What About Those Who Doesn't Know How to Help Themselves?

This is the question asked in Today (13/11/2006). If you're interested in reading the article you can click on this link. Specifically, what I find puzzling are the following 2 paragraphs.

But more fundamentally, that seems inconsistent with the President's vision of an "inclusive society which leaves no one behind". Instead, it is a society that "leaves no one who is willing to help himself or herself behind".
So what happens to those who are unwilling or unable, or who do not know how, to help themselves? Do we simply say that we will not help them, on the basis that it will damage our work ethic in the long run, or that we need to save our reserves for future contingencies instead of addressing present needs?

I mean, I do not see anything wrong with helping only those who are willing to help themselves. Of course, there are certain groups of people who are unable to help themselves such as the elderly, and the young. For such groups, the society and the government need to work together in helping them. They are not just the government's problem; they are part of our society hence they are also our problem that is why we need to support the community groups through donations or volunteer work etc.

If we are talking about the poor, but able-bodied, then I do not see why we need to help them if they do not even bother helping themselves. The day the government starts handing out money to this group of people, you can be very sure to pay much more for the annual income tax. This is a fundamental lesson learned from welfare states such as US and UK. Frankly speaking, I will be peeved to pay for people to just bum around. If those people are unwilling to help themselves and are left behind, then tough luck. Survival of the fittest.

Discussing about this issue is further complicated by the President's words on "an inclusive society that leaves no one behind". I really wonder if the writer is in a thinking state when highlighting the inconsistency of the President's vision and the government's policies. How can there be a perfect solution that can help all the people?! If there is, why are the poor still with us? They existed through the social history from feudalism till now. (BTW, I picked feudalism because I cannot remember what was before feudalism. You must understand I am a science student with no history background other than the time I was made to study in lower secondary.) You would think since feudalism (sometime around the 9th century) some smarty-pants along the timeline would have figured out a social model that does not leave anybody behind as the society progresses. The fact is nobody has found the miracle cure, and maybe, by now, we should have learnt from history there is NO perfect solution. So why harp on what the President said? All in all, I still think no matter how many safety nets are in place to help the poor, there will still be a minority who will slip through. After all, nets are by nature porous.