Tag: lower income

  • Social Service Officer Arrested, Took Funds Meant For Needy

    Social Service Officer Arrested, Took Funds Meant For Needy

    The Police have charged a Social Service Office (SSO) officer, Chia Kwang Hwee, under the Penal Code, Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act.

    On 14 August 2014, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) was alerted by a ComCare beneficiary that he had not received his financial assistance payments. Upon investigation, the Ministry found information suggesting that a SSO officer from the Geylang Serai office could have misappropriated funds meant for financial assistance payments. On 15 August 2014, the Ministry filed a Police report.

    The Police investigated the matter with full cooperation from the Ministry. MSF also suspended the officer from his duties from the time the Police report was filed.

    Immediately following the incident, the Ministry contacted all affected families to ensure the assistance they needed were not affected by the case.

    The Ministry’s internal auditor has conducted checks on all the SSOs’ payment records, and confirmed that there were no other occurrences of a similar nature.

    The Ministry has also reviewed and strengthened systems, processes and controls at all the SSOs. As part of this effort, the Ministry had convened an independent review panel comprising senior officials from other government agencies to look into the checks and control mechanisms for financial assistance payments in all the SSOs. The Ministry has implemented the Panel’s recommendations. Examples of the changes made include:

    • Strengthening the administration of access to our IT system;
    • Including additional checks to ensure payments to clients; and
    • Allocating cases such that no officer will be allowed to take charge of a particular client for more than two consecutive years.

    MSF does not condone or tolerate any conduct that undermines the integrity of our social assistance system and interest of our beneficiaries, and would not hesitate to take appropriate action against any officer with such conduct.

     

    Source: MSF Singapore

  • A Third Of Students Go To School With No Pocket Money To Buy Lunch?

    A Third Of Students Go To School With No Pocket Money To Buy Lunch?

    Record No. of needy students helped.

    I refer to the article ”ST School Pocket Money Fund helps record number of needy students” (Straits Times, Oct 10).

    It states that ”Pocket money is given to students whose families meet the eligibility criteria of not more than $560 in monthly gross household per capita income.”

    Why not only for Singaporeans?

    According to the SPMF’s web site – “To qualify as a beneficiary receiving pocket money, the child/youth must be:

    A Singapore citizen or permanent resident”.

    I understand that almost all other financial assistance schemes are for Singaporeans only. So, why are PRs eligible? (“Fee hike for international students and PRs attending local schools“, Straits Times, Oct 1).

    If the assistance is confined to Singaporeans – perhaps the criteria may be less restrictive, such that more Singaporeans may qualify.

    Most restrictive criteria amongst all schemes?

    As to “Pocket money is given to students whose families meet the eligibility criteria of not more than $560 in monthly gross household per capita income” – I understand that last year’s criteria was “(the child must be) from a family whose per capita net monthly household income is not more than $450″, compared to the $560 gross income now.

    If this is the case – typically the net income after deducting say 20 per cent employee CPF contribution may be $448 ($560 gross income less 20 per cent CPF).

    SPMF’s criteria may be the most restrictive, of probably all the financial assistance schemes?

    For example, ComCare’s criteria is “Families with a monthly household income of $1,900 and below, or a per capita income of $650 can also qualify for assistance if they meet all other criteria”.

    So, why is SPMF’s criteria ($560) – $90 less than ComCare’s $650 per capita income?

    Only help for 2 years?

    As to “STSPMF is committed to helping children and youth who meet the eligibility criteria by providing them with school pocket money for 2 years” – in the previous year it said “providing them with school pocket money for at least two years. In exceptional cases requiring additional help, SPMF will extend the financial assistance to up to four years”

    – Why is it that the term of assistance is only for 2 years – is it still up to 4 years in exceptional cases now?

    From my experience doing volunteer work in financial counselling over the last decade or so – I have come across many cases of financial stress when SPMF assistance is terminated after 2 or 4 years.

    Since a child generally goes through about 13 years of education – why do we have this “2 years” restriction?

