Wednesday, May 17, 2006
This blog asks what do the government and in effect the PAP refer to when they claim that they are trying to help the poor help themselves? In a related issue, is the welfare state really undesirable in a progressive and growing economy?
In a slight digression, this blog was approached by a middle aged man with an Institute of Mental Health appointment card, asking for money to buy some breakfast. The first thought is what is a poor soul with an unstable mind doing in a public place asking the public for help? While the first, and indeed only, reaction was to ignore him and walk a little faster. When the government says that it is trying its best to help the poor are they referring to this same group of people that we see in the streets? While begging may be illegal in Singapore, the causes of poverty are still very much around, and this does not refer to the basker in Orchard Road, there are some truly needy people who are not getting aid, financial or in kind.
Of course there is always the counter argument that providing aid explicitly will encourage more people to join the dole line and serve as a disincentive to work and remain gainfully employed. But do we really want senior citizens, 70-80 years old to continue toiling on, washing dishes at the coffee shops or food courts because they have no children or because their children do not wish to care for them? While there is involuntary unemployment in the economy due to shifts in production schedules, this blog proposes that there is also involuntary employment in the case of these elderly individuals. These are people who have worked entire life in Singapore, helping the country grow into the metropolis today. Is it right to turn our back to them now and say that they got to work because they are able to? This blog believes that that is a heartless and uncompassionate viewpoint.
Action must be taken to improve the situation. And this blog believes that a partial welfare system, at least for the aged, is very important for a peace of mind and body. This system can be pegged to a percentage savings as well as percentage pass taxes paid, which is Singapore refer largely to past wages earned. It can be proportionately inverse, such that the more savings, the less benefits. Of course there are counter arguments asserting that such a system is very open to abuses and promotes a spend thrift culture to lower saving to increase the benefits gained. This blog will however note that this is not a fixed system and will be in place mainly to help the needy without CPF, which is the large proportion of the elderly now. In a decade, the current batch of workers will retire and will be able to tap into a ready and steady source CPF earnings. Governmental aid over and above the CPF will enhance the system.
Of course this is just speculation and does not constitute any form of serious policy changes, but it is clear that the status quo is insufficient to ensure an equitable standard of living for the lower quartile of income earners, particularly the aged and the infirm.
12:10 AM
