PAP gives 69 yr old jobless Ah Pek $150 a mth to survive
-
Originally posted by teraexa:
The right-wings will claim that it's the old man's fault that he didn't plan for his old age when he was younger and his ability to earn was much higher, resulting in today's situation.
The left-wings will claim it's the government's fault for not providing a social safety net for these old folks. They love to use this example to start espousing on the greater income disparity and so on and so forth.
At the end of the day, who is right? The left-wingers or the right-wingers?
Let me tell you, there's no winner at the end of the day. The old man is the real loser.
While you people debate about toppling this current regime or blaming the old man for his lack of foresigh, he still has to live on his meagre $150 every month.
Really, sometimes, is politicking really so enjoyable? To the point where we start associating this with the oversight and failings of the PAP and even to Temasek Holdings' fault?
So what if you win? So what if you topple the regime? So what if you discredit Temasek Holdings?
At the end of the day, this old man will still live on anonymously and someday will pass on without so much as a miniscule effect on the lives of others. Does it occur to both sides that we should start solving the problem and stop pinpointing the source of the blame?
What happened to realpolitik? Is it so unfashionable nowadays that we have no choice but to keep asking 'why' it went wrong and 'who' is responsible for it instead of asking 'how' or 'what' we can do to solve the problem?
Really. Speakers' Corner is not a place to play the blame game. We need people to stop listing problems for the sake of finding faults. We need them to provide some solutions as well.
Shame on those who politicised this issue. Shame on you.
So the best solution is to keep quiet and suck thumb? At least to talk abt it is to generate awareness and hopefully, those people living in the ivory tower who is earning millions will finally realize that $150 is indeed not enough to live in Singapore.
-
Originally posted by 333225520:
Than why the gov can't increase the salary of the social worker to attach more people to join as social worker? And does social worker need to be degree holder? I think 1.9k is a great starting pay for poly graduate.
There's hundred of worse job than social worker, like those working in funeral line, having to see dead bodies everyday. But I am sure there are still plenty of people willing to work as long as the salary is great.
Give me just 10% of our PM salary and I don't mind even to tend to dead people everyday.
LOL, the reserve is like your CPF. You may be out of job, no money, sick, dying, but still can't touch your CPF money even if its hundreds of thousand.
there is a degree in social work from nus. and being a social worker is more than just filing cases for PA. you have to know how to counsel your clients and how to best help them and many more.
think about it, almost all social work are from non-profit organisations, so how much can they pay social workers?
Yes there are worse jobs than being a social worker, but you have to admit that social work is tough too. ask yourself honestly, can you be a social worker? or rather would you want to be a social worker
-
Originally posted by 333225520:
In the interview, he (and his wife) said the workplace is very far and the transport cost $100++. And for a 69 year old to cycle everyday to work? Even a young man is unable to do so.
He said the transport is $100++, so he may have only $100++ left after minus the transport. And he mentioned in the interview himself that it's okay for him but after minus the meal (if he eat outside), but what about his wife? (if you bother to watch thru the entire interview).
I am not sure if he take up the job, will the $150 subsidise disappear as well? or is the $150 meant for him and his wife.
The interview also asked him isn't the gov handout supposed to be $300++ which he said NO, only $150.
true..i didnt think abt that...thanks for your insight :D
-
Financial Literacy Programme – “Talking Dollar and Sense”
The Financial Literacy Programme is one of Central Singapore CDC’s key strategies to Assist the Needy. Talking Dollar and Sense is a financial literacy workshop which imparts budgeting and life skills to low-income families. The experiential learning style ensures that the participants have the opportunity to learn basic money management skills and good money values.
-
Originally posted by 333225520:
So the best solution is to keep quiet and suck thumb? At least to talk abt it is to generate awareness and hopefully, those people living in the ivory tower who is earning millions will finally realize that $150 is indeed not enough to live in Singapore.
No one asked you to keep quiet and suck thumb. Not politicising this issue does not equate to keeping quiet and sucking thumb.
Concrete solutions, not politicising, is what we, and the old man, need.
-
Originally posted by 333225520:
Ya, and there are many many many jobs which are equally or more stressful. But why do you think there are still people working in these job? Answer -> because of the pay.
So obviously if there's a lack of social worker, than one important factor must be the pay and benefit.
Not really, i was offered a job that paid 500 more. But i liked my colleagues at my old workplace while the offered job required me to work in a small little office space.
Frankly i can't imagine a job that's more stressful than the social worker. In other jobs you are in the end only responsible for your job parameters while as a social workers you are always responsible for the well being of others. You can't really escape the guilt of wondering if you could have done more for them.
If you're luring more social workers because of the high pay, do you really want such people messing around with the well being of the vulnerable?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Not really, i was offered a job that paid 500 more. But i liked my colleagues at my old workplace while the offered job required me to work in a small little office space.
Frankly i can't imagine a job that's more stressful than the social worker. In other jobs you are in the end only responsible for your job parameters while as a social workers you are always responsible for the well being of others. You can't really escape the guilt of wondering if you could have done more for them.
If you're luring more social workers because of the high pay, do you really want such people messing around with the well being of the vulnerable?
Of course everyone will say their job is the worst. Like teacher also complain their job is the most stressful (maybe you can ask any teacher and most probably he will also say he can't imagine any job more stressful than being a teacher).
But frankly, not only social worker job is responsible for other, nurses are also under stress because of their patient, teacher stress because of the future of their student, network engineer stress because if the system down, it will affect the operation of the entire company... see?
-
Originally posted by rain-coat:
there is a degree in social work from nus. and being a social worker is more than just filing cases for PA. you have to know how to counsel your clients and how to best help them and many more.
think about it, almost all social work are from non-profit organisations, so how much can they pay social workers?
Yes there are worse jobs than being a social worker, but you have to admit that social work is tough too. ask yourself honestly, can you be a social worker? or rather would you want to be a social worker
If the pay is good, frankly speaking, I don't mind. And if like what you said, almost all social work are from non-profit organisation, then what's the hell is our gov doing?
And I have never heard of storage of social workers, at least I am unaware of a recruitment drive for social worker. But the gov is currently actively recruiting teachers and increasing the benefit of teachers to attach more people to this industry.
So if like what you said is true, the gov should do the same to attach more people to become social workers.
-
Originally posted by 333225520:
Oh? And how to earn 10k in 2 weeks with 100 dollars? Rhythm Gate said it is possible if you have creativity.
I can't yet
But the guy tutor from physics.com.sg can
He claims an average of >20k monthly (4 weeks) -
Originally posted by eagle:
I can't yet
But the guy tutor from physics.com.sg can
He claims an average of >20k monthly (4 weeks)
kow! earn more than mp liao. -
Originally posted by teraexa:
So what if you win? So what if you topple the regime? So what if you discredit Temasek Holdings?
At the end of the day, this old man will still live on anonymously and someday will pass on without so much as a miniscule effect on the lives of others. Does it occur to both sides that we should start solving the problem and stop pinpointing the source of the blame?
What happened to realpolitik? Is it so unfashionable nowadays that we have no choice but to keep asking 'why' it went wrong and 'who' is responsible for it instead of asking 'how' or 'what' we can do to solve the problem?
Really. Speakers' Corner is not a place to play the blame game. We need people to stop listing problems for the sake of finding faults. We need them to provide some solutions as well.
Shame on those who politicised this issue. Shame on you.
If anything, you should be ashamed for the drivel you're espousing.Is toppling the regime not a better macro solution to the problem?
If you're going to focus your help on this isolated case and help this bloke alone, you're effectively micro-managing this issue and it's hardly a solution - at least, not to others in a similar predicament.
If the source of this problem is indeed exacerbated by the regime's policies (as has been justifiably pointed out by many given the disparity in wages paid to the fascists and their cronies, as opposed to the social help dished out to the needy) and you regard the regime's hold on power as peripheral on improving the livelihood of the marginalised, what's there to suggest you won't see someone else in a similar predicament 50 years from now if the present regime remains in power?
So, is your solution any more fashionable? Or is it even remotely viable to de-politicise the issue at hand?
-
There is nothing wrong with Teraexa's excellent piece of writing.
Singapore is a small state, without deep or even limited resources. That it survive till today is no mean achievement of our forefathers. They never stop work or providing for their next generations. So too must we.
Our society, even though pragmatic, had never abandon those who got left behind. We are a society based on merit, and opportunities abound for all, regardless if you are white or black, male or female, young or old. It's only whether you bother to reap what you sow.
There are various policies provided to help the poor. There may be flaws in it, but its flaws are not systemic, rather the flaw falls on overworked operators. Some do fall in between such cracks, and that's where Teraexa's point lies - how are we as a society to help these people?
