https://www.facebook.com/JoseRaymond...type=3&theater
https://www.gov.sg/~/sgpcmedia/media...e%20Report.pdf
Jose Raymond 乔立盟
Like This Page · 18 June ·
Various pro-PAP Facebook pages, and PAP MPs have taken issue with my Facebook post about the visually handicapped 59-year old Toa Payoh resident who was denied long-term social assistance. I'm glad.
One pro-PAP Facebook page has even gone to the extent of trying to justify the Government's proposed increase in GST because of such cases so the Government can do more. How classy.
Along with MSF Singapore's response, their framing is that the resident already receives a plethora of assistance from various parties, a fact which my post had already indicated.
I am happy the revelation of ground realities has irritated the PAP because they need to be made aware of what's hurting people. Writing the post was a last resort, as I had taken the resident to meet his MP Saktiandi Supaat in January this year.
The government and the PAP can frame the issue one way, but I can reframe it another way so the public can see the issue from a different perspective. That's how policies can be tightened, as ultimately we must do what's best for our citizens.
The Government also needs to ask itself if its policy and decision making in such matters is morally and ethically acceptable.
As I had stated previously, here are the facts and key questions so the public can decide if MSF can and should be doing better.
1. The 59-year old resident is visually handicapped.
2. He has kidney failure and gets dialysis treatment three times a week.
3. He has been declared as medically unfit to work.
4. He gets a payout of $620 from his own CPF Retirement Account.
5. He looks after two other blind gentlemen who are also unable to work.
6. He applied for social assistance and was rejected, and in its response to his application the MSF states that he doesn't meet the criteria because he earns an income from his CPF Retirement Account.
7. He gets support from other VWOs, well-wishers to help pay for rental, some food, transport to and from dialysis treatments.
Here are the questions we must ponder over:
1. Why is one's CPF Retirement Account being considered income? What is the policy rationale behind this especially when dealing with cases like the one above?
2. Why is this resident allowed to dip into his CPF Retirement Account before he is of retirement age? Shouldn't he be accorded long-term social assistance first and then have him dip into his Retirement Account later?
3. How much does someone need to live in dignity in Singapore, and especially so if he isn't able bodied.
4. Is the Government's policy and decision making in such matters morally and ethically acceptable?
Policies should always be reviewed and discussed based on ground realities. It's through extensive debate and looking at issues through various lenses and perspectives that we can make our policies better for the benefit of Singaporeans.
This is something the PAP and its supporters need to get used to, for the benefit of Singaporeans, the people it claims to represent.
Loving Singapore means loving its people. ����
#SGLivesMatter