Tan Kin Lian / Columnist
For many decades, the Singapore Government has adopted a policy of a “no welfare state”. They have extolled on the population the risk of a welfare mentality – people get lazy and expect a good life without putting in the effort.
Most of the population accepted the merits of this policy, especially during the years when the economic growth was good and jobs were plentiful.
The global financial crisis and severe economic downturn had resulted in a severe loss of employment in many countries, including Singapore. For the first time, many Singaporeans realise that it is now possible to be jobless, even if one is well educated and skilled, willing to work hard and even to accept lower pay.
Should Singapore now re-consider this “no welfare state” policy? Should some form of unemployment benefit be introduced, for people who are retrenched for no fault of their own? Should an old age pension be provided?
Survey
I responded to a request by several people to carry out a survey. 50 people responded to the survey. The breakdown by age group is:
|
Less than 30 |
28% |
|
31 to 50 |
50% |
|
Over 50 |
22% |
There is a good representation of people in the various age groups in this survey. The detailed results can be found here.
Social benefits
The respondents were told that social benefits have to be paid by taxation. With this understanding, 86% said that they prefer the state to provide for the basic social benefits, such as education, health, safety. 8% prefer the state to provide these benefits at a generous level (and to levy higher taxes to pay for them). 6% prefer the state to provide as little as possible.
Types of social benefits
The respondents indicated the following level of support for each social benefit.
A score of 30% indicates that the benefit should be provided at the bare minimum, 60% indicate that it should be provided at a basic level for everyone and a score of 90% indicate that it should be provided at a generous level.
|
Education (up to secondary level) |
78% |
|
Health care |
73% |
|
Infrastructure |
72% |
|
Safety |
72% |
|
Law and order |
72% |
These above social benefits receive the highest scores. Most respondents indicate that they should be provided to every one. Some preferred them to be provided at a more generous level.
|
Consumer protection |
66% |
|
Economic strategy |
61% |
|
University education |
61% |
|
Old age pension |
57% |
The above social benefits receive a moderate level of support. The need for consumer protection (against bad practices by businesses) receives a fairly high score.
|
Insurance (death, disability, sickness) |
49% |
|
Unemployment benefit |
46% |
|
Investment fund |
39% |
|
Religion |
23% |
The above social benefits receive a lower level of support, but (apart from religion) are at a sufficiently high level to be considered.
Percentage of GDP
The respondents prefer an average of 29% of GDP to be spent by the government to provide the social benefits and other activities of the state. This is higher than the current level of 20% but is lower than 35% for many European countries and 50% for the high welfare countries (such as Denmark).
50% prefer the state to spend more on necessary social benefits (and to levy higher taxes to pay for them). 38% say that the current state spending and taxation is fine. 12% prefer the spending and taxation to be reduced.
60% say that they are willing to pay higher taxes to enjoy better welfare and social benefits (which will benefit the people at large. 40% disagree.
A larger majority, i.e. 76%, said that the state can afford to provide better social benefits with the current level of taxation, i.e. instead of accumulating surpluses in the reserves. 24% said that the state is already provided as much as can be afforded.
69% said that the spending on certain areas, such as defense, is too high and some of the budget can be diverted to provide social benefits. 31% disagreed.
Respondents’ views
Here are some additional views put forward by the respondents:
a) Reduce the salary of ministers and top civil servants. No other countries pay more than Singapore. The money saved can be used for health and education subsidies.
b) Spending on defense has been very high despite the fact that the ASEAN countries have reached a high level of international relations and cooperation. Instead of spending on defense, the spending should be on diverted to improve bilateral relations through joint-venture projects.
c) We want change and for our society to be better and united. Citizens should not have to fear for their livelihood and should feel more secure when there is social welfare net to fall back on.
My observations
Here are my observations from the survey:
a) There is strong support for a higher level of state spending to improve social benefits and provide better security for the people. The existing spending on education, health care and infrastructure is well supported. The respondents also like to see higher spending on consumer protection, unemployment benefit, old age pension and university education.
b) Many people are willing to pay higher taxes to enjoy better social benefits.
c) The current level of taxation can support a higher level of social benefits by reducing the annual surplus that is put into reserves and by reducing the high expenditure in certain areas, such as defense.
