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

甚至一度阻碍巴士载客 多家超市外出现德士车龙

多辆德士和私召车在许多商场外的候车亭处排排“停”,希望能够接到顾客,然而车龙太长了,甚至影响到巴士无法驶入巴士站。 昨日(5月14日)在脸书群组All Singapore Stuff上传出了一段49秒的视频,只见实龙岗NEX购物中心外的巴士站外一排长长的德士车龙,甚至一度阻挡到要驶入巴士站的巴士。 视频中也听见一名男子说:“没有人让路给巴士进来(巴士站)。全部(德士司机)都很紧张、怕输,不要让道” 。 视频吸引不少网民留言,除了批评德士司机的不礼让精神之外,也有网民表示在勿洛广场(Bedok Mall)等超市外碰到类似场景。 然而也有网民为这些私召车及德士司机叫屈,指目前经济受到冠状病毒重挫,行情不好,司机们都要承担日常开销和租车费,“他们也是不得已的”。

Singapore ranked fourth in world for country with most travel freedom

Singapore has ranked the fourth country in the world with the most travel…

汤东线第二阶段完成度九成 料今年杪可开放运营

陆交局表示,目前汤申-东海岸线的第二阶段,即六个车站的完成度已达九成,预计今年底可开放运营。 六站包括春叶(Springleaf)、伦多(Lentor)、美华(Mayflower)、光明山(Bright Hill)、汤申上段(Upper Thomson)和加利谷(Caldecott)站。 光明山站与加利谷站将会是跨岛线(Cross Island Line)与地铁环线(Circle Line)的转换站,预计会有10万户家庭受惠,届时他们只需要行走十分钟即可到达其中一个地铁站。 目前第一阶段的地铁站也即将在本月31日启动,其三站包括兀兰北、兀兰和兀兰南站。 汤东线目前是我国第六条地铁线,全长43公里,共有32站,其中八个为转换站,与目前五条地铁线连接。 由SMRT经营的汤东线是我国的第六条地铁线,耗资250亿元,全线长43公里,共有32个站,其中八个为转换站,与现有五条地铁线连接。 它分成五个阶段建成,将在2024年全部通车,一旦全面运作,预计将会达到每日约50万人次至100万人次的乘客量。

PSD: “Civil servants may volunteer to serve in grassroots organisations”

With reference to a Straits Times  article on Saturday, 26 February that…