THE government’s decision to make the Non-Employment Injury Scheme (Lindung 24 Jam) voluntary has naturally generated diverse public reactions. In a democratic society, citizens, academics, civil society organisations and political leaders have every right to express their views and critique public policies.
However, such discussions should be grounded in facts, the applicable legal framework and the actual objectives of the policy to ensure a balanced and informed assessment.
In recent weeks, questions have been raised regarding the status of contributions made in June 2026, the duration of coverage, the rights of employees who have already contributed and the implications of the government’s decision to make the scheme voluntary.
These are legitimate questions in the evolution of any public policy. At the same time, official explanations issued by the Government, the Social Security Organisation (PERKESO) and the published Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) should also form part of the public discourse to avoid misunderstandings about how the scheme operates.
For example, the question of whether contributions made in June provide protection only for July or until the end of the year should not be viewed through the lens of commercial insurance or annual subscription models.
The Lindung 24 Jam forms part of Malaysia’s social security system administered by PERKESO under the relevant legal framework.
Its financing mechanism and benefit structure differ fundamentally from private insurance because they are based on the principles of social insurance, where risks are collectively shared among contributors.
From an economic perspective, this principle is particularly significant because accidents are inherently unpredictable. By pooling risks through a common social security fund, the financial burden borne by individuals when unforeseen incidents occur can be substantially reduced.
This approach not only provides protection for workers but also helps prevent financial shocks that may adversely affect household welfare and increase the risk of poverty due to loss of income or high medical expenses.
Today’s changing employment patterns, increased mobility and modern lifestyles mean that accident risks are no longer confined to the workplace or working hours.
Accidents occurring while commuting, travelling with family, participating in sports or carrying out daily activities may have serious financial consequences for workers and their families.
It is in recognition of these realities that protection beyond working hours was introduced as part of the government’s effort to strengthen Malaysia’s social protection system.
Similarly, concerns regarding employees who had already contributed before the government announced the voluntary approach should be viewed within the implementation framework.
The government has announced that the Human Resources Ministry, together with PERKESO, will issue detailed implementation guidelines to clarify the implications of the policy decision, including matters relating to employees’ rights, their options to continued coverage and employers’ responsibilities under the new arrangement.
Questions concerning the refund of contributions also need to be understood within the context of how social security systems function.
Contributions made to PERKESO are not individual savings or deposits that remain under the ownership of each contributor.
Instead, they are pooled into a common fund to finance benefits for eligible contributors who experience covered contingencies, in accordance with the law.
Therefore, the assumption that every policy change automatically creates an entitlement to contribution refunds should be assessed against the legal and institutional principles governing social insurance systems.
More importantly, the Lindung 24 Jam scheme has already begun delivering tangible benefits during its implementation.
PERKESO has processed benefits for eligible employees who suffered accidents outside working hours, demonstrating that the scheme has been operational and has provided meaningful protection to workers beyond the traditional scope of employment-related risks.
This protection also helps prevent workers and their families from bearing medical expenses and related costs entirely from their own resources.
In doing so, it contributes directly to reducing the risk of households falling into poverty as a result of unexpected accidents and financial hardship.
The government’s decision to make the Lindung 24 Jam scheme voluntary provides workers with the flexibility to make informed choices based on their own needs and circumstances while preserving access to social protection for those who choose to remain covered.
It is therefore essential that workers fully understand the scope of benefits and protection available so that any decision is made on the basis of accurate and comprehensive information.
At the same time, discussions on public policy should remain constructive, evidence-based and mindful of the broader objectives of social protection.
Constructive criticism is essential for improving public policies, but it should be founded on accurate information to avoid creating unnecessary confusion among workers and employers.
Ultimately, all stakeholders share the same objective: ensuring that workers’ welfare and protection remain safeguarded.
In this context, the choices made by workers will only be truly meaningful when supported by a clear understanding of their rights, the benefits available and their responsibilities under the scheme.
Through effective communication and informed public understanding, individuals will be better equipped to make decisions that protect themselves and their families while contributing to a stronger and more sustainable social security system for the nation.
Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Norma Mansor is Universiti Malaya’s Social Wellbeing Research Centre (SWRC) director.
