The Economist calls Singapore a ‘stingy nanny’

The respected British weekly, The Economist, has published a cutting criticism of Singapore’s social safety net in its latest edition dated 13 February 2010, titled “Welfare in Singapore: The stingy nanny”. Here are some excerpts.

The respected British weekly, The Economist, has published a cutting criticism of Singapore’s social safety net (or lack thereof) in its latest edition dated 13 February 2010, titled “Welfare in Singapore: The stingy nanny”. Here are some excerpts:

Citizens are obliged to save for the future, rely on their families and not expect any handouts from the government unless they hit rock bottom.
In government circles “welfare” remains a dirty word, cousin to sloth and waste.
The most destitute citizens’ families may apply for public assistance; only 3,000 currently qualify.
Applicants complain that the process of seeking help is made tiresome and humiliating. Indeed that could be the point, supposing it deters free-riders.
But the thinness of the safety net also reflects a widespread article of faith, recited and reinforced over the years. Even among the social workers who work in hard-hit communities there is surprisingly little frustration at the meagreness of the handouts on offer or at the lengthy application process.
In 2008 the World Bank rated it the third richest country in the world, in terms of GDP per head at purchasing-power parity. And the idea that its Big-Brotherly government might be outfoxed by conniving welfare queens seems odd.
Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father and still its “minister mentor” has maintained that ambitious migrants help to keep citizens on their toes. In an interview given to National Geographic last July he said that if native Singaporeans lag behind “hungry” foreigners because “the spurs are not stuck on [their] hinds”, that is not the state’s problem to solve.
The Economic Society of Singapore (ESS)—not exactly a radical cell—recently proposed to a government committee that it should build a more robust safety net, starting with unemployment insurance. This would promote social stability and help muster public support for Singapore’s open-door migration policies, it argues. Properly designed, such measures would not create disincentives to work and thrift. “While self-reliance is a good principle in general, it may be neither efficient nor just if taken to extremes,” noted the ESS.

Citizens are obliged to save for the future, rely on their families and not expect any handouts from the government unless they hit rock bottom.

In government circles “welfare” remains a dirty word, cousin to sloth and waste.

The most destitute citizens’ families may apply for public assistance; only 3,000 currently qualify.

Applicants complain that the process of seeking help is made tiresome and humiliating. Indeed that could be the point, supposing it deters free-riders.

But the thinness of the safety net also reflects a widespread article of faith, recited and reinforced over the years. Even among the social workers who work in hard-hit communities there is surprisingly little frustration at the meagreness of the handouts on offer or at the lengthy application process.

In 2008 the World Bank rated it the third richest country in the world, in terms of GDP per head at purchasing-power parity. And the idea that its Big-Brotherly government might be outfoxed by conniving welfare queens seems odd.

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father and still its “minister mentor” has maintained that ambitious migrants help to keep citizens on their toes. In an interview given to National Geographic last July he said that if native Singaporeans lag behind “hungry” foreigners because “the spurs are not stuck on [their] hinds”, that is not the state’s problem to solve.

The Economic Society of Singapore (ESS)—not exactly a radical cell—recently proposed to a government committee that it should build a more robust safety net, starting with unemployment insurance. This would promote social stability and help muster public support for Singapore’s open-door migration policies, it argues. Properly designed, such measures would not create disincentives to work and thrift. “While self-reliance is a good principle in general, it may be neither efficient nor just if taken to extremes,” noted the ESS.

————

I think this was quite a fair and well-researched article (as one would expect from The Economist). The only mistake I think they made was to say that 35 per cent of our work force is foreign. That is the percentage of foreigners in our entire population. I think the percentage of foreigners in our work force is higher than that.

I’m looking forward to the government’s ‘robust’ response to this article. They always respond to The Economist because of the newspaper’s influence both locally and internationally. But I can just imagine the press secretary belting out the standard Singapore government rhetoric of permanent vulnerability and slippery slope arguments. These will only serve as red herrings to stymie debate on the issue.

No one is advocating a free for all welfare system in Singapore. But we first have to admit that the current system is not taking care of all the people that are truly in need, and look for ways to improve it. A properly designed social safety net will provide peace of mind and a higher tolerance for risk-taking and entrepreneurship, without taking away any incentive to work hard for one’s keep.

Author: Gerald Giam

Gerald Giam is the Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC. He is a member of the Workers' Party of Singapore. The opinions expressed on this page are his alone.

6 thoughts on “The Economist calls Singapore a ‘stingy nanny’”

  1. pap govt is pursuing a penny-wise, pound foolish policy to deter some free-riders. they don’t think of the long term benefit of strengthening the social fabric by having a better social safety net.

  2. that guy said “… ambitious migrants help to keep citizens on their toes. ”

    I like to counter ask, who is capable of keeping you on yours?
    pls enlighten.

  3. Hello Dear,
    I am DMr.Douglas Brown ,i am 47 Years Old, From United Kingdom. I work in a KGM – Mobile Network a telecommunication Company in UK and I don’t usually stays home unless during weekends..I will like you to know that i have just two kids which name is ANABEL Duke and DOUGLAS JR BROWN, they are a boy and a Girl they are just 4 and 6 years old.I want male or female nanny who will be take care my home because i only left my kids at home after my wife die in car accident last year. And I have an apartment room for them that would be taking care of them in my house.So i will like you to know that I will be paying you 3,700 BRITISH POUNDS for every month and a pocket money of 250 POUNDS per week for the buying of some things for your self and i will also be responsible for some of the money for your traveling documents but you have to agree that i will pay for your Visa and you will pay for your working permit.
    And the working hour is just 4 hours per day and your responsibility in my house is just to take care of my daughters, cooking, taking them on shopping, taking them to where the school bus will pick them up from which is just 2 km ahead from home. And also you have a private room bathroom toilet and also if you wish to be having free period from 5 pm to 6 pm are acceptable.. So i will like you to get back to me if you are interested in being my nanny for my Kids.
    Reply to my personal email: mrdouglasbrownn@yahoo.com, i will send you my family picture and my phone numbers if you are interested
    I hope to hear from you soon.
    Regards
    Mr.Douglas Brown

Comments are closed.