Goh increase Sgreans’ income 3 per cent when his salary grow
-
SM Goh promised to increase Singaporeans’ income by 3 per cent when his own salary is expected to grow by 8.8 per cent in 2010
Written by Our Correspondent
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong made a bold promise to Singaporeans that their income are expected to grow for the next ten years if the government is successful in “transforming” Singapore’s economy via the measures as outlined in the Budget.
“If we can transform the economy through the measures in this Budget, the income which you have today can continue to increase 2 to 3 per cent per year over the next 10 years. This is where the Budget helps you, even though you don’t see it,” he claimed without substantiating them.
SM Goh was talking to a crowd of about 100 people during a dialogue session at Marine Parade who appeared to be disinterested in an earlier presentation by an official from the Finance Ministry.
This year’s Budget offered few goodies to Singaporeans with its emphasis on boosting Singapore’s productivity rates and reducing its perennial dependence on foreign workers.
“When I read comments that the Bud-get has got nothing for me as a person, rather than a few of the allowances and so on, they are wrong. This Budget is for you. This is about how we can increase productivity of the economy as a whole – you as workers, the company as a production institution, management as people in charge,” SM Goh was quoted as saying in the Straits Times.
His stance echoed that of DPM Teo Chee Hean who said a few days ago that Singapore needs to renew and re-double its efforts in productivity to move the economy forward and to create “good jobs” for Singaporeans.
Singapore’s productivity rate has plummeted consecutively for the last three years due to the ruling party’s liberal immigration and pro-foreigner labor policies:
[Source: Kojakbt, 3in1kopitiam forum moderator]
This coincided with the beginning of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s tenure when he announced his ambitious plan to increase Singapore’s population to 6.5 million people by 2030 via immigration.
According to a press release by the Reform Party last week, Singapore’s labor productivity lags far behind that of other advanced economies:
“In manufacturing alone our productivity grew by an average of 0.7% p.a. over the period 2000-08 whereas South Korea, Taiwan, Sweden and the US managed 7.4%, 5.2%, 4.8% and 4.6% respectively over the same period. Out of a group of 17 economies we were second from bottom.”
[Source: Reform Party]
SM Goh also added that “Singapore can no longer grow simply on the basis of adding foreign workers to the labor force” which seems to contradict his earlier statement that there is no “sudden U-turn” in the ruling party’s policies and that the number of foreigners may still increase in the next few years.
The ruling party is appearing to lose its cool lately and has been pussyfooting and backtracking on a number of their policies to placate angry voters ahead of the next general election which they are expected to lose a few more seats including GRCs.
Singaporeans should take the latest “promise” by SM Goh with a heavy dose of salt. The median salary of Singaporeans has remained stagnant at $2,600 for the last 10 years and the income gap between the rich and poor has widen considerably during the same period thanks to the relentless influx of foreigners who help depressed the wages of local workers.
During his tenure as Singapore’s Prime Minister in the 1990s, SM Goh promised Singaporeans that they would enjoy “Swiss standard of living” in a decade’s time. According to a UBS report last year, Singaporeans have a standard of living comparable to Russia than Switzerland.
Even before we know if SM Goh’s “forecast” will come true, his own astronomical salary in excess of $3 million dollars a year is expected to be increased by a massive 8.8 per cent this year. With Singapore’s GDP growing again, the PAP leaders can expect “more good years” ahead of them.
- Temasek Review March 2, 2010
Do you believe SM Goh that the income of Singaporeans will grow by 3 per cent per year for the next 10 years?
-
I think it's time minister's salary increment be pegged to average joe's wage increment.
That be a fair deal.
-
No, if he can and manage to increase your paid by 3% per year, i think he deserves more. Because to him and his wife, in about 2005, $600,000 was peanut to them, just imagine what is $600,000 to him and his wife now, must be a red bean, that is the reason why his paid must increase.
-
early in the morning, somebody start to give old aunties story!
-
Elections must be coming, more promises being made public now. Remember "SWISS STANDARD OF LIVING for all Singaporeans" a few elections ago?
-
There should be a means test for foreigners becoming Singaporeans - if they cannot even differentiate between "increase pay" and "increase paid by 3%" - is it any surprise that so much verbiage is being produced by a Taiwanese 'hum' ?
