A well thought out and neutral article.
I would like to hear the author’s opinion, on the existence of a social safety net (e.g: National Health Insurance ) into the context of his article.
When comparing Singapore to developed countries, one must also compare the Pros & Cons.
Where civil rights, citizen first philosophy, social safety net and welfare benefits exist, Singapore is playing catch up. Or rather, it is enjoying its profits too much to bother with stuff that will result in short-term loss, which usually means exponential long-term losses.
A country, which is adopting western culture where the young lose respect for the elderly, and where the elderly is left to fend for themselves, when their economic power has been exhausted paying off the mortgage of a basic roof over their heads.
The elderly can now look to retirement options of being a cleaner ( this is even being threatened by foreign workers where the government’s policies encourage it, as more workers equate to more levies ) or a beggar.
When one get his by a critical illness, one prays he does not become a burden to his family, who themselves will be struggling to pay off a 30 year mortgage. We cannot sleep well on minister’s assurances that we will not be denied medial treatment in times of need because the chances of being refused treatment due to financial constraints is there for us to see. Following accounting principles, we should not realise a profit until they are realised but should make provisions for losses when first detected. Similarly, the Asian philosophy of filial piety dictates that a parent, who just wants the best for his children, would rather die than to see his family bankrupted from a critical illness. The means test is not practical and where even on the brink of death, we will be expected to go down on our knees, to beg for whatever pitiful scraps that will be dropped, which may never see light of day.
Some may argue for private insurance, but experience has shown that throwing good money on high premiums containing fat bonuses aka commission, towards a hope, is nothing more than a hope, which hopefully, does not backfire by way of fine clauses and hidden print, when the need arises. What you spend on the premiums for such perceived protection outweighs the amount you will spend on the needed medical care when the time comes.
When the government of the day bemoans the low fertility rates, have they compared how much it costs to have a baby in Singapore, compared to other countries with similar wage to expense ratios?
With the average couple expected to be a dual income household, with a large near lifetime mortgage hanging over their head, worrying about their positions being displaced, so much stress!
I still believe the government of the day has what it takes to effect the needed changes, but i cannot see how, high in their ivory towers, they can see and understand what the average wage earner really needs.
.
Aloysius
* Comment first appeared in: Even Ang Mo PR can’t ‘tahan’ current overcrowding in SG