The writer can be reached at this email address
As the Government considers whether to reform Eldershield to meet Singaporeans basic financial needs if case of severe disability, and the recent debate in Parliament over the Public Assistant scheme, it is perhaps timely to observe whether existing measures to support the elderly poor in Singapore are sufficient, and what are some of the issue it throws up.
While the various schemes under the CPF shall continue to be effective, and shall improve in maintaining the majority of the elderly, there will sadly always be gaps.
The Public Assistance Scheme has a 'built-in' limitation because as Minister Vivian Balakrishnan ('Minister') described, it is built with a "healthy tension" (Parliamentary Reports, OPQ, by Dr Lily Neo, 12 Feb 2007). He muses, "[t]he sum that we give through Public Assistance cannot be so generous as to erode the work ethic."
The elderly poor who cannot maintain herself can also turn towards the children, if any, for support under the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA). However this is limited to the children having sufficient means to do so. This is also only if the children's own spouse and children have their needs met. (Section 5(1)).
The "Many Hands" approach promulgated to ensure that help will come from the Government, the public at large and the family is a noble one. As the Minister described "there is a role for the individual to help himself or to seek help. There is a role for families. There is a role for community organisations."
Dr. Lily Neo described that, 'there are 100,000 households that need assistance from charitable organizations" while there are "less than 2,800 cases of PA allowance". This suggests that the scope of charity and family cannot cover the entire ground. Besides Mr Sin Boon Ann highlighted, "the fact remains that we come across people who are indeed hungry, people who are left out and who basically fall through the cracks." The very presence of the above 'hands' does not by themselves mean that the elderly poor will disappear.
The 'alternative' safety net in Singapore is the welfare homes at Pelangi Village. It serves to remind us that our society is fundamentally compassionate towards the weaker around us. The destitute (with other similar residents) are all house within this 'community'. But should the state provide so little help to the elderly poor that we shall become destitute before stepping in. How do we define destitute? Is housing an elderly in Pelangi Village more cost efficient? While it is called a community, does it compare to the natural community the elderly person has grown old, made friends, and comfortable with?
While a general generous welfare net will probably erode the 'work ethic', one wonders if any additional welfare provision for the elderly poor limited to those who fall through the various stopgaps, will indeed erode work ethic? These identified group of elderly poor are in a majority of cases unable to maintain themselves, have little in savings, no or unable children to maintain them but are not destitute. Why will a sum larger than the $290 cause the erosion of a work ethic in the context of the elderly remains puzzling.
The answers remain a mystery. As the Minister describes, "we can continue arguing this and we can continue finetuning the exact amount that is needed." Should there not be a fine-tuning in this case?
Comments (6)
The "$260 vs $290" analysis in its present form may be a bit too narrow, and under-represent the extent of assistance given by both State and charitable organisations.
Given that hardship arises from a lack of basic goods, it can be argued that hardship can be best addressed by provision of goods rather than cash.
This is why many welfare organisations give food vouchers rather than supporting purely in cash terms.
Posted by CHEN | May 2, 2007 3:31 PM
Good article. CHEN you said, that 260 v 290 "under-represent the extent of assistance given by both State and Charitable Organisation" - but the article already say "the scope of charity and family cannot cover the entire ground". You are saying state should give food vouchers to cover the gap? Okay, I also agree.
Posted by Poor | May 3, 2007 12:53 AM
I made this video, hope you check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-guxHFyz2A
Posted by kussel | May 3, 2007 10:20 AM
Actually I think state already gives out food vouchers, in addition to the $290. So the $290 is not the full picture.
Posted by Joe | May 3, 2007 11:28 PM
All,
While it is indeed true that the state does hand out food vouchers, canned food, etc, those are indications that the $290 is not enough. I wonder why some people refer to that.
Is that a suggestion they do fundamentally agree we should further aid the elderly poor - that there is a certain living standard we should provide for them - just disagree with the 'form' of that increased help?
Or are they suggesting that 290 + the available food vouchers are enough?
These above are the two possible readings with those who raised the idea of food vouchers.
Assume that it the first case, there is no fundamental disagreement. After all, the learned Minister was objecting to increased payments partly because it will erode the work ethic. The writer here finds it amiss to think that handouts of food and money to the elderly poor of these nature will erode the work ethic. That was my contention with the underlying reason why we do not give welfare to the elderly poor. If giving more money will erode the work ethic, giving more food vouchers will also erode the work ethic. The money spent on food will translate in money saved.
On the second reading of people who suggest that money + food and food vouchers by the state is sufficient, you are saying essentially that observations by Sin Boon Ann and Dr Lily Neo is wrong? That there are indeed enough? If that is the case, then the question is how do they know?
But why do these folks not prefer handing out the more quantifiable sum of money than 'food' or 'food vouchers'. I think that handling out food and food vouchers is a much more costly and complicated procedure. For those who find that giving money will encourage the elderly poor to consume vices and the such, and will not mind the increased costs as a result in that it might 'protect' those errant elderly poor from themselves, that unnecessarily punishes the majority of the elderly poor who do not consume such vices. And given a choice, do you want 400 dollars of cash or 290 dollars + 110 dollars of food vouchers? Those who cannot keep themselves on those sums will sadly become destitute where the alternative net kicks in. Before that, we don't really have to deny them if so doing does not affect the work ethic of our nation?
PS:Pardon the grammatical and spelling area in this article. It must be the late night and speed. Thanks all for reading.
Posted by Serendipity X | May 4, 2007 4:07 AM
Perhaps it's not the work ethic of the old folks that he's worried about but the work ethic of the people who have to be taxed in order to fund this?
Or maybe the work ethic of the politicians will suffer because they have to take pay cuts so that they can give more to the poor.
Snide remarks aside, by refusing to support the poor in society, the government is actually jujitsu-ing it to us. The end result is that we are taxed anyway. Only difference is that we "choose" how much we want to be taxed and some poor folks have to canvass for the donations.
Posted by Joey | May 4, 2007 6:13 PM