PERKESO’s Lindung 24 Jam Backlash Wasn’t About Insurance, It Was About Choice

While many Malaysians acknowledge the value of 24-hour social security coverage, most say the backlash stemmed from mandatory salary deductions rather than the scheme itself.

Subscribe to our FREE Newsletter, or Telegram and WhatsApp channels for the latest stories and updates.

Although many Malaysians recognise the benefits of PERKESO’s Lindung 24 Jam scheme, making participation compulsory without first securing public support triggered the backlash that ultimately forced the government to reverse its decision.

That was the recurring sentiment gathered by TRP after speaking to Malaysians from different backgrounds following Putrajaya’s decision to scrap mandatory participation in the scheme.

Founder and chief executive officer of award-winning public relations firm iOli Communications, Yan Lim, said policymakers often assume the public will automatically support any policy that is objectively beneficial.

“Public acceptance doesn’t work that way, unfortunately,” she told TRP via WhatsApp.

According to Lim, the issue was never about the benefits offered by the scheme, but rather how it was introduced to the public.

“My initial thought when the scheme was introduced was that the narrative was wrong. It focused too much on what the scheme offers instead of starting from the perspective of ordinary Malaysians.

“This may provide meaningful protection and many experts have rightly pointed out its value.

“But what many Malaysians reacted to wasn’t the protection. It was the feeling that another deduction had appeared on their payslip with very little public understanding of why, how it worked, or why they should support it,” she said.

Lim stressed that effective policymaking goes beyond designing good initiatives.

“Public policy is not only about designing good policies. It’s about earning public buy-in. That requires engagement before implementation, not just explanation afterwards.”

She said the government’s decision to make participation voluntary demonstrates how strongly public sentiment can influence policy outcomes.

“Sometimes, policies don’t fail because they are inherently bad.

“They fail because the people they were meant to protect were never first convinced they needed protecting.”

Salary deductions remain a sensitive issue

Many Malaysian resorted to cost-cutting in facing current economic challenges.

Petaling Jaya-based executive Rais Zulfahmi, who is in his mid-20s, said he understands the intention behind the scheme, which provides protection beyond workplace-related accidents.

“But in today’s economy, people are desperate to maximise their take-home pay without additional deductions from their salaries,” he said.

While he is open to joining the scheme in the future, Rais believes PERKESO needs to communicate its value proposition more effectively.

“Based on what I’ve heard, PERKESO can be difficult to deal with and the claims process isn’t always straightforward.

“That’s one of the reasons people are reluctant to join. Some would rather pay for private insurance, which often offers better coverage.

“So PERKESO needs to convince me before I sign up.”

Freedom to choose matters

Another Klang Valley based executive Nik Syaza Nik Ruzman believes the government’s decision to withdraw mandatory participation was the right move because it respects individual choice.

“I think making the PERKESO Lindung 24 Jam scheme voluntary is a reasonable decision.

“It gives individuals the flexibility to decide whether they want this additional protection based on their own financial priorities and needs.

“Some people may already have personal accident or medical insurance, while others may prefer to allocate their money towards other commitments or other forms of financial protection.”

She said those who value the additional coverage can still choose to participate, while others should not be compelled to contribute.

“Ultimately, I believe providing people with the freedom to make that choice is a fair approach, as long as they are well informed about the benefits and implications of opting in or out,” the 34-year-old told TRP.

Others welcome the added protection

However, not everyone opposed the scheme. Experienced photographer Masry Che Ani said the additional protection is particularly valuable for people like him who spend much of their time travelling for work.

The PERKESO Lindung 24 Jam scheme was good, but the engagement needs work.

“I frequently ride long distances between the Klang Valley and Penang whenever I have the opportunity because my wife and children are based there.

“Yes, I have my own medical card, but that only covers hospital treatment.

“Having this scheme gives me greater peace of mind whenever I’m travelling to see my family or earning a living.”

Guest relations officer Muhammad Nazrul Hakimi Muhamad Sufarizal said he has already decided to subscribe voluntarily.

“Accidents can happen anytime, anywhere.

“It feels reassuring knowing you’re protected 24 hours a day, seven days a week. For me, it’s a no-brainer.”

The PERKESO i-Lindung 24 Jam scheme was good, but the engagement may needed work.

Government reverses mandatory participation

The government on Wednesday immediately withdrew the mandatory participation requirement after Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim acknowledged widespread public opposition.

The PERKESO Lindung 24 Jam scheme, introduced in June, was expected to benefit around nine million contributors under the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (Act 4).

Under the original implementation, contributions were calculated based on a maximum insurable monthly wage of RM6,000.

Employees would contribute 0.75% of their monthly salary, while employers were responsible for deducting the contribution from wages and remitting it to PERKESO each month.

Share your thoughts with us via TRP’s Facebook, X, Instagram, or Threads.