Are Singles Being Deprived In Singapore ? ?
-
Are Singles Being Deprived In Singapore, especially issues over affordable Public Housing ? ?
Please share your views.
-
yes!
actually not just singles... single mothers (unwed ones) got it bad also... -
Lower the eligible age to 30
-
ya lor.. those got the worst!Originally posted by shinta:yes!
actually not just singles... single mothers (unwed ones) got it bad also... -
the mother got it bad jiu suan le..Originally posted by Ito_^:ya lor.. those got the worst!
worse is the kids...
from wat i understand of the primary sch registration, illegitimate child.. get the last priority when it come to registering...
parents need to produce marriage cert upon registration -
they want to discourage people from remaining single.
just like COE to discourage people from buying cars.
do you believe? -
Discourage, yes. Disadvantage, no. The Garmen has to be clear abt tt.
-
The fucking cheebye gahmen just wants to punish single moms and singles.
How come the deadbeat dads are not punished? -
Originally posted by av98m:The fucking cheebye gahmen just wants to punish single moms and singles.
How come the deadbeat dads are not punished? 
-
I understand this position very well. I have alot of sympathy for single moms - whether widowed/divorced/out-of-marriage pregnancy etc. It is actually this issue which constantly reminds me why Singapore needs to develop a practice of equitable discretion.Originally posted by shinta:yes!
actually not just singles... single mothers (unwed ones) got it bad also...
Singles - nah not really - objectively speaking, in all fairness, why should the govt be subsidizing your want of freedom. You don't have many liabilities/dependents - and you shouldn't - a large credit card bill on your part should not be offset by cheaper housing from the govt.
Families learn to survive on whatever they can afford. If you cannot live within your means as an individual, don't expect govt to use tax payers money to help you do so. -
Rubbish.Originally posted by rmyfrm:Singles - nah not really - objectively speaking, in all fairness, why should the govt be subsidizing your want of freedom. You don't have many liabilities/dependents - and you shouldn't - a large credit card bill on your part should not be offset by cheaper housing from the govt.
Families learn to survive on whatever they can afford. If you cannot live within your means as an individual, don't expect govt to use tax payers money to help you do so.
This is social engineering by the gahmen, plain and simple. -
Lower the singles age to 30 years old is one thing. The other thing is, it takes an ordinary couple who don't earn lots of money, 20~30 years to finish paying off their loans for a cheaper direct HDB flat.
Singles will need to take a even longer time to & need more money to pay off the same amount of loan, is like 1 person paying for 2. On top of that, singles are not allow to buy subdised HDB direct, but from the resales market, which is even more expensive. Besides, it's an old flat.
Also, singles has to take loan from banks, and deprived from more affordable HDB loans ! !
Singles are also paying taxes, but where are we treated like a second class citizen in our own country ? ? -
You have to draw the line between providing for those who deserve it, those who need it, and those who just want it.Originally posted by av98m:Rubbish.
This is social engineering by the gahmen, plain and simple. -
The gahmen is simply out to penalise those who are single.Originally posted by rmyfrm:You have to draw the line between providing for those who deserve it, those who need it, and those who just want it. -
Here's my 2 cents:-Originally posted by av98m:The gahmen is simply out to penalise those who are single.
Of course they pro family. Married = children = market. Remember the 'Matrix'? Our existence is to power the economy. We are the 'energy cell'. Sadl, like most developed nations, we are too slow in producing the next generation of 'energy cell', the govmen has every right to be afraid. Having a upside down pyramid causes serious problems in future economy. That explains the foreigner taps have been on the loose of late...
BTW, COE cost is not as high as before to encourage spending. Spend more la, good for economy.... -
In early 2000 HDB talked about cheap hdb flats under 30-60 years lease to alleviate this problem. This might be the panecea.Originally posted by Dounut:Lower the singles age to 30 years old is one thing. The other thing is, it takes an ordinary couple who don't earn lots of money, 20~30 years to finish paying off their loans for a cheaper direct HDB flat.
Singles will need to take a even longer time to & need more money to pay off the same amount of loan, is like 1 person paying for 2. On top of that, singles are not allow to buy subdised HDB direct, but from the resales market, which is even more expensive. Besides, it's an old flat.
Also, singles has to take loan from banks, and deprived from more affordable HDB loans ! !
Singles are also paying taxes, but where are we treated like a second class citizen in our own country ? ?
Lower the age requrment for single will encourage more singlehood. Non-starter from govment point of view me think. -
Fully agree! Singlehood is not viable for the growth of economy so why the candies? On the other hand, is someone doing enuf for those poor families (like the one killed on MRT track)?Originally posted by rmyfrm:I understand this position very well. I have alot of sympathy for single moms - whether widowed/divorced/out-of-marriage pregnancy etc. It is actually this issue which constantly reminds me why Singapore needs to develop a practice of equitable discretion.
Singles - nah not really - objectively speaking, in all fairness, why should the govt be subsidizing your want of freedom. You don't have many liabilities/dependents - and you shouldn't - a large credit card bill on your part should not be offset by cheaper housing from the govt.
Families learn to survive on whatever they can afford. If you cannot live within your means as an individual, don't expect govt to use tax payers money to help you do so. -
how do you draw a line in the first place?Originally posted by rmyfrm:You have to draw the line between providing for those who deserve it, those who need it, and those who just want it. -
Maybe next time they will want you to pay back your subsidies if you are married and refuse to have kids
-
that's a '$15,000-a-month' question if you get the drift..... we mere mortals couldn't possibly fathomOriginally posted by dragg:how do you draw a line in the first place?
-
X2Originally posted by fishiotherapy:Fully agree! Singlehood is not viable for the growth of economy so why the candies? On the other hand, is someone doing enuf for those poor families (like the one killed on MRT track)? -
That's exactly what I meant by the govt should empower senior/supervising govt officers with equitable discretion.Originally posted by dragg:how do you draw a line in the first place?
To list what falls within equity would be to go against equity itself. The very essence of equity is natural justice - i.e. doing what is inherently right.
Off the top of my head, I'd say -
Those who deserve it - single parents, senior citizens etc
Those who need it - families/singles with no viable means of survival (i.e. impoverished)
Generally, a good number of cases from the former, would also fall within the latter.
What is needed is freedom within administration, that is defined by certain perimeters and guided by specific rules.
In any case, not to leave the topic..
I still think that singles should not qualify for any housing subsidy. I would not like to pay tax to help some kids leave home.
Singapore is not a welfare State - and it should never be.
However, in line with my proposition of procedural fairness and equity, I would say that situations can arise whereby singles might qualify for subsidy.
And just for the sake of keeping those (singles) who applied and got rejected shut - the implementation of ombudsman, and administrative tribunals with possible avenues of judicial review to the supreme court. -
at the very least, reduce the age to 30 or sth.. and not 35..
and from what i heard (again) unwed mothers have to wait till 35 before they can get their own place -
please dont forget that singles pay tax too.
it is ok to subsidized married people but not singles???!!