1.

0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study

1Malaysia People’s Aid or Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) is a monetary

incentive scheme is introduced in 2011 by Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato' Sri Haji
Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, targeting low-income household earner in
Malaysia, including single individuals. According to Economic Report 2016/2017, up to
September 2016, total of disbursement is recorded with RM5.4 billion to 4.2 million
households and 3.1 million single individuals.

Single adults above

Households, below Households, RM3,001-
Year 21 years old, below
RM3,000 RM4,000
RM2,000
2012 RM500 - -

2013 RM500 - RM250

2014 RM650 RM450 RM300

2015 RM950 RM750 RM350

2016 RM1,000 RM800 RM400

2017 RM1,200 RM900 RM450

Table 1: Amount of BR1M’s Disbursement

Ideally, BR1M as a channel of monetary incentive from government should be able to

help in reducing the burden of people in need due to the increasing cost of living.
Unfortunately, in reality, from the perspective of the public, the incentive does not really help
them to release their burden in daily life. Emmanuel Surendra (2017) stated,

“Yet the programme is not without its hiccups. Initially, some complain that the
incentive was not enough. So the government raised the amount. Then, there were cases of
fraud where recipients received multiple hand-outs”

Consequently, they have to look for other method to earn extra income to support
their cost of living. For example, nowadays, we can see an increase number of people doing
online business. It is assumed there is lack of satisfaction of household on the incentive.

1
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the satisfaction of Malaysian household
towards government monetary incentive, 1Malaysia People’s Aid (BR1M).

1.2 Research Objective

General objective of this study was to investigate the satisfaction of Malaysian

household towards government monetary incentive, BR1M. Specific objectives of the study
listed as follows were developed to support the general objective.

i. To study public’s knowledge on BR1M.

ii. To evaluate public’s satisfaction of BR1M’s application process.
iii. To evaluate public’s satisfaction of BR1M incentive amount.
iv. To evaluate public’s satisfaction of BR1M’s distribution process.
v. To evaluate public’s perception of BR1M’s qualification criteria.

1.3 Research Question

These questions were made in order to meet the objective of the study.

i. What is the level of public’s knowledge on BR1M?

ii. How satisfied public is on BR1M’s application process?
iii. How satisfied public is on BR1M’s incentive amount?
iv. How satisfied public is on BR1M’s distribution process?
v. How satisfied public is on BR1M’s qualification criteria?

1.4 Scope of Study

This study is conducted with a distribution of survey questionnaire that started from
24th to 31st October 2017. As the general purpose of the study is to investigate the satisfaction
of Malaysian household towards BR1M, the questionnaire was distributed to 88 respondents
located around peninsular Malaysia to represent the target population. Descriptive analysis
and inferential analysis is implemented to summarize and analyse the data of the respondents.

1.4 Significance of Study

The findings of this study will rebound to the benefit of society considering how
important the existence of BR1M in Malaysia. The greater the needs of help from the
government to ease current financial distress, justify the needs for evaluation and
improvement in the whole management of the BR1M. Besides that, this study should be able

2
to improve the literacy of Malaysian household on BR1M and to determine the factor that
lead to their satisfaction towards the monetary incentive.

2.0 FINDINGS

This chapter will discuss the findings of the study. Results from descriptive analysis
for demographic of the respondents is presented and explained in the first section. This is
followed by Two Sample Hypothesis Testing and Analysis of variance (ANOVA) to support
the main findings of the study. Lastly, we analyse the findings by using Multiple Regression
Analysis to conclude the overall satisfaction of BR1M scheme.

2.1 Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Gender 88 1 2 1.65 .480

Age 88 1 4 1.35 .788
State 88 1 14 9.06 4.696
Level_of_Education 88 1 5 2.97 .734
Family_Size 88 1 4 2.70 1.116
Employment 88 1 6 3.08 1.743
Household_Income 88 1 6 3.24 1.794

Table 2: Total Observations by Categories

The study was based towards the satisfactions of Malaysian household towards
government monetary incentive (B1RM). Where the demographic information been taken
divided into 7 sub- categories gender, age level, location of state living, level of education,
family size, employment level and finally household Income. Survey been taken with a total
of 88 observations. The highest mean is state of living (mean=9.06) while the lowest mean is
age (mean=1.35). In relation with that, state of living has the highest variability in response
(σ=4.696) and gender has the least variability in response (σ=0.480). This result is further
explained with the following explanation and it is based on charts given at Appendix B.

