I was playing my usual MMORPG last night when a friend I had come to know in-game (via another real-life friend) started chatting with me. He is a really chatty fellow, with a good sense of humour and has a strong sense of justice. Seems like a very good-natured person in general, except that last night, he revealed that he was in fact physically challenged. Apparently, he had met with an accident and has since been wheelchair-bound. He is now working part-time as a web designer and is also subsidised by the government on a pension plan for the physically challenged.
This afternoon, I was just having a chat with Wilfrid over lunch over this matter, and we agreed that in Singapore, we really should have such pension plans to help out the needy. And in my usual cynical way, I lamented that if only we can take the millions that is used to pay our ministers, and help out the physically challenged, it would make a lot of difference to their lives. But who am I kidding isn’t it? That could never happen, because by lowering the salaries of our ministers, we could unwittingly introduce undesirable problems into our “cleaner than white” system, such as corruption and misappropriation of funds… just hypothetically… you know…
On a whim, I Googled for information on pension plans for the physically challenged, just to see what the rest of the world is doing, as compared to Singapore. In some countries like Canada, have programmes to bolster the employability of the physically challenged, such as the programmes by Service Canada. In Taiwan (June 2002), the cabinet approved a draft of a pension plan to regulate the payment of a monthly premium toward a pension scheme, that included the possibility of a mental of physically challenged person to received between 40 to 100 percent of the monthly premium from the central government. These are just examples from my very limited 5 minute search.
In Singapore, it is a widely known and vehemently expressed fact that it is much cheaper to die than to fall ill, and god-forbid become physically challenged due to any sort of reason. And good luck to you if anything happens to you before you buy any insurance (assuming you bought one that covers the particular aspect), because nobody will be there to aid you financially.
While some of the efforts by organisations such as the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) may be applauded, and some people do show a little bit of concern over such issues by voicing
their opinions over forums, one wonders if more could be done (think extremely high-paid ministers). Truth is, I don’t have a clue. I don’t even know what the various charities use the donated money for and how it is spent, or how much has been collected. These days I avoid charities like the plague, because I just don’t have the heart to trust them with my money anymore.
Lastly, a quick look at the Uniquely Singapore website tells a little bit of the grim story. To me, it is laughable that we have to boast about how friendly our country is for the Physically Challenged, when the fact is, by looking under the landmarks that have facilities for the physically challenged, we’re not. There’s one and only one landmark listed? Is that where we’re confining visitors to and expect them to visit only the designated places? The laughable bit is enhanced by the fact that clicking on the link provided to information on Access Singapore, brings you to an invalid page. Assuming these visitors do come here, then I would probably wish them good luck in fighting for toilet access with the likes of Xia Xue.
The whole point is, I think we as a nation who has recently happily celebrated our Nation Day, should rethink and relook into how to save our degenerate country.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:13 pm
I agree that Singapore is somewhat lagging behind as compare to countries like US and Australia when it comes to welfare. For these countries, you can even get paid for non-employment.
I think if the Singapore government is to raise the income tax from where we are now to close to 45% like some of the first world countries, we may then be able to come close to what these countries have achieved.
The question is: do we want to see that happen?
To me, in time to come, it will head that way. That is if we take the Western approach.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I meant “unemployment”. Gosh … what happens to my English?
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I disagree totally. Raising income tax to supplement the needy is not the only means. By increasing income across the board, you will be penalising the poor and middle-income brackets while not affecting the rich. There are many reasons why Singapore should not and cannot raise income tax like the places you have mentioned. Our small domestic market being one, our general lower level of gross income being a second. Other factors – (1) other countries do not have ministers who make obscene amounts from tax-payers’ money; (2) other governments do not implement obscene measures like the ERP system to take money away from its citizens; (3) other governments do not tax obscene amounts on imports of cars, cigarettes and alcohol… etc…
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
A friend just pointed me to this interesing blog
http://mindbloggingstuff.blogs.....ns-in.html
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Erm … did you know that London has something like Singapore’s ERP? Welfare budget is a big budget. Cutting the politicians’ paid hardly enough to create such a hugh budget.
So, a VAT of more than 15% (value added tax) is not obscene to you? Hmmm.
Sure, tax on car import seems obscene. Wait till you see Hong Kong’s parking fee and toll fee and the fee is applied 24 hours. For Singapore, we shift some of the car usage cost to upfront cost.
Do not underestimate the problem of corruption. Count yourself lucky that you are living in a relatively clean environment. Try to live in other Asian countries and you will see what I mean.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Oh .. I just checked. The UK’s Value Added Tax (VAT) which is our GST in Singapore is currently at 17.5%.
Anyway, I am not trying to dispute your view. Each of us have our unique view. All I am trying is say is that each country has its own challenge and has its own way to “milk” the population and to provide different level of welfare. I am looking at welfare at a larger picture … more than just for the physically challenged I suppose.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:29 am
Welfare for the needy is a start. If a government, whose main duty is to service the public, does not lead in this aspect, then nobody will. To be a government, to be in the public service should be a vocation, and it should not be run like a profit-driven corporation. That notion alone already says quite a bit. Your example of UK and other countries has its own merits, but they do take care of their needy, because their government know that if they don’t, they will be out in the next election. And their citizens do go on street protests, which in a way serve as a check and balance of the system.
So on your point about corruption, well nobody wants corruption and nobody should vote for a party into government if there is even a slight wiff of suspicion. But going by the strategy to give high-pay to ministers to counter corruption – how much pay is sufficient? $20k per month? $50k? Apparently in Singapore it is more than $100k per month. So greed is not seen as a form of corruption you’re saying? So greed is an acceptable characteristic for a public servant, because…? And I’m being philosophical here, and in danger of being sued.
All I’m saying, in the original post, is that (1) not enough is done in this country for the needy (2) the citizens need a change in mindset to be more civic minded towards the needy (3) the government should take the lead in doing more, since they are taking so much from the people they serve.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:34 am
Interesting. Let’s doing a thinking exercise here, shall we? Let’s create a scenario whereby all ministers should cut their salary from S$100k+ a month to, probably 4 to 8k a month in line with the citizen’s expectation. What would happen to Singapore. Imagine if you are the minister holding some important portfolio such as trading or health care or something, how would this scenario impact you.
There is no right and wrong answer here. Just a thinking excerise.
I am less fussy over who get how much in the end. I am more interested in the overall big picture.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
That’s not the scenario I am painting, as that’s taking it too far. Again, that’s not the point of the original post. Thanks for playing