.
Yahoo Singapore News
Infinity8 hours ago When NSFs ask the government to pay 'market salary' to compensate them for the opportunity cost incurred in wasting 2 years of their life in the service (with some NSFs incurring life-long injuries that forbid them from strenuous activities for the rest of their life), our elites try to convince them to accept the meager pay by reminding them that they are part of a nation and that it is their national duty and obligation to serve.
The elites cite the various intangible benefits of serving NS and ask our NSFs not to be too practical.
When these same people grow old and need help from the government, reminding back the government of its obligation towards the citizens and that they had fulfilled their NS duty as citizens of the nation and hoping the government would offer them some help in their old age, suddenly, the same elites become very practical, blaming these people for their financial mismanagement, blaming them for their hardships and introducing strict eligibility criteria so only the 10% of the most destitute can qualify for their aid.
The same elites ask them to be practical now. So what contributes to the difference in the attitude in the above 2 scenarios?
The key factor lies in who is receiving the money from who. If it is the government receiving the money indirectly by giving meagre allowance to the NSFs in return for their 2 years' labour exploitation and time, they will ask you not to be too practical, reminding you of your national obligation.
If it is you trying to receive money from the government in your old age, they will ask you to be practical and try to convince you that despite our overflowing Reserves, giving you $500 per month will make the whole country bankrupt and why their own salary should be the highest in the world.
Ultimately, it is their own interest that determines when it is good for you to be practical and when it is good for you not to be practical. So my advice to the family members of this tragedy is not to ask Mindef for an explanation, since it is really not hard to come up with one, especially for the experienced staff in the relevant departments who are trained for this purpose.
What the parents need to request from Mindef is a monthly sum of money that would otherwise be contributed by their son who is lost to them now.
Since Mindef takes away the life of their son, it is only fair for Mindef to fulfil the duty of the son to take care of his parents through a monthly payment for the next 58 years [80 (average life expectancy for male) - 22 (demise age) = 58].
The monthly payment should be the average pay of a worker who has the same qualification as the NSF + an additional 30% to compensate for the intangible benefits their son would bring to his family if he is still alive.
The average pay of a typical worker is around $2,200, considering that he earns $28,600 each year (including 13th-month bonus), after 58 years, it would give us $1,658,800. An additional 30% would give us a total of $2,156,440.00.
Please note that this amount has to be indexed to inflation as well. Take note that this is the amount that the family has lost due to the death of their son!
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/full-time...es-vehicular-accident-training-095031611.html
And this is assuming their son gets the same pay for the rest of his life, if he works hard and gets himself promoted, the total potential loss to the family would be even greater!!
Of course, no amount of money can replace the value of a living person to his family, so a payment of $2,156,440.00 from Mindef is only a reasonable gesture to show their sincerity and to acknowledge the true value of the NSF's life.
Please don't insult the NSF by anyhow settling this tragedy with a cheap military funeral. Compensate his family if you are sincere.
