No Singaporean will go Hungry
-
the only countries that allow their people to go hungry are war torn countries like iraq, sudan, ehtopia, etc.
if singapore is touting to be a world class country, then the end goal to achieve is to give a fruitful environment that decent family men and women are live and bring up their children.
however, the main goal is very different and extremely materialistic. U cut tax on the high income bracket but u raise the cost of the fundamentals. this model will only benefit the rich and tax the poor even more.
my circle of friends are mainly family men in their 40s and they are facing an uphill task to provide for their family. mental anguish over their children studies, their job securities, cost of living are constantly on their mind. This is psychologically draining and i can see the burnt out spirit in their eyes. Most had resigned to their faith, same goes to their children.
u cant break free from the chains of mental pressure. shall we say that these "weaklings" deserve their just rewards, or damn that they should be like that given their less than glorious economic background?
what is humanity when the care for others are gone? -
.... No Singaporean will go Hungry ... and no Singaporean can escape having their hard earned money taken away ...
... relentlessly by public money grabbing despots, paying themselves and their relatives massive amounts from the public coffers...
... letting their daughter in law/wife go shopping overseas and losing the money they take from Singaporeans, to foreigners... -
... is the issue "No Singaporean will go Hungry" or "No Singaporean will escape having their money relentlessly taken away" ?
-
... and after taking away so much money of Singaporeans money... the best they can do is promise.. "No Singaporean will go Hungry...? "
... public money grabbing despots... -
Let's say it a person need exactly $50 to survive a week. So if there are 3 men, a rich, a average and a poor travel to town to get the weekly $50 handout, what is the cost to each of them? And how much to travel from town back home? Finally, what the amount of money left the rich, average and poor will be getting? Is it still the full amount intended? (Unless you assume that rich will only take taxi, average take bus, and poor WALK).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.
And of cause, according to the ministers, POOR can't eat in food court, they should to eat something cheaper, maybe rice and soya source or salted fish? No, no, of course they will not go hungry, only malnutrition, but that's all right because they are POOR, isn't it?
If a poor bread winner of a family who has no saving in bank is suddenly retrenched, somehow, he and his family can survive without food, electricity, clean water, transport (of course, they can always walk even if hungry) while the authority take their time to test the family determination before deciding if they are REALLY POOR. -
Aptly put. You've suggested that a mountain of forms are needed to validate the poor from the free-loaders.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.
Has it occured to you that the terms 'poor' and 'uneducated' come in unison? The mountain of forms are more likely to put off the poor rather than the educated free-loaders.
And i still don't see how tasting a food sample supports your argument. I may or may not have an intention to purchase the food, but i won't know until i actually try it yes?
I'm still waiting to see a roadmap from our overpaid government as to how they plan to improve inflation and conditions for the poor. All we've heard is the usual rhetoric from the ruling party, but no REAL plan to convince the majority that they have it in the works. Cost of living is rising astromically, and it appears the govt are contend to let it max out and burst on it own.
At least Khaw Boon Wan was brave enough to put forward an unpopular policy of means testing to free up hospital beds from being 'free-loaded' by those who can well afford higher classes. We'll see how that works out in the next few years.
For the rest, maybe we should wait till the ministers lose touch with the people the same way Samy Vellu has lost the respect of his peers. Moving ahead, our million-dollar leaders should realise that meet the people's sessions are hardly sufficient to solve today's problems.
Will they learn from our neighbour's mistakes? -
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.
Would u want a public toilet infront or ur HDB shop and it maintenances fee chargeable to u? If we dun get to have a said in it, then why must we pay? And if we are force to pay, dun u think it is only rite we get to have a say in it?Originally posted by Gazelle:maybe singapore shouldnt have public toilet too, because we can always use our shi.t to fertilize this garden city.
-
I'm using the concept to explain why there a proccess to seperate the deserving from the undeserving is necessary. This was in response to the person who did not understand why paperwork was needed.Originally posted by maurizio13: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.
You do agree that if there were no barrier to entry, everyone would be applying for free money? -
Ah, here's a strawman argument if there ever was one.Originally posted by HyperFocal: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???
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?
Don't mix foreign talent infusion with the poor. If you start blaming foreign talents, you'll be exactly like the CEO who favors employing family and friends regardless of qualifications.