2.1.1 Gender

Based on the demographic information on gender, Most of the survey shows that
female represent of total 65% (51 Observations) out of the total 88 observations. Male
represents at only 35% (37 observations).

3
2.1.2 Age

Age Structure information divided into 4 categories which are18-30, 31-40, 41-50 and
finally 51-60 years old. Based on the above information the data collected are majority at the
youth age level at 18-30 years old representing 70 observations followed by young adult age
31-40 years old at only 9 observations. Mature and veteran age 41-50 and 51-60 years old,
the data collected are 5 and 4 observations respectively. Based on the above survey indicated
that most of the youth are the main responded on this study.

2.1.3 State

The total responded are collected based on the origin of each person. All data been
collected represent all around Malaysia with a total 14 states. Based on the above chart
showing that Selangor and Wilayah Persekutuan leading the survey with 31 and 15
observations followed by Johor with 10 observations. Most of the others state survey is less
than 7 with Sarawak and Pahang only have 1 survey each. According to the above, it shows
that most of the respondent located in the urban and high population density area.

2.1.4 Education Level

Education level is vital information for the survey. Education level information
divided into 5 categories with secondary, diploma, degree master and PhD holder. Degree
holder education level is leading the survey with 70% followed by master holder with 13%
and diploma holder with 9%. Secondary and PhD holder are the least with 6% and 2% only.

2.1.5 Family Size

Based on the study on satisfactions of Malaysian households towards government

monetary incentive (BR1M), the populations are sampled into different group of family size.
Big family size with 5-6 and above 6 persons is the majority respondent with 26 and 27 data.
Whereas the total respondents with small family size 1-2 and 3-4 family member are 18 and
17 respectively.

2.1.6 Employment

Based on chart 6, There are multiple sectors involved including government agency,
part-time workers, private sectors and self-employed. The survey also includes unemployed
persons. Most of the surveys have a working experience with private sectors leading the
indicator with 29 respondent and unemployed with 26 no. of respondent. Based on the above,

4
we can concluded that the multiple categories will representing a good quality result on the
survey on the study towards the satisfactions of Malaysian household towards government
monetary incentive (BR1M).

2.1.7 Household Income

Household income level is the main requirement for the eligibility for receiving the
(BR1M) form the government of Malaysia. As the above, there are 6 categories from less
than RM1000 to the above more than RM5000 monthly. Based on the main requirement for
the full allocations of (BR1M) of RM3000 and below, the total respondents is more than
RM3000 is at 61% from the 3 household income levels. With partially allocated at less than
RM4000 at 11% respondent and 28% are not from the eligibility level for receiving (BR1M).

2.1.8 Crosstabs Analysis

Crosstabs displays the results for the completed surveys and providing the necessary
data needed. It is used to compare the similarities and differences of responses take from two
different groups. It also used to see whether there’s a relationship between the two data. From
our data, we’ve decided to do several crosstabs to see the relationships of our demographic
data and the results from the surveys questions. The cross tabulation table for these results
can be found in Appendix C.

i. Crosstab between the genders of respondents and Q4 (BR1M is used for votes
fishing)
 Most of the respondents strongly agree (39.8%) that BR1M is used for votes
fishing while 21.6% of female respondents are being neutral of the opinion.

ii. Crosstab between the genders of respondents and Q5 (the online application is
appropriate) & Q6 (the manual application form is easy to get and to submit).
 Most respondents are being neutral to both Q5 and Q6, meaning that majority
of the respondents are being comfortable of dealing in the process either by
way of online or by way of manual application. However, it is noted that
20.5% of the respondents strongly agree that online application is more
appropriate in applying the scheme while only 2.3% being strongly agree to
the manual application.