Shall we tax the govt, already burdened with a crisis of catastrophic proportions affecting everyone of us, as well as international relations, or should we as a civil society lend our helping hand to our fellow fallen on the wayside citizens?
These are the points he is trying to wake us up on.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
If anything, you should be ashamed for the drivel you're espousing.Is toppling the regime not a better macro solution to the problem?
If you're going to focus your help on this isolated case and help this bloke alone, you're effectively micro-managing this issue and it's hardly a solution - at least, not to others in a similar predicament.
If the source of this problem is indeed exacerbated by the regime's policies (as has been justifiably pointed out by many given the disparity in wages paid to the fascists and their cronies, as opposed to the social help dished out to the needy) and you regard the regime's hold on power as peripheral on improving the livelihood of the marginalised, what's there to suggest you won't see someone else in a similar predicament 50 years from now if the present regime remains in power?
So, is your solution any more fashionable? Or is it even remotely viable to de-politicise the issue at hand?
Originally posted by xtreyier:There is nothing wrong with Teraexa's excellent piece of writing.
Singapore is a small state, without deep or even limited resources. That it survive till today is no mean achievement of our forefathers. They never stop work or providing for their next generations. So too must we.
Our society, even though pragmatic, had never abandon those who got left behind. We are a society based on merit, and opportunities abound for all, regardless if you are white or black, male or female, young or old. It's only whether you bother to reap what you sow.
There are various policies provided to help the poor. There may be flaws in it, but its flaws are not systemic, rather the flaw falls on overworked operators. Some do fall in between such cracks, and that's where Teraexa's point lies - how are we as a society to help these people?
Shall we tax the govt, already burdened with a crisis of catastrophic proportions affecting everyone of us, as well as international relations, or should we as a civil society lend our helping hand to our fellow fallen on the wayside citizens?
These are the points he is trying to wake us up on.
I thank both walesa and xtreyier for providing viable pieces of writing from which I can hopefully construct a decent debate on.
There is walesa's viewpoint that toppling the regime being a better macrosolution to the problem. I would like to clarify that I am not recommending micromanagement and overfocus on individual problems. Rather, I am for providing concrete solutions to such problems even if that means having to NOT involve the government.
As xtreyier has excellently elaborated on, there is no need to keep relying on the government to solve our problems. We must, as a society, recognise that the government is not all-powerful and not all-knowing. They can't possibly settle everything for us and we must not expect them to do so. After all, the government is stuffed with humans with 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 hands, 2 legs and 1 mouth like you and me. The government is not omnipotent. They are not, in a sense, God.
To link the failure of this incident to the general failure of the government is not only, in a sense unfair to them, but also myopic on our part. We must realise that it is possible to have people who fall through the gaps, no matter how small, of the social safety net. To use this incident to call for regime change is making a mountain out of a molehill, shall I say? Tarring everyone in the regime with the same brush hardly smacks of equality or justice.
Besides, linking back to my point on the government not being omnipotent. What makes us so sure that changing the regime will entail a better replacement for the incumbents? After all, we are replacing a group of humans with another group of humans. We must realise that governance is itself an art and there is no fixed set of rules which the regime can abide by to produce the best possible result. It is, in a sense, a trial and error process which requires astute judgement calls. In a sense, the line dividing an astute policy decision with a stupid one is just ever so thin (remember Jurong Industrial Estate being labelled as Goh Keng Swee's folly back then?).
From my viewpoint, depoliticising this issue entails solving the problem ourselves without the need for the government to act. Such examples include the help of NGOs or other civil society groups from which we can, as a society, help out one another even if the government is responding in a less-than-adequate manner.
Is this method workable? I daresay yes because in the USA, the roles of NGOs have, in many places, complemented or even replaced the role of the government. They are more efficient and are more task-focused. They are also more nimble in dealing with problems without having to negotiate tons of red tape in order to get things done.
That is what I call depoliticising the problem. It is easy on one hand to blame the government for failing to provide adequate support. It is not so easy, on the other hand, to look at ourselves and ask why we did not step in to fill the gap in the first place.
A viable civil society not only comprises of groups which seek to provide checks and balances to the government (as a certain Dr CSJ always espouses) but also groups which help to take care of the people and step in as and when the government fails.
Now, you may ask, what good is the government there for if we have to clean up its screwups? Well, as pragmatic Singaporeans, we all know that if the government starts failing all-too-often, it risks becoming irrelevant if there are such NGOs to take its place in such situations. No government will want to be irrelevant since an irrelevant government has no moral ground to legitimately claim the mandate to rule. To start becoming relevant, they will be forced, in a sense, to start engaging the community again. This negative feedback loop will force the government to be on their toes.
That's all I have to say. I know my argument isn't flawless but hey, I can't produce a truly flawless argument unless I am flawless myself. Meanwhile, if you wish, you can dissect my arguments and provide a rebuttal to it. I will be more than happy to continue the debate.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by huzane89:
i have no sympathy for this old man. it's good enough that he received $150. Rather than nothing. It's his own fault that he didn't make plan for his old age. And now when he is in this predicament, he wants free stuff. People give him job, complain about bus fare, which is not that much since he can use his senior citizen card. All complains but no effort.
hope you will be worse than this man when you reach 69. You damn bloody heartless. you have a very black heart, arrogant toad like you don't deserve good things in life. -
-
Originally posted by huzane89:
if ppl always think that live is a no.s game, then it shall be a no. s game to that person. In this case, you. People have options in life. There is no way that one live life without options. And if you choose the right options and work really hard. You wont be in such a sorry state.The most pathetic part is him trying to get more money from the govt. My grandmother is 79, have half of her children asking money from her. Yet she still manage to survive. She may not live well, but she is able to at least sustain herself. And it's because she works hard and make good choices. Not like that old bum who wants 'free lunch'.
That 1000 that fails. Do you have facts to back up with your claim? Of course many people go through hardship in life, in this case, being monetarily poor. Yet I don't see them doing the same thing like that old bum. Seeking free lunch and sympathy from ppl.
go dig a grave and bury yourself. U not fit to survive.
-
Originally posted by teraexa:
I thank both walesa and xtreyier for providing viable pieces of writing from which I can hopefully construct a decent debate on.
There is walesa's viewpoint that toppling the regime being a better macrosolution to the problem. I would like to clarify that I am not recommending micromanagement and overfocus on individual problems. Rather, I am for providing concrete solutions to such problems even if that means having to NOT involve the government.
As xtreyier has excellently elaborated on, there is no need to keep relying on the government to solve our problems. We must, as a society, recognise that the government is not all-powerful and not all-knowing. They can't possibly settle everything for us and we must not expect them to do so. After all, the government is stuffed with humans with 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 hands, 2 legs and 1 mouth like you and me. The government is not omnipotent. They are not, in a sense, God.
To link the failure of this incident to the general failure of the government is not only, in a sense unfair to them, but also myopic on our part. We must realise that it is possible to have people who fall through the gaps, no matter how small, of the social safety net. To use this incident to call for regime change is making a mountain out of a molehill, shall I say? Tarring everyone in the regime with the same brush hardly smacks of equality or justice.
Besides, linking back to my point on the government not being omnipotent. What makes us so sure that changing the regime will entail a better replacement for the incumbents? After all, we are replacing a group of humans with another group of humans. We must realise that governance is itself an art and there is no fixed set of rules which the regime can abide by to produce the best possible result. It is, in a sense, a trial and error process which requires astute judgement calls. In a sense, the line dividing an astute policy decision with a stupid one is just ever so thin (remember Jurong Industrial Estate being labelled as Goh Keng Swee's folly back then?).
From my viewpoint, depoliticising this issue entails solving the problem ourselves without the need for the government to act. Such examples include the help of NGOs or other civil society groups from which we can, as a society, help out one another even if the government is responding in a less-than-adequate manner.
Is this method workable? I daresay yes because in the USA, the roles of NGOs have, in many places, complemented or even replaced the role of the government. They are more efficient and are more task-focused. They are also more nimble in dealing with problems without having to negotiate tons of red tape in order to get things done.
That is what I call depoliticising the problem. It is easy on one hand to blame the government for failing to provide adequate support. It is not so easy, on the other hand, to look at ourselves and ask why we did not step in to fill the gap in the first place.
A viable civil society not only comprises of groups which seek to provide checks and balances to the government (as a certain Dr CSJ always espouses) but also groups which help to take care of the people and step in as and when the government fails.
Now, you may ask, what good is the government there for if we have to clean up its screwups? Well, as pragmatic Singaporeans, we all know that if the government starts failing all-too-often, it risks becoming irrelevant if there are such NGOs to take its place in such situations. No government will want to be irrelevant since an irrelevant government has no moral ground to legitimately claim the mandate to rule. To start becoming relevant, they will be forced, in a sense, to start engaging the community again. This negative feedback loop will force the government to be on their toes.
That's all I have to say. I know my argument isn't flawless but hey, I can't produce a truly flawless argument unless I am flawless myself. Meanwhile, if you wish, you can dissect my arguments and provide a rebuttal to it. I will be more than happy to continue the debate.
Thanks.
Mm...not often you get well thought posts here, thank you for it.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
There is nothing wrong with Teraexa's excellent piece of writing.
Singapore is a small state, without deep or even limited resources. That it survive till today is no mean achievement of our forefathers. They never stop work or providing for their next generations. So too must we.
Our society, even though pragmatic, had never abandon those who got left behind. We are a society based on merit, and opportunities abound for all, regardless if you are white or black, male or female, young or old. It's only whether you bother to reap what you sow.
There are various policies provided to help the poor. There may be flaws in it, but its flaws are not systemic, rather the flaw falls on overworked operators. Some do fall in between such cracks, and that's where Teraexa's point lies - how are we as a society to help these people?
Shall we tax the govt, already burdened with a crisis of catastrophic proportions affecting everyone of us, as well as international relations, or should we as a civil society lend our helping hand to our fellow fallen on the wayside citizens?
These are the points he is trying to wake us up on.
I never said there was anything wrong with his writing - I was merely expressing my view on what was a rather myopic stance backed by self-righteous gnomes like yourself which is a systemic flaw.Look, you could rid a pot smoker of his addiction in two ways - 1. send him for rehab; 2. throw him more pot. Now, which is actually a more viable solution?
You must be deluded to suggest the policies in place currently are actually helping those who are "left behind" - and that's coming from a regime whose head of state amasses more wealth than the heads of state of the US, Japan, Germany, UK, Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Luxembourg and Iceland combined...
-
Originally posted by teraexa:
I thank both walesa and xtreyier for providing viable pieces of writing from which I can hopefully construct a decent debate on.
There is walesa's viewpoint that toppling the regime being a better macrosolution to the problem. I would like to clarify that I am not recommending micromanagement and overfocus on individual problems. Rather, I am for providing concrete solutions to such problems even if that means having to NOT involve the government.
As xtreyier has excellently elaborated on, there is no need to keep relying on the government to solve our problems. We must, as a society, recognise that the government is not all-powerful and not all-knowing. They can't possibly settle everything for us and we must not expect them to do so. After all, the government is stuffed with humans with 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 hands, 2 legs and 1 mouth like you and me. The government is not omnipotent. They are not, in a sense, God.
To link the failure of this incident to the general failure of the government is not only, in a sense unfair to them, but also myopic on our part. We must realise that it is possible to have people who fall through the gaps, no matter how small, of the social safety net. To use this incident to call for regime change is making a mountain out of a molehill, shall I say? Tarring everyone in the regime with the same brush hardly smacks of equality or justice.
Besides, linking back to my point on the government not being omnipotent. What makes us so sure that changing the regime will entail a better replacement for the incumbents? After all, we are replacing a group of humans with another group of humans. We must realise that governance is itself an art and there is no fixed set of rules which the regime can abide by to produce the best possible result. It is, in a sense, a trial and error process which requires astute judgement calls. In a sense, the line dividing an astute policy decision with a stupid one is just ever so thin (remember Jurong Industrial Estate being labelled as Goh Keng Swee's folly back then?).
From my viewpoint, depoliticising this issue entails solving the problem ourselves without the need for the government to act. Such examples include the help of NGOs or other civil society groups from which we can, as a society, help out one another even if the government is responding in a less-than-adequate manner.
Is this method workable? I daresay yes because in the USA, the roles of NGOs have, in many places, complemented or even replaced the role of the government. They are more efficient and are more task-focused. They are also more nimble in dealing with problems without having to negotiate tons of red tape in order to get things done.
That is what I call depoliticising the problem. It is easy on one hand to blame the government for failing to provide adequate support. It is not so easy, on the other hand, to look at ourselves and ask why we did not step in to fill the gap in the first place.
A viable civil society not only comprises of groups which seek to provide checks and balances to the government (as a certain Dr CSJ always espouses) but also groups which help to take care of the people and step in as and when the government fails.
Now, you may ask, what good is the government there for if we have to clean up its screwups? Well, as pragmatic Singaporeans, we all know that if the government starts failing all-too-often, it risks becoming irrelevant if there are such NGOs to take its place in such situations. No government will want to be irrelevant since an irrelevant government has no moral ground to legitimately claim the mandate to rule. To start becoming relevant, they will be forced, in a sense, to start engaging the community again. This negative feedback loop will force the government to be on their toes.