Obviously they need to verify the request for public aid. That's why there's paperwork. It's not a circus act. It's a necessity. Paying people to sift through the mountain of documents take up resources too you know. -
The peanut quote has been blown so far out of context it's amazing. What, you've never made a silly statement before? You have, it's just not been repeated over and over again to make you feel silly.Originally posted by fymk:It is starting to sound like the infamous saying of " Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" - let them eat cake.
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 your only complaint here is that Mrs GCT thought a few million was peanuts, then there really is nothing to say here. For eg, I feel 10 bucks is pretty peanut-sy. The poor and needy referenced in this thread may not agree. -
I'm not going to pretend to understand french. And you put it in PRECISELY because you knew I wouldn't understand it to sound smart. Ok. Kudos. You understand one more language than me.Originally posted by fymk: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.
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.
I'm not saying they are to be blamed. I'm asking to look to yourself for reasons before blindly putting all blame on the government. The government is forced to react to the reactions of the people. Water finds it's own level. It happens all over nature. It's no one's fault. It's everyone's fault.
Nothing much to say here, but since you decided to sound smart at my expense, I feel the need to return the favor. Running a country is hardly a "tool" of trade. It's IS the trade. -
Not hungry doesn't mean got own shelter to sleep in
The next time I see it around my house area I take pic for you all to see -
Just thought of sharing a quote here.
A bone to the dog is not charity. Charity is the bone shared with the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog. - Jack London (1876 - 1916) -
If you leave it to the public and private sector to decide on public toilets, can I ask you who will be interested to build and maintain them?Originally posted by EarlNeo:Would u want a public toilet infront or ur HDB shop and it maintenances fee chargeable to u? If we dun get to have a said in it, then why must we pay? And if we are force to pay, dun u think it is only rite we get to have a say in it? -
Actually, every country allows their people to go hungry. People will always go hungry. That is the backbone of a capitalist society. The ugly side of it is that you can't improve unless you step on someone else. There can only be so many in the upper class.Originally posted by fishbuff:the only countries that allow their people to go hungry are war torn countries like iraq, sudan, ehtopia, etc.
if singapore is touting to be a world class country, then the end goal to achieve is to give a fruitful environment that decent family men and women are live and bring up their children.
however, the main goal is very different and extremely materialistic. U cut tax on the high income bracket but u raise the cost of the fundamentals. this model will only benefit the rich and tax the poor even more.
my circle of friends are mainly family men in their 40s and they are facing an uphill task to provide for their family. mental anguish over their children studies, their job securities, cost of living are constantly on their mind. This is psychologically draining and i can see the burnt out spirit in their eyes. Most had resigned to their faith, same goes to their children.
u cant break free from the chains of mental pressure. shall we say that these "weaklings" deserve their just rewards, or damn that they should be like that given their less than glorious economic background?
what is humanity when the care for others are gone?
Look at the homeless in America. The trailer trash. They are littered all over. Tons of people in first world countries don't own their own home. Comparatively, Singapore has done much better.
Look at the welfare system in Australia. They really take care of the needy and old there. But so what? There are still lots of people sleeping on the streets.
There's no eliminating the lower class. That is the face of capitalism. It's time you realised it. -
This is about the worst rebuttal in the string of rebuttals i have to face this morning.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:.... No Singaporean will go Hungry ... and no Singaporean can escape having their hard earned money taken away ...
... relentlessly by public money grabbing despots, paying themselves and their relatives massive amounts from the public coffers...
... letting their daughter in law/wife go shopping overseas and losing the money they take from Singaporeans, to foreigners...
There's really nothing to say here. If you shop overseas, the money flows overseas. News at 11. -
Originally posted by royston_ang:
I'm sorry, I don't really understand your post. But i'll try to answer the questions anyway.
Let's say it a person need [b]exactly $50 to survive a week. So if there are 3 men, a rich, a average and a poor travel to town to get the weekly $50 handout, what is the cost to each of them? And how much to travel from town back home? Finally, what the amount of money left the rich, average and poor will be getting? Is it still the full amount intended? (Unless you assume that rich will only take taxi, average take bus, and poor WALK).
And of cause, according to the ministers, POOR can't eat in food court, they should to eat something cheaper, maybe rice and soya source or salted fish? No, no, of course they will not go hungry, only malnutrition, but that's all right because they are POOR, isn't it?
