Thus, with the implementation of the search engine, it would reduce the time spent by social workers to obtain a scheme for the people in need and hence reduce the strain on government resources. More unemployed households would be able to achieve the same income level as the employed households and potentially being able to get out of the poverty cycle!

However, it could also place a greater strain on the government budget/resources since there is increasing expenditure from increasing schemes being implemented. There will be greater opportunity cost as well since the resources used may be diverted elsewhere etc education.

My personal opinion:
On the other hand, there may be other implications in doing so etc ( increasing competition within similar skill industries and thus lowering the income level and hence standard of living for employed . Moreover, with their increased purchasing power, they have the ability to demand for better good or necessities, leading to an inflation of the prices of goods. This leads to a fall in the real income of other consumers and hence they are able to enjoy lesser luxurious goods. This will reinforce their fall in standard of living too. Lastly, in bid to maintain their real income, people will try to ask for a wage raise and thus this leads to increase in wages. This would in turn deter investments/MNCs from setting up in SG which lowers the potential revenue in the future. )

I’d like to point out a technical error in the report. Gini Coefficient should be between 0 and 1. 0 being perfect equality in income/wealth distribution and 1 being most unequal. Since the release of General Household Survey 2005 which stated the Gini coefficient for Singngapore as 0.52 across all households, more recent data seems to highlight only employed households. Gini Coefficient amongst employed household is 0.485 (2007) up from 0.472 (2006) before adjustment for ‘gifts’ such as progress package etc. Factoring only employed households in the calculation is problematic. The share of nation’s wealth cannot ignore unemployed households especially in a situation where the cause for unemployment is structural. However, in doing so, and further adjusting the figures to include handouts (which is not income by employment) the gini coefficient seems to be lower than if unemployed households are included. This is quite contradicting as on one hand DOS removed unemployed households as any income received would be from public assistance but then they adjusted the figures to include income from ‘non-employment’ goodies/handouts.

(Recalling from memory so I may not be very accurate), As a gauge, the best performing countries based on Gini Coefficient are Sweden and Denmark with gini coefficients hovering aroung 0.23-0.25 and Namibia being the worst at 0.71. Japan/Korea/China is aroung 0.33-0.35.

From the paper you cited, Gini Coefficient of employed households as published by DOS are:

2005 – 0.470 (0.459)
2006 – 0.476 (0.455)
2007 – 0.489 (0.479)
2008 – 0.481 (0.462)

(in bracket) denotes gini coefficient adjusted for ‘non-employment income’ handouts from state.

Perhaps, you’re making reference to gini index?

so a database will allow the social worker to enter some details about the family they are assisting (eg family size, monthly income, etc) and get a narrowed-down list of schemes that the family qualifies for.

so yeah to clarify its meant for social workers not the underprivileged themselves.

and to those who comment that this is too mechanical, do note that the search engine does not determine exactly which scheme the family should apply for. it just narrows down the list of schemes, so the social worker has a far easier time. the “human touch” is certainly still present.

yeap (:

alot of the schemes and qualifying criteria is public info.
so if anyone is interested, they can just take a weekend to do it
and it is done.

What’s next ? 10% discount for people under assistance schemes for Lexus cars?

New Hope CS has several pastors as board members. Let’s hope it will not go down the slippery slope of unbridled evangelism on young impressionable minds from poor families a la our in-famous jailbirds Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan Hien from the Little Bride saga.