That's all I have to say. I know my argument isn't flawless but hey, I can't produce a truly flawless argument unless I am flawless myself. Meanwhile, if you wish, you can dissect my arguments and provide a rebuttal to it. I will be more than happy to continue the debate.
Thanks.
Your argument gets even more hilarious with the examples you're citing.In a true democracy where civil societies function freely and thrive on civil liberty, it would make sense to suggest you should not depend on the government excessively for the government does not excessively micro-manage your life to begin with. However, to draw similar parallels between a liberal democracy and a fascist regime masked under the smokescreen of a parliamentary democracyis downright ludicrous. How you could suggest a regime that micromanages the lives of its citizenry in just about every other way (from how they're permitted to use their retirement funds to exercising their rights on the freedoms of expression, thereby curtailing their avenues to improve their own and the plight of their compatriotsin the first place) to be irrelevant in this episode is beyond me. To illustrate this point, are you seriously suggesting the trade unions you see in this regime function on the same basis as what you see in liberal democracies and are therefore capable of rendering similar help to the labour force here?
Realistically, are you expecting civil societies in dictatorships to "comprises of groups which seek to provide checks and balances to the government (as a certain Dr CSJ always espouses) but also groups which help to take care of the people and step in as and when the government fails" when the very role and responsibilities they are permitted to play are effectively curtailed by the despotic regimes whose jurisdictions they fall under? Taking your "USA" example further (and compounded by using more extreme examples of despotic regimes), why not argue that by not voting out the dictatorships of North Korea, Cuba and Iran, the citizenry of such dictatorships are effectively in support of their regimes just as is the case in the USA (and many other democracies where elections are free and fair)?
To presume everyone on the planet would have an equal access to the same machinery for aid - and by extension, similar opportunities to improve the lives of the marginalised - is quite simply unfounded.
As for "What makes us so sure that changing the regime will entail a better replacement for the incumbents?", what makes you think crossing the road wouldn't get you run over? Or for that matter, what makes you think getting married wouldn't result in a divorce? On the basis of that, are you therefore concluding you shouldn't cross a road and get married (assuming that's what you intend to do) simply because you risk getting run over and filing for a divorce? In short, the fact of the matter is you can't be sure the successors will be better than the incumbents. But a more pertinent point is, why can't and shouldn't it get better?
Amazing how you could overlook the most basic trend of liberal democracies the world over where governments get the boot at the polls from a dissatisfied citizenry from time to time, yet advocate the fad of the roles adopted by NGOs in such liberal environment. Or are you simply double-speaking?
-
Originally posted by walesa:
I never said there was anything wrong with his writing - I was merely expressing my view on what was a rather myopic stance backed by self-righteous gnomes like yourself which is a systemic flaw.You certainly are fond of putting people down who disagree with your faulty logic. 'drivel', 'self-righteous gnomes' are your terms of endearment. I have thick skin to absorb your flak.
But guess what? While you and i are heaping insults on each other, the old man is still struggling on his $150 a month charity money.
Thank heavens there are still Singaporeans like Teraexa around. People like him/her are the hope of our future, and people like you and me should rightfully be consigned to the recycle bin for wasting bandwidth.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
You certainly are fond of putting people down who disagree with your faulty logic. 'drivel', 'self-righteous gnomes' are your terms of endearment. I have thick skin to absorb your flak.
But guess what? While you and i are heaping insults on each other, the old man is still struggling on his $150 a month charity money.
Thank heavens there are still Singaporeans like Teraexa around. People like him/her are the hope of our future, and people like you and me should rightfully be consigned to the recycle bin for wasting bandwidth.
It's you who obviously lack the common sense and rational judgment to accept a differing viewpoing in your desperate attempt to hammer home a moot point. Then again, if you choose to remain detached from reality and indulge in your delusional fantasies, it's every bit your constitutional right to remain so, isn't it?
