Jamus is concerned about the elderly. 
One of the sights that many Singaporeans (and foreigners, for that matter) are shocked by is the large number of elderly who continue to work, even into their twilight years. Many perform menial tasks, which are ill-suited to their advanced years. You’ve seen them. They’re in our fast-food restaurants, our coffeeshops, our estates. Some do so because they went to occupy their time, and to remain engaged in society. But there are many others that work because they have to, to make ends meet.
In most high-income countries, this is unheard of. Sure, there are the poor, and homeless, and some of them are elderly. But these are usually folks who have gotten there because they have fallen out of the system (often because of addiction or mental illness). Our working aged are undoubtedly still part of the system. But the system doesn’t do enough to help them out. It stresses the importance of keeping government lean, which isn’t a bad thing, per se. Yet it does so to the detriment of the more vulnerable.
The #workersparty believes that more can be done to help these groups in society. Indeed, a good part of our manifesto proposes programs that lend greater support to the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. These strive for a more compassionate society. One such proposal is to make transportation free for the elderly and disabled. This can have positive benefits for their wellness, encourage their labor force participation (if they do wished), and promote environmental sustainability to boot.
Of course, free of charge doesn’t mean free of cost, and we recognize that. This was Transport Minister Iswaran’s principal objection: that the program would be costly, and hence borne by someone. This is correct. As we discussed during our budget debates, there are many additional levers for raising revenue. But even if we didn’t wish to go so far, so long as we buy the principle, there are many options for limiting the budgetary impact of the scheme. For instance, we could limit it to the disabled and most elderly (say, those above 80) among us. Or we could allow them to ride during off-peak periods, when there is spare capacity anyway (and we only forgo revenue).
There are, of course, those who object to the principle altogether, and ask why the elderly are more deserving of government generosity (or largesse, if one is particularly snarky) than any other group, as opposed to, say, the poor. There are (at least) three distinct arguments for supporting the elderly: first, they have contributed comparatively more, over time, to the existing system; second, they are generally less able to work to generate income; and third, even with savings, they live off fixed incomes. One may still say: why should the taxpayer subsidize the elderly, regardless of their wealth? But the notion that there are rich old people who would go around abusing this plan by taking free bus rides is just plain silly. In reality, only the less well-to-do will tend to do so.
As Singapore seeks to more inclusivity in its public transporting system (with barrier-free access, or priority boarding and seating), we should not forget the simplest inclusion of all: ensuring access to transport for those who cannot afford it. An inclusive and caring society can do more to offer our elderly the dignity to move around our beautiful city, free of charge, during their twilight years. Let them ride free. #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
1 hr ·One of the sights that many Singaporeans (and foreigners, for that matter) are shocked by is the large number of elderly who continue to work, even into their twilight years. Many perform menial tasks, which are ill-suited to their advanced years. You’ve seen them. They’re in our fast-food restaurants, our coffeeshops, our estates. Some do so because they went to occupy their time, and to remain engaged in society. But there are many others that work because they have to, to make ends meet.
In most high-income countries, this is unheard of. Sure, there are the poor, and homeless, and some of them are elderly. But these are usually folks who have gotten there because they have fallen out of the system (often because of addiction or mental illness). Our working aged are undoubtedly still part of the system. But the system doesn’t do enough to help them out. It stresses the importance of keeping government lean, which isn’t a bad thing, per se. Yet it does so to the detriment of the more vulnerable.
The #workersparty believes that more can be done to help these groups in society. Indeed, a good part of our manifesto proposes programs that lend greater support to the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. These strive for a more compassionate society. One such proposal is to make transportation free for the elderly and disabled. This can have positive benefits for their wellness, encourage their labor force participation (if they do wished), and promote environmental sustainability to boot.
Of course, free of charge doesn’t mean free of cost, and we recognize that. This was Transport Minister Iswaran’s principal objection: that the program would be costly, and hence borne by someone. This is correct. As we discussed during our budget debates, there are many additional levers for raising revenue. But even if we didn’t wish to go so far, so long as we buy the principle, there are many options for limiting the budgetary impact of the scheme. For instance, we could limit it to the disabled and most elderly (say, those above 80) among us. Or we could allow them to ride during off-peak periods, when there is spare capacity anyway (and we only forgo revenue).
There are, of course, those who object to the principle altogether, and ask why the elderly are more deserving of government generosity (or largesse, if one is particularly snarky) than any other group, as opposed to, say, the poor. There are (at least) three distinct arguments for supporting the elderly: first, they have contributed comparatively more, over time, to the existing system; second, they are generally less able to work to generate income; and third, even with savings, they live off fixed incomes. One may still say: why should the taxpayer subsidize the elderly, regardless of their wealth? But the notion that there are rich old people who would go around abusing this plan by taking free bus rides is just plain silly. In reality, only the less well-to-do will tend to do so.
As Singapore seeks to more inclusivity in its public transporting system (with barrier-free access, or priority boarding and seating), we should not forget the simplest inclusion of all: ensuring access to transport for those who cannot afford it. An inclusive and caring society can do more to offer our elderly the dignity to move around our beautiful city, free of charge, during their twilight years. Let them ride free. #makingyourvotecount
