How to eradicate poverty in Singapore

[Some-one]

some-one, you might be overly concern.
Lets not be too engross with the abuse but rather do what we think is fit to help out.

In any case, we own it to others to bring us up to par today and we should lead by contributing back to society.

If the GOV also done its duty, then we have double layer of protection.

If not, at least we had already done our part.

Love Compassion


A Life not Reflected is a Life not Worth Living.

I am not talking about myself. I do contribute back to society and we should contribute back to the society. What I am saying is the simple solution of drawing a poverty line and eradicate poverty by helping those below this line. What behaviour are we encouraging?

Some people are complaining that our government is too fixated on GDP growth and so, we have poverty. Are they wrong? I really don't think so. We import most of our things from overseas and in order to keep things cheap, we need to keep Singapore dollars strong. In order to do so, we have to encourage foreign companies to invest in our country, buying as much SGD as possible. These companies have to find good reasons to invest in Singapore.

Perhaps our government did not find a good balance between welfare and economic growth but I find that a lot of times, the accusation that our government is not doing a good job is a tad too exaggerated. For a small country to survive, it is not as simple as some people have portrayed.

[chialc88]

Some-one... sorry that I mis-understood you.

Agree...both parties should work hard to eradicate poverty.

It breaks my heart seeing those who despair to get help but could not get it fast enough....

Weep...


A Life not Reflected is a Life not Worth Living.

[chialc]

[Image: 110920%2Bold%2Btatoos%2BSingapore.jpg]
picture googled from internet

[specuvestor]

There's a lot of people who think that it is good to have a poverty line but my question is, would the drawing of this line encourages people to simply seek assistance from the government instead of working hard? Since government is paying for my well-being, I don't mind just staying at home and laze around. Is it good to encourage such a behaviour especially when he is able-body? He can work hard but simply too lazy to do so.

I am not talking about myself. I do contribute back to society and we should contribute back to the society. What I am saying is the simple solution of drawing a poverty line and eradicate poverty by helping those below this line. What behaviour are we encouraging?

Some people are complaining that our government is too fixated on GDP growth and so, we have poverty. Are they wrong? I really don't think so. We import most of our things from overseas and in order to keep things cheap, we need to keep Singapore dollars strong. In order to do so, we have to encourage foreign companies to invest in our country, buying as much SGD as possible. These companies have to find good reasons to invest in Singapore.

Perhaps our government did not find a good balance between welfare and economic growth but I find that a lot of times, the accusation that our government is not doing a good job is a tad too exaggerated. For a small country to survive, it is not as simple as some people have portrayed.

IMHO your assumption that "helping" will lead to complacency is as misled as the communist utopian idea that everyone will help everyone (just in theory no offence meant), it depends on the structure and incentive

I think generally we have seen that given right environment and incentive, people want to pursue a better life. The society degrades just as bad if everything is taken care by the state with no incentives, vs everyone for themselves with escalating wealth gap as the factors of production moves towards a group that are BORN of priviledged heritage. History has shown both cases very well. IMHO we have been brainwashed that welfare is always bad, when the real meaning has been clouded.

China has been focusing on GDP growth and in the next CPC we are likely to see a gradual focus on quality rather than quantity of growth. Similarly Singapore have to tone down their rhetoric on "growth by perspiration" and focus on slower growth by productivity (which has been declining for 5 quarters IIRC) and value add. That should be the strategy going forward to attract MNCs rather than make it a rich man's playground. For example our unique exposure to multiculture and multi language is a HUGE advantage for us that should be cultivated and preserved. If we only speak good English like the Ang Mos, what is the value add of going through us to go to the region?

Policy making is very important and not easy like you say but we have to constantly remind ourselves to look at the long term big picture rather than short term growth. It is not paranoid to say a wrong policy mistake can have devastating consequences. Phillippines, Burma and Ceylon are very different on a relative competitiveness 50 years ago vs now. Even China was the largest economy in the world just more than 100 years ago. LKY has cause to fret about Singapore in 50 years.