This is another daily routine display of idiocy and irrelevance of the Taiwanese 'hum' to exercise its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - simply to attract attention to itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore'.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
There should be a means test for foreigners becoming Singaporeans - if they cannot even differentiate between "increase pay" and "increase paid by 3%" - is it any surprise that so much verbiage is being produced by a Taiwanese 'hum' ?
This is another daily routine display of idiocy and irrelevance of the Taiwanese 'hum' to exercise its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - simply to attract attention to itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore'.
Uncle, before i become citizen of Singapore and pledge ourselve to be one united people at the declaration of new citizenship of Singapore hall of the ICA, there is only one mean test....and if you say yes, you get your citizenship on the spot, if you said wait, i consider it, you get your PR status for the rest of your life, and if you said, how can no lah, the most you get is only social visa.And the test is not about salary increase and all those shits, it is about voting for PAP
-
What is the significance of pay reduction to the ministers wages compared to the average wage of ordinary Singaporeans ?
If the PM's wages has been increased from $2.5m in 2006 to $3.1m in 2007 - is there any significance to the 19% wage cut, when the wages drop to $3.0m in 2009 which leaves the PM having a higher pay then before the 2007 pay rise ?
Has Singaporeans seen the NWC make any recommendations for Singaporean wages to increase by 19% in 2006 ?
-
The increase in salary is quite little n anyway many foreign professional just only need to earn salary n go back to their countries.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Uncle, before i become citizen of Singapore and pledge ourselve to be one united people at the declaration of new citizenship of Singapore hall of the ICA, there is only one mean test....and if you say yes, you get your citizenship on the spot, if you said wait, i consider it, you get your PR status for the rest of your life, and if you said, how can no lah, the most you get is only social visa.And the test is not about salary increase and all those shits, it is about voting for PAP
If you must be an 'Attention Seeking Whore' - do it somewhere else, and stop spreading your ignorance in this Speaker's Corner.That was the biggest mistake committed by ICA - to have only one mean test that tested nothing, but to accept an idiotic "yes" for citizenship to be granted.
Should Singaporeans be burdened by fools such as the Taiwanese 'hum' who preeetend to be a Singaporeans inside out - when its brain and its mouth is like its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - flapping uselessly to simply attract attention to itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore' ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
What is the significance of pay reduction to the ministers wages compared to the average wage of ordinary Singaporeans ?
If the PM's wages has been increased from $2.5m in 2006 to $3.1m in 2007 - is there any significance to the 19% wage cut, when the wages drop to $3.0m in 2009 which leaves the PM having a higher pay then before the 2007 pay rise ?
Has Singaporeans seen the NWC make any recommendations for Singaporean wages to increase by 19% in 2006 ?
Uncle, if you look at it from 2007 to 2010, our PM did not get a paid rise, instead a 0.1 decrease in paid. We could not have ask for more from our good PM, who sacrificed his times, life and health to bring us to what we are, from 2007 till now, it had not been an easy ride, and now as we recover slowly, with IRs opening soon, there will be more problems to tackle on, so, i hope citizen like you understand that abit increase in this coming july in their paid is not asking too much. After all in 2007 we got about 4.0 millions people here comparing to 4.75m now, so he needs to take care of more people now, more mouth to feeds and more problems to deal with ya. I think our Ministers paid need to increase to truly reward them for a job well done so far. -
This is another daily routine display of idiocy and irrelevance of the Taiwanese 'hum' to exercise its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - simply to attract attention to itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore'.
-
2 CEOs donate bonus
Reuters, 1 March 2010THE chief executives of HSBC Holdings , Europe’s biggest bank, and Asia-focused rival Standard Chartered are set to give their bonuses to charity, newspapers reported on Sunday, following a high-profile row over the sums paid to bankers.
Three British newspapers reported that HSBC chief Michael Geoghegan would accept his bonus but give it to several charities. The Daily Telegraph also reported that Peter Sands, head of Standard Chartered, planned to donate his bonus to charity. A spokesman for the London-listed bank declined to comment. The news follows moves by the heads of Barclays and bailed-out Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland to waive their rights to a 2009 annual bonus.
There has been building anger over ‘fat cat’ banker pay, which has become a major political issue in Britain in the run-up to an election expected in May, particularly with respect to banks rescued by taxpayers and still making losses as they emerge from the credit crisis.
The Sunday Telegraph cited sources at HSBC, who pointed out it had received no direct taxpayer money, had paid dividends throughout the financial crisis and should be allowed to make its own decision on how it pays its executives.
