Tharman – A little meat and a little departure

In today’s ST front page, Tharman listed 5 priorities of govt policies that in a way are related to Hsien Loong’s NDR speech on a comprehensive health care scheme for the senior Singaporeans. Tharman filled in some meat to that general policy change and direction, and also included a few cautions and departures from the sweeping Medishield Life scheme for all, sick or unsick.

Tharman’s first priority is about targeting govt subsidies to those who need them and said that universal benefits are ‘wasteful and inequitable’. A comprehensive all encompassing healthcare benefit scheme will fit into this wasteful and inequitable definition perfectly. There is no need for further elaboration on this as the impact and consequences are simply obvious.

The second priority, to design redistribution policies to spur self reliance and individual responsibility has been the cornerstone of many govt policies. To lump every Singaporean into a healthcare scheme with no recognition of their needs and demands on the system is going to be in conflict with the concept of self reliance and individual responsibility. The reckless and irresponsible are going to pass the buck to the rest of the people to foot their bills, as simple as that. Would this be acceptable under the new scheme?

Tharman did qualify by saying that those who are in genuine need for assistance would not be left on their own. This is the big difference between humans and animals. In the animal kingdom it is survival of the fittest and the weak and sick will perish on their own steam. As a social animal, the human specie has this innate ability to want and can look after their weaker fellow beans, the old, the sick, the less able and less talented. Human beans can be caring, generous and selfless.

The third policy pointed out by Tharman is more startlingly in a way as it has been violated in many instances for vain glory and misplaced responsibility. This policy is about making ‘sure tax incentives and grants “aggressively” support and catalyse community and civic efforts, and strengthen “the values that drives us to be our brother’s keepers”’. How would spending money on foreign sports talents and paying for foreigners to study here fit into this brothers’ keepers idea? How would bringing in foreigners to replace our citizens in jobs be a good thing? We need to take care of our very own, incentivise and motivate our own to excel in all fields. The foreigners are not our responsibility and money spent on them is simply wasteful and also inequitable.

How would this policy fit into the comprehensive health care scheme with PRs and new citizens in our midst and standing to benefit wholly from public funds?

Tharman’s fourth policy is about progressive taxation, benefits and social spending. I think he must believe that GST is progressive taxation. Or would he now be more enlightened to tweak this regressive tax to tax the poor less? In this regard he hinted at the need for future tax increases to fund the growing health care needs. Here is his biggest contradiction. If the recently floated comprehensive health care scheme does take cognizance to the priorities mentioned, there should not be a need to raise taxes. Raising taxes is only necessary when the scheme is an unlimited buffet spread for all to partake with little regard to equitable distributions and prudence not to over provide with no regard to the cost involved.

Tharman’s final point is about a just and fair society, about opportunities to enjoy quality living, public spaces and our work and living environment. Would the govt be building more and smaller flats to improve the quality of living for Singaporeans, or would the dreams of the 70s and 80s when every family aspire to own a 5 rm flat or better, including private properties be reignited? Can Singaporeans relive this dream?

With the freeing of the two pieces of land in Paya Lebar and Tanjong Pagar, the govt is given a chance to really redevelop and design quality housing for the people and not more mickey mouse pigeon holes in close proximity. A new concept of living with bigger homes and space could be the future, if only the wet dream of 6.9m does not become a reality. We have more space and create even more space for everyone here, and not creating more space to squeeze in more migrants to fill up every inch of space created. Can there also be a departure from the mindset of more population for more economic growth and the deception that small and little space are good quality living, good for bringing up children?

Yes, we have the money to build our dreams. And our dreams must be better and bigger space and more amenities for the people, not more squeeze and lesser space to live like mice and competing for space and air. There is no need to drive down a road to hell when we can go to paradise. But as they say, the road to heaven is wide open but few takers, but the road to hell is narrow and dangerous and crowded like hell.

How would these five policies mentioned by Tharman be worked around the Medishield Life for all?