• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Poverty in Singapore grew from 16 to 28% in one decade...

TopSage

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
798
Points
0
Based on NUS recent study and putting the poverty line at half the average income (abt 1500) poverty in Singapore has worsened to levels seen only in 3rd world countries.

slide66.jpg


The above using a standardised poverty definition applied across developed countries. All developed countries have explicit definition of poverty line so that they can have a focus and monitor the situation closely except Singapore which until today refuses to define a official poverty line so that poverty level can be known and tracked.

The truth is poverty in Singapore has grown faster than any other developed country most likely due to PAP's labor policies and unbalanced approach to policy making.
 
Last edited:
If fatty freeloaders are classified as poor, it has brought new meaning to the term. :rolleyes:

Poor is when you're starving to death. If you have enough to eat and you have shelter and clothing, consider yourself extremely lucky because there are billions who are far worse off.
 
Singapore's so called "poor".... fat, healthy, comfortable with a nice home, tv, smart phones, running water, electricity and a flushing toilet.


Mr Hamdan Ahmad, 45, his wife Madam Titiek Lilah Amer, 40, and their six children Muhammad Alif Irfaan (standing, left), 12, Muhammad Alif Raihan (standing, right), 12, (sitting, from left) Muhammad Alif Izwaan, 11, Muhammad Alif Farhan, 13, Muhammad Alif Syazwaan, 5, and Nur Atifa Inshirah, 7. -- ST PHOTO: NURIA LING

Mr Hamdan Ahmad, 45, works two jobs day and night to take home a total of around $2,170 a month. It's barely enough for his family of eight. Still, he is proud that his hard work will allow his family to have a new two-room Housing Board flat next year.

But he does not qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement which would give him an additional $2,000 per year, most of it in CPF. The reason: his combined pay from his two jobs is higher than the $1,900 Workfare income ceiling.

Mr Hamdan and his family represent one group of the poor in Singapore: people with large families, doing their best but struggling to make ends meet. Social workers say single mothers and the elderly poor need looking out for too.

A new paper by a team of researchers and poverty experts from the Lien Centre of Social Innovation says Singapore needs to define poverty and make available more information and data about the poor. This will not only guide experts in finding solutions, but also generate more public support from donors and citizens for efforts to help the vulnerable. Many of Singapore's poor may not be destitute like those in developing countries, but they do exist, the experts say.
 
This is what REAL poverty looks like....

article-1255160-088CC590000005DC-192_468x444.jpg


starving_children%20and%20family.jpg
 
New Zealand's "poverty"... same as Singapore... fat lumps of turd claiming that they can't make ends meet but have more than enough money to fill their faces with excessive amounts of calories. They live in comfortable state houses filled with all the creature comforts courtesy of the taxpayer yet they still want more.

**********

7569224.jpg


CHRIS SKELTON/Fairfax NZ


TOILING ON: Cleaners Venu Lam Sam, 56, left, and Tatupu Lam Sam, 49, are struggling to make ends meet.


When Tatupu and Venu Lam Sam's alarm goes off at 3.45am each weekday morning they dutifully haul themselves out of bed.
They work up to 65 hours a week in split shifts, cleaning offices in central Wellington, and yet when a family member gets sick, affording the doctor's fee is a struggle.

If the Government adopted the recommendations of a child poverty report out yesterday, they would get an an extra $125-$150 a week.
But Prime Minister John Key is already pouring cold water on the recommendations.

Mr Lam Sam, 56, starts work at 5.30am while wife Tatupu, 49, manages to catch an extra couple of hours sleep in the car.

At midday they return to their rented house in Ascot Park, Porirua. By dinner time they're heading back into town for their second shift.
The couple moved to New Zealand from Samoa a decade ago.
 
The "New Poor" is defined by the year starting 2011 when PAP was shocked to learn that it was a brand New World,at least 41% or more have decided that PAP is UNFIT to live on 21st century,that is why dear Dad insisted to think of 1959,the rest have moved on.Can you imagine a lonely actor,playing to himself when curtain is down,except one,well,the actor was surprised,he kissed and thanked the lone man who then told him that he had to lock the door after the actor left.
 
