Transforming Singapore into a more inclusive society needs more than just funding welfare relief
By Tan Chi Chiu & Jacqueline Loh, Published The Straits Times, 29 Feb 2012
IT IS heartening that this year's Budget targets some of those sorely in need of assistance, namely older workers, the disabled and low-income families, and has forgone the mass handouts of recent years that have also benefited middle- and high-income households.
Special transfers to the poor appear to have become permanent via the GST rebate vouchers and other schemes. Even though this is not the same as the welfare schemes of developed countries, it institutionalises welfare provisions, a significant departure from previous policies. It implies that the Government sees the economic divide between Singaporeans as structural and permanent. While it is right to address economic hardship, it is even more important to address the need for social inclusion, which is more about quality of life and social participation. In this respect, it is unclear if special transfers to the poor are enough.
For students from low-income households, the additional financial support as well as the extension of that support to a larger group of households is welcome. However what is still inadequately addressed is the inclusivity of Singapore's educational system. Without fully investigating this contentious subject, financial support may be only a Band-Aid approach to a system that may ultimately perpetuate rather than ameliorate existing inequalities.
It is worth exploring if Singapore's current education system features some of the key characteristics of low mobility systems found elsewhere, including early streaming and increasing differentiation of educational options, with more and better options for those who can afford to pay more. A recent study on social mobility by the Ministry of Finance found relatively high mobility - but it looked at children born between 1969 and 1978, a generation for whom mobility was generally perceived to be high.
One issue to consider is whether the education system increasingly mirrors the growing inequities in our society, with the children of higher income families better able to access quality preschool education, better placed for entry to schools offering enhanced programmes for students of diverse talents, as well as being better able to afford costly tuition services. One consolation is that scholarships for the able but poor are still widely available. Still, as education is a key engine of social mobility, it should be examined if more fundamental reform is needed.
For both disabled and older workers, there is a government subsidy for employers to hire from these groups. While this encourages employers to overcome possible hiring prejudices in the short term, it accepts and may entrench discrimination among employers. As a compensatory measure, it is also unlikely to move employers to hire these workers.
This is where a commitment to long-term structural change, or what we call 'transformative change', is needed. Rather than a short-term wage subsidy to get employers to hire marginalised workers, more emphasis should be put on strategies to equip them with skills and help them maximise their potential to become independent contributors to the economy and attractive to employers in their own right. Also important are strategies to reduce discrimination against older workers and the disabled.
A comprehensive approach, rather than one just focused on wage subsidies, would truly propel change in the employment prospects of these elderly or disabled workers.
A start has been made with rehiring laws, and programmes to incentivise employers to change workplaces to accommodate ageing workers. The same approach can be used for disabled and other marginalised workers. Measures to enhance accessibility of workplaces for the elderly, the frail or the physically disabled can significantly alter the playing field for such groups. Otherwise, a wage subsidy alone does not enhance the intrinsic potential of disabled and older employees, nor does it improve the environment in which they have to compete.
Financial support to employers is a form of subsidy and assistance. It is welcome, but it is not transformative. True transformative change comes about only through funding for structural changes in the nurturing and training of these groups, education of employers and society at large, agencies for integration of these groups into the mainstream, and more emphasis on advocacy in the government and non-governmental agencies.
A very good example is the sea change among the least academically inclined students. Over the past two decades, restructured ITE education and a systematic remoulding of the image of ITE graduates have entirely changed their potential to be highly skilled and valued workers able to find well paying jobs.
Similarly, establishing the Agency for Integrated Care is changing the landscape for health-care workers previously struggling in an insufficiently resourced environment, providing comprehensive and coherent lifelong care for chronic patients.
The Government should be more proactive in spurring transformative change, because educational and support programmes are a social investment that unlocks the economic potential of large groups of workers. Such programmes deserve to be largely government funded and should involve not only the whole of Government, but also advocates and support agencies in the non-profit sector.
The writers are, respectively, chairman and director of the Lien Centre for Social Innovation.
No comments:
Post a Comment