Video: Struggle of a 76-yr-old Singaporean Street Scavenger

While our million $ ministers encouraged FTs to steal Singaporean jobs and enjoy life without any NS obligation, elderly singaporeans like this lady are left to become street scavengers. Why are we paying them million dollars salary for this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZQeooRDSo0

we have nothing to boast.

Very touching. Thanks for highlighting

sgnewsalte said:

While our million $ ministers encouraged FTs to steal Singaporean jobs and enjoy life without any NS obligation, e

Click to expand...

Million dollar ministers are tasked with running the country on a macro scale. They are paid millions because they have the ability to view the broader picture and embark upon strategic initiatives to ensure the long term viability of the country.

They cannot be responsible for each and every destitute Singaporean.

The responsibility for the plight of that poor lady falls squarely on her FAMILY. Where are her children?... her nieces... her nephews... her brothers.. her sisters... her in laws?????

I would never leave my mother to roam the streets collecting cardboard boxes. Would you?

Oh Boy, AFP is interested...

Leongsam said:

Million dollar ministers are tasked with running the country on a macro scale. They are paid millions because they have the ability to view the broader picture and embark upon strategic initiatives to ensure the long term viability of the country.

They cannot be responsible for each and every destitute Singaporean.

The responsibility for the plight of that poor lady falls squarely on her FAMILY. Where are her children?... her nieces... her nephews... her brothers.. her sisters... her in laws?????

I would never leave my mother to roam the streets collecting cardboard boxes. Would you?

Click to expand...

If a country has moved into the advance economy status and has a fat foreign trade surplus reserve, what the fuck is the harm of implementing a social security system for these less fortunate people!?

Yar, her family should be responsible for taking care of her instead of letting her do all these back breaking work. But the world is nv fair; some people are born to lead a superstar life, while some are born to lead a wretched life.
Should the rest of us just shove these unlucky people aside and get on with our own life? As we move into advance economy status, shouldn't we start thinking about the welfare of our fellow country men to make this country a better place to live in?

What the fuck is the harm if those ccb MIWs cut their multi million dollars salary a little or take a little cash out of their gigantic SWFs to fund the social security system?

What the fuck is the harm of paying just a little bit more taxes to make sure that these elderly people can live the last few remaining years of their lives in comfort and dignity!?

Once a gain FUCK YOU SAM LEONG! :oIo:

Royalblood said:

Once a gain FUCK YOU SAM LEONG! :oIo:

Click to expand...

The typical Sinkie trait rears it's ugly head once again. There are simply too many Chow Ah Bengs who are incapable of carrying out a debate without resorting to profanities to try to win an argument.

The reason why taxes should not be used to assist destitutes is simple. If such a scheme was introduced, there would suddenly be a flood of self declared destitutes cashing in on the generosity of the taxpayer.

It happens all the time in welfare states. In NZ, there is freakin' family who is receiving NZD1000 a WEEK. They have not done a decent days work for the last 15 years!!!!! Why should they? If the govt gave me $4000 pm, I'd be living the life of Riley too!:p

Leongsam said:

It happens all the time in welfare states. In NZ, there is freakin' family who is receiving NZD1000 a WEEK. They have not done a decent days work for the last 15 years!!!!! Why should they? If the govt gave me $4000 pm, I'd be living the life of Riley too!:p

Click to expand...

You have just given would be quitters an idea of choice destination :p


.

leongsam, can't fathom that u could utter such nonsense in regards to the plight of that old lady lies entirely on the family and not the govt consider the fact that u are residing in either oz or nz where she would have been guaranteed to be on pension with a fortnight payment of at least A$500 and have access to free medical as well in addition to public housing without having to do anything. Yes, her family if she has is responsible but the same applies to the govt or what's the point of having them in the first place cos they are supposed to be public servant taking care of the people, isn't it?

kingat33 said:

Yes, her family if she has is responsible but the same applies to the govt or what's the point of having them in the first place cos they are supposed to be public servant taking care of the people, isn't it?

Click to expand...

The concept of state welfare is less than a century old. In every society where it has been implemented, humans have gone backwards. Survival instincts honed over the centuries have disappeared and the competitive edge has been lost.

I am all for people helping the less fortunate in society. However, the help should come from within the nucleus of the family unit. Why should taxpayers pay the price? They have their own families to take care of.

If my mum ended up sick and penniless, I would take care of all her needs. As a son, that is my duty. I would not want to take money from strangers (which is what state welfare boils down to). I have my pride. If I didn't have enough, I'd ask my brothers, sisters, uncles, aunties etc to chip in. That's what the family is for.... to be there for each other.

People who expect the govt to take care of the poor within their family are losers. They have no pride and no principles. In accepting taxpayer funded assistance, they are nothing more than freeloaders. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Wonder where my 2% additional GST (from 5% to 7%) went to......hmmmmmm. Somehow I remembered very faintly reading some papers that the increase would have gone to help the 'less fortunate'. Maybe the 'less fortunate' meant the fat cats millionair MIW need the money to slim down !

Leongsam said:

The concept of state welfare is less than a century old. In every society where it has been implemented, humans have gone backwards. Survival instincts honed over the centuries have disappeared and the competitive edge has been been lost.

I am all for people helping the less fortunate in society. However, the help should come from within the nucleus of the family unit. Why should taxpayers pay the price? They have their own families to take care of.

If my mum ended up sick and penniless, I would take care of all her needs. As a son, that is my duty. I would not want to take money from strangers (which is what state welfare boils down to). I have my pride. If I didn't have enough, I'd ask my brothers, sisters, uncles, aunties etc to chip in. That's what the family is for.... to be there for each other.

People who expect the govt to take care of the poor within their family are losers. They have no pride and no principles. In accepting taxpayer funded assistance, they are nothing more than freeloaders. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Click to expand...

Maybe that lady is single... She work hard in saving her money and now , due to inflation, her $30,000 or watever amount is wiped off and leave her working harder than ever.

tonychat said:

Maybe that lady is single... She work hard in saving her money and now , due to inflation, her $30,000 or watever amount is wiped off and leave her working harder than ever.

Click to expand...

The lady is a widow. Based on the report, she used up all her savings caring for her sick husband.

Now she has nothing and this is when the rest of the family should step in to help. Even if she had no children, (highly unlikely), she would definitely have relatives who can chip in to help. That's what family is all about. At the top echelons of society, observe how the Lee clan support each other to accumulate millions. At the bottom end of society, the same concept of helping ones own should be taking place. There is far less money to go round but the principle should be the same.

If you want an example of how families should help each other, just take a look at the Malay community. When one of their family members is sick in hospital, I have often seen 10 to 20 visitors at a time at their bedside while some poor Chinese old fart in the next bed is lucky to have ONE visitor.

It seems that the Chinese really are extremely selfish. They only appear at family functions when there is a chance of collecting ang pows or inheriting some money.

She's still better off roaming the streets collecting cardboard boxes.

Only alternative is good eat good sleep locked up (till she die) by Vivian BloodyChristNon in Pelangi Village.


:oIo::oIo::oIo:

Leongsam said:

Million dollar ministers are tasked with running the country on a macro scale. They are paid millions because they have the ability to view the broader picture and embark upon strategic initiatives to ensure the long term viability of the country.

They cannot be responsible for each and every destitute Singaporean.

The responsibility for the plight of that poor lady falls squarely on her FAMILY. Where are her children?... her nieces... her nephews... her brothers.. her sisters... her in laws?????

I would never leave my mother to roam the streets collecting cardboard boxes. Would you?

Click to expand...

AFP should do a take inside Pelangi Village. (Must go upstairs and also into the toilets one hor, and must be unannounced visit one leh!)

TeeKee said:

Oh Boy, AFP is interested...

Click to expand...

Leongsam said:

The concept of state welfare is less than a century old. In every society where it has been implemented, humans have gone backwards. Survival instincts honed over the centuries have disappeared and the competitive edge has been lost.

I am all for people helping the less fortunate in society. However, the help should come from within the nucleus of the family unit. Why should taxpayers pay the price? They have their own families to take care of.

If my mum ended up sick and penniless, I would take care of all her needs. As a son, that is my duty. I would not want to take money from strangers (which is what state welfare boils down to). I have my pride. If I didn't have enough, I'd ask my brothers, sisters, uncles, aunties etc to chip in. That's what the family is for.... to be there for each other.

People who expect the govt to take care of the poor within their family are losers. They have no pride and no principles. In accepting taxpayer funded assistance, they are nothing more than freeloaders. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Click to expand...

You are wrong on this one. The welfare state is based on the concept that while you are working, you are contributing to the state in terms of taxes paid. When you are hit with misfortune, it is only natural that the state comes to your aid during your temporary period of suffering. When you are no longer economically productive, it is the state that provides for you in consideration of your past contributions.

Those sponging off the state without working a single day should not be entitled to any aid. The difficulty is in enforcing the criteria on who should be getting the aid. The important thing is to ensure that the overwhelming majority of those receiving aid are genuine cases. The Singapore government, being ever practical, decided to avoid all the difficulties and make it as hard as possible to get aid. You are naive if you think it is about making sure that the people do not develop a crutch mentality. It is all done for their benefit so that they have less work (besides ensuring that they can get much more of the pie) and people would be worrying about getting a job rather than thinking about how they want the country to be run. I believe that the middle class has to reach a certain critical proportion before ideas like freedom of expression, democracy, equality and other highfalutin ideas expressed in our Pledge can be implemented successfully.

littlefish said:

You are wrong on this one. The welfare state is based on the concept that while you are working, you are contributing to the state in terms of taxes paid. When you are hit with misfortune, it is only natural that the state comes to your aid during your temporary period of suffering. When you are no longer economically productive, it is the state that provides for you in consideration of your past contributions.

Click to expand...

The concept is noble. In practise, things aren't as simple. If taxes are structured to support the sick, the unemployed and the old, the burden falls on the younger generation in the form of extremely high tax rates and productivity and competitiveness suffer as a result.

The Singapore govt has got it spot on. The economically productive pay low taxes and should therefore have no problems putting money aside to support their elderly relatives when the need arises. The state is removed from the equation and everyone benefits.

Leongsam said:

The Singapore govt has got it spot on. The economically productive pay low taxes and should therefore have no problems putting money aside to support their elderly relatives when the need arises. The state is removed from the equation and everyone benefits.

Click to expand...

Low direct taxes means low cost of living?--Your call.

Leongsam said:

The Singapore govt has got it spot on. The economically productive pay low taxes and should therefore have no problems putting money aside to support their elderly relatives when the need arises. The state is removed from the equation and everyone benefits.

Click to expand...

Low taxes is a misnomer. You only pay low taxes if you want to live like a peasant (i.e. without being able to indulge in any luxuries). 20% of your pay is locked away in your CPF and it is a form of indirect taxation because you can't really control how you can spend it. The worse thing is that the government benefits from this without allowing you to share equally in the spoils. If Temasek is making 15% annual returns, why are Singaporeans getting only a paltry 2.5% year in year out (how about pegging it to the rate of return)? I will tell you why. It is because they can get a bigger share of the pie and if things turn ugly, people will not be baying for their blood since they are still getting a guaranteed rate of return (they can recover the money lost in other ways more acceptable to the people).

IIRC, 60% of all households have an income below $5000 per month. Take away the CPF and it is $4000. Due to the 2 is enough policy, you probably need to support your parents with just one other sibling (same for your partner). How many relatives do you think you can support on that income, much less think of starting a family or saving for a rainy day? What if one of them falls critically ill and racks up a massive hospital bill? Please don't tell me impractical things like they should go and earn more money. If everyone can just go and earn more money, you wouldn't have rich and poor in this world. You won't have wars as well. Enlightened governments try to ensure that the gap between the haves and the have-nots does not give rise to too much undesirable social tension.