iii. Crosstab between the size of household and Q13 (appropriate at current amount)
5
  Least of the respondents are strongly agreeing that the BR1M amount given is
appropriate to them. However, most of the respondents are being neutral about
the question. Also, it can be seen that the family with 5-6 persons and the
family with more than 6 persons are basically being strongly disagree and
disagree that the amount is appropriate. Maybe this is because they’re
probably the most affected people.

iv. Crosstab between the genders of respondents and Q23 (agreeing that BR1M give
positive impact to the society)
 Almost half of the total respondents are being neutral to the opinion. However,
none of male respondent being strongly agree that BR1M is giving positive
impact to the society and only one female respondent are in the same opinion
of its gender counterparts making it the least popular opinion of all.

2.2 Inferential Analysis

2.2.1 Two Sample Hypothesis Testing

The first test analysis in this test is to investigate whether there is a difference in the
mean level of knowledge of BR1M between male respondents and female respondents. The
hypothesis is as below:

𝑯𝟎 = There is no difference in the awareness of BR1M scheme between genders.

𝑯𝟏 = There is difference in the awareness of BR1M scheme between genders.

Table 3: Group Statistics for Mean Level of Knowledge of BR1M

Independent Sample Test

-0.098
Mean_Knowledge
(0.922)
Table showing the t-statistic and parenthesis () indicating the significance level.

6
 Reject 𝐻0 if |t| > 𝑡𝛼,𝑛1 +𝑛2−2 Reject 𝐻0 if p-value < α

t = -0.098, 𝑡0.025,86 = -1.988 p-value = 0.922

-0.098 < -1.988 0.922 > 0.05

Fail to reject 𝐻0 Fail to reject 𝐻0

The result shows that we fail to reject 𝐻0 at α = 0.05 since |t| < 𝑡𝛼,𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 (0.098 <
1.988) and p-value > α (0.922 > 0.05). This means that there is no difference in the awareness
and knowledge of BR1M scheme between the male respondents and female respondents.

Next, we investigate whether there is a difference in the mean satisfaction relating to

the appropriate BR1M amount given (Question 10) related with the lowest family size (1-2
persons) to the biggest family size (more than 6 persons). The hypothesis is as below:

𝑯𝟎 = There is no difference in the satisfaction of amount given between the lowest

family size and the biggest family size.
𝑯𝟏 = There is difference in the satisfaction of amount given between the lowest
family size and the biggest family size.

Table 4: Group Statistics for Mean of Satisfaction towards BR1M Amount

Independent Sample Test

0.182
Q10
(0.856)

Table showing the t-statistic and parenthesis () indicating the significance level.

Reject 𝐻0 if |t| > 𝑡𝛼,𝑛1 +𝑛2−2 Reject 𝐻0 if p-value < α

t = 0.182, 𝑡0.025,43 = 2.017 p-value = 0.856
0.182 < 2.017 0.856 > 0.05
Fail to reject 𝐻0 Fail to reject 𝐻0

7
 The results shows that we fail to reject 𝐻0 at α = 0.05 since |t| < 𝑡𝛼,𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 (0.182 <
2.017) and p-value > α (0.856 > 0.05). Meaning that there is no difference in the satisfaction
relating to the appropriate BR1M amount given to the lowest family size (1-2 persons) and
the biggest family size (more than 6 persons).

Thirdly, we investigate whether there is a difference in the mean suggestion to

continuation of this scheme (Question 24) between the unemployed respondents and
government-agency respondents with the following hypothesis.

𝑯𝟎 = There is no difference in the mean suggestion to continuation of this scheme

between the unemployed respondents and government-agency respondents.
𝑯𝟏 = There is difference in the mean suggestion to continuation of this scheme
between the unemployed respondents and government-agency respondents.

Table 5: Group Statistics for Mean of Suggestion to Continue BR1M

Independent Sample Test

2.853
Q24
(0.008)

Table showing the t-statistic and parenthesis () indicating the significance level.

