No Singaporean will go Hungry
-
As PM you increased GST from 5% to 7% and all the shopkeepers and retailers started pushing up their prices of necessities across of board by 20% resulting in the poor being unable to pay for utilities and food.
Are you a successful PM ? -
If really that case... there will not be homeless people sleeping outside and people eating left over in hawker centers...
The Gahmen only talk cock sing song but if they really care... the prices will not hike, GST will not hike while our pay still stay the same... Even there was pay raise but definitely not enough for such price hike.
Only the SG gahmen's pay raise can match the living standards in SG... -
If WP also can be allocated funds,
would WP not be able to do the same?
I just wondering only. -
who say won hungry.we oso human wat.nv eat of ccoz hungry lo.Lol.
-
Originally posted by Gazelle:More government funds for CCCs to help the needy: Dr Balakrishnan
By May Wong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 02 December 2007 2025 hrs
More government funds for CCCs to help the needy: Dr Balakrishnan
SINGAPORE : The government wants to pump in more money into Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) to allow them to provide additional assistance programmes to better help needy Singaporeans.
Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister, Vivian Balakrishnan, announced this at a dialogue session with some 200 Changi Simei residents on Sunday.
The dialogue, which lasted over an hour, was held after he toured Simei.
This is Dr Balakrishnan's first such visit to the area.
Touring the Simei neighbourhood, Dr Balakrishnan is aware that Singaporeans are growing more concerned about the rising cost of living.
Last month, the government announced that inflation - which is the rise in prices for goods and services - could hit a high of five percent for the first quarter of next year.
The last time inflation hit a high of four percent was in July 1991.
And at a dialogue session, many residents asked how the government will help, especially the low-income, with increasing living costs.
Speaking to reporters later, Dr Balakrishnan assured that the government is monitoring the situation closely, but will start by making sure CCCs have sufficient funds for more help programmes.
He said: "That means, for instance, outreach programmes and then to be able to help families in need with additional vouchers for food or even additional cash vouchers as well as to work with local organisations and vendors and hawkers, so that we make sure that we can give that assurance, that nobody will go hungry in Singapore. These plans are still being formulated but I am confident I can give that assurance."
Every year, CCCs have an annual fund of S$42,000 to tap on to help the less fortunate residents.
Singapore has 84 CCCs, but Dr Balakrishnan said, in fact, many don't end up spending that money.
He said: "So it's not for lack of money, but we'll make sure that if the needs go up, more funds (will be) available. So what I'm signalling is that we can and we will do more if needs increase. But I also want to share with you that I've also been tracking the number of appeals for help both in terms of those who apply to the Community Development Councils (CDCs), as well as those who applied to the CCCs.
"And actually if we compare the third quarter of this year's figures with the third quarter of last year, actually, overall, the numbers have come down. The reason for that is clearly because the economy is doing well and more and more people are able to get jobs or to get wage increases.
"But I'm also aware that even if the general economy improves, there may still be a segment who risk being left behind. So my focus is to make sure that this small segment has adequate attention and adequate resources available."
To better reach out to needy Singaporeans, a new hotline named ComCare Call will also be launched next month.
This toll-free number 1800-222-0000 will be directed to the various help organisations like the CDCs.
What the organisations will do then is to identify the kind of assistance a family requires and then customise it to meet their specific needs.
Dr Balakrishnan added that now is the best time to beef up Singapore's multi-layered social safety nets because of the good employment rate and growing economy.
Singaporeans can then enjoy the fruits of labour later once the government ensures the safety nets can withstand the stresses of increased inflation and future challenges.
Dr Balakrishnan said more details for the additional funding for the CCCs will be announced in the Budget speech next year. - CNA/ch
-
I doubt that the truly poor will have the luxury of having a working phone line and telephone at their homes in the very first place. Just a thought.Originally posted by Gazelle:To better reach out to needy Singaporeans, a new hotline named ComCare Call will also be launched next month.
This toll-free number 1800-222-0000 will be directed to the various help organisations like the CDCs.
-
what song is this?
-
No Singaporean will go hungry?
That must be the Greatest Joke of the Year!