Mr Geoghegan stands to be awarded a bonus of four times his basic salary of 1.1 million pounds (S$2.34 million). HSBC had also been discussing with investors a plan to increase base pay for its top executives, shareholders have told Reuters, but it has shelved plans to award Mr Geoghegan a pay rise of more than a third, the FT reported last week.
HSBC will report full-year results on Monday while London-listed Standard Chartered is expected to post record profits of US$5.1 billion (S$7.17 billion) next week. — Reuters
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If you must be an 'Attention Seeking Whore' - do it somewhere else, and stop spreading your ignorance in this Speaker's Corner.That was the biggest mistake committed by ICA - to have only one mean test that tested nothing, but to accept an idiotic "yes" for citizenship to be granted.
Should Singaporeans be burdened by fools such as the Taiwanese 'hum' who preeetend to be a Singaporeans inside out - when its brain and its mouth is like its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - flapping uselessly to simply attract attention to itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore' ?
I am telling the true nothing but the truth ya, i mean, logically, you can see for yourself why so many are granted citizenship now, whether you got fake or geniune dailian, kinabalau or Kerela university cert, it is secondary, the primary objective is ...vote the right one.
-
Increase "Singaporeans' income"?
They talking about themselves or talking about the lowest quartile wage earners?
Most likely Ministers pay will go up afew more millions.
-
Citigroup CEO Pandit Took Home Just $128,751 Last Year
Associated Press, 27 February 2010Citigroup Inc. CEO Vikram Pandit received $128,751 in compensation for 2009 as the bank suffered huge losses on risky investments and failing consumer loans, according to an Associated Press analysis of a regulatory filing disclosed Friday.
Pandit agreed in February 2009 that he would only take a $1 salary for the year after the bank was forced to take billions in federal bailout money. But he had already received $125,000 in salary before making that announcement, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He received no bonus or stock awards.
His only other compensation was $3,750 in 401(k) benefits.
Pandit’s 2008 compensation package was valued at $38.2 million. However, almost all of that package was made up of restricted stock and stock options that are worth far less today.
Citigroup’s shares rose a penny to close at $3.40 on Friday.
New York-based Citigroup was the hardest hit of the big U.S. banks during the credit crisis that peaked in late 2008 and early 2009, and received $45 billion in government bailout money. It raised $20 billion in December to help repay the money it received as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The remaining $25 billion was converted to stock last fall.
By repaying the bailout money, Citigroup is now free of salary caps for top executives set by the Obama administration’s pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg.
Citigroup Chief Financial Officer John Gerspach received $5.01 million in 2009 compensation, while the head of the bank’s client group, John Havens, received $11.2 million, according to the filing.
Earlier Friday, Bank of America disclosed that former CEO Ken Lewis received a compensation package valued at $32,171 in 2009 as the bank struggled with loan losses and repaid billions in federal bailout money, according to an Associated Press analysis of its regulatory filing.
However, Lewis’ accumulated compensation and retirement benefits totaled $73 million, according to a preliminary filing disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, Lewis’ beneficiary will receive $10.3 million life insurance payment upon the death of Lewis and his wife. – AP
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
I am telling the true nothing but the truth ya, i mean, logically, you can see for yourself why so many are granted citizenship now, whether you got fake or geniune dailian, kinabalau or Kerela university cert, it is secondary, the primary objective is ...vote the right one.
Stop spreading your idiocy in this Speaker's Corner.Your useless flapping of your ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - is useless in getting attention to yourself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore'.
-
Originally posted by �玟 往日情:
Citigroup CEO Pandit Took Home Just $128,751 Last Year
Associated Press, 27 February 2010Citigroup Inc. CEO Vikram Pandit received $128,751 in compensation for 2009 as the bank suffered huge losses on risky investments and failing consumer loans, according to an Associated Press analysis of a regulatory filing disclosed Friday.
Pandit agreed in February 2009 that he would only take a $1 salary for the year after the bank was forced to take billions in federal bailout money. But he had already received $125,000 in salary before making that announcement, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He received no bonus or stock awards.
His only other compensation was $3,750 in 401(k) benefits.
Pandit’s 2008 compensation package was valued at $38.2 million. However, almost all of that package was made up of restricted stock and stock options that are worth far less today.
Citigroup’s shares rose a penny to close at $3.40 on Friday.
