The policy of enforced consumption is starting to give way. Though it was hailed as the logic of the day that people must spend according to how much money in their pockets, some sanity is returning. In the first place, why should people be forced to eat sharksfin when they only want to eat ikan bilis? How many restaurants out there insisting that their rich customers cannot order cheaper meals?
This mean policy was implemented in the hospitals as well as the HDB. Minimum ceilings were set to force consumers to buy bigger flats or stay in more expensive hospital wards. It was really cock policy. Instead of encouraging thrift and prudence, to save and spend within your means, the policy forced the consumers into over spending, to empty their pockets literary.
In the news today, 43 young couples have wisely chosen to buy smaller HDB flats when the restrictive income ceiling was raised from $3000 to $4000 to qualify for 3 room flats. Under the old policy, they have no choice but to buy the more expensive 4 room flats that they could barely afford. They are careful and responsible young professionals who think ahead of their financial commitments. As young couples, the bills are going to get more and bigger when they set up families.
How many young couples were forced against their wills, to buy bigger flats? How many people were forced to pay for more expensive hospital wards against their wills? And how many young couples were forced into the private housing markets and forced to take up big housing loans against their wills?
Freedom of choice, downgrade if one cannot afford it, was the official slogan. Why no freedom of choice to buy cheaper flats or stay in cheaper hospital wards? Why the need for mean testing? I did not misspell. It is mean testing and not means testing as far as the victims are concerned.
Even how much people are willing to spend and consume is dictated by cock policies. Can you beat that? Will real freedom of choice be returned to the people? The crap about people who have a few dollars more adding to the housing queue or Class C ward queue is a big bull. Just increase the supply to meet the needs of the consumers. Turning off the tap and blame the consumers is a lame excuse.
17 comments:
Means testing is a frightening policy.
Taking it to the extreme, supposedly "richer" folks will:
- cannot fly in budget airlines
- pay more for bus/MRT fares
- pay more for their children's school/tuition fees
- pay more for utilities
- cannot eat in hawker centers
Renho
Essentially, I think Mean, sorry Means testing was implemented so that those who are millionaires do not crowd out those living from hand to mouth in our public hospitals funded as such.
Imagine a millionaire staying in a C class ward with heavy subsidies. Don't laugh, it happens. And if it is subsidized, someone has to pay for it. Yeah, the ordinary Joes like you and I.
If you are well heeled, no one is going to stop you from flying budget airlines where you have to pay for your own water, let alone order the stewardess to give you a glass of chilled white wine. No one is stopping you from taking the bus or the MRT and smelling the foul stench from too many bodies instead of zipping around town in your Merc. S class. No one is also stopping you from getting your children into the neighbourhood schools instead of the exclusive schools in the West where it is a real education and not forced fed rote learning and regurgitation of facts, not principals. No one is stopping you from fanning yourself instead of switching on the aircond in this oppressive and sweltering heat and lastly, if you hanker for hawker food, it's your choice.
Public housing is also supposedly subsidized so an income ceiling which actually should be reviewed constantly in line with inflation, is also reasonable.
Wally, how many millionaires wanted to stay in C wards? Ok, Singaporeans with their expensive HDB flats are also millionaires or half millionaires, right?
The bulk of the people being subjected to mean testing are the common joes like you and me, and made to pay more.
This fish is that the public hospitals should be providing more C wards as the majority of the population cannot afford the more expensive wards. Why provide more expensive wards and dictate that people who cannot afford the expensive bills used them?
And do you really believe the crap that HDB flats are subsidised? Just reveal the real cost then we can talk about how much is subsidised. Dare not disclose is very suspicious.
The rich who stays in C class is far and in between. Just to prevent this from happening, no need to resort to MEAN tests others.
It is good to be kind and nice when we can. PAP ministers please be kind and nice to your fellow Singaporeans especially the poor, when Singapore is so rich and can afford. Thank you very much.
Blaming a few stingy but money wise rich for exploiting the system and make the rest of the people suffered by paying more is another self serving logic.
But it is fantastic if people can all go to 1st class wards & pay just $8.00 for a major heart operation like khaw boon wan, ex-health minister. then mean testing sure welcomed
No one, no matter how rich, should be deprived of his/her right to choose the goods and services of his/her choice. There is no legal basis for such discrimination and it is tantamount to an abuse of freedom of choice.
UNLESS THE RICH GOT THEIR MONIES VIA/THROUGH ILLEGAL OR SINFUL MEANS, THE WEALTHY FOLK'S CHOICES OF CONSUMPTION MUST BE ACCORDED AND RESPECTED EQUALLY WITH EVERY OTHER CITIZEN.