Reject 𝐻0 if |t| > 𝑡𝛼,𝑛1 +𝑛2−2 Reject 𝐻0 if p-value < α

t = 2. 853, 𝑡0.025,32 = 2.037 p-value = 0.856
2.853 > 2.037 0.008 < 0.05
Reject 𝐻0 Reject 𝐻0

The result shows that we are able to reject 𝐻0 at α = 0.05 since |t| > 𝑡𝛼,𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 (2.853
> 2.037) and p-value < α (0.008 < 0.05). This means that there is a difference in the mean
suggestion to continue of this scheme between the unemployed respondents and government-

8
agency respondents. Based on the mean result, we can conclude that, those who are
unemployed prefer the government to carry on distributing the incentives.

Lastly, the test analysed whether there is a difference in satisfaction process of

application between the respondents of age 18-30 years old and respondents of age 51-60
years old?

𝑯𝟎 = There is no difference in satisfaction process of application between the

respondents of age 18-30 years old and respondents of age 51-60 years old.
𝑯𝟏 = There is a difference in satisfaction process of application between the
respondents of age 18-30 years old and respondents of age 51-60 years old.

Table 6: Group Statistics for Mean of Satisfaction towards Application Process

Independent Sample Test

Mean_Application Process -0.676

(0.501)
Table showing the t-statistic and parenthesis () indicating the significance level.

Reject 𝐻0 if |t| > 𝑡𝛼,𝑛1 +𝑛2−2 Reject 𝐻0 if p-value < α

t = -0.676, 𝑡0.025,72 = -1.993 p-value = 0.501
-0.676 < -1.993 0.501 > 0.05
Fail to reject 𝐻0 Fail to reject 𝐻0

The results shows that we fail to reject 𝐻0 at α = 0.05 since |t| > 𝑡𝛼,𝑛1 +𝑛2 −2 (0.676 <
1.993) and p-value > α (0.501 > 0.05). This means that there is no difference in satisfaction of
process of application for respondents of age between 18-30 years old and respondents of age
51-60 years old.

2.2.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Analysis

9
 First of all, we test whether there is a difference in the mean satisfaction of incentive
amount given with the ages respondents (18-30 years old, 31-40 years old, 41-50 years old
and 51-60 years old). The hypothesis is as follows:
𝑯𝟎 = µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = µ4
𝑯𝟏 = There is significant difference in the mean satisfaction on incentive amount
between ages group.

Table 7: Mean Satisfaction of Incentive Amount between Age Group

Reject 𝐻0 if F > 𝐹𝛼,𝑘−1,𝑛−𝑘

Reject 𝐻0 if p-value < α
F = 0.401
p-value = 0.752
𝐹0.05,3,83 = 2.76
0.752 > 0.05
0.401 < 2.76
Fail to reject 𝐻0
Fail to reject 𝐻0

The result shows that we fail to reject 𝐻0 at α = 0.05, since F < 𝐹𝛼,𝑘−1,𝑛−𝑘 (0.401 <
2.76) and if p-value > α (0.752 > 0.05). This indicates that there is no difference in mean
satisfaction of incentive amount between age group.

Secondly, we want to conclude if there’s a difference in the mean of sufficiency of

BR1M to cover cost of living between the respondents’ family size group.

𝑯𝟎 = µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = µ4
𝑯𝟏 = There is significant difference in mean sufficiency of BR1M to cover cost of
living between all family size groups.

10
 Table 8: Mean Satisfaction of BR1M sufficiency to cover cost of living between all
family size group

Reject 𝐻0 if F > 𝐹𝛼,𝑘−1,𝑛−𝑘

Reject 𝐻0 if p-value < α
F = 0.632
p-value = 0.596
𝐹0.05,3,83 = 2.76
0.596 > 0.05
0.632 < 2.76
Fail to reject 𝐻0
Fail to reject 𝐻0

The result shows that we fail to reject 𝐻0 at α = 0.05, since F < 𝐹𝛼,𝑘−1,𝑛−𝑘 (0.632 <
2.76) and p-value > α (0.596 > 0.05). Meaning that regardless of family size, there is no
difference in mean of BR1M sufficiency to cover cost of living between family size group.

