- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Needy gets 24 cents of every dollar spent?[/h]
November 13th, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
I refer to the article “One-stop welfare hub at mall” (Straits Times, Nov 11).
Enhance delivery of welfare or amount of welfare?
Of late, there seems to have been quite a lot of stories about enhancing the delivery of welfare services to the needy.
So, I thought it may be interesting to look at our expenditure on welfare to the needy. However, it was not an easy task as I discovered, that it is not so easy to figure out how much of expenditure actually goes to the needy – a rather subjective matter it seems.
MCYS expenditure – $2.13b
According to the Revenue and Expenditure Estimates for the Financial Year 2012/2013, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports’ (MCYS) Total Expenditure is $2.13 billion (Estimated FY2012).
Running costs – $768m
Of this, $768 million was for Running Costs and $187 million for Development Expenditure.
The Running Costs include $544 million of Grants, Subventions and Capital Injections to Statutory Boards, Educational Institutions and Other Organisations.
Transfers – only $1.18b?
The actual Transfers was only $1.18 billion , comprising Social Transfers to Individuals of $921 million and Transfers to Institutions and Organisations of $254 million.
Transfers to individuals – 43 cents out of every dollar?
So, does this mean that out of every dollar spent, 36 cents went to Running Costs, 9 cents to Development Expenditure, and only 43 and 12 cents to Transfers to Individuals and Institutions/Organisations, respectively?
Actual transfers to needy – 24 cents out of every dollar?
If we take away the $924 million for the Family Development Programme, the bulk of which comprise the Baby Bonus, Government-paid Maternity and Childcare Leave, which may not really be considered as welfare transfers to the needy, with the exception of Subsidies for Childcare and Infant Care, does it then mean that only about 24 cents out of every dollar went to Transfers to Individuals and Institutions/Organisations?
(Note: In deriving the above estimated figure, I took the $259 million for Subsidies for Childcare and Infant Care, from the Ministry of Finance’ Budget)
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2012/expenditure_overview/mcys.html
ComCare – only $104m
The sum allocated to the ComCare and Social Support Programme was only $104 million, and only $25 million for the Elderly and Disability Programme.
People’s Association – $338m
The second largest component of expenditure was $338 million for the operating expenditure of the People’s Association (PA).
Less than 6% of unemployed get short-term assistance
According to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), less than 1 per cent of the number of elderly residents are on long-term social assistance, and less than 6 per cent of the number of resident unemployed persons are on short-term social assistance.
Out of proportion?
Looking at the above data, is the proportion of spending that arguably, actually goes directly to the needy, a bit out of proportion to the total expenditure?
What do you think? Can the experts help out on this question?
.
Leong Sze Hian
Leong Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. He blogs at http://www.leongszehian.com.
Enhance delivery of welfare or amount of welfare?
Of late, there seems to have been quite a lot of stories about enhancing the delivery of welfare services to the needy.
So, I thought it may be interesting to look at our expenditure on welfare to the needy. However, it was not an easy task as I discovered, that it is not so easy to figure out how much of expenditure actually goes to the needy – a rather subjective matter it seems.
MCYS expenditure – $2.13b
According to the Revenue and Expenditure Estimates for the Financial Year 2012/2013, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports’ (MCYS) Total Expenditure is $2.13 billion (Estimated FY2012).
Running costs – $768m
Of this, $768 million was for Running Costs and $187 million for Development Expenditure.
The Running Costs include $544 million of Grants, Subventions and Capital Injections to Statutory Boards, Educational Institutions and Other Organisations.
Transfers – only $1.18b?
The actual Transfers was only $1.18 billion , comprising Social Transfers to Individuals of $921 million and Transfers to Institutions and Organisations of $254 million.
Transfers to individuals – 43 cents out of every dollar?
So, does this mean that out of every dollar spent, 36 cents went to Running Costs, 9 cents to Development Expenditure, and only 43 and 12 cents to Transfers to Individuals and Institutions/Organisations, respectively?
Actual transfers to needy – 24 cents out of every dollar?
If we take away the $924 million for the Family Development Programme, the bulk of which comprise the Baby Bonus, Government-paid Maternity and Childcare Leave, which may not really be considered as welfare transfers to the needy, with the exception of Subsidies for Childcare and Infant Care, does it then mean that only about 24 cents out of every dollar went to Transfers to Individuals and Institutions/Organisations?
(Note: In deriving the above estimated figure, I took the $259 million for Subsidies for Childcare and Infant Care, from the Ministry of Finance’ Budget)
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2012/expenditure_overview/mcys.html
ComCare – only $104m
The sum allocated to the ComCare and Social Support Programme was only $104 million, and only $25 million for the Elderly and Disability Programme.
People’s Association – $338m
The second largest component of expenditure was $338 million for the operating expenditure of the People’s Association (PA).
Less than 6% of unemployed get short-term assistance
According to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), less than 1 per cent of the number of elderly residents are on long-term social assistance, and less than 6 per cent of the number of resident unemployed persons are on short-term social assistance.
Out of proportion?
Looking at the above data, is the proportion of spending that arguably, actually goes directly to the needy, a bit out of proportion to the total expenditure?
What do you think? Can the experts help out on this question?
.
Leong Sze Hian
Leong Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. He blogs at http://www.leongszehian.com.
