Pencen Tua Was Born in a Different Brunei

Brunei’s pension debate has exposed three Bruneis living under one support system — the old-age insecure, the young-age insecure, and the comfortable. A welfare model that treats all three the same may still look generous. But it may no longer be just. — KopiTalk with MHO

Pencen tua was born in a different Brunei.

Introduced in 1955, it came at a time when the country was smaller, the population was younger, the cost of living was simpler, and the state was beginning to build the foundations of social protection.

It was not created as a luxury.

It was not meant to make anyone rich.

It was a modest promise of dignity — that old age should not leave a person completely exposed, forgotten or dependent only on the mercy of family.

That promise still matters.

But Brunei has changed.

The country is no longer the small society it once was. The cost of living is no longer what it used to be. The elderly population is growing. Young people are struggling to find stable, decent-paying work. And the government is no longer enjoying the same comfort of oil and gas revenue that once allowed broad support to be spread generously across society.

So the question is not whether pencen tua was a good idea.

Of course it was.

The harder question is whether the welfare model built around it still protects the right people in the right way.

The debate over BND 500 has exposed something deeper than pension: three Bruneis living under one support system.

The first is the Brunei of old-age insecurity.

These are the senior citizens who receive only BND 250 a month, or around BND 500 when SPK is added, yet still find that the money does not stretch far enough. Some still have to support children who have not found stable work. Some still help grandchildren. Some still carry household expenses that should have ended by retirement age but did not.

When we see elderly people working as night guards, cleaners, kitchen helpers or in other physically demanding jobs, we should not rush to call them active retirees.

Some are not working because they want to keep busy.

Some are working because responsibility has not released them.

That is old-age insecurity.

The second is the Brunei of young-age insecurity.

This point came out strongly in public reactions to the earlier article. Readers asked a fair question: what about the young worker earning BND 500 a month? After TAP or SPK deductions, transport, food, rent, utilities and family obligations, how much is really left?

That question cannot be brushed aside.

A senior citizen receiving BND 500 may still be struggling. But a young worker earning BND 500 is not necessarily better off — especially when the actual take-home is lower after deductions and the cost of daily life keeps rising.

This is why the issue should not be framed as the elderly versus the young.

In many Bruneian homes, the elderly and the young are not competing groups. They are family members sitting at the same table, stretching the same money, worrying about the same bills, and quietly protecting each other from the same hardship.

The pension debate has therefore revealed a bigger household problem.

The elderly are not secure. The young are not secure. And often, both insecurities live under the same roof.

The third is the Brunei of the comfortable.

There are people who are already financially secure. They may have pensions, salaries, allowances, assets, business income, rental income or several sources of earnings. Many have worked hard, served the country and earned what they have.

But the question must still be asked.

Should the same broad subsidies continue to cushion the comfortable in the same way they cushion the vulnerable?

Fuel. Electricity. Water. Healthcare. Food. Housing support. Broad state provision has long helped keep the cost of living low for almost everyone. It has preserved social peace. It has been part of Brunei’s settled way of life.

But a universal subsidy system has one quiet flaw.

It treats the vulnerable and the comfortable as if they carry the same burden.

They do not.

The elderly widow living mainly on pencen tua does not stand in the same position as the financially comfortable retiree with a pension, private income and assets behind them. The young worker earning BND 500 a month does not stand in the same position as a household running on multiple income streams. The family struggling to buy groceries, pay fuel, pay electricity and support ageing parents does not stand in the same position as those who can absorb higher costs without losing dignity.

Yet under a broad subsidy model, everyone is cushioned almost the same way.

That may have worked when Brunei could afford to be broadly generous. It becomes harder to defend when the vulnerable remain exposed and the public purse is under growing pressure.

The numbers show why this matters.

By 2025, Brunei Darussalam Key Indicators recorded 46,186 old-age pension recipients. At BND 250 a month, that implies an annual pencen tua commitment of about BND 138.6 million, before disability allowances, caregiver support and related welfare programmes are counted.

That is not a small obligation.

And it will not become smaller as Brunei ages.

This is where Maqasid Syariah offers a useful moral lens.

