Different Income Ceilings for Different Help Schemes
Ministry of Social and Family DevelopmentSpeakers
Summary
This question concerns the variation in income ceilings across different social assistance schemes and the underlying criteria used to determine eligibility for these programs. Ms Anthea Ong inquired about the rationale for differing income limits for ComCare, public rental housing, Workfare, and education financial assistance. Minister for Social and Family Development Desmond Lee explained that these criteria reflect specific policy goals, such as setting higher ceilings for education to better support social mobility. He noted that separate thresholds prevent a "cliff effect" where families lose all assistance at once, thereby incentivizing families to increase their income. Minister for Social and Family Development Desmond Lee also emphasized that assessments are being streamlined to ensure coordinated and comprehensive support across various government agencies.
Transcript
14 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in addressing inequality and social mobility which are inter-agency issues, what is the reason for the difference in income ceilings for ComCare Assistance ($1,900/$650 per capita), the Public Rental Scheme ($1,500), the Workfare Income Supplement ($2,300) and the financial assistance scheme for education ($2,750/$690 per capita); (b) how are these different ceilings derived; and (c) what is the minimum cost of living that is used as a guide for our social policies.
Mr Desmond Lee: Our social assistance schemes meet different needs and have different target groups. ComCare supports basic living expenses. The Public Rental Scheme provides highly-subsidised rental housing. The Workfare Income Supplement Scheme tops up the incomes and CPF savings of lower wage workers to incentivise employment and retirement savings. The MOE Financial Assistance Scheme supports the schooling expenses of children from lower income families.
Agencies incorporate data and information from multiple sources when formulating these schemes and design the eligibility criteria taking into account not just income but also other factors relevant to the particular scheme. For example, ComCare Long-Term Assistance considers whether a person is unable to work due to old age, illness or disability and has little or no family support. Flexibility is also exercised when applying the criteria. For example, HDB exercises flexibility to allow those with household incomes above $1,500 to live in public rental housing based on their circumstances.
The different criteria for different schemes also reflect our policy priorities. For example, education subsidies tend to be set higher – both in their income ceiling and subsidy quantum – because we strongly believe in the importance of education in opening doors to opportunity, addressing inequality and uplifting social mobility.
There is another advantage of having eligibility criteria separately tailored to the different schemes. This way, we avoid creating a single critical income threshold, which when crossed causes families to simultaneously fall out of all the assistance schemes. Such a cliff effect would strongly disincentivise families to upgrade themselves and rise out of poverty.
Together, the various assistance schemes form a social safety net that provides help to Singaporeans in need and more help to those who need it more.
To further strengthen social service delivery, MSF is spearheading a whole-of-Government effort to ensure that support is comprehensive, convenient and coordinated. For example, we have been streamlining assessment protocols. ComCare clients will be automatically assessed for MOE financial assistance and HDB public rental rates. We will expand this arrangement progressively to cover more schemes and agencies. Social assistance schemes and criteria are also continually reviewed to ensure that their objectives are being met.