Take-home income is what counts, so fix that

 To solve Malaysia’s gig economy woes, public policy should focus on increasing sustainable net income rather than simply increasing gross earnings.

From Rahman Hussin

For 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. It is the fundamental economics of two-sided digital marketplaces, where prices, demand and labour supply continuously influence one another.

This is precisely why the gig economy should not be regulated as though it were a conventional employment relationship.

Unlike traditional businesses, digital platforms operate within an ecosystem in which four groups depend on one another.

Drivers depend on platforms to generate demand, while platforms depend on drivers to fulfil it.

Consumers rely on affordable, reliable services, and the government relies on a healthy digital economy that both creates jobs and protects workers.

None of these stakeholders can succeed in isolation. Good regulation should therefore seek not to maximise the interests of one stakeholder at the expense of another, but to maximise the long-term health of the ecosystem as a whole.

This is where the current policy discussion can be broadened. Instead of asking only how much a driver should earn, we should also ask why operating costs continue to rise.

Why are insurance premiums increasing? Can maintenance costs be reduced through industry partnerships?

Can financing become more affordable? Can platform algorithms reduce idle time?

Answering these questions can improve drivers’ livelihoods without necessarily increasing consumer prices.

A sustainable earnings framework should therefore rest on five pillars. The first is sustainable and transparent earnings, where drivers clearly understand how fares, incentives and algorithmic decisions affect their income.

The second is lower operating costs, achieved through initiatives such as insurance pooling, maintenance programmes and financing solutions that improve take-home income without placing additional pressure on consumers.

The third is stronger social protection, including Social Security Organisation coverage, retirement savings, income protection and healthcare support that reflect the realities of modern platform work.

The fourth is platform accountability, ensuring transparent algorithms, effective dispute resolution and clear contractual arrangements that strengthen trust across the ecosystem.

The fifth is productivity and professional development, equipping gig workers with financial literacy, digital skills and opportunities for long-term career progression rather than treating gig work as a policy endpoint.

Taken together, these measures address not only how much drivers earn, but also how much they keep, how secure those earnings are and how resilient their livelihoods become over time.

Many advanced economies are already moving in this direction. Rather than rely solely on administratively increasing earnings, regulators are increasingly focusing on a broader mix of worker protection, platform accountability and market sustainability.

Singapore’s recent reforms for platform workers strengthen retirement savings, work injury compensation and legal protections while preserving flexibility.

The European Union’s Platform Work Directive places significant emphasis on algorithmic transparency, human oversight of automated decisions and fair platform governance, recognising that worker welfare extends beyond pay alone.

The lesson is not that Malaysia should replicate another country’s model, but that successful platform regulation is moving beyond a narrow debate over fares and earnings towards a more holistic framework that balances worker welfare, consumer interests, competition and innovation.

Malaysia has an opportunity to develop its own model. As the Gig Workers Bill progresses through the policy process, the success of our regulatory framework should be measured by whether gig work becomes more secure, transparent and sustainable over the long term.

The country does not need to choose between protecting drivers and preserving innovation, nor should it frame the debate as drivers versus platforms.

A thriving gig economy depends equally on workers, consumers, platforms and the government.

Good regulation does not maximise the welfare of one stakeholder, but the resilience of the entire ecosystem.

If Malaysia can build a regulatory framework based on that principle, it will not only improve the lives of today’s gig workers but also create a platform economy that remains fair, competitive and sustainable for years to come. - FMT

Rahman Hussin is the executive director of MY Mobility Vision, a transport think tank. He is also a FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.