Connect with us

Current Affairs

$500 enough to survive and pay for medical fees in Singapore?

Published

on

Ms Tan denied welfare

Ms Tan and a letter in English which she doesn’t understand

By Terry Xu
Living in a rental flat with her brother, Ms Tan Lay Huan, 53 years old and divorced, cannot stand or walk for extended periods of time due to her medical condition, and has to rely on the walking cane she carries wherever she goes.
Her neighbours also said that Ms Tan might have mental issues, which is confirmed by her medical documents which states that she suffered from depression and other mental conditions. She shared that she had attempted suicide before in 2010, as a result of her depression, when she was bedridden from a broken pelvic bone.
Due to her many medical conditions, Ms Tan requires frequent medical treatment and prescribed medication. Her frequent tips to the polyclinics resulted in bills ranging from $16 to $60, with the occasional trips to hospitals for more severe conditions costing even more.
As a result of her many treatments, Ms Tan faces financial difficulties with paying her medical expenses. Recently, she tried to seek help from her Member of Parliament (MP) to obtain medical assistance and support from ComCare.
However, her application for ComCare was rejected by her MP, Dr Lily Neo, who allegedly told her that the S$500 she gets from her alimony fees should be enough for her to survive. Instead, Dr Neo suggested that she apply for the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). She was eventually given the CHAS certification card.
This was not the only time that she was refused ComCare help. In 2010, she took her doctor’s letter to Toa Payoh Community Development Council (CDC) to prove that she can no longer work, but was instead told that she is not eligible for ComCare due to her alimony fees. The CDC staff also told her that the S$500 she received is sufficient for her livelihood.
When Ms Tan pointed out that one of her friends with a similar case, but has a daughter, was still given ComCare, the CDC staff could not give her an explanation on the difference in treatment.
Moreover, Ms Tan’s alimony fees was not as clear cut. She was married in 1989 and divorced in 1995, and was awarded a sum of S$500 as alimony fees by the court. From the S$500, Ms Tan has to pay for her medicine, rental, utilities and living expenses.
However, Ms Tan said that the alimony fees are not paid every month and there was even a period of three years where she ex-husband did not pay her at all. In that period, she had to live off her wages of S$450 from her work as a manufacturing operator.
Ms Tan also said that CHAS did not help, as it works on the basis on subsidises, which is of no use since she does not even have the the money to pay for the subsidised amount. To her, the CHAS card was as good as worthless.
“When I was sent to hospital once at midnight because of my medical condition, I had to pay for the ambulance,” she recounted. “I had to walk all the way back to my home because I had no money to pay for the taxi trip.”
She was crying as she related this, trying to control her emotions to avoid looks from residents walking along the void deck.
Her problems were compounded by other issues. She recently lost her National Registration Identity Card (NRIC), and while the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority had asked her to pay a reduced fee for the replacement (the original cost was S$300), it was still an amount she could not afford.
As a result, she has yet to collect her NRIC from ICA and is currently moving around without it.
To make matters worse, Ms Tan is not on good terms with her brother. Neighbours TOC spoke to said they often quarrel fiercely, which sometimes brought the police to their flat. Ms Tan’s flat is clustered with things, effectively separating it into two sections, with brother and sister sleeping on either side of the partition.
Ms Tan is hopeful that things will turn for the better, as she plans to move into another rental flat with a new room-mate. Nevertheless, life at the moment is hardly bearable. “Some days I just lie on my bed, and it is just too painful to get up.”
“Due to high cost of living create by our government, many people fall into poverty,” said the volunteer who alerted TOC about Ms Tan’s case. “But they project a very nice picture that the government is caring for the needy.”
“We have heard how our government  spends millions to help this group of people. But in reality, this group of people are being discriminated by stringent criteria. This results in a substantial amount of such funding not used by the CDC.”
TOC sent a letter to Dr Neo and the Central CDC about Ms Tan’s situation. Dr Neo replied that she has offered to help Ms Tan through CHAS and that the grassroot leaders have been extending help to her. Dr Neo neither acknowledged nor denied the claim that she said S$500 was enough for Ms Tan to survive.
The CDC has responded to TOC indicating that they are not in charge of cases like Ms Tan. they have also directed Ms Tan to the social welfare department.
Ms Tan was only contacted a few days earlier, requesting her to visit the CDC in Chinatown to collect a letter, the matter of concern which we are not privy to.
Personal reflections:
I wonder about the government’s much touted 18-layer kueh lapis of welfare that is supposed to exist for less well-off individuals like Ms Tan. Why are people like her still expected to live on a day to day basis? If her requests have fallen on deaf ears, are we then supposed to think about how she should be blamed for her own misdeeds? That she could have chosen not to be sick? That she could have chosen someone else to be married to? That she could still try to work and support herself even though she is medically unfit to do so? That she could try to depend on her family members whom she is not on good terms with?
What is our government’s responsibility towards citizens, to let them live with dignity rather than expect them to battle the odds in the ever-changing landscape that is Singapore, where they have to literally beg for their subsistence on a day to day basis? Do they even have hope that their kind-hearted government will show them some charity to help them survive?
Like this article? Please support us so that we can do more. Subscribe to TOC, here.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

on

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending