pay S$20.00 in order to do local volunteer work @ Redhill
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
Come on lah..... consider the $20 as a donation to them.... they need to cover overheads, okay? They give you food, water and a T-shirt.... all that costs money, okay? And we haven't talked about things like transportation and logistics.
After all, don't volunteers for overseas projects have to pay a few hundred dollars for their volunteerism? So how? They should go for free?
If you don't like the idea of paying money to volunteer, then don't volunteer lah! Sheesh!
hey pheenie.. next time start your line with Objection! or Hold it!cheers, I'm playing apollo justice.. :D finished all the Phoenix series.
-
No money dont set up events and organisation la. This event looks likely to be setup by some undergraduates who wants to make their resume looks good.
-
Originally posted by cuddles:
hey pheenie.. next time start your line with Objection! or Hold it!cheers, I'm playing apollo justice.. :D finished all the Phoenix series.
As Manfred von Karma once said.....
'Why should I even honour this outburst with an objection?!?'
Likewise, I say that this thread is a waste of bandwidth, and I feel ashamed for adding to that wastage. There's no issue at all, and yet some people want to create trouble for nothing. Haiz....
-
Paying is also part of the volunteering in this project.
-
so if i dun want to t shirt and bring my own drink and food and go there myself, do i still need to pay the 20 bucks?
-
Originally posted by digicharat:
so if i dun want to t shirt and bring my own drink and food and go there myself, do i still need to pay the 20 bucks?
please don't try to be funny. you don't want to pay 20 bucks. just don't volunteer. -
Originally posted by digicharat:
so if i dun want to t shirt and bring my own drink and food and go there myself, do i still need to pay the 20 bucks?
then you will be giving extra work to the logistics and treasury pple
-
don't agree then don't participate, there are so many charity that need people to participate.detergent and all that stuff don't add up to $20 taking into consideration money collected will be more than $20.
-
... just look at the stupid arguments here...
... government has so much accumulated wealth, collected so much from the people, and people who volunteers to do such work need pay $20 for T-shirts and cleaning detergents???
... doesn't sound all that graceous either...
... we're not talking millions of pooer elderlies, just a small cluster and government won't even supply these and leave it all up to charity orgs???
... stinks to high heavens... !!!
-
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
... just look at the stupid arguments here...
... government has so much accumulated wealth, collected so much from the people, and people who volunteers to do such work need pay $20 for T-shirts and cleaning detergents???
... doesn't sound all that graceous either...
... we're not talking millions of pooer elderlies, just a small cluster and government won't even supply these and leave it all up to charity orgs???
... stinks to high heavens... !!!
it's not just a single organisation has such events per day. as you also know, every week got flag day, and lately they have been appearing during weekdays too.
it's true that the govt have accumulated wealth, but the thing is, the organisers could have requested but they can't get the funding. possible also right?
and instead of sitting and waiting for the funds to be approved(if only it's that fast and easy), they probably decide to put this amount to justify the cost of the event. End of the day, the elderly still need to be helped. it's either you wait for him, he wait for you, or go ahead with a plan B.
-
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
... just look at the stupid arguments here...
... government has so much accumulated wealth, collected so much from the people, and people who volunteers to do such work need pay $20 for T-shirts and cleaning detergents???
... doesn't sound all that graceous either...
... we're not talking millions of pooer elderlies, just a small cluster and government won't even supply these and leave it all up to charity orgs???
... stinks to high heavens... !!!
my biggest question is always this:besides complaining to high heavens about this and that - how else HAVE you contributed to society either through volunteering or politics?
Being a responsible citizen does not entail merely complaining about the government online.
How have you actively contributed? Or is your biggest effort spent in pointing fingers?
-
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
... just look at the stupid arguments here...
... government has so much accumulated wealth, collected so much from the people, and people who volunteers to do such work need pay $20 for T-shirts and cleaning detergents???
... doesn't sound all that graceous either...
