TR EMERITUS

刀好，一把就够了。坐船坐飞机，每个人的座位底下，都会有一个救生圈。在危急时刻，救生圈，一个就够了。除了卖拐杖的商店、推销员，不曾见到那些在体力不支的时候就得依靠拐杖站立的人，身上会带着几支拐杖。 怎样来解释新加坡政府五花八门、名目繁多的拐杖政策呢？前几日看到鄞义林的一篇博文，已经过了好几天了，心里还是思潮杂沓，感慨有之，更多的是不解、迷糊。 在《Falling Sick, And Knowing Where Our Money For Health Is Going To》一文中，我并不关心鄞义林肚子的问题。毕竟还能够写出如此条理分明的文章，这样的小病痛，相信难不倒他。 被他吸引的，还是这一段： Citizens In Other Developed Countries Are Protected For Their Healthcare This got me thinking. In Hong Kong, for every visit to the hospital, a citizen would need to pay only a maximum of $20. In Norway, a citizen would only need to pay a cap of about $400 in a year. The system in these countries give you a peace of mind, where you know that you can still seek medical help if you need to, no matter whether you are rich or poor. You do not need to fear that costs can grow uncontrollably. However, in Singapore, there is no cap or maximum amount that Singaporeans need to pay. It was revealed that there have been people who had to pay more than $10,000 for their medical bills, or even $20,000. How on earth were they able to get that sort of money? In Singapore, the average a cleaner earns is $850. A research has shown that for the poorest 30% of households in Singapore, they have to spend 105% to 151% of their incomes. This means that low-income Singaporeans would never be able to save for their whole lives. 我真的不懂得如何改变对新加坡政府在国民医疗事业上的恶劣形象。鄞义林就是个很好的例子。刚被医院炒鱿鱼之后，失去了医药福利，就在这几十块钱的医药费下败下阵，形象的来诠释穷困人民可以死不可以病的悲哀。 什么是3M，前些时候，许多大小官员都说不清。然而，直到今天，或许也没有几个新加坡人可以说得清。而最令人感觉诙谐、荒谬的，是媒体上〈财务专家： 终身健保与综合健保可互补〉发布的这段话。 问：到底什么是IP? 答： 私人综合健保双全（Integrated Shield Plan，简称IP）是在政府健保双全基础上，由五家私人保险业者（友邦保险、英杰华、保诚保险、大东方和职总英康）提供的升级保险，这类保险可保障B1 级病房或更高，甚至私人医院的治疗与住院开销，保费每年自动从保健储蓄中扣除，一部分给公积金局，一部分给私人保险业者。若保费超过可动用的保健储蓄顶 限，受保者需掏腰包支付。 问：如何知道我是否受保于私人综合健保双全？ 答：你可查看公积金结存单，如果在保健储蓄户头中，每年有扣除一笔名为PMI（Private Medical Insurance）的款项，就说明你受保于IP。如果你只是受保于基本的健保双全，这笔款项名为MSH（MediShield）。 原来，除了3M以外，就因为保费每年自动从保健储蓄中扣除，新加坡人还可能莫名其妙的受保于“私人综合健保双全” 。这一来，一份公家的健保双全、一份私家的健保双全，叠床架屋，“一部分给公积金局，一部分给私人保险业者”，公私机构上下其手，两边发财。 其实，拐杖如果坚固，一支肯定就够了。就像香港瑞士的人民一样。身子有病，走进公家医院，就是那个数目。不会像新加坡一样，3M了以后，IP了以后，政府大量津贴了以后，还是不晓得到底会“惹”上多少医药费？ 吊诡的是，3M、IP，就像砸不完的甘蔗汁...哦，对不起，是都解决不了国人医药费问题。因此，续着“终身入息计划”的“终身”光环，健保双全也进化到“终身”的阶段，“终身健保”横空出世。 先不说港人，瑞士平民不必什么劳杂子的“终身”就能够一生廉价看病。就说这“终身健保”吧，打着〈终身健保保费五年不变〉的花腔，其实已经先“涨价”在前头。 新闻这么说：由于是人人终身受保，终身健保（MediShield Life）推行后，各年龄层的保费都会增加。把政府各种津贴计算在内后，终身健保推出第一年，较低收入者的每月保费增幅不超过3元；较高收入者则不超过6元。 巧言令色，鲜矣仁！带着的拐杖愈多，身体的负累也就愈大。药不对办，狗皮膏药贴得再多，不过是自欺欺人。众所周知，苛政猛于虎，就在于执政者在税务上巧立名目。新加坡政府有限 公司的惯技，不过是抬高本钱哄骗罢了。在组屋上如此、在医药上如此，在所有的治国政策上莫不是如此 -- 这就像大百货商场来货本钱1块，却标上价钱10块，然后再折扣50%一样。 不是吗？什么“津贴”，其实都是幌子，尤其这本来就是纳税人的钱，取之于民用之于民的民脂民膏，政府何德何仁，何来“津贴”两字？何况，在所谓的大量的“津贴”之后，组屋还是如此天价、医药还是如此昂贵，这不是天底下最大的无厘头吗？ 无厘头其实还在许多党报的许多奴才的口语中表现出来。在asiaone 有这样一篇报道：〈建国一代保费不增反减〉-- 何谓建国一代保费不增反减呢？是原来“建国一代”的保费本来打算“增”的吗？ . 黑马非马 http://malaysia-chinese.net/luntan  Read More →

