeMalaysia. Retrieved on 15 December 2017 from

http://mpksm.org.my/v1/pdf/mpksm.pdf

152

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit. (1966). First Malaysia Plan 1966-1970. Kuala Lumpur:

Government Printer available at www.epu.gov.my accessed on 30 July 2017.

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit. (1971). Second Malaysia Plan 1971-1975. Kuala Lumpur:

Government Printer available at www.epu.gov.my accessed on 30 July 2017

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit. (1976). Third Malaysia Plan 1976-1980. Kuala Lumpur:

Government Printer available at www.epu.gov.my accessed on 30 July 2017.

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit. (2015). Eleventh Malaysia Plan, 2016-2020. Putrajaya:

Government Printer available at www.epu.gov.my accessed on 30 July 2017.

Malaysian Economic Planning Unit (2014). Malaysian Economy in Figures 2014. Economic Planning

Unit

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit. (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010. Putrajaya: Government

Printer available at www.epu.gov.my accessed on 30 July 2017.

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit. (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan, 2010-2015. Putrajaya: Government

Printer available at www.epu.gov.my accessed on 30 July 2017.

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit. (2008). Mid-Term Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010.

Putrajaya: Government Printer available at www.epu.gov.my accessed on 30 July 2017.

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit (2014). Malaysian Economy in Figures 2014. Economic Planning

Unit

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit (2015). Malaysian Economy in Figures 2014. Economic Planning

Unit

Malaysia Economic Planning Unit (2016). Malaysian Economy in Figures 2014. Economic Planning

Unit

Malaysiakini. (2018). Who will help my husband? Retrieved from

https://m.malaysiakini.com/letters/427933

Malaysiakini (2011, June 17). BN, PAS welfare state concepts not the same, Retrieved from

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/167224

Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies Using Qualitative interviews, retrieved

May 22, 2018, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428

Means, G. P. (1968). Eastern Malaysia : The politics of federalism. Asian Survey, 8(4), 289–308.

Means, G. P. (1991). Malaysian Politics: The second generation, Oxford University Press

Mehmet, O. (1986). Development in Malaysia: Poverty, wealth and trusteeship. London; Sydney;

Dover: Croom Helm

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press

Merton, R. K. (1940). Bureaucratic Structure and Personality. Social Forces, 18(4), 560-568.

http://doi.org/10.2307/2570634

Midgley, J. (2017). Social welfare for global era: International perspectives on policy and practice.

California; London; New Delhi; Singapore: Sage Publications

Midgley, J (2013). Social Development: Theory & Practice, Sage Publications

153

Midgley, J. (2012). Social Protection and Social Policy: Key Issues and Debates. Journal of Policy

Practice. 11 (1/2), 8-24

Midgley, J. (2003). Assets in the Context of Welfare Theory: A Developmentalist

Interpretation, Working Paper No.03-10, Center for Social Development

Midgley, J. (1997). Social welfare in global context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Midgley, J. (1996). Towards a Developmental Model of Social Policy: Relevance of the Third World

Experience, The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Midgley, J. (1995). Social Development: The Development Perspective in Social Welfare, Sage

Publications

Midgley, J. & Chow, J. (2004). East Asian welfare systems: Theories and applications; Social

Development Issues, 25 (3), 1-5

Midgley, J. & Livermore, M. (2009). Handbook of Social Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Milne, R. S. (1976). The politics of the New Economic Policy in Malaysia, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 49, No.

2 (Summer 1976), 235-262.

Ministry of Finance (2017). Economic Report 2017/2018. Putrajaya: Government Printer

Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development and UNDP. (2014). Study to support the

development of national policies and programmes to increase and retain women in the

Malaysian labour force: Key findings and recommendations: Putrajaya.

Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development. (2007). Caring for Malaysia: 60 Years of

Social Welfare. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development.

Mohamad, M. (1970). The Malay Dilemma. Kuala Lumpur: Marshall Cavendish Edition

Mohamad, M. (1991). Malaysia: The way forward. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Business Council

Mohamad, M. (1995). The Malaysian system of government. Kuala Lumpur: Prime Minister's Office

Mohamad, M. (1991). The Way Forward: Growth, Prosperity and Multiracial Harmony in Malaysia.

Putrajaya: Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd.

Mohamad, M. (2002). From nationalism to post-developmentalism : The intersection of gender, race

and religion in Malaysia. Macalester International, 12, 80–102

Mohd, S. (2014). Poverty issues among Malaysian elderly. Proceedings of the Social Sciences ICSSR

2014, 2014(June), 123–132.

Mohd, S. (2012). Welfare regime, social protection and poverty reduction. In B.T. Khoo, (Ed.), Policy

regimes and the political economy of poverty reduction in Malaysia (pp. 107-145). UK:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Mohd, S. (2009). Social Protection in Malaysia. Paper for Arab Forum on Social Policy, UN Economic

and Social Commission for Western Asia. Beirut, 28–29 October 2009.

