ENGLISH READING COMPREHENSION TEST

(60 MINUTES)

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. The reading test comprises TWO sections; Section A and Section B.

2. You are advised to spend 15 minutes on Section A and 45 minutes on

Section B.

3. Write your answers in this question booklet.

Name :______________________________________________________
Matric Number :______________________________________________________

Turn to the next page

This test paper consists of 6 printed pages including the front page.
_____________________________________________________________________

Section A
 [5 marks]
[Time Suggested: 15 minutes]

Questions 1 – 5 are based on the following passage.

POVERTY IN MALAYSIA
Some things are not as simple as they should be in Malaysia. Poverty is one of
them. It seems what you see is not what you get. Statistics tell us that our poverty
headcount, meaning the percentage of Malaysians living below the poverty line, was
0.4 in 2016 (the latest figure available). By this count, there were only 12.800 people
struggling to put food on their table. But the reality is more complicated. The first
complication is the very low poverty line. According to a 2018 University Malaysia
Kelantan study, any household with a gross monthly income below RM760 and
RM160 in the peninsula is classified is absolute poor and extreme poor, respectively,
this reads like a strategy to keep the poverty headcount low to appease the souls of
policymakers. The poverty bar must go up if we want to get real.
Another complicating factor is the ever increasing rural-to-urban migration. For
long, policymakers were designing their poverty reduction program for the rural poor.
Granted, rural poverty was a big issue then. Today, Malaysia's urbanization rate
stands at 76 per cent with such immigration, poverty too has hitched a ride to urban
centers. The roofless are now a common sight not only in Kuala Lumpur, but
elsewhere too. So if you think the number 12,800 somewhat suspect, you are not
terribly wrong. One just can't get by with RM760 in urban areas, what more with
RM460. Low salary has been a thorn in the flesh of Malaysian employees for a long
time. Deputy Defense Minister Liew Chin Tong has an appealing long-term solution
to cure this: change the wage structure. Government is reportedly working on other
social safety net program as part of its efforts to prosper the economy and people.
Whatever that may be, it should take the shape of a permanent cure for poverty.
Social protection reforms must not just provide them with "fish”, it must make them
"Fishermen”. But this must be economics-driven, not politically motivated, says
Associate Professor Aimi Zulhazmi Abdul Rashid, director of University Kuala
Lumpur's Strategy Project Office. Economics - however dismal science it is - teaches
us that education, skills and attributes escalate our productivity and earning potential.
Herein lies the formula to transition the poor out of their poverty.
Adapted from New Straits Times, 17 April 2019
1. Which one is the best description of Poverty?

A. People who struggles to provide enough food

B. Household with below RM760 monthly income
C. People who are roofless

2. How urban and rural household perceived monthly income as poverty?

A. RM760
B. Below RM760
C. RM460

3. What are the complications mentioned?

I. Below the standard poverty line

II. Migration rural-to-urban escalate
III. Reduction program of the rural poor
IV. Increasing urban-to-rural migration

A. I and II
B. II and II
C. III and IV

4. Identify the best way to overcome poverty.

I. Put a gap between the rich and the poor.

II. Restructure the payment system.
III. Put forth on social safety net program.
IV. Provide cost of living aid.

A. I and II
B. II and III
C. III and IV

5. What should social protection must provide for the poor?

A. Provide a ‘fish’ to make them ‘fisherman’

B. Must be politically motivated
C. Must be economics-driven

Section B
 [20 marks]
[Time Suggested: 45 minutes]

Questions 5 – 15 are based on the following passage.

POVERTY IN EUROPEAN UNION

1 Poverty in the EU is normally defined in terms of income thresholds established

at the level of each member state. The ‘at risk of poverty’ (ARP) indicator identifies
those individuals falling below 60 per cent of the national median disposable
equivalent income appropriately adjusted for household composition. The conceptual
foundations of this approach can be found in Townsend's (1979) definition of poverty
as ‘exclusion from ordinary living patterns and activities due to lack of resources’.
Those falling more than a certain ‘distance’ below a nationally defined income level
are understood to be excluded from a minimally acceptable way of life.

2 The current set of common EU indicators of poverty relies heavily on such

measures. The emphasis on a purely relative perspective has been justified by the
European Commission in the following terms:
An absolute notion is considered less relevant for the EU for two basic reasons.
First, the challenge for Europe is to make the whole population share the benefits
of high average prosperity and not to reach basic standards of living as in less
developed parts of the world. Secondly, what is regarded as minimal acceptable
living standards depends largely on the general level of social and economic
development, which tends to vary considerably across countries (European
Commission, 2004).
However, as Guio (2005) observes, enlargement of the EU and the consequent
3
widening of the gap in living standards between the richest and the poorest member
states have provoked concern about the ability of the current portfolio of indicators to
satisfactorily reflect the situation of the New Member States and facilitate meaningful
comparison between them and the old Member States. Forster (2005, p.32) notes that
the labelling of the relative income measure as at risk of poverty reflects the tendency
of governments to interpret it as an indicator of inequality in income distribution
rather than as a measure of poverty as such.

4
These paradoxical findings have produced a number of interrelated responses. The
first focuses on the limitations imposed by the entirely national frame of reference.
Fahey (2007) argues for the development of an EU - wide measure alongside a
nationally relative measure and recent exercises of this sort include Brandolini (2007),
and Kangas and Ritakallio (2007). An alternative critique focuses on the fact that low
income fails to identify those experiencing the forms of deprivation that one would
expect to characterize those excluded from customary living patterns.
 Adapted from Whelen, C. & Maitre, B.(2010). pp.713-714. Comparing poverty indicators in an
enlarged European Union. European Sociological Review, 26(6):713-730.

Using the information from paragraph 2 to 4 in the Poverty in European Union article,
complete the table below.

Sources Statement on At Risk of Poverty (ARP) Indicator

European
Commission 1. ________________________________________________________
(2004) ________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
2. Current poverty indicators do not take into accounts the large gap between
the richer and poorer EU countries.

Forster
(2005) 3. ________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
4. A separate EU measure of poverty is needed as well as individual national
measures.
(6m)

5. From paragraph 1, how poverty in the EU can be defined?

_____________________________________________________________
(1m)
6. From paragraph 2, what are the inferences of absolute notion for EU that is not
significant enough?
a) ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
b) ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
(2m)
7. From paragraph 3, what Foster (2005) measure from the current poverty
indicator?
____________________________________________________________
(1m)
8. From paragraph 4, what is the limitation and criticism of the current ‘at risk of
poverty’ indicator?
a) ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
b) ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
(2m)
9. Based on the question 8, from your opinion what can be made to improve the
current ‘at risk of poverty’ indicator.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
(4m)

10. If you were the Prime Minister, what would you do to reduce the rate of poverty
in your country.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
(4m)