... we're not talking millions of pooer elderlies, just a small cluster and government won't even supply these and leave it all up to charity orgs???
... stinks to high heavens... !!!
So if government don't sponsor the money, you will leave these old folks to rot?
You appear to have exactly that kind of "waiting for something to happen" mentality.
I can't believe there are so many hard-hearted people around. Talk so much about the government not helping the lower or middle income, not helping the citizens enough, making it sound like you care and think for them. But when it comes to charity for old folks, instead of showing your 'compassion', you direct the problem back to the government.
-
pathetic.
-
Can this activity be done in another way?
Can actually treat it as a gathering. Instead of go chalet, can go help old folks.
1.Those who want to join this volunteering, buy a standard sticker label and write your name and "code-name" to let other members identify and old folks home admin identify.
2. Ask everyone to bring one pail, 2 rags, one pair of plastic gloves. If not, get one person to buy the nessesary, and spilt the bill with a receipt.
3. Ask some of them to bring makan, e,g, fried beehoon, if somebody can volunteer, can add in one luncheon meat or fried chicken wing.
4. Make sure have a list who is confirm coming, at specific time, if 80% confirm coming one has arrived, just go to old folks home, no need to wait.
Of course there are other matters which need some coordination and pre-work.
Those not happy with this arrangement, can no need to volunteer for this outing.
If in the end, only one or two cats turn up, and feel paiseh, never mind, try to organise volunteering outing 2 weeks later, no problem.
Don't worry, no need to pay $20, all base on your own free will. This is just an outing niah.
-
duno wtf is wrg wif u peeps.
dat time daddy brog us go do volunteer work.
they asked him wan sign membership, one year $20, anot.
papa say oso neber say anytin, immediately signed all of us up.
-
Originally posted by Hello Kitty:
duno wtf is wrg wif u peeps.
dat time daddy brog us go do volunteer work.
they asked him wan sign membership, one year $20, anot.
papa say oso neber say anytin, immediately signed all of us up.
I think the word volunteer isn't getting into people's mind. would these people donate a dollar to the flag day kids and worry they fish them out? if they meant to cheat your money, so be it. ultimately you helped those elderly. get it or not?
-
those type of organsation eat money... trust me, they are not transparent afterall..
-
now then i realised, the lurkers in SC are not only whiners, but misers too
-
... sure we should and can all proactively CONTINUE to shell out our own money to help the poor elderlies and or needies... but then what good is the government when all they do is churn up big bucks for themselves, hike living costs, shrug off all liabilities & responsibilities and leave the people to their own devices? What the HELL are they voted for???
To just simply sit high, mighty, and look pretty???
... what I'm saying is that the government should START giving something substantial back for all they have demanded in Taxes, CPF, and what nought...
... status quo, people are NOT getting anything in return for all they have been paying to the government...
... instead, we are constantly being urged to live a progressively frugal life while they jack up their salaries come what may...!!
... you people are probably to far brain washed to notice the lopsidedness of this FAP administration...
-
NTUC’s “gift” - helping the poor or blatant exploitation?
Posted by theonlinecitizen on April 11, 2008
Leong Sze Hian and Andrew Loh
The National Trades Union Congress just announced a $4 million worth of assistance for 80,000 low-wage workers under the new discount vouchers scheme. According to the Straits Times report, “NTUC’s $4m gift to less well-off workers”, the ST says:
“In all, about 80,000 lower-income union members can apply for these vouchers from NTUC.”
It goes on:
“Each voucher gets them a 5 per cent discount for every $10 spent at six NTUC cooperatives, including its childcare centres and pharmacies.”
Now, before we all start cheering the ostentatious generosity of the NTUC, read the report closely. You will notice that :
One, the report couched it as a “gift”. Is it really so, or is it a blatant attempt by the NTUC at self-promotion – and to generate even more revenue for itself? (Read on and judge for yourself.)
Two, the headline says “less well-off workers” without mentioning that it is unionized members only who qualify for the vouchers. (Read on to discover how much one has to pay NTUC to be a member before enjoying the “5 per cent discount”.)
