Jump to content

Help pours in for family of 9 living on under S$3k


Voodooman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Agree with you! Just like the case I cited. They splurge the handouts on cigarette, hair dyeing and tattoos... I really can't understand!

....to some, subscription to cable TV + EPL, cigarette, alcohol, latest gadget, PS4, etc are 'needs' not 'wants'. Try asking the social workers to tell them to cut down on some of the luxuries and they will probably accuse the social workers of treating them like beggar, discriminating and try to take away their dignity. 

 

I know someone who accuse the RC of taking away their dignity when they received a 'only' a $4 angbao + free food + entertainment @ a grassroot get together event. That's on top of the other monetary assistance + free medical, etc they are receiving. 

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

Agree with you! Just like the case I cited. They splurge the handouts on cigarette, hair dyeing and tattoos... I really can't understand!

 

 

not too long ago, there was a report on ST, on some households on the schemes carry Samsung phones and employ maids.  [laugh]  [laugh]  [laugh]

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supersonic

....to some, subscription to cable TV + EPL, cigarette, alcohol, latest gadget, PS4, etc are 'needs' not 'wants'. Try asking the social workers to tell them to cut down on some of the luxuries and they will probably accuse the social workers of treating them like beggar, discriminating and try to take away their dignity. 

 

I know someone who accuse the RC of taking away their dignity when they received a 'only' a $4 angbao + free food + entertainment @ a grassroot get together event. That's on top of the other monetary assistance + free medical, etc they are receiving. 

They have a very strong sense of entitlement! Difficult to please! 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

people make do with a lower standard of living

 

who are you to say they can or cannot afford?

 

just because they cannot reach your standard of living you say they cannot afford?

 

ð

your lower standard of living mean depending on social welfare?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supersonic

not too long ago, there was a report on ST, on some households on the schemes carry Samsung phones and employ maids.  [laugh]  [laugh]  [laugh]

So, there must some loop holes for these people to capitalise on! Usually organisations would prefer to err on the side of generosity! :pissed-off:

Link to post
Share on other sites

being the sole bread winner ... this is critical

when the father breakdown (who dont) ... that’s sibei stress for the whole family

 

 

I look at the family. I'm more worried that the father cannot tahan it. He's working 2 jobs, lack of sleep, sounds like not proper nutrition. Unfortunately, not every body is a non lemon Toyota.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not too long ago, there was a report on ST, on some households on the schemes carry Samsung phones and employ maids.  [laugh]  [laugh]  [laugh]

i have seen ppl with cars, and maids asking for fiancial help , (face too thick)

 

and some family with barely enough to eat almost no place to sleep , refuse help ( too pridefull)

 

its a funny world out there lol

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a very strong sense of entitlement! Difficult to please! 

Totally agree. 

....some family with barely enough to eat almost no place to sleep , refuse help.

I know at least 2 such cases. One obviously needed medical treatment, but refused to be send to the hospital or allow doctor to check on her. The social worker still kenna scolded and cursed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is fair to say that  nobody here in mcf have any issue with a couple having as many children as they can afford in terms of time and money. 

 

But the line has to be drawn when your choice puts your children at a disadvantage that they did not asked to be born into and drawing upon public resources (tax money and welfare) that could have been better allocated to citizens who did not have a choice in their disadvantaged situation. 

 

 

sense of stereotype is very strong here too

  • Praise 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

I think it is fair to say that  nobody here in mcf have any issue with a couple having as many children as they can afford in terms of time and money. 

 

But the line has to be drawn when your choice puts your children at a disadvantage that they did not asked to be born into and drawing upon public resources (tax money and welfare) that could have been better allocated to citizens who did not have a choice in their disadvantaged situation. 

 

thumbs-up-facebook.jpg

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

I think it is fair to say that nobody here in mcf have any issue with a couple having as many children as they can afford in terms of time and money.

 

But the line has to be drawn when your choice puts your children at a disadvantage that they did not asked to be born into and drawing upon public resources (tax money and welfare) that could have been better allocated to citizens who did not have a choice in their disadvantaged situation.

who draws the line?

 

who defines the boundaries?

 

the elites and the rich based on their own lifestyle choices and standards decide for the peasants what is the suitable number given their lowly income?

 

 

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supersonic

$3000 is his gross or net salary? Anyway, if only one sole income earner with $3000 income, why still give birth to 7 kids?

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

For a start, not needing to draw down the limited public welfare fundings that is meant for people are  truly disadvantaged not from their own choice. 

 

 

 

The Hengs receive help under schemes such as the Education Ministry’s Financial Assistance Scheme and the Health Ministry’s Community Health Assist Scheme, as well as from the Social Service Office for things like their service and conservancy charges.
 

 

With your line of reasoning, it is very reminiscent of a comment by a certain MP who says that only if they are paid top dollars will they be able to see eye to eye with the CEOs they have to deal with. Does it mean that only a supposedly peasant can be qualified to draw the boundaries of social welfare? Are you that MP in disguise? 

 

I have seen enough real life examples of how the CHAS been abused to be cynical of how these social welfare can be abused by individuals who have questionable priorities in life misplaced self esteemed to abuse the system. 

 

Eg 1. 13yr old boy using the CHAS card, seek consultation for flu symptoms which are dubious for which I gave benefit of doubt. Requested for MC. Fine. What I observed: iphone 7 plus (latest then) with ipad in hand. 

 

Eg 2. 60yr old lady seek consultation for feeling giddy while at the casino. Came straight from the casino in her thick gold chains, bangles and jade pieces. Same, using CHAS card. 

 

 

who draws the line?

who defines the boundaries?

the elites and the rich based on their own lifestyle choices and standards decide for the peasants what is the suitable number given their lowly income?

  • Praise 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking deeper, and I find it nothing wrong seeking financial help coping with their large family. Although not financially prudent to have 7 kids on a 3k income, it is their choice. They are entitled to tap on whatever available legal financial aid available to them.

 

Think of it in this sense, Singapore is suffering from low birth rate and we have this family willing to bring up 7 kids. In some ways, they are contributing to the country as well. Just make sure those kids are brought up in the right way and not stray into the dark side.

 

Personally, I might be blessed with good health for now, decent income and many other material things, I always envy folks with children and I do find them "richer" than me by being parents and having a full family. They are indeed richer in that sense.

 

Having said that, let's not pass negative comments on this family and "teach" them what we think is right and that they were wrong to have 7 kids. It's their choice and life goes on. I wish them peace and the kids grow up to be useful person.

  • Praise 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

a good read glad that i took 30min out to learn

 

 

 

 

 

 

post-131345-0-19209700-1531019604_thumb.jpgpost-131345-0-78409700-1531019647_thumb.jpg

Edited by Staff69
  • Praise 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to make informed decision based on considerations that are tangible.

 

The intangibles are often overlooked.

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...