MEF disputes global index score on work-life balance

Most organisations in Malaysia have flexible work arrangements to help employees balance their careers and personal lives, which contradicts a recent global index that gave the country the second worst score on work-life balance.

This was the statement made by the Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF), a central organisation representing private sector employers in Malaysia. While individual work-life balance can vary, MEF President Datuk Dr Syed Hussain Syed Human shared that it was essential for employees to excel in their roles without compromising their personal lives. The balance enables employees and employers to achieve success and organisations in Malaysia have made progress in adopting flexible work practices and policies.

As revealed in the MEF Survey on Flexible Work Arrangements: Assessing Practices and Perspectives of Private Sector Employers, organisations in Malaysia are seeing a progressive trend among Malaysian organisations in adopting flexible work arrangements, totalling approximately 60% of organisations.

“This flexibility can lead to higher job satisfaction, improved work-life balance and enhanced overall productivity, as employees can tailor their work schedules to suit their personal life,” said Dr Syed Hussain.

The surveyed organisations, he said, offered not only flexible work but also generous leave policies that would have enabled employees to take breaks that reduced stress and burnout.

Dr Syed Hussain disputed the findings of Remote’s recent global work-life balance index, which ranked Malaysia 59 out of 60, labelling it the second-worst country for work-life balance among nations with the highest gross domestic product (GDP).

READ MORE: Wage hike in the Philippines will displace up to 140,000 employees

“MEF has reservations about the usefulness of this index, as the selection of indicators includes metrics not relevant to evaluating work-life balance, making the comparison inaccurate,” said Dr Syed Hussain, reported The Star. He named issues such as cherry-picking metrics used in the index, simplistic comparisons, a lack of full context of the data, and inaccuracies such as ignoring nationally legislated policies that would have affected the score.