Comments on: Reaching the needy? More publicity needed

By: Helping the poor, more publicity needed (The Online Citizen)

Helping the poor, more publicity needed (The Online Citizen) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:11:39 +0000

[...] Helping the poor, more publicty needed (The Online Citizen):- Click here to read full article [...]

By: irgen

irgen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:16:52 +0000

To Lachlan

To analyse the expenditure will take many man years until the poor becomes destitute and starve to death, while the expenditure being analysed slowly disappears in the guise of budget expenditure for social development.

Fast analysis the poor gets nothing; slow analysis in detail and debate, the poor wait long long.

By: Lachlan

Lachlan — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:35:54 +0000

Below is the link to Singapore Budget Expediture Overview

http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2009/expenditure_overview/index.html

Social Development accounts for $18.1 billion of government expediture. Government Administration accounts for $1.7 billion of government expediture.

I would appreciate it if anyone can analyse the expediture overview in more detail.

By: cat

cat — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:09:31 +0000

To Lachlan :

More tax monies went to the ministers as pay than the direct assistance to the poor.

You must be joking.

By: irgen

irgen — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:06:41 +0000

quoted by Lachlan:-
“However, it might not be a good idea to make it too easy to apply as well. The money for financial assistance is actually tax payers’ money.”

quoted by Leong Sze Hian:-
“Only about $1.57 million of the $6.25 million budgeted for the Comcare CCC Fund has been given out after nine months.”

So if it is not a good idea to make it easy to apply for financial assistance, where will the surplus money budgeted for the Comcare CCC Fund eventually ends up?

Maybe as payment for 8 months bonus for their staff?

By: Lachlan

Lachlan — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 04:07:18 +0000

Financial assistance application is indeed a difficult process. It should be made easier for aid to reach the deserving cases.

However, it might not be a good idea to make it too easy to apply as well. The money for financial assistance is actually tax payers’ money. If it we make it too easy, we might end up having to pay more tax.

By: irgen

irgen — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:02:07 +0000

My friend who is 63, single, lives alone and unemployed due to various ailment, went to CDC last week to seek financial assistance as regular donation from his brother is not enough to sustain him, pay his medical fees, etc.

He was told to bring his brother’s(retired) bank book for the staff to verify if he could be given public assistance. Can the staff at the CDC demand his brother’s bank book?

Needless to say, my friend’s application was rejected outright when he said that he felt his brother wouldn’t let him borrow his bank book to apply for financial assistance.

By: cat

cat — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:01:09 +0000

It is all part of the scheme to control/reduce the amount of monies given to the public.

First, they pool all the relevant resources.

Second, they restrict the criteria. In so doing, they could give more to those who qualify and tell the opposition how brilliant their plan is.

Thirdly, the number who receive the benefit, the effect would be a reduction in the total benefit enjoyed by poor people.

Fourthly, by pooling these resources, they could delay or reject applications more efficiently – those who were rejected would not have another recourse.

5th point, they ended up keeping more monies in the book.

6ht point, then they could warrant a higher pay for themselves because they are looking after a bigger pool of monies.

7th point, the people up on the top could always pass down instrument and mobilize these monies to their advantage. That’s how the TC monies ended up investing in risky stuff.

8th point, it is very possible that these funds end up with less monies than what is stated in their books.

9th point, the general public ended poorer.

By: agongkia

agongkia — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:03:16 +0000

1)ronin
Strongly agree .Not only complicated and difficult to qualify,they talk as if they have 3 spotlights on their forehead.(Hokkien saying,kong ka larng thow nsar par huay) and make thing worse.
Remember JCS,Come to payout,they say that employers are only eligible if they contribute their staff’s CPF on time.They just dun understand that part of the reason that these employers fail to pay CPF on time is because they are cash strap and are really the group that needs help.Instead those who are doing well benefits.Those struggling and gonggong waiting for the JCS to pay cpf may even face compound fines instead .Does this help employers who are struggling?At least let the employer knows this requirement earlier so that they can be prepared to borrow even from UML to pay in time to enjoy this scheme.And they are kind enough to give grace period,but wait for another 3 month.
Remember the bridging loan?They talk about 80 % underwriting and want to help companies but some loan were rejected not by the bank.One mp instead of helping employers ,worry that the loan may be abuse by the bank to cover employer’s existing bad loan and they said they are careful about underwriting .This make thing worse for employers who are struggling..Bank now prefer to give bridging loan than unsecured term loan since bridging loan is 80 % guaranteed.Those employers with existing unsecured loan from bank have more difficulty to ask for more to expand their business as their existing loan can be considered as bad loan.Is this helping the needy?

By: Gilbert Goh

Gilbert Goh — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:34:23 +0000

I find duplication of similar services by many agencies here.

Moreover, some services are too difficult to apply and match.

A total over haul is needed here for the schemes available.

NTUC, E2i, CDCs, self help groups currently all perform retraining and job matching facilities.

They need to streamline abit more and each agency can specialise in some major service.

E2i can specialise in helping PMETs. CDCs can do the lwoer end jobseekers.

Now, everyone is doing everything and this confuses people alot.

By: Spirit-centred

Spirit-centred — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:26:02 +0000

The various centres such as CCC, ComCare, CDCs were viewed by the public as PAP run help schemes because they are heavily staffed by PAP grassroot volunteers, so I can confidently say that this ten percentile of the population who are needys do not like to be associated with PAP circles as they do not like to be obligated to PAP for help rendered to them, as often then not this message has been subltely communicate to them. They would rather find other means then go to them.
This perception can only be changed if CCC, ComCare, and CDCs in opposition wards are run buy opposition party grassroots volunteers.
Another thing is lost of face sydrome that prevent many from approaching all these centres. To solve this, govt should set up a retrenchment relief fund with certain percent of surplus during good times to be pumped into this fund and make it an entitlement relief for those who are cerfitied as retrenched by their company to draw a sustenance relief amount from this fund starting from their fourth month after retrenchment for as long as six to twelve months they are unemlployed. Their sustenance relief amount shall automatically cease when they start working again.

By: whole Tooth and nothin but the tooth

whole Tooth and nothin but the tooth — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:49:42 +0000

I assume that the msm reported figures are correct.
;)

By: ronin

ronin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:29:32 +0000

“…many may not be aware of Comcare’s financial assistance schemes”
==========================

Our govt wants it that way….they deliberately make the “help” schemes very complicated and difficult to qualify that many needy don’t claim the benefits. If this govt is really serious about helping the needy, it could have consolidate all the “help” schemes under 1 govt agency.