In the 1960s to 1970s, during Singapore’s post independence, the government provided subsidized housing, education and health services to create more jobs in the public sector (GuideMeSingapore, 2008). However, as the nation developed, the government focused on instilling its people with a sense of self reliance. It did not want them to become too complacent into thinking that the government owed them a living. Therefore, the Many Helping Hands approach was adopted. This idea was first mentioned in 1991 during then Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong’s speech. He explained that the approach emphasised on ‘the community helping its own members to overcome obstacles and improve themselves’ (Goh, 1991, p.3). Two years later in 1993, Mr Goh announced the need for a ‘compassionate and responsible society’ (Mehta & Wee, 2004). Later in 2001, he called for a new social compact which were a ‘set of principles for the government and the people to work together for the common good of the country’ (Hwang, 2001, para.2). Although the many helping hands approach was not formerly introduced, throughout Singapore’s years of development, the government had clearly called attention to all Singaporeans to contribute to their society’s welfare.
This Many Helping Hands approach is a philosophy that suggests that the government, community, family and individual should play a part in assisting those who cannot keep pace with the rest of the population (Yap, 2004). The government sets out policies and schemes like the public assistance (PA) schemes to help those who need financial assistance. Government affiliated organizations like the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) also focus on contributing to the welfare of the society. On a community level, out of compassion, many have established Voluntary Welfare Organizations (VWOs) and Resident Committees (RCs) in which individuals can volunteer and provide assistance for communities in need. According to this approach, the family is the first line of support for an individual. Therefore over the years, the need to build strong family ties has been greatly stressed on. Individuals too are expected to be self reliant in times of difficulties by making the necessary adjustments within their capability.
To me, the whole idea of approaching our social issues with this philosophy in mind is an excellent one. However, when the application of this approach is examined in greater detail, it is evident that there is a need for improvement. I say this considering how many people have fallen through the cracks despite the implemented schemes and services provided. In one article, several MPs had called for the government to increase the PA allowance as it had been insufficient for the needy. They have questioned the Government’s capabilities to “provide adequately for the most vulnerable group of our society” (Wong, 2007, para.9). On the other hand, others have also questioned the efficiency of the VWOs as many individuals have reportedly been turned down when not eligible for a particular service. In consequence, many have had to “hunt down” organizations that would be willing to assist them. If our Many Helping Hands approach was really as effective as some suggest it to be, why then are individuals still struggling to survive comfortably? Bearing in mind that we are moving towards an era of globalization, it is also important to take note that the gap between the rich and the poor is more likely to widen. Therefore, before we reach that stage, I personally feel that this approach needs to be reviewed.
Why has this approach become ineffective? Firstly I believe that this approach has failed to evolve as times changed. Over the years, there has been an increase of ‘helping hands’ with many more VWOs being established, thus creating the ‘risk of duplication and difficulty in co-ordination’ as Dr Vivian Balakrishnan mentioned in the recent debates (Balakrishnan, 2009, p.4). Therefore to prevent overlapping of services and over/under compensation, perhaps creating a centralised database as Dr Lam Pin Min suggested would be practical (Hua, 2009). Nevertheless, in making this approach a little more rigid, it is very important that we do not lose touch of the compassion and love when helping these people.
I have also realised that another reason for its ineffectiveness is because the different ‘hands’ have failed to work together. Overtime, the groups have become disconnected and it has become a case of handing over instead of working together on cases, thus creating the illusion of ‘shifting responsibilities’. As MP Ms Denise Phua stated, each group carry their own strengths - the government with the power to implement schemes and monitor things on a higher level and on the ground level, compassionate people who are more in touch with the issues faced by the communities (Peng, 2006). With this in mind, I strongly agree that we should move away from the ‘detached mode’, put our strengths together and make the welfare of our society a ‘shared responsibility’.
A final concern I have is that many are still unaware of this Many Helping Hands approach. When I asked a group of friends if they knew about this approach, a majority of them said that they had never heard of it. If the youngsters of our generation do not know about this, what more the elderly? How can we expect the needy to come forward, if they do not even know about the resources they can tap on? Moreover as I researched on this approach, it baffled me that there was no site set up to explicitly state the history and idea behind this approach. Being in the 21st century where technology has become a common information provider, I think it is necessary for us to use this medium and other means to educate the general public.
As I see it, the Many Helping Hands approach has helped to create a compassionate society. Therefore in my opinion, completely removing it would be unwise. Nevertheless, I believe that much can be done to better improve on this brilliant idea so that it becomes more effective and efficient.
This Many Helping Hands approach is a philosophy that suggests that the government, community, family and individual should play a part in assisting those who cannot keep pace with the rest of the population (Yap, 2004). The government sets out policies and schemes like the public assistance (PA) schemes to help those who need financial assistance. Government affiliated organizations like the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) also focus on contributing to the welfare of the society. On a community level, out of compassion, many have established Voluntary Welfare Organizations (VWOs) and Resident Committees (RCs) in which individuals can volunteer and provide assistance for communities in need. According to this approach, the family is the first line of support for an individual. Therefore over the years, the need to build strong family ties has been greatly stressed on. Individuals too are expected to be self reliant in times of difficulties by making the necessary adjustments within their capability.
