http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/02/02/road-to-purgatory-paved-with-pap’s-good-intentions/
Then, Mr Teo helpfully points out that
“We should not, by socialising (costs) too much, remove that inter-generational responsibility within families.”
Familial inter-generation transfer (children paying for parents) appeals to Asian values but in reality let the government get away its own Asian values, i.e. its social obligations to citizens. Without redistribution, i.e. socializing costs, then the lower income will remain poor, exacerbating income inequality and preventing social mobility from one generation to another.
Theory meeting Hard Truths
Mr. Chan said that focusing on social transfers alone is one-dimensional.
“It is one thing to just give out some token, cash, or financial assistance…….Their challenges very often arise from the inability to do simple financial planning, investing in their children’s education, providing a positive role model, providing a stable home environment, so that the next generation can be uplifted…”
The reality is without a level of financial support to provide comfort and stability, all those nice sounding stuff is putting the wagon in front of the horse. Again this is well-known in social policy, but there is not enough social services here for the feedback of this Hard Truth.
Redistribution requires hard work
Here is the writer’ perspectives on redistribution.
The PAP keeps pounding the mantra of economic growth as if it cures all ills but it does not. Once the economy reach maturation, redistributive social spending becomes important because aspirations and standards are much higher. However more people are unable to keep pace, society becomes more unequal. Redistribution consolidates progress made and aid social cohesion and mobility.
Even the most economically advanced and competitive countries are very unequal before redistribution (Gini before social transfers). Economic growth and advancements in technology and management are no panacea to inequality without redistributive social spending, Even the IMF acknowledge that, unless excessive, redistributive social spending promote competitiveness and sustained long term economic growth.
One thing though, redistributive social spending requires hard work from the politicians. It is a continuous balancing act of distributing finite resources to meet competing policy demands. Then the question of the extent of redistribution: too much causes disincentives which harm the economy, too little causes stress in social cohesion and mobility which also harm the economy. In the real democracies, this is where the toughest battles are fought and political reputation burnished. In Singapore politics, one party dominance meant the PAP avoid the inconvenience of this Hard Truth.
Conclusion
At the conference, Mr. Chan welcome diversity as a strength and an enlightened electorate that asks tough questions of political parties which make election promises. That diversity and that enlightened electorate appears not extend to anything that are alternative to the PAP’s. Rather Messrs. Teo and Chan prefer to remain within their ideological strait jacket and why not? It is comfortable so long as enough citizens buy their nice-sounding platitudes, they are let off the hook.
Chris K
* Chris is a retired executive director in the financial industry who had worked mostly in London and Tokyo. He writes opinions and commentaries on economic and financial matters.
Then, Mr Teo helpfully points out that
“We should not, by socialising (costs) too much, remove that inter-generational responsibility within families.”
Familial inter-generation transfer (children paying for parents) appeals to Asian values but in reality let the government get away its own Asian values, i.e. its social obligations to citizens. Without redistribution, i.e. socializing costs, then the lower income will remain poor, exacerbating income inequality and preventing social mobility from one generation to another.
Theory meeting Hard Truths
Mr. Chan said that focusing on social transfers alone is one-dimensional.
“It is one thing to just give out some token, cash, or financial assistance…….Their challenges very often arise from the inability to do simple financial planning, investing in their children’s education, providing a positive role model, providing a stable home environment, so that the next generation can be uplifted…”
The reality is without a level of financial support to provide comfort and stability, all those nice sounding stuff is putting the wagon in front of the horse. Again this is well-known in social policy, but there is not enough social services here for the feedback of this Hard Truth.
Redistribution requires hard work
Here is the writer’ perspectives on redistribution.
The PAP keeps pounding the mantra of economic growth as if it cures all ills but it does not. Once the economy reach maturation, redistributive social spending becomes important because aspirations and standards are much higher. However more people are unable to keep pace, society becomes more unequal. Redistribution consolidates progress made and aid social cohesion and mobility.
Even the most economically advanced and competitive countries are very unequal before redistribution (Gini before social transfers). Economic growth and advancements in technology and management are no panacea to inequality without redistributive social spending, Even the IMF acknowledge that, unless excessive, redistributive social spending promote competitiveness and sustained long term economic growth.
One thing though, redistributive social spending requires hard work from the politicians. It is a continuous balancing act of distributing finite resources to meet competing policy demands. Then the question of the extent of redistribution: too much causes disincentives which harm the economy, too little causes stress in social cohesion and mobility which also harm the economy. In the real democracies, this is where the toughest battles are fought and political reputation burnished. In Singapore politics, one party dominance meant the PAP avoid the inconvenience of this Hard Truth.
Conclusion
At the conference, Mr. Chan welcome diversity as a strength and an enlightened electorate that asks tough questions of political parties which make election promises. That diversity and that enlightened electorate appears not extend to anything that are alternative to the PAP’s. Rather Messrs. Teo and Chan prefer to remain within their ideological strait jacket and why not? It is comfortable so long as enough citizens buy their nice-sounding platitudes, they are let off the hook.
Chris K
* Chris is a retired executive director in the financial industry who had worked mostly in London and Tokyo. He writes opinions and commentaries on economic and financial matters.