Who cares a hoot if you have a thick-skin and actually worry about the old man getting by with $150/month? While you think Teraexa is actually doing folks like him a favour (and credit to him if he is) in the short-run, think about the disservice you're doing to many others who potentially end up in his predicament in the long-run.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
Your argument gets even more hilarious with the examples you're citing.In a true democracy where civil societies function freely and thrive on civil liberty, it would make sense to suggest you should not depend on the government excessively for the government does not excessively micro-manage your life to begin with. However, to draw similar parallels between a liberal democracy and a fascist regime masked under the smokescreen of a parliamentary democracyis downright ludicrous. How you could suggest a regime that micromanages the lives of its citizenry in just about every other way (from how they're permitted to use their retirement funds to exercising their rights on the freedoms of expression, thereby curtailing their avenues to improve their own and the plight of their compatriotsin the first place) to be irrelevant in this episode is beyond me. To illustrate this point, are you seriously suggesting the trade unions you see in this regime function on the same basis as what you see in liberal democracies and are therefore capable of rendering similar help to the labour force here?
Realistically, are you expecting civil societies in dictatorships to "comprises of groups which seek to provide checks and balances to the government (as a certain Dr CSJ always espouses) but also groups which help to take care of the people and step in as and when the government fails" when the very role and responsibilities they are permitted to play are effectively curtailed by the despotic regimes whose jurisdictions they fall under? Taking your "USA" example further (and compounded by using more extreme examples of despotic regimes), why not argue that by not voting out the dictatorships of North Korea, Cuba and Iran, the citizenry of such dictatorships are effectively in support of their regimes just as is the case in the USA (and many other democracies where elections are free and fair)?
To presume everyone on the planet would have an equal access to the same machinery for aid - and by extension, similar opportunities to improve the lives of the marginalised - is quite simply unfounded.
As for "What makes us so sure that changing the regime will entail a better replacement for the incumbents?", what makes you think crossing the road wouldn't get you run over? Or for that matter, what makes you think getting married wouldn't result in a divorce? On the basis of that, are you therefore concluding you shouldn't cross a road and get married (assuming that's what you intend to do) simply because you risk getting run over and filing for a divorce? In short, the fact of the matter is you can't be sure the successors will be better than the incumbents. But a more pertinent point is, why can't and shouldn't it get better?
Amazing how you could overlook the most basic trend of liberal democracies the world over where governments get the boot at the polls from a dissatisfied citizenry from time to time, yet advocate the fad of the roles adopted by NGOs in such liberal environment. Or are you simply double-speaking?
After dissecting your views and thinking about them for a while, it hit me that our views are rather mutually exclusive.
To sum it up, I feel that the ability of NGOs is determined to a small extent, or even not determined, by the government in place. You feel that, however, the government is the limiting factor with regards to the effectiveness of NGOs.
It is a viewpoint which, despite my best efforts, I can't seem to find any middle path to reconcile both. It is either I am wrong or you are. There's no room for compromise. A regrettable point since you seem to be one of the rare person here who is able to construct a coherent argument and I thank you for that.
With regards to our views, I believe time will prove either of our viewpoints right. I won't deterministically say that which one will prevail but I tend to look at mine more favourably. Ditto for you.
As for the paternalism which our government displays so often, I am hoping, and foreseeing, that it will change over time as the citizenry gets more educated and more skeptical (provided that most of them won't leave by their adulthood).
With regards to the problem faced by the uncle, I sincerely hope that it's a hole in the social safety net and he will be rendered better assistance in the future. However, whether that will occur is for the bureaucracy to determine and for us to find out.
I had a good time penning down my arguments here and similarly had a equally enriching time reading through well-articulated views even though I may not agree with them. After all, open-mindedness is something which Singapore sorely lacks now and that is hopefully something both of us can agree on.
-
Can somebody explain to me if there is any connotation between the mininsters' all time favoured statement "increasing the GST is to help the poor" and the old man's predicament?
-
Originally posted by Spartans:
Can somebody explain to me if there is any connotation between the mininsters' all time favoured statement "increasing the GST is to help the poor" and the old man's predicament?
Another superficial excuse?
-
Originally posted by teraexa:
After dissecting your views and thinking about them for a while, it hit me that our views are rather mutually exclusive.
To sum it up, I feel that the ability of NGOs is determined to a small extent, or even not determined, by the government in place. You feel that, however, the government is the limiting factor with regards to the effectiveness of NGOs.
It is a viewpoint which, despite my best efforts, I can't seem to find any middle path to reconcile both. It is either I am wrong or you are. There's no room for compromise. A regrettable point since you seem to be one of the rare person here who is able to construct a coherent argument and I thank you for that.
With regards to our views, I believe time will prove either of our viewpoints right. I won't deterministically say that which one will prevail but I tend to look at mine more favourably. Ditto for you.
