reaching everyone for active citizenry @ home
Singapore Government
 
 
A-  |  A+

Blog Us - Archives

21 Feb 2012, 12.12AM
Mah Yi Xin
by Mah Yi Xin
Yi Xin is interested in any novel ideas such as social entrepreneurship in the local context as well as community development. She is an optimistic realist and hopes to visit Bhutan one day. Yi Xin has also been a Youth Ambassador with REACH since 2010.



The theme of this year’s budget, “An Inclusive Society, A Stronger Singapore” struck a chord with me. It reflects the government’s recognition that certain pockets of society have been left behind in our relentless pursuit of economic growth, and much could and should be done to help them as best as possible.  

I am particularly heartened by the government’s initiative to ‘ Help Seniors Unlock (their) Savings” and to “Expand (existing) Healthcare Facilities” respectively.

Help Seniors Unlock Savings

E.1. First, we will introduce a Silver Housing Bonus of $20,000.

E.2. This Bonus will be given to older Singaporeans who wish to sell their existing flats and purchase 3-room or smaller HDB flats. Many of our senior citizens are in fact keen to do so – the great popularity of our Studio Apartments speaks for itself. It is not just a desire to unlock their savings, but that the apartments are practically designed for them. And they have nearby amenities that cater to the elderly, such as Senior Activity Centres. We will be building more Studio Apartments in the next few years.

 

Expand Healthcare Facilities

E.51.      Third, we will more than double the capacity in long term care services by 2020. This includes nursing homes, home-based health and social care services, day care and rehabilitation facilities, and Senior Activity Centres. We will also improve access to polyclinics and introduce new models of care, such as Medical Centres that provide specialist outpatient services in the community.

 

However, while we focus on the tangible aspects of “ Studio Apartments”, “Senior Activity Centres” and “Medical Centres”, which are in high demand among the elderly as stated in the Budget, it is equally important to reflect on the ‘values’ of the rest of society, who must share their spaces with the elderly, sometimes rather un-reluctantly.

The Straits Times article “Not in my backyard" attitude: How MPs handle it” published on 11th February comes to mind. Three particular concepts stand out- that of “government’, ‘family’ and ‘Asian values’. Through this article, it is revealed that the soft authoritarian notion of the state must now face up to an increasingly demanding and vocal electorate. Second, family values among the masses appear to be overwhelmed by pragmatic ‘material interests’. Finally, the notion of ‘filial piety’ as an ‘Asian value’ is discounted by evidence in the article.

First, various Members-of-Parliament (MPs) cited that Singaporeans are increasingly demanding and vocal especially after the May General Elections in 2011. An educated electorate has more opinions and arguably greater willingness to speak up. This is seen in how more ‘dialogue sessions’ are held, greater ‘time and effort’ is spent in engaging the public and MPs must now ‘win over the ground’. Thus, a leviathan state which imposes top-down policies is compromised with a public preference for bottom-up and ground-up suggestions. Hence, the present challenge is for the government to implement the aforementioned policies benefitting the elderly, as outlined in the Budget, amongst the surge of public opinion and background noises. Afterall, Singapore’s parliamentary democratic system and the need to win elections necessitate a delicate balance of multiple interests.

 To me, the erosion of family values is hinted at in the article. It is cited that there is a preference by residents for ‘elderly care centers’ to be ‘sited far, far away’ because of their association with ‘sickness and death’, which residents feel result in a drop in property valuation. It would be double standards if an individual cares only about one’s elderly parent or relative, but chooses to disregard the interests of elderly who are strangers to them. Similarly, through the above example, one could not help wondering if filial piety towards one’s elderly parents may also be at stake, as residents are portrayed to be eager to discount the needs of the elderly. (Of course, the small sample size does not speak for everyone, but still raises pertinent questions) Education is cited as a reason for increasing demands and opinions, as seen in the above paragraph. However, one wonders if there is a negative correlation between education and communal values. While increased education may lead to greater awareness of information such as the causes and effects of a drop/rise in property value, at the same time, it has resulted in an overly pragmatic hence extremely self-interested group of people. 

Third, the overall notion of “Asian values’, so often defended by the incumbent, raises question. “Asian values” emphasize on the community over the individual, authoritarianism over freedom of expression, and espouse Confucianism over democracy, so as to allow the government to implement policies effectively from a top-down approach. Yet, what one observes is that “Asian values” prescribed by the government are not so apparent in reality, as there is resistance too. Individual interests over property prices take priority over the community and elderly residents. The ‘not in my backyard attitude’ is seen in many different episodes and housing estates, as pointed out in the article, hence cannot be said to be isolated.  

One comes to the following conclusion: When public opinions are increasingly loud, government policies should not reflect populist sentiments at the expense of policies benefitting the elderly. Second, communal values seem to be swayed by self interests and pragmatism. This has implications, on whether it is still possible for the government to help the elderly while winning over the hearts and minds of other citizens. One would recommend a re-examination of the Moral and Civics curriculum education in schools, and to emphasize on community service and communal values over academic results. This ensures that economic progress in Singapore is not only quantitative (increase in property valuation), but qualitative as well. 

 

 

 

 

2098 views  | 
2
 comments & replies
  | 
Guest
Guest
22 Feb 2012, 10.58PM
A balanced opinion.

If our elderly appear detestable to us, we better ask ourselves how we would like to be treated when we are elderly too. The elderly are the ones who build Singapore - is our mistreatment of them the proverbial reward of a fully-fed donkey which rewards its feeder with a kick? 

In fact there is a lot of experiential wisdom our elders - unless one is impaired owing to old age or some other health complication - have which we need to tap into, and pass on to younger Singaporeans. We may not find some of the wisdom they have in our mechanical schooling/education system, yet life is about much more than the mathematical formulae and theoretical constructs we learn in school. How are we to tap into that wisdom - if considered necessary and useful for our young's psycho-experiential development? 

And more ... I know it is easier to make criticise a policy than to make a meaningful policy decision. Good thing as we become more and more educated we become more and more inquisitive about government and our general surroundings, but it would be important if we acquainted ourselves with as broad and various bits of information and considerations as possible before blaming or heralding government for making policy mistakes or sidestepping important preferences. and, regarding public opinion, it depends on the issue at hand and the long-term implications of a policy decision which a policy maker will have thought more about and sought technical advice (assuming that policy decision-makers seek critical technical and related advice) before deciding. Sometimes public opinion does not determine policy. Unless we degenerate into mass politics -  a form of politics into which most people become subsumed as active participants regardless of the legally-constituted and legitimate channels of doing politics - there is some discretionary space we need to allow policy-makers, as we also contribute as responsible citizens to the technical details needed to inform a policy.

Better to contribute positively at the formulation stage than criticise what has been passed when it is going to affect a lot many people. Policy may come from publics, but publics do not make final policy decisions. 

RWENGABO
Guest
Guest
16 May 2012, 8.13PM
I read you opinion and I respect it, but it is to soon. This year we will have election and I am sure that many things will be the same. model cv
Blog Us - Archives


Search Archives

Best viewed at 1024*768 resolution with IE 7.0 or FireFox 3.0