Tan Kin Lian / Columnist

For many decades, the Singapore Government has adopted a policy of a “no welfare state”. They have extolled on the population the risk of a welfare mentality – people get lazy and expect a good life without putting in the effort.

Most of the population accepted the merits of this policy, especially during the years when the economic growth was good and jobs were plentiful.

The global financial crisis and severe economic downturn had resulted in a severe loss of employment in many countries, including Singapore. For the first time, many Singaporeans realise that it is now possible to be jobless, even if one is well educated and skilled, willing to work hard and even to accept lower pay.

Should Singapore now re-consider this “no welfare state” policy? Should some form of unemployment benefit be introduced, for people who are retrenched for no fault of their own? Should an old age pension be provided?

Survey

I responded to a request by several people to carry out a survey. 50 people responded to the survey.  The breakdown by age group is:

Less than 30

28%

31 to 50

50%

Over 50

22%

There is a good representation of people in the various age groups in this survey. The detailed  results can be found here.

Social benefits

The respondents were told that social benefits have to be paid by taxation. With this understanding, 86% said that they prefer the state to provide for the basic social benefits, such as education, health, safety.  8% prefer the state to provide these benefits at a generous level (and to levy higher taxes to pay for them). 6% prefer the state to provide as little as possible.

Types of social benefits

The respondents indicated the following level of support for each social benefit.

A score of 30% indicates that the benefit should be provided at the bare minimum, 60% indicate that it should be provided at a basic level for everyone and a score of 90% indicate that it should be provided at a generous level.

Education (up to secondary level)

78%

Health care

73%

Infrastructure

72%

Safety

72%

Law and order

72%

These above social benefits receive the highest scores. Most respondents indicate that they should be provided to every one. Some preferred them to be provided at a more generous level.

Consumer protection

66%

Economic strategy

61%

University education

61%

Old age pension

57%

The above social benefits receive a moderate level of support. The need for consumer protection (against bad practices by businesses) receives a fairly high score.

Insurance (death, disability, sickness)

49%

Unemployment benefit

46%

Investment fund

39%

Religion

23%

The above social benefits receive a lower level of support, but (apart from religion) are at a sufficiently high level to be considered.

Percentage of GDP

The respondents prefer an average of 29% of GDP to be spent by the government to provide the social benefits and other activities of the state. This is higher than the current level of 20% but is lower than 35% for many European countries and 50% for the high welfare countries (such as Denmark).

50% prefer the state to spend more on necessary social benefits (and to levy higher taxes to pay for them). 38% say that the current state spending and taxation is fine. 12% prefer the spending and taxation to be reduced.

60% say that they are willing to pay higher taxes to enjoy better welfare and social benefits (which will benefit the people at large. 40% disagree.

A larger majority, i.e. 76%, said that the state can afford to provide better social benefits with the current level of taxation, i.e. instead of accumulating surpluses in the reserves. 24% said that the state is already provided as much as can be afforded.

69% said that the spending on certain areas, such as defense, is too high and some of the budget can be diverted to provide social benefits. 31% disagreed.

Respondents’ views

Here are some additional views put forward by the respondents:

a)         Reduce the salary of ministers and top civil servants. No other countries pay more than Singapore. The money saved can be used for health and education subsidies.

b)         Spending on defense has been very high despite the fact that the ASEAN  countries have reached a high level of international relations and cooperation. Instead of spending on defense, the spending should be on diverted to improve bilateral relations through joint-venture projects.

c)         We want change and for our society to be better and united. Citizens should not have to fear for their livelihood and should feel more secure when there is social welfare net to fall back on.

My observations

Here are my observations from the survey:

a)         There is strong support for a higher level of state spending to improve social benefits and provide better security for the people. The existing spending on education, health care and infrastructure is well supported. The respondents also like to see higher spending on consumer protection, unemployment benefit, old age pension and university education.

b)         Many people are willing to pay higher taxes to enjoy better social benefits.

c)         The current level of taxation can support a higher level of social benefits by reducing the annual surplus that is put into reserves and by reducing the high expenditure in certain areas, such as defense.

Perhaps it is time for the Government to re-think its policy of “no welfare state”. Welfare can provide greater security for the people against events that are outside of their control. There is a risk of abuse of welfare benefits, but the abuse can be managed and reduced.

Many countries have addressed these challenges and found some solutions that are practical and useful. They are not perfect, but they do more good than harm.  It is time for Singapore to adopt an open approach.

—-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Keep electoral horse-trading a private affair

Ng E-Jay It was announced on 24 March that the Prime Minister…

Speak, act, change – We will influence the decisions

Students from Raffles Institution speaks up on social issues at Hong Lim Park event. Jewel Philemon.

网民分享祖母临终住院糟糕经历 樟宜医院致歉

一网友在脸书上分享到,当她的祖母在樟宜综合医院(CGH)接受治疗期间,她和其家人所经历的可怕经历。但是院方表示,病患获得了适当的照顾,只是有一些“沟通问题”。 名为Isabella Alexandria Lim 的网友于星期一(5月13日)在脸书上载一篇长文,分享其祖母再入院后的经过,控诉樟宜医院医生和护士的无情、不专业和不敏感。 帖文中指出,Isabella的祖母于2月19日在家中摔倒后,其家人不得不把祖母送到樟宜医院去。她的祖母被诊断因为摔倒,导致压缩性骨折,所以被医生要求住院留医。然而在住院期间,祖母的痴呆症恶化了,导致她频频哭泣。 因此,Isabella 家属决定将祖母接回家,惟,不幸的是,祖母患有泌尿道感染(UTI),并且不被允许出院。 入住失智病房后情况更糟糕 庆幸的是,医生们关注到祖母的UTI病情受到控制,因此在4月4日允许她回家。但是他们不得不将祖母带回医院,因为后者的UTI并未完全治愈。 “我祖母继续住院,而在4月18日,医生们终于将她转移到68号的失智病房,让她的失智症能获得更好照顾。却也是在那里,一切开始变得更糟糕了。 我的祖母胃口开始不好,并且投诉说肚子疼和开始吐血。医生们怀疑她患有缺血性腸道疾病(ischemic…