-
Isn't it obvious, the answer is no. The shop owner in HDB flat complained to me that they don't need a rubbish bin but the town council just conveniently placed the bin there without asking their permission and make them pay every month. The shop owner is really fuming and was so angry with that hopeless money minded substandard PM, so much so that whenever the shop owner and husband see or listen to him on TV or radio, they switch it off. What they did to the HDB owner is just daylight robbery.Originally posted by robertteh:As PM you increased GST from 5% to 7% and all the shopkeepers and retailers started pushing up their prices of necessities across of board by 20% resulting in the poor being unable to pay for utilities and food.
Are you a successful PM ? -
ONe more point to add, there will not be people going round rubbish bins picking up cans to sell. The number of people doing this is increasing. PAP very expert and excellent in painting beautiful picture. No need to paint beautiful pictures, reality tells it all.Originally posted by caleb_chiang:If really that case... there will not be homeless people sleeping outside and people eating left over in hawker centers...
The Gahmen only talk cock sing song but if they really care... the prices will not hike, GST will not hike while our pay still stay the same... Even there was pay raise but definitely not enough for such price hike.
Only the SG gahmen's pay raise can match the living standards in SG... -
R u saying that 66% voted the ruling party into power are mostly the upperOriginally posted by robertteh:We are not talking here about political power or tweaking of election process to GRC so as to stay in power by denying free and fair election. If we have free and fair election then your mention of 66.6% will have some meaning in it.
That will be another topic where citizens will be able to decide whether GRC is depriving them of voting or free elections. Of course they can do as they like for now as long as they have the police and the court in their pocket.
Many of the 66.6% default voters may not even be bothered about building a Singapore nation for all. They may only be caring for themselves so do not read too much into their votes or default votes due to GRC abuse.
For now we are merely discussing by common sense whether the government by over-charging citizens everything until many cannot survive is really doing citizens kindness by now trying to give them a few crumbs to keep them off suicides.
middle class or those rich local? -
I think u misunderstood on the part of my statement. I just felt admiration for MCYS Vivian Balaikrishnan, MOM Ng Eng Gen, Minisiter of foreign affairsOriginally posted by qlqq9:Really, then you go vote for PAP lah, talk rock here. And if you made the above statement please don't slap your own face by criticising them. YOu seem to have double standard. YOu criticized the singapore gahmen so many times and now you made such statement, what a hypocrite you are. YOu are just showing and telling us you are not credible.
BG(NS) George Yeo and Defence minister RADM(NS) Teo Chee Hean.
These are all the minister who are truly worth the people's respect.
The rest of them cannot say much. The last one respectable is
Khaw Boon Wan, the health minister but unfortunately he will not be standing in the next election. I cannot vote cause I am not a citizen. -
AFAIK, those living in district 9 and 10 didnt have the chance to vote.Originally posted by will4:R u saying that 66% voted the ruling party into power are mostly the upper
middle class or those rich local? -
Thats a thought and will always remain a thought.Originally posted by Paradise Lost:I doubt that the truly poor will have the luxury of having a working phone line and telephone at their homes in the very first place. Just a thought. -
maybe singapore shouldnt have public toilet too, because we can always use our shi.t to fertilize this garden city.Originally posted by qlqq9:Isn't it obvious, the answer is no. The shop owner in HDB flat complained to me that they don't need a rubbish bin but the town council just conveniently placed the bin there without asking their permission and make them pay every month. The shop owner is really fuming and was so angry with that hopeless money minded substandard PM, so much so that whenever the shop owner and husband see or listen to him on TV or radio, they switch it off. What they did to the HDB owner is just daylight robbery. -
Yeah, tell that to your master, PAP. Think they will reward you if what you suggest works.Originally posted by Gazelle:maybe singapore shouldnt have public toilet too, because we can always use our shi.t to fertilize this garden city. -
red tape to get to free money is not about drawing lines. It's about increasing opportunity cost.Originally posted by HyperFocal:Has anyone, any idea,
...how much beaurocratic bullcrap & bush-beating a poor person/family has to go through in order to receive a few dollars help from them???
... if this "help" line is so effective, why do we have people who like that Boon Lay woman whose husband was the MRT Track Jumper??
Right, so one may argue he's Gambler, a Drinker, a Loafer... but how many LINES should the over-ruling party draw on helping the very people that kept them eating off Sliver Plates, & crapping into Silver Sh|t Thrones???