New York-based Citigroup was the hardest hit of the big U.S. banks during the credit crisis that peaked in late 2008 and early 2009, and received $45 billion in government bailout money. It raised $20 billion in December to help repay the money it received as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The remaining $25 billion was converted to stock last fall.
By repaying the bailout money, Citigroup is now free of salary caps for top executives set by the Obama administration’s pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg.
Citigroup Chief Financial Officer John Gerspach received $5.01 million in 2009 compensation, while the head of the bank’s client group, John Havens, received $11.2 million, according to the filing.
Earlier Friday, Bank of America disclosed that former CEO Ken Lewis received a compensation package valued at $32,171 in 2009 as the bank struggled with loan losses and repaid billions in federal bailout money, according to an Associated Press analysis of its regulatory filing.
However, Lewis’ accumulated compensation and retirement benefits totaled $73 million, according to a preliminary filing disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, Lewis’ beneficiary will receive $10.3 million life insurance payment upon the death of Lewis and his wife. – AP
Hahahaha.....after taking billions, what is salary to them anymore...haiz, another hollywood stuff -
Originally posted by angel7030:
Hahahaha.....after taking billions, what is salary to them anymore...haiz, another hollywood stuff
This is another daily routine display of idiocy and irrelevance of the Taiwanese 'hum' to exercise its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - simply to attract attention to itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore'. -
Recession over: Really? Time to increase fees?
By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the reports “MM Lee warns of dangers of slow growth if productivity does not increase” (CNA, Feb 18) and “S’pore income gap narrows” (ST Breaking News, Feb 19).The former article reported MM Lee as stating that “The island state has a growing economy, increasing real incomes, better homes which are rising in value, and citizens are generally better off”.
Well, the next day, we had the news that the economy contracted and nominal and real incomes shrank.
According to an Occasional Paper released by the Singapore Department of Statistics (DOS) on February 19, under the section “Key Household Income Trends, 2009”, household income from work declined in 2009. The decline in household income from work reflected the weaker labour market conditions in 2009, which saw higher unemployment and lower wages.
It was further stated that “Median monthly household income from work among all resident households declined by 1.9 per cent from $4,950 in 2008 to $4,850 in 2009. After adjusting for consumer price inflation in 2009, median household income from work saw a decline of 2.5 per cent”.
On the same day (Feb 19), the DOS released a report on the Performance of the Singapore Economy for 2009, which said that “Singapore’s economy contracted by 2.8% on a quarter-on-quarter, seasonally adjusted basis, in 4Q2009″, and that “the economy contracted by 2.0% in 2009”.
So, were we in a way overly optimistic when “Singapore declared the recession (was) over in November last year”, according to the CNA article “Singapore economy to grow up to 6.5% this year: govt” dated 19 Feb?
It was announced by the press that “in the past few months, the government has taken further steps to widen the differentiation between citizens and Permanent Residents and to slow down the inflow of foreigners”.
Furthermore, on the same day (Feb 19), it was also announced that Polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) fees will be increased from April. The press reported that “The Government decided to keep fees at the status quo last year because of the economic recession but this year, as the economy turns, it is timely to raise the fees” (“Fees for poly and ITE students going up in April”, ST, Feb 19).
If we really want to widen the distinction between Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners, why can’t we just raise fees for PRs and foreigners, instead of raising fees for Singaporeans too?
Since we want to take on the “challenges such as increasing productivity and raising skills across the board” and the government has acknowledged that “every worker also has to be re-skilled, re-trained and re-educated to achieve higher standards of capabilities”, why are we raising vocational education fees so soon before wage cuts are restored?
In this connection, another example is the reduction of the subsidy by five per cent for PRs in Class C wards in hospitals from next year, and by another five per cent the following year.
Actually, a five and 10 per cent reduction in subsidy from the current 70 per cent subsidy, translates to a 16.7 and 33.3 per cent increase in medical fees, respectively.
With regards to the assertion that “we always give preference to our own citizens”, with the total increase at 100 per cent, from the former 80 per cent subsidy to 60 per cent eventually, many Singaporeans may bear the brunt of the increase if they have PR or foreign spouses, dependents or employees.
So, why not increase medical fees for PRs and foreigners, but reduce fees for Singaporeans instead of maintaining the status quo?
So, incomes are down, GDP has contracted in the last quarter, but fees are going up.
Let’s hope that other fees and costs will also not start to go up, citing the reason that the economy is recovering.
