lim swee say : "Every month, when I receive my CPF statement, I feel so rich and the best part is, I know the CPF money won't run away. CPF will still be around for a long, long time to come... Not only is it earning good interest, my capital is protected."
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/382080/1/.html
Khaw Boon Wan: Consider staying at a nursing home in neighbouring Johor where prices are lower.
>> ASIAONE / HEALTH / NEWS / STORY
Fri, Feb 13, 2009
The Straits Times
'Nursing home in JB' remark only a suggestion
By Salma Khalik , HEALTH CORRESPONDENT
HEALTH Minister Khaw Boon Wan (above) had a suggestion on Monday for Singaporeans: Consider staying at a nursing home in neighbouring Johor where prices are lower.
Yesterday, it received flak from two opposition MPs.
Workers' Party (WP) chairman and Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim said the suggestion was 'quite a bad indication of affordability of our own health-care services here and also a reflection of our national values'.
Fellow WP member Low Thia Kiang (Hougang) asked: 'Is the minister suggesting that Singaporeans who cannot afford medical treatment or step-down care here should now consider such facilities in Johor?'
If so, is the minister 'outsourcing the Government's responsibility to provide affordable health-care service to Malaysia?' he asked.
Their remarks riled Mr Khaw.
'I'm not saying that if you are poor, I will put you in an ambulance, send you across the Causeway to a Johor nursing home. That is not what I said and please don't twist my words,' he said.
In fact, the Johor option is not for the poor, who are heavily subsidised in Singapore. 'Everybody can afford health care in Singapore, whether acute care or long-term care,' he pointed out.
The suggestion was aimed at middle- income families who need to pay for the care themselves. It gives them a choice.
'I just wanted to point out to Singaporeans that there are options like this,' Mr Khaw said.
Cost of nursing home care will always be more expensive in Singapore, as doctors and nurses are paid more and construction cost is higher, he said.
He had said on Monday that since many people visit the elderly in homes only on weekends, it makes little difference whether the person is housed here or in nearby Johor.
It is part of globalisation and is happening with Singaporeans going to Bangkok for Lasik to treat short-sightedness and Americans and Russians coming here for treatment, he noted.
It is also not something that should, or can, be prevented, he added.
Singaporeans are crossing the Causeway for cheaper petrol and medicine.
'By allowing the flexibility of consumers walking across the Causeway...they benefit. I don't think we should constrain them from doing so.'
Pointing to the United States, where 40 million to 50 million people cannot even afford health insurance, the minister said that in Singapore, even the unemployed or those with low incomes can afford a standard of care comparable to that in the US.
To a question from Ms Jessica Tan (East Coast GRC) on whether more can done to make health care affordable in these difficult times, Mr Khaw said cheap, or even free, health care was always possible.
But what standard of care would that provide, he asked.
'To keep health-care costs affordable is the easiest thing in the world, but to keep it also of a high standard and yet affordable, very few countries have done so.
'I like to believe that we are one of them. We are not perfect but I think we have done a fairly good job.'
He referred to a story in this month's Japan Echo on the country's health-care system, which 'screamed that it is on the verge of collapsing'.
Said Mr Khaw: 'I felt sorry for Japan because for a long time, it was among the best health-care systems in the world.'
He recalled a recent newspaper story about a seriously ill pregnant woman in Tokyo who died because several hospitals said they were too full to take her in.
He added that in the Echo report, the Japanese Health Minister blamed all the problems on pandering to politically populist measures.
'My job is to make sure we don't walk into that hole,' Mr Khaw said.
Singapore has already 'done a lot' for long-term care.
'If it's not enough, we will do much more,' he promised.
He also said that people must do their part too, by staying healthy and, if necessary, changing their lifestyles.
salma@sph.com.sg
This story was first published in The Straits Times on Feb 11, 2009.
lee hsien loong : fixing opposition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WhJKsYb50&feature=player_embedded
Vivian, Lily Neo in lively debate over aid schemes
NOT for the first time, Dr Lily Neo sparked a lively exchange yesterday about how best to provide for Singapore's poorest families.
