You will be surprised ppl living in 4 rm flats earning 1.3 k
total fsmily income
This article is taken from Asiaweek (For Richer Or Poorer), to
allow our readers to revisit the issues of welfare, the aged,
foreign workers, and wages in Singapore.
It is quite troubling to note that this article was first published
in Nov, 2000. The problems faced by those who are struggling are
largely the same today - 6 years on.
The article is by Roger Mitton
Lee Chong Peng is the symbol of Singapores broken dream. She lives
alone in a one-room flat on about $3 a day. I watch television and
take short walks, she says. My legs ache now, so I cannot go so
far. But without fail, every Wednesday afternoon, Lee takes the
lift down eight floors to the ground level of her public housing
block.
There she joins dozens of other poor folk from her district in
Chinatown to sit, waiting, on concrete benches. Lee, 84, chats with
friends, while others remain sullen, lacking even the warmth of
comradeship. At 5 p.m. they all form into a line and shuffle
forward to receive a plastic bag containing six eggs, 1.5 kg of
rice, a can of baked beans, a can of sweet corn, one packet of hot
chocolate, one packet of coffee, some cereal and a single toilet
roll. Without this weekly donation from a charitable group, Lee and
her neighbors find it tough to survive.
What happened to Singapore, the land of plenty?
In its rush to forge a manufacturing, then a high-tech economy, the
city-state rarely bothered to look back at those who were lagging.
Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew developed a system based on hard work
and government support for industry. Singaporeans were expected to
earn their rewards. The results were astounding: a middle class
emerged to build Asias second-richest country.
But with the advent of globalization and an influx of cheap foreign
workers, Singapores economy is becoming increasingly ruthless.
According to its own statistics, the nations rich are getting
richer and the poor are falling further behind. To most
Singaporeans, the mere existence of poor folk in need of care
packages comes as a shock. And this realization has prompted an
uncharacteristic bout of soul-searching. The rich-poor disparity
strikes right at the heart of Singapores development model and
challenges the citys smug self- image. Many younger Singaporeans
raised in middle-class comfort are beginning to think that Lees
ideal is outdated; they argue that the government has a
responsibility to care more for the downtrodden.
Lowest 10% of society had an average monthly income of only
$75.81
The issue burst into Singapores consciousness in May, when the
media reported a Department of Statistics disclosure that the
lowest 10% of society had an average monthly income of only $75.81.
Officials said the figure (which included unemployed and retired
people) had been misused to present a distorted view. Trade and
Industry Minister George Yeo presented a raft of numbers in
parliament to show that Singapores poor really were not so poor
after all. The standard of living among the lower income has gone
up, said Yeo. Nearly all had televisions and telephones, on
average they had about $11,500 in the state retirement fund (CPF),
and all but a quarter lived in 3-room or larger flats. In other
words, many in the bottom 10% have significant wealth in the form
of CPF savings and their homes, added Yeo. They are not an
underclass.
The hot potato might have cooled there, except that in a classic
piece of mistiming the government then announced substantive pay
hikes for the civil service. On average, salaries jumped 13%. Prime
Minister Goh Chok Tongs wage soared to a cool $1.1 million
almost $3,000 a day. Goh says the new wage bill will cost each
Singaporean about $6 a year the equivalent of five plates of char
kway teow, a popular noodle dish. But opposition legislator Chiam
See Tong noted: I think U.S. President Bill Clinton receives only
about S$600,000 [about $343,000] a year. Surely that should also be
enough for a minister in Singapore?
Goh claims qualified Singaporeans are not interested in such a
poor salary. Several high-fliers pleaded young family or lack of
interest for not coming into politics, he says. They never say it
is because they can earn more outside, but I can tell clearly that
pay is a consideration. The ill-timed raise further exacerbated
the festering subject of income divergence. Admits legislator
Charles Chong: The ratio between the top and bottom has been
increasing.
They wont starve or go homeless or be refused medical care
As a result of prosperity and shifting values, attitudes toward the
poor are slowly beginning to change. Singapore already is doing
something to reduce the adverse effects of the income gap. For
starters, the citys poor dont have it too badly. Says Chong, from
the ruling Peoples Action Party: We look after our disadvantaged
people. They wont starve or go homeless or be refused medical
care. Adds National University of Singapore academic Mukul Asher:
By spreading the consumption of basic amenities like housing,
schooling, healthcare and transport in a more equal way than other
societies, the government mitigates some of the effects of large
and growing income inequalities.
But helping the poor directly would go against the grain of the
ruling partys old guard. Notes veteran oppositionist J. B.
Jeyaretnam: It is Lee Kuan Yews dogma that nothing is free in
this world. There is no free lunch, no handouts, no subsidies.
Jeyaretnam has called on the government to lessen the inequalities
by providing free medical treatment, free education and old-age
pensions to those in need. Younger members of the ruling party are
beginning to realize that poverty is a growing problem one that
the government will have to address to stay in power. Its true,
there is a kind of paranoia among older leaders about Singapore
degenerating into a welfare state, says legislator Chong. But
nowadays, the younger leaders are saying that if we want to be
considered as a humane, civilized society we have to help these
poor people more.
How did Singapore leave its poor behind?
In part, cheap foreign labor shoved unskilled Singaporeans aside.
To achieve high growth rates, the government has increasingly
allowed larger numbers of foreign workers to make up the labor
shortfall caused to some extent by low birthrates. Explains
academic Asher: Singapore does not believe in redistribution of
wealth. Instead, it always wants high rates of growth to reduce
poverty levels.
Electrical fitter Bazlur Rahman, a Bangladeshi working in
Singapore, puts up with his small salary something few
Singaporeans would be willing to do. He earns $11 a day and saves
more than $170 a month, which he sends home. Bazlur lives with
3,200 other foreign workers in a cramped, tight-security compound
at Kaki Bukit. Says Asher: Singapore has been able to use these
foreign workers and their low wages and conditions to maintain its
competitiveness and high growth rates.
Reduce wages or be priced out of the market
To compete with Bazlur and thousands like him, Singapore workers
must reduce their wage demands or be priced out of the market. Yet
to keep top-end managers and professionals at home, the government
and its private sector must make matching offers. Says Asher: All
round you have got a larger wage inequality; wealth is more
concentrated.
Admits Prime Minister Goh: Yes, the income gap in Singapore is
widening because of globalization and the knowledge revolution,
which have enhanced the value of talent dramatically and pressed
down the wages of the unskilled. Can the government do anything?
It has already ruled out the idea of holding down wages at the top
or artificially raising wages at the bottom.
It is already running capable retraining programs. Says Goh: We
must not envy those who have made it rich. Rather, we must provide
the opportunities for more to be like them. It means operating on
the basis of meritocracy that you can get ahead in life if you
work hard, regardless of your background.
What else can be done? As a result of growing concern about the
poor, the government has set up nine community development
councils, which are jointly funded and operated by local officials
and charities. Community leaders draw up policies and every dollar
donated to the councils is matched three-to-one by the government.
This initiative has moderated attitudes. We dont want the
government to take over the voluntary welfare organizations, but
well enhance their work, says Chong. If in this way we are seen
to be helping the less well-off, there will be fewer social
problems.
