Social protection refers to a set of policies and programs designed to reduce poverty, inequality, vulnerability, and social exclusion, and to mitigate economic shocks by ensuring income security, access to essential services (e.g., health, education, and housing), and support for life’s hazards (e.g., unemployment, sickness, disability, and old age).

In Southeast Asia, social protection systems have a spotty and erratic record in terms of programs and implementation. This can be gleaned from the World Bank’s “Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity” (or Aspire). A few countries have relatively comprehensive systems in place while most have mediocre or weak coverage that jeopardizes the states’ ability to provide adequate care for their populations. 

These differences reflect variations in economic development, governance practices, and political priorities. Four levels of social protection can be identified: comprehensive, moderate, limited, and weak.

Those with comprehensive social protection systems are Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore’s system, however, relies heavily on personal savings rather than government welfare programs. Key features are a Central Provident Fund (CPF) that covers retirement, healthcare, and housing; Medishelf Life, a universal health insurance scheme; and Workfare Income Supplement which provides cash supplements and CPF contributions to low-wage workers. While high coverage and financial sustainability are achieved, the individual savings scheme marginalizes vulnerable groups with inadequate incomes.

Malaysia’s comprehensive system is a mix of contributory and non-contributory programs. These include employees’ Provident Fund with a retirement savings scheme for private-sector employees; the Bantuan Sara Hidup which provides cash transfers for low-income families; and MySalam, a national health insurance scheme for the bottom 40%. Despite the broad coverage and support for low-income groups, the system still leaves out informal workers, migrants, and rural populations.

The countries with moderate social protection systems are Thailand and Vietnam. Key programs for Thailand are a Universal Health Coverage providing free and low-cost healthcare for all citizens; a Social Security Scheme for formal sector workers covering pension, healthcare and unemployment benefits; and Old-Age Allowance which are non-contributory. As in Malaysia and Singapore, however, informal workers and migrants lack access to social benefits.

Vietnam’s key social programs are a Social Health Insurance which covers formal sector workers and provides subsidized premiums for the poor, and National Targeted Programs that give out cash transfers and support for poverty reduction and rural development. As in other countries, informal workers and rural populations do not enjoy the mandated social benefits. 

Those with limited social protection systems are Indonesia and the Philippines. Indonesia’s systems include Programa Keluarga Harapan which provides conditional cash transfers for poor families; BPJS Kesehatan, a national health insurance program; and BPJS Ketenagakerjaan, a social security program for formal sector workers. Informal workers and rural populations have limited coverage and the elderly have inadequate benefits.

The Philippine system is fragmented with four key programs: the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) which provides conditional cash transfers to poor households; PhilHealth, national health insurance coverage; Social Security System for pensions and healthcare for formal workers in the private sector; and Government Service Insurance System for pensions and other services for government workers. Informal workers are once again left out of the benefits while the elderly and disabled have inadequate benefits.

Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos have weak social protection systems. Cambodia has a National Social Security Fund that covers formal sector workers for healthcare and pensions and an IDPoor Program providing cash transfers to poorest households. Most of Cambodia’s population, however, do not have full benefits. Myanmar has a Social Security Scheme for formal workers and a National Social Protection Strategy, but implementation has been slow and disrupted due to political instability and internal conflicts. Laos has Social Security Organization and National Health Insurance schemes but coverage and benefits are inadequate for most of the population.

The exclusion of informal workers from social benefits is lamentable as it is estimated that more than 50% of the workforce in most of Southeast Asia’s countries are in this sector. In Cambodia and Myanmar, the proportion exceeds 80%. It is only in Singapore, Malaysia, and Brunei that formal workers dominate. HomeNet Southeast Asia, a regional network of informal workers’ organizations, has been campaigning for the sector to be accorded the same rights and benefits as formal workers.  

Southeast Asia as a region also falls short of the global benchmarks for health and education as a percentage of GDP (see table). For education, the benchmark set by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (Unesco) is 4–6% of GDP, while Southeast Asia registers only a 3.37% average. Only Malaysia, Brunei and Timor Leste meet the education benchmark while the eight other Southeast Asian countries fall below it. 

For achieving universal health coverage, the benchmark recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) is 5–7% of GDP, but for Southeast Asia the regional average is only 2.79%. Ominously, none of the 11 Southeast Asian countries exceed, much less meet, the health benchmark. 

The dismal state of health protection in Southeast Asia reflects the predominance of tertiary healthcare (THC) as in advanced, mostly private specialized care dependent on urban-based hospitals, surgeries, and costly high-tech treatments. THC is differentiated from primary healthcare (PHC), which is basically preventive, community-based, universally accessible, affordable, participative and linked to social indicators. Only three Southeast Asian countries—Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam—have strong PHC systems; the rest have either weak systems or mixed ones that have to compete with private providers. 

As far as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are concerned, Southeast Asia and the entire Asia-Pacific region are visibly off-track to achieve the targeted goals by the agreed deadline of 2030. 

According to the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (or Escap), “Achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific will take an extraordinary collective effort. On its current trajectory, the region will not meet any of the 17 SDGs by the agreed deadline. Current estimates show these will not be reached before 2062, at least 32 years behind schedule.”

As of 2023, the average progress in achieving the SDGs has been only 17%. The most positive strides have been in eliminating poverty (Goal 1) and bolstering sustainable industry, innovation, and infrastructure (Goal 9). In the other 15 goals, there has been either little progress, stagnation, or regression. A persistent problem is that, in half of the indicators, there is insufficient data to evaluate progress. 

The 17 SDGs are: no poverty; zero hunger; good health and well-being; quality education; gender equality; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent growth and economic growth; industry, innovation, and infrastructure; reduced inequalities; sustainable cities and communities; responsible consumption and production; climate action; life below water; life on land; peace, justice and strong institutions; and partnerships for the goals.

In sum, a large informal economy, fiscal constraints, widespread social inequalities, skewed policy priorities, and political instability pose significant challenges to social protection in Southeast Asia. Despite an impressive-sounding and seemingly comprehensive 2018 Asean Declaration on Strengthening Social Protection, the regional organization has done little as a bloc to support and develop social protection in Southeast Asia. 

This piece is extracted and revised from Eduardo C. Tadem. 2025. “Introduction: As Southeast Asia flounders, the search for alternatives becomes imperative” in the soon to be published Volume 3 of Alternative Practices Across Southeast Asia. Program on Alternative Development, UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (AltDev UPCIDS).