Perhaps it is time for the Government to re-think its policy of “no welfare state”. Welfare can provide greater security for the people against events that are outside of their control. There is a risk of abuse of welfare benefits, but the abuse can be managed and reduced.
Many countries have addressed these challenges and found some solutions that are practical and useful. They are not perfect, but they do more good than harm. It is time for Singapore to adopt an open approach.
—-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I have a request:
Health is the most important issue over here. The Cancer disease. I’m totally not supporting with cancer patients to go through chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy is a very strong drug,it has a radiation that can make the patient become worse because it kills all the good and bad cells.I can say more than 90% of the Cancer patients won’t make it.
I’m suggesting another alternative way for cancer patients to get cure, by using Medicinal Marijuana. It is the same system on bringing in Alcohol legalize. but for marijuana it is more for medicinal purposes. United States has already have decriminalised most of the states.
For tobacco, I believe most smokers got hook because there is Tar content inside the ciggaretes but what I have research, in Japan they sell tobacco that does not contain any Tar at all 0mg.
Plz do some change!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medical_Marijuana_Act
I agree with Mr Tan that some form of welfare can be provided and taxes adjusted higher when we are economically productive. I would rather pay higher taxes when I am healthy and young and be assured in the knowledge that I will not be destitute when out of a job( through no fault of mine obviously), ill or old.
A case in point. Australians pay high taxes, yet enjoy a good standard of living, courtesy of a ‘welfare’ system. The elderly and the ill do not have to fear falling ill and being unable to afford the care that they need. You do not see old people slaving away at menial jobs like many do in Singapore. They can actually RETIRE. There is pride in their city ( I refer to Melbourne in particular) where I met several retirees who volunteer their free time in the city as City Guides. Others volunteer in churches or get involved in community clubs ( and which are not politically affiliated). This active and healthy aging is possible with a good ‘welfare’ system in place. am privileged to have PR status there.
Not really a no welfare state for the worry of Singaporeans to be lazy. More like letting you take care of your future. As for those who are finding it hard to get jobs outside. Have you approached your MP for “job matching” instead of crying foul and the whole world is against you? For the information of the critical Singaporean out there, you can see that for the western countries of which Singaporeans always like to compare us with, this so called welfare net is collapsing. Recently we hear of news of them raising the retirement age and very soon they have to work up until they are 100 years old so as to prevent their government from having a headache of thinking where to get the funds from. Our previous generation and the politicians from that era forged a system in which they gave us one of the lowest income taxes in the world, whilst getting us to save for our future as opposed to the “western” style of high income taxes(both on your salary as well as your everyday expenses) but taking care of you when you retire. I think if we were to have headed that way, the complains from Singaporeans today will be of a different kind…One of “Wah lau! Income tax and eating out so expensive!” One bowl of laksa may cost S$9.00 under that scheme cuz it is inclusive of bla bla bla tax(what ever you can think of).
I quote “Not really a no welfare state for the worry of Singaporeans to be lazy. More like letting you take care of your future. As for those who are finding it hard to get jobs outside. Have you approached your MP for “job matching” instead of crying foul and the whole world is against you? For the information of the critical Singaporean out there, you can see that for the western countries of which Singaporeans always like to compare us with, this so called welfare net is collapsing. Recently we hear of news of them raising the retirement age and very soon they have to work up until they are 100 years old so as to prevent their government from having a headache of thinking where to get the funds from. Our previous generation and the politicians from that era forged a system in which they gave us one of the lowest income taxes in the world, whilst getting us to save for our future as opposed to the “western” style of high income taxes(both on your salary as well as your everyday expenses) but taking care of you when you retire. I think if we were to have headed that way, the complains from Singaporeans today will be of a different kind…One of “Wah lau! Income tax and eating out so expensive!” One bowl of laksa may cost S$9.00 under that scheme cuz it is inclusive of bla bla bla tax(what ever you can think of).” Nothing to say about this fellow Singaporeans? THe truth hurts doesnt it. I am sure you all have a mind of your own to think and do not let emotions get in your way. Lets all work for the betterment of our future and the only country we have. Onwards SINGAPORE!
Mr Tan, I share your sentiments. even when we progress as a country, we should ensure there is no singaporean left behind.