Singapore’s Poor Law
Saturday, 5 July 2008, 7:39 am |
Farquhar
A Dickensian reprieve for low-income groups
The authorities, concerned by the trend of the falling purchasing power of low-income groups, devise a means-tested sliding-scale of wage supplements in an attempt to mitigate poverty. Recourse to relief is implicitly discouraged through stringent tests, meagre payoffs and the social stigma of pauperism. Such access is to be deliberately made as difficult as possible, on the premise that doing otherwise would allow conniving vagrants to overrun the system.
The above might sound somewhat like Singapore’s cautious approach to helping low-income groups, but it’s actually a leaf out of pre-modern Britain’s Poor Laws. That anachronistic system was the country’s main provision for social security from the 16th century until the advent of the welfare state at the turn of the 20th century.
In their approaches to the indigent, modern Singapore and Dickensian Britain appear to share certain loose similarities in philosophy, including a belief that poverty usually reflects a want of effort, or that the low-income groups are an irreconcilable class apart from the rulers. This could explain why there seem to be some parallels in both systems, and why there might be some value to considering how some of Britain’s Poor Laws worked when it comes to examining the Singaporean context.
First, wage support for the low-income groups. The Speenhamland system, which lasted from 1795 to 1834 as an amendment to the original Elizabethan Poor Law, was instituted as a means to counter inflationary pressure on the poor sparked by a prolonged rise in grain prices. Local authorities decide on the amount of food needed to keep a person from starving and supplemented his wages accordingly if these were less than the subsistence level.
While it was a significant improvement over the previous Poor Law, one unintended result was that wages were kept depressed. Since the system effectively guaranteed a minimum income, employers typically paid wages that were less than the subsistence level, in the knowledge that the authorities would make up the difference.
Furthermore, there was no real redistribution of wealth. The poor remained impoverished, while the wealth that they helped to generate remained in the hands of the upper classes. For the latter, it proved to be a relatively cheap method of keeping revolution at bay while sententiously parading their benevolence. Ironically, neighbouring France, though convulsed by the barbarity of the Reign of Terror, actually saw a more substantial increase in the standard of living for its peasants after the Revolution.
The Speenhamland system was eventually superseded by the New Poor Law of 1834 in a bid to nationalise a disjointed system. Fearing that the new scheme might be abused, the authorities in effect penalised those that sought relief by requiring that they subject themselves to the isolation and harsh conditions of government-run workhouses.
The consequence was that the indigent were further stigmatised, draining them of their dignity and self-esteem, while at the same time conditioning them to maintain the social order under the notion that their betters were providing for them.
Arguably, the Poor Laws themselves helped to perpetuate poverty across generations, by giving just enough for the indigent to subsist on but not to break out of the cycle of poverty. The children they had under such conditions therefore found themselves similarly trapped.
“Something will turn up”
To be sure, there are huge differences between modern Singapore and Dickensian Britain. For example, Singapore enjoys the kind of universal access to education and healthcare that the latter could not even conceive of, which makes privation far more bearable. There is also little of that absolute poverty witnessed in pre-modern Britain.
But the British example might offer some lessons for Singapore. First, is that the government’s much-lauded Workfare Scheme might actually end up doing very little for low-income groups. Like its British predecessor, it could result in wages for low-income groups continuing to be depressed by lessening the incentive of employers to pay better wages. This is not likely to wean lower-income groups off government handouts anytime soon.
Wages for lowest spectrum of jobs - cleaners, labourers and related workers - declined from a monthly median of $1000 to $968 from 2006 to 2007, though this is probably not attributable to the effects of Workfare. Yet it’s difficult to see how people with that kind of income are to escape the poverty trap even with the top up from Workfare, which has boosted take-home pay by a maximum of only 5% in most cases.
This might not even be enough to make up for the effects of higher inflation or the decline in wages. Like its British predecessor, it might only be enough to keep low-income groups at the subsistence level.
Second, is that overly stringent criteria could put off all except the seriously destitute. While not as harsh as the British example, the rigorous conditions to qualify for Work Support under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, for example (household income below $1500 a month, satisfying a needs test, having little savings or family support) might still be tough enough to discourage many of the so-called “deserving poor” - people who are struggling badly, but not badly enough to get help.
Another aspect that Britain’s Poor Laws failed to address was the stigma of poverty itself. The psychological effect of such stigma belies raw economic numbers, and was partly the reason why Poor Laws were thought to be propagating poverty. Singapore’s programmes, with their hard-headed focus on quantitative criterion and oft-made assumption that people simply need to work harder, is in danger of doing the same.
One final consideration is that among the reasons why these measures were eventually abandoned in Britain was because they proved insufficient to stem the tide of inequality and match the growing expectations of increasingly politically conscious working class. A similar scenario might be developing in Singapore, with social justice becoming a major part of political discourse amidst the relentless trend of rising inequality.
In retrospect, the Poor Laws were notable British innovations for their time; the Elizabethan Poor Law of the early 17th century, for instance, was actually the world’s first systematic attempt to mitigate the ills of poverty. It would be a pity if the Singapore government, with the benefit of hundreds of years of hindsight and the examples of countless other welfare innovations to draw on, can do no better than those.
————-
Who is Farquhar? Read about him here.
He can be reached at : farquhar.toc@gmail.com
————-
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
Hi Farquhar,
An excellent article! Although I am not able to verify the historical facts, I generally agree with your observations.
