Public residential condominium building complex and downtown skylines at Kallang neighborhood in Singapore. Storm cloud sky from Shutterstock

The fact that the ministers in the Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) run government get high salaries while there are reports of people living in dumpsters and old people working as cleaners are a common sight in Singapore can certainly be considered proof that there is truth in what the Oxfam index on the tackling of income inequality says in its placing Singapore in the bottom ten positions.

Yet instead of giving due consideration to the results yielded by the Oxfam report, our government has seemingly disregarded it in totality, choosing only to focus on the positive results yielded by the World Bank and the World Economic Forum.

It is interesting to note that Oxfam has publicly chided the World Bank by stating:“It is irresponsible for the World Bank to promote the deregulation of labour and the dismantling of the rights that workers have long fought for. The report downplays the severity of inequality and contradicts internationally agreed labour standards.

Just last week, the IMF said “higher minimum wages are needed to counteract extreme inequality”.

In my humble opinion, each of these bodies have separate concerns and that a balance of all of their views is necessary for a country such as Singapore to protect the rights and livelihoods of its citizens while also ensuring that the country continues to attract foreign investment.

The Oxfam report was more focused on the domestic living conditions of citizens while the WEF and World Bank are focused on the international commercial standing of a given country. When viewed in that perspective, does one report have to be right while the other wrong?

Wouldn’t it be more helpful if we saw the value in each finding and seek to take each report on board equally?

Singapore is indeed an attractive place in which to do business. It has relatively low corporate tax and is creditor friendly. From that perspective, it attracts investment and can create opportunities for those in the finance or technological sectors.

On the other hand, it is also imperative to note that this type of growth may not benefit everyone if the playing field is not level and this is where Oxfam is coming from. From this perspective, must one finding be wrong in order for the other to be right?

Inequality does not benefit any society because it will eventually lead to instability. While the Singapore government is more than entitled to be disappointed by how Singapore has fared in Oxfam’s findings, it should not be disappointed by Oxfam. Oxfam is just doing what is within its remit to do. The Singapore government needs to take both praise and criticism with grace and maturity.

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

A critic turned supporter of President Nathan

Jason Lee/ For almost 12 years, I have never been a fan…

Ho Ching apologises on Facebook for her “monkey post”

While some were calling for restraint and some calling for more popcorns…

MP needs to explain for shortcomings to be addressed

By Andrew Loh Some online commentators have been asking Member of Parliament…

改善刻板印象 创友善空间助失智患者融入社区

据英文媒体《海峡时报》报导,一项意见调查显示,四名失智症患者当中,有三名以上会感到被遗弃、孤单、羞愧和缺乏竞争力。 而让失智症患者产生负面情绪的主要原因,国人对失智症的不了解,产生刻板印象。 此项意见调查是由新加坡管理大学与新加坡阿兹海默症协会携手合作,于今年初开展,为期5周,邀请逾5600国人参与,其中包括失智症患者、看护者和一般民众。这是首个针对失智症开展的全国意见调查。 当中有32位患有失智症、1156名照顾者及4491名与失智症没有关联的普通民众。 国人对失智症的偏见颇深 研究显示,有30巴仙的照顾者对当众照顾失智症患者而感到难为情;56巴仙的受调者则认为失智症患者缺乏竞争力;不过也有90巴仙的人不认同失智症患者缺乏竞争力的观点。 研究也针对不同族群对失智症的刻板印象进行调查,结果显示家中无失智症相关的病人或对不从事相关行业的人,对失智症的有着最深的刻板印象。 其中,男性对失智症的刻板印象高于女性;而70岁以上的人存在较高的偏见;再来21岁到39岁的人,最后才是40岁到69岁的人。 为此,新加坡阿兹海默症协会执行董事Jason Foo认为:“研究证明刻板印象的存在一直都影响失智症患者与其家属的生活品质,故我们都应该要学习用正确的语言来表达,对失智症患者与家属提供更高的同理心,创造友善空间给失智症患者使失智症患者能够融入社区中。” 有超过57巴仙的民众对失智症的了解不足,至于他们在接触失智症患者是感到困惑;而近44巴仙的民众则对无法提供失智症任何帮助而感气馁;73巴仙的人认为他们仍有享受生活的权利,所以应改善失智症患者的生活品质。 “我们应努力改善失智症的刻板印象,他们仍可享有良好的生活品质,故应将焦点放在他们的能力而非不足之处。”Foo说道。…