Muhammed. A. K. (2014). The colour of inequality: Ethnicity, class and wealth in Malaysia, Petaling

Jaya: MPH Publishing

Munger M. C. (2011). Self-Interest and Public Interest: The Motivations of Political Actors, Critical

Review, 23 (3), pp. 339-357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2011.635871

154

Najib Razak. (2005). Executive Speech. 10th Civil Service Conference, the National Public

Administration Institute, Bukit Kiara, Malaysia. Retrieved from

http://www.pmo.gov.my/ucapan/?m=p&p= najibtpm&id=3555

National Archives (1967). Speeches of Tun Haji Abdul Razak Bin Hussein: Volume 1; Kuala Lumpur

Niskanen, W.A. (1971). Bureaucracy and government representatives, Chicago: Aldine Atherton.

Niskanen, W.A. (1973). Bureaucracy: Servant or Master: Lessons from America; Hobart Paperback:

London: Institute of Economic Affairs

Niskanen, W.A. (1983). Bureaucrats between self-interest and public interest, in Anatomy of

Government Deficiencies: Proceedings of a Conference held at Diessen, Germany July 22–

25, 1980, pp. 111-1223

OECD (2017). How’s Life 2017: Measuring Well-Being, OECD Publishing, Paris

OECD (2016). OECD Economic Surveys: Malaysia 2016: Economic Assessment, OECD Publishing,

Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-mys-2016-en

Ong, F.S., Phillips, D.R. & Tengku-Aizan, H. (2009) Ageing in Malaysia: Progress and Prospects, in

T. Fu. & R. Hughes (Eds.), Ageing in East Asia: Challenges and Policies for the Twenty-first

Century, Routledge: London, pp. 138-160

Ooi, K.B. (2011). Towards a federalism that suits Malaysia’s diversity. Kajian Malaysia, Vol. 29(1),

199–214, Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore

Parliament of Malaysia, Hansard Dewan Rakyat, 8 January 1962 at

http://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/dr-08011962.pdf , p.2262

Parliament of Malaysia, Hansard Dewan Rakyat 16 December 1977 at

http://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-16121977.pdf

Parliament of Malaysia, Hansard Dewan Negara, 16 June 1990.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA;

Sage

Penang Institute (2015). Homelessness in our cities, retrieved from https://penanginstitute.org/wp-

content/uploads/jml/files/research_papers/HomelessnessInOurCities_AReportbyPenangInstit

ute_Kenneth_21Jan15_OKM25Feb2015.pdf

Peräkylä, A. and Ruusuvuori, J. (2017). Analyzing talk and Text, in The SAGE Handbook of

Qualitative Research (5th Ed.), Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., Sage Publications, Thousand

Oaks, New York, London, Melbourne,

Presthus, R. V. (1961). Weberian and welfare bureaucracy in traditional society, Administrative

Science Quarterly, 6(1), 1-24; Sage Publications, available at url:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2390738

Pierson, P. (2000). Not Just What, but When: Timing and Sequence in Political Process. Studies in

American Political Development, 14(Spring), 72-94

Pontinen S, & Uusitalo H (1988). Stability and change in the public support for the welfare state;

Finland 1975-1985. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 8, 1-24.

155

Povera, A. (2019, November 28). Communism hurts people of all races. New Straits Times Available

at https://www.nst.com.my/news/exclusive/2019/11/542815/communists-hurt-people-all-

races.

Ragayah, H.M.Z. (2002). Social Protection in Malaysia. In M. H. E .Adam (Ed.), Social Protection in

Southeast and East Asia (pp. 119-169). Singapore: Friedrich Ebert-Stiftung.

Ragayah, H.M.Z. (2008). Income inequality in Malaysia, in Asian Economic Policy Review, 1(3),

114-132.

Richan, W. C. (1988). Beyond Altruism: Social Welfare Policy in American Society, The Haworth

Press, New York

Rochefort, D. A. (1986). American Social Welfare Policy: Dynamics of Formulation and Change,

Westview Press; Bolder and London, retrieved from

https://archive.org/details/americansocialwe00roch/page/n7

Sarji, A. (2016). My Recollections of Tun Abdul Razak. Petaling Jaya. MPH Publishing

Salamon, L. M (1995). Partners in Public Service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern

welfare state. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press

Abdullah Sanusi, A. (1977). The District Office as an Institution of Development. Ph. D.

dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston

Schulz, J. H. (1997). Ageing in Asia: The growing need for social protection, ILO/EASMAT, Bangkok,

Thailand, ILO Working Papers from Asia and the Pacific, Geneva, Switzerland,

Seibel, W. (1990). Government/ third-sector relationship in a comparative perspective: The cases of

