Exploring Factor Structure of Social Well-Being on the Basis of Maqasid Syariah in Malaysia

Social well-being is an issue that is increasingly being discussed today. In Malaysia, the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) has released well-being indices under Prime Minister's Department. They were starting with the Malaysian Quality of Life Index 1999 (IKHM 1999) and finally the Malaysians Well-being Index 2018 (IKRM 2018). The index has been a measure of the well-being of the people in Malaysia until today. This study was conducted specifically to discuss social well-being in Malaysia. The construction of this social well-being questionnaire items on the basis of the five elements of Maqasid Syariah , namely Protection of Religion, Protection of Life, Protection of Intellect, Protection of lineage, and Protection of Wealth. The original total number of social welfare items was 113, but after factor analysis had been done, the total number of items was only 102. These items are under five main indicators, namely religious care and belief, living needs, social issues, social opportunities, and politics and stability. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett's test of sphericity found that all factors exceeded the minimum value. Still, the factors needed to be re-arranged according to the results of the factor analysis.


Introduction
The issue of social well-being is not new in Malaysia. Many well-being studies are done from different perspectives. Social well-being is the goal that all individuals, families, communities, and nations want to achieve (Ibrahim et al., 2019). It is a crucial element in determining the level of development of a community or a country. The concept of social well-being explains the strategy of changing society based on approaches related to social problem management, the fulfilment of living needs, and the provision of social mobility opportunities in the community (Ibrahim et al., 2019).
Understanding these three elements of social well-being will help policymakers and program implementers launch efforts to improve the well-being of individuals, families, and communities. In addition, these three elements of social well-being will provide the community with safe environmental conditions, comprehensive satisfaction with basic needs, and maximize social mobility opportunities. Thus, community members are free to develop their potential, be actively involved in activities implemented in social, economic, and political aspects, and contribute to religion, community, race, and country. The question is, is social well-being in Malaysia at a satisfactory level? Many well-being issues are happening nowadays. For example, according to Cheah, Azahadi, Phang & Abd Manaf (2020), four out of ten Malaysians are estimated to have mental health problems. Meanwhile, the National Health and Morbidity survey in 2019, of 2.3%, which is about half a million people face depression in Malaysia. In addition, it was found that 424,000 children were identified as having mental health problems in Malaysia. From a social point of view, Malaysia has not yet reached the level of unity for a country (Zakaria & Daud, 2018). The relationship between the multi-racial communities in this country is only at the level of integration. Political turmoil and manpower unpreparedness are adapted to the robotics and automation boom, society's unpreparedness to face the phenomenon of rising incomes among highly skilled people that widen the economic gap, the rising cost of living, the confusion of the education system, the polarization or fragmentation of races and ethnicities, the polarization between religions, and even the conflict between ideologies in Islam itself that lead to the existence of liberals, conservatives, and radicals or fundamentals (McCoy et al., 2018).

Literature Review
Many studies have been conducted to discuss well-being, both in Malaysia and abroad. According to Javadi-Pashaki & Darvishpour (2015), lower levels of social well-being are observed to be the most grounded indicators of negative psychological health. Criminal victimization is connected to a lower level of subjective well-being, which defines how important it is to reduce criminal activities (Stickley et al., 2018). Rodríguez-Pose & Tselios (2019) stated there is a relationship between good governance and well-being. Minkin & Reyes-García (2017) express the correlation between income, wealth, and subjective wellbeing, where happiness, anger, fear, and sadness have been included for subjective wellbeing. Furthermore, a study showed that having a greater sense of religious identity may increase the well-being and racial identity that a person perceives for higher public regard (Ibrahim, 2016). Health literacy mediates the association between social involvement and well-being and health status (Amoah, 2018). A study on the social participation and subjective social well-being index of poor children in Malaysia shows that the subjective social well-being index is at a moderate level (Ali, Omar, Azman, 2017). However, the level of well-being of poor children in terms of social participation is at a satisfactory level, which is 64.6 percent. Furthermore, further studies confirm a weak positive linear relationship between the relationships of students' leisure activities with the social well-being of individuals (Shokhailya & Ahmada, 2017). Besides, it is found that the management of social problems is one of the important indicators in ensuring the social well-being of the coastal community is in good condition (Musa et al., 2019). In social studies, the well-being of older people reports that the welfare of the elderly is similar to the quality of life and is related mainly to their social well-being (Ivankina & Ivanova, 2016). Besides, social well-being can be formed through the prism of social challenges (i.e. adaptation, participation, integrity, etc.) that must be overcome by older adults when moving to a new level (old age) (Beskrovnaya, Kovalenko & Chalov, 2017). Previous studies have also been conducted to identify well-being according to the principles of Maqasid Syariah (Rasool et al., 2020;Oladapo, Rahman, 2017).

Methodology
The current study is designed using a quantitative approach through cross-sectional data. The data were collected by distributing the questionnaires. For data analysis, factor analysis methods are used in this study. Factor analysis is an advanced method used to determine whether the item being analyzed leads to a similar constructor (Gaskin & Happell, 2014) that forms a new factor, and it is a multivariate technique emphasizing data that are closely related to a group of independent variables (Hair et al., 2006;Nawang et al., 2015).

