It’s true that some to them refuse charity, but with persistence, some welcome you into their flat. Some may still reject charity, however, they feel happy just having your company and chatting with them. Charity and kindness (in showing our appreciation for their contribution to the country and/or society) come in different forms.

Those assistance schemes you all talked about weren’t available during my time. It’s a common trait of people in that generation, and some even my generation, that we would say “aiyo, forget about it, so much hassles”. You might consider helping them to fill those forms and accompanying them to the respective department (if necessary).

i’ll probably try to look for her when i go to orchard sometime this month. it’s so sad to see old folks like her and really, i wish those “tigus” get a taste of their own medicine for treating her this way! :’(

=www.currypaper.tk

…the value for the tail end of the lease of the flat is not on a straight-line pro-rate basis of the market price of the flat.. The computation of the value of the lease is based on industry-accepted standards and practice in valuation. It is commonly recognised in valuation practice that the rate of depreciation of the property increases with its age…

I believe that the computations are justified and that the details will be explained to the subscribers of the scheme at the appropriate moment. My apologies to HDB for the unfair comments. They have indeed done a good job to come up with this LBS scheme.

After reading through the FAQs, I wish to share an observation about the scheme. The LBS is intended ONLY for flat owners who wish to “age-in-place” therefore they are disallowed from subletting their whole flat.

I feel that this policy is abit restrictive and out of place with the times. Since the scheme was mooted some years before, there had been robust public discussions about alternative retirement destinations. Ageing in place or not is now not a taboo issue as it was but a practical sign of the changing times.

In view of this trend, I recommend that the scheme be expanded to embrace those who have retired to the neighboring countries, whether out of necessity or for practical reasons, that they be allowed to sublet their whole flat and as well as to unlock the value of their assets in order to make ends meet.
Thanks for the great work, HDB!

That the LBS is a financial scheme however, the disclosures at the HDB’s website are surprsingly lacking. In the mini bonds issue, there were some assumptions made initially about the elderly and uneducated being savy enough to make their own financial decisions. As this LBS financial scheme is targetted at a similar group of elderly folks, i think HDB should have taken the trouble to make full and transparent disclosures about the scheme before letting the folks sign up.

The example from the hdb website mentioned abt a …3-room flat with a remaining lease of 70 years and a market value of $236,000. Under LBS, HDB will buy 40 years of the lease at $104,000, and provide a top-up of $10,000 in Government subsidy. From the $114,000, the elderly household will receive $5,000 upfront. This leaves $109,000 remaining to purchase an Immediate Annuity from CPFB that yields a monthly payout for life….

Based on the details in the example, i did this quick and simple calculation. A flat with a market value of $236,000 and remaining lease of 70 years, should have an annual lease value of $3,371 (ie $236,000 divided by 70) or a value of $134,800 when computed for 40 years of lease. In the absence of further explanations or details of the deal at the website, shouldnt hdb then be buying back the 40 years of the lease at $134,800 market value instead of at the (yet to be disclosed) 22% discount of $104,000?

I am puzzled that the pertinent disclosures and details were left out of the workings, I think these old and poor folks are entitled to fully understand what they are getting into before they sign up.

Firstly I would say that Mr Lee Kuan Yew have done a great job into bringing Singapore to this standard as compare in the 70s. But nonetheless I feel that the priorties of the fund is a bit way off line.

We spent billions of dollars loaning to other countries and yet fellow singaporean doesn’t had the opportunities to get these money to survive. Basically just think, when will the other countries pay us back our money? the answer most likely will be we will never see that day and why? Because we are already died.
DONT REBUKE ME BY SAYING THERE IS A HELP CENTRE.
Singaporean comes first or other countries??????

Help centres???
You ask me or any other singaporean on the streets, the answer for most of us is “I DON”T KNOW” Help centre should publicise in the advertisement, just like our courtesy campaign or the NKF shows. The help centre doesn’t have enough manpower then employ more. DON’T TELL ME THAT THEY RUN OUT OF BUDGET. For the poor we can relax on the rules a bit using the discretion of the public. We can try using 10 members of public randomly chosen to vote for the outcome whether the application will be approved on the spot. Singaporeis an effiencient country approved on the spot may save another poor lady from being hungry for another day.

Use cigratte tax for the poor, it should be more than enough.
The tax of cigrattes are so high, USE THE MONEY TO SUPPORT THE POOR. You can ask any fellow singaporean smoker to pay the tax for the poor i believe that we will pay the tax more willingly. Anyway does anybody knows where the hell does the cigratte tax goes to? Don’t tell me it is to the customs office.

The criteria??
What 2 out of 6 criteria?? that’s bullshit…. Imagine that you are the old lady at the age above 70s and you are sick for the day. My question to you is you run out money and don’t have energy to even walk to the door, what do you think will happen to you??? “TAN SI LOR” (WAIT TO DIE LOR)

The paper work??
Senior citizen “bay hiau tak ang mo” (don’t know english) then what should they do? Not forgetting what becomes of singapore today is the sheer hardwork that the senior citizens have put in during their younger years.

