//
you're reading...
Today

Singapore’s Spiralling Cost Of Living

Tenth on the list of the most expensive locations in Asia to live in last year, Singapore crept up one notch this year, dislodging locations such as Guangzhou and Shenzhen” (The Rising Cost Of Living).

I read the report, “The Rising Cost Of Living” (June 15, 2010) with great apprehension and dread: it is imperative for the administration to remain cognisant of the ramifications should Singapore continue to be one of the costliest cities to live in. The rising cost of living presents an assortment of challenges to the on-the-ground Singaporeans; and these challenges would be further exacerbated if the consistently rising prices are not complemented by a corresponding increase in wage levels for workers and employees.

When the rises in wage levels are unable to keep up with spiralling levels of inflation within an economy, middle income earners – who constitute a considerable proportion of Singapore’s population – would naturally feel the squeeze as the “sandwiched” class. There are catered programmes for social support and assistance for lower-income households, while top wage earners do not experience the disproportionate wage-price increases as acutely as the middle-class. A multitude of factors – including sharp rises in basic consumer goods and necessities, significant spikes in housing prices, increasing costs of services such as healthcare and education – aggravated by the recent financial slump, has greatly troubled individuals and households. Ensuring the stability and self-reliance of the middle-class is necessary for the fiscal health of the country.

Certainly, low-income households would struggle with the continued increase in the standards of living; furthermore, the rapidly ageing population presents notable difficulties for the elderly and retired individuals. The decision to focus on increasing productivity and efficiency has been a key strategy employed by the administration; yet it is important to ascertain whether the plethora of schemes introduced has indeed produced the desired results.

However, there are genuine instances where increasing productivity or enhancing skills are not viable options, because the Singaporeans involved do not have the ability to work. Some from lower-income households might be confronted by fundamental linguistic challenges, while the older generation may be too sick, old or frail to rejoin the workforce. Beyond evaluating the current initiatives such as the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR), the relevant ministries and agencies must devise alternatives for the aforementioned cases. In the event where citizens simply cannot remain employed to draw better salaries there must be enhanced depth and flexibility in our social safety net to provide diverse options that remain workable and feasible.

Seemingly subtle increases in the prices of food, utilities and housing might seem insignificant in the grand scheme of economic development; but the consequences can be dire, such as widening income inequalities and more evident disgruntlement. Such rising prices simply cannot be ignored.

A version of this article was published in TODAY.

Advertisements

About guanyinmiao

A man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting. Carlos Castaneda.

Discussion

4 thoughts on “Singapore’s Spiralling Cost Of Living

  1. Beyond evaluating the current initiatives such as the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR), the relevant ministries and agencies must devise alternatives for the aforementioned cases. In the event where citizens simply cannot remain employed to draw better salaries there must be enhanced depth and flexibility in our social safety net to provide diverse options that remain workable and feasible.

    OK, sounds fair enough. But what do you think should be specifically implemented? (-:

    Posted by eternalhap | June 19, 2010, 1:57 pm
    • The administration can consider working more closely with the relevant government agencies and welfare organisations to devise a system where such cases must be dealt on a case-by-case basis. In such scenarios, I believe the common mistake is to devise generalised policies without acknowledging the fact that different individuals and households face different problems, and thus require varying remedies. This added degree of flexibility is lacking in the status quo.

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | June 19, 2010, 9:07 pm
  2. such cases must be dealt on a case-by-case basis. In such scenarios, I believe the common mistake is to devise generalised policies without acknowledging the fact that different individuals and households face different problems

    Don’t you see the contradiction in your answer? The reason why policies are generalised is because there are many sets of people with varying problems. Case-by-case sounds good here, but I don’t think it can be easily implemented.

    I was expecting a more specific answer, like giving handouts etc. Perhaps you can develop it into a blog in future?

    Posted by eternalhap | June 20, 2010, 3:43 pm
    • My apologies for not making it clearer. Yes; policies are devised to address a certain issue or concern for a general group of individuals. For instance, SPUR was instituted to assist unemployed individuals to “re-train” or “upgrade” their skills, so that productivity levels can be heightened. However, what will become of the unemployed who genuinely do not have the ability to attend the courses, due to disabilities, familial restrictions, linguistic limitations? Policies naturally lend themselves to grey areas because some households simply do not fall into the broad categories or criteria that we have drawn up.

      General policies do remain in place; what I am highlighting is that we don’t have a Plan B for such aforementioned cases. The case-by-case methodology applies for Singaporeans in these scenarios. In the big picture, of course, these cases are in the minority; so manpower and resources should be made available for them.

      Further improvements can be made to the welfare system and the social safety net in Singapore. We have a good system in which we discourage an entire dependency on the state per se. However, my biggest gripe is that the administration has introduced a multitude of different programmes and handouts that individuals and households struggle to make sense of everything. The barriers are multiplied for citizens who face linguistic barriers, having to contend with a variety of brochures and documents on eligibility and application processes. Certainly – I hope I can sort out my personal perspectives and organise them properly into a post in the future.

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | June 20, 2010, 4:43 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow guanyinmiao's musings on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,148 other followers

Twitter

%d bloggers like this: