Are low income Singaporeans really poor?
The widening income gap between the haves and have nots have been an issue of much debate in recent years. I think policy-makers generally feel that the widening gap is inevitable, but in order to appease its constituents, who happen to vote them into office, they take on the tagline that this gap can be narrowed through robust economic growth. Thus, the continuation of the ever vicious cycle of basing Singapore's success on economic prosperity.
I happen to discuss this issue with Mydaemon a few days back. Basically, I wondered how can low income earners consider themselves 'poor', in every sense of the word, when they expect to subscribe to a handphone, have large TVs and hi-fi sets at home. It is perhaps propitious that Straits Times carried an article on this today.
Titled "He has cellphone, aircon, TV. Is he poor?", the story looked at the plight of low income earners caught by the sudden economic downturn. Here are some of the extracts from the article.
"A Department of Statistics study on HDB home ownership, released on Monday, shows that more than half of those in the bottom 20 per cent by income own four-room or bigger flats.
Members of Parliament say an increasing number of families suffer this wretched state: their homes are not short of creature comforts but their bank accounts reflect a picture of poverty." . . . . . .
At the last Parliament sitting, he (an MP) argued that many luxuries of 10 years ago are now basic essentials: children's enrichment classes, toys and even travel.
(extracted from ST)
The gist of the story is that the definition of how poverty is defined today differs significantly from how it was defined say a decade back. Frankly speaking, I disagree with such a view. I find it hard to stomach the fact that "enrichment classes, toys and even travel" can be considered as basic essentials. For me, if you don't have the money don't send your kids to ballet or violin classes. Forget about a PSP or gaming console for your child. Take them for a walk in the park or engage in other activities. Toys are not everything. Lastly, while I think everyone should expand their horizons through visits to other countries etc, I think those who cannot afford it, should just stretch that dollar by spending it on food, electricity or even a landline.
I am a believer of Maslow's theory of Hierarchy of Human Needs (see Wikipedia's explanation for the theory). Although his theory is kind of simplistic, it sums up, for me, the essence of human needs.
I find it quite unbelieveable that PCs are considered as a basic necessity when families are finding it difficult to pay their water or electricity bills. Giving a PC to poor families would only put extra burden on them since their electricity bills are likely to rocket. And there's also the subscription for internet connection. For me, I think a better solution would be to educate the low income families of the importance of learning the use of a PC, and more importantly, the usefulness of the internet. Instead of helping them source for cheap PCs, policy-makers should consider setting up computer clusters at Community Clubs which charges nominal rates for the use of PCs and internet connection. Firstly, it would be cheaper to subsidise such a scheme. Secondly, low income families would be burdened with the additional stress of rising electrical bills.
As for enrichment classes, I read that help should be given to low income families when their kids are talented in a certain field. The example cited was ballet. I fully agree that talented Singaporeans should be given every opportunity to fulfill their potential. But my question is, what level of talent are we talking about? Do we want to subsidise ballet classes for kids from low income families when their potential will only take them up to the local stage? If their talent is only good enough for performance at small shows etc, I am sorry to say that these kids should focus on mainstream education then. If they are so talented, then we have countless scholarships to aid them. So, it begs the question on why enrichment classes is a basic necessity. It is a basic requirement only for those who are 'world-beaters' and are unable to fulfill their potential due to monetary constraints. Help should only be extended to these families.
Having said all that, where should we draw the line? Call me hard-hearted. My view is that if you want to spend money on air-con, handphone, TV, hi-fi systems etc, then don't stretch out your hand for free handouts. By cutting these corners, many low income families can more than make ends meet. Luxuries are luxuries, make no mistake about that. One should never make the mistake of thinking that they are bare necessities because society has become more affluent.
Ur Sweet Lullaby
10/12/2005 11:27:00 pm
I think there are really poor people in Singapore...people who have 5-6 children and only earn about $1500 per month...parent and child who support each other by selling newspapers and earning only a couple of hundred dollars....somehow I think the focus of ST is somewhat inaccurate.
darkmuze
10/24/2005 09:16:00 am
Tsk Tsk. There are many genuinely poor and needy people out there who require the attention of the government much more than those who consider the Internet, the aircon or a car as necessities. Not to mention, tuition, travel and various enrichment classes.
Sometimes I think we Singaporeans are either too self pompous or obliviously insatiable for our own good. Theres no end to comparison and if there's an overwhelming need for finger-pointing, there is only society and ourselves to blame for setting such high standards.
We tend to be so blinded by material ambitions, we forget the simplicities that can make us happy.