omg, average income of Singapore poorest families fell by a staggering 49% between 1997 and now!
Post-election
The worst problem
The PAP has a few, but the most pressing remains the widening wealth gap. By Seah Chiang Nee. littlespeck.com
May 28, 2006
Ranked among the world's top affluent countries on a per capita basis, Singapore is not synonymous with poverty and public debate about it has been relatively rare.
In recent years, however, it has surfaced as a new social and political problem and until the next general election in five years' time, it will probably get priority attention.
What worries the public obviously has to worry the authorities. In fact, the rising plight of Singapore's poor and the widening gap between the rich and the poor became a major election issue.
Among better-off Singaporeans and some bureaucrats, there is little "real" poverty in this middle-class city (per capita GDP about US$30,000), only problems from a lavish lifestyle.
"I've always thought there is no such thing as 'poor people' in Singapore, only underprivileged ones," someone commented on an online forum.
These people who complain about their plight own a Housing Board flat, a cell phone (as do their children), a computer and an air-conditioner and buy 4-D, which spelled wealth in other countries, he added.
Another observed that people became poor because they had too many credit cards, strived too hard to keep up with their neighbours, splurged on branded goods and travelled on taxis instead of buses.
"Somehow I find that in Singapore, the smaller the home, the bigger the TV set. Why don't people who have a small budget value what little money they have the same way as richer people do?
"A lot of rich people are 'savers' who avoid needless spending."
While these cases do exist, they may have understated the real plight of poorly skilled Singaporeans struggling to cope with a changing economy that works against them.
Other sufferers in this expensive city are the "sandwiched" middle-class couples, who have to support ageing parents on one hand and educating children on the other.
"This country is full of poor people," argued another letter writer. "They make up the most of the population here. Our 'rich and comfortable' facade hides the ugly truth of debts and credit crunches."
In the corridors of power, however, the "real" versus "relative" poverty has become more urgent since Election 2006, in which voter unhappiness over jobs, incomes and bread-and-butter issues was evident.
During the hustings, critics posted pictures of homeless aged men sleeping in public lobbies and parks, a cogent form of campaigning made possible by the Internet.
Stories, too, abound about poor single parents or unemployed fathers unable to feed or school their children.
The ruling People's Action Party (PAP) post-mortem to investigate why public support had fallen from 75% to 66% will be ready in two or three months.
But in an initial reaction, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said his government would have to redouble its efforts to alleviate the plight of the bottom 30% income earners.
For most of 40 years, the PAP had operated with what Lee Kuan Yew called a "social compact" with Singaporeans.
Under the concept, the government was obliged to deliver the jobs and a reasonable life in return for the people's continuing vote. If it failed in its obligation, then the people would no longer be obliged to support it.
Obviously in the 21st century global economy, no government can safeguard jobs for all its citizens, rendering the social compact irrelevant.
Its end has obviously affected politics. The first generation of Singaporeans was ready to suffer some deprivation of personal liberties in exchange for a "secure life".
But free of this social compact, today's youths are facing the tough economic challenges with a demand for a freer society.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong came into power at a poor moment of history when economic fundamentals have become tougher (despite a stronger current growth rate) and a more divisive, demanding population.
Singaporeans have always suffered from over-worrying, whether it's about the present or their future survival, a national trait that seems to be working overtime these days.
Adding to Hsien Loong's woes is a widening wealth gap, which is compelling Singaporeans to work long hours to make a living.
The bottom 20% of the population is earning no more than S$900 a month, less than what they did in real terms 10 years ago; another 10% earn between $900 and $$1,200.
In 2000, incomes for the top 10% of resident households grew 8.8%, while incomes for the bottom 10% of wage-earning households shrank 13.6%. Singapore last year had the world's biggest increase in the number of millionaires.
The political fallout gets worse when critics compare this to the super-high government salaries that range from S$1mil (junior minister) to S$2.5mil (the president). Lee Kuan Yew says this is an effective way of combating corruption.
There is rumbling on the ground but it hasn't stopped multinationals from pouring in. The country's economy ballooned from S$8.9bil in 1965 to the current S$180.5bil.
In the last decade, competition from countries such as China, India, Thailand and Malaysia has meant that, to remain competitive, Singapore's workers have been asked to tighten their belts further, widening the social divide further.
While the average income of Singaporeans declined by 2.7% between 1997 and now, that of the poorest families fell by a staggering 49%, according to a paper by Professor Mukhopadhaya Pundarik of Singapore's National University (NUS).
Kuan Yew's PAP, one of the world's longest ruling parties (40 years), is undergoing a crucial transition.
Its future now depends on its ability to come up with a new formula acceptable to the new generation.
