To the powers that may be:
A lot has been said about helping the poor in Singapore, and while it’s heartening to see the leadership coming out to encourage people to help the less fortunate, I’m actually skeptical that such appeals to the general public would hold any clout and actually make life better for the poor.
For one, Singaporeans are not known for their spirit of volunteerism. I’m not saying we’re a nation of heartless and inhumane citizens, but let’s do a reality check: how many people actually come forward to volunteer their time and effort on a sustained basis for the benefit of the destitute in Singapore? Most people would probably think it’s a lot easier to simply donate money, and then get on with their lives.
That is if they bother with donations in the first place.
I always believed that in addressing poverty issues, one has to take a very realistic approach, instead of the conventional way that seeks to tug at heartstrings– at the end of the day, what the destitute and underprivileged need are not your emphaties (or is it really sympathies?), but rather real solutions that provide for a roof over their heads and putting food on the table.
One cannot understand the frustrations of someone who is blind if you’re someone who has never had the gift of sight taken away from you; in the same vein, one cannot claim to understand the true plight of the homeless and destitute if you haven’t experienced what it is like to go without food for days, or suffered the indignities of rude stares and imagined laughters directed at you because of the loss of confidence in yourself that’s so often associated with being poor.
Not that I am insinuating anything, but it’s pretty hard to believe the mighty ones in ivory towers fully understanding the real sufferings on the ground without having to go through the same plight. It’s equally hard to imagine what kind of policies and initiatives can effectively address the problem of poverty in Singapore if we so often deceive ourselves that it does not exist in the first place.
Poverty is a curse where, if we fail to address it properly, would propagate itself and continue to plague future generations of the underprivileged; and reality has it too that so often, people who drop out of schools or end up committing crimes hail from underprivileged families. Perhaps it is about time, too, that we stop deceiving ourselves that such is not the case by coating such harsh realities with stories of people who overcame the odds to become successes in life despite having come from humble and poor family backgrounds — for every one such rags-to-success story, there are 10 other sob stories that tell of people being forced to drop out of school, failing to secure stable employment, getting hooked on drugs and committing crimes out of desperation.
I’ve studied poverty while reading economics at university some 13 years ago; it’s a subject I find intriguing because it’s the kind of problem where, ironically, the richer society becomes, the more pronounced the problem is. I’m also inclined to think addressing income disparities and income gaps is perhaps the greatest challenge any government would face. It’s also the kind of problem that will prevail against the test of time that will not go away simply by brushing it under the carpet in the hope that things would get better, because it would only get worse.
I’m a pragmatist, and I believe that any policy designed to address issues of poverty needs to be highly practical in nature: hence, “Robin Hood” policies where you attempt to close income gaps by taxing the rich to give to the poor will only serve to further widen the gap. The rich are certainly in a position to strengthen their financial advantage, and I suppose it’s only human to think that if I were to be taxed more heavily, hell, I’d be bloody buay sorng, and I’ll find more ways and means to make even more money so I get to continue living my millionaire lifestyle.
The only sustainable strategies that would work to ensuring the burden of the poor is somewhat alleviated are those that do 2 things in my opinion: one, allow those in dire financial need to be duly employed; two, ensure they are duly employed at minimum wage rates that are commensurate with realistic costs of living. It’s basically the concept of “teach a man to fish”, but you throw in the added feature of making sure he brings home the minimum number of fish required to feed his family.
Of course, all this is easier said than done: the problem with deciding on what is a suitable minimum wage involved more than just guesswork. It’s not my job to suggest what would make a “good” minimum wage figure — let the scholars in the relevant ministries figure that out.
My point, however, rests more on doing more tangible things to help the poor, not just counting on evoking people’s sympathies to address the issue. We no longer live in a society where we can count on one neighbour to feed another in need. Sad, but a hard truth.
Roy P.
*The author blogs at http://alphamalesyndrome.wordpress.com/