France and West Germany. Voluntas, 1(1), 42–60. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01398491

Segal, E.A. (2018). Social Welfare Policy and Social Programs, Cengage Learning

Sen, A. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Harvard University Press

Shaffie, F. (2006). British Colonial Policy on Social Welfare in Malaya: Child Welfare Services 1946-

1957. PhD Dissertation, The University of Warwick, Warwick. Retrieved from

http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap

Sihvo, T. & Uusitalo, H. (1995). Attitudes towards the welfare state have several dimensions. Evidence

from Finland. Scandinavia Journal of Social Welfare, 4, 215-223

Singh, S. (2015, October 15). Emancipated teen on road to recovery dies of apparent seizure,

Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2015/10/15/emaciated-teen-on-road-

to-recovery-dies-of-apparent-seizure

Sinnasamy, M. (2006). Human Resource Development on Social Work a Study in Malaysia, Working

Paper Series, Working Paper WP-2006-01-E, Retrieved from https://www.n-

fukushi.ac.jp/gp/coe/report/pdf/wp-kuno.pdf

Smith, R. S., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Non-profit For Hire: The Welfare State in The Age of

Contracting; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spicker, P. (1995). Principles of social welfare: An introduction to thinking about the welfare state;

Routledge

156

Spicker, P. (2005).Targeting, residual welfare and related concepts: modes of operation in public

policy, Public Administration, 83(2), 345-365

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00453.x

St. Nicholas School for the Blind. (2011). Annual Report 2011. Georgetown, Penang. St Nicholas

School for the Blind.

St. Nicholas School for the Blind. (2012). Annual Report 2012. Georgetown, Penang. St Nicholas

School for the Blind.

St. Nicholas School for the Blind. (2007). 100 years of excellence. Georgetown, Penang. St Nicholas

School for the Blind.

Sushama, P. C. (1985). Malaysia in Social Welfare in Asia, John Dixon and Hyung Shik Kim,

London; Sydney; Dover, New Hampshire: Croom Helm

Talib, K. A. (2016). Social Welfare in Malaysia: Provision and Limitation. In Y. Wang, S. Beatrix,

K.-R. Ursula & S.-L. Alexandra (Eds.), Transnational Social Work and Social Welfare:

Challenges for Social Work, pp.100-108. Oxon; New York: Routledge.

Tang, K. (2011). Colonial policy and special welfare: The Hong Kong experience, in J. Midgley and

D. Piachaud (Eds.), Colonialism and Welfare, pp.100-118, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham;

Northampton, MA.

Teoh, A. H. and Salleh, F. (2010) Professionalization of social work in Malaysia through legislation:

A literature discussion on concepts, issues and challenges; Jurnal Pembangunan Sosial 20,

117–134

Thanasayan, A.S. (2008, 11 Feb). Bus fares: Fully exempt the disabled, Malaysiakini, retrieved from

https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/77902

Thorne, S. (2016). Interpretive Description: Qualitative Research for Applied Practice (2nd Eds.);

New York and London Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Tim, H.C. (2012). The origins of social welfare in colonial Singapore. Paper presented at the 7th

Asian Graduate Forum on Southeast Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, 16-

20th July 2012 (Unpublished)

Titmuss, R.M. (1978). Social Policy: An Introduction. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Tennant, P. (1973). The decline of elective local government in Malaysia. Asian Survey, 13(4), 347–

365. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463400016428

The Borneo Post (2016a). Proposal on devolution of power still being processed. Retrieved from

http://www.theborneopost.com/2016/11/10/proposal-on-devolution-of-power-still-being- processed-

azalina/

______________ (2016b). Make public the powers to be devolved now. Retrieved from

http://www.theborneopost.com/2016/06/28/see-make-public-the-powers-to-be-devolved-now/

______________ (2016c). Sarawak minister don’t agree with federal minister. Retrieved from

http://www.theborneopost.com/2016/11/08/functions-of-home-for-the-aged-stay/

____________ (2017). Sarawak approves hiring federal offices for welfare. Retrieved from

http://www.theborneopost.com/2017/10/29/sarawak-approves-hiring-federal-staff-for-state-

welfare-department/

157

_____________ (2017a). Federal grant for social welfare purposes for Sarawak. Retrieved from

http://www.theborneopost.com/2017/10/08/federal-grant-for-social-welfare-purposes-for-

sarawak/

______________ (2017b). Welfare included in talks on devolution of power, Retrieved from

http://www.theborneopost.com/2017/02/07/welfare-included-in-talks-on-devolution-of-

power-fatimah/, accessed 23 December 2017

________________ (2017c). Welfare department thanks government bodies and NGOs. Available at

http://www.theborneopost.com/2017/02/12/welfare-dept-thanks-govt-bodies-NGOs/

The Malay Mail (2016). Penang homeowners get a 6 percent assessment exemption, Retrieved from

https://www.malaymail.com/s/1269549/penang-homeowners-get-6pc-assessment-exemption-

for-2017

The Star. (2014, February 7). RM103 for cataract surgery. Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved from