If a poor bread winner of a family who has no saving in bank is suddenly retrenched, somehow, he and his family can survive without food, electricity, clean water, transport (of course, they can always walk even if hungry) while the authority take their time to test the family determination before deciding if they are REALLY POOR. [/b]
1) Are you asking me about transport cost? Because the point i was trying to raise was utility. The poor gain more utility from a smaller pot. This is the mechanism that allows them to gain more value as the process of getting the pot gets more complicated.
2) I'm not very up to date with the news, i'm afraid. Can you quote me the minister who said that? It's a characteristic of the poor to be unable to afford better food. If they could afford better, they wouldn't need you to champion here for them.
3) Like I said. Blame the fact that we humans are disgusting when it comes to distribution of free resources. The authority are forced to make it such a complicated process because WE are here. -
Nice questions/points.Originally posted by BillyBong:Aptly put. You've suggested that a mountain of forms are needed to validate the poor from the free-loaders.
Has it occured to you that the terms 'poor' and 'uneducated' come in unison? The mountain of forms are more likely to put off the poor rather than the educated free-loaders.
And i still don't see how tasting a food sample supports your argument. I may or may not have an intention to purchase the food, but i won't know until i actually try it yes?
I'm still waiting to see a roadmap from our overpaid government as to how they plan to improve inflation and conditions for the poor. All we've heard is the usual rhetoric from the ruling party, but no REAL plan to convince the majority that they have it in the works. Cost of living is rising astromically, and it appears the govt are contend to let it max out and burst on it own.
At least Khaw Boon Wan was brave enough to put forward an unpopular policy of means testing to free up hospital beds from being 'free-loaded' by those who can well afford higher classes. We'll see how that works out in the next few years.
For the rest, maybe we should wait till the ministers lose touch with the people the same way Samy Vellu has lost the respect of his peers. Moving ahead, our million-dollar leaders should realise that meet the people's sessions are hardly sufficient to solve today's problems.
Will they learn from our neighbour's mistakes?
First of all, there is no perfect solution to seperate the greedy from the needy. There never is. If you could think of a better way, I'm sure your minister would be happy to hear from you. Seriously, write in and recommend your ideas. Despite what you may have heard, our ministers don't eat babies and sprout horns. If you have a good idea, they'll take it.
I'm not talking about the shopper open to the idea of buying the food. I'm talking about people who pass by, see a free sample, have ABSOLUTELY no intention of buying anything, but take it because it's free anyway.
5% projected inflation. The price of growth. That's what growth is. The sacrifice of the now to enjoy the rewards of the future. Obviously if you had your way, deflation is the way to go right? Increased current spending power! But look who's going to suffer later.
I didn't hear of this hospital bed situation. Kudos to him.
I'm not sure if our ministers have lost touch with the people. I'm pretty sure though that the growth spike in recent years exceeded their expectations. Which is not a good thing. It's pretty much all scrambling right now to cover and plug the leaks of a growing economy gone wild. Give them time. They need it. -
There is nothing unexpected about the inflation problem the world is facing now, infact if you consider that commodity prices have been rising for the past 4 to 5 years the impact should have been felt long ago if not for China.
IMO we are all victims of our own doing because the world (especially the poor who tend to buy china made products) have been suckers for cheap China made products for many years, which bring about heavy investment and economic growth to China. -
well qlqq9 raise a issue about being charge a fee for a public bin place infront of their HDB shop when they request not to have it. Meaning they are force to accept what is dealt them even when they are paying for it.Originally posted by Gazelle:If you leave it to the public and private sector to decide on public toilets, can I ask you who will be interested to build and maintain them?
But then u go ard saying that because it is a public bin and if ppl can request not having them, pehape we shouldnt have public toilet as well. Metaphor speaking.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.
The key point of argument is that if when we are paying for a service, are we allow a say in that? It is like when u subscripted to a phone line and u are force to pay for service which u dun want, are u ok with that? Cant we opt out? Of coz we can. But how come when it come to the goverment, it is a different story. Just because it is the government doing that to u doesnt mean their action is justifiable.Originally posted by Gazelle:maybe singapore shouldnt have public toilet too, because we can always use our shi.t to fertilize this garden city. -
All ministers are human. Some are more human then others. It's when they deny their mistakes and declare an aura of infallibility that irks me.Originally posted by deathbait:Nice questions/points.
