From Rahman HussinFor the past several months, discussions surrounding Malaysia’s Gig Workers Bill and the future of the e-hailing and p-hailing industry have increasingly centred on one issue: minimum earnings.The motivation is understandable. Thousands of drivers have raised legitimate concerns about rising fuel prices, increasing insurance premiums, higher vehicle maintenance costs, and the uncertainty of daily income.Policymakers should take these concerns seriously because behind every completed trip is a Malaysian trying to earn an honest living.The question, however, is not whether gig workers deserve better protection — they unquestionably do — but whether minimum earnings alone are the best way to achieve that objective.Malaysia risks solving the wrong problem. The current debate has become largely focused on raising or guaranteeing earnings through fare structures.
While that may appear to be the most direct solution, it is also the narrowest.Malaysia should move beyond a minimum earnings framework towards a sustainable earnings framework. The distinction may sound subtle, but it fundamentally changes how we regulate the gig economy.A driver’s economic well-being is determined not only by gross income, but by what remains after fuel, insurance, vehicle financing, maintenance, depreciation and other operating costs have been paid.Two drivers earning exactly the same amount can end up taking home very different incomes depending on those costs.If our objective is genuinely to improve drivers’ quality of life, public policy should focus on increasing sustainable net income rather than simply raising gross earnings.That is where the conversation becomes more complex. Every additional ringgit introduced through higher base fares or minimum trip earnings must ultimately come from somewhere.When transport becomes more expensive, demand adjusts.
Some passengers reduce discretionary travel, others combine trips, while some return to private vehicles.In the delivery economy, higher charges can reduce order volumes, affecting riders, merchants and consumers alike.The unintended consequence is clear. A policy designed to improve earnings per trip may ultimately reduce the total number of trips available. Drivers may earn more on individual journeys while completing fewer journeys overall.That is not merely a theoretical concern.
Summary from source