Three, “each voucher gets them a 5 percent discount for every $10 spent”. In other words, for every $10 you spend at NTUC cooperatives, you get 50 cents discount.
Why give discount instead of cash?
A 5 per cent discount voucher may not help the needy as much as giving the equivalent amount to them in cash. What the needy needs most now may be to mitigate the rising cost of basic food items.
For example, Fairprice raised the price of one of it house brand rice (5 kg bag) by 13 per cent, from $4.70 to $5.30 in March. Cooking oil and dairy products have also clocked double-digit gains.
Thus, giving them say $5 cash may be better as they can use it all to buy rice or milk powder, instead of just getting a 5 per cent discount when the price has already risen by double-digits. If prices continue to rise, discount vouchers also become lesser in actual value.
As each voucher gets them a 5 per cent discount for every $10 spent, if the purchase is say $11 or $12, the effective discount would only be 4.5 or 4.2 per cent respectively.
Giving discount vouchers may also be setting an undesirable precedent, as assistance to the needy has always been in cash or cash-equivalent vouchers, instead of a discount.
ComCare Funds should not be used to benefit NTUC
The ST article also reported NTUC Chief Lim Swee Say as saying that “grassroots leaders can use the money from the million dollar fund to buy the vouchers for their needy residents”. Mr Lim was referring to the ComCare Fund. This may not be a good suggestion, as grassroots organisations should give cash to the needy, instead of purchasing the discount vouchers.
The ComCare Fund budgeted amount is for direct assistance to the needy that they are already entitled to, and therefore should not be used to purchase discount vouchers.
Thus, using ComCare Fund to buy the vouchers is not a good way to implement the decision to set aside at least $1 million from the fund to help needy families cope with rising food prices.
Increased profits for NTUC
NTUC Fairprice Group’s after-tax profits increased by about 90 per cent from $52.7 million in 2006 to $100.1 million in 2007, against an increase in revenue of only about 12 per cent, from $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion, for the same period.
This begs the question: Why, despite absorbing the GST increase on hundreds of essential items for the latter half of last year, NTUC Fairprice Group’s profits increased so much?
So, instead of just giving $4 million of discount vouchers, why not give cash vouchers which would only reduce its profit increase last year from 90 to 82 per cent?
What’s the point of increasing the price of rice by 13 per cent or milk by 20 per cent, and then giving a 5 per cent discount?
Mr Lim was also quoted as saying in another ST report titled, “Rice a small part of bills at Fairprice: Swee Say”:
“Yes, the cost of living has gone up, but it does not mean your $10 has become $5 because you did not spend all your $10 to buy rice.
“You spent only 22 cents to buy rice.”
To infer that only 22 cents out of every $10 is spent on rice, derived from the $1.6 billion spent at Fairprice, of which $36 million was on rice, may not be entirely
accurate and indeed seems simplistic. Generally, the lower-income may be spending more on rice relative to their total expenditure, relative to what the general population spend on all items at supermarkets.
Helping the poor or blatant attempt at self-promotion?
Companies give discount vouchers all the time, as a means of promoting more sales and advertising. Will the call to buy house brands, and now the giving of discount vouchers, lead to higher sales volumes, which may result in even higher profits at the end of the day?
In this NTUC vouchers case, a low-income or poor Singaporean would have to spend money being a member of NTUC and pay its monthly membership fee (which we understand is about $9 or thereabouts per month), before he is entitled to a 50 cents discount every time he spends $10 at NTUC Co-ops.
Do only union members shop at NTUC?
This “gift” of a 5 per cent discount sounds rather like blatant self-promotion and exploitation of the plight of the poor by the NTUC rather than any sincerity in helping them.
Finally, isn’t this in a sense, akin to unfair competition against other supermarkets, retailers, childcare centres and pharmacies ?