    Previously, some criteria don’t make sense?

    In fact, the criteria previously was arguably even more strange – “Secondly, post-secondary students who wish to receive aid in the past needed to have either tapped on the fund previously or have a sibling who is drawing on the fund. In future, all who meet the income criteria can qualify. This change will benefit new applicants and those from single-child families”.

    Why was there a need for either to “have a sibling who is drawing on the fund” or “to have either tapped on the fund previously”?

    Were those who did not “”have a sibling drawing on the fund”, or “tapped on the fund previously”, less deserving – until only recently with the changes announced?

    Number needing assistance increase more than 3 times?

    Notwithstanding the increase in financial assistance (probably to cover inflation) and the widening of the scope of cover – don’t you find it rather alarming that for a developed country like Singapore – the number of students helped increased from 3,375 in 2001 to almost 14,000 now?

    In this connection, Professor Tommy Koh said that “About a third of our students go to school with no pocket money to buy lunch” (“Three wishes for the New Year”, Straits Times, Jan 3).

    The assistance disbursed increased from $0.9 million in 2001 to the $7 million for this year, as reported in the subject news report.

    How much reserves?

    Its accumulated fund is $17.9 million.

    SG50 give $300,000 only?

    As to “We were fortunate to receive $300,000 from the Government through its Care and Share programme launched to celebrate Singapore’s 50th anniversary” – don’t you think that the Government should contribute more?

    Reciprocate trust with more transparency?

    Since the people have given their trust and mandate – shouldn’t we reciprocate by spending more to help Singaporeans.

    Leong Sze Hian

    * Submitted by TRE reader.

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Single Father Of 3 Kids Unable To Work After Getting Cancer

    Single Father Of 3 Kids Unable To Work After Getting Cancer

    First his business failed, then his wife abandoned him with three kids and now, Mr Wu Yunchong has been struck with esophageal cancer, reported Shin Min Daily.

    Mr Wu, 44, met his wife over 10 years ago at a friend’s wedding. At that time, he was also trying his hand at a garment business with his friend.

    The business only lasted three years and raked up $20,000 to $30,000 in debt.

    He had to sell his three-room flat to clear the debts and ended up moving into a rental flat with his Vietnamese wife and family, according to Shin Min Daily.

    Unable to take the hardship, his wife abandoned him with three young children. To support the family, Mr Wu took on two jobs.

    “I started working as a cleaner,” he told the Chinese daily, “and I would bring the kids to school and fetch them home after.” His sons are now 13 and 10 years old, and his daughter is seven.

    After doing the housework and tucking the children in bed, he will head for his second job as a dishwasher. He earned about $1,000.

    Mr Wu revealed that he found a high-paying cleaner job three years ago. He thought the job could turn his life around, but this year, he found out in May that he has cancer.

    “At first, the doctor thought I had acid reflux and gave me pills to take. After three months, I didn’t feel better so I went to see a specialist and found out it was esophageal cancer,” he said in the Shin Min Daily report.

    “I nearly collapsed when I found out as I was worried about my kids’ future,” he added.

    Weight loss of 12kg

    After the diagnosis, Mr Wu said the tumour was about 4.5cm in size and he was scheduled for surgery in October. His weight dropped from 63kg to 51kg.

    Now, he is unable to do the operation as he is underweight.

    He has already had 26 treatments of chemotherapy and four radiotherapy sessions. The costs are deducted from Medisave and his savings are nearly exhausted, reported Shin Min Daily.

    He still has over $2,300 in bills to be paid.

    Children worried about father

    When his kids were informed of his illness, they got so worried and started to cry.

    Mr Wu said he tried to cover up his illness but his second son kept on asking him questions and eventually found out the truth.

    When interviewed by Shin Min Daily, the second son said he was really afraid of losing his father.

    Mr Wu said he receives $1,000 of financial assistance but insists on not using the money for his medical bills. He wants the money to be used for his kids’ well-being.