Health Minister Gan Kim Yong yesterday (2 Jul) assured Singaporeans with annual home values above $21,000 that they will be able to apply for additional help if they can't cope with the increased MediShield Life premiums. It has been estimated that about 20% of properties in Singapore have annual home values (AV) of more than $21,000. This is the amount an owner would get in a year if he were to let out his property. At the moment, other than age and income, premium subsidies for MediShield Life are tiered according to the AV of the Singaporean's property which he lives in, with a cut-off at $13,000. Singaporeans living in a property with an AV between $13,101 and $21,000 will receive 10 percentage points less in subsidies, while those with AV of above $21,000 will not receive any permanent premium subsidies. As a result, some of the asset-rich but cash-poor people have been complaining that they are being penalized. Some of them have, for example, inherited property but have little income. For the asset-rich but cash-poor Singaporeans, "we have additional premium support that will consider their situation on a case-by-case basis," Mr Gan said. He encouraged anyone needing help to write to the government. It has been reported in the media that private estate households in Geylang Serai had sought financial or job-related assistance from the government - something that was once almost unheard of. A grassroots leader told the media, "Five years ago, there were zero such cases." Forty per cent of Geylang Serai's 58,000 residents live in private estates. Many elderly people in landed homes bought them years ago when properties were cheaper. Now retired, they either have no steady income or do not have enough coming in to keep up with the cost of living. They also didn't want to downgrade and live somewhere else because some of them have lived there almost their entire life, and in their twilight years, it is not easy for them to adjust to HDB living. Some said they wanted to spend their last years of their life in their own house. Others might simply want to leave the house to their loved ones when they pass away. Then, there are residents who live in the old Opera Estate in Joo Chiat constituency, also in the asset-rich but cash-poor situation. Living in a single-storey terraced house in Opera Estate, admin officer S L Dai has to look after her 75-year-old mother and 80-year-old father. Her father is on wheelchair and she is worried that she may lose her job as her company is not doing well. Ms Dai knows downsizing will free up much-needed cash, but said, "There is no option of selling this house as long as both my parents are still alive. This house was bought by my grandfather, and it means a lot to them." These seniors are the face of a growing group of Singaporeans who are asset-rich but cash-poor. Yet, they receive little in government help as their property assets mean they may not meet qualifying criteria. As more Singaporeans retire or out of work, more may end up in an asset-rich, cash-poor situation.    Read More →

A relative of a passenger on Flight MH370 shouting at journalists during the MH370 incident. -- PHOTO: REUTERS The mistake in letting PRC nationals into Singapore as potential citizens is the thinking that they will easily integrate with Singapore’s majority Chinese population. This is unlikely to be the case. Maybe if it is a case of a PRC national who has married a Singaporean, but otherwise I think integration with Singaporean Chinese population, let alone other ethnic groups in Singapore is very difficult. Instead of opening the doors to PRC nationals, we should have a revolving door sending back the vast majority of PRC nationals – maybe after a short work stint of 2-3 years if we need to let them in to work in the first place. Permanent settlement is a different issue, and if we are talking about East Asians to bring in, be they Chinese or whatever ethnic group, then instead of PRC nationals, consider instead: Malaysians, Bruneians, Indonesians, Hong Kongers & Macau counterparts, even of South Asian origin, Taiwanese even aboriginals Further afield, consider: ABCs from US and Australia BBCs from UK CBCs from Canada and Caribbean Ethnic Chinese from countries like Japan, Korea, South Africa, Peru The mentality of overseas Chinese is just different from PRC nationals and more in tune with 3rd, 4th and 5th generation ethnic Chinese Singaporeans. PRC nationals are born and live through either into a undemocratic Communist system or a undemocratic Communist-turned-corporatist system that is difficult to fathom. Beyond that, there is the spitting, the non-queuing, the bad toilet habits, the reckless driving, the territorial games played and so on. The government here might want the ‘hunger’ of PRC nationals for its economy. It is not worth it. Other immigrants have ‘hunger’ too, but not quite in the way the ‘hunger’ of some PRC nationals can manifest like this fighting and kicking incident. I am not trying to say all PRC nationals turn out this way. I’m saying we have enough PRC nationals already and there could be more balance. The balance can be achieved by considering other nationals – some of the same ethnic background as majority Chinese – but that means basically drastically reducing the number of nationals from PRC in favour of these other nationals. Some on this forum might say ‘no more from anywhere’ but so long as there’s an open door, let it be a revolving door, and let’s send back PRC nationals after 2-3 years rather than letting them have a Singapore passport & use Singapore as a stepping stone to the West. For the PRC nationals keen to become Singaporeans incl. those already here, it should be 10 years to get a Singapore passport & not anything less, & there should be some proof of English speaking ability and proof of their effort to understand and connect with other ethnic groups in Singapore. So I am not saying no to all PRC nationals, just that there has to be a serious rethink in having so many & now re-balance things out, logically by looking to other nationalities including overseas Chinese.   Dinners are just dinners * Comment first appeared in: 6 PRC women charged for beating up girl at K-Box    Read More →