Looking at poverty beyond statistics

Oct 20, 2023

We are in the Budget season again, where Malaysians carefully eye what will be in store for them in the coming year. Civil servants will be looking out for bonuses, pensioners will be looking out for special payouts, while the rest of us will be looking at what to add or subtract from our income tax brackets for the coming year, how much are the exemptions given for books, education and so on.

Of less importance to us is the allocations to the various ministries, though it does affect us. Lower allocations for Health means longer lines in hospitals, and maybe getting generic instead of brand drugs at the pharmacy, especially towards the end of the year.

Lower allocations for Welfare mean that charitable organisations, such as Church outreach ministries, may have to pick up the slack in our ration distribution and food basket programmes.

The rising cost of goods, inflation and weakening ringgit add to the difficulty in sustaining aid programmes, both by the government and welfare assistance groups.

Perhaps it is time for the focus to be on hastening the eradication of poverty rather than the alleviation of it.

B40, as a classification, will always exist. The bar of poverty needs however, to be rationalised. In Malaysia, it is technically defined by those with a lower household income of roughly RM4,900 monthly. B1, the lowest of the B40 group, or “hardcore” poor, stands at about RM1,900. Most entry level jobs in Malaysia now technically pays a B1 salary.

This is the category of poor that the present administration targets to eradicate by the year end, a target that seems unlikely.

A combination of issues makes eliminating poverty a tricky problem.

First, the focus on groups instead of individuals.

Successive administrations tend to look at the poor as demographics, rather than individuals, simply due to the sheer numbers.

We often hear ‘poor’ bundled with an ethnic group (Indian or Orang Asal for instance), educational background (school dropouts or technical trained students), geographical location, family conditions (such as orphans or single mothers) or even occupations, and as such, tend to tailor programmes addressing the latter, rather than the actual problem of poverty. For example, instead of addressing the root cause, we attempt to solve an issue of ‘assimilation’, or criminal association. Or with an occupation — to solve farmers’ poverty, throw more subsidies their way. But there is also a bigger proportion of successful Indians, farmers, early school leavers and so on.

The numbers also only tell half the story ? B40, even B1 (the bottom 10 per cent), is a broad stroke term that tells you little more than income ? not the health status, accommodation, employment status of the affected folk, nor does it fully consider the real cost of living. It is worth noting that Singapore’s B40 would qualify as an upper tier M40!

The second is the tendency of trying to classify these problems into one of two solutions ? education or entrepreneurship. Often these are in the form of short-term seminars without long term follow up or impactful results. The ones that do include mentorship and guidance for the medium to long term are few and far between.

This creates a disconnect between what the helpers, often well meaning, are trying to achieve and its eventual results, if any. In the best-case scenarios, the initiatives are dovetailed by other efforts that complement it and concludes the effort started and attains its goal of lifting families out of poverty, and in the worst-case scenarios, leave them in a worse position than when they began, as the participants have expanded their own time, effort and sometimes money to participate in these programmes. Often though, they are left somewhere in between these two.

A lot can be solved by simply speaking to the ones needing the help. What do they really need, and what tools do they already have at their disposal? What can we do to help, really? An honest discussion, with honesty, and not the assisted simply telling the assisting what they think they would like to hear.

Matching a want or need in society with something that can be realistically done, reasonably well, by parties wishing to be assisted, is the most sustainable way to end a poverty circle.

In many ways, charitable organisations and religious ones, like churches, are leading the way.

Cognizant of the importance of education in uplifting society, our Church, for example, via the many religious teaching orders, opened hundreds of schools across Malaysia. In these schools, pioneering initiatives like St Xavier’s bakery in Penang trail blazed the way for upskilling to teach students, usually from humble backgrounds, a means to provide for themselves and their families.

Some churches even organise talks for these communities on budgeting and family planning. Some religious communities, like the recently ended long term project in Port Klang by the Franciscan Missionaries of Divine Motherhood, saw near end-to-end care for underprivileged families including healthcare, education, scholarships and so on.

On a smaller scale, these same churches, and communities, via the many organisations like Parish Integral Human Development inistry or Society of St Vincent de Paul, can consider shifting focus on these programmes, even coordinating with other similar minded organisations, to offer such. This can run parallel to programmes like street feeding and food baskets.

The flexibility of self-funding and the smaller size of projects run, gives these organisations the freedom to experiment and tackle issues on a more personal, customised basis, and the higher odds of success that comes with it.

(Emmanuel Joseph oversees IT as his 9-5 job and from 5-9, he serves a few NGOs, think tanks and volunteer groups. He serves as an advisor for Projek Dialog and is a Fellow with the Institute of Research and Development of Policy.)