Lastly, we want to compare the mean satisfaction of the BR1M scheme among the
four group of family size.

𝑯𝟎 = µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = µ4
𝑯𝟏 = There is significant difference in mean satisfaction of BR1M among all family
size groups

Table 9: Mean Satisfaction of BR1M among all family size groups.

11
 Reject 𝐻0 if F > 𝐹𝛼,𝑘−1,𝑛−𝑘
Reject 𝐻0 if p-value < α
F = 5.087
p-value = 0.003
𝐹0.05,3,83 = 2.76
0.003 < 0.05
5.087 > 2.76
Reject 𝐻0
Reject 𝐻0

The result shows that we are able to reject 𝐻0 at α = 0.05 since F > 𝐹𝛼,𝑘−1,𝑛−𝑘 (5.087
> 2.76) and p-value < α (0.003 < 0.05). This shows that there are at least one mean which is
different. To find out which one is different, refer to the post hoc result at Appendix D.
Below are the summary of the post-hoc result.

FAMILY SIZE P-VALUE RESULT

1-2 & 3-4 1.00 No difference

1-2 & 5-6 0.023 Different at α = 0.05

1-2 & 6+ 0.682 No difference

3-4 & 5-6 0.005 Different at α = 0.05

3-4 & 6+ 0.235 No difference

5-6 & 6+ 0.75 No difference

Table 10: Summary of Post-hoc Result

2.2.3 Regression Analysis

This method is conducted to identify the relationship between 2 and more variables.
This study is conducted to analyse the factors that influences the level of satisfactions of
Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia. (BR1M) and the factors are as below:

H1 = There is significant relationship between BR1M satisfaction level to BR1M to BR1M

knowledge.
H2 = There is significant relationship between BR1M satisfaction level to BR1M to BR1M
application process.

12
H3 = There is significant relationship between BR1M satisfaction level to BR1M incentive
amount.
H4 = There is significant relationship between BR1M satisfaction level to BR1M qualification
level.
H5 = There is significant relationship between BR1M satisfaction level to BR1M distribution
process.

Table 11: Correlations Matrix Table

Satisfaction Incentive Distribution Qualification Knowledge Application
amount process level process
Satisfaction
1
level
Incentive
0.434** 1
amount
Distribution
0.490** 0.449** 1
process
Qualification
0.366** 0.366** 0.576** 1
level
Knowledge
0.580** 0.373** 0.444** 0.466** 1
level
Application
0.253* 0.225* 0.432** 0.246* .164 1
process
**Correlation is significant at 1% level, *Correlation is significant at 5% level

Correlation matrix measures the relationship between the variables (dependent and
independent variables) the coefficient value denoted by R square (R2) from the range -1 to +1
which can be positive or negative relationship. 0 and above shows the positive relationship
while negative shows no relationship. From the table above, we can summarize that all of the
variables are positively correlated to each other except for between application process and
knowledge. As for qualification level with distribution process and knowledge level with
satisfaction, it shows a strong positive correlation relationship as the value denoted are 0.567
and 0.580 respectively.

13
Multiple Linear Equation

Y1= β0 + β1 (X1) + β2 (X2) + β3 (X3) + β4 (X4) + β5 (X5)+ e1

Y1 = Dependent variables = Satisfaction level

β0 = constant
β1 (X1) = Independent variables = BR1M knowledge
β2 (X2) = Independent variables = BR1M application process
β3 (X3) = Independent variables = BR1M incentive amount
β4 (X4) = Independent variables = BR1M qualification level
β5 (X5) = Independent Variables = BR1M distribution process
e1 = Residual term

Table 12: Regression Significance Table

BR1M_Satisfaction

BR1M _Knowledge (X1) 4.292***, (0.144)

BR1M _Application Process (X2) 0.635, (0.145)

BR1M _Incentive Amount (X3) 1.864*, (0.144)

BR1M _Qualification Level (X4) -0.340, (0.160)

