Should PAP set up a formal gov agency to help s'poreans?
-
Rather than having the community centres and mps do the job on ad hoc and case by case basis, why don't we set up a formal government agency to help the less fortunate solve their problems?
The chief benefit of this is centralisation which promotes cost efficiency and allows the quality of the services provided to be easily monitored and controlled. Also it is easier to track where the money goes in a centralised org than spread out all over the place and handled by different gov offices.
The model for this type of organisation can be the SAF. In the saf, recruits with no military skills whatsoever are trained then selected for different vocations, where they go for further training. I think the results for this model are evident for all to see.
The centre can provide the following services to the public:
1. Job placement in government agencies e.g civil service, saf, navy, air force, glc etc...
The reason people are out of job is because the private sector does not want to hire them for one reason or another. Thus is pointless to keep pushing them to continue working in the private sector. These people may be talented but because of age, or other disability the private sector does not want to hire them. Moreover since it is all done by the same org(e.g gov) it is easier to structure the job tasks to accomodate such people.
2. Training.
For those people who lack the necessary skills but are no less talented, selection and training can be provided based on the saf model with some modifications to allow for the person's interests.
3. Professional advice with regards to helping people plan their career path, financial planning to save for retirement, and free legal advice.
4. Providing aid to those who need it until they can be trained and placed in a job where they can provide for themselves.
Controls
Of course there must be controls in any org to make sure the system is not misused. The following can be examples.
a. Job placement
A grading system can be implemented to monitor how well the less able people are able to perform their jobs after placement. For example upon being placed initially they can be paid 60% of what their colleagues are being paid. After three months 80% and the final 100% if their performance is on par with everyone else. In this case they are then treated as regular employees. The reduction in salary will go to helping to alleviate the costs of running the service.
b. Training
Training in the form of short-courses should be free, but the trainee is required to serve the gov for a specified period. e.g 3 mths. Otherwise the trainee has to pay some of the training costs if he wants to work in the private sector.
c. Professional advice should be given free of charge to people who fall under certain criteria. e.g unemployed, disabled, etc... -
This is like expecting snow to start falling in Singapore.... -
-
What a nice little dream you have there
-
U write in to your MP lor
-
is the new team going to ask for million dollar pay before they can come out with more bright ideas to tax the people heavier to collect more money to give about maybe .0005% of the collection to the poor who has to filled at least 20 forms to justify why they should need assistance?
You know the meaning of oxymoron? -
trust me, our " dear Leader" will tell you cost benefits theory again.
the govt has decided on the casino and GST increase, more workers in singapore to increase their tax coffers. but it seem we have too big a hole to fill. are we sure the minister are really paying themselves just 2-3million a year? not every mth?? -
Hello, the gahmen mentioned before that singaporeans should not be dependent on the gahmen.Originally posted by Skibi:Rather than having the community centres and mps do the job on ad hoc and case by case basis, why don't we set up a formal government agency to help the less fortunate solve their problems?
The chief benefit of this is centralisation which promotes cost efficiency and allows the quality of the services provided to be easily monitored and controlled. Also it is easier to track where the money goes in a centralised org than spread out all over the place and handled by different gov offices.
The model for this type of organisation can be the SAF. In the saf, recruits with no military skills whatsoever are trained then selected for different vocations, where they go for further training. I think the results for this model are evident for all to see.
The centre can provide the following services to the public:
1. Job placement in government agencies e.g civil service, saf, navy, air force, glc etc...
The reason people are out of job is because the private sector does not want to hire them for one reason or another. Thus is pointless to keep pushing them to continue working in the private sector. These people may be talented but because of age, or other disability the private sector does not want to hire them. Moreover since it is all done by the same org(e.g gov) it is easier to structure the job tasks to accomodate such people.
2. Training.
For those people who lack the necessary skills but are no less talented, selection and training can be provided based on the saf model with some modifications to allow for the person's interests.
3. Professional advice with regards to helping people plan their career path, financial planning to save for retirement, and free legal advice.
4. Providing aid to those who need it until they can be trained and placed in a job where they can provide for themselves.
Controls
Of course there must be controls in any org to make sure the system is not misused. The following can be examples.
a. Job placement
A grading system can be implemented to monitor how well the less able people are able to perform their jobs after placement. For example upon being placed initially they can be paid 60% of what their colleagues are being paid. After three months 80% and the final 100% if their performance is on par with everyone else. In this case they are then treated as regular employees. The reduction in salary will go to helping to alleviate the costs of running the service.
b. Training
Training in the form of short-courses should be free, but the trainee is required to serve the gov for a specified period. e.g 3 mths. Otherwise the trainee has to pay some of the training costs if he wants to work in the private sector.
c. Professional advice should be given free of charge to people who fall under certain criteria. e.g unemployed, disabled, etc... -
For those people who lack the necessary skills but are no less talented, selection and training can be provided based on the saf model with some modifications to allow for the person's interests.
Common skills sets that are required are already offered in community centres. I don't see such a need. Since every industry and company is different, the government can't possibly cater to every industry and tie up with the different institutions to train the workers.
Only the industry and company themselves would know what skills set are necessary and will be in a better position to judge.Providing aid to those who need it until they can be trained and placed in a job where they can provide for themselves.