Those who may suffer the most when costs go up and incomes go down may be the poor.
On the same issue, there have been media reports that charities need more donations.
For example, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) had a budget deficit of $0.9 million, its biggest shortfall in 10 years, for the 2008/2009 financial year ended in June (“NKF to dip into reserves of $270m: Charity hit by economic downturn and drop in donations”, ST, Nov 29, 2009).
According to its annual report for 2007/2008, the surplus was $9 million, and the surplus for 2006/2007 was $19 million.
Does this mean that the 2007/2008 net surplus of $9 million alone, not counting the 2006/2007 surplus of about $19 million, may be enough to cover about ten times or ten years of the current year’s $0.9 million deficit?
There has been a significant reduction in investment income from $11.6 million in 2006/2007 to $3.2 million in 2007/2008, and to just $80,000 now.
What has NKF been investing in such that its investment income can fall from $11.6 million to $80,000, a drop of more than 99 per cent in two years?
NKF has $270 million of reserves now, compared to $262.8 million in December 2005.
When the NKF saga broke in 2005, one of the issues which riled Singaporeans was that it had some 30 years or so of reserves instead of the three years that the public was led to believe.
Its 2007/2008 report states that “After adjusting for inflation, the existing surplus fund is expected to last for only seven years”.
Now, it says that its current reserves of $270 million can only last for five years or so.
I am somewhat puzzled by the figures — if $262.8 million in 2005 was deemed to be about 30 years of reserves, why is it that $247 million in June 2008 was expected to last for only seven years, and now $270 million for just five years, despite cost-cutting measures like giving cubicles instead of rooms to managers?
How does the NKF fare in the light of the new guidelines for charities on the accumulation of reserves?
Despite the current year’s $0.9 million budget deficit, is NKF still the largest charity with the most reserves, and the most number of years of reserves?
Finally, with regards to the statement “Without growth, Singapore will not be what it is and the key to our growth is a government taking right decisions and labour unions, employers, and the government working together. No other country in the world has got this combination”, let the following statistics speak for themselves:
- There are 24,000 needy residents in just one CDC — North East Community Development Council. How many needy in total in Singapore?
- Singapore’s workers continue to lead the pack when it comes to the number of hours they put in at work, according to a report by the International Labor Organization (ILO). The report puts them at the top of 13 economies in the group’s Global Wages Report for 2008-09, surpassing even the notoriously hardworking Japanese and Taiwanese.
- Only 60 per cent are projected to have at least $67,000 in their CPF in 2013, according to a CNA report.
- 60,000 flat dwellers were given financial counseling by the HDB as a result of having difficulty in paying for their flats in 2008, and 30,770 flat-owners were in arrears over three months as of September 2009.
- According to the Department of Statistics’ Household Expenditure Survey released in December, the Average Monthly Household Income by Income Quintile for 2008, was $1,274 and $3,476 for the 1st–20th and 21st–40th quintiles respectively.
- 105,965 households earn below $1,000.
- 116,092 households earn $1,000 – $1,999
- Yhe bottom 20% of households’ monthly income declined by minus 1,4 per cent per annum in real terms from 1998 to 2008, and the 21st to 40th quintile of households’ income increased by only 0.9 per cent (2.3 per cent increase less 1.4 per cent inflation) in real terms.
- The unemployment rate for cleaners, labourers and related workers was the highest across all sectors in June 2009 at 8.3 percent, according to the MOM’s Workforce 2009 report released last year.
- Part-timers’ median income in 1999 was $600. The increase for the last 10 years was only $20, or an annual increase of only 0.3 per cent, without adjusting for inflation. And it is important to consider that a possible reason for the $20 increase may be that a part-timer is now defined as one working 35 hours or less, instead of 30 hours.
- 401,600 resident workers earned less than $1,200 a month as of June 2009.
- The number of children applying for the Straits Times Pocket Money Fund reaching an all-time high of 11,642.
- For the poorest 20% of households, their Expenditure at $1,760 in 2008, was 38% more than their Income of $1,274.
- Singapore was ranked very high at No. 10 in Mercer’s 2009 Cost of Living Survey.
-
More poor people helped with less money?
By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “$2m fund to help 24,000 needy residents” (ST, Feb 18).It states that “More than 24,000 needy residents from the North East District stand to benefit from a $2 million community partnership between the North East Community Development Council (CDC) and religious society Zhi Zhen Tan Dao Xue Hui”.
