What's Singapore's social policy vision?

What's Singapore's social policy vision?

It shouldn't surprise anyone if the President's Address when he re-opened Parliament on May 16 didn't get many people excited.

Traditionally, the head of state's speech to such a hushed audience in such a formal setting isn't designed to set hearts racing and minds stirring.

As a blueprint, though, of the Government's plans for the next two years leading up to the General Election that is widely expected to be called in 2016, it couldn't be a more important statement of intent.

If nothing else, it showed where its priorities lie.

Whether you like it or not, and whether the speech made you sit up, what it contained will affect your life in many areas.

So, what to make of it?

First, it was remarkable for being so silent on the economy - yes, the silence was deafening.

What to make of this omission from a government that wears its economic credentials on its white uniform?

Here's my take: As far as it is concerned, economic policy has largely been settled.

If you want to know more, look no further than the Finance Minister's Budget statements in recent years.

For those who might have hoped for a rethink of some of these policies - on the supply of foreign workers, productivity, taxation and the future of the small and medium-sized enterprises sector - it looks like there won't be much scope for further debate.

To be fair, there have been many discussions on these issues in recent Budget debates, and the Government has made clear its position.

There has to be some certainty in economic policy so businesses, employers and workers can plan accordingly.

However, in social policy, which dominated the speech, the situation couldn't be more different.

Here, many issues remain unresolved, and it is less clear what the overall direction of the Government is.

A lot was said in the speech, perhaps a bit too much in some areas.

But it isn't easy to discern an overall strategy that made clear how these issues will be resolved in the years ahead.

Perhaps this isn't unexpected, considering the transition that Singapore is undergoing at the moment.

When the focus all these years had been on economic growth, and attention is only now turned to the large social questions of the day, you can't expect instant answers.

The Government is feeling its way through this, somewhat unsure how much to help lest it undermines the work ethic, and uncertain how to meet people's expectations.

But even as it takes those tentative steps, public pressure to do more will increase as the population ages and the income gap persists.

It doesn't help that, unlike in managing the economy, the outcome of social policy isn't as quickly determined or measured.

You know quickly when economic policy isn't working - growth will slow down, unemployment goes up and the financial markets are ruthless in punishing non-performers.

But the result of health-care, pension or education policies, however, might take years, even decades, to become clear.

But, precisely because of their uncertain effects, a clear vision and strong leadership are needed.

Otherwise, policies can appear to be haphazard, even contradictory, or always changing in response to the shifting public mood.

It might take some time to get this vision right, one that can be sustained over the years, and in which every part contributes towards a coherent whole.

How to arrive at such an overarching philosophy should be a top priority of the Government.

In the meantime, expect much contention over how to get specific policies right, including the details of the latest pronouncement.

Here is a short sampling of some of the issues that the speech has thrown up.

"We will strengthen the safety nets to help the vulnerable and elderly cope with the vicissitudes of life."

How strong and wide should this net be? In their recently launched book Hard Choices, local authors Donald Low and Sudhir Vadaketh argue that despite all the various schemes that have been introduced in recent years, income inequality today, after taking into account government taxes and transfers, is worse than it was a decade ago before accounting for government redistribution.

Many Singaporeans have also commented how distressed they feel seeing so many elderly people still working and doing menial tasks, such as cleaning toilets and hawker centres, and earning a pittance doing so.

Can Singapore's safety nets be strong enough to erase this blight?

"..every Singaporean should enjoy a fair share of our nation's success."

Question: What's a fair share?

Singapore's Gini coefficient, which is a measure of income gap, is one of the highest in the world. Should there be a target to get it down to a more acceptable level?

Another disturbing trend: Wages' share in the economy compared to profits made by businesses has been declining over the years. That's an indication that workers have not been enjoying their share of economic growth as much as businesses have. Why has this been allowed to happen and what can be done to reverse the trend?

"We will enhance retirement adequacy to give greater assurance and peace of mind to all Singaporeans."

How much is adequate? The latest figures show that more than half of active Central Provident Fund (CPF) members who turn 55 have less than the Minimum Sum in their accounts.

Should CPF rates be increased to ensure the majority will have enough to retire? How about removing the $5,500 income cap which limits employers' contribution substantially? And what about paying higher interest rates on CPF monies, and having them inflation-indexed?

"We should continue to have vigorous debates on the challenges... Everyone should join in the debates, understand the issues, share their views and argue their positions... And once the debate is settled, we must come together, to move ahead as one united people."

It is good the Government wants robust debate, though there will be many who remain sceptical it will live up to this claim.

They cite its recent actions in the online world as evidence it is still bent on managing public discourse in its favour.

One other danger in social policy is the risk of the Government over-promising what it cannot deliver.

More can always be done, and it can end up with all sorts of schemes to meet an endless number of requests.

That is why it is imperative that a clear vision is articulated and debated.

When Parliament discusses the Government's plans this week, I hope that's what the discussion will lead to.


This article was first published on May 25, 2014.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

This website is best viewed using the latest versions of web browsers.