- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - Still want to vote PAP?</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>PAPalBull <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>3:25 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 4) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>30065.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Tell me, what is the point of having a govt that does not take care of its citizen's welfare in their hour of need? Citizenship has few benefits then, only liabilities. Why should anyone show loyalty to Singapore by laying down his life to protect his nation? After all, his nation has not shown him that it cares one bit for him, has it?
PAP hides the failure of their retirement policies by passing the buck to you.
Correction: Singapore's CPF has been around since 1955 not 1970 as I thought. That is more than 50 years in existence!
I can imagine why the elderly would have needed some form of family based support in the 1980s. At that time, the government's housing and retirement policies was still at its infancy and many of the elderly did not have the opportunity to 'benefit' from many years of PAP rule.
But this is 2010 not 1980. Our retirement and housing policy has been in existence for 4 decades, almost half a century! Unlike the situation 30 years ago, many of our senior citizens should have some significant exposure to the PAP's CPF policy.
Despite that, there are many retired adults who are forced to work in their old age or depend on their children for support.
What does this mean? Our housing and retirement policies are inadequate in providing shelter, food and health care for some of our elderly citizens. They should be the responsibility of the state since part of their plight is caused by the Singapore government's policy.
Think about it. The PAP is robbing you by forcing you to take a low interest return on your CPF money while they gamble your money away in a long series of failed investments. When a large chunk of your retirement savings is eaten up by your HDB 99-year rental property and the remainder can't keep up with inflation, they blame you for being stupid and lazy and say that your finances are you and your child's problem.
According to the PAP, your sons and daughters are being selfish if they refuse to help! Never mind the fact that they themselves will be struggling to raise their own kids. Never mind the fact that their wages are likely to remain stagnant while the cost of living (especially housing) skyrockets over the same period of time. Never mind the fact that they too will be forced to accept low returns from their CPF and that they too would have inadequate protection for their own old age (thus repeating the Singaporean cycle of misery).
You see according to the distorted view of the PAP, once you serve your purpose as an economic ant, you are no longer useful to them and certainly not their responsibility!
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle> 
Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
PAP hides the failure of their retirement policies by passing the buck to you.
Correction: Singapore's CPF has been around since 1955 not 1970 as I thought. That is more than 50 years in existence!
I can imagine why the elderly would have needed some form of family based support in the 1980s. At that time, the government's housing and retirement policies was still at its infancy and many of the elderly did not have the opportunity to 'benefit' from many years of PAP rule.
But this is 2010 not 1980. Our retirement and housing policy has been in existence for 4 decades, almost half a century! Unlike the situation 30 years ago, many of our senior citizens should have some significant exposure to the PAP's CPF policy.
Despite that, there are many retired adults who are forced to work in their old age or depend on their children for support.
What does this mean? Our housing and retirement policies are inadequate in providing shelter, food and health care for some of our elderly citizens. They should be the responsibility of the state since part of their plight is caused by the Singapore government's policy.
Think about it. The PAP is robbing you by forcing you to take a low interest return on your CPF money while they gamble your money away in a long series of failed investments. When a large chunk of your retirement savings is eaten up by your HDB 99-year rental property and the remainder can't keep up with inflation, they blame you for being stupid and lazy and say that your finances are you and your child's problem.
According to the PAP, your sons and daughters are being selfish if they refuse to help! Never mind the fact that they themselves will be struggling to raise their own kids. Never mind the fact that their wages are likely to remain stagnant while the cost of living (especially housing) skyrockets over the same period of time. Never mind the fact that they too will be forced to accept low returns from their CPF and that they too would have inadequate protection for their own old age (thus repeating the Singaporean cycle of misery).
You see according to the distorted view of the PAP, once you serve your purpose as an economic ant, you are no longer useful to them and certainly not their responsibility!
Straits Times: More bite for 'filial piety law'
ELDERLY impoverished parents who are financially abandoned by their children may soon get better legal protection. MP Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) yesterday accepted Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's suggestion to table a Private Member's Bill to amend and give more teeth to the Maintenance of Parents Act. The Act enables elderly parents to approach a legal tribunal for help if their children refuse to support them financially. The legislation was first tabled in 1994 as a Private Member's Bill by then Nominated MP Walter Woon, who is now the Attorney-General. There has been a sharp increase in the number of parents filing applications with the tribunal in recent years. There were nearly 200 such cases last year, up from 109 in 2007. This led Mr Seah and Mr Wee Siew Kim (Ang Mo Kio GRC) to call for more measures. Mr Seah, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Community Development, Youth and Sports, said like many MPs, he has come across cases of old folk abandoned by children and 'left largely to fend for themselves'. As a principle, social assistance should be given only if the children do not have the financial ability to support their parents, and he suggested the Commissioner heading the tribunal be given more powers to obtain data on the whereabouts and financial status of the children, particularly since some of those parents who approached the tribunal said they had lost touch with their children.
Posted by skeptic at <A class=timestamp-link title="permanent link" href="http://singaporeanskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/03/pap-hides-failure-of-their-retirement.html" rel=bookmark target=_blank><ABBR class=published title=2010-03-11T10:25:00+08:00>10:25 AM</ABBR> ELDERLY impoverished parents who are financially abandoned by their children may soon get better legal protection. MP Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) yesterday accepted Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan's suggestion to table a Private Member's Bill to amend and give more teeth to the Maintenance of Parents Act. The Act enables elderly parents to approach a legal tribunal for help if their children refuse to support them financially. The legislation was first tabled in 1994 as a Private Member's Bill by then Nominated MP Walter Woon, who is now the Attorney-General. There has been a sharp increase in the number of parents filing applications with the tribunal in recent years. There were nearly 200 such cases last year, up from 109 in 2007. This led Mr Seah and Mr Wee Siew Kim (Ang Mo Kio GRC) to call for more measures. Mr Seah, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Community Development, Youth and Sports, said like many MPs, he has come across cases of old folk abandoned by children and 'left largely to fend for themselves'. As a principle, social assistance should be given only if the children do not have the financial ability to support their parents, and he suggested the Commissioner heading the tribunal be given more powers to obtain data on the whereabouts and financial status of the children, particularly since some of those parents who approached the tribunal said they had lost touch with their children.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
