SIR
I refer to your article “The stingy nanny” of Feb 13th.
Each society has to decide for itself the appropriate balance between unconditional welfare and self-reliance. Singapore has concluded that we cannot afford European-style state welfare, not because of dogma, but because our circumstances are different. We face competition from some of the most vibrant economies in the world, we have no hinterland or natural resources of our own to fall back on, and our future depends on being a dynamic and self-reliant people who strive our utmost to excel and create wealth for ourselves, our families and our society. Each generation must earn and save enough for its entire life cycle.
Our approach is based on time-tested values of hard work, self-reliance, family responsibility and community support for those in need. While we avoid over-generous welfare handouts, we have substantial state subsidies for education, health care and public housing. These are major investments that uplift the skills, promote the health and increase the assets of all Singaporeans. The result has been high growth, low unemployment, high savings and the highest home-ownership rates in the world.
No society has ever succeeded in totally eradicating poverty, nor in eliminating inequality of incomes, not even Communist systems. A generous welfare state, despite its theoretical attractiveness, is not a panacea. Singapore’s system is by no means perfect, but it has produced real results for the vast majority of Singaporeans, and enabled even the poor to live with dignity and hope. The burden of proof is on its critics to demonstrate that their proposals will in fact work, and improve on what Singapore has achieved, given our socio-cultural fabric and economic circumstances.
Michael Eng Cheng Teo
Each society has to decide for itself the appropriate balance between unconditional welfare and self-reliance. Singapore has concluded that we cannot afford European-style state welfare, not because of dogma, but because our circumstances are different. We face competition from some of the most vibrant economies in the world, we have no hinterland or natural resources of our own to fall back on, and our future depends on being a dynamic and self-reliant people who strive our utmost to excel and create wealth for ourselves, our families and our society. Each generation must earn and save enough for its entire life cycle.
Our approach is based on time-tested values of hard work, self-reliance, family responsibility and community support for those in need. While we avoid over-generous welfare handouts, we have substantial state subsidies for education, health care and public housing. These are major investments that uplift the skills, promote the health and increase the assets of all Singaporeans. The result has been high growth, low unemployment, high savings and the highest home-ownership rates in the world.
No society has ever succeeded in totally eradicating poverty, nor in eliminating inequality of incomes, not even Communist systems. A generous welfare state, despite its theoretical attractiveness, is not a panacea. Singapore’s system is by no means perfect, but it has produced real results for the vast majority of Singaporeans, and enabled even the poor to live with dignity and hope. The burden of proof is on its critics to demonstrate that their proposals will in fact work, and improve on what Singapore has achieved, given our socio-cultural fabric and economic circumstances.
Michael Eng Cheng Teo
High Commissioner for Singapore
London
London
"...we have substantial state subsidies for education, health care and public housing."
ReplyDeleteSubsidies for public housing????
Is he kidding?
Three phrases stood out in the High Commissioner's reply:
ReplyDeletePara 1: "unconditional welfare"
Para 2: "over-generous welfare handouts"
Para 3: "A generous welfare state"
Our "substantial state subsidies for education, health care and public housing" are a pittance compared to other countries. Btw, unlike other countries, our state subsidies are actually market price DISCOUNTS. Uniquely Singapore. I have concluded that we cannot afford PAP-style governance, not because of dogma, but because our circumstances are different from those young PAP ah siak kias who have their parents and karma to thank for.
ReplyDeleteThe key word is "Subsidy."
ReplyDeleteHere's the definition from online McMillan Dictionary
Source:
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/subsidy
1. an amount of money that the government or another organization pays to help to reduce the cost of a product or service
So a subsidy is a DISCOUNT from the COST.
It is NOT a DISCOUNT from the MARKET PRICE.
Does anybody know what dictionary Mr Michael Eng Cheng Teo uses? Let's all keep an open mind and give him the benefit of the doubt.
REX comments as follows,
ReplyDelete"Every society has to decide..." (para. 1).
Did we Singaporeans as a society, participate as a society "to decide"?
Truth be told, there wasn't a chance for "society to decide" on numerous policies implemented in Singapore.... because parliament DID NOT truly represent society. Parliament just consisted of single party with iron-grip control and no dissentions tolerated. Policies were forced down our throats -- from the construction of 2 casinos.. to the sudden inrush of 30% foreingers into the population.. to the policy of obstruction of free speech... all executed with no public discussion in Parliament nor in various sectors of society.
So, because numerous important decisions were made top down by a very small group of people (perhaps even one person), the situation here is not really a reflection of society 's decision.
The article from the H.C. sounded noble from the start with such words but it is not worth reading because it is flawed from the start.
REX
If Singapore splurge on subsidies, then what will happen to Singapore? What should be the limit on subsidies?
ReplyDeleteRegarding ANON: 10.00am
ReplyDelete"If Singapore splurge on subsidies, then what will happen to Singapore? What should be the limit on subsidies?"
Please don't change the subject.
The question is what is the definition of a subsidy?
Before we start being grateful, let's start with not being stupid.
Is there a public housing subsidy? If yes, then what is the definition of this subsidy?
To ANON: 10.00am
ReplyDeleteWhy do you use the word "splurge"?
Very clever, huh? Using an emotional word to subtly shift the platform.
Gotcha !
We could not understand why an
ReplyDeleteincrease $30 welfare payout to the
elderly poor had to be debated in Parliament.
Why no debate on the huge losses of
our Reserves, and why no debate on
accountability for such losses,
which could have given these poor
elderly a better way of life for a
long period. Why so stingy where it
should not have been?
Save your breath. As long as they continue to win election, they will continue to do what they want because "this is what the people want." The coming election will have the same old din about asking voters to give them a strong mandate or margin so as to carry the on the work.
ReplyDeleteWhat work? Increase minister salary and ask the heartlanders to continue to upgrade, improve productivity, work smart, work fast and work cheaply.
Micheal Teo said, "No society has ever succeeded in totally eradicating poverty, nor in eliminating inequality of incomes, not even Communist systems."
ReplyDeleteOur aim should be to reduce the inequality of income, rather than to eliminate it. There should be so inequality to reward people who put in more effort, but the difference should not be too large - i.e. exploitation at its worst.
Yet, our government investment arm is losing billions of dollars.... Will someone jump out of his coffin to admit the mistake say 20 years later?
ReplyDeleteUniquely Singapore?
Personally, I prefer cremation for myself. Then we don't have to worry about me jumping out of my coffin later on. Cremation is also cheaper.
ReplyDeleteThis is typical reply from them.
ReplyDeleteWhen you criticize on a point, they will take that point to the extreme and then take that as your stance and argue against that extreme.
This is the typical straw-man argument.
Therefore, you see replies like "totally eradicating poverty" whereas as pointed out by Kin Lian, the point is not to totally eradicate it, but rather to reduce the inequality in income.
...And every where that Mary went,
ReplyDeletethe sheep was sure to go...
Majullah Singapura!
My feeling is that the letter is going to be ignored. Surely the swipe on European state welfare could be edited out.
ReplyDeleteWhen the government is giving away more money than it is taking in, that is a problem. Conversely, when the government is taking in way too much money than it gives back, that is also a problem.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that the government is rich, and they take in more than they give back. They could use this opportunity to give back and correct some of the failings that have happened all these years. For example, improving the security of detainment centers, preventing flooding, building flats and selling them at cost price (they don't have to subsidize), solving the homelessness problem, improving transport facilities, and giving jobs for Singaporean citizens (especially those who have served NS), improving food safety standards, giving market pay for young Singaporeans serving NS, providing insurance against people who lost their life savings in minibonds (at least those who lost money in banks which are GLCs), etc...