The implementation of means testing has only gone to show how MEAN the Leadership has been with the people.
THE LEADERS HAVE TO LEARN FROM REDBEAN AKA MR CHUA CHIN LENG HOW TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEMS AND SOLVE THEM IN THE RIGHT WAY.
Sad to say, most leaders have lost their ways and that is probably due to lack of consciences rather than lack of grey matters in their heads.
No one, no matter how rich, should be deprived of his/her right to choose the goods and services of his/her choice. There is no legal basis for such discrimination and it is tantamount to an abuse of freedom of choice.
UNLESS THE RICH GOT THEIR MONIES VIA/THROUGH ILLEGAL OR SINFUL MEANS, THE WEALTHY FOLK'S CHOICES OF CONSUMPTION MUST BE ACCORDED AND RESPECTED EQUALLY WITH EVERY OTHER CITIZEN.
The implementation of means testing has only gone to show how MEAN the Leadership has been with the people.
THE LEADERS HAVE TO LEARN FROM REDBEAN AKA MR CHUA CHIN LENG HOW TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEMS AND SOLVE THEM IN THE RIGHT WAY.
Sad to say, most leaders have lost their ways and that is probably due to lack of consciences rather than lack of grey matters in their heads.
It is a vicious scheme. Forcing the people to spend beyond their means, emptying their CPF savings, then justify to lock up their CPF savings, pronouncing savings not enough.
Whose pocket did the people's savings ended up in?
If we are talking about goods on the free market, then I'd agree with you - people should be free to opt for cheaper alternatives regardless of their income.
But we are talking about goods that are subsidised by the Government, like hospital beds and housing. We must ensure that this limited amount of cheap beds/housing go to those who need it the most.
And don't give me that crap about HDB flats not being subsidised. If it is cheaper than market rates, then by definition it *is* subsidised. The cost of building the flats is entirely irrelevant - even if HDB is selling above cost, it is still making a "loss" by not selling at market rates. The difference between market price and HDB price equals to the amount of subsidy being given.
Mr Chong Peng, when the gahmen controlled both the supply and demand, plus regulations to dictate price levels, can that price levels be trusted? It is in an almost total monopolistic situation.
In past 10 years it even introduced any major lever, the influx of foreigners/buyers, which it can dictate the pace.
To ignore the actual cost is quite naive, especially when gahmen can acquire land at way below "market" prices, which it had over the last 40 years in numerous occasions from citizens.
When Sing goes into a prolong bear market in future when all these levers cannot be sustained, then many citizens will then realize they had not been subsidized.
You cannot engineer a structure bull market forever, or "asset enhancement" inflation forever.
Mr Chong Peng, I find your definition of subsidy highly intriguing. By your definition then, when shops participate in GSS and offer discount off regular prices, they are subsidizing shoppers against their non-participating competitors!
Please don't sprout crap concerning "market subsidy". You should know by now netizens are more sophisticated thinkers than that. Harping on the imaginary subsidy will only lose more votes for PAP in 2016 election.
Hi Chong Peng, welcome to the blog.
Thank you for reading my crap and replied with another crap. Everyone is entitled to express his views on things, craps or no craps, never mind.
Just a gentle reminder. Your 99 year HDB flat will become zero value when the lease expires. It is a depreciating asset unlike freehold.
And when the lease gets nearer to expiry, everyone holding on to these $1m properties will be sweating to sell. It will be panic station as there will be no buyers and the price of the million dollar assets will fall as fast as gravity.
Means testing is double taxation. If you had worked hard and paid taxes your whole life, Worked yr way to a private property and choose to opt for basic healthcare in your twilight years, what is wrong with that? To me it is financial prudence, sound financial planning. I will not see it as robbing the poor and subsidising the rich. Like some said earlier, these people are few and far in between
The unthinking Singaporeans are so easy to con. Most of them believe in subsidies and big discounts in Sales.
Just do the wonderful tricks in accounting and pricing to jack up the cost and shout, SUBSIDIES! DISCOUNTS! And Singaporeans will pay whatever price asked, and very grateful for it. Wow, got subsidy, got discount. Damn good man.
Now, a hypothetical scenario....
Our local university education is supposed to be highly subsidized as well.
How would you react if "means-testing" is applied here - "richer" locals pay more because they should not enjoy the same level of subsidy as the less-well-off.
Do you agree to this line of reasoning as well?
That's why "means-testing" as a policy is scary. Where do you draw the line?
Only a mean leadership can come up with means testing scheme.
However, the Scheme was mooted by a pious man and that's baffling.
How could a religious folk came out with such a scheme?
Post a Comment