I took a module called, "Wealth Management" this past semester and my professor, Kiap (as I like to call him), is pretty enthusiastic and concern about the well-being of the lower-income group in Singapore. He really brought the situation of the lower-income group into focused. Brought us me to the attention of just how serious the situation actually is.
I used to think that being in the lower-income group probably just means that you have to tighten your wallets more tightly than the rest of the people. But when the class started planning the monthly expenditures and living expenses for these group of people, I realised how serious it is. Can you imagine feeding 6 people with just an income of $800 per month? I can't.
I used to think that my family was bad. But apparently not.
Anyways, Kiap seems to think that education is the key to helping the lower-income group get out of the vicious cycle (I refuse to use the phrase, 'poverty cycle').
But I beg to differ.
On paper, education seems to be the perfect solution. I mean, get educated -> get a good job with a good pay -> some meticulous wealth planning with the pay -> better life for the kids -> educate the kids -> they get good jobs and repeat cycle. After a few "generations", VIOLA! They are out!
Really that simple? Not really.
After the 10 years of compulsory and heavily subsidised education, what percentage of students from the lower-income group actually choose to take the university route? How many of them actually don't feel the pressure to actually take the poly route so that they can start earning their own dough and lighten the load of their parents?
With a diploma, it's harder for them to secure a high-paying job. It will take them so much longer to attain a pay that is sufficient enough for them to actually do a little bit of wealth planning.
I am by no means saying that choosing the poly route is an inferior choice. Because if given the choice again, I would have gone the poly route myself. Taken up "Mass Communication" as planned since I was 14 years old.
Besides, during the 10 years of education, kids from the lower-income group have to work to earn pocket money. Do they have the time to study? And if they have the time to study, do they have the money to hire a tutor to get that extra push?
Even if they have gotten into university, they are still at a slight disadvantage. All they can do is to get an education loan and study. They can't afford to go for overseas exchange (it cost at least $11 000 to study in the US for a semester!), overseas immersion programme or much less go overseas and stay for an internship.
So when they graduate, all they have is a degree. But a degree is no longer enough to satisfy employers, ain't it? Employers are looking for people who have been overseas, exposed to overseas culture and...erm...culturally resilient (not quite. I can't think of the word at this moment).
In addition, they don't have the 关系/the contacts. While some other graduates may be able to get a good job via their parents/godparents/relatives, these kids have to really go through interviews, look through Recruit and go from door-to-door asking for a job.
THEN! They end up in a job that provides a slightly better pay but just enough for them to pay their education loan and living expenses.
Then there is the "load" on their pay. With their wages, they have to pay for their education (either for poly or university). Contribute to their family. Support themselves. Miscellaneous deductions. By the time every thing has been paid for, they have very little left. Not enough for them to invest. Or even build up an emergency funds.
So see. Education may not work.
Of course, the government has been really generous with their subsidies and all that. But something more needs to be done. But what?
Till someone comes up with a solution, I guess education will still remain as the "best solution".
Do you have any thoughts on these? What are some of the other solutions?
I used to think that being in the lower-income group probably just means that you have to tighten your wallets more tightly than the rest of the people. But when the class started planning the monthly expenditures and living expenses for these group of people, I realised how serious it is. Can you imagine feeding 6 people with just an income of $800 per month? I can't.
I used to think that my family was bad. But apparently not.
Anyways, Kiap seems to think that education is the key to helping the lower-income group get out of the vicious cycle (I refuse to use the phrase, 'poverty cycle').
But I beg to differ.
On paper, education seems to be the perfect solution. I mean, get educated -> get a good job with a good pay -> some meticulous wealth planning with the pay -> better life for the kids -> educate the kids -> they get good jobs and repeat cycle. After a few "generations", VIOLA! They are out!
Really that simple? Not really.
After the 10 years of compulsory and heavily subsidised education, what percentage of students from the lower-income group actually choose to take the university route? How many of them actually don't feel the pressure to actually take the poly route so that they can start earning their own dough and lighten the load of their parents?
With a diploma, it's harder for them to secure a high-paying job. It will take them so much longer to attain a pay that is sufficient enough for them to actually do a little bit of wealth planning.
I am by no means saying that choosing the poly route is an inferior choice. Because if given the choice again, I would have gone the poly route myself. Taken up "Mass Communication" as planned since I was 14 years old.
Besides, during the 10 years of education, kids from the lower-income group have to work to earn pocket money. Do they have the time to study? And if they have the time to study, do they have the money to hire a tutor to get that extra push?
Even if they have gotten into university, they are still at a slight disadvantage. All they can do is to get an education loan and study. They can't afford to go for overseas exchange (it cost at least $11 000 to study in the US for a semester!), overseas immersion programme or much less go overseas and stay for an internship.
So when they graduate, all they have is a degree. But a degree is no longer enough to satisfy employers, ain't it? Employers are looking for people who have been overseas, exposed to overseas culture and...erm...culturally resilient (not quite. I can't think of the word at this moment).
In addition, they don't have the 关系/the contacts. While some other graduates may be able to get a good job via their parents/godparents/relatives, these kids have to really go through interviews, look through Recruit and go from door-to-door asking for a job.
THEN! They end up in a job that provides a slightly better pay but just enough for them to pay their education loan and living expenses.
Then there is the "load" on their pay. With their wages, they have to pay for their education (either for poly or university). Contribute to their family. Support themselves. Miscellaneous deductions. By the time every thing has been paid for, they have very little left. Not enough for them to invest. Or even build up an emergency funds.
So see. Education may not work.
Of course, the government has been really generous with their subsidies and all that. But something more needs to be done. But what?
Till someone comes up with a solution, I guess education will still remain as the "best solution".
Do you have any thoughts on these? What are some of the other solutions?
No comments:
Post a Comment