Universiti Utara Malaysia’s Siti Hadijah Che Mat said Malaysians were often embarrassed about furnishing such details to the point they would at times provide either incomplete or inaccurate data.

“Sometimes, respondents think their income is too low, or they don’t want to report other income streams.

“Some may even exaggerate because they feel embarrassed,” she said at a forum on the multidimensional poverty index here today.

Siti Hadijah said inaccurate data would result in ineffective policies being rolled out.

This was why enumerators must be mindful of how the questions were posed, she said, adding that it could influence the answer.

In some instances, she said, respondents had complained about the length or intrusiveness of the questions.

Siti Hadijah also said the selection of the multidimensional poverty index indicators must reflect the realities on the ground rather than rely on the standardised definitions.

“We need to determine what deprivation really means in these communities,” she said, citing education as an example.

“At what age do people normally stop schooling in rural areas? That matters when defining who is considered deprived.”

She said developing an effective multidimensional poverty index also required collaboration with ministries and community representatives, including indigenous groups and single mothers, to ensure that the data truly represented the poor.

While the poverty line classified households based solely on income, the multidimensional poverty index went further.

“It measures poverty in a broader context that includes education, health and living standards,” she said.