First of all, there is no perfect solution to seperate the greedy from the needy. There never is. If you could think of a better way, I'm sure your minister would be happy to hear from you. Seriously, write in and recommend your ideas. Despite what you may have heard, our ministers don't eat babies and sprout horns. If you have a good idea, they'll take it.
I'm not talking about the shopper open to the idea of buying the food. I'm talking about people who pass by, see a free sample, have ABSOLUTELY no intention of buying anything, but take it because it's free anyway.
5% projected inflation. The price of growth. That's what growth is. The sacrifice of the now to enjoy the rewards of the future. Obviously if you had your way, deflation is the way to go right? Increased current spending power! But look who's going to suffer later.
I didn't hear of this hospital bed situation. Kudos to him.
I'm not sure if our ministers have lost touch with the people. I'm pretty sure though that the growth spike in recent years exceeded their expectations. Which is not a good thing. It's pretty much all scrambling right now to cover and plug the leaks of a growing economy gone wild. Give them time. They need it.
I'm all for offering suggestions, but i have not got answers to several questions i posed to MITA over the issue of vagrants on the streets of Orchard Rd, which makes me wonder whether they are actually listening.
It can also be argued that our inflation came about from the recent GST and transportation hikes, which along with our ministers signing exhorbitant wage increases to their own pay, created a ripple effect in all industrial sectors. Suddenly everyone want to up their own salary, without realising the end result.
The latest to join this bandwagon are comfort-delgro and the taxi companies, and this, after the previous 10cent increase approved by the PTC just over a year ago.
With further price hikes to stables such as noodles, flour and canned pork, imagine how it impacts the low-income group. When is the govt planning to step in? And what measures are expected to ease these 'new poor' through this transition?
PM Lee made a proud boast that 'no one will be left behind'; now it's time to back it up with action. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
regarding the taxi hikes. I'm actually of the opinion that they deserved a much bigger hike a long time ago. Taxi prices have been kept unnaturally low. It's the reason you can't get cabs most of the time. The invisible hand isn't working.
All ministers are human. Some are more human then others. It's when they deny their mistakes and declare an aura of infallibility that irks me.
I'm all for offering suggestions, but i have not got answers to several questions i posed to MITA over the issue of vagrants on the streets of Orchard Rd, which makes me wonder whether they are actually listening.
It can also be argued that our inflation came about from the recent GST and transportation hikes, which along with our ministers signing exhorbitant wage increases to their own pay, created a ripple effect in all industrial sectors. Suddenly everyone want to up their own salary, without realising the end result.
The latest to join this bandwagon are comfort-delgro and the taxi companies, and this, after the previous 10cent increase approved by the PTC just over a year ago.
With further price hikes to stables such as noodles, flour and canned pork, imagine how it impacts the low-income group. When is the govt planning to step in? And what measures are expected to ease these 'new poor' through this transition?
PM Lee made a proud boast that [b]'no one will be left behind'; now it's time to back it up with action.[/b]
minister pay increase has nothing to do with the poor. Don't pull non-issues into the argument just because it has something to do with the government. As for GST increase, it's a direct contribution to the problem of course, but as i said before, in every capitalist society, someone has to be lower class. And progress is always going to sting for the lower class. It's an inherent problem no one can solve. As such, GST is a source of the problem, but cannot exactly be blamed or solved. -
Before you jump into the bandwagon to bash the government, I think you should ask yourself why HDB wants to put the rubbish bin infront of the shop (a place where shoppers congregate) and not anywhere else?Originally posted by EarlNeo:The key point of argument is that if when we are paying for a service, are we allow a say in that? It is like when u subscripted to a phone line and u are force to pay for service which u dun want, are u ok with that? Cant we opt out? Of coz we can. But how come when it come to the goverment, it is a different story. Just because it is the government doing that to u doesnt mean their action is justifiable.
Just because the shop owner doesnt want to pay for it, that doesnt mean there is no need for it. Suppose if you are staying in a landed property and your neighbour refuses to engage a rubbish collector and leave their rubbish scattered outside the gate. what will you do?
Using toilet as an example is because, toilets like rubbish bin, are liability to the owners and it doesnt generate profits, so if the government doesnt steps in who will do it? Will you? -
This reminds me of the time when they said nobody will be left behind.
-
someone should tell the regime to stop making these kind of "we're a good gahmen and we hear the people" news in the papers.
they're making a joke out of themselves.