Was doing some research for my long overdue GP essay and came across this article in The Economist: Welfare in Singapore - The Stingy Nanny
http://www.economist.com/node/15524092

And at the same time, I also came across another article that explains the rationale behind Singapore's welfare model.

Security with Self-Reliance: The Argument for the Singapore Model
http://www.cscollege.gov.sg/cgl/pub_ethos_5g1.htm

What I found particularly interesting was this paragraph:

In a welfare state, it is often taken for granted that no one would choose to do anything that they knew would lead them to become destitute. Hence, anyone in that situation must have come to be so due to forces beyond his control or knowledge and, in a compassionate society, would be entitled to a relatively good standard of living, supported by the more fortunate members of society.

So it seems that the key difference regarding the issue of welfare, is that welfare states assume that people would inherently always work as hard as they can to pursue higher standards of living, whereas Singapore believes that people are not that disciplined but are instead prone to undesirable qualities such as laziness. I think that would be a very interesting idea to debate about, though currently at 3am my mind is too muddled to think through it clearly. :P

Another issue that both article kind of addressed is the relationship between welfare and foreign labour. The Economist argues that a more extensive social safety net would encourage public support for Singapore's migrant worker policy. What do you think?

Shall end with a quote from The Economist article that I guess sums up the situation:

While self-reliance is a good principle in general, it may be neither efficient nor just if taken to extremes

---

Thanks for reading :)

---

Older Post . Newer Post

Short Biodata

To be updated