Leong Sze Hian /

I have analysed hundreds of statistics over the last ten-plus years, but the Comcare cumulative assistance statistics given on 14 August were the ‘saddest’ statistic that I have ever had to analyse.

34% increase in a year

I refer to the article “CDCs gear up for uncertain economic climate” (Today, Aug 11).

It states that “the five CDCs said they saw 14,179 people seeking help from them ….. a 34 per cent jump from the same period last year ……  (Central)  CDC picked up by 25 per cent  in June alone”.

Good economy, jobs, wages?

Despite numerous media reports of good economic growth, jobs creation, wage increase, I think we should be alarmed that there are so many more needy Singaporean families seeking financial assistance.

Record high?

At this rate, the number seeking assistance in a year may be around 65,000, which I understand may be a record high. According to the Comcare Annual Report FY2009, the “number of cases receiving assistance under Comcare as at end financial year (2009)” was 25,166.

If we add those who apply for financial assistance to the existing families getting assistance, how many are there in total receiving help now?

The statistics given during the National Day Rally speech was that 200,000 Singaporean families have been eligible and helped under Comcare. How many needy families have ever applied for assistance on a cumulative basis, who were unsuccessful, to derive the figure of 200,000?

1 in 4 families applied for help?

In this connection, according to the last reported statistics in February, 39,500 or 71 per cent of approved applications for financial assistance under Comcare were successful, up from 42,100, or 67 per cent, in 2009.

So, if we assume the latest Comcare approval rate of 71 per cent, does it mean that about 281,690 (200,000 divided by 71 per cent) families have applied for assistance?

As there are over 800,000 Singaporean households, does it mean that about one in four have been helped under Comcare? I feel that we should be alarmed by this fairly large proportion of the population that has been in financial difficulty.

Due to greater awareness?

I feel that we should not be somewhat complacent, in “attributing this increase to the enhanced income eligibility criteria of the two subsidy schemes for kindergarten and childcare fees”.

Normally, families would approach and apply for these schemes directly through the childcare centres, without going to the CDC.

So, if they are also going to the CDCs, it may simply mean that they need other financial assistance as well.

As to “attributed to an increased awareness among residents”, the CDCs have been around for a very long time.  So, I think such a large increase may not be due primarily to “increased awareness”.

Broke need to save more?

Finally, I am quite puzzled by the remarks that “(Central CDC) is seeing more sign-ups for Cash up (Cultivate a Savings Habit), which gives needy families up to $1,000 in matched savings if they apply money-saving tips learnt in financial literacy workshops”, as I have been volunteering to do financial counseling for the needy for about a decade, and generally families who seek assistance do not even have enough money to make ends meet.

So, how would they be able to save more savings in order to get “matched savings”?

In this connection, an example is given in the article “Saving up for a brighter future” (SALT magazine, Jun 15), of a couple with seven children – husband sole breadwinner earning only about $800 monthly as a odd-job worker, signing up for the Cash up programme.

How many of such very low-income families that have signed up for this programme launched in April 2011, will actually end up with savings nine months later in order to qualify for the matched savings?

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

拒戴口罩、未申报更换地址 顺福“上等嫂”再加两项控状

早前在顺福熟食中心,因拒绝戴口罩而和民众起争执,并自称自己拥有“自主之权”(Sovereign)的40岁妇女考尔(译音,Paramjeet Kaur),被加控两项罪名。 该名妇女日前在本月上旬,于顺福熟食中心,被一名豆干小贩的女儿提醒戴口罩后,反应激烈骂对方多管闲事而起争执,并自称自己拥有“自主之权“,引发争议。 考尔原本在法庭已面对四项控状,分别是违反冠状病毒19(临时措施)法令的三项控状,以及一项公共滋扰罪,如今再加控两项控状。 她曾在上月某熟食中心拒戴口罩,以及没有申报更换地址而加控两项罪名。 目前她获准以1万元保释,条件是必须遵守现有的冠状病毒19相关管制条例。 被告此前也面对了多项控状,包括涉嫌袭击要求她戴口罩的女子的控状,但已被撤销。 被告一旦罪成,可被判罚款不逾1万元,或坐牢不逾六个月,或两者兼施。违反国民登记法令的最高刑罚则是监禁长达五年以及罚款高达5000元。

“在等雇主出现” 警:静坐抗议客工未触法

约30名客工因为被拖欠三个月工资,在罗敏申79号工地静坐,其实是在等待雇主出现,以便追讨工资,并没有触犯法律。 警方昨晚(3月10)发表文告时,如斯指出。当时发现将近30人静坐该处,被本地报章媒体指出,他们在静坐抗议。 警方文告指出,约30客工于上个星期三(3月6日)静坐在公积金局大厦多时,警方接到投报,到现场了解情况后,发现客工们只是等待雇主出现,以便能够和雇主对话和索讨工资。他们并没有刻意纠众聚集、或公然宣扬不满。故此,并没有触犯《公共秩序法》。 人力部调查雇主是否违法 警方称,这些受雇于分包商Stargood建筑公司的客工,在听取警方的劝告后,也返回宿舍,等待人力部的协助调查。 人力部则表示,已经对客工的雇主展开调查,怀疑雇主或触犯《雇佣法令》。 客工住宿受影响 根据日前报导指出,分包商Stargood建筑公司的业主林杰彪(译音)表示,他的确拖欠了员工薪金,但是他也是受害者。他指出,主要承包商清水建设(Shimizu Corporation)从去年12月起,就没有支付他任何款项,导致他也无法为客工们发工资。 目前Stargood建筑公司还拖欠员工们多达23万新元的工资。 另外,自上月开始,公司就没有支付宿舍租金,导致这群员工或将面对无家可归的处境。这群客工目前都是用抵押金支付这个月的房租,外籍劳工中心(MWC)表示,将会尽力协助他们。该中心指出,或许会安排他们入住中心的收容所。  

The Online Citizen to be owned by The Opinion Collaborative Ltd

Media Release With immediate effect, The Online Citizen (TOC), which consists of…

PSP calls for “greater affirmative action” by the authorities following reports of high number of local employers practicing discriminatory hiring

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) took to Facebook today (10 August) to…