|
| Want to air your piece about issues that affect you? Meet fellow Singaporeans online at our blog! Choose from any of the blog categories and let your ideas flow. Come on now, blog us! |
|
Disclaimer: By using "Blog Us" on REACH, you are solely responsible for your conduct and any data, graphics, photos, profiles, audio and video clips, links that you submit, post and display under your display name. Content on the "Blog Us" is for your information only and may not be used, copied, reproduced, or used for any other purposes without the prior permission of the respective owners.
|
|
| 14/04/2007 |
|
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SCHEME: THE SHOCKING NEWS
By Raymond Lo Wan Mou @ 10:40 PM :: 2121 Views ::
17 Comments ::  :: The Golden Years : Elderly
|
 |
In Today Newspaper (April 13, 07) I was taken aback when Dr Balakrishnan disclosed that his Ministry (Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports) has calculated that the total assistance an elderly, destitute person living alone without family support will receive from Government and voluntary help agencies come up to nearly $2,000 a month.
Yet in our newspapers, stories and photographs are abound that these Public Assistance (PA) recipients are living in a merely, survival state and struggling to save for a taxi fare for medical appointments as they are too old or sick to get there by public transport. They are now receiving a monthly cash grant of $260.
When GST increase kicks in on July 07, they will receive an increase of $30; a miserable sum compare to the recent pay rise for 95% of those in public services .
Dr Balakrishnan said that they are different issues. But to the men in the street the subject matter may be different but the payment given out is largely from the same source namely, the taxpayers.
If the Ministry's calculation of the assistance of $2,000 per PA recipient per month is correct, somethings must be very wrong with the distribution system and the Ministry must act fast and thorough enough to get to the root of the problem in the interest of both the recipients and the public.
Shall we as concerned citizens give some views, comments and an insightful discussion of this seemingly unjustified increase allowance for the PA recipients? They are after all also stakeholders of this country. The only difference is that they are on the poorer spectrum of our society.
REGARDS |
|
|
|
|
| Comments |
 By
colin @
15/04/2007 12:13 PM 
|
|
Well, the Singapore Government have always have their "Right of Ways" and they normally have the 1001 reason or excuses, but nevertheless it is up to people like you and fellow singaporean to stand-up and express your sincerity no point make noise cos the Singapore Government Leaders of today knows our character but we can only pray that one day God help all those regardless have mercy on them. They are getting to much "Greed" but for us singaporean it's always telling us doing National service to the nation ...how about "them" show their Love for the country....Read more in Animal Farms and you know them All. God bless us all
|
|
|
By
kim @
15/04/2007 10:19 PM 
|
Actually, the point is:
1. That there is a discrepancy of about $1,700?
2. That some amount is held back
3. That some amount is used for other purposes involved in the distribution?
I don't get the direct point
|
|
|
By
Kelvin Ang @
17/04/2007 12:00 AM 
|
It would be interesting to know how did the "$$2000" came about and what basis were used?
$260 per month = pay rental fee, utilities fee and tow$n council fee plus monthly purchase of essential household items............after deducting all these......enough for a decent 3 meals a day?
and soon GST increase, does it make any difference even if the monthly grant increase to $290?
|
|
|
|
By
Raymond Lo Wan Mou @
17/04/2007 12:41 PM
|
In the recent Parliament debate over pay rise and the public assistance scheme, Dr Lily Neo argued strenuously and emotionally over the need of more increase allowance for the PA recipients citing some of her constituents survivion on one meal a dauy. According to her the increase of $30 fells far short against the rising cost of living.
However, in the Forum page of Straits Times today (ST, April 17) one recepient also that the current cash grant of $260 monthly is sufficient and still have $207
at his disposal to save for future expenses given that he takes advantages of food and other services offered by voluntary welfare agencies/charitable organisations.
I am confused. Who is to believe now? The MP who has most PA recipients in her constituency or the writer and a PA recipinet Mr Muchamed Elfian Harun.
|
|
|
|
By
Kelvin Ang @
17/04/2007 1:08 PM
|
|
Perhaps a home visit be done to learn from him how he achieve that?
|
|
|
By
Raymond Lo Wan Mou @
17/04/2007 1:31 PM 
|
Dear Kelvin,
Very good idea.
