Money well spent?
-
from thecitizenonline
By Leong Sze Hian
The ChannelNewsAsia report “50 needy households receive free electrical appliances” (29 August)
“Needy residents in the South West District received various free electrical appliances on Wednesday due to an initiative by the South West Community Development Council and appliance manufacturer Akira.
Akira has donated S$120,000 worth of appliances for 50 low-income households.
A set for each household includes a kettle, stove, rice cooker, radio and cordless phone.
Mayor of the South West District, Dr Amy Khor, was on hand to give the recipients a few tips on using the appliances”.
Dividing $120,000 by 50 equals $2,400. Are these top-end very expensive appliances? A kettle, stove, rice cooker, radio and cordless phone cost $2,400?
In a similar event earlier this year - I refer to the Channel News Asia report (6 January, 2007), “Low-income workers get handouts at NTUC Downtown East event”, about “the extravagant show for the less fortunate at NTUC Downtown East organised by three unions” in January.
“1,500 people came”, and “low-wage workers have each been given food vouchers and household goods worth $40 by unions and sponsors. They benefited from the $100,000 spent on the event with sponsors donating $ 35,000 worth of goods”.
At the event, it was said that “It’s not so much the money involved in the process, as much as getting the best ideas and making sure we find the right balance”.
$40 multiplied by 1,500 people gives a total of $60,000 in food vouchers and household goods given away.
Since the goods given were worth $35,000, does it mean that the food vouchers cost $25,000 ($60,000 - $35,000) ?
Instead of spending $75,000 ($100,000 - $25,000 food vouchers) on the “extravagant show for the less fortunate”, why not just give them the $75,000 ?
The additional $50 to each person may be more helpful and meaningful to the less fortunate, than attending a one-time event with their families to eat a meal, whilst collecting the vouchers and household goods.
Calling it the “extravagant show for the less fortunate” is, in a sense, literally inappropriate, as I think the less fortunate may prefer less of extravagance, but more money ($50) instead.
Is it not somewhat extravagant to spend $50 at an event to give away $40 ?
If the $100,000 spent on the event” includes the $35,000 worth of goods, then it may not be very appropriate to say that $100,000 was spent on the event. If this is indeed the case, then spending $26.67 to give away $40 per person, is less extravagant !
money well spent? -
Publicity for AKIRA!!
-
Akira goods not reliable. I know cos' i have bought them before.
-
My work place brought a CRT TV. 6mth down the road..... the 'colour TV' now only display shades of green colour only.
But ok lah..... better the money is spend on S'porean, then keep inside some govt bank account..
-
The bosses of akira should use their own company's stuffs.
-
but but...last time... they use akira brand for ndp... for the ministers tv tat one..
-
As much as I've been critical about several governmental policies and the way things are generally done in Singapore, I think this is barking up the wrong tree.Originally posted by Lin Yu:from thecitizenonline money well spent?
A set includes but is NOT LIMITED to those few mentioned items.
Akira has donated S$120,000 worth of appliances for 50 low-income households.
A set for each household ncludesa kettle, stove, rice cooker, radio and cordless phone.
Mayor of the South West District, Dr Amy Khor, was on hand to give the recipients a few tips on using the appliances”.
Dividing $120,000 by 50 equals $2,400. Are these top-end very expensive appliances? A kettle, stove, rice cooker, radio and cordless phone cost $2,400?
Again this might have been taken out of context and we are in no position to criticize. There could have been two kinds of gifts that were awarded. Food Vouchers and $40 worth of Goods. The total worth of goods was $60,000. There was no mention on how much of food vouchers was given. Also there is no mention on whether more goods were given by the organisers other than what was sponsored. It could be anything. The only complaint I have is how CNA has allowed for such terrible ambiguity.
“1,500 people came”, and “low-wage workers have each been given food vouchers and household goods worth $40 by unions and sponsors. They benefited from the $100,000 spent on the event with sponsors donating $ 35,000 worth of goods”.
At the event, it was said that “It’s not so much the money involved in the process, as much as getting the best ideas and making sure we find the right balance”.
$40 multiplied by 1,500 people gives a total of $60,000 in food vouchers and household goods given away.
Since the goods given were worth $35,000, does it mean that the food vouchers cost $25,000 ($60,000 - $35,000) ?
Instead of spending $75,000 ($100,000 - $25,000 food vouchers) on the “extravagant show for the less fortunate”, why not just give them the $75,000 ?
Sometimes, a "show" serves another purpose. It counts for publicity. Advertising. or Awareness maybe? There could have been several motivations and it could be presumptuos to start second-guessing.