Comment posted in my blog (edited)
I talked to a Taiwanese friend who works for a Taiwan multi-national company. I commented about the government policy that allowed too many foreign workers aimed at the cost-competitiveness of the country. This has indirectly resulted in older workers not being able to find jobs or have to compete with low-paying foreign workers who feed a family in his home country of lower standard of living. I opined that maybe the government policy should be tightened.
She was surprised to hear my views, and offered another perspective. The use of foreign workers is unavoidable, and is part of globalisation. It is happening in many countries, e.g. Australia, Taiwan, Malaysia and Europe. Even at the specialist level, the substitution of local labour with cheaper foreign labour is unavoidable.
The key is whether the government have instituted enough social welfare policies to help the population in times of needs and defray their cost as much as possible. For example, the Taiwanese government has a very comprehensive medical care program for all her citizens. The cost of medical is low as it is subsidised heavily. She finds Singapore's medical expenses ridiculous and wondered how the poor would be able to afford it.
In Taiwan and Australia, the government have entrusted itself to take care of all her citizens who have contributed all their life to the good of the country. In Singapore, we call these welfare states as being unsustainable. But is it really that way? Have we looked at it seriously?
How is it that an insurance company can operate profitably to insure and take care of the ill and sick. Why is it that the government cannot risk pool effectively with the economy of scale for four million population that are compulsory customers of the national medical program?
Maybe it is timely to relook at the assumption that heavily subsidized medical or social welfare policies are not sustainable for a country like Singapore. Has the assumption changed from the time when Singapore was still a developing country, to the present time when Singapore is growing with all its might, investing billions into other countries.
We can use our surpluses to help Singaporeans to tide over in times of need. Would it be possible to just take out a tiny 0.5% of the budget allocated to GIC to achieve a program that can help create a sustainable health care system or other social policies?
Perhaps the other political parties can add value and suggest alternatives - instead of just critisizing the government. Sadly, the other political parties are lacking in substance and I would not entrust my future with them.
Someone said, "To enter politics, a leader must have passion. He wants to shape the destiny of the country and improve the lives and standard of living of people. He also wants to have a place in history of good things he has done for the country and people. "
bravo mr tan! please continue blogging your enlightening views on singapore politics for the sake of our country.
ReplyDeleteThere is a comment that criticises LKY. I suspect that it is posted by "my enemy" who wants to get me into trouble. So, I block this comment.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that you post your criticism somewhere else.
Sometimes, the use of Internet blogging can be "dangerous". Little did you know should you accidentally approve a comment or make a post but then attempt to revert it by removing them, all you know is it is all too late.
ReplyDeleteSomeone subscribed to a comment thread would already have received email notification on a new comment post entry. Someone subscribed to RSS feed on your blog would already have been alerted of a new post with its full body content.
A single click though easy is irreversible in this case.
hongjun
I am all for universal healthcare as they call it in Australia and other industrialised countries except for the US. The problem with having a welfare country is its high taxes. Imagine having a quarter or half your income taxed, not many will like it. We're already complaining over the 7% GST and rising inflation.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need is a worker protection program, to ensure that Singaporeans will always have the job they need and enough government help to support their family. Maybe its selfish but we need to protect our citizens first.
Everyday, insurgents are killing 2 persons in average in Deep South Thailand since 2004. The killing field is not far away from this tiny island!
ReplyDeleteLast month, visitors from JB enter Woodland Checkpoint would met a team of homeland security with machine gun after X Ray baggage screen.
Today 3.45am, visitors from JB meet homeland security with machine gun BEFORE he/she enter the Woodland Checkpoint Building. I thought I return to an "army camp" !
This tiny island is on very high homeland security alert day after day.
Can we afford to spend less on homeland security and have more money for health dollars?
Mr Tan, Perhaps you can be a alternative in the political scene of Singapore.
ReplyDeleteWith Chiam See Tong in poor health and most opposition party not strong enough, your capability and wisdom surely can bring the opposition forward as a good check and balance.