————— -
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
... sure we should and can all proactively CONTINUE to shell out our own money to help the poor elderlies and or needies... but then what good is the government when all they do is churn up big bucks for themselves, hike living costs, shrug off all liabilities & responsibilities and leave the people to their own devices? What the HELL are they voted for???
To just simply sit high, mighty, and look pretty???
... what I'm saying is that the government should START giving something substantial back for all they have demanded in Taxes, CPF, and what nought...
... status quo, people are NOT getting anything in return for all they have been paying to the government...
... instead, we are constantly being urged to live a progressively frugal life while they jack up their salaries come what may...!!
... you people are probably to far brain washed to notice the lopsidedness of this FAP administration...
they can do whatever they want when they live. and we can't do nothing about it. if everyone refused to help the elderly because of the govt, the end is still the same, only the poor and the needy suffers the most.conscience is already lost in many singaporean minds. I don't bash the govt nor support them with my utmost. Whatever it is, life still goes on. nobody knows what happens in the future, for all you know, those who does the disrespectable will only incur karma for himself, if not his/her offsprings.
-
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
... sure we should and can all proactively CONTINUE to shell out our own money to help the poor elderlies and or needies... but then what good is the government when all they do is churn up big bucks for themselves, hike living costs, shrug off all liabilities & responsibilities and leave the people to their own devices? What the HELL are they voted for???
To just simply sit high, mighty, and look pretty???
... what I'm saying is that the government should START giving something substantial back for all they have demanded in Taxes, CPF, and what nought...
... status quo, people are NOT getting anything in return for all they have been paying to the government...
... instead, we are constantly being urged to live a progressively frugal life while they jack up their salaries come what may...!!
... you people are probably to far brain washed to notice the lopsidedness of this FAP administration...
That is still not the point here. The main point is that the volunteering in this case includes volunteering the $20, and TS is complaining about it. You have a choice not to volunteer your money and services.
No one denies that the govt has no responsibility.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
That is still not the point here. The main point is that the volunteering in this case includes volunteering the $20, and TS is complaining about it. You have a choice not to volunteer your money and services.
No one denies that the govt has no responsibility.
exactly. -
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
... just look at the stupid arguments here...
... government has so much accumulated wealth, collected so much from the people, and people who volunteers to do such work need pay $20 for T-shirts and cleaning detergents???
... doesn't sound all that graceous either...
... we're not talking millions of pooer elderlies, just a small cluster and government won't even supply these and leave it all up to charity orgs???
... stinks to high heavens... !!!
you just make me feel disgusted here. We are talking about volunteering, not money! The emphasize is on helping the old folks, not talking about why should we pay for all the thing and all sorts of ur rubbish arguments, which in turns pointing back to the government!You think too much about money, and the orgainser has said already, 20 bucks is for ur lunch, water, t-shirt and probably all the detergents and things u need to clean up. i believe the charity itself has to bear some of the expenses inccurred too! Why do u think that by paying 20 bucks, it means the government wont supply and pay for all these?
-
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
NTUC’s “gift” - helping the poor or blatant exploitation?
Posted by theonlinecitizen on April 11, 2008
Leong Sze Hian and Andrew Loh
The National Trades Union Congress just announced a $4 million worth of assistance for 80,000 low-wage workers under the new discount vouchers scheme. According to the Straits Times report, “NTUC’s $4m gift to less well-off workers”, the ST says:
“In all, about 80,000 lower-income union members can apply for these vouchers from NTUC.”
It goes on:
“Each voucher gets them a 5 per cent discount for every $10 spent at six NTUC cooperatives, including its childcare centres and pharmacies.”
Now, before we all start cheering the ostentatious generosity of the NTUC, read the report closely. You will notice that :
One, the report couched it as a “gift”. Is it really so, or is it a blatant attempt by the NTUC at self-promotion – and to generate even more revenue for itself? (Read on and judge for yourself.)
Two, the headline says “less well-off workers” without mentioning that it is unionized members only who qualify for the vouchers. (Read on to discover how much one has to pay NTUC to be a member before enjoying the “5 per cent discount”.)