[ForeverAlone]

http://sgagainstpoverty.org/5-dollar-challenge/

[Temperament]

[Image: 110920%2Bold%2Btatoos%2BSingapore.jpg]
picture googled from internet

This reminds me when we were in a night market in Keelung Taiwan. This old-man with so many tatoos was rummaging for food and drink from a rubbish bin. i handed him some money. Human beings should never have too be like stray/abandoned dogs or cats rummaging rubbish bins for survival.
i encountered the same sight in Singapore and did the same. This time it was an Indian man or maybe a dark skin man from some other country. It was in the daytime.
i think all of us couldn't take the sight of anyone who has to do this to survive - Rummaging rubbish bins.

In Singapore, orphanage homes or destitute homes are not called Home for the orphans or destitute but some fanciful nice names. i think all orphan & destitute should be given a home. Society should not just let them to survive on the streets even though some people/destitute may not agree. After all Singapore is not a Third World Country anymore. That's why it's very rare to see a vagabond in Singapore. FT vagabonds will be shipped back to their own countries.

[Some-one]

There's a lot of people who think that it is good to have a poverty line but my question is, would the drawing of this line encourages people to simply seek assistance from the government instead of working hard? Since government is paying for my well-being, I don't mind just staying at home and laze around. Is it good to encourage such a behaviour especially when he is able-body? He can work hard but simply too lazy to do so.

I am not talking about myself. I do contribute back to society and we should contribute back to the society. What I am saying is the simple solution of drawing a poverty line and eradicate poverty by helping those below this line. What behaviour are we encouraging?

Some people are complaining that our government is too fixated on GDP growth and so, we have poverty. Are they wrong? I really don't think so. We import most of our things from overseas and in order to keep things cheap, we need to keep Singapore dollars strong. In order to do so, we have to encourage foreign companies to invest in our country, buying as much SGD as possible. These companies have to find good reasons to invest in Singapore.

Perhaps our government did not find a good balance between welfare and economic growth but I find that a lot of times, the accusation that our government is not doing a good job is a tad too exaggerated. For a small country to survive, it is not as simple as some people have portrayed.

IMHO your assumption that "helping" will lead to complacency is as misled as the communist utopian idea that everyone will help everyone (just in theory no offence meant), it depends on the structure and incentive

I think generally we have seen that given right environment and incentive, people want to pursue a better life. The society degrades just as bad if everything is taken care by the state with no incentives, vs everyone for themselves with escalating wealth gap as the factors of production moves towards a group that are BORN of priviledged heritage. History has shown both cases very well. IMHO we have been brainwashed that welfare is always bad, when the real meaning has been clouded.

China has been focusing on GDP growth and in the next CPC we are likely to see a gradual focus on quality rather than quantity of growth. Similarly Singapore have to tone down their rhetoric on "growth by perspiration" and focus on slower growth by productivity (which has been declining for 5 quarters IIRC) and value add. That should be the strategy going forward to attract MNCs rather than make it a rich man's playground. For example our unique exposure to multiculture and multi language is a HUGE advantage for us that should be cultivated and preserved. If we only speak good English like the Ang Mos, what is the value add of going through us to go to the region?

Policy making is very important and not easy like you say but we have to constantly remind ourselves to look at the long term big picture rather than short term growth. It is not paranoid to say a wrong policy mistake can have devastating consequences. Phillippines, Burma and Ceylon are very different on a relative competitiveness 50 years ago vs now. Even China was the largest economy in the world just more than 100 years ago. LKY has cause to fret about Singapore in 50 years.

Perhaps what you are seeing and what I am seeing is different. I don't think I have been misled. I am a volunteer myself and I have seen people who really cannot work and need help and I have also seen people who can work but just simply too lazy to work.

