Yes, u are right, money buys u many benefits. Lets say for example something very bad is to happen to singapore tomorrow. Civil war, impending natural catastrophe, etc. Whatever. And there are only a limited number of planes with limited number of seating available to fly people out. Yes, we would expect the rich like the Wees, Khoos, etc. to be able to buy their way on the planes. That is what their wealth is for. Would we than also expect a minister like BG Yeo to also buy a seat on the plane? After all he can afford it. Yes, he can, I suppose. But how does that look? Same analogy I am using.
Interesting question.
But civil war is very different from natural catastrophe. Let's say then, what if there's some impending trouble that may cause loss of lives, but if the government acted decisively and quickly, then they may be able to lessen the impact.
I would be disgusted if GY (or any ministar) bought an expensive ticket and left, but I would understand completely if he bought his family members expensive tickets, while he stayed.
In my view, the original topic of your thread need not address GY's personal situation. He did what any responsible father would do, he did what he could within his means and resources to ensure the well-being of his family.
The more pressing issue is why affordable healthcare is possibly not affordable to all, using that other family as an example, especially when it involves the life of a child.
It's actually the common adage heard in coffeeshops. This government runs SG like a corporation. More profits for the corporation, more wealth for the senior management and their loyal aides (not necessarily a bad thing). Citizens are regarded as mere employees. (really bad thing).
You complain loudly and often enough, they will give you more OT to shut you up. The SG equivalent is of course shopping and food vouchers given at mps. The quiet ones who slog and try their best, one day they may just be replaced or made redundant if they become weak or sick.
A welfare system is not workable.
That does not mean that programs cannot be put in place to ensure that every single real and genuine case of hardship or misfortune is investigated and addressed. All those noisemakers who want to eat at foodcourts instead of hawker centres or to buy a plasma tv can go fo.
The goal should not be just to make the country richer and the management and their loyal aides richer and haha, to make at least 51 to 60% of the people contented every 5 years.
The goal should be to make every single citizen's life a decent one and better than before. If A is rich and capable and his life improves 100% while B is poor and not so clever and his life improves 0.1%, so be it. That's the capitalism part. But every person gets to have minimum food, shelter, education and a chance at life. That's the socialism part. If it means that the economy grows slower and some bureaucrats and value transferers' wealth become less, so be it.