The Jalan Besar GRC MP had challenged Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan to set up a systematic programme to help the children of those in the bottom 5 per cent of earners.
This prompted him to reiterate firmly the Government's philosophy: that help will be provided to those most in need, but this should not erode self-reliance.
The bulk of Dr Neo's remarks during the debate on the ministry's budget focused on the need for a new safety net for the children of the neediest families.
'May I urge the minister to improve the plight of the children from the lowest income families through such a permanent and constructive safety-net?'
Dr Balakrishnan passed over her specific suggestion in his response and highlighted various existing schemes instead.
But when the time came for MPs to seek clarifications from the minister, Dr Neo was the first to stand and speak:
'Does he see that the many assistance schemes he mentioned earlier are not addressing this vulnerable group's predicaments? Does he believe in the opportunity of levelling up and the chance of social mobility?'
Dr Balakrishnan noted that he and Dr Neo actually agree that children in vulnerable families need more help. Where they differed, he said, was in the solution.
He stressed that the Government's position has been to avoid a 'permanent, unconditional, needs-based social safety net'. The Government, he added should form the last line of defence, not the first.
It should be social workers at the frontlines, not politicians, he added.
'There is now a greater appreciation of the fact that you need a coordinated consistent approach. But where I will disagree with her (Dr Neo), and perhaps I'm misreading her, is the assumption that the Government is the solution. Government cannot be the solution. Government has to be part of the solution... It is the key to how we organise ourselves as Singapore and the key to our success.'
But Dr Neo was not to be put off. Her parting remark: 'I'm very encouraged when minister said earlier that we are not short of resources. Therefore, I hope the minister will reconsider giving these resources we are not short of to these vulnerable groups that are really in need.'
To which he replied: 'I just want to reaffirm that we do allocate more resources for people who need more help.'
Dr Neo, who regularly gives voice in Parliament to the plight of the poor and most vulnerable, has previously had sharp exchanges with Dr Balakrishnan and Minister of State Yu-Foo Yee Shoon on issues including assistance to the poorest 20 per cent of households, and on increasing the allowances for those on the Public Assistance scheme.
JEREMY AU YONG
Dr Lily Neo:
Sir, I want to check with the Minister again when he said on the strict criteria on the entitlement for PA recipients. May I ask him what is his definition of “subsistence living”? Am I correct to say that, out of $260 per month for PA recipients, $100 goes to rental, power supply and S&C and leaving them with only $5 a day to live on? Am I correct to say that any basic meal in any hawker centre is already $2.50 to $3.00 per meal? Therefore, is it too much to ask for just three meals a day as an entitlement for the PA recipients?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan:
How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): May I ask the Minister of State on the group of Singaporeans who are in need of assistance despite our presently available assistance schemes. They are lowly paid Singaporeans with many mouths to feed and who are perpetually trying to make ends meet. Is it true that, according to one survey, there are about 100,000 households of such families? May I ask the Minister of State whether there is any better long-term solution to get them out of the poverty trap and whether their children can be given a better chance to climb the social strata?
Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the Member knows that before 2005, before the establishment of the ComCare Fund, the public assistance cases were about 3,000 and today, after the establishment of the ComCare Fund, the Government policy is to take care of the 20% low-income group in Singapore. We take $1,500 as the family income and for those below $1,500, we are trying to develop various schemes to help them. And despite this cap at $1,500, we have certain schemes to cover those who earn even $1,800 to help the students, such as KiFAS, CFAC. If you do a calculation, we cover slightly more than the bottom 20% of Singaporeans. Our Ministry's concern is: how far do you want to cover? Do you want to cover up to the bottom 30%, 40% or 50%? So far, the cut-off point is about $1,500 or the bottom 20% of our population.
Like I said just now, after the last Budget debate, we have implemented a few new schemes. For instance, for public assistance, in the old days, it was only for old people without family support, without children and unemployable. After the last Budget debate, we have relaxed this criterion. We even cover old people who have children but the children have difficulty taking care of their own family and as long as the children earn below $1,000 and have school-going children, these old people can also apply for public assistance. By doing so, we expect another 600 such public assistance cases which will benefit.
