if history is of any use to us, it shows that maturing states reach a state where its development would require change at the expense of the privileged few. usually, one side has to give. herein lies the dilemma and contradiction in the PM’s words n actions; those things he promised that would make singapore more robust would also mean less privileges and power for his party.

as history shows us, one side eventually has to give.

how about “Your Singapore, Your Home”

Why not called Singapore – A Money City

On the other hand, the government has a long history of making speeches, decisions and actions that make tons of money for themselves.

see la, give u “send to friend” button will erode work ethic.

btw, cld i request for a button to click to “send to a friend”?

You are right in saying that we do not want those who do not need the money to be given the money. But looking at the criteria for qualification for the PA scheme, there is little to be concerned about in this respect.

This is because to qualify for public assistance, one will have to meet 2 or 3 criterias (out of 6, if I am not wrong). these include not being able to do certain daily chores or activities – such as bathing oneself or feeding oneself.

The criterias are so strict that only about 2,000-plus people qualify.

And when they do qualify, they are given $290 per month, per person.

You can have a look at the different rates which PA recipients receive on the MCYS website here.

Also, recipients of PA are mostly the elderly, those in their 70s, 80s, even 90s. The question of eroding work ethics does not come into play here. This is because these people had been working all their lives (of course there are exceptions but I would say they are the minority).

Because of old age, illness, or various other reasons, they are unable to work anymore – and not because they do not want to work.

These are the people whom I am referring to in the article above. And if we are to have our ministers increase their own salaries 3 times in the space of 2 years amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, I think we can give the poorest in our society a little bit more.

Regards,
Andrew

Yes, the GRC system is seriously flawed and changes to the political system is long overdue and I bet my last cent that our million dollar ministers know that very well.

Why is is flawed, because it no longer assures that they can get as many seats as possible without contest as we have more credible opponents challenging GRCs and if a team can be formed to run against the PM and still get such high percentages, its something to worry the old man. Furthermore also provides the new threat that they can lose 4 -6 seats at one go. The old man knows that they would have been shown the exit door if it was still single seats like in good old days. So losing 3 or 4 GRCs can be equally damaging.

They can only do so much with gerrymandering, making Juroung part of Changi or increasing the deposit (which of course is linked to their new salary) to contest. As we all know, only in Singapore can the opposition gain 33.3% of the votes and still have only two seats in Paliament. So lets start thinking how the political system will be “changed”. For starters, the GRC could become much much bigger. If there is one thing which justifies the million dollar salary of our MIW is their brilliant ability to come out with creative ideas to remain in power.

Let’s say you provide “enough” (if you manage to find that figure), then who is going to get this money? I’d say that the number of people eligible for this subsidy should be cut down to those unable to take care of themselves. As long as you have two legs, two hands, and can still work, the government should provide a job for you instead of money.

We don’t want people to rely on that “enough” money, stop working, and come out and beg/gamble/drink, would we?

I guess there are a lot more problems to think about other than giving enough money to the poor.

That said, I must say the MCYS minister (I can’t remember who our ministers are, sorry don’t give me the death sentence!) who gave that retort is helluva insensitive person. Is 3 meals a day too much to ask? And even if it is, I guess his Ivy League/UK brandname education shoulda taught him sensitivity/empathy, else we should be sending our scholars elsewhere instead.

Singapore has also many problems. It is how you see them and how to deal with them that is important.

It is majority rule unless you can turn the table.

Regarding a meal, you can still buy 5 packets of instant noodle at S$2. 1 meal can still consist of 1 pack of S$0.40 with water plus gas to boil and some discarded vegetables at wet market, plus unwanted bones at meat seller stalls.

Sadly, even the minister of community, youth and sports cannot even produce a decent argument.

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

– the classic slippery slope, slightly disguised, but still detectable.