Perspective Unlimited

Saturday, May 26, 2007

The Taste of Welfare

Two months ago, I mentioned on this blog that my daughter Elena was born without any out of pocket expenses, courtesy of Britain's NHS. It was not immediately apparent to me then that the delivery and hospitalisation were only the beginning of a long list of benefits our family would receive.

In the weeks after Elena's birth, we were visited at home by a midwife named Estry from the hospital once every 2-3 days, for a total 5 visits, to check on Elena's development and also that mother was coping. There is also a drop-in clinic where we could turn up every week for the midwives to check on Elena's progress. There is even a baby massage class every Monday.

Two weeks ago, Elena developed a scaly condition on the face and around the neck. It was diagnosed by the doctor to be baby eczema. Once prescribed by the NHS doctor, child medication is completely free in the UK until age 16. This week, Elena underwent two rounds of immunisation, again completely free of expenses.

Healthcare is not the only form of welfare benefit we are receiving. Soon after we were discharged from hospital, we were provided with an application form to the Child Benefits Office. We received a letter this week from the office that child benefit for Elena has been approved. Child benefit is not some kind of tax credit, it is not means-tested, but outright cash for every child. Eighteen pounds a week (around S$54) would be credited into our account and it would be backdated to the week Elena was born. It is not a huge sum of money, but it is certainly enough for milk and diapers.

As Singaporeans, Grace and I feel are not used to receiving state benefits. We are constantly surprised that Britain's welfare benefits extend even to non-citizens. Unlike citizens who grow up in a welfare state, we will probably never learn to see these benefits as a right. The experience is therefore novel enough for us to feel a deep sense of gratitude every time we receive benefits.

And a Row over Housing

Last week, a British minister Margaret Hodge suggested that Britons should be given priority to public housing over immigrants - a "legitimate sense of entitlement". What sounded like sensible policy (and a vote winner?) was anything but, considering mainstream British political attitudes. Cabinet colleagues and labour party bigwigs almost immediately launched scathing attacks on Ms Hodge. Housing should be allocated on the "basis of need" and not some kind of criteria that favoured one group over another. To the extent that humanitarian concerns override political consideration, Britain is indeed Blair's "special country".

If someone were to suggest in Singapore that Singaporeans should be given priority on housing or healthcare, I wonder what would the response of the Singaporean public be? How many of us would support such a policy on the basis of it being a citizen's birth right, national service sacrifices and so on? How many of us would actually support a policy that treats immigrants the same? The answer to this question will say a lot of us as a people.

18 Comments:


  • If someone were to suggest in Singapore that Singaporeans should be given priority on housing or healthcare, I wonder what would the response of the Singaporean public be? How many of us would support such a policy on the basis of it being a citizen's birth right, national service sacrifices and so on? How many of us would actually support a policy that treats immigrants the same? The answer to this question will say a lot of us as a people.


    According to the link you provided, 69 percent of voters believed that 'British citizens should always get priority for social housing ahead of immigrants'.

    By Blogger Fox, at 2:38 am  

  • Bart, so what is your personal take on the welfare state, now that you have a taste of both systems? I wonder if you still think that the welfare state is not a good idea.

    By Blogger Aaron, at 3:15 am  

  • Hi Fox,

    I certainly saw the poll result. It is understandable that British locals think they deserve special privilege or priority. The question is whether politicians, or the mainstream political culture, are strong enough not the pander to these instincts. The starting point of implementing welfare must be humanitarian concerns, and you cannot say that immigrants (or their children) are less deserving on this basis. This is where I think British political culture has succeeded.

    Aaron,

    I have always said that there should be more state assistance for the lower income groups - particularly targeted towards the children of lower income groups. I also support the idea of some kind of unemployment insurance (provided it is implemented properly).

    But when I read various blogs, the welfare that many Singaporeans have in mind is rather more narrow - privilege or protection for locals. My opinion is that if too much state assistance is reserved only for citizens, we run the risk of 'bumiputrification', and would probably do more harm than good in the long run. I don't like the idea of giving citizens too many reserved privileges, but I think I am a minority voice here.

    I write these posts to highlight how the British approach welfare based on my first hand experience. Hopefully it can change an opinion or two.

    By Blogger Bart JP, at 8:53 am  

  • Bart,

    Quite surprised that you are raving about the child benefits. As an economist, it should be clear to you that the Baby Bonus, notwithstanding that it is in terms of tax credits, is probably significantly more costly to the Government. There are also these Edusave funds or something.