If there are 24,000 needy residents served by just one CDC, how many in total are there in Singapore, since there are five CDCs?
With 24,000 needy residents benefiting from $2m, does it mean that on the average, each needy resident may get only about $7 a month ($2 million divided by 24,000 residents divided by 12 months)?
I also refer to media reports (“33,000 turn to ComCare”, ST, Jan 27) stating that a record 33,000 households were successful applicants for ComCare schemes last year, an increase of 47 per cent compared to 2008.
As the ComCare budget was $63.7 million in 2008, with an increase of 47 per cent, on a proportional basis for the first nine months of the current financial year, the amount disbursed should be about $70.2 million ($63.7 million 2008 budget x 1.47 x 9/12 months).
So, why is it that only $51.3 million of this year’s $77 million budget has been used?
Does it mean that on the average, each needy household received about $173 monthly ($51.3 million divided by 33,000 households divided by 9 months)?
Using the same methodology, the average assistance per household per month in 2008 was $236 ($63.7 million divided by 22,449 households (33,000 divided by 1.47) divided by 12 months).
Why is it that the average monthly assistance appears to have declined by 27 per cent from 2008 to 2009 ($173 out of $236)?
The above is a very rough analysis based on the statistics publicly available.
Of course, applicants will be approved on a rolling basis in the course of a year, and assistance for some existing needy households will terminate when they are deemed to be no longer requiring help.
So, what we need to know is the average assistance per month per household for these 33,000 households, instead of just the total figure of $51.3 million used to-date.
-
Originally posted by �玟 往日情:
More poor people helped with less money?
By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “$2m fund to help 24,000 needy residents” (ST, Feb 18).It states that “More than 24,000 needy residents from the North East District stand to benefit from a $2 million community partnership between the North East Community Development Council (CDC) and religious society Zhi Zhen Tan Dao Xue Hui”.
If there are 24,000 needy residents served by just one CDC, how many in total are there in Singapore, since there are five CDCs?
With 24,000 needy residents benefiting from $2m, does it mean that on the average, each needy resident may get only about $7 a month ($2 million divided by 24,000 residents divided by 12 months)?
I also refer to media reports (“33,000 turn to ComCare”, ST, Jan 27) stating that a record 33,000 households were successful applicants for ComCare schemes last year, an increase of 47 per cent compared to 2008.
As the ComCare budget was $63.7 million in 2008, with an increase of 47 per cent, on a proportional basis for the first nine months of the current financial year, the amount disbursed should be about $70.2 million ($63.7 million 2008 budget x 1.47 x 9/12 months).
So, why is it that only $51.3 million of this year’s $77 million budget has been used?
Does it mean that on the average, each needy household received about $173 monthly ($51.3 million divided by 33,000 households divided by 9 months)?
Using the same methodology, the average assistance per household per month in 2008 was $236 ($63.7 million divided by 22,449 households (33,000 divided by 1.47) divided by 12 months).
Why is it that the average monthly assistance appears to have declined by 27 per cent from 2008 to 2009 ($173 out of $236)?
The above is a very rough analysis based on the statistics publicly available.
Of course, applicants will be approved on a rolling basis in the course of a year, and assistance for some existing needy households will terminate when they are deemed to be no longer requiring help.
So, what we need to know is the average assistance per month per household for these 33,000 households, instead of just the total figure of $51.3 million used to-date.
Some are not poor, but mentally poor, as i said many times already, our poors are very much richer than the poors of our neighbouring countries. Be blessed that you are here. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
Some are not poor, but mentally poor, as i said many times already, our poors are very much richer than the poors of our neighbouring countries. Be blessed that you are here.
Only the resident Taiwanese 'hum' can be mentally poor - considering its inability to take note of its irrelevance and stupendous ability to spread its ignorance here.No one will bless this daily routine display of idiocy and irrelevance of the Taiwanese 'hum' to exercise its ‘Labia Majora’ and ‘Labia Minora’ - simply to attract attention to itself as the resident 'Attention Seeking Whore'.
-
i post article to let people decide to vote
i am neutral
the end
-
I am only trying to leviate the poor status mah, so that the poor got more confident to stand on their own, earn thru their hands rather than keep complaining and whining, our poors here still got CC, TC, MPs and MCY and many more insitutions and communities to help them, in other countries, they got professional poors too.