Dumbfuck opposition supporting retard have no idea what is going on as usual. The "poverty" level in Singapore shot up because the government redefined "poverty" as income per person instead of per household. Previous they defined help given to a family base on household income. Nowadays it is base on income per person in the household. Being poor in SG is still way better than being poor in most other parts of the world

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16920951
 
This is a case of self inflicted poverty by have 8 kids knowing that he has no financial ability to sustain.

He had intentionally become a burden to society. Why are we helping people like this? why are we use taxpayer's money to sustain a person's stupidity?




Singapore's so called "poor".... fat, healthy, comfortable with a nice home, tv, smart phones, running water, electricity and a flushing toilet.


Mr Hamdan Ahmad, 45, his wife Madam Titiek Lilah Amer, 40, and their six children Muhammad Alif Irfaan (standing, left), 12, Muhammad Alif Raihan (standing, right), 12, (sitting, from left) Muhammad Alif Izwaan, 11, Muhammad Alif Farhan, 13, Muhammad Alif Syazwaan, 5, and Nur Atifa Inshirah, 7. -- ST PHOTO: NURIA LING

Mr Hamdan Ahmad, 45, works two jobs day and night to take home a total of around $2,170 a month. It's barely enough for his family of eight. Still, he is proud that his hard work will allow his family to have a new two-room Housing Board flat next year.

But he does not qualify for the Workfare Income Supplement which would give him an additional $2,000 per year, most of it in CPF. The reason: his combined pay from his two jobs is higher than the $1,900 Workfare income ceiling.

Mr Hamdan and his family represent one group of the poor in Singapore: people with large families, doing their best but struggling to make ends meet. Social workers say single mothers and the elderly poor need looking out for too.

A new paper by a team of researchers and poverty experts from the Lien Centre of Social Innovation says Singapore needs to define poverty and make available more information and data about the poor. This will not only guide experts in finding solutions, but also generate more public support from donors and citizens for efforts to help the vulnerable. Many of Singapore's poor may not be destitute like those in developing countries, but they do exist, the experts say.
 
Last edited:
Dumbfuck opposition supporting retard have no idea what is going on as usual. The "poverty" level in Singapore shot up because the government redefined "poverty" as income per person instead of per household. Previous they defined help given to a family base on household income. Nowadays it is base on income per person in the household. Being poor in SG is still way better than being poor in most other parts of the world

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16920951

We RE NOT LIVING IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD...who the f@#@$k do not know...go to Harbor front take a ferry to BATAM, you see plenty of poor, take a bus go into JB..visit any of the housing estates...you will see POOR.

Of course, we are way better than any POOR in any part of this earth...who bloody, do not know!..POOR means, we have to struggle to make a living to put food on the table, a roof over our heads, educate our children serve National Service till we are 50, feed an expensive government & civil service, yet our CPF Statement says $xx,xxx we are so happy; but cash in hand, almost zero!.

These are the poor, we are talking about, these people have their rice bowls smashed or taken away from them, by the deluge of foreigners who jostle with them for the ability to earn a living. Even if they do find a job, their salaries are the same or slightly higher than the foreigners, who come from the third world country. The SINgaporeans salary on paper look good, they are not poor, the foreigners, covert to their native currencies deducting those they spend here & pay GST..it is all cash. The workers here are first world citizens with salaries lower than the the third world workers, in real money value.

Poor....:mad:
 
Last edited:
New Zealand's "poverty"... same as Singapore... fat lumps of turd claiming that they can't make ends meet but have more than enough money to fill their faces with excessive amounts of calories. They live in comfortable state houses filled with all the creature comforts courtesy of the taxpayer yet they still want more.

You seem to define poverty as whether you have food or not. As long as you have food, you can be fat or thin because different people take in differently. Fat doesn't mean more food or eating more. If you do not have food, those people are not just thin, they are undernourished and carry illnesses.

