How to eradicate poverty in Singapore

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#31
(04-11-2013, 08:56 PM)Temperament Wrote: i think you got a point too. The problem is it's very difficult for most of us to think too kindly of our CHENGHU because of their keep on stressing that we should never be a Welfare State.
The structure and nature of CPF also makes us think not too Kindly of our CHENGHU. And ...etc...
Anyway, i think no Asian countries has gone the Welfare System.
It may or may not be a better system. But i think a few countries in the west have succeeded.

I support the govt's stand that we should never be a welfare state. Because at the end of the day, welfare state cost money and the money has to come from somewhere. The thing most people arguing for more welfarism seems to conveniently forget is that it all need to be funded. But everyone has the mentality that as long as I dun have to pay, then its not my problem. And besides, the govt has billions in reserves, what wrong with taking a few hundred millions here and there to spend on people who deserved it. Sounds familiar?

Its not difficult to implement a welfare system but how many are really sustainable?

And pls tell me which countries has successfully implemented it in a sustainable way? All the recent articles that I had read and come across seems to be painting a bleak pictures. Even resource rich western countries are looking to cutting down on welfare spending.
Reply
#32
The ONLY way to eradicate poverty is for all animals to be equal. But we know that some animals are always more equal than the others.
Reply
#33
(04-11-2013, 10:46 PM)lonewolf Wrote:
(04-11-2013, 08:56 PM)Temperament Wrote: i think you got a point too. The problem is it's very difficult for most of us to think too kindly of our CHENGHU because of their keep on stressing that we should never be a Welfare State.
The structure and nature of CPF also makes us think not too Kindly of our CHENGHU. And ...etc...
Anyway, i think no Asian countries has gone the Welfare System.
It may or may not be a better system. But i think a few countries in the west have succeeded.

I support the govt's stand that we should never be a welfare state. Because at the end of the day, welfare state cost money and the money has to come from somewhere. The thing most people arguing for more welfarism seems to conveniently forget is that it all need to be funded. But everyone has the mentality that as long as I dun have to pay, then its not my problem. And besides, the govt has billions in reserves, what wrong with taking a few hundred millions here and there to spend on people who deserved it. Sounds familiar?

Its not difficult to implement a welfare system but how many are really sustainable?

And pls tell me which countries has successfully implemented it in a sustainable way? All the recent articles that I had read and come across seems to be painting a bleak pictures. Even resource rich western countries are looking to cutting down on welfare spending.
Off the cuff, i had read a little news here and there about Norway, Finland, Sweden or Switzerland success in Welfare state.

But does our Chenghu takes too much money from the people and return too little? Almost every year , our Chenhu has a surplus. In those years when our CHENGHU had a deficit, it can be counted with the fingers in one hand. And that was usually a Global Economic problem.
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
#34
a dangerous by-product of the current ideology is this him and them syndrome

where in the workplace, many will mind their own business
or shrug responsibility or play tai chi or backstabbing
Reply
#35
Our sg gov is feeling very insecure thus accumulation of reserve is most important. But the lack of transparency is worrying. We may be listening to only sweet music broadcasted with a intention. I believe the core is important, the people of Sg is wat keeps this nation going. Imagine in 20 yrs' time, we have a rojak population with lost identity, a lot of money and reserve, and a nation with lost soul.
Reply
#36
(04-11-2013, 10:46 PM)lonewolf Wrote:
(04-11-2013, 08:56 PM)Temperament Wrote: i think you got a point too. The problem is it's very difficult for most of us to think too kindly of our CHENGHU because of their keep on stressing that we should never be a Welfare State.
The structure and nature of CPF also makes us think not too Kindly of our CHENGHU. And ...etc...
Anyway, i think no Asian countries has gone the Welfare System.
It may or may not be a better system. But i think a few countries in the west have succeeded.

I support the govt's stand that we should never be a welfare state. Because at the end of the day, welfare state cost money and the money has to come from somewhere. The thing most people arguing for more welfarism seems to conveniently forget is that it all need to be funded. But everyone has the mentality that as long as I dun have to pay, then its not my problem. And besides, the govt has billions in reserves, what wrong with taking a few hundred millions here and there to spend on people who deserved it. Sounds familiar?

Its not difficult to implement a welfare system but how many are really sustainable?

And pls tell me which countries has successfully implemented it in a sustainable way? All the recent articles that I had read and come across seems to be painting a bleak pictures. Even resource rich western countries are looking to cutting down on welfare spending.

Actually, we have been running a welfare state.

We offer scholarships to thousands of foreigners, most of whom eventually won't settle down here.

We pay lots of money for our top generals and colonels. After they leave MINDEF, we are still obligated to provide them with employment in the "private sector". We have to "create jobs" for them in our GLCs, stat board or in other government sectors.

We also have part-time MPs who collect $15k per month tax-free in MP allowances, over and above their full-time jobs. Most people hold only one job, and the median income is less than $3k. Not easy to find a part-time work that pays 5 times more than the full-time job of most people.

No welfare? Welfare is always there, just that it is given to those who we deem as deserving. In a meritocratic society, welfare is reserved for the very best. They deserve it. People at the bottom don't deserve it because they are deem undeserving. It is a waste of resources to help them. That's why we don't like to provide too much welfare for the poor.
Reply
#37
My friend like to say 'link Ministers pay to multiples of the lowest quartile". Incentive will motivate behavior.
"... but quitting while you're ahead is not the same as quitting." - Quote from the movie American Gangster
Reply
#38
having cpf is providing "welfare to the government" in the form of providing a cheap pool of money for them to tap from.

I also don't support welfare. So we should end cpf return all the money back to people if we do that there will definitely be less people without money around. Tongue
Reply
#39
Increase GST to to help the poor , and eventually poverty will be eradicated.
Reply
#40
I'm beginning to get the feeling that as with any discussion on the current sociopolitical climate in Singapore, it will inevitably degenerate into a seemingly pro and anti establishment arguments. Its fine since we are debating ideologies and like a 'immovable object vs unstoppable force' scenario, its unlikely either side will convince the other of their POV.

But when the argument starts to twist and corrupt the core of our discussion to perpetuate their POV, then the discussion quickly become a little tiresome.

When we are talking about 'welfare state', the general accepted definition is '"concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization." [Taken from wiki ]

Contrast that with what has been purported as a Singapore version of Welfare State in this thread, and I hope you see where my comments are coming from. Stuffs are just being throw in this thread in the hope that something, anything negative about the govt policies stick.

Nothing further to add. So no further comments from me.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)