The Best Welfare is Tough Training

My national service batch was what you could call an interesting one. We were an “experimental” batch – the one caught in between the “brute force” thinking of the 60s and 70s and the “tech-wizz” army of the 90s and 2000s. Our batch is best summed up by the howitzer that we used – the FH88 and the FH 2000. The FH 2000, the pride of the Singapore artillery at the time, had wonderful hydraulics that allowed us to get the howitzer rounds into the barrel without developing a hernia (I’m told that Singapore’s 155 gunners have our current Prime Minister to thank for developing the flick rammer), which wasn’t the case with the old M71 and M71S.  However, when compared to the Primus, our towed howitzer, the “FH” guns are relics. I remember asking a young gun commander about his gun drill and he stared at me as if I was speaking an alien language. At that point, the S3 (Operations officer) sheepishly explained to me that “gun drill” was called “push buttons.”  

What is true of our equipment was even more so of our people. We were considered “spoilt” because MP’s actually pretended to listen when parents complained about army camps and we slept on foam mattresses. However, unlike today’s recruits, we did have a lap top issued to us upon enlistment. We were a bit more polished than our predecessors and a little more rugged than our successors.

One of the reasons for that was because the army decided that it was time to introduce this thing called “Welfare for Soldiers.” What did this mean? Officially, it meant that the organization had to look like it was pretending to care about the grunts on the ground and superiors were not allowed to get physical with you.

However, while “welfare” was the new buzzword in those days, one of my senior instructors always made the point of telling us that, “The Best Welfare is Tough Training.” While this sounded like a cliché at the time, I’ve come to realize that phrase contains great wisdom, especially when you look at the modern political landscape and the fact that despite all the advances that we’ve made, life seems tougher than it was many years ago.

On one hand you have people who complain that despite working harder than ever before, they seem to be getting less, while on the other hand you have the crowd that complain about the yobs from elsewhere stealing jobs and scrounging off social welfare. The solution for both camps is inevitably the government. So, what is it exactly that we want from the government? Unfortunately, the answer is either more spending on social services or (it’s usually an addition) banning people from certain other groups from having a bite at the cherry.

Both sides seem to have lost the plot. Government plays a vital role in ensuring that things function relatively smoothly. Government also plays a key role in balancing the needs of business and society. However, government in many cases is a bit of a self-serving entity and you have to ask how government can get better for everyone.

I believe that governments should go back to basics, namely understanding the role of government in society. This is best explained by the analogy of a sports match. The government is the provider of the pitch and the referee.  When you look at this way, you will understand that the government is there to provide certain services like infrastructure, defense and sanitation. The government ensures that businesses can flourish but at the same time do not exploit workers. The government should under no circumstances be business.

One of the key roles of government is in providing infrastructure and one of the most important forms of infrastructure is the educational infrastructure. People with skills get jobs and better paying jobs than the people without. I live in Singapore, which is obsessed with education and training. Buying knowledge is big business in Singapore and the government’s continuous mantra is that our entire success is based on the fact that our people have skills that large multinational corporations want. The key driver used to be semi-conductors because our small population used to have the right skills. Now, we’re focusing on other industries.

You could say that the Singapore government has understood that the best welfare for its people is in training and ensuring that people can get good jobs. Better to have a nation of well-trained people that can get decent paying jobs than have a bunch of unemployable people who will expect handouts.

However, as one former journalist said, “Every minister of education we’ve had should be shot – we need so many foreigners every year to do the jobs that the economy creates and it appears the locals can’t do the jobs created by the economy. Then, you got ask, why can’t the locals to the jobs created by the local economy? You look at the one thing they have in common, which happens to be the education system.”

So, what is it about the local system, which is very good at instilling basic skills, not creating the people that are needed for the jobs that are currently being created?

OK, I’m not an expert on the system (in fact, I failed so badly in the system that my mother gave up her career in journalism for me) but I suspect that while our system is good, its good at producing people who can work within the system but not people who can deal with changing circumstances, which, in the age of disruption is a vital skill in order to survive.

While the Singapore government is right to focus on things like “retraining” and “lifelong” learning  so that people can jobs in new industries being created, the question is – is this really what the government wants in its people?

I’m a little unusual because I spent the better part of my working life as a freelancer. I think of the “Gig” economy as the world’s greatest blessing. Things like “Uber” and ‘Airbnb” are empowering. Why can’t I rent out my spare room for a few days a month if it brings me extra money or supplements my income? While nine to six is stable, it cannot be the only form of earning money.

However, its people like me, whom the government looks at with suspicion because we, in the “Gig” economy have a mindset that our survival is self-made. We don’t see a job from a multinational or the government as a gift from a benevolent power. A job is merely that – a means of exchanging time for money. We understand that you, the giver of the job can take it away as you have given it. So, we need to find something else.

On the other hand, someone who has grown used to stability will think differently. You develop a dependent mindset when you have one single source of income that makes it illegal for you not to be dependent on that one employer. For someone raised on that system, the “gig” economy is hell on earth.

Governments should understand that the best form of welfare is to train people for the future. Better to have people who can make their own jobs rather than people who expect welfare handouts. While governments like Singapore’s have been very good at training people to have basic skills in doing things, how many of them have trained their people to think laterally? If governments are serious about providing social welfare, it’s time they trained people to think laterally.