Another area we have made changes is the ComCare Transitions. So, in some of the families, even though they have children but they are temporarily unemployable, maybe because of accident or some chronic sickness, we are prepared to help them for about a year. We will review the case year by year. This is monitored by the CDCs. So we call it the ComCare Transitions. It is quite close to the public assistance cases, but we do not give them long-term help. We hope that they can go back to work again.
The other area we have relaxed is the cap for KiFAS, CFAC and the other benefits for the children. Previously, for the children, we capped it at $1,500. But after the last Budget debate, we increased it to $1,800. For those families whose income is about $1,800, their children can apply for KiFAS, CFAC and also the student care services. On top of all this help plus the GST Offset, U-Save, and so on, I think the range is that even for public assistance cases, one adult PA can get about $2,000 for this year. And for a family who has two adults and two children, it will get benefits of about $3,600 from the Government. This amount can offset the inflation cost. Of course, the Government will monitor all this very carefully, and this is only the MCYS' effort. What about the efforts of the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and also the many-helping-hands? As a society, we do our best to help. But I totally agree with Minister Lim Hng Kiang's argument just now that, in the long run, the most important thing is that Singapore needs to develop and improve productivity and we add value to the investors and make sure that our workers can have better return.
Mr Speaker: Dr Lam Pin Min.
Dr Lily Neo: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Can I be allowed to come in here, because I was asked a question? Therefore, I should be given a chance to reply.
Mr Speaker: Your question was not answered?
Dr Lily Neo: No, Sir. One, my question was not answered and, two, I was asked a question.
Mr Speaker: Yes.
Dr Lily Neo: Mr Speaker, I like to object to the fact that I was asked a question on what I wanted. Was assistance for 20% or 30% enough? No, that was not what I was asking for. I was asking for 100,000 households which are only 3% of the population. I could not be asked a question. We have already given 20% of ComCare, and may I just qualify that ComCare was temporary assistance, and that was really out of the question.
Mr Speaker: To cut it short, your question was not answered then?
Dr Lily Neo: Sir, the questions I asked were:
(1) Was it correct to say that there were 100,000 households that require long-term assistance, whereas the assistance schemes we have at the moment are all temporary?
(2) Can they be helped with long-term solutions to get them out of the poverty trap; and
(3) Can their children be given a better chance?
But I have definitely never asked for assistance for 30% or 40% of Singaporeans, and I object to being asked that kind of question.
Mr Speaker: Mrs Yu-Foo, would you like to answer that question?
Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say that Dr Lily Neo asked for 30%. I just said that, generally, we have one million households. If we say 100,000, it is about 10% of the households. After we have the ComCare scheme, actually the Government covers the bottom 20% of households in Singapore. My question to Singaporeans is whether we want to cover beyond the bottom 20%. I am not saying that Dr Lily Neo asked for more than the bottom 20%. I just want to clarify that.
Another point is that, for the very, very poor, it is about 3,600 persons who are under Public Assistance. Some are under the interim ComCare scheme while others are under the Workfare Scheme. Together, if we add the 4,000 or 5,000, those are the really poor cases. But those with income beyond $1,500 who can manage but have difficulty when their children go to school –
Mr Speaker: Mrs Yu-Foo, you are actually repeating your replies –
Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: So, beyond MCYS, the Ministry of Education also has bursaries, scholarships and a lot of other schemes to help school-going children, such as the School Pocket Money Fund, and so on. If they are sick, they can go for Medifund and MediShield. MOH also tries its best to help. As a total package, we try our best to help them to manage. But my suggestion is that, in the long run, as a country, we should improve our productivity and make sure that our retraining is effective and our workers are employable and hope that they can have an increase in their salaries. At this moment, the Government gives GST offsets, Growth Dividends, and so on. Each family gets a few thousand dollars that can cover the cost of inflation. But in the long run, I do understand, agree and sympathise with the difficulty that the lower-income group has had to manage. But, as a country, we need to grow. Without growth and productivity, how much can we help? That is a big question. At this moment, if you ask me, it is manageable.
once in 50years flood
No comments:
Post a Comment