    In July, he applied for assistance to support his family. His 10-year-old son even saves up his $2 pocket money to keep for his family’s expenses, but Mr Wu refuses to accept it.

    He makes sure every dinner has one vegetable and one meat, and that his kids get adequate nutrition.

    Ministry of Social and Family Development said they have been providing financial assistance to Mr Wu since 2012 and the amount has been increased in July 2015.

    He also received funds for his medical bills and his children are also aided by the Ministry of Education.

     

    Source: http://news.asiaone.com

  • Be Humble, Love And Respect Those Around You, Including Security Guard

    Be Humble, Love And Respect Those Around You, Including Security Guard

    A lady worked at a meat distribution factory. One day, when she finished with her work schedule, she went into the meat cold room (Freezer) to inspect something, but in a moment of misfortune, the door closed and she was locked inside with no help in sight. Although she screamed and knocked with all her might, her cries went unheard as no one could hear her. Most of the workers had already gone, and outside the cold room it’s impossible to hear what was going on inside.

    Five hours later, whilst she was at the verge of death, the security guard of the factory eventually opened the door. She was miraculously saved from dying that day. When she later asked the security guard how he had come to open the door, which wasn’t his usual work routine. His explanation: “I’ve been working in this factory for 35 years, hundreds of workers come in and out every day, but you’re one of the few who greet me in the morning and say goodbye to me when leaving after work. Many treat me as if I’m invisible. Today, as you reported for work, like all other days, you greeted me in your simple manner ‘Hello’. But this evening after working hours, I curiously observed that I had not heard your “Bye, see you tomorrow”. Hence, I decided to check around the factory. I look forward to your ‘hi’ and ‘bye’ every day because they remind me that I am someone. By not hearing your farewell today, I knew something had happened. That’s why I was searching everywhere for you.

    Moral Lesson to reflect upon: Be humble, love and respect those around you. Try to have an impact on people who cross your path every day, you never know what tomorrow will bring. Let this story be an inspiration.

    Let’s share to inspire others; someone else shared this to inspire me…

     

    Source: David Lau

  • Why We Shouldn’t Take ‘Cardboard Collectors’ Comments At Face Value

    Why We Shouldn’t Take ‘Cardboard Collectors’ Comments At Face Value

    How much do we know about the cardboard collectors we see on the street, pushing along loaded trolleys, backs hunched? Recently Minister of Social and Family Development (MSF) Tan Chuan-jin accompanied a group of students to meet box collectors at Jalan Besar. Yet his findings has raised eyebrows among other volunteers.

    Reading his post reminded me of a cardboard collector I’d met last year. It was raining when we met her, and she wasn’t going to get very far walking alone pushing her trolley in that downpour, so she agreed to sit down with us at a coffeeshop for a chat.

    She’d earned just a couple of dollars that day. She said she wasn’t one of the regular ones because she couldn’t go around collecting cardboard all the time; her husband was sick and needed to be taken to the hospital, and couldn’t be left alone too long when they were at home. His trips to the hospital had become more and more frequent, but it was being deducted from Medisave, she said. Then she dropped the bomb: the last time he’d been to hospital, they’d been told that he had less than $20 left in his Medisave account.

    The social worker at the hospital had offered to help them apply for financial assistance to pay for future medical bills, but her husband had refused. We made the offer again to her at the coffeeshop that rainy afternoon, but the little old lady hunched over the table was stubborn and resolute. “My husband doesn’t like this sort of thing,” she said. “If you apply they will go through all your private things and ask you so many questions.”

    She left us to hurry home the minute the rain ceased, leaving us worried but with no way to contact her. She had a phone number at home but didn’t want to give it to us; she said she didn’t want to inconvenience us, but she probably meant that she would prefer privacy to help from volunteers she barely knew. “It’s okay, we can manage,” she said as she pushed her little trolley home.

    It’s okay.