    Then again, perhaps the Government might want to take a leaf from UK and dispense some of the money in cash. But you know very well why it's not being done, but instead couched as tax credits.

    The KTM does not agree with unemployment insurance in the Singaporean context. There are literally TONS of jobs around that are being picked up by the foreign workers. If Singaporeans are willing to take temp jobs like cleaning or waiting while they are unemployed, they can probably at least keep themselves from starving while they look for the *REAL* job.

    If you are talking about unemployment insurance (against retrenchments) that people can buy themselves, that's fine but that will depend on whether the insurance companies are willing to underwrite such risks. NTUC Income apparently tried to sell something like that before, but it was stopped soon after it was introduced because of abuse.

    By Blogger kwayteowman, at 12:34 pm  

  • So, Is your child a quitter or stayer?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:52 pm  

  • KTM,

    I think you missed my point. Firstly, let me just say that Elena is eligible to collect 18 pounds per week until she is 16! That works out to be 15,000 pounds cash (not taking into account time value of money), or S$45,000. How much is Baby Bonus? Secondly, Elena is not a citizen, not even a PR here! In fact, she just collected her Singapore passport not too long ago (stayer).

    Of course, taxes are high in UK. Someone has to pay the price for the welfare benefits. I am not making a case for welfare or against it (other than stating a personal belief when answering a question from Aaron). UK and Singapore operate on two different systems, there are pros and cons to each.

    But but but, the fact that British welfare covers non-citizens, to the extend that even the minister is atacked by her colleagues for wanting to give Britons priority, says something about them and their national character, doesn't it?

    I just wanted to highlight this fact to Singaporeans who demand special citizens-only privileges as a matter of "legitimate sense of entitlement".

    By Blogger Bart JP, at 2:22 pm  

  • Of course, Elena's child benefits will only be available when she is here.

    By the way, can someone tell me how to collect the Baby Bonus for Singaporean's living overseas?

    By Blogger Bart JP, at 2:36 pm  

  • The question is whether politicians, or the mainstream political culture, are strong enough not the pander to these instincts.

    Those weren't the questions that you asked. You asked:

    "If someone were to suggest in Singapore that Singaporeans should be given priority on housing or healthcare, I wonder what would the response of the Singaporean public be? How many of us would support such a policy on the basis of it being a citizen's birth right, national service sacrifices and so on? How many of us would actually support a policy that treats immigrants the same? The answer to this question will say a lot of us as a people."

    I submit to you that Singaporeans, as a people, are no less like Britons on the issue of healthcare and housing - most of them would think that citizens should come first.

    By Blogger Fox, at 3:53 pm  

  • Hi Fox,

    You forgot to mention that 56 per cent thought Ms Hodge's statement was damaging. Of course, when asked in a survey, whether one should be given priority, who would say no?

    But the most important thing is there is no translation into electoral support, as seen by politicians quickly distancing themselves from such policies. Last election, Tories tried to play the immigration card and came across badly. The new Tory leader has ditched those policies.

    The Tory party politicians attack the Labour govt for having a failed housing policy, but none has yet dared to support what Ms Hodge proposed. While 69 per cent may say/feel that Britons should come first, a far smaller number would actually vote for a party that has such a policy. Except for some far right votes, there is really not elecotoral support for this.

    But agree, I should have asked it better, specifically electoral support.

    By Blogger Bart JP, at 4:44 pm  

  • Bart JP

    To collect baby bonus, all Elena needs to be is born as Singapore citizen. Please look under ecitizen.gov.sg for how to collect it and to bank it.

    Regards

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:11 am  

  • Bart

    There is already a similiar stratification or "bumiputraism" in the economic-political culture.
    It is just a matter of degree.

    This will become more pronounced look at all the socio-political blogs.

    Consider all the angst, just because of the minority of bad experiences, policies are than introduced to protect the Singapore nationals or should be given more.

    How is it done by phasing out the benefits for long term residents which does not gel with the idea of encouraging stayers or no taxation without representation.

    I would personally welcome that Singapore children till 16 or 18 should be given the lion's share of the welfare benefits.However, there should be no abolishment of current benefits to long term resident's child.

    I would also welcome that NS be reduced to 1 year so as to enable all employers to be able to inform people to take a sock to it. If somebody says that their careers suffer because of the 1 year than they need to take a hard close look at themselves.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:35 am  

  • kwayteowman,

    why don't you quit your job and work as a cleaner for 3 months, work enough hours to actually earn a decent income and see if you can still find the time and energy to look for a job. You sure talk a lot of cock for someone who do not even know what unemployment smells like.