At its heart, Maqasid Syariah is about protecting what allows human life to remain dignified and just — life, faith, intellect, family and wealth. In the welfare debate, two principles stand out clearly: the protection of life and the protection of wealth.

But protection does not mean cushioning everyone equally regardless of need. A just society begins by protecting those most exposed.

The elderly person with no other income. The informal worker who never built a retirement account. The low-wage young worker who cannot save. The family carrying parents, children and grandchildren at the same time. The disabled. The unemployed. The underemployed. The widow. The caregiver.

These are the people who must stand first in the line of protection.

Maqasid Syariah also reminds those who are comfortable that wealth is not only a private achievement. It carries responsibility. Those who are secure carry a moral responsibility to help preserve the dignity of those who are not.

That is not cruelty.

That is fairness.

There is another dimension to this conversation that is rarely raised directly.

Unlike most countries, Brunei does not collect personal income tax. In societies where citizens pay income tax, the accountability reflex is direct: how is my money being spent?

In Brunei, the psychology is different.

The state provides, and daily life is cushioned by subsidies and public services. Over time, many Bruneians have grown up not as taxpayers demanding answers, but as citizens living within a system of provision.

That system has produced real stability.

But it has also created a kind of hesitation.

Many feel uncomfortable asking hard questions about public spending, partly because they know the government is already subsidising so much of daily life. It can feel almost improper to press too hard when the state is already keeping fuel, electricity, water and healthcare affordable.

But this is where the public conversation must mature.

The absence of personal income tax should not mean the absence of public accountability.

The money may not come directly from monthly salary deductions, but it still comes from the national household — from shared natural resources, from wealth that belongs to the country’s future as much as to its present. The rakyat have a legitimate interest in asking whether that money is being spent fairly, wisely and precisely.

This is not about confrontation.

It is about stewardship.

If revenue is no longer as strong as before, if the population is ageing, if the pension bill is rising year by year, if young workers cannot yet build security, and if broad subsidies continue to benefit the vulnerable and the comfortable in equal measure — then the country must answer an honest question.

Can Brunei still afford a welfare model that is generous but imprecise?

The answer is not to dismantle what has been built. That would be damaging and unjust.

The answer is to make it work better.

Pencen tua must remain the dignity floor it was always meant to be. But the support built on top of it must become more deliberate. Those with no other income, those outside SPK, those carrying genuine hardship — they should receive stronger, more focused protection. Not the same amount spread equally, but more where it is truly needed.

At the same time, broad subsidies should be reviewed gradually and carefully. Those who are financially comfortable should, over time, carry more of the real cost of living.

Not suddenly.

Not harshly.

Not without explanation.

But clearly, honestly and with purpose.

This also requires the government to invest seriously in the tools that make precision possible. The National Welfare System was a right step. But knowing who is genuinely vulnerable, who holds multiple income streams, and who is quietly falling through the cracks requires real data, real coordination across agencies, and real willingness to act on what the data reveals.

Without that foundation, targeted welfare remains a good intention rather than a working reality.

And any reform not explained well will be misread. People must understand that the purpose is not to take from them, but to redirect care toward those who need it most. In a society where the relationship between the state and the people is built on trust, that distinction matters deeply.

If it is explained well and done with care, people may begin to understand that the goal is not less generosity.

It is more justice.

Pencen tua was born in a different Brunei.

It was born when the country was smaller, expectations were different, and the state could afford to spread support widely.

Today, the moral purpose of pencen tua remains.

The vulnerable elderly need protection. The insecure young need a future. The comfortable need to play their part. And the state needs a welfare system precise enough to know the difference.

For a long time, Brunei measured care by how widely support could be spread.

The next measure must be different.

Not how widely the help is given.

But whether it reaches those who cannot survive without it.

Because when the vulnerable and the comfortable are treated exactly the same, the system may still look generous.

But it may no longer be just.

―

Source note: Figures on old-age pension recipients are based on Brunei Darussalam Key Indicators 2025. Historical reference to pencen tua is based on Brunei’s old-age pension framework introduced in 1955.