Let's say I have a million dollars to give away. If I announce that I'm giving 2000 to the first 500 ppl to come to my house, EVERYONE would come, needy or not. That's because the opportunity cost is greatly shadowed by the potential rewards.
If I changed the rules a little, and now announce I'm just giving out 100 dollars to the first 10000 ppl to come, I'll get a more selective bunch of ppl. The people who don't really need 100 dollars will think twice before coming.
Playing down the pattern, we'll see that the most effecient way of making sure only the needy get money is to give out maybe 10 dollars each. You REALLY have to be desperate to travel all the way down to get 10 dollars.
But that's not effective right? We don't want to give out 10 dollars to ppl who need 100. But how do we give out 100 without having tons of freeloaders who don't need it?
Enter the mountains of forms designed to increase opportunity cost without reducing rewards. Take me for instance. Tell me I get 100 dollars just for travelling to town, and I'll go this instant. Tell me I have to fill up a form, and I'll still go. Tell me it's 5 forms, and I'll probably hesitate before going. If it's going to be 5 forms now, 3 forms next week and another 5 in a month before a 3 month wait for the cash, I'm staying at home. The point is, people who REALLY need the money would still go.
And that's the whole point. -
I have no objections with your logic but the rationale of making the needy jump through hoops to get the few dollars they really need to make ends meet just seems really dehumanising and humiliating to me...Originally posted by deathbait:red tape to get to free money is not about drawing lines. It's about increasing opportunity cost.
Let's say I have a million dollars to give away. If I announce that I'm giving 2000 to the first 500 ppl to come to my house, EVERYONE would come, needy or not. That's because the opportunity cost is greatly shadowed by the potential rewards.
If I changed the rules a little, and now announce I'm just giving out 100 dollars to the first 10000 ppl to come, I'll get a more selective bunch of ppl. The people who don't really need 100 dollars will think twice before coming.
Playing down the pattern, we'll see that the most effecient way of making sure only the needy get money is to give out maybe 10 dollars each. You REALLY have to be desperate to travel all the way down to get 10 dollars.
But that's not effective right? We don't want to give out 10 dollars to ppl who need 100. But how do we give out 100 without having tons of freeloaders who don't need it?
Enter the mountains of forms designed to increase opportunity cost without reducing rewards. Take me for instance. Tell me I get 100 dollars just for travelling to town, and I'll go this instant. Tell me I have to fill up a form, and I'll still go. Tell me it's 5 forms, and I'll probably hesitate before going. If it's going to be 5 forms now, 3 forms next week and another 5 in a month before a 3 month wait for the cash, I'm staying at home. The point is, people who REALLY need the money would still go.
And that's the whole point.
Why do we have to have the mindset that the disadvantaged NEEDS to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that they NEED the $$$ before they are given a condescending pittance???
Aren't they humans too? who bleeds like us? and sweat like us? and feel hunger and thirst like us?
Aren't they Singaporeans too, who "voted" in the government that is treating them like beggars to be played like fools and trampled at their whim and fancy?
I'm no anti- PAP raver... neither am I a blind pro-PAP stooge. I am however, a Singaporean who cares A LOT the poor, tottering, old pple around my estate selling tissue and collecting cardboard and drink cans for a living.
I do my part by supporting their "entrepreneurial" efforts and giving where I can to assuage my conscience but seriously, I'm one man trying to make a decent living too. I can't change the world.
These are however, the same pple who, in their small ways, bled, and shed sweat to make this country what it is today: an uncaring, mercenary society with a government that chooses to treat the needy as a nuisance rather than as citizens who have a right to get help from the government they elected.
And where is LHL's promise that the 2% GST hike was going to fund the social safety nets? I don't see it... But I do see ministerial salaries jump by a rather enviable quantum...
And cut the crap about "there's never a good time to raise the salaries".
Apply the same Goddamn logic u used when u justified your cushy salary increase cos there's never a good time to help the poor! But u should do so ANYWAY!
I do believe that we have the best government that money can buy... But it just plain stinks that this same government is unable to spend money to PROPERLY address the problem of the poor and the destitute.
Over the past few years, I personally, have noted an increase in the numbers of homeless poor people. Look around... They're sleeping in the parks, the void decks and any halfway comfortable flat space they can find.
Oops... Sorry... Our millionaire ministers are comfy in their mansions and unable to see...
