Yee Jenn Jong is a non-constituency Member of Parliament from the Workers' Party. He writes regularly on social and economic issues. Read this article on social inequality in Singapore.
Singapore embarks on a deliberate strategy to increase social inequality, by encouraging high net worth foreign residents to reside and park their money here. The first carrot dangled is the abolition of the Estate Duty Tax, the next by allowing the casinos to come onshore to generate publicity and GDP. Inevitably the divide between the have nots and the haves, of whom many are foreigners, widens. Solution? Try to give a form of welfare payments to keep the have nots a bit happy. Social inequality is a consequence of economic change here, it's the only way to beat competition from China and India. Very soon the lower middle class would slide into the have not category also, as the ever increasing costs of living would pull them down.
I guess I will have no objections to social and income inequality if;
a) our poor and elderly have sufficient to live decently
b) if schools have smaller class sizes e.g. 15 students per class. So teachers have time to teach the students. And the students don't need private tuition because they are taught well in schools.
Otherwise, education will only increase social inequality because only the rich can afford private tuition at home.
As long as the playing field is level, I'm okay if there is social and income inequality.
Egalitarianism is about equality in the INPUT factors. Every student has equal access to good teachers.
Meritocracy is about equality in the judgement of OUTPUT factors (e.g. exam results). If we have overcrowded classes. And students need private tuition at home to understand their lessons. Then obviously the rich have an advantage in their ability to pay top dollar for private tutors.
For this reason, I am nauseated every time I hear a millionaire politician espouse the virtues of meritocracy.
@financial ray In many compassionate societies, the people tell their elected government that they wish to see society helping those who are most vulnerable, especially victims of events beyond their control. Their government respond to the views of the people and create the appropriate social insurance scheme to take care of these needs, especially where social insurance works better than private insurance. But, the attitude of the government in Singapore is that these needs should be left to be taken care of by the family, and not the government. If the government does not want to study this problem, there is little that can be done by individuals, who do not have the resources, statistics and authority to get information. The best that an individual, like me, can do, is to point out that social insurance can solve certain types of problems better than private insurance or individual responsibility. I will not be able to get the statistics to do the costing. Alternatively, we have to elect a more responsive government in the future.
Singapore embarks on a deliberate strategy to increase social inequality, by encouraging high net worth foreign residents to reside and park their money here. The first carrot dangled is the abolition of the Estate Duty Tax, the next by allowing the casinos to come onshore
ReplyDeleteto generate publicity and GDP.
Inevitably the divide between the have nots and the haves, of whom many are foreigners, widens.
Solution? Try to give a form of welfare payments to keep the have nots a bit happy.
Social inequality is a consequence of economic change here, it's the only way to beat competition from China and India.
Very soon the lower middle class would slide into the have not category also, as the ever increasing costs of living would pull them down.
I guess I will have no objections to social and income inequality if;
ReplyDeletea) our poor and elderly have sufficient to live decently
b) if schools have smaller class sizes e.g. 15 students per class. So teachers have time to teach the students. And the students don't need private tuition because they are taught well in schools.
Otherwise, education will only increase social inequality because only the rich can afford private tuition at home.
As long as the playing field is level, I'm okay if there is social and income inequality.
Egalitarianism is about equality in the INPUT factors. Every student has equal access to good teachers.
Meritocracy is about equality in the judgement of OUTPUT factors (e.g. exam results).
If we have overcrowded classes.
And students need private tuition at home to understand their lessons.
Then obviously the rich have an advantage in their ability to pay top dollar for private tutors.
For this reason, I am nauseated every time I hear a millionaire politician espouse the virtues of meritocracy.
@financial ray
ReplyDeleteIn many compassionate societies, the people tell their elected government that they wish to see society helping those who are most vulnerable, especially victims of events beyond their control.
Their government respond to the views of the people and create the appropriate social insurance scheme to take care of these needs, especially where social insurance works better than private insurance.
But, the attitude of the government in Singapore is that these needs should be left to be taken care of by the family, and not the government.
If the government does not want to study this problem, there is little that can be done by individuals, who do not have the resources, statistics and authority to get information.
The best that an individual, like me, can do, is to point out that social insurance can solve certain types of problems better than private insurance or individual responsibility. I will not be able to get the statistics to do the costing.
Alternatively, we have to elect a more responsive government in the future.