The government must urgently clarify and revise its definition of the Top 20% (T20) income group. Relying on a rigid, blanket threshold fails to capture the economic reality on the ground, creating an unfair system where many hard-working families are wrongfully disqualified from essential subsidies and aid.

There is simply no “one-size-fits-all” financial reality in Malaysia. Any fair classification must account for regional cost-of-living disparities. For example, the cost of renting or buying properties, commuting, and purchasing daily goods in the Klang Valley is exponentially higher than in Perlis, Kelantan, or rural Sabah and Sarawak. A household earning a specific amount in Kuala Lumpur might barely make ends meet, while the same income in a smaller town offers a comfortable lifestyle.

Furthermore, evaluating a household based solely on raw average or median income is deeply flawed. The government must shift its focus toward disposable income, purchasing power and financial commitments. A true assessment must subtract fixed, unavoidable expenditure such as housing and car loan repayments, PTPTN student loans, personal loans, number of children and their respective school and higher education expenses and necessary tuition fees, if any child is a person with disability (OKU), or if a spouse has been made invalid or bedridden due to accident injuries or illness, elderly parental care and medical or nursing home bills and others.

We must also reconsider how we classify our retirees. A senior citizen with comfortable, hard-earned EPF savings and investments might be financially better-off than households whose combined income render them as T20; with the latter still qualifying for government aid schemes as he/she officially does not have an income.

Likewise, a retirely with absolutely zero active monthly income should not automatically be excluded from aid. Without active earnings, high medical costs or inflation can rapidly deplete their funds, yet a rigid system might deny them the B40-tier support they actually require in their twilight years.

To make targeted subsidies truly equitable, the government should consider additional metrics:

The Dependency Ratio: A household with multiple dependents—such as elderly parents requiring medical attention or children in tertiary education—faces a vastly different financial burden than a dual-income household with no children.

Health and Disability Factors: Families dealing with chronic illnesses or caring for persons with disabilities (OKU) carry heavy, non-negotiable monthly expenses that strip away their disposable income.

We call upon the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Finance to utilise comprehensive data from EPF savings, even PADU to implement a dynamic, multi-dimensional formula. Do not let rigid classifications punish the sandwich generation and the urban middle class.

Neow Choo Seong
MCA Youth Information Chief

15 May 2026

-MCA Comm-