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2014/02/07/rm103-for-cataract-surgery-lower-cost-

of-treatment-at-new-centre-a-govtmaiwp-effort/

The Star (2014, December 18). Taking care of our old ones. Retrieved from

https://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/family/features/2014/12/18/taking-care-of-our-old-ones/

The Star (2015, November 2015). Association warns public about donation scam, retrieved from

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2015/11/01/association-warns-public-about-

donation-scam

The Star (2016, June 10). Sarawak to seek more autonomy.

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/06/10/sarawak-to-seek-more-autonomy-

speaker-stepbystep-devolution-of-power-as-its-a-complex-matter/ accessed 10 January 2017

Thompson, V. & Aldoff, R. (1949). Social Welfare in South East Asia, Far Eastern Survey, Vol.

18(12), 136-140

Thio, L. (2009). The Cooperation of Religion and State in Singapore: A Compassionate Partnership in

Service of Welfare, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 7(3), 33-45, http://doi.org/

10.1080/15570274.2009.9523404

UNDP. (2013). Malaysia Human Development Report: Redesigning an Inclusive Future. United

Nations Development Programme, Kuala Lumpur.

UNDP (2013). Malaysia Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme,

Kuala Lumpur.

Van Evera, S. (1997). Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithaca; London: Cornell

University Press.

Van Thiel, S. (2014). Research Methods in Public Administration and Public Management: An

Introduction. London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.

Weber, M. (1922/1997). Bureaucracy, in J.M. Shafritz and A.C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public

administration. 4th Ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers

World Economic Forum. (2015). The Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2015, Geneva,

Switzerland.

Wood, G. & Gough, I. (2006). A comparative welfare regime approach to global social policy.

World Development, 34(10), 1696-1712

158

Wong, L. (2008). Hong Kong's Welfare Model Reconsidered - What Model?. What Traits? And What

Functions? / Paper presented at 2008 EASP 5th Conference on Welfare Reform in East Asia,

Taipei, Taiwan accessed on 3rd May 2020 at

http://www.welfareasia.org/5thconference/papers/Wong%20L_Hong%20Kong%20Welfare%

20Model.pdf

World Economic Forum. (2015). The Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2015, Geneva,

Switzerland.

World Health Organisation (2013). Health Systems in Transition. Malaysian Health Review, Vol 3,

No. 1/2013

Yaacob, J.F. (2019, March 27). Jangan beri derma kepada sindiket peralat kanak-kanak (Do not

donate to children syndicate), Sinar Harian. Retrieved from

https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/20343/BERITA/Nasional/Jangan-beri-derma-kepada-

sindiket-peralat-kanak-kanak-Hannah

Yayasan Kebajikan Negara. (2013). Help, hope and heroes: How YKN supports the Malaysian spirit

of giving. Putrajaya: Yayasan Kebajikan Negara.

Yayasan Kebajikan Negara. (2016). Annual Report 2015. Putrajaya: Yayasan Kebajikan Negara.

Yayasan Kebajikan Negara (2017). Annual Report 2016. Putrajaya: Yayasan Kebajikan Negara

159

Appendix 1: Timeline of key events and milestones

1667 - The Sultan of Kedah, Sultan Dhiauddin Mukaram Shah proclaimed collection

of zakat under Undang-undang Kedah, Chapter 2, Article 2, Tembera Dato’

Seri Paduka Tuan

1870 - Chinese Protectorate Office established

1871 - First Straits Settlements Census

189378 - First local savings bank established in Perak

1897 - Federated Malay States (FMS) was established

1904 - Consolidation of laws before 1880 – Labour Enactment (Chinese

Mining) and Labour Enactment (Agriculture)

1907 - The Indian Immigration Fund was established managed by the Indian

Immigration Committee under the Colonial Government

1910 - First nation-wide census (First Malaya Official Census)

1911 - The 1911 Labour Enactment

1912/13 - Establishment of a home for decrepit Indian labourers funded by

Immigration Fund

Establishment of the first labour Code in Federated Malay States which

allows Chinese wives and children from their homeland to join head

of family (formerly Chinese indented labour).

1917 - Establishment of Kelantan State Enactment for zakat collection

1918 - The Spanish Plague hit

1926 - Straits Settlements were established comprising Post Wellesley and Tanjung

Penaga (Penang), Singapore and Malacca

1930 - Welfare Unit in Colonial Government Office was abolished due to world

economic crisis

1940 - Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1940 was established in the UK with

research funds

Japanese Occupation and Administration (1942-1945)

1942 - Japan invaded Malaya, Singapore and parts of Borneo and British retreated

- In the UK, Sir William Beveridge Report was tabled to plan the future

of the UK after the war leaning towards a welfare state model.

