Aged poor
The state steps in
Singapore's billion-dollar focus to help suffering elderly and jobless, a responsibility so far delegated to families. By Seah Chiang Nee
Jan 23, 2005

THE economy recovered powerfully last year but tens of thousands of Singaporeans are not celebrating. They are still struggling in the wake of the state's worst downturn in 40 years.

Among them is Richard Tan, 46, who had worked in a shipping company for 14 years until he was retrenched four years ago. Today, after two other retrenchments, he remains jobless.

Because of his age, he has given up hope of getting a meaningful job again, let alone one that can pay him his last-earned salary of S$4,200 a month.

To feed his family - wife (salesgirl) and two school-going children - Tan gives private tuition and does occasional temporary work. Yes, a few jobs were dangled but they were low level, with "ridiculously poor" salaries.

Then there is Ah Quee, 66, an odd-job labourer who brings home between S$600 and S$700 a month.

He hasn't the skills for a better job or retirement savings. "I can't afford to get sick or go to hospital because I won't be able to pay."

They are among a small army of Singaporeans - the poor and needy, the elderly and the jobless - who have been excluded from Singapore's economic boom.

Some drive taxis, others sell insurance or soft toys to teenagers.

With economic restructuring, the numbers have increased and the plight worsened. The severe cost-cutting operations have strengthened fundamentals but at the cost of spreading financial pain.

The sufferers include retrenched workers above 45 who can't find meaningful jobs, the elderly and unskilled who are squeezed by higher costs and the people who lack the skills needed by the market.

All this has dampened small retail business and raised bankruptcy last year to record levels.

As a result, public unhappiness has risen and people's confidence fell just as the ruling People's Action Party (PAP), now led by Lee Hsien Loong, is preparing for a general election.

In a tacit admission that the problem has become serious, the Prime Minister announced in Parliament a billion-dollar package to help Singapore's hard-pressed population.

The PAP has always rejected welfarism or anything involving cash handouts to help the needy.

It believes this should be the responsibility of families and private charity, not taxpayers.

Disheartened Singaporeans who believe that down-and-out citizens can expect little or no government aid are heartened by Lee's message.

After going through such a rough patch, people now worry about their jobs and Singapore's global competitiveness against the likes of China and India.

This was the conclusion of the government's Feedback Unit, whose chairman and PAP MP Wang Kai Yuen said: "No longer are we cocky of our future."

By using a large budget to fight "poverty", Hsien Loong is loosening another of his father's bedrock rules.

His announcement came after two days of debate, in which more than 40 MPs spoke of the plight of Singaporeans who failed to keep up with progress.

But the bulk of the money will not be direct cash handouts to individuals. Funds will be used to strengthen the machinery to help (among others):

? Older workers stay employed longer;

? The sickly poor, by doubling Medifund (for healthcare) from S$1bil to S$2bil;

? Needy families through a new S$500mil ComCare fund by a government-linked civic organisation (later to double to S$1bil); and

? The unemployed with a new scheme to redesign jobs, match jobs and give incentives.

For some hard-hit families, the suffering has been so bad they could not afford to send their children to school.

In better times when almost everyone who wanted could find a job, Lee Kuan Yew's notion of the family being the ultimate provider had made sense.

But with employment becoming a permanent and unpredictable feature, this do-it-yourself mentality is becoming an unrealistic test.

The recent recession had public calls for a more direct, less tight-fisted government help to stricken families.

Adding to the trouble is the rapidly ageing population. More Singaporeans want a longer-term welfare scheme.

"The Asian economic boom helped to postpone the need to have government giving more direct welfare cheques," said Associate Professor Ngiam Tee Liang, head of the National University of Singapore's social work and psychology department.

"This is a new phase we're entering. How can the government provide for the safety net of people when the economic pillar is not strong and the family and community pillar is also getting weakened?"

Lee's plan will not please all Singaporeans who want immediate cash aid.

"It's no use for the Treasury to go on building up reserves when people are suffering," said one complainant.

During the last election, the opposition stirred up talk of "rich government, poor citizens". In the coming election, the issue may resurface.

The worst victim is the older worker who often gets the boot to make way for a younger, "cheaper" one, all in the name of restructuring.

The government has responded with various schemes to alleviate the plight of the poor.

Since 1997, they have helped the nation's poorest, namely those on welfare or living in one-room Housing Board flats.

They have been exempted from conservation charges, given rental rebates, helped with medical payments and utilities bills and larger CPF top-ups.

Community organisations (with a dollar-for-dollar government funding) send their children to school.

Other victims include what the opposition Workers' Party has termed as "The New Poor" from the middle class who does not quality for welfare help.

They are sandwiched between supporting two generations, aged parents and school-going children, and are being squeezed by declining income on one hand and rising health and education costs on the other.

To the government, however, much of the cause is unreasonable expectation of people who want to own what the neighbours have.

It is the same with jobs. With the market wracked by uncertainty, the government wants jobseekers to be less picky.

Not all agree. Some resent being told the cause of their unemployment is their inflexibility.

"We can settle for a lower salary, but it is unfair to ask an ex-manager to clean tables or a retrenched woman supervisor to work as a receptionist," a fresh graduate said.

(This article was first published in The Sunday Star on Jan 23, 2005)