Poverty isn't some food index, fella.
 
Dumbfuck opposition supporting retard have no idea what is going on as usual. The "poverty" level in Singapore shot up because the government redefined "poverty" as income per person instead of per household. Previous they defined help given to a family base on household income. Nowadays it is base on income per person in the household.

The government tries to be too clever on its own.

Being poor in SG is still way better than being poor in most other parts of the world

That's some invented claim of the PAP. There are people who intentionally sneak into US to become beggars. Why don't they come into Singapore - where people tend to give less and the NEA to go after them?


The claim that people start with "some chips" is weak. We pay for our own education and public housing and these explain why Singapore's household debt is one of the highest in the world. Singapore isn't even the top 3 in healthcare, but Malaysia is. And the reason why Singapore lost points was the cost.
 
You seem to define poverty as whether you have food or not. As long as you have food, you can be fat or thin because different people take in differently. Fat doesn't mean more food or eating more. If you do not have food, those people are not just thin, they are undernourished and carry illnesses.

Poverty isn't some food index, fella.

They are fat poor people, there are thin poor people...there are millionare POOR people who gave up a lucrative private sector careers..so, who is POOR?

POOR means the struggle to put three square meals on the table, put a roof over their heads, educate their children, pay their utilities & TC's fees on time & have little or none for some luxury.

THAT IS POOR!...& loosing their jobs to foreigners...that is poorer that the 3rd world people,who come here to work...POOR!! do not forget these people are RICH also, they have flats that was bought at $99,000 but not can sell for $999,999.99 & CPF statement that tell them, they have $xxx, xxx....so who is POOR!!
 
Last edited:
Poverty isn't some food index, fella.

In poor societies, there are no fat people.

What you're seeing today are the pseudo poor. They have food, shelter, clothing, sanitation and enjoy modes of transportation which obviously do not require a scrap of exercise.

This means that all their basic needs and more have been taken care of. The fact that they have to work hard for long hours does not mean they're suffering from poverty. It simply means that life is no bed of roses but what's the big deal?

Nobody said life is easy. Mankind didn't get to where we are today by twiddling their thumbs. It took dedication, ingenuity and hard work.

Take a look at a typical Singapore scene in the 50s and 60s. The first thing you'll notice is that there are no fatties in sight. That's because people didn't indulge in snacking between meals plus they actually walked or cycled when they wanted to get somewhere.

Nothing is going to convince me that any fatty is suffering from poverty. Fatties eat more food than they need and obviously have enough money not to have to walk or cycle anywhere. Nor do they have to lift a finger to enjoy other basic necessities like clean water. It's available at the turn of a tap. That's why they're FAT!

sago_st_market2_sm.jpg


sing-01-street-rns.jpg


dad-street-1948.jpg


dad-street-1948-2.jpg
 
If fatty freeloaders are classified as poor, it has brought new meaning to the term. :rolleyes:

Poor is when you're starving to death. If you have enough to eat and you have shelter and clothing, consider yourself extremely lucky because there are billions who are far worse off.

Welcome to the new millennium, where being fat doesn't necessarily means being rich, in fact being poor is likely to lead to being fat.


Poor and fat: The real class war
From: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/granderson-poverty-health

(CNN) -- Over the past year we've heard a lot about class warfare, the "Buffett Rule" and the tax code and so on. But if you want to see a blatant form of poor vs. rich, walk into a grocery store. Here we are forced to decide between what's good for our kids and what we can afford to feed them.

Ground beef that is 80/20 is fattier but cheaper than 90/10. Ground turkey breast is leaner than the other two but is usually the more expensive. And many of us can't even begin to think about free-range chicken and organic produce -- food without pesticides and antibiotics that'll cost you a second mortgage in no time at all.

Recently Michelle Obama's campaign to get healthier foods into poor neighborhoods came under new scrutiny because two studies found her notion of "food deserts" -- poor urban neighborhoods where access to fresh fruits and vegetables are supposedly nonexistent -- doesn't quite jibe with the research. The studies have even found that there isn't a relationship between the type of food offered in neighborhoods and obesity among the children living there.