1945 - Japanese Army surrendered and end of Cold War.

British Administration

British returned to Malaya.

- In the UK, Conservative Party (led by Churchill) lost to the Labour

Party (to Clement Atlee). Labour Party campaigned for welfare state,

holistic national health service towards building a welfare state (based on

the Beveridge Report).

1946 - Social Welfare Department of Malaya was established

1947 - Establishment of the Terengganu State Enactment for zakat

administration

78 http://brandsgenius.blogspot.jp/2012/06/bsn-bank-simpanan-nasional.html and nursing history

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK465035/

160

1948 - Federation of Malaya was established.

British ruled and protectorates unified as Federation of Malaysia

- Director General of Welfare Incorporated Act 1948 was enacted

1949 - Perlis State Enactment for zakat was established

1951 - Perak State Enactment for zakat was established

Rural and Industrial Development Authority (RIDA) was established

- Penang City Council election

1952 - Social Welfare Lottery Board and Act was established

- Medical social work started to be introduced at four main hospitals: Penang,

Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh and Johor Bahru

- Social Welfare Department of Malaya incorporated into Department of

Industries and National Unity

1953 - Establishment of Selangor State Administration Enactment (Zakat and Fitrah)

1956 - Social Welfare Department of Malaya moved to Ministry of Health and

Welfare

- Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) was established

After Independence/ Post-Colonialism

Tunku Abdul Rahman Administration

1957 - Independence of Federation of Malaya from the British

- Reid Commission Report

- Federal Constitution was established

- Rahman Cabinet 1 started to administer the nation

- Employers Provident Fund was established

- Johore State Enactment for zakat

1958 - DSWM was relocated under the Ministry of Labour and Welfare

1959 - 1st National Elections

1960 - DSW relocated again to Ministry of Health and Social Welfare

1963 - Sabah and Sarawak agreed to join the Federation of Malaya. Malaysia

was formed.

Federal Constitution amended to include Sabah and Sarawak.

DSWM put under Ministry of Labour and Welfare

1964 - 2nd National Elections

- DSWM stood on its own as Ministry of Welfare Services/ Public

Welfare (Kebajikan Am)

1965 - Singapore separated from Malaysia

1969 - 3rd National Elections

- National Economic Plan (NEP) with the target to reduce poverty from

55 per cent to 10 percent by 1980 and increase

- MARA was established as one of the agenda for uplifting the well-

being of the Malay Bumiputera under NEP

- Permodalan Usahawan National Berhad (PUNB) was established.

- Tabung Haji was established for Muslims to help safe for hajj.

Tun Abdul Razak Administration

1970 - Tunku Abdul Rahman left office on 22 September 1970, replaced by

Tun Abdul Razak

Introduction of New Economic Policy (Dasar Ekonomi Baru), an

affirmative action policy (20 years policy to end in 1990)

161

Second Malaysia Development Plan

1971 - PAS joined Barisan Nasional

1973 - University Science Malaysia in Penang established its first Social Work

Degree Program.

1974 - Bank Simpanan Nasional established under the Bank Simpanan

Nasional Act, taking over all the duties and responsibilities of the Post

Office Savings Bank. Incorporated under the Ministry of Finance,

Malaysia79.

Launched by the Prime Minister.

SOCSO was established

4th National Elections

Third Malaysia Development Plan

1976 - Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak passed away on 14 January 1976 and