We have incentives for people who are rich. They can buy more things, they can make their life better but why do some people rather remain status quo than improve themselves and make their life better? Should the state goes all out to help these "lazy" people? In your opinion, are these people "right" or "wrong"? Instead of contributing to the society (either via work or tax), they choose to laze around? Let me just make it very clear that these people are able-bodied and at least has an 'O' level.

ok. So now you are saying that China would move on to quality instead of quantity in the future. Why did they not do so previously? Did they even forsee that industrialisation would cause pollution? Why not they just step back and not join in the capitalism of the world when Deng Xiao Ping is the chairman? Then today, Beijing would not have pollution from its industrialisation programme and quality of life would not suffer.

I do agree that productivity is important and as you rightly pointed out, productivity has been decreasing year on year. I believe our government has incentives to improve productivity but why companies do not want to make use of it? There is a limit to the intellectual capability of each person. While we can encourage, we cannot force. We can wait for productivity to improve but how long can we wait? In the meantime, should we prohibit foreign companies from setting up companies here while waiting for productivity to improve?

Time waits for no one. We should take a long term view of things but in the meantime, short term measures are necessary.

[specuvestor]

In the employment statistics, there are categories of people who "give up looking for work". The environment is also important to incentive people to do better. If they think it is hopeless they will give up... which is the primary argument when we talk about glass ceilings fior women. Your environment is very different if you are born in Myanmar or in Singapore with the same IQ. If former, you might just be a farmer because it is hard for you to do anything else but if you are born in Singapore you might be in Finance with a Myanmar maid. That's the luck of the draw that Buffett keep expounding that he is lucky to be born in the US where his skill is favored.

Nonetheless there are definitely people who don't want to work. I happen to have a few social workers ex-classmates as well. But I would deem these people as the minorities as the drug mules or suicide bombers. They are real but most of the time they do not repressent the majority. In aggregate it is usually the incentive and environment that produces excellence (think silicon valley). The system should be helping those who are willing to work to benefit. Hence the workfare system is a good system IMHO. The system should help those who wants to study to excel regardless of family or financial background. In short the system should help those who help themselves. Welfare is NOT about giving freebies but there are also those involuntary conditions which like you said, "who really cannot work and need help ". Key word is "involuntary"

China is moving into "quality growth" not "quality of life" which I think you are misunderstood me, though it also means an improvement in the quality of products and services they provide. They had to produce quantity because it was needed in an en masse urbanisation. Just like one-child policy WAS the right policy. Things change and the policies should change too if the first principles are no longer valid.

Nobody is saying to "prohibit foreign companies" to come here. They also look at the environment: from physical to social to tax to productivity adjusted profitability. They have a reason to come here and so does the rich. Question is how we structure properly so the right ones do come and be vested.

[Some-one]

In the employment statistics, there are categories of people who "give up looking for work". The environment is also important to incentive people to do better. If they think it is hopeless they will give up... which is the primary argument when we talk about glass ceilings fior women. Your environment is very different if you are born in Myanmar or in Singapore with the same IQ. If former, you might just be a farmer because it is hard for you to do anything else but if you are born in Singapore you might be in Finance with a Myanmar maid. That's the luck of the draw that Buffett keep expounding that he is lucky to be born in the US where his skill is favored.

Nonetheless there are definitely people who don't want to work. I happen to have a few social workers ex-classmates as well. But I would deem these people as the minorities as the drug mules or suicide bombers. They are real but most of the time they do not repressent the majority. In aggregate it is usually the incentive and environment that produces excellence (think silicon valley). The system should be helping those who are willing to work to benefit. Hence the workfare system is a good system IMHO. The system should help those who wants to study to excel regardless of family or financial background. In short the system should help those who help themselves. Welfare is NOT about giving freebies but there are also those involuntary conditions which like you said, "who really cannot work and need help ". Key word is "involuntary"

China is moving into "quality growth" not "quality of life" which I think you are misunderstood me, though it also means an improvement in the quality of products and services they provide. They had to produce quantity because it was needed in an en masse urbanisation. Just like one-child policy WAS the right policy. Things change and the policies should change too if the first principles are no longer valid.

