Ahead of Monday’s (13 Sept) Parliamentary sitting, MP for Nee Soon GRC Carrie Tan took to Facebook on Saturday to highlight the one of the parliamentary questions she filed for the upcoming sitting, specifically asking for clarity about who is allowed to become social workers.

Noting in a Facebook post that only those with degrees are allowed to become social workers, Ms Tan wrote: “My worry is that this might create a situation where social workers, being university graduates from better resourced and better educated families, do not have the socio-economic background and exposure to have natural empathy for the low income families they work with.”

She highlighted that the question was on whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) would consider developing diploma-holders into social workers via short professional development course targeted specifically at people who have a significant amount of work experience in the social sector.

“I also asked for the distribution of employees across job functions in the social sector, and what the plans are to build up their capacity,” she adding, expressing her hope that these adjustments would lead to a more diverse social sector that is better equipped to serve the needs of Singaporeans.

Netizens called out Ms Tan’s “ill-informed” assumptions

Unfortunately, netizens on Ms Tan’s posts took issue with her characterisation of social workers, in particular what she wrote about social workers with university graduates coming from “better resources and better educated families” and that they would not have the “natural empathy” for low income families they work with.

Several people pointed out that not all social workers come from a privileged background, and that those who do aren’t necessarily unable to relate to the people they are trying to help and have less empathy.

One healthcare worker shared their own experiences with social workers, noting that they have never met one who is less empathetic simply because they come from a different socio-economic background than their clients.

Others also criticised Ms Tan’s suggestion that people with degrees have less “natural empathy”, with many highlighting that the training they receive to become social workers actually equip them with the adequate skills to be mindful of their client’s backgrounds.

One person wondered what led Ms Tan to have this opinion in that social workers don’t need to undergo the rigour of training and education, and that if they do, they are seen as detached and uncompassionate.

A number of commenters also rebutted Ms Tan’s ‘logic’ about social workers with degrees from more privileged backgrounds would lack empathy and be unable to relate to their clients, noting that if the same argument was applied to politicians, then it would mean that many politicians who earn more than the average citizen are ‘out of touch’.

A couple of people called out Ms Tan statement as “ill-informed” and “stereotyping”, and suggested she speak to social workers on the ground first to better understand the challenges they face.

A social worker who commented noted that Ms Tan’s perception of university graduates is an overgeneralisation. They also cautioned that reducing the entry requirements for social workers could lead to some “unintended consequences”.

One person suggested that instead of increasing the number of social workers, MPs should focus on policies that may be affected people and pushing them into the “lower strata of the economy”.

Another person noted his disappointed at Ms Tan’s statement and his disappointment that “while social workers are expected to function and adhere to a high code of ethics and standard of professionalism, it is evident that we are not trusted as professionals”.

Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

MFA advises S’poreans in Myanmar to leave as soon as possible in the wake of rapidly escalating clashes between protesters and security forces

Singaporeans currently in Myanmar are urged to leave the country as soon…

Mother seeks court order to compel coroner to open inquiry into son’s death

By Andrew Loh The mother of Dinesh Raman s/o Chinnaiah has filed…

为何不公开社会关怀计划的批核准绳?

何不公布社会关怀计划下,发放短期援助金额的计算准则? 参考《海峡时报》今日报导,《社发部:更多家庭仰仗政府长期财务援助》,其中提到: “因为年迈、病痛或缺乏亲人支持的年长者人数增多,致使接受长期财务援助的家庭数量平稳增长。” 在2017财政年,有4千409家庭,接受社会与家庭发展部的长期援助,比起前年的4千387户更多。 数据也显示,去年接受长期援助的家庭,比起2013年的3千568户增加高达24巴仙。 社会关怀计划共发出1亿3100万元,在至今年3月前的12个月,共援助了7万9470人,比起2016财政年发放1亿3千万元,援助8万3333人稍有增加。 长期援助,也被称为公共辅助,乃针对因年迈、疾病、残疾而永久无法工作,并缺乏家庭支持者,协助他们应付生活困境。 一个单身家庭可以得到每月500元的补贴,而双人家庭则可得870元,也能在政府诊所的到免费看诊。 社工曾言,这类补贴从每月数百元起跳– 但,为何媒体和政府,都没有公布个体和家庭,所获得的实际财务援助金额,以及决定受惠者得到多少援助补贴的计算法和准绳? 既然长期援助可以开诚布公,那么中短期援助的呢? 在社发部的官网文告写道:“在2017年财政年,有2万7986家庭,以及6万4191个人,获得中短期援助,援助总额达到8千529万元。…

Govt issues correction directions to States Times Review, AB-TC City News for false information on Wuhan coronavirus situation in S’pore

Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing on Fri (31 Jan) has…