By Phillip Das
There is a difference between a dog and a cat. A big difference, if I dare say!
A dog loves its master. It is loyal, obedient and always happy to see the person who feeds it. It follows its master and often shows its affection without expecting anything in return.
A cat is different. It comes and goes as it pleases. It may appear when it is hungry, eat the food placed before it, and then disappear until it wants something again.
Of course, these are only observations about animals. But sometimes, when we look at the way people behave, we cannot help but see a lesson in the comparison.
What happens when someone is given everything they need without having to make much effort? Do they become more independent, or do they begin to depend on others for their next meal?
And what happens when those who provide the food begin to believe that keeping others happy is more important than helping them stand on their own feet?
When Help Becomes Dependence
Governments have a responsibility to help people who are struggling. There is nothing wrong with providing assistance to those who need it. In fact, a caring government should ensure that no family is left behind simply because it does not have enough money.
But there is a difference between helping people improve their lives and keeping them dependent on assistance.
When people are given opportunities to learn, work, earn a living and provide for their families, they gain confidence and independence. When assistance becomes a permanent substitute for opportunity, we must ask whether we are truly helping them.
The purpose of assistance should be to help people move forward, not to keep them waiting for the next handout.
A Roof Over Our Heads
Consider housing. In Malaysia, a segment of our community receives discounts or other concessions on certain house purchases. These policies are intended to assist a particular group, but we must also consider the difficulties faced by lower-income families from every community.
A young Malay couple may struggle to buy their first home. So may a Chinese couple, an Indian couple or an Iban family from Sarawak or a Kadazan husband-and-wife team from Sabah. They may all be working hard, raising children and trying to make ends meet.
Should their ability to obtain a comfortable home depend mainly on which group they belong to, or should their financial circumstances also matter?
A home is more than an investment. It is a place where children grow up, families find security and people build their future.
Perhaps we should give greater attention to helping lower-income families of all nationalities secure affordable housing. Assistance could take account of income, financial commitments and genuine need, while recognising the purpose and effects of existing policies.
The objective should not be to take assistance away from one group and give it to another. It should be to ensure that those who need help have a fair opportunity to live with dignity.
And What About Those at the Top?
There is another side to this question. We often talk about helping ordinary people, but what happens when a large private company runs into financial difficulties?
When a business succeeds, its owners and shareholders enjoy the rewards. But when things go wrong, should the government step in and use public resources to help?
There may be good reasons to do so. A large company may provide jobs, support other businesses and deliver services that people depend on. Its failure could affect many innocent people.
But we must also ask some important questions. How did the company get into difficulty? Were the risks managed properly? Are its owners prepared to contribute their own resources? And will government assistance protect the public, or mainly protect those who own the business?
A government must consider the consequences of allowing a major company to fail. But it must also remember that public money belongs to the people.
If ordinary families are expected to take responsibility for their financial commitments, should the same principle not apply to those who run large businesses? When profits belong to the owners, but losses are passed on to the public, we must ask whether the arrangement is fair.
Who Is Feeding Whom?
This brings us back to the dog and the cat. The question is not whether we should feed the dog or the cat. Both animals need food. The real question is whether we understand why we are providing it and whether we are being responsible in the way we do so.
The same principle applies to government. Assistance should not be used merely to keep people happy, secure support or protect those who have influence. It should serve a clear purpose and be given fairly.
A poor family deserves help because it needs help. A young person deserves an opportunity because the future should not be closed to them. A business may deserve support when there is a clear public benefit, but its owners must also accept their responsibilities.
No government can solve every problem by handing out money. Nor can it expect people to become independent if it does not provide them with opportunities to improve their lives. We need a system that encourages effort, rewards responsibility and protects those who genuinely need help.
The Lesson
Dogs may be loyal, and cats may be independent. But human beings are neither dogs nor cats. They have their own thoughts, abilities, ambitions and struggles. They should not be treated as people who must simply be kept happy with whatever is placed before them.
A good government should help people stand on their own feet. It should give the young a chance to build their future, help struggling families obtain decent homes and ensure that public money is spent in the interests of the people.
And when powerful individuals or businesses encounter difficulties, the same principles of responsibility and accountability should apply. In the end, the question is not who deserves to be fed first.
It is whether we are building a society where people can live with dignity, take responsibility for their decisions and have a fair chance to succeed.
WE