    Bart,

    as usual, you cherry pick your "London experience" and try to impose it on Singapore. The main bone Singaporeans have against the FT policy, is that the government treat foreigners BETTER than locals. Foreigners pay less CPF tax, companies get tax breaks for relocation expenses. One quarter of our tertiary students are foreigners enjoying free education not available to citizens. And then there is NS.

    And remember who is paying for your education in the UK. The British government? If all foreign students in Singapore pay British-type fees instead of a 110% Singaporean taxpayer subsidised fees, I wouldnt mind equalising our "privileges" in our "subsidised" healthcare. Heck, we can even waive the means testing for them. We can keep means testing as an exclusive citizen privilege.

    If the Singapore government is not such a Scrooge with Singapore citizens, being as cheap as they can get away with, why should we get upset over what privileges foreigners enjoy?

    By Blogger Jimmy Mun, at 3:38 am  

  • In my opinion, there are two main issues that are blurred in this discussion.

    The first question, is as Bart was trying to ask, is the principle of equality, of whether we should give preferential treatment to Singaporeans and opposed to foreigners.

    The second question, which I am more concerned with, is the question of whether the level of 'welfare' provided by the govt(in terms of health, education, social security, basic needs) in Singapore is adequate.

    I think many of the calls for less 'welfare' for non singaporeans works on the following premise that in the first place, the 'welfare' system in singapore is inadequate, and the common reason given is the scarcity of resources and that 'welfare' will lead to a erosion of the work ethic.

    So I would summarise my thoughts in the following questions. Firstly, is the 'welfare' in Singapore (irregardless of nationality) enough to address humanitarian concerns(to use Bart's underlying reason for welfare)? If it is not enough, how do we go about improving it?

    As for foreigners, as Jimmy pointed out, the common Singaporean perception is that they are treated better than Singaporeans in Singapore. I would agree with it for those in the 'foreign talent' category, but not those in the 'foreign worker'(ie construction worker, maids) category.

    By Blogger Jolly Jester, at 5:33 am  

  • Jimmy,

    No no, I am not imposing anything on Singapore, I am merely highlighting my experience here. As for cherry-picking, we are all shaped by our own experience, your views on various issues also reflect your particular circumstances.

    Jester,

    Indeed, these are two separate issue. But the main one I am focusing on is the first.

    Wang,

    My sentiments are the same. Recently, many benefits have been withdrawn for PRs, based on what I read from the media. I don;t think this is a good development.

    By Blogger Bart JP, at 8:34 am  

  • Hi there, just wondering why you forget to mention that you are contributing roughly 33% (roughly 22% income, 11% national insurance)of your annual income to the state? On top of that, you are indirectly contributing further 17.5% VAT on everything you buy. Surely they can afford some welfare ?

    And you also forget that this free NHS in Britain where sick people sometimes having to wait up to a year for free surgery.

    Now lastly, perhaps they have changed the law, but I remembered last time I was there working, it is clearly stated that me as a foreigner, is not entitled to any form of social benefits (i.e. redundant benefits, child benefits, etc) apart from free NHS. Maybe they mistaken you as a British ?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:34 am  

  • Indeed, I am paying lots of taxes. But welfare is provided on the basis of need. When you walk into NHS for treatment, they will never look at your tax or NI contribution.

    I have a PhD friend Gabriela from Brazil. Last month, her brother visited her in London for a week. In the middle of the week, he developed a sharp pain in the abdomen and was rushed into A&E. It was appendicitis. He was promptly operated on by NHS, warded for another day or two, then discharged, and returned to Brazil. Not a single cent paid!

    Anyway, I am not sure the exact regulations for child benefits are. I duly submitted the forms, together with my NI number, tax statements and employees letter, and the benefit is approved by the CBO.

    By Blogger Bart JP, at 10:58 am  

  • 'Indeed, I am paying lots of taxes. But welfare is provided on the basis of need. When you walk into NHS for treatment, they will never look at your tax or NI contribution.'


    Rather, welfare can be provided because of the high taxes paid by all.

    And the NHS system is on the verge of breakdown.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:33 am  

  • Indeed, the NHS is always on the verge of breakdown. But my experience with them is that they always try their best, despite the tight resources.

    By Blogger Bart JP, at 11:24 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home