There's no welfare in Singapore. If the government is really to provide it, the burden on the citizens will be greater. There's also a what if. What if they can't be bothered to find a job and get themselves trained for it? The risk too big, especially for a non-welfare state like us.A grading system can be implemented to monitor how well the less able people are able to perform their jobs after placement. For example upon being placed initially they can be paid 60% of what their colleagues are being paid. After three months 80% and the final 100% if their performance is on par with everyone else. In this case they are then treated as regular employees. The reduction in salary will go to helping to alleviate the costs of running the service.
It's blatant discrimination. Being less able-bodied doesn't mean one can't do a job. If an elderly able-bodied person is able to get train and get a job and paid 100% while in training, why can't it be the same for the disabled?
Assuming my above paragraph is rubbish and that this system is applied to everybody who wants to receive training after getting a job, I feel that it is carried out too far.
Since the private sector doesn't want to hire them because of certain biasness, having this system further shows how immature the government is. -
NO WAY!!!! it just give them more place to feed their fat cats... pls.. if they wan to help.. just give directly to the poor..... just remember... NON of the charity organisation gives 100% to the poor... got management fees one...
-
The aim is to take what the private sector considers as "less able" and turn them into productive, contributing citizens for singapore. Essentially teaching or giving opportunities for these people to provide for themselves and at the same time benefiting the government with their pool of talent. Elderly people falls under this category along with the pes e/f people.
The "discounted" starting salary is a control to prevent the system from being mis-used. The advantages are as follows:
1. Discourage able people from clogging up the service when they should be finding jobs in the private sector.
2. Help alleviate costs of the service. -
2. Help alleviate costs of the service.
I still don't get this part. Can explain further? With examples, details, demonstrations or whatever you deem fit. -
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
Simple illustration example.
I still don't get this part. Can explain further? With examples, details, demonstrations or whatever you deem fit.
Lets say the budget for Department A is 10,000$ to hire staff.
They can hire 5 NUS/NTU graduates via the news paper at 2,000$ each. (10,000$ used up)
or
They can hire the same 5 elderly NUS/NTU graduates(older and more experienced) via the new org at 1,200$ each. (6000$ used up)
To give Dept A some benefit for hiring elderly staff, some of the unused 4000$ of the budget can go back to them to be able to purchase other things, or maybe hire extra temp help. Say 1000$ goes back to them.
The remaining 3000$ can be used to pay for the services that the new org provides. -
Hmm... this plan doesn't look bad.Originally posted by Skibi:Simple illustration example.
Lets say the budget for Department A is 10,000$ to hire staff.
They can hire 5 NUS/NTU graduates via the news paper at 2,000$ each. (10,000$ used up)
or
They can hire the same 5 elderly NUS/NTU graduates(older and more experienced) via the new org at 1,200$ each. (6000$ used up)
To give Dept A some benefit for hiring elderly staff, some of the unused 4000$ of the budget can go back to them to be able to purchase other things, or maybe hire extra temp help. Say 1000$ goes back to them.
The remaining 3000$ can be used to pay for the services that the new org provides.
Is part of the $10000 also used on training the 5 elderly workers too? -
U ish wait nong nong...
-
Great idea! A deicated 1-stop service for needy S'poreans.Originally posted by Skibi:Rather than having the community centres and mps do the job on ad hoc and case by case basis, why don't we set up a formal government agency to help the less fortunate solve their problems?
The chief benefit of this is centralisation which promotes cost efficiency and allows the quality of the services provided to be easily monitored and controlled. Also it is easier to track where the money goes in a centralised org than spread out all over the place and handled by different gov offices.
The model for this type of organisation can be the SAF. In the saf, recruits with no military skills whatsoever are trained then selected for different vocations, where they go for further training. I think the results for this model are evident for all to see.
The centre can provide the following services to the public:
1. Job placement in government agencies e.g civil service, saf, navy, air force, glc etc...
The reason people are out of job is because the private sector does not want to hire them for one reason or another. Thus is pointless to keep pushing them to continue working in the private sector. These people may be talented but because of age, or other disability the private sector does not want to hire them. Moreover since it is all done by the same org(e.g gov) it is easier to structure the job tasks to accomodate such people.
2. Training.
For those people who lack the necessary skills but are no less talented, selection and training can be provided based on the saf model with some modifications to allow for the person's interests.
3. Professional advice with regards to helping people plan their career path, financial planning to save for retirement, and free legal advice.
4. Providing aid to those who need it until they can be trained and placed in a job where they can provide for themselves.
Controls
Of course there must be controls in any org to make sure the system is not misused. The following can be examples.
a. Job placement
A grading system can be implemented to monitor how well the less able people are able to perform their jobs after placement. For example upon being placed initially they can be paid 60% of what their colleagues are being paid. After three months 80% and the final 100% if their performance is on par with everyone else. In this case they are then treated as regular employees. The reduction in salary will go to helping to alleviate the costs of running the service.
b. Training
Training in the form of short-courses should be free, but the trainee is required to serve the gov for a specified period. e.g 3 mths. Otherwise the trainee has to pay some of the training costs if he wants to work in the private sector.
c. Professional advice should be given free of charge to people who fall under certain criteria. e.g unemployed, disabled, etc...
Maybe a few months before the next election, PAP may set this up to win votes. Until then, the illiterate destitute must continue to run from place to place and fill out pages of forms before they get $200-300/month