‘’Give Us The Option” SOCSO Contributors Push Back Against Automatic Contribution Hike
Other people struggling to claim SOCSO benefits during emergencies made some question the benefits of contributing more to the fund.
- SOCSO's mandatory Lindung 24/7 scheme raises contributions in phases, with many employees feeling the change was imposed without their consent.
- Contributors with existing personal insurance want the option to opt out rather than face additional salary deductions for SOCSO.
- Difficult claims processes, like rejected stroke-related claims, raise doubts about whether increased contributions offer genuine value.
Subscribe to our FREE Newsletter, or Telegram and WhatsApp channels for the latest stories and updates.
Starting June 2026, SOCSO (PERKESO) introduced a mandatory 24-hour protection scheme for employees, which covers accidents that happen outside of working hours or outside the workplace, such as at home or during personal trips. The new scheme is known as the Lindung 24/7 scheme (Skim Kemalangan Bukan Bencana Kerja).
In other words, employees and companies are deducting a wee bit more from salaries to contribute to SOCSO.
The additional contribution will be implemented in phases at the following rates:
- 2026-2027: 0.75%
- 2028-2030: 1%
- 2031 onwards: 1.25%
While having extra protection sounds good on paper, some have voiced dissatisfaction and worries about the immediate change.
Threads user @tujuh9_ argued that SOCSO should have asked account holders for permission to raise contributions or at least make it an option. This is because some already have personal insurance and do not want to deduct from their salaries further for SOCSO.
Some agreed that those with personal insurance should have the option to choose whether to contribute more to SOCSO.
Another user highlighted the difficulty of claiming SOCSO benefits during emergencies, adding to growing doubts about whether contributing more to the fund is truly worthwhile.
This happened to Threads user @beautyincase_, who tried to help her father claim from SOCSO to pay for his medical care after he had a stroke. She asked why SOCSO declined her father’s claim.
In response, SOCSO said the medical documents may not have met the SOCSO medical board’s assessment guidelines. She was advised to provide a more detailed and up-to-date medical report from the government hospital specialist. The report must demonstrate the patient’s health status, degree of disability, and permanent inability to work.
The number of online complaints suggests that SOCSO still has work to do to address systemic gaps. They have to ensure all contributors are adequately protected without being burdened by unnecessary hurdles.
Share your thoughts with us via TRP’s Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Threads.
