The following article first appeared in Siew Kum Kong’s blog.

Siew Kum Hong

Hri Kumar

I received an email from Hri last night — he mentioned that he had been trying to respond to my last post the past couple of days, but for some reason had not been able to post the comment. He then asked for my help to publish it.

Given the length of his response, and also the attention that our exchange seems to have garnered, we decided that it would be appropriate to publish his response as a standalone blog post. I’ve not really had time to digest it fully, but will aim to respond over the weekend — since this is my blog, it’s my chance to have the last word! 🙂

Hri’s response is reproduced below in full, without edits.

Kum Hong,

We agree on a number of things. You have met my “extreme” example of an able-bodied person who does not want to work (I have met some, by the way) with another “extreme” – “the single mother supporting two children and an elderly mother, who has to go home after work to take care of her children and mother”. We both agree that the latter is more deserving of help.

But where we disagree is this: you feel that no help exists currently, and the children of the single mother will be trapped in the poverty cycle. The truth is that she will be helped, by both the Government as well as private parties. Let me give you some concrete examples. One of things we try our best to ensure is that no child is deprived of a good education, or even a meal in school, because of the lack of funds. So we help poor families with a combination of Government subsidies, COMCARE support, The School Pocket Money Fund and other sources. In Bishan Toa-Payoh GRC, we raised over $3 million last year from private donors to fund community scholarships for children of poor families for the next 10 years. We even visit the homes of those who do not enroll their children in kindergarten (although enrolment is not compulsory) to make sure that this not because of the lack of funds; and if it is, we help them with the fees. The number of children who do not go to kindergarten has now fallen to 1% of their cohort – most of these children are home-schooled.

So, it is easy to berate the current system as “punish(ing) the children for the sins of their parents”. But that is simplistic and inaccurate.

I prefer our current system which directs help to those who need it, rather than one which purports to give universal and unconditional aid. It actually means much more work for the Government, as it involves examining each case and determining the most effective form of help to give. But I think that is a worthwhile exercise as different families have different challenges and circumstances. What is wrong is for us to simply give public money to everyone who holds his hand out, without proper scrutiny and assurance that it will be effective and reaches the right people. Many taxpayers will object to using public money to support people who can help themselves. Their views are also relevant.

I am not suggesting that we have a perfect system. We do not. Where we can, and should never stop trying to, improve is to develop a system which ensures that every Singaporean who needs help is not missed. That is a real challenge. The only way to meet it is to involve everyone, from the Government, grassroots organizations, VWOs and the immediate community. Every Singaporean should feel that he has a part to play in looking out for those less fortunate than him. I think that is how it should be.

There will also be challenging cases – like your example of an able-bodied father who refuses to work, to the detriment of his children. I know of a real life example in my constituency. The way we helped was to find work for his wife, and to calibrate our aid so that the children have their needs met and are able to continue their education. We did not “turn our heads away”.

So I think we can agree on one more thing – real life does not lend itself to simple solutions like the one you have posed. But I am happy that this debate has gained interest, because it shows that Singaporeans feel strongly about this issue.

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

【国会】国防部将检讨 不再依据PES分配军务等级

今日(1日),国会在拨款委员会环节,针对国防部拨款预算进行辩论。 国防部长黄永宏透露,新加坡武装部队将检讨现有体格军务等级(Physical Employment Standards,简称PES)分类。他称这类分类制度“已过时”,但会确保调整是在不削弱安全和战备能力的前提下进行。 将来不再仅着重体能是否符合作战标准,而是根据个人职业背景经验、专业技能和作战效率,分配军务等级,为部队作出贡献。 他称,在科技与现代工具辅助下,实则服役人员的战备效率已不完全取决于体能,一些因健康情况而无法担任战斗职责的士兵,将可部署在更多不同岗位。 现有国民服役制度,符合服役年龄者须接受全面体检,过后按身体及健康情况获分配PES A至F不同等级。PES C至F等级,属于非作战体格士兵,服役时部分只会安排在作战援助岗位上,如担任文职。

贸工部:泰国干旱影响大米产量,但我国仍有其他选择

由于泰国今年面临严重干旱,影响农业收成,但贸易与工业部表示,我国仍然有其他替代选择。 贸工部向《亚洲新闻台》透露,“与全球大米的总产量相比,我国对米的需求非常小,仅占了稻米出口总量的1.2巴仙(泰国和越南)与0.6巴仙(印度)。过去,我们已经采取多元化措施,除了泰国、越南和印度,我们也从缅甸、柬埔寨、日本和美国进口各种米,以因应国内米的短缺。” 据贸工部指出,大米库存计划会提供足够的大米,以应付市场中断供给的时段包括所有的白米、印度香米、糙米和蒸谷米。 “进口商必须在在指定仓库内储存两个月的进口货物”,该部说明。 职总平价合作社的发言人亦向《亚洲新闻台》披露,泰国过去一年来,因社会经济与天气不利的因素,影响了其供应与价格,而职总为了能够留下库存,也在过去一年中限制价格的涨幅,约平均5巴仙左右,其中来自泰国产出的大米,避免市场价格波动。 此外,职总也进口不同国家的大米,包括越南、印度、澳洲、美国、巴基斯坦、题本和柬埔寨,而消费者也越来越认可除了泰国米以外,其他国家的大米。 “比如说,泰国的销售组合从10年前的九成下降到了剩下七成,同时我们发现越南米愈来愈受欢迎,占了今天销售的15巴仙。”发言人表示。 南洋理工大学拉惹勒南国际研究学院食品安全高级研究员Paul Teng教授表示,目前新加坡仍能接受价格的涨幅,但若中国与印尼也面临大米短缺,就会对我国的粮食产生很大的威胁。 “他们将进口大量大米,等于是占据了市场上所有的大米,到时将可能只有7巴仙至10巴仙的大米进行交易,所以任何自然或人为的现象都有可能导致稻米出口减少,而进口国如我国、菲律宾与印尼可能需要在稻米减少下竞争。” “另外,大米短缺的问题加剧如果进口国如印尼和菲律宾因天气不利导致国内收成不佳,竞争力将会变得更大。”教授补充道。 食品局(SFA)指出,我国进口了逾九成的粮食,因此易受到全球驱动力和趋势的影响,例如人口增长、城市化和收入增加、疾病爆发、资源稀缺以及日益加剧的气候变化。…

Four additional cases of COVID-19 infection confirmed by MOH; All cases traceable

As of 18 February 2020, 12 pm, the Ministry of Health (MOH)…

iPhone 11推出首日 乌节路苹果店外人潮汹涌

闹得沸沸扬扬的国庆华为促销刚过两个月,今天苹果iPhone 11系列在全球特定市场推出首日,成群等待已久的顾客聚集在苹果商店外面,而作为东南亚首间苹果旗舰店的乌节路苹果商店外,更是人群汹涌。 根据著名科技博客GadgetMatch的Micheal Josh在推特上分享了两张分别在今早(20日)拍下的照片,可见商店外面已经挤满了顾客,等待店门一开就以特价购买iPhone 11。 Scenes from outside the Apple Store in…