Don’t kick our forefathers away when they are old and considered useless. Mr lee hseun long if i have not spelled wrongly, have annouced on tv last few days ago and says that due to our fast ageing society we must be prepared to work until 70s.,,Waaaaaaaaaaaaa piang oei !!!! i thought i could “jiak pa tan si” now come to think of it “jiak luck liao la”. Zzzzzzz! turn off! We can live in early retirement if the tax are lesser, the cost of living is lower than “PROBLEM SOLVED” haha!

$360 Enough?
I don’t think so. Pub bill per pax around $50. Rental around $70(i don’t know)
that goes up to $120. $240 divide into 30 days equals to $8 per day. It is barely enough. Not to mentioned if you are sick or kana terminal diesease. I really can’t imagine. The government have many campaigns before, why not all minister or high ranking officer to try living at $360 per month for a year, sad to say they confirm “bay tahan”

Before every election every candidates will tell us how good they are. Why not change the system to only poor men will vote and decide. they answer will be POOR PEOPLE’S PROBLEM SOLVED.

Conclusion is that the agency reponsible for taking care of the poor is not functioning well enough to keep a lookout for the poor.

Aiyoh, you are so pathetic and you smell a lot.

Hey why not you try google the word compassion + some big names of our ministars. Not surprising, there are plenty of it.

It is ‘nice’ and ‘dandy’ for the PM to mention about western spectacles and eastern spectacles to his audience, but S’poreans are aware that his PAP
have their own designed spectacles.
Everything the PAP see through their spectacles are clouded by $$ images.
This probably explains the lack of empathy for the needy, and even then,
they will try to measure empathy in dollars and cents !

Thanks for noting my point on that there is a difference between an individual adopting the “if they need help, they will ask for it” approach and if “public servants (who handles social welfare etc)” adopt the same attitude. The crux lies in the role played.

You are right about the different focus of TOC and TWC2. However, these are very passionate people, and they may have similarly passionate supporters with the right skills to create the system. I would think that TOC and TWC2 may be 2 pioneer groups to use such a system, given their very proactive approach to their societal roles. Not prescribing the how-to’s here, merely at ideation stage. Ideas, like children, takes time/consideration to develop. Of course, as you have pointed out, eventually there may be other VWOs who may join in if they find it useful. Personally I think that TWC2 is relevant group for the purpose. IMHO, the poor is not restricted by race, language, or nationality. E.g. there are migrant workers who need help after being abandoned by their agents/employers.

Again as you rightly pointed out, cutting ministerial pay and improving the social welfare net (amount and accessibility) are 2 separate matters. The reason many (including myself sometimes) would link the 2 together is because of the widening income gap and the perceived ineffectiveness of our civil servants (including MPs and ministers) paid to address social welfare issues. Our ministers’ stated position is that there are abundant welfare options which are under-utilised. They also claimed that it is the poor who refused to or did not seek help (e.g. after one family’s breadwinner committed suicide). In addition, there is their verbalised fear that increasing welfare would lead to Singaporean’s developing a crutch mentality, and cited the scarcity of resources as reasons for limited social support. Such public statements reinforce the public’s perception that the ministers (and possibly the civil servants involved in social welfare) do not understand the challenges faced by the poor in obtaining assistance. Only if the lion’s share of existing assistance available is successfully disbursed proactively to the qualifying recipients, would we know if the existing welfare is enough and/or accessible.

“It would take those at the top of organizations such as VWOs, NCSS, MCYS whatever it is, to passionately fight for it. From what I see, many have lost the passion they had when they graduate as a social work graduate.

I shall not comment on the above since I do not personally know many at such positions. All I can say is that it does not help that the PAP-led government has made it very clear from its repeated brush-off that it will not increase social welfare or create a social safety net.

i think it is better to recognize them as individuals with unique characters and needs.

Yup I agree to the above too. However IMHO, compassion is NOT condescending if one does not approach with the right attitude.

In addition, you suggested for a database to be run by TOC and TWC2. However, TWC2′s main interest is in migrant workers while TOC’s main interest is in journalism. You cannot expect these two groups to have an effective and sustaining effort on that. I understand that some VWOs have been trying very hard to get such a system up (with varying degree of success or failures).

Anyway, I’m on most people’s side here, agreeing that more $$ should be spent on social welfare, especially on elderly. This would however require more than just basing a discourse revolving on cutting ministerial pay to pay for that. They simply won’t.

However, it would take those at the top of organizations such as VWOs, NCSS, MCYS whatever it is, to passionately fight for it. From what I see, many have lost the passion they had when they graduate as a social work graduate.

For onlookers like us, while it is up to you to make your own assumptions about any groups of people, (i.e. as stated, poor people would want you to help), i think it is better to recognize them as individuals with unique characters and needs. compassion is condescending.