Three, “each voucher gets them a 5 percent discount for every $10 spent”. In other words, for every $10 you spend at NTUC cooperatives, you get 50 cents discount.
Why give discount instead of cash?
A 5 per cent discount voucher may not help the needy as much as giving the equivalent amount to them in cash. What the needy needs most now may be to mitigate the rising cost of basic food items.
For example, Fairprice raised the price of one of it house brand rice (5 kg bag) by 13 per cent, from $4.70 to $5.30 in March. Cooking oil and dairy products have also clocked double-digit gains.
Thus, giving them say $5 cash may be better as they can use it all to buy rice or milk powder, instead of just getting a 5 per cent discount when the price has already risen by double-digits. If prices continue to rise, discount vouchers also become lesser in actual value.
As each voucher gets them a 5 per cent discount for every $10 spent, if the purchase is say $11 or $12, the effective discount would only be 4.5 or 4.2 per cent respectively.
Giving discount vouchers may also be setting an undesirable precedent, as assistance to the needy has always been in cash or cash-equivalent vouchers, instead of a discount.
ComCare Funds should not be used to benefit NTUC
The ST article also reported NTUC Chief Lim Swee Say as saying that “grassroots leaders can use the money from the million dollar fund to buy the vouchers for their needy residents”. Mr Lim was referring to the ComCare Fund. This may not be a good suggestion, as grassroots organisations should give cash to the needy, instead of purchasing the discount vouchers.
The ComCare Fund budgeted amount is for direct assistance to the needy that they are already entitled to, and therefore should not be used to purchase discount vouchers.
Thus, using ComCare Fund to buy the vouchers is not a good way to implement the decision to set aside at least $1 million from the fund to help needy families cope with rising food prices.
Increased profits for NTUC
NTUC Fairprice Group’s after-tax profits increased by about 90 per cent from $52.7 million in 2006 to $100.1 million in 2007, against an increase in revenue of only about 12 per cent, from $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion, for the same period.
This begs the question: Why, despite absorbing the GST increase on hundreds of essential items for the latter half of last year, NTUC Fairprice Group’s profits increased so much?
So, instead of just giving $4 million of discount vouchers, why not give cash vouchers which would only reduce its profit increase last year from 90 to 82 per cent?
What’s the point of increasing the price of rice by 13 per cent or milk by 20 per cent, and then giving a 5 per cent discount?
Mr Lim was also quoted as saying in another ST report titled, “Rice a small part of bills at Fairprice: Swee Say”:
“Yes, the cost of living has gone up, but it does not mean your $10 has become $5 because you did not spend all your $10 to buy rice.
“You spent only 22 cents to buy rice.”
To infer that only 22 cents out of every $10 is spent on rice, derived from the $1.6 billion spent at Fairprice, of which $36 million was on rice, may not be entirely
accurate and indeed seems simplistic. Generally, the lower-income may be spending more on rice relative to their total expenditure, relative to what the general population spend on all items at supermarkets.
Helping the poor or blatant attempt at self-promotion?
Companies give discount vouchers all the time, as a means of promoting more sales and advertising. Will the call to buy house brands, and now the giving of discount vouchers, lead to higher sales volumes, which may result in even higher profits at the end of the day?
In this NTUC vouchers case, a low-income or poor Singaporean would have to spend money being a member of NTUC and pay its monthly membership fee (which we understand is about $9 or thereabouts per month), before he is entitled to a 50 cents discount every time he spends $10 at NTUC Co-ops.
Do only union members shop at NTUC?
This “gift” of a 5 per cent discount sounds rather like blatant self-promotion and exploitation of the plight of the poor by the NTUC rather than any sincerity in helping them.
Finally, isn’t this in a sense, akin to unfair competition against other supermarkets, retailers, childcare centres and pharmacies ?
—————
why u bring this article in? i think it totally does not make sense for this thread here.YOU just dont see the spirit of volunteering and helping others. Full stop.