As for the paternalism which our government displays so often, I am hoping, and foreseeing, that it will change over time as the citizenry gets more educated and more skeptical (provided that most of them won't leave by their adulthood).
With regards to the problem faced by the uncle, I sincerely hope that it's a hole in the social safety net and he will be rendered better assistance in the future. However, whether that will occur is for the bureaucracy to determine and for us to find out.
I had a good time penning down my arguments here and similarly had a equally enriching time reading through well-articulated views even though I may not agree with them. After all, open-mindedness is something which Singapore sorely lacks now and that is hopefully something both of us can agree on.
It's not so much mutual exclusivity as it is about applying something out of context and this has got absolutely nothing to do with centrist, left or right-wing politics. In short, I just don't see your idea working out at all - at least, not in terms of addressing the issue of that chap surviving on $150/month and countless others in his predicament. Hammering a square peg into a round hole just doesn't quite cut it, does it?
It's not that hard to actually understand the ire that has arisen from the earlier portion of this thread with two differing views. Someone started off blasting the chap for being a "bum" who never bothered making plans for his future in his youth, thereby landing in his present predicament. That sparked a storm of response from others who suggested people who have never been under-privileged would never know what it feels like to be in that state. Looking at it from a completely objective perspective, both camps have their merits.
This brings me to the classical conundrum which Tony Blair tried addressing during his premiership (and I witnessed the effects of some of his policies first-hand while living in the UK then) on his take on social welfare which went along the lines of "some believe [social welfare] to be the solution to the problem [in helping the under-privileged], while others believe that to be the source of the problem [in encouraging freeloaders]". Clearly, it hardly comes as a surprise as to why he pursued a centrist policy which came nowhere close to either extreme, alienating many in the process - and that's coming from someone who had been on both wings (on various issues) and finished being a centre-left in a political career that spanned 25 years including having been at the helm during Britain's longest economic growth since WWII. Fact of the matter is, as you have rightly pointed out, you can't please everyone (just as you wouldn't be able to reconcile folks sitting on opposing sides of solving the bloke's issue).
However, the seemingly irreconcilable difference should not, on its own, serve as a catalyst to justify de-politicizing every issue out there. The whole notion that the state has played no part and can do no more than NGOs and others is simple a self-serving prophecy which is in essence senseless. At the end of the day, the very fact of the matter in this whole debacle is political in nature.
Let's consider an example on minimum wage. If you had a liberal democracy, instead of a self-serving fascist dictatorship that utilises the parliament as a theatre, it would not be too hard to enact minimum wage legislations, would it?
Very clearly, the policies adopted by the regime are self-serving in nature (by easing immigration requirements on unskilled labour and having no minimum wage, you hardly need a rocket scientist to figure the outcome would actually be an influx of cheap foreign labour that actually helps to artificially induce an exponential increase in labour supply thereby reducing the efficiency wage, would you?) and serve to exacerbate the problem instead of actually redressing it. If you need any further insights on the desperate measures this regime is resorting to pursue artificially-induced expansionist economic policies, check out http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/011101bo.htm (someone posted this link on another thread which clearly makes for an interesting read).
More pertinently, with a reasonable minimum wage model in place, how is it reasonable anyone could actually be offered a $300/month job which, in essence, is below subsistence level in the context of any developed country? Perhaps, applying a minimum wage in the context of this thread, it would actually go some way towards reconciling the differences between the two camps on the state of affairs concerning this chap as a reasonable level of income that commensurates with the living standards of the developed world would clearly result in fewer "bums" around (this is basic labour economics).
In that regard, it is clearly foolhardy to suggest the onus on helping the marginalized should fall primarily on the shoulders of philantrophists, individuals and NGOs when clearly, a sensible policy adopted by a responsible government would go a much longer way towards tackling the problem.
Evidently, with due respect, the most abhorrent and ludicrous part of your argument would be to dismiss the role and efficiency of an agent (in this context, this fascist regime) that could be far more effective in solving this problem than anyone else. To compound matters further, the severity of the issue at hand is actually compounded by the mindless and self-serving policies enacted in the exclusive interests of a dictatorship.
After all, how sensible would it be to suggest you can't actually rely on a regime to solve a problem effectively engineered by them? Lest you live life expecting others to clean up your mess.
In short, the severity of this episode is, as far as I'm concerned, exacerbated and engineered by the regime and clearly, I stand by my earlier stance that toppling this regime (or, in your words, politicizing the issue) offers far better prospects of tackling (while not expecting a complete eradication) the issue in the long-term.