What caught my eye in this article published by TODAY on 9 October, 2021, was how quickly our Ministry of Finance (MOF) rejected the study's findings. In the article titled, 'Parents with 2 children need to earn about S$5,800 to $6,400 monthly for basic standard of living: Study', TODAY mentioned an 80-page study done by a six-person research team from Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP). It suggested that "a couple with two children (aged 7-12 and 13-18) need $6,426 a month, while a single parent with one child (aged 2-6) needs $3,218 a month."
(This study presented by LKYSPP is available online.)
Channel News Asia reported more on the statement released by MOF. The Ministry pointed out that the study didn't take into account the amount of subsidies (from various sources at statutory boards, other Ministries and organizations) and government support received by low-income families.
In a statement issued on Friday, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) said: “Anyone reading the LKYSPP report should bear in mind the limitations of the approach used. The conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs largely due to assumptions used.”
The ministry noted that the methodology used is “highly dependent” on group dynamics and profile of the participants.
“With most participants having post-secondary education and 15 per cent living in private properties, the findings expressed may not be reflective of the circumstances of the lower-income families,” it said.
For instance, estimates included discretionary expenditure items such as private enrichment classes, jewellery, perfumes and overseas holidays, said MOF.
I'd do well to remember that any study done by the Ministry must also be taken in the same context. It doesn't mean that the Ministry can reflect 'accurate findings' although they might have access to a larger sample pool. If this information is for public good, then shouldn't we have two reports done? One by academics and sociologists, and one by the Ministry? If we end up with such contrasting figures, then there must be a blind spot somewhere. Could we then have a civilized debate and presentation about it?
If the Ministry pans the figures and parameters and the methodology used, then they might need to be a little more open-minded. Attitudes and aspirations change. People's expectations of a living wage shifts in a matter of three years. People redefine what's 'basic'. We are an entitled bunch. We have changed what most countries use to define 'basic necessities' in day-to-day living. If the Ministry follows these international definitions to define baselines and reject everything else above it, then it's lying to itself or seeing our society through rose-tinted lenses.
The researchers suggested that,
“Any living wage, since it is a single wage level that applies to all workers regardless of what households they live in, will produce household incomes that are more than what some households need, for example, the smaller households, and less than what others require, for example, the larger households or those with special needs.
"The exact assumptions and compromises that are acceptable when determining a living wage is a matter for public deliberation. For Singapore, such deliberations may eventually result in a different figure from the one presented here in the study, especially if more data on the distribution of household types become available," they added.
(Highlights are mine.)
It's ironic then, in that statement, the Ministry acknowledged that,
“The amounts reflected in the report are what median earner receives, not low-income families,” said the ministry.
It added that the report offers additional data points on the expectations and aspirations of Singaporeans, “which will continue to evolve over time”.
“The Government is sensitive to these shifts and regularly reviews our scope and coverage of assistance to ensure it is relevant and adequate,” said MOF.
Erm. This is what the LKYSPP study said right? A living wage. The median. A basic standard of living plus a little more. A wage that most people can live on, and hopefully we get year-end bonuses. It isn't exactly fighting with the statistics on what constitute the definition of poverty lines in Singapore. This is slightly more than the defined basic cost of living. So to earn a living wage is pretty much to exist miserably, but with more hope. It's still having to live day to day, from paycheck to paycheck.
What is my basic standard of living? Why should I let someone tell me what my basic standard of living ought to be? If I can draw a monthly wage, not bust the monthly budget, then I have every right to aspire to have a higher income in this city. That will then become my living wage. I'd wish that employers and the government acknowledge this, instead of telling me to 'live within my means', of which I already do, but I'll get judged for my choice of laptop or phone model, which will obviously be the latest.
Since it's all about personal thresholds, then I can tell you that I can't raise a child on $6426 a month. No way I can do it on $3218 a month. I can, however, live quite comfortably alone on $6426 a month if I needn't subtract rent or mortgage out of it. BUT, I'd be hard-pressed to live on $3218 a month, even without paying rent or factoring in leisure traveling. That means I live from paycheck to paycheck, with barely enough to fulfill medical insurance premiums, without leeway for savings, and no avenues for investments. This is how our elderly folks end up still working manual jobs at 70 years old. This living wage of a monthly $3218, will not be sufficient to build a nest egg to sustain for my later 15 years of retirement in Singapore. And I can't plan when to die.
No comments:
Post a Comment