BR1M _Distribution Process (X5) 1.871*, (0.140)
Table showing the t-statistic and parenthesis () indicating the standard error.
***Variable significant at 1% level, *Variable significant at 10% level

Table 13: Summarized SPSS Result Table

Adjusted
N R-Squared F-Statistics
R-Squared
88 0.431 0.397 12.44

Based on the regression significance table, independent variables which is BR1M

knowledge is significant at 1% level, BR1M incentive amount and BR1M distribution
14
process are significant at 10% level, while BR1M application process and BR1M
qualification are not significant at 10% level. But according to summarized SPSS result table,
correlation matrix table and coefficients table in the appendix, the equations result are as
follow:

Y1= -0.732 + 0.619 (X1) + 0.092 (X2) + 0.267 (X3) - 0.054 (X4) + 0.261(X5)

From the equation we can analysed that, firstly BR1M knowledge (X1) are significant
and have a positive relationship with BR1M satisfaction level. The result shows that the mean
BR1M knowledge are at 0.619 correlations value. It indicates that increased in knowledge of
BR1M will increased the satisfaction level by 61.9%.

Secondly, BR1M application process (X2) has no significant level towards the
BR1M satisfaction level. Based on result the mean correlations at 0.092 with a significant
percentage at 52.7%, therefore, we accept the null hypothesises this independent variable are
not significant.

Thirdly, BR1M incentive amount (X3) is significant and has a positive significant
relationship with the level of BR1M satisfaction level. The result provided that BR1M
incentive amount with a 0.267 correlations value. Any increased in the level of incentive
amount will provide an increase of 26.7%% satisfaction level holding others variables
constant

Next, the mean BR1M qualifications level (X4) has a negative relationship with the
satisfactions level, with the mean correlations of - 0.054. Any increase in the adjustment of
qualifications level will reduce the satisfactions of BR1M by 5.4% holding others variables
constant. Therefore this variable is not significant as we accept the null hypothesis.

Lastly, BR1M distributions process (X5) also has a significant relationship to

satisfactions level of BR1M, the mean correlations distributions process is 0.261. It indicates
that improvement in BR1M distributions process will increase the level of satisfaction by
26.1% holding others variables constant.

15
 HYPOTHESIS OF THE
Decision
STUDY
H1 Reject H0
H2 Fail to reject H0
H3 Reject H0
H4 Fail to reject H0
H5 Reject H0

By omitting the insignificant variable, the new equation result is as follow:

Y1= -0.732 + 0.619 (X1) + 0.267 (X3) + 0.261(X5)

3.0 CONCLUSION

BR1M program introduced is considered one of the most efficient ways to assist the
poor. However, our study shows that the program does not necessarily meeting our objectives
of satisfaction among the respondents. This is corresponding to the government objectives to
effectively address problems that related to rising cost of living. Furthermore, the BR1M
amount that was given also shows that it is insufficient to help the respondents in their daily
living. General public are also concern on the funding on BR1M program should well be
invested in sustainable economy development program that create long term efforts for
government to assist the poor

4.0 REFERENCES

Economic Report 2016/2017, Economic Management and Prospect. Ministry of

Finance, Malaysia. Retrieved from www.treasury.gov.my/pdf/economy/er/1617/chapter1.pdf

Surendra, E. (2017). A Historical Timeline of BR1M in Malaysia. Retrieved from

https://www.imoney.my/articles/br1m

Crichton, N. (2000). Analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Dunn, O. J., & Clark, V. A. (1974). Applied Statistics: Analysis of Variance and
Regression. Journal of Educational Statistics. Vol. 15, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), pp. 175-178

16
 Kamaruddin, R., Othman, A. A., & Denan, Z. (2013). Government Sincere Initiatives
or Political Motives of 1Malaysia Peoples’ Aid: Using Structural Equation Modeling.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105, 715-722.

NST Online (October 21, 2016) FULL TEXT: PM Najib Razak's 2017 Budget
Speech. New Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/news/2016/10/
182202/full-text-pm-najib-razaks-2017-budget-speech

17