Dear All;
Found a interesting letter from ST Forum..
Content is definately better than certain APs Press Release
:-)
LaMei
Sep 29, 2007
Compulsory annuity scheme unfair to the poor, sick and those
without longevity genes
AS SINGAPOREANS begin to live longer and as our society begins to
age, there is this fear that this would put a great strain on the
taxpayers and other resources.
To alleviate this problem, the conventional thinking is that the
aged should have enough money to take care of themselves. Hence,
the idea of a compulsory annuity scheme has been mooted where a
pooled contribution would allow any survivor beyond 85 years of age
to draw out a monthly sum of income.
Though the Government does not believe in giving out handouts
because this would mean having to tax the people more, a compulsory
annuity or compulsory longevity insurance would actually be doing
just that. Once we strip off the veneer of fanciful names, we will
see that as long as it is compulsory and non-refundable, such a
scheme would, in fact, be a kind of taxation to finance a handout
that will be given to those who have managed to live beyond 85
years old.
A scheme like this would have been laudable if it is not so
inequitable. Statistics have shown that the poor, the people with
chronic illnesses and those in the lower social class and without a
family tend to die earlier than those in the higher social
class.
This means that such a compulsory annuity scheme, which pays out
only to those after the age of 85, would be depending on the poor,
the sick and those without longevity genes to support the healthier
and better off.
Furthermore, many of those who live beyond 85 are likely to be
those who really do not need the 'handouts'.
The problem of a bulging population of dependents is not something
new. After World War II, a baby boom did give governments such a
headache. The pressure on governments then was even greater, given
the depleted resources of a post-war economy. There were no
reserves to fall back on.
In Singapore then, the rate of unemployment was high. Half the
population was illiterate and there were not enough schools for the
young. Living conditions were appalling. In other words, the
majority of the population lived in poverty and filth and always
under threat of disease and crime.
The government then had to build standpipes for people to have free
water to bathe, wash their clothes and cook their food. It had to
provide free health care, free mass vaccinations, free mobile
X-rays and free hospitalisation for the poor. Money was not only
spent on building schools, it was also spent on free milk to
nourish the children who were suffering from poor nutrition and
free textbooks for those who could not afford them. Cheap housing
had to be built to provide decent living quarters for a growing
population and recreation facilities for youths to keep them off
the streets.
The problem then, if not more, was no less severe than what we will
be facing in future. Statistics projected to 2030 showing only four
people who are able to support one aged person are often quoted to
show the gravity of the future problem. Is this figure any worse
than the number of dependents that had to be supported by one
provider in the period after the war?
These same baby boomers who had given governments problems when
they were growing up are now part of the elderly boomers who are
growing old.
What are the issues facing the governments then and now? Is the
problem going to be greater in future than then?
In the past, the need for employment, housing, education, health
care, utilities, transport and social facilities was urgent. They
were all major items. Now the only big-ticket item is health care.
There is no reason why with sensible health-care policies, the high
cost of health care could not be overcome. In the past, the
Maternal and Child Health Clinics and the School Health Clinics
provided very good health care to both the growing baby boomers and
their mothers. There is no reason why a similar basic health-care
system could not be developed to care for the elderly. Good health
care does not necessarily mean executive-class health care.
One of the reasons why many elderly boomers do not have enough
money for their retirement is that a lot of their savings was eaten
away by expensive health care, some of which may merely be adding a
bit of quantity to life without giving it any quality.
Thus, the approach that was used to tackle the problems of the baby
boomers should be transposed to tackle the problems of the elderly
boomers. We cannot expect a paltry monthly annuity payout to do
this. There is no way to avoid government interventions, the
involvement of the state agencies and society to deal with the
problem.
We need to rationalise health care, especially for chronic diseases
and end-of-life care, so as not to make health care a burden to the
patient, the family or the state. We have to develop greater social
support for the elderly. As with child care, we now need
government-subsidised day-care centres, nursing homes and community
hospitals. We need to introduce parent-care leave and no-pay leave
for people who want to take time off to look after an ailing
parent. Instead of the Baby Bonus scheme, we can have
elderly-parent bonus scheme and exemption of maid levy for the
totally-dependent elderly. A similar scheme like health education
and home visits that nurses used to do for rural Singapore could be
used for home-bound elderly.
A compulsory annuity scheme that is non-refundable is not only
inequitable. By implicitly telling the very old that they have to
take care of themselves, we are giving out the signal that the old
aged no longer need the family and the society to take care of
them. What kind of society would we be if families and society try
to wash their hands off the old elderly?
There is no reason why we cannot overcome that problem of the
elderly boomers if families, society and the Government put their
shoulders together against the wheel. Even if some money is spent,
it is worth every cent if what we get in the end is a more
compassionate and enlightened society.
After all, with all the prosperity generated by the elderly boomers
during their prime, whatever programme would merely be a gesture of
gratitude from a country to the people who have served it
well.
Dr Wong Wee Nam