I would seriously like a government staffed by people with hearts as big as their wallets, especially after they've pocketed a million bucks hard cash... -
it's nice to see you quoted my post and didn't understand a word of it.
Ok, it's tragedy of the commons, pure and simple.
The poor need to prove they need the money, because otherwise ppl like you and me who don't will still go and try to grab money meant for them.
So don't look at the government when you're trying to find blame here. Look at yourself. Everytime you walk into a store and ask about a product, only to buy that product from a cheaper store across the road, you are part of the problem.
Everytime you pick up a free food sample at NTUC with no intention of buying the product, you are part of the problem.
Everytime you harbour thoughts of attempting to avoid taxes in any way, you are part of the problem.
The government isn't to blame here. It is trying to help PROTECT the actual poor from people such as us. The greedy humans. And don't insult my intelligence by trying to deny you're not part of the problem. -
Apply the same Goddamn logic u used when u justified your cushy salary increase cos there's never a good time to help the poor! But u should do so ANYWAY!
Do you see how much of yourself you revealed via this innocent sentence? To a truly selfless person, every minute is a good time to help the poor. Why is there ever a bad time to help the poor? Your reasoning here is unsound.
But the truth is, you can't always help the poor. Again I raise the subject of tragedy of the commons, because it is so universal in our nature. Help the poor too much, and they grow to depend on it. Refuse help, and the story may have an ugly ending.
But for the sake of your understanding, let's have an exercise. You seem to consider yourself a decent human being, so let's assume you're incorruptable. Because I trust you so much, let's give you 50 million to spend or distribute as you please amongst the needy for the year 2008. How would you go about doing it?
You seem to care alot for the homeless. Let's find them some shelter first, right? 50 Million can build quite a few homes. Let's get started. But wait, there's a housing shortage. Nevermind, we'll just build more, right? Argh, these damn flats sure take a long time to build.
In the meantime, let's see if we can rent out existing old flats to help solve the immediate problem. Oh, the poor can't afford the high rents? Let's make rental lower! We have 50 million to distribute, after all. Subsidies all around!
But see, now we have a problem. we're now renting out flats at ultra low prices. VERY attractive prices. Now the middle class wants in on some of that action. Those flats aren't bad, and they can cut their rents by half just by pretending to be poor! Oh no! Now we're short on housing again!
Ahhh, but we're smart, yes we are. We'll make them PROVE they are poor. Enter paperwork, stage right. But those pesky freeloaders aren't dumb either. Begin the arms war. Fast forward a few months, and now we have tons of paperwork to fill up just to buy a candy for 10 cents off.
OK the housing thingy was a bust. Let's try another idea we've been pushing around. Let's just give them the damn money and let them rent their own damn houses. Oh look what's this? More freeloaders. Just as I was getting used to a paperless afternoon. Sigh. Back to drafting up more paperwork.
It's pretty nice to find a high horse to sit on while shouting to the heavens : "FEED THE HUNGRY! LIBERATE THE POOR!" In reality, it's a slow, agonising process to help the lower class. Some of them are there because of inherent behaviors that put them there in the first place, such as gambling or just plain laziness. So when you finally get the greedy middleclass people out of the equation, how are you going to seperate the deserving poor from the undeserving poor?
Think about it.
How long would you give yourself? -
Fancy using dissipation of rents (tragedy of the commons) to explain social welfare instead of public goods.
Social welfare relates to redistribution of income to the needy, whereas public goods is associated with provision of parks, national defence, where it's zero cost to the public deriving benefits.
I am stupefied.
In the case of a public good, there is no distinction between users, everybody and anybody can derive satisfaction from the public good. The rich can enjoy the park, so can the poor. The rich gets security from national defence, so does the poor.
In the case of social welfare, there is distinction between the different classes extracting benefits. Maybe income of less than $1,500 are entitled to social welfare, whereas those above are not eligible. The poor can get social welfare but not the rich. -
If they can trace, track, & quantify the amount in Medisave & or Income Tax owed by a small-fry Self-Employed, why can't they be just as efficient in verifying a Needy's request for Public Aid???Originally posted by deathbait:red tape to get to free money is not about drawing lines. It's about increasing opportunity cost.
Let's say I have a million dollars to give away. If I announce that I'm giving 2000 to the first 500 ppl to come to my house, EVERYONE would come, needy or not. That's because the opportunity cost is greatly shadowed by the potential rewards.
