The Economist really nailed it when they wrote about "The Stingy Nanny", providing the best quote about the (lack of) welfare in Singapore:
"The state's attitude can be simply put: being poor here is your own fault. Citizens are obliged to save for the future, rely on their families and not expect any handouts from the government unless they hit rock bottom. The emphasis on family extends into old age: retired parents can sue children who fail to support them. In government circles “welfare” remains a dirty word, cousin to sloth and waste. Singapore may be a nanny state, but it is by no means an indulgent nanny."
The author has obviously done his/her research well, with insights accessible only from the ground level:
"Even among the social workers who work in hard-hit communities there is surprisingly little frustration at the meagreness of the handouts on offer or at the lengthy application process. One explains that Singapore needs to weed out undeserving claimants and shakes his head at the potential cost of a comprehensive welfare service. Yet in his next breath he mentions a number of local families who have been forced to sleep rough since mortgage lenders foreclosed on their flats."
As expected, the government would not allow such views to go unopposed. In challenging so, Michael Eng Cheng Teo, High Commissioner for Singapore in London, added salt to the wound by confirming the cold-hearted approach: "Each generation must earn and save enough for its entire life cycle." Never mind if the individual happened to be born physically or mentally challenged. Or sudden disease has struck down a once healthy bread winner. You die, your problem.
There are exceptions of course, the most glaring example being the nonagenarian who is drawing full MP allowance without performing the minimal of MP duties, piled on top on multiple counts of pension draw downs.
High Commissioner Eng's Parthian shot is typical official response: "The burden of proof is on its critics to demonstrate that their proposals will in fact work". While paying themselves handsomely, they expect others to come up with solutions to problems created by themselves in the first place. The form for welfare that exists in Singapore is spelt differently. It's "Wealth-fare", the buffet spread laid out for high networth individuals welcomed with attractive income tax rates, waiver of estate duty and other goodies like trading in gold without worrying about additional tariffs.
This is the reason for the rise of religions in Singapore
ReplyDeleteWe need a government with more Heart. If the ruling regime cannot change it's ideology, we need to change the regime.
ReplyDelete"Each generation must earn and save enough for its entire life cycle."
Yes. Change is the only way.
DeleteThis East Malaysian turned Singaporean ex-Chief of Air Force has been living on WELFARE ever since and he has the cheek to spout nonsense.
ReplyDelete"There are exceptions of course, the most glaring example being the nonagenarian who is drawing full MP allowance without performing the minimal of MP duties, piled on top on multiple counts of pension draw downs."
ReplyDeleteThat must be the most pathetic welfare receiver in the whole of Singapore, courtesy of the laws he made possible.
No lawyer letters to The Economist, or a demand for retraction, just a rebuttal? Of yore they have sued the same Economist, the IHT, Bloomberg, the New York Times. Mellowing, or the article has nailed the truth?
ReplyDeleteFunny that local news and stories are reported in a foreign news magazine. More funny that the national conversation happens half a globe away. This country is hopeless.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind if my nanny is stingy or that I have to take care of myself and my family. What I am against is the nanny's greed and its grand profit-making scheme that robs people of their fruits of labour. Look at how the nanny inflates land and car price under the guise of market force and scare resources. This nanny not only does not give milk, it creams off your earning with its all-encompassing tax system that leaves no stone unturn, not even if you are below the "imaginery" poverty line. To add salt to wound, it opens Singapore up for exploit by its cronies, foreign companies and foreigners, cost of living went up while salary stagnated. This nanny ought to be sacked yesterday.
ReplyDeleteSo it's not a nanny, its an evil step mother pampering her rich elite children while starving and strangling the sons of the land.
Delete"The proof is on critics to prove alternatives work"? How about counter factual proof, mike? Show me your system works if we take away the ISA and the unfettered power to tax the sheeple (and not the rich). With pea brain farmers like you and Lee BH leading the charge and supported wet behind ears of oxbridge scholars eager to feather their own eggs, no wonder we are done in. Stop smoking grass mike, the papigs is Mugabe dressed in white, except 100 times worse: even Mugabe cannot "fix the opposition" with ISA. Had Mugabe been able to have Indonesian, Malaysian and now PRC and Indian money laundering to back him up since day one and british bankers pulling strings for him because of his father in law's connections, and if he had a population and trade union totally neutered by ISA to allow unfettered taxation of the masses and sparing the rich, Zimbawe would have become far more "successful" than red dot. What do teos think, mikey boy?
I laughed many years ago when an expat in conversation called LKY a benevolent dictator. Dictator he is not (dictatorial , maybe, but so was Steve Jobs). Benevolent ? Never. LKY would consider that an insult.
ReplyDeleteWhen is LKY going to eternal hell? Please bring the entire PAP machinery along with him!
ReplyDelete"In a place like Singapore, which has had extraordinary success and growth in material well-being, to admit there are poor people would seem to be admitting failure."
ReplyDelete- NUS Professor Jonathan Rigg, who has been covering poverty issues in Asia since the 1980s. (ST Sat 26 Oct 2013)