The government defines ‘Destitute’ as those that cannot work and have no relatives to help them out. The number of such people are very small and certainly not the 700,000 you project in the future. It was calculated and brought up in parliament that to increase the $300 so that it can provide 3 meals a day to these ‘Destitute’ would cost less in total than the salary increase of one Minister.

To which, our honorable V. Balakrishnan replied ‘You want them to eat in food court, hawker center, or restaurant’

Of course this being Singapore, no rebuttal was allowed to be aired on V.Bala’s nonsensical and immature statement.

I think they should go retraining, i know that NTUC pays 80% of subsidy for the lower incomes to retrain so they can get a job more easily. But for those handicapped, i need to think first yea? I hope that the RC’s do something, such as promoting events and fairs to raise funds, as well to create awareness.

Have you actually checked the prices of resale HDB flats in the past year or so? The valuation of these flats have sky-rocketed causing the rise in the re-sale prices of the houses the “richer ones” have left behind.

I shifted from my previous 4-room in Clementi – a 20 plus year old flat that had gone through the IUP when I shifted in – a year and a half ago. The valuation of that flat when I sold it was the same as when I first bought the place (and I’ve stayed there for the government requisite 5 years before I sold it).

My parents recently enquired the resale price of a flat in the same block and the valuation alone had risen by some 40K!!!! And mind you, no upgrading of any sorts had taken place in the estate in the past 1 1/2years. Where is the reason / logic to increase the valuation by this much? How objective / valid are the valuations that are undertaken by the agents of HDB??

Tell me. How are the lower income folks going to afford these flats that’ve been “left behind”??

However, seen the upcoming energy tapping technology research and the investment in other countries? I know it feels like, “for what? investing without a sense of care for our citizens?”. But with growth in economics will bring in more revenue for the needy citizens. Also, I appeal to your point of providing $300 a month for some destitute 85 year olds. Let the government calculate alright? Cause in the coming 10 years, there will be 700,000 or more elderly around in Singapore. Which means 700,000 x $300.. you can calculate yourself, why government does want to implement this scheme now, or in the future it will be like the health care service that happened in British few decades back.

Anyway, you can consult the government in this case. I personaly think that it is not wrong to do so.

Building high rise building is to cater the richer ones, the richer ones will move to these big and expensive houses while the lower income will take the house they left. That is why Singapore’s government trying to build less two-room flats – because there are already plenty around. Unless that the lower income wants to buy a new one, that will be a problem. Actually in my opinion, government has a point in this building more ’4 room or more flats’.

Excellent work, TOC, for this piece of research. You have become the default news website for thinking Singaporeans. Readers interested in my works can click on my name above.

*Comments edited by moderator.