To me, the whole idea of approaching our social issues with this philosophy in mind is an excellent one. However, when the application of this approach is examined in greater detail, it is evident that there is a need for improvement. I say this considering how many people have fallen through the cracks despite the implemented schemes and services provided. In one article, several MPs had called for the government to increase the PA allowance as it had been insufficient for the needy. They have questioned the Government’s capabilities to “provide adequately for the most vulnerable group of our society” (Wong, 2007, para.9). On the other hand, others have also questioned the efficiency of the VWOs as many individuals have reportedly been turned down when not eligible for a particular service. In consequence, many have had to “hunt down” organizations that would be willing to assist them. If our Many Helping Hands approach was really as effective as some suggest it to be, why then are individuals still struggling to survive comfortably? Bearing in mind that we are moving towards an era of globalization, it is also important to take note that the gap between the rich and the poor is more likely to widen. Therefore, before we reach that stage, I personally feel that this approach needs to be reviewed.
Why has this approach become ineffective? Firstly I believe that this approach has failed to evolve as times changed. Over the years, there has been an increase of ‘helping hands’ with many more VWOs being established, thus creating the ‘risk of duplication and difficulty in co-ordination’ as Dr Vivian Balakrishnan mentioned in the recent debates (Balakrishnan, 2009, p.4). Therefore to prevent overlapping of services and over/under compensation, perhaps creating a centralised database as Dr Lam Pin Min suggested would be practical (Hua, 2009). Nevertheless, in making this approach a little more rigid, it is very important that we do not lose touch of the compassion and love when helping these people.
I have also realised that another reason for its ineffectiveness is because the different ‘hands’ have failed to work together. Overtime, the groups have become disconnected and it has become a case of handing over instead of working together on cases, thus creating the illusion of ‘shifting responsibilities’. As MP Ms Denise Phua stated, each group carry their own strengths - the government with the power to implement schemes and monitor things on a higher level and on the ground level, compassionate people who are more in touch with the issues faced by the communities (Peng, 2006). With this in mind, I strongly agree that we should move away from the ‘detached mode’, put our strengths together and make the welfare of our society a ‘shared responsibility’.
A final concern I have is that many are still unaware of this Many Helping Hands approach. When I asked a group of friends if they knew about this approach, a majority of them said that they had never heard of it. If the youngsters of our generation do not know about this, what more the elderly? How can we expect the needy to come forward, if they do not even know about the resources they can tap on? Moreover as I researched on this approach, it baffled me that there was no site set up to explicitly state the history and idea behind this approach. Being in the 21st century where technology has become a common information provider, I think it is necessary for us to use this medium and other means to educate the general public.
As I see it, the Many Helping Hands approach has helped to create a compassionate society. Therefore in my opinion, completely removing it would be unwise. Nevertheless, I believe that much can be done to better improve on this brilliant idea so that it becomes more effective and efficient.
References
GuideMeSingapore. (2008). A Brief History of Singapore: Road to Success. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://www.guidemesingapore.com/singapore-introduction/c623-brief-history-singapore.htm
Goh, C, T. (1991). Address by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/gct19911121.pdf
Mehta, K., Wee, A. (2004). Social Work in Context: A Reader. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.
Hwang, J. (2001). New Singapore Shares: Social Compact. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_555_2004-12-21.html
Yap, M, T. (n.d.). Many /helping Hands. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:iW_5Vk85Gq8J:www.hkcss.org.hk/cb4/2004Poverty_summit/Many%2520Helping%2520Hands.ppt+many+helping+hands+approach+inefficient&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg
Wong, M. (2007). Govt Will Help the Poor but Many Helping Hands Still Needed: Dr Balakrishnan. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/263041/1/.html
Balakrishnan, V. (2009). Speech by Dr Balakrishnan. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from http://www.mcys.gov.sg/MCDSFiles/Speeches/Articles/06-2009.pdf
Hua, L, S. (2009). Helping Hands ‘Should Coordinate’. Retrieved May 5, 2009, from http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/sp/budget09/helping_hands_should_coordinate.html
Peng, D, P, L. (2006). Speech by Denise Phua Lay Peng. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?id=1305&cid=23
Goh, C, T. (1991). Address by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/gct19911121.pdf
Mehta, K., Wee, A. (2004). Social Work in Context: A Reader. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.
Hwang, J. (2001). New Singapore Shares: Social Compact. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_555_2004-12-21.html
Yap, M, T. (n.d.). Many /helping Hands. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:iW_5Vk85Gq8J:www.hkcss.org.hk/cb4/2004Poverty_summit/Many%2520Helping%2520Hands.ppt+many+helping+hands+approach+inefficient&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg
Wong, M. (2007). Govt Will Help the Poor but Many Helping Hands Still Needed: Dr Balakrishnan. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/263041/1/.html
Balakrishnan, V. (2009). Speech by Dr Balakrishnan. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from http://www.mcys.gov.sg/MCDSFiles/Speeches/Articles/06-2009.pdf
Hua, L, S. (2009). Helping Hands ‘Should Coordinate’. Retrieved May 5, 2009, from http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/sp/budget09/helping_hands_should_coordinate.html
Peng, D, P, L. (2006). Speech by Denise Phua Lay Peng. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?id=1305&cid=23
No comments:
Post a Comment