Results and Findings
To ensure that the samples are sufficient in running factor analysis, the KMO value must be greater than 0.5 (Piaw, 2012). To determine whether factor analysis was appropriate, the KMO and Bartlett tests were performed early. The results of the KMO and Bartlett test study, as well as factor analysis for the determining factors of social well-being indicators, are as shown in Table 1 below:  Table 1 shows the results of Bartlett's test of sphericity found that the test results were significant, i.e. at a value of p <0.05, indicating that the correlation between the items was sufficient to conduct factor analysis. Through the KMO test, the values obtained were 0.843 (religious care and belief), 0.942 (living needs), 0.871 (social issues), 0.865 (social opportunities / social mobility), and 0.820 (politics and stability). The KMO value was found to be quite high and exceeded the minimum level, which is 0.50. It indicates that KMO values do not have any problems, and appropriate factor analysis is conducted on social welfare indicator data. Eigenvalue indicates that the items of the questionnaire contained more than one factor. Based on the results, the questionnaire items are multi-dimensional, which contains more than one constructor component. The researcher has set the value of the coefficient accepted for this study is 0.5. This value is chosen as the minimum condition because the square of the value represents the total variance change of 20 percent to that factor. 0.000 Table 2 displays the validation factor analysis is done to confirm the validity of those factors. All nine items were tested to determine the Bartlett Test of Sphericity value and KMO value. Based on the test results, the KMO value obtained is 0.843, where this value is high and has no multicollinearity problem because it exceeds the minimum level of 0.50. The study results also found that no component was removed, but indicators of religious care and belief were broken down into two factors. The first factor (Factor 1) items can be classified under the religious care construct, while the items in the second factor (Factor 2) are categorized under the religious belief construct. 0.000 Table 3 shows the validation factor analysis is done to confirm the validity of the factors for living needs indicators. All 49 items were tested to determine the Bartlett Test of Sphericity value and KMO value. Based on the test results, the KMO value obtained is 0.942. This KMO value is high and exceeds the minimum level of 0.50., so it has no multicollinearity problem. The results of the study also found that there were nine items removed. The items are factor 1 (Health & Community Services 7 and Housing & Neighborhood 1), items on factor 4 (Housing & Neighborhood 3), items on factor 5 (Income Guarantee 7, Income Guarantee 5, and Personal 2), items on factor 6 (Personal 1 and Personal 5) and items on factor 7 (Nutrition & Healthy Lifestyle 7). Therefore, it is found that the components for life need indicators need to be renamed because they have changed after factor analysis is done. Items in the first factor can be classified under the constructs of care and health services, the second factor under the construction work environment, the third factor under the construction of the sakinah family, the fourth factor is the neighborhood and environmental constructs, the fifth factor is under the financial and savings management constructs, the sixth factor is under the personal needs constructs and the last is the seventh factor -is under the family relationship constructs. 0.000 Table 4 above is an analysis of validation factors performed to verify the validity of the factors for social issue indicators. All 26 items were tested to determine the Bartlett Test of Sphericity and the KMO value. Based on the test results, the KMO value obtained is 0.871. Since this KMO value is high and exceeds the minimum level of 0.50, so it has no multicollinearity problem. The results of the study also found that there was only one item removed. The item is on factor 3 (Crime 1). The components for social issue indicators need to be renamed as there are changes after factor analysis is done. Items in the first factor can be classified under the construct of community management effectiveness & member involvement. The second factor is under the intellectual construct, the third factor under the legal system construct, the fourth factor is the construct of freedom and security, the fifth factor is under the construct of racial tolerance management, and the sixth factor is under the construct of poverty and unemployment. Verification factor analysis was performed to confirm the validity of the factors for the social opportunity / social mobility indicators as in table 5 above. All 14 items were tested to determine the value of the Bartlett Test of Sphericity and the KMO value. Based on the test results, the KMO value obtained is 0.865. Therefore, there is no issue with multicollinearity because this KMO value is high and exceeds the minimum level of 0.50. The results of the study also found that there was one item that was removed. The item is on factor 3 (Unity and Harmony of Nation 2), the components of the social opportunity / social mobility indicator are renamed because there is a change after factor analysis is done, i.e. there is an addition of the component from the original. The items in the first factor can be classified under the construct of patriotism and identity, the second factor under the construct of educational democracy and moral formation, and lastly the third factor under the construct of an effective and relevant education system. Based on table 6 above, validation factor analysis is done to confirm the validity of the factors for political indicators and stability. All 15 items were tested to determine the value of the Bartlett Test of Sphericity and the KMO value. Based on the test results, the KMO value obtained is 0.820, where this value is high and has no multicollinearity problem because it exceeds the minimum level of 0.50. The results of the study also found that no component was removed, but the indicators of political care and stability have become four factors. Items in the first factor can be classified under the constitutional empowerment construct of the country, the second factor under the construction of the national governance delivery system, the third factor under the construct of an efficient and effective governance system, and lastly the fourth factor under the construct of freedom in politics. On the basis of results factor analysis, all items in the original questionnaire containing a total of 113 items were rearranged according to the new construct which now has 102 items only (Table 7). The following are the factors for indicators of social well-being before and after factor analysis.