Perhaps the best person is Dr Lily Neo herself. She has a moral standing to defend what she spoke in Parliament
REGARDS
|
|
|
|
By
Kelvin Ang @
17/04/2007 10:26 PM
|
|
I think it would be better if other MPs oso get to the ground and learn from the ground.
|
|
|
|
By
lim @
18/04/2007 5:39 AM
|
There is something not right with this posting (on discrepancy of amounts stated) and the exact same one that follows. It is written in a vague manner and use of words which first read seems to imply wrong doing. But, it is actually written in such a manner that by using a mix of tenses confuses the reader as to what is the exact truth.
Reach should either correct this, or ask Mr Raymond Lo to explain. Leaving it as a blog, is like a matador waving a red flag for a bull to charge. Or is this the intention?
|
|
|
|
By
Raymond Lo Wan Mou @
18/04/2007 1:27 PM
|
Dear Mr Lim,
Please pardon me for my poor English. My highest level of education is up to "O" level only.
There is no malice on my part.
My intention is that hopefully somebody could throw some light that on one hand the Government has calculated each PA recipient will receive from the Government and voluntary agenices close to $2,000 monthly and on the other hand the actual cash grant given to each recipient is $260.
How would one reconciles the disparity of such a different namely $2,000 against $260?
REGARDS
|
|
|
By
lim @
18/04/2007 6:53 PM 
|
Dear Mr Raymond Lo, Your English is superb. However, it looks like what you are saying is that the $2,000/- is what recepeints should, or in the future, receive, but the amount that has been given out to date is nearly $300/-. If that is the case, there is no discrepancy, and nothing wrong.
But, it is I think, an act of courage to post this warning, if it was true, in the Reach website.
|
|
|
|
By
Raymond Lo Wan Mou @
18/04/2007 8:01 PM
|
Dear Mr Lim,
Thank you for your encouragement.
REGARDS
|
|
|
|
By
sani @
30/04/2007 3:58 PM
|
Care to elderly is just like running a business. It Need "product verities" , beside the core product ( F.A ) which is Government Driven, the VWOs supplement is just as important .With VWOs join in it can create "Social Multiplayer" effect . ..Ultimately contributing to well being care services for the elderly.
Government can inject more “$ “ to VWO (Not just $22 per case to some VWO;-). The more direct product investment ($) give to elderly , s/he may just spend away as individual entity . We need gate keeper on the ground , Strong support to VWOs can be our model for our future social service in Singapore. Government can increase its Indirect product investment , to spin off the whole social services. .
Social Assistance not only need “spiritual acupuncture” ( $$$$$) it need a comprehensive with” more people hands” approach to call the shoot
|
|
|
|
By
Kelvin Ang @
30/04/2007 11:03 PM
|
|
Are those VWOs/SAC really effective?
|
|
|
|
By
Rousseau @
07/08/2007 12:02 PM
|
|
And yet they draw $3 million a year as these people struggle to fill their stomachs. I am sure their pets, if any, get much better treatment than this. Why should you get $3m a year? Just because CEOs in the private sector get just as much or more? If so then I doubt that this encourages participation in politics for any reason other than for monetary gain. And who suffers for this greed? The people.
|
|
|
|
By
EYeo @
24/01/2008 6:00 AM
|
I cannot believe it is $260 per MONTH!!
Australians get about $260 per week and it is not only for the older or disabled people, younger people just down on their luck and out of work for a while can request for assistance too.
A country with so much in reserve bank needs to give more back to the needy in the country.
|
|
|
|
By
Colin @
24/01/2008 9:19 AM
|
|
Public Assistance Scheme or whatever they want it to be called does not interest me as I'm feed-up with ALL the Government so called "Help" and "Assistence" scheme does not make $Sense$ at all.....Why don't the Government themselves from Civil Servants to those so called "Volunteer" go an set an Example on living with $260-290 per month or even per year.....Hahahaaa....we shall see the real "Survivor" like Dr, Bridge-Gen....Ministry trying to survive or prove a point by "Leading by Examples"
|
|
|
|
By
Kelvin Ang @
24/01/2008 9:59 PM
|
The reason why I am very disappointed with the $290 PA grant is coz I actually did try to live a month by restricting myself to only $290 for one month. I am also on ground most of the time and I have seen one too many elderly trying to live day by day, especially those who are not so moblie.
I really hope the PA grant will be increased, more so now that the prices of food has also increased.
|
|
|
Click here to post a comment
|
|
|
|
|