was replaced by Tun Hussein Onn

1977 - Destitute Persons Act 1977 was enacted

- PAS expelled from the ruling party, Barisan Nasional

1978 - 5th National Elections

1979 - Inheritance tax law repealed

Fourth Malaysia Development Plan

1981 - Tun Hussein Onn was replaced by Tun Mahathir Mohamad on 16 July

- Yayasan Kebajikan Negara (National Welfare Foundation), a trust

agency was established under the Trust (Incorporated) Act, to be

administered by a board of directors under the purview of the Minister in

charge of welfare matters. Approved by the Prime Minister on 5 December

1981 but officially launched by the King in 1982

1982 - 6th National Elections

- DSWM was renamed to Ministry of Social Welfare Malaysia

1983 - WHO held an expert panel meeting for Community Based Rehabilitation

(CBR). Malaysia identified Batu Rakit, Terengganu for a pilot project

because of the high instances of disabilities

1984 - CBR enrolled as a national programme

Enactment of Child Care Center Act 1984

Office of Women Affairs (HAWA) established in Prime Minister’s

Department

KANITA established in USM

Federal Constitution amended to include gender provisions in Article 8

Fifth Malaysia Development Plan

1986 - 7th National Elections

- Privatisation Policy

1988 - Tunas Harapan Scheme (child foster care) launched modelled after

the UK’s Barnados Homes and Cottage Boys

1990 - National Social Welfare Policy 1990

- 8th National Elections

79 http://brandsgenius.blogspot.jp/2012/06/bsn-bank-simpanan-nasional.html

162

- DSWM was downgraded as put as a department under the Ministry of

National Unity and Community Development

TeleDERA, a 24 hours hotline for child abuse launched in December

Sixth Malaysia Development Plan

1991 - Welfare Lottery Board and Act was terminated / repealed

- Vision 2020 announced80

- Second Outline Perspective Plan, 1991-2000, (OPP2)

1993 - Care Center Act 1993 passed

1994 - Domestic Violence Act 1994 passed

1995 - 9th National Elections

- The first registration and identification card for PWDs were established

Seventh Malaysia Development Plan

1997 - Asian Financial Crisis (ASF)

1998 - Asian Financial Crisis (ASF)

- National Economic Action Council (NEAC) – January

- Launch of National Economic Recovery Plan (NERP)

- The need for an umbrella national social policy was discussed in the

JPPPP meeting. EPU, JPM as the secretariat instructed Ministry of

National Unity and Community Development to come up with the policy.

(Eventually the National Social Policy was passed by the cabinet in 2003)

1999 - 10th National Elections

2000 - Child Act 2000 enacted

Eighth Malaysia Development Plan

2001 - National Social Welfare Policy – JKM still under Ministry of National

Unity– Mr. Sharudin Shar Kassim was seconded to MWFCD, not DSWM

- Ministry of Women Affairs was establish for the first time

2002 - ISM established as a training and research institute under the Ministry

of Women, Family and Community Development

2003 - National Social Policy was passed by the Mahathir Cabinet on 19 February

Change of Prime Minister from Mahathir Mohamad to Abdullah Ahmad

Badawi in October 2003

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Administration (Post Mahathir)

2004 - 11th National Elections

- Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development was

establish and DSW made one of the department under it. It is an

expansion of the previous Ministry of Women Affairs.

- Instruction No.1 established

2005 - Person with Disabilities Act 2005 led to the establishment of Persons

with Disabilities Department but it remained under the Department of

163

Social Welfare Malaysia (DSWM)

Ninth Malaysia Development Plan

2006 - Social Welfare Policy 2006 launched (relaunch of 2003 National Social

welfare policy

2007 - ICU, JPM was identified as the lead coordinating agency for national

poverty eradication agenda

E-kasih system established as a centralised National Poverty Data Bank for

better profiling and targeting of poor households monitored at the

Implementation Coordination Unit of the Prime Ministers’ Department

(Cabinet approval 31 October 2007)

Talian Nur (Hotline for abuse and children) managed by the DSWM

was launched by the Prime Minister

2008 - 12th National Elections

(New Minister in charge of social welfare: Madam Ng Yen Yen)

- Disabled Persons Act 2008

- Penang State government started the Agenda Ekonomi Sejahtera (AES)

Program and Selangor State launched the Peduli Rakyat Initiative

MWFCD launched of Program CARI in October (850 contract officers hired

to expedite the identification and processing of welfare aid application81

Outcome Base Budgeting (OBB) was first introduced by MOF – for federal

government

Tenth Malaysia Development Plan

2011 - Public servants under EPF (not under public pension) may receive

health benefits after pension

- First National Family Well Being Index Report 2011 was published by

LPPKN

14 December: Headquarters of DSWM moved to Putrajaya

2012 - Private Retirement Scheme introduced monitored by Bank Negara

- Program CARI introduced to identify more people in need of welfare support

especially amongst the Chinese community. This idea was mooted by MCA,

a component party of the ruling coalition party.

- Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia / 1Malaysia Citizen Support (BR1M) was

introduced – election promise to continue until year 2018. First payout made

in 2012 to 1.4 million persons/ RM500 each.

2013 - 13th National Elections

- BR1M 2.0

- Private retirement Scheme was introduced by Bank Negara Malaysia

National Social Council revived under ICU, JPM as national secretariat

- Minimum Wage Act for introduced

- National subsidy scheme involving gas, petrol and diesel was reviewed

- Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development launched

for special grant programme for Childcare centres for children with

disabilities (pilot project for six childcare centres)

2014 - First National Human Development Index Report was prepared in

Malaysia.

