VB: “When we did this review of the Public Assistance rates, we took into account both the impact of inflation since the last review as well as the impact of the GST increase. There will always be arguments about whether a sum that we have decided is enough or not. As I said yesterday, frankly, one limiting factor must be that the sum that we give through Public Assistance cannot be so generous as to erode the work ethic. As I said again yesterday, if you take a family with three children, the amount they can receive from Public Assistance – I do not have the exact figure now – I think exceeds $900. At that level, you are getting dangerously close to the earnings of a low-wage worker.”

True, it might not be wise for PA to be level with the earnings of the low-wage workers – as the later might be tempted to give up working, or so the rhetoric goes. But – notwithstanding the fact that simply giving up one’s job WON’T qualify one for PA (see below) – has he considered that perhaps the low-wage workers are not being paid enough for shitty jobs???

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, the Minister said that the increment was done in such a way so as not to take away the work ethic. Surely, this argument cannot be applied to PA allowance recipients because this is a group of people that can never work either due to poor health, old age or disability. Therefore, this work ethic concept does not work. The other point is that the Minister said that this group of people can depend on grassroots organisations and others. Am I to understand that MCYS cannot provide adequately for the most vulnerable group of our society and that PA recipients must go and seek help from others? He said yesterday that in this globalisation, he would ensure that increasing number of Singaporeans would not feel left out and that he would provide more assistance to the poor to cope with the higher cost of living. May I ask him: should providing three meals a day not be a priority of his promise?

VB: “I take the Member’s point that for Public Assistance, we have fairly strict criteria. But having said that, I am still not willing to go to the other extreme and say that since we have got strict criteria, we can afford to be generous.”

What kind of answer is that??? Dr Lily Neo was not trying to criticize the “strict criteria”. And “generous” is hardly the operational level, more like “humane”, or “human dignity”.

VB:”then we do want some effort to be exerted on the part of the recipients”
Why insist on such efforts from “a group of people that can never work either due to poor health, old age or disability”?

VB:”We can always do more and we can always raise GST further.”
Erm, how about using some of the “doubled profits” from Temasek?

When the Minister’s salary goes up again with the future planned increments, the poor will get a little more – this is Guilt in action and Conscience reaction of a normal human being.

Your passion for the poor is commendable, I hope the government heard you and while they spend millions of dollars on IRs, Youth Olympic Games and F1 Race Tracks, they might just consider spreading out their net wider to catch those who fall through.

Where one Singaporean will eat is not really the issue here, already there are cheaper restaurants and more expensive hawker centers. It is after they eat for today, this week and the next, what would they have left for their next meal amongst continually rising costs and prices?

Do we really want to be like some countries where we look good on the outside with beautiful infrastructure while many of our citizens struggle to survive? This is not an easy question to answer for any government. But it definitely is a worthwhile cause for any good meaning MP to stand up and be heard.

Of course many of us also feel that the high end workers earn to much. I guess it a distribution issue from those who are unemployable to those “highly employable”

It’s probably better, just, motivational and probably more cost-effective to adjust income relationships along this entire chain…and to minimise the number of peole dependent on adhoc charity

The major failure of the opposition and its supporters was that it always painted a picture that’s the other extreme of what the PAP does. From your casual voting of PM Lee’s performance where most people voted “very bad” I think there’s a need to be even more responsible in writing and attract readers who are actually pro-PAP instead of just preaching to the converted.

For example, what not include what Sylvia Lim said of PA (from Al Jazeera via LittleSpeck)

Singapore’s government has now acknowledged there is a problem and in this year’s budget it introduced what it calls “bold” new welfare payments.

Sylvia Lim, a member of parliament for the opposition Workers Party, says this represents something of a sea change in Singapore’s policy towards welfare.

“This is quite radical for Singapore,” she says.

“We have always lived under this system where you have to earn every cent that you get basically and now the government recognises that there are some people who just can’t earn enough now.”

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan replied: “How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?”

Clearly the Minister did not even understand a simple question asked by a fellow PAP MP. How is he going to understand the people?

If he cannot comprehend the voice of a fellow DR, will he be able to hear the voices of the people and comprehend their sufferrings?

Prices in hawker centres, coffee shops, etc or perhaps evern raw food have started to increase even since the announcement of increase in GST…..really cannot imagine that increase in salary by millions can be so easy and increase in PA by few tens is so difficult…..

Remember how the former health minister Howe answered question on abortion law ?

Wait for the old man to die, then many laws can be changed.