Nobody is saying to "prohibit foreign companies" to come here. They also look at the environment: from physical to social to tax to productivity adjusted profitability. They have a reason to come here and so does the rich. Question is how we structure properly so the right ones do come and be vested.

The environment is definitely important in incentivise people to do better but is that the only one? Doesn't the traits of each human play a part as well? I study psychology before and there are some traits which have been pre-disposed in you when you are born. Some call it the genes. Or are you saying that if the government provides the right environment and right incentives, everyone would get up and work hard? US has silicon valley but there are still poor people there. There are beggars as well. There are crazy people who shoot others in the airport.

ok. Since it has been agreed upon that "there are definitely people who don't want to work", let's get back to the topic on how to eradicate poverty? It is simply not possible and it would just be made worse if we define a poverty line. I am not saying that you want this line. I am merely talking about the hot topic that HK is doing now by drawing a poverty line.

Some people did point out that it is difficult to draw a poverty line. This is just one point. A second point is are we encouraging more people to laze around if we draw a poverty line? Let's assume that the government decide to give $1k monthly to those below a poverty line. Isn't that nice? Let me put this figure as $1.5k monthly. A person who is currently earning $1.4k decides that since he is below the poverty line, he is eligible to receive another $1K from the government. That would be $2.4K. Quite a good amount to live comfortably here.

Then those earning $2K can only take back $2K. He would be worse off than those below the poverty line so why must he work so hard? He might as well resigned and find another lower paying job that is below $1.5K. Then, there would be those who feel $1K is ok as long as he has 3 meals daily. Thus, he decides not to work even though working would better his life. Why must I work when I can have 3 meals daily with government giving?

The main question is what behaviours are we encouraging with each policy that is been made? Sure there are those who benefit and sure there are those who want to game the system.

Good that you have clarified that it is quality growth that China wants. I am not sure where you read it but that is fine. Would they be able to sacrifice quantity growth? Not possible. They would just move the factories to the third tier and fourth tier states.

Business owners are clever. If China becomes too expensive, they would just move their factories to India or other cheaper countries. China is huge. If they want to keep their growth, they would not kick out the foreign companies. They would get foreign companies to join with their SOE to continue the growth. Of course, at the moment we do not know what they want from the "quantity growth" that you are espousing and it would be too early to see if they are right or wrong in their quantity growth.

No, I am not saying that you want to "prohibit foreign companies". I am talking about the xenophobia that people are experiencing now. If you have read the papers, you would have seen articles on slowing growth, importing lesser foreigners. I am not saying that we should import all the foreigners but at the same time, we cannot prohibit them from coming in (e.g. setting up companies). We need people to prop up our Singapore dollars and in order to do so, we would have to "steal" the money from the world by getting them to sell their home currencies and buying SGD.

[yanziyang]

According to the Department of Statistics, 105,000 families in Singapore are earning on average $1,500 or less per month. This means that life is a daily struggle for some 387,000 Singapore citizens and permanent residents. After paying utilities, schooling, housing rental or loan instalments and medicals, they are left with about $5 a day for food and transport per family member. How do they do it? Can they? How does it feel to be their shoes? Whatever you think or feel, suspend your disbelief or judgement and find out for yourself!

The $5 Challenge is on!

What is it, you ask? We want you to try limiting your food and transport expenses to $5 a day. (It’s time to catch that free MRT ride every morning!)

Why $5?

Figures from the Household Expenditure Survey of 2007/08 show that for households at the bottom fifth of income levels, each member spent 25.9% and 8.8% of his or her total monthly expenditure on food and transport respectively.

According to the Key Household Income Trends for last year, each member of the bottom 10% of households earned an average of $410 per month excluding employer’s CPF contributions. This works out, per person, to about $3.54 per day on food and $1.20 per day on transport. Rounded up this adds up to $5 a day for food and transport.

We're heartened to see some of you committing up to a month to this! Why not challenge your friends or colleagues to do this too? You could do it together -- it's likely be easier!

Take the $5 Challenge here: http://sgagainstpoverty.org/5-dollar-challenge/