- Goods and Services Tax (GST) introduced at 6 per cent

81 https://www.thestar.com.my/data/archives/2013/06/21/04/39/help-for-the-needy/

164

- BR1M 3.0

2015 - Adenan Satem, Chief Minister of Sarawak

requested for devolution of certain federal functions including

the social welfare sector and negotiations started headed by Minister in

the Prime Minister’s Department, Nancy Shukri

- BR1M 4.0

Eleventh Malaysia Development Plan

2016 - 11th Malaysia Plan launched

- 2050 National Transformation announced in October 2016 during the

Budget 2017 speech

- Malaysian National Council for Social Protection was established

(Chair: Prime Minister, EPU (get reference or refer to communication

with EPU, Distribution Section, as secretariat)

- Director General of Social Welfare Inc. revived. at DSWM

- BR1M 5.0

2017 - 2nd National Family Well Being Index 2016 was published with an

additional of a new indicator (7th)

- National Social Council returned to the Ministry of Women, Family

and Community Development as Secretariat

- BR1M 6.0

2018 - Socio-Economic Research Institute (SERI) was established through the

announcement in PM’s budget Speech

- BR1M 7.0

- January - UNICEF published a Report on Urban Child Poverty in

Malaysia

14th National Elections on the 9th May 2018

(the first government change after 60 years)

Mahathir Administration under Pakatan Harapan

- GST law was repealed (June 2018) and service tax was reintroduced at

5 per cent

2019 - MySalam a health insurance scheme for the bottom 40 per cent (B40) was

launched by the Prime Minister with the collaboration of Great Eastern

Group’s initial investment of RM2million on 24th January 2019

- Ministry of Education launched a ‘No Drop-out Policy in Public Schools’ and

Free Breakfast Program for primary schools to be launched in 100 schools in

2020

- Wawasan Kemakmuran Negara launched by Ministry of Economic Affairs to

set a target and strategies for developed nation by 2030

2020 - Minister of Education, Dr. Maszlee Malik resigned upon advice of the Prime

Minister on 2nd January.

- Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad resigns

Muhyiddin Yassin’s Administration under Perikatan Nasional

165

Appendix 2: Interview questions for fieldwork

(1) What is the present condition of the social welfare services in Malaysia?

(2) Please describe the role of the government in welfare service delivery. (Current

behaviour of the federal government (ruling government) and the state government that

you are in, from the angle of provision social welfare services)?

(3) What are the challenges involved in the provision of social welfare services?

Sample question

General Questions

Can you describe your role in social welfare services?

a. Are you a member of any committees related to welfare services at the local, state or federal

government?

b. Are you bound by any philosophy or policy on social welfare services through your political party

or state government?

c. What and who are your reference points in these issues?

d. Who are your most frequent partners in solving any issues pertaining to social welfare clients in

your area?

Specific Questions:

(1) What are your thoughts about who has the responsibility in terms of social welfare provision:

government, families, NGOs and individuals? Would you describe the current behaviour of the

federal government (ruling government) and the state government that you are in?

(2) How do you describe the involvement of the government in the provision social welfare

services especially, personal care and institutional services in Malaysia? (as compared to cash

assistance)

(3) Can you describe the role of the different actors in social welfare services in Malaysia?

(4) As a political leader, how do you see the role of the federal government, state government and

the local government in welfare service delivery in Malaysia? Please give some examples.

(5) What do you see as the biggest challenge in social welfare services especially care services in

Malaysia?

(6) How do you describe the relationship between the government and the welfare related NGOs

in Malaysia? (Including your own relationship)

(7) How do you think the relationship between the government and the welfare NGOs have

developed over the years?

(8) Is there a specific role that the government expect these NGOs to play within this sector? What

are your thoughts on this matter?

166

(9) Are there challenges that has been faced when dealing when welfare related NGOs? Can you

please give some examples?

(10) How would you describe the relationship between the government and the welfare NGOs?

a. Complementary to government?

b. Dependent on government resources?

c. Government rely on NGO services?

d. Confrontation?

e. Partners?

f. Cooperation?

g. Co-option?

(11) What are the formal platforms used to include welfare related NGOs in policy decision making

and evaluation processes relating to social welfare services? Can you please exemplify?

(12) Based on the concurrent list, the social welfare is a shared responsibility between the state (SG)

and the federal government (FG). How do you see the role of SG and the FG in the provision

of social welfare services?

(13) Are there any services that is being provided by the state government on top of the services that

the federal government has been providing, for example orphanages, old folk’s homes,

rehabilitation centres, old age support centres, child care services or respite care?

(14) Are there examples of state government that are doing more than others, especially in the

provision of institution and care services?

(15) Intervention for social welfare services using zakat and waqf for social welfare services is not

something new in Malaysia. What are your thoughts on this?

(16) Do you have any other comments that you would like to add or any documents / reports that

you could share with me?

_________________ : ______________________

THE END

Copyright of Farrah Shameen binti Mohamad Ashray@ 2017

167

Appendix 3: Consent for participation in interview fieldwork

I agree to participate in a research project conducted by Miss Farrah Shameen binti Mohamad Ashray,

a PhD. Candidate of Meiji University. I understand that the project is designed to gather information

about academic work for her doctoral dissertation and research endeavours. I will be one of

approximately 30 people being interviewed for this research.