If I changed the rules a little, and now announce I'm just giving out 100 dollars to the first 10000 ppl to come, I'll get a more selective bunch of ppl. The people who don't really need 100 dollars will think twice before coming.
Playing down the pattern, we'll see that the most effecient way of making sure only the needy get money is to give out maybe 10 dollars each. You REALLY have to be desperate to travel all the way down to get 10 dollars.
But that's not effective right? We don't want to give out 10 dollars to ppl who need 100. But how do we give out 100 without having tons of freeloaders who don't need it?
Enter the mountains of forms designed to increase opportunity cost without reducing rewards. Take me for instance. Tell me I get 100 dollars just for travelling to town, and I'll go this instant. Tell me I have to fill up a form, and I'll still go. Tell me it's 5 forms, and I'll probably hesitate before going. If it's going to be 5 forms now, 3 forms next week and another 5 in a month before a 3 month wait for the cash, I'm staying at home. The point is, people who REALLY need the money would still go.
And that's the whole point.
I think it is lame to put the weak & powerless through a "circus act" before rendering them Aid... why don't they do the same to filter out Foreigners coming here to take away jobs that would have otherwise gone to these Poor Low Income Earners???
In the first place, do you know who/what caused the plights of these Needies? -
It is starting to sound like the infamous saying of " Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" - let them eat cake.Originally posted by deathbait:red tape to get to free money is not about drawing lines. It's about increasing opportunity cost.
Let's say I have a million dollars to give away. If I announce that I'm giving 2000 to the first 500 ppl to come to my house, EVERYONE would come, needy or not. That's because the opportunity cost is greatly shadowed by the potential rewards.
If I changed the rules a little, and now announce I'm just giving out 100 dollars to the first 10000 ppl to come, I'll get a more selective bunch of ppl. The people who don't really need 100 dollars will think twice before coming.
Playing down the pattern, we'll see that the most effecient way of making sure only the needy get money is to give out maybe 10 dollars each. You REALLY have to be desperate to travel all the way down to get 10 dollars.
But that's not effective right? We don't want to give out 10 dollars to ppl who need 100. But how do we give out 100 without having tons of freeloaders who don't need it?
Enter the mountains of forms designed to increase opportunity cost without reducing rewards. Take me for instance. Tell me I get 100 dollars just for travelling to town, and I'll go this instant. Tell me I have to fill up a form, and I'll still go. Tell me it's 5 forms, and I'll probably hesitate before going. If it's going to be 5 forms now, 3 forms next week and another 5 in a month before a 3 month wait for the cash, I'm staying at home. The point is, people who REALLY need the money would still go.
And that's the whole point.
Or shall we change it to "Qu'ils mangent de la arachide" to suit the Singaporean context. You can get 1.67 peanuts with 1 million , you know? That is according to Mrs GCT theorem of Peanuts.
So if we divide it by 500 people - 0.00334 peanuts for everyone ! -
If you want to use this analogy - you might as well say that all those companies who move from Singapore and go to China for cheaper manufacturing costs , are also to be blamed. Those companies that employ cheaper foreigners are also to be blamed by virtue of your logic.Originally posted by deathbait:it's nice to see you quoted my post and didn't understand a word of it.
Ok, it's tragedy of the commons, pure and simple.
The poor need to prove they need the money, because otherwise ppl like you and me who don't will still go and try to grab money meant for them.
So don't look at the government when you're trying to find blame here. Look at yourself. Everytime you walk into a store and ask about a product, only to buy that product from a cheaper store across the road, you are part of the problem.
Everytime you pick up a free food sample at NTUC with no intention of buying the product, you are part of the problem.
Everytime you harbour thoughts of attempting to avoid taxes in any way, you are part of the problem.
The government isn't to blame here. It is trying to help PROTECT the actual poor from people such as us. The greedy humans. And don't insult my intelligence by trying to deny you're not part of the problem.
The government is like a tradesman and running the country is like their tool of trade. À mauvais ouvrier point de bons outils to your last statement. -
he is helping the merchants. they've been poor cos they should earn more.Originally posted by robertteh:As PM you increased GST from 5% to 7% and all the shopkeepers and retailers started pushing up their prices of necessities across of board by 20% resulting in the poor being unable to pay for utilities and food.
Are you a successful PM ?