That may be true.

But it is also true that The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition recently published a study that found $1 could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips but just 250 calories of vegetables and 170 calories of fresh fruit. And it is also true that Mississippi, the poorest state in the country, is also the fattest.
Produce bus serving 'food deserts'
Feeding the 'food deserts'
From public bus to mobile produce market

In fact, the five poorest states are also among the 10 fattest, and eight of the 10 poorest states are also among the 10 with the lowest life expectancy.

I guess one could dismiss this as one big coincidence, but is it also a coincidence that half of the top 10 states with the highest median incomes are also in the top 10 in life expectancy?

I don't know about "food deserts," but I do know just as there is a link between education and poverty, there appears to be a correlation between poverty and health. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated the weekly grocery bill for a family of four hovered at $134.50; in 2011 it was up to $141.20. That $7 difference may not seem like a lot to some, but I remember my earlier days, when my family of five didn't have $7. And when we did get it, it was used for the cheapest food available -- the fattest meats and dishes anchored by saturated fats and sugars. In other words the kind of diet that's routinely linked to obesity and its byproducts: heart disease, diabetes and high cholesterol.

Think it's not your problem? Think again.

In 2008, health care costs stemming from obesity were estimated to be $147 billion. By 2030, 42% of Americans are projected to be obese, with costs for health care at $550 billion. One in three adults making $15,000 or less is obese. What happens when they're rushed to the hospital and can't pay their bill? The government pays for it. And by government, I mean taxpayers. Today, hospitals are left with up to $49 billion in unpaid bills, and the government -- or rather we -- pick up 75% of that tab.

We have fought over Planned Parenthood's $363 million budget.

We've squabbled over NPR's $445 million budget.

We have even seen the General Services Administration's $1 million party in Las Vegas become a campaign issue.

But nary a word on the campaign trail about the billions that are being spent each year due to this low income-obesity cycle that is not only potentially cutting short the lives of millions of poor Americans, but eating away at the paychecks of a middle class that needs that money to make healthier food choices for their own families. It's a vicious cycle that has a tangible, long-term impact on our economy.

The first lady was accused by Republicans of politicizing the healthy food conversation. I wish the topic were politicized -- maybe then Washington would talk about it more.

President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act was characterized by many as "socialized medicine." Well, why aren't those same critics leading the charge against the nation's expanding waistline, seeing as how taxpayers pay the price when the cost comes due?

Instead, we're debating whether or not Obama's a foreigner and legalizing pot.

Overheard on CNN.com: Do Americans take enough personal responsibility?

The rise of Type 2 diabetes in children coincides with the rise of child obesity and childhood poverty. I'm sure to some that is just another coincidence. But to me that is as strong of an example as any of class warfare and what ails our economy.
 
Last edited:
What about of former President? Wife also fatty poom poom. :D

Our former president is also looking rich.

iWIXO5bsr4ms.jpg


22623351.jpg


images

5 Million dollars per annum, I don't even need to look at my CPF statement to look rich

Meanwhile, our current president also has the well to do look.

tony_tan.jpg

Ai Jia KFC Mai?
 
Welcome to the new millennium, where being fat doesn't necessarily means being rich, in fact being poor is likely to lead to being fat.

I'll tell you why these so pseudo poor people are also fat. It's because these are the lazy good for nothings of society who have no sense of responsibility for themselves or anyone else.

They have no will power, no goals in life, they don't exercise, they spend the day stuffing their fat, ugly faces with junk food. They probably smoke and drink too. They then wonder at the end of the month why they can't pay their bills.

Well guess what, if I blew my hard earned money on cigarettes, alcohol, burgers and fries, I'd be broke too.

The hardworking and disciplined members of society do not deserve to have to subsidise these losers. The government should herd them into pens and lock them up for a month with no food. They'd come out slimmer and hopefully more willing take responsibility for their own outcomes.
 
Back
Top