My participation in this project is voluntary. I understand that I will not be paid for my participation. I

may withdraw and discontinue participation at any time without penalty. If I decline to participate or

withdraw from the study, I will inform the researcher in advance in a timely manner. If, however, I feel

uncomfortable in any way during the interview session, I have the right to decline to answer any

question or to end the interview.

The interview will last approximately 1 hour to 1 and half hours. Notes will be written during the

interview. An audio tape of the interview and subsequent dialogue will be made. If I do not want to be

taped, I will not be able to participate in this study.

I understand that the researcher will not identify me by name in any reports using information obtained

from this interview and that my confidentiality as a participant in this study will remain secure, unless

I permit it. Subsequent uses of records and data will be subject to standard data use policies which

protect the anonymity of individuals and institutions. The researcher will not share your individual

responses with anyone other than the research supervisor.

I have read and understood the explanation provided to me. I have had all my questions answered to

my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. For record, I have been given a copy

of this consent form.

_________________________ Date: _________________________

My Signature

__________________________

My Printed Name

Signature of the Researcher: _________________ Email: f.shameen@gmail.com

For further information, please contact:

Prof. Takafumi KANEMURA Email: kanemura@meiji.ac.jp

(Updated in September 2017)

168

Appendix 4: List of welfare portfolio ministers and their positions in political parties

Name of Minister

in Charge of

Welfare Portfolio

Name of

Ministry

Political Party Affiliation

and Post

Year

appointed Prime Minister

1. Ong Yoke Ling Ministry of Labour and

Welfare

Vice President of Malayan

Chinese Association (MCA) 1957

Tunku Abdul

Rahman

2. Ong Yoke Ling Ministry of Health and Social

Welfare

Vice President of Malayan

Chinese Association (MCA) 1962

3. Bahaman Samsudin Ministry of labour and

Welfare

Member of Parliament,

UMNO 1962

4. Abdul Hamid Khan Minister of Welfare Services Member of Parliament,

UMNO

1964/

1965

5. Dr. Ng Kam Poh Minister of Public Welfare

Member of Parliament,

MCA

1969 (before

elections)

6. Fatimah Hashim Ministry of Public Welfare Head of Women Wing,

UMNO 1969

Abdul Razak

Hussein 7. Aishah Ghani

Ministry of General Welfare/

Kementerian Kebajikan

Umum

Head of Women Wing,

UMNO 1973

8. Aishah Ghani Ministry of Public Welfare Head of Women Wing,

UMNO 1976-1984

9. Abu Hasan Omar Minister of Social Welfare UMNO Parliamentarian 1984-1986

Mahathir

Mohamad

10. Shahir Abdul Samad Minister of Social Welfare UMNO Parliamentarian 1986-1987

11. Mustaffa

Mohammad

Minister of Social Welfare UMNO Parliamentarian 1987-1990

12. Napsiah Omar Minister of National Unity

and Social Development

Head of Women Wing,

UMNO 1990

13. Zaleha Ismail Minister of National Unity

and Social Development

Head of Women Wing,

UMNO 1995-1999

14. Dr. Siti Zaharah

Sulaiman

Minister of National Unity

and Social Development

Head of Women Wing,

UMNO 1999

15. Shahrizat Abdul

Jalil

Minister of Women and

Family Development

Head of Women Wing,

UMNO 2001

16. Shahrizat Abdul

Jalil

Minister of Women, Family

and Community Development

Head of Women Wing,

UMNO 2003

Abdullah

Ahmad Badawi 17.

Dr.Siti Zaharah

Sulaiman

Minister of National Unity

and Social Development

Deputy of Women Wing,

UMNO 2003

18. Ng Yen Yen Minister of Women, Family

and Community Development

Head of Women Wing,

MCA/ Senator 2008

19. Shahrizat Abdul

Jalil

Minister of Women, Family

and Community Development

Head of Women Wing,

UMNO 2009

Najib Razak 20. Najib Razak Minister of Women, Family

and Community Development

Prime Minister covering for

the vacant post after the

resignation of Minister

2012

21. Rohani Abdul

Karim

Minister of Women, Family

and Community Development

Parti Bersatu (Sarawak)/

Parliamentarian

2013

22. Wan Azizah Wan

Ismail

Minister of Women, Family

and Community Development

Deputy Prime Minister and

President of Parti Keadilan

Rakyat

2018 Mahathir

Mohamad

23. Rina Mohd Harun Minister of Women and

Family

Head of the women wing of

PPBM (component party of

Perikatan Nasional)

2020 Muhyiddin

Yassin