Without a minimum wage, the lowly educated workers will have weak bargaining power and have to work for depressed wages that are below the subsistence level.
In the past, some people gave the following reasons against a minimum wage:
1. Those at low wages should upgrade to a higher paying job
2. Higher wages will drive business away from Singapore
If we examine the facts, we will find that there is little evidence to support these two arguments.
For most jobs and people at the low level, there is little that upgrading can do,to help them earn a better income. This is why there are so few successful stories.
Most of the low income jobs are in the service industry. They have to be done in Singapore. Higher wages is a cost that is to be paid by the more affluent members of the society to give a fairer standard of living to the weaker members of our society.
I hope that Government agencies will stop the practice of outsourcing the lower level jobs to the privatised contracting industry, as it has been depressing the wages for the workers in these sectors, and is also a source of unemployment.
Just to follow up a little on Tan Kin Lian.
One just simply should not upgrade to be ‘overqualified’ for a meagre paying job nor should one upgrade to accept a low paying job.
I ask Singaporeans to read the word upgrade seriously, upgrading oneself requires time and money.
UPGRADING, the process itself has the effect of producing a VERY VICIOUS CYCLE that goes round and round and never stop.
IT IS TIME TO STOP USING THIS CRAP AS AN EXCUSE rather than a cause and course for improvement.
patriot
Note:- maintain a bar (ability to speak passable english, entry exam or test their skill in said skillset) for the quality of The imported skills.
Most who came here are not as qualified as they CLAIMED.
There are those with PURCHASED diploma and they are not a skilled as they claimed.
A HR dept with majority FT will favour FT especially if they are from the same country.
Companies had discriminated against Singaporean males with NS liabilities.
Little things does accumulate.
Kin Lian raises a valid debate — that of whether to have a Minimum Wage.
However there are potential pitfalls, which could stifle its objectives of helping the poor. The issues are a bit too complex to address in a single comment (which is probably why Kin Lian had to limit himself to a short posting).
For a more detailed analysis, check out this article:
http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/11/minimum-wage-proceed-with-caution.html
I agree with Mr Tan’s view that a more equitable system will emerge from implementing a minimum wage system.
Some efficiency of the free market may be lost but if excessive wealth is not distributed through some government intervention, the dissatisfaction and social problems arising at the poverty level could prove to be a bigger drag on Singapore’s economy in the long term.
Wow I agree with the minimum wage system too. The current system reward those who do most for least they need a job to stay here and not turn illegal immigrant.This have lead to some FT stealing and committing criminal acts to get money to supplement their expenses.
The bar will also help to prevent an abuse of the system too.By making sure qualified person are here.
I just want to comment on the quality of articles published in ‘TOC’ (in particular, its weekly features) and on the overall presentation of this business site. “Dot.com” companies were thought to be a thing of the past, especially after events the turn of the century, but companies like TOC have managed to re-invent themselves so that they are profitable again. Non-profit organisations or, for the matter, non-profit firms and partnerships running “Dot.org” sites really ought to learn a thing or two from you guys. Rock on.
i find that “mkta” is making a rather insidious insinuation.. because TOC runs google ads they are a “business site” that is “profitable”? the same could be said for various social commentors such as Mr Wang. it is strange that we always expect the marginal and “opposing” voices to be entirely non-profit. mkta–is your post meant to be sarcastic? or ironic? i think for the latter some measure of subtlety and finesse is necessary, but i suppose we must make do with what God gives us.
a good rationale for adverts is this: hosting this site costs money, and programming/maintenance does take time and effort that i believe should be rewarded. the individuals who do these things voluntarily don’t necessarily profit, and they are clearly aware of that and don’t mind. more importantly, the advertisements are neither intrusive nor in-your-face. i have less difficulty skimming past them than other adverts in (free) papers like TODAY.
people such as myself who do read and enjoy the articles, i believe, find no issue with the possibility of the website making money (if it does at all). if the site is “profitable”, i would attribute it to the public interest in its investigative journalism and articles which provide interesting independent viewpoints which (i need hardly remind you) our traditional media sadly lacks. and yes, rock on, TOC. i don’t like all your articles uniformly, but more than a few have given me things worth pondering about
Jerry Where is your cut of the profit?
[...] Discourse - TOC: Singapore’s Poor Law - Singapore Peak Oil: Are Singapore’s Food Policies Sustainable? - This lush garden within: [...]
Recently, PM Lee has called for more Singaporeans to donate, according to their means and from their heart. Every society has to take care of its people, especially the vulnerable groups, said Mr Lee. He added this has to be done either by the state or through private initiatives by getting the more successful Singaporeans to help the weaker ones. “The more they have gained from society, the greater their obligation to give back something to their fellow citizens. They must not allow society to be split between the haves and have-nots, and undermine the whole basis for able people to succeed and create wealth in Singapore,” said Mr Lee.
The question is, how much do Mr Lee and his ministers donate themselves? Maybe they should be transparent about this, since this transparency is what the PAP prides itself in. If all Mr Lee and his team of overpaid ministers only talk and no action, they can hardly be credible leaders and asked everyone else to donate while they do not donate or only donate the bare minimum.
let us try this idea for the good of low income singaporeans. how come they ever upgrade when they are in the deep “proverty” pit. you must bring them on level ground (minimum wage) so that they can start walking. and stop using target hand-out tricks as we know why you are always doing these. we are not stupid