    “The normal perception that all cardboard collectors are people who are unable to take care of themselves financially is not really true,” wrote Tan on his Facebook page. “There will be some who do this as their main source of income. Some do so to supplement what they have. Some prefer to earn extra monies, treat it as a form of exercise and activity rather than being cooped up at home. They do this to remain independent, so that they can have dignity and not have to ask their families for help.”

    There are terms and standards that we need to be mindful of when we speak to people – very often our different life experiences give us very different concepts of what things mean. “Okay”, compared to what? “Prefer”, but what are they preferring this to?

    It’s like when we ask migrant workers if they are “satisfied” with their time in Singapore. To us, satisfaction probably means a steady income, comfortable lodgings, an occasional Koi bubble tea or llaollao yoghurt.

    But a worker from India once told me that he was “satisfied” even though he earned only $450 a month, with $50 of (totally illegal) “savings” deduction, worked long hours with compulsory overtime and only had one day off a year. But he was satisfied because at least he was getting $350 to send home to his family (saving $50 for himself for a whole month) – it was better than being back in his village with little to no work at all.

    Yes, I’m satisfied. It’s okay. This is good exercise for me, better than staying at home.

    It’s important to be able to make the distinction between people actually being treated with dignity, and people trying to maintain their dignity while in a bad situation.

    Nafiz is the founder of the Happy People Helping People Foundation, a group of volunteers who regularly organise Extend the Feast, which provides cardboard collectors as well as other elderly poor with food and donated rations such as rice, Milo and biscuits.

    “In Toa Payoh Lorong 8, the box collectors are earning just 10 cents per kilogram,” he said. “And that’s considered a good rate, because we know of a box collector who pushes her trolley of cardboard boxes from Whampoa all the way to Toa Payoh Lorong 8 just because in Whampoa, the karung guni man is only offering eight cents per kilogram. And how much does she earn per day? On some days, $4 to $5.”

    “These people are resilient. They want to earn their own money, despite their age. But if given the choice, of course they want to spend their remaining days not having to work so hard doing such jobs. Unfortunately, many have no choice. Singapore is a very very expensive place for most of us, what more those of their age,” Nafiz added.

    There’s pride involved, too. The elderly cardboard collectors I’ve met were willing to admit that it was a tough job, but few would admit to needing help.

    “If you are an old box collector, would you, when interviewed, openly say that your own son is not giving you food that’s why you need to scavenge for boxes? I doubt so. Mothers will still protect and not shame their children openly to strangers. These people are very resilient. They do not want to show that they are too old and need help,” Nafiz said.

    Yes, we should open our minds and learn more about the cardboard collectors who toil day after day under the Singaporean heat to pick up newspapers, tins and scraps of cardboard. Yes, they are deserving of respect and admiration for their strength. But we shouldn’t romanticise their self-sufficiency, absolving ourselves of all responsibility at the same time.

    Just because someone says he or she is all right, managing, satisfied, doesn’t mean we don’t examine the conditions in which they live and work. Just because an old lady might say she is doing all right and just pushing this trolley with 10 kilos of cardboard “for the exercise” doesn’t mean we don’t ask ourselves why, in a country as prosperous as Singapore, an 80-year-old is doing this at all. How likely is it that cardboard collecting was her first choice in daily exercise?

    Social welfare has thankfully been extended over the years in Singapore. Yet there are core presumptions that remain unquestioned, from the dignity of self-sufficiency to the need to rely on family and relatives first, leaving state support as a last resort.

    But the state can provide support without reducing the dignity of those who need it, particularly by creating structures that help everyone even before the situation gets dire. Provisions like universal healthcare would lessen huge burdens and anxieties – the husband of the little old lady mentioned at the beginning of this article would not have had to feel humiliated by means-testing or justifying his need for financial support to a social worker, because his healthcare needs would already have been taken of.

    It was good of the minister to reach out to the cardboard collectors. But he shouldn’t be so quick to take their comments at face value. There is much that we can still do to help the vulnerable in society, and we shouldn’t wait for them to ask.

     

    Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com