Review of Financial Assistance Provided to Low-Income Families Given Minimum Income Standard Report 2023

Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply.

The Minimum Income Standard Report 2023 (MIS) stated that the minimum income standard budget for a household with two school-going children is $6,693 per month or about $1,600 per capita. According to the report, this means it is equivalent to the 30th percentile of all working households in Singapore.

Since MSF is giving ComCare assistance to the lowest 20th percentile of households, would MSF think that the $800 dollars per capita income, as a criterion to provide financial assistance, is too high or too low?

At the same time, I think the Ministry has also sent out a press release to say that according to Government analysis, the proposed monthly income stated in the MIS report is about $1,680 per capita and it is similar to the monthly expenditure of $1,650 per capita of all families and children. So, there is a big discrepancy. They are saying that in the MIS study, the income is based on the 30th percentile of household income, whereas MSF and other Ministries are saying that it is equivalent to about 50% of household income in Singapore.

So, if MSF disagrees with this report, which is internationally conducted in many countries, why would MSF not consider doing their own report, using the data that is available to MSF, to refute this or to convince Singaporeans better?

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I might want to, just perhaps, remind the Member of two points in my main reply. The first statement in my main reply reads, "We regularly review assistance coverage to ensure adequate assistance for lower-income families to meet their basic living needs."

The second point, in the last statement of my short reply, I mentioned that we reference different sources: price data from DOS, views from domain experts, community stakeholders as well as academic studies and research studies that have been commissioned by us in MSF.

I thank the Member for raising the spotlight on this MIS study. I just want to quote what the MIS study report stated, and I quote, "It is not just about basic needs like housing, food, clothing but also what it takes to enable a sense of belonging, respect, security, independence."

So, quite clearly, even the MIS report itself has defined what they have found as going beyond basic needs. Hence, what they are describing is really about what is aspirational, what perhaps one, or families, would like to have.

On this premise, now that we have set it clear, I would also like to raise a few points about the MIS study.

The study's methodology – 300 participants, small group discussions – is highly dependent on respondent profile and group dynamics. So, I understand that many respondents themselves in the study are not from lower-income households. And, when in a group, group dynamics is real and, oftentimes, minority participants may find it hard to articulate their views. I shall leave it at that.

Also, another assumption that has been made in the study is that lower-income households or lower-income families receive the same amount of financial help as median-income households. This is clearly not correct. Lower-income families qualify for and receive more financial help than median households. This is a fact that bears repeating, and I shall say it again. Lower-income households qualify for and receive more financial help than median households. This is not something that has been recognised by the MIS study.

The last point I will make: the Member mentioned $6,693 translated into per capita is $1,680 per person – quite a nice number. Under the MIS study, that is perhaps closer, as the Member rightly pointed out, to the average monthly expenditure of $1,650 per person for all families with children – rather than reflecting basic needs. So, this is in line with the spirit of the MIS study, because they are going beyond what are basic needs. They are measuring something that is aspirational, something that is perhaps more than basic.

As I mentioned in my main reply, what we cater for in ComCare, in our subsidies and in our financial assistance schemes cater for basic needs. We do need to look at the entirety of what is given or what is provided to the families – not just what the Government gives in terms of financial assistance but also what the community, the corporates give. As I mentioned in the earlier reply in yesterday's Sitting, how we take a "many helping hands" approach in making sure that those with less among us are well catered for.

Finally, the last point, I think the Member made reference to a press release. Indeed, a fuller exposition was set out in a joint press release by the Ministry of Finance (MOF), Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and MSF. This was released on 14 September. I refer Members to this press release for a fuller exposition.

Speaker, I am not the author of the study, so I want to qualify that. But nevertheless, I think that I have read the study in some detail and some elements in which Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua has mentioned – about how they are aspirational – strike many Singaporeans as not entirely so.

For example, one of the things that was pointed out by the joint Ministry response was that perfume may seem like a bit of an aspirational good. But of course, many Singaporeans will understand as well that in a hot and humid climate like our own, being presentable, smelling normal, would be something that many jobseekers would require in order to have some dignity when they go for job interviews or when they go to work.

I am also somewhat puzzled because, yesterday, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua mentioned how ComCare seems to have expanded their notion of needs to relative needs, such as mobile phone plans and the like.

So, my question is whether the Ministry will be able to explain some of these seemingly large discrepancies between that $6,000 or so for a four-family member household versus what ComCare currently has, which is significantly lower.

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I also thank him for making me go through an exercise to jog my memory about what I said yesterday. I remember saying in my reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on ComCare that, actually, we assess our basket of products and services that are needed in a basic package for our ComCare families from time to time. And we have included mobile data plans because they provide for digital connectivity which, in turn, provides for human connection, which is a basic need we assessed. And that is consistent with what I have said today.

And I knew about this idea about discretionary items and perfumes, but I am also not aware of how perfumes would add to how we will present ourselves better in our climate which is hot and humid. My point really is, I agree with the Member that we do need to be presentable. But because I knew that I was going to be taking this PQ today, I made two calls this morning to two of my rental flat residents. Both are single mothers; both are in this category of residents that we are discussing about. And I do understand that this is not statistically significant. These are perhaps anecdotes, but these are anecdotes that I thought are instructive. I have sought their permission to share this with the House.

I asked them, perfume, jewellery, overseas holidays; what do these items mean to you? How would you describe them? Both of them told me in separate phone conversations without coordination, they tell me almost similar words, and I quote them, "Boss, these are good to have lah." I followed up and I asked, "So, ideally how would you like to be able to afford these items?" I provided some multiple-choice question (MCQ) options, "Is it through gainful employment or perhaps would you want that to be part of Government assistance?" Again, both of them told me, without coordinating their replies, "Boss, get a job. Earn money. Work hard for these things lor."

So, my takeaway earlier from these two conversations is this. Let us not underestimate the agency, the strength and the dignity of our lower-income families and the ability to turn things around and to break the cycle of poverty – with them clearly in the loop, with them clearly holding on to the levers of their own lives.

I just want to clarify one point. Because the MIS report stated that an elderly person above 65 years old needs $1,500 a month to survive well. So, in MSF's view, what is the minimum amount to ensure basic needs for a 65-year-old elderly staying alone to survive? What is the amount?

Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I do not have an exact number with me right now but suffice to say we do review this. We do revisit the question of what is needed or what is sufficient for different archetypes, from time to time.

Just a follow-up to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's replies. I refer to individuals in a family context, for example, full-time caregivers who have to look after family members who cannot work and their ability to go out and work in itself is limited. Does MSF look at assisting these families with a higher short-, medium- or long-term assistance payout?

I thank the Leader of Opposition for his supplementary question. I think the short answer is yes. MSF officers do look at the comprehensive situation of each family, each individual, each household, before rendering the appropriate assistance.