‘Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life.’
— Nelson Mandela, former President of South Africa
The method employed to measure poverty rates in Sarawak urgently requires reassessment. Tourism, Creative Industry, and Performing Arts Minister Datuk Seri Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah have emphasised that the existing system, which leans heavily on eKasih data, falls short of capturing the true economic realities in the state.
The classification of individuals without fixed incomes as poor, even when they earn substantial amounts through agriculture or business, is a glaring flaw that distorts poverty statistics.
This issue gains even greater significance following the recent remarks by Economy Minister Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli. He pointed out that Sabah, Sarawak, Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah, and Perlis remain the six poorest states despite receiving significantly higher federal allocations since 2021.
While his call for state governments to take more proactive measures in addressing poverty is valid, it also raises an important question: Are these poverty assessments truly reflective of Sarawak’s economic reality?
Currently, Malaysia’s poverty status is determined using data from eKasih — a national poverty database that compiles information on individuals and households classified as poor and PADU (Pangkalan Data Utama) — a central data hub that integrates socio-economic information from various government agencies.
eKasih, established in 2007, was specifically designed to track and manage poverty-related data. In contrast, PADU, launched early last year, aims to offer a broader and more comprehensive dataset, encompassing various facets of the lives of citizens to support policy-making and enhance service delivery.
Abdul Karim stated that one of the most pressing concerns with rigidly relying on income classification based on eKasih and PADU data is whether these metrics truly capture the realities on the ground.
I cannot agree more. For instance, in Sarawak, as pointed out by Abdul Karim, many individuals sustain their livelihoods through seasonal or informal economic activities, such as farming, fishing, and small businesses. Their incomes fluctuate, making it difficult for fixed-income classifications to reflect their financial well-being accurately.
These individuals may not have fixed monthly incomes, but they can earn substantial amounts annually. Yet, under the current system, a fisherman or farmer making RM10,000.00 in a single month could still be classified as poor simply because their earnings are irregular.”
This misclassification could lead to two critical problems: first, it creates an inaccurate picture of poverty levels in the state; second, it risks the misallocation of government assistance — potentially diverting aid from those in genuine need to those who, by practical standards, are financially stable.
Sarawak’s economic landscape is vastly different from that of Peninsular Malaysia. The cost of living, resource availability, and employment structures vary significantly between urban and rural areas.
Many rural communities practice subsistence farming, meaning they may not earn a consistent salary but have access to land, food, and other forms of wealth that urban dwellers do not.
Applying a standardised national poverty assessment model to Sarawak disregards these nuances. It is essential to develop a more localised, holistic approach to measuring poverty — one that accounts for land ownership, agricultural output, and access to natural resources, rather than merely relying on conventional income brackets.
Labelling Sarawak as one of the poorest states raises concerns about whether poverty statistics are used as a political tool.
While the state government appreciates the support, such a classification can distort the true economic landscape of Sarawak.
As a resource-rich state with financial reserves, Sarawak is not necessarily poor in potential and assets. However, if federal allocations remain rooted in flawed data, the state’s reliance on the central government will persist rather than decline.
It is imperative to ask: Is the current measurement system designed to help the state genuinely, or does it serve as a justification for continued federal control over Sarawak’s economic direction?
The federal minister’s remarks highlight an important point — poverty alleviation should not be overly dependent on federal funds.
Sarawak has the potential to take charge of its economic destiny by focusing on strategic investments, infrastructure development, and empowering local industries.
Rather than waiting for financial aid, the state government should continue leveraging its autonomy to design policies tailored to its unique economic structure.
Efforts to attract investments, boost entrepreneurship, and develop sustainable industries could reduce the need for continuous federal assistance.
Additionally, a more accurate system for measuring poverty incorporating quantitative and qualitative economic indicators will ensure that aid reaches those who truly need it.
The current poverty measurement model, based largely on outdated income classifications, is inadequate in assessing Sarawak’s real economic conditions.
Policymakers must push for a reassessment of how poverty is measured to ensure that statistical inaccuracies do not hinder the state’s development.
I fully support Abdul Karim’s suggestion that we should not rely solely on eKasih data to measure poverty rates in Sarawak and that the methodology used should be reassessed.
Sarawak’s economic progress should not be dictated by flawed data. It is time for a more comprehensive, state-driven approach to poverty measurement and economic development—one that truly reflects the realities on the ground.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Sarawak Tribune.
