ElderShield review committee proposes severe disability insurance scheme be made compulsory for future cohorts
PUBLISHEDJAN 30, 2018, 12:32 PM SGTUPDATEDJAN 30, 2018, 9:17 PM
Linette Lai Health Correspondent
SINGAPORE - ElderShield coverage should be made compulsory, including for those with pre-existing disabilities, said the committee reviewing the insurance scheme for people with severe disabilities.
It also recommended that people should start paying premiums at age 30 rather than 40 and suggested that the Government, rather than private insurance providers, should administer it. And it called for the claims process to be simplified.
If accepted, its proposals will only apply to Singaporeans aged 30 to 40 who are joining ElderShield for the first time. People who have previously opted out will not be made to go back on the scheme.
The committee gave its interim update on Tuesday (Jan 30), with the full set of recommendations expected to follow by the middle of this year.
“We want ElderShield to be a social safety net, and we all have a collective responsibility to take care of those with disabilities,” said Mr Chaly Mah, who chairs the Eldershield Review Committee.
In a Facebook post on Tuesday, Senior Minister of State for Health Chee Hong Tat said that an enhanced ElderShield scheme would enable Singaporeans to “pool our risks and resources in preparation for old age.”
“It is an important pillar of Singapore’s social safety net as our society ages,” he said. “The Government will look at providing premiums subsidies to keep the premiums affordable for lower and middle-income Singaporeans.”
continue reading here :
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...ade-compulsory
Another way for them to suck our hard earned money from our CPF .
Minister Chee Hong Tat: Singaporeans to pay mandatory disability insurance
January 30, 2018
After secretly increasing Minimum Sum to S$181,000 in Jan 2018, the Singapore government have came out with a new scheme to leech CPF funds again: this time with compulsory Eldershield on top of Medishield Life insurance.
Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat today (Jan 30) announced on his Facebook page proposing that the disability insurance, Eldershield, be made mandatory:
“An enhanced ElderShield scheme would enable Singaporeans to pool our risks and resources in preparation for old age.”
Currently, Eldershield is an opt-in by default insurance scheme paid through CPF Medisave for Singaporeans aged 40 and above, and it pays S$400 a month for 6 years only when a person is certified permanently disabled and below the age of 65. Once a recipient reach 65 years old, there will be no payout. The PAP Minister said he want to lower the age to 30 years old and make the insurance compulsory. However, Minister Chee Hong Tat did not explain why there is a need to lower the age even though the probability of being permanently disabled is lower at the age band between 30 to 40 years old. The PAP Minister also did not explain why should Eldershield be made compulsory and did not provide any data to back up his proposal.
Premiums start at S$217 a year for females aged at 40. For elderly Singaporeans aged 55 and above, the premiums start to get more expensive up to S$3,131 a year.
The Singapore government is expected to collect an estimated S$1.5 billion if Minister Chee Hong Tat made the insurance compulsory. Aside from paying Eldershield, Singaporeans need to pay Medishield Life premiums.
Those who have not enough Medisave to pay the premiums will have to pay in cash, or face legal actions from the Ministry of Health that administers the insurance.
With more Singaporeans paying premiums for health insurance through their CPF accounts, the Singapore government can save on healthcare spending.
continue reading here :
Hawker centre customers condemn Amy Khor’s Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee initiatives
Published on 2018-02-01 by The Online Citizen
On Monday (29 Jan), it was reported that two hawker centres, one at Marsiling Mall and the other at Bukit Merah Central, have started charging deposits for food trays used in the hawker centres.
It also said that over the next few years, up to 25 hawker centres managed could start charging deposits for food trays too, for the sake of raising productivity.
Patrons at Marsiling Mall Hawker Centre will have to pay $0.50 for the food trays, while those at the Bukit Merah hawker centre will pay $1. The deposits would be refunded once patrons return their trays.
However, cleaners will continue to be employed. NEA said that the scheme will allow cleaners to be “better able to focus on table-cleaning, allowing for a faster turn-around of tables”.
Hawkers will need to pay for such services but initially, they will be subsidised by National Environment Agency (NEA) for only 2 years.
The tray return service is one of the initiatives proposed by Dr Amy Khor’s Hawker Centre 3.0 Committee. She is currently the Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources. Speaking to the media, she said that her committee’s efforts will help to improve hygiene and cleanliness", and improve the dining experience of patrons.
Already, hawkers and customers are throwing brickbats at such initiatives put up by Amy Khor’s committee. Rather than forking out the extra S$0.50 tray deposit, many choose to do without a tray.
continue reading here :
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...e-initiatives/
Really now even PAP want to collect 50 cents to $1.00 for not returning tray . Good boycott the use of trays or even use taboa .
Cashless tray return systems idea ‘worth considering’: Amy Khor
By Toh Ee Ming
Published 01 February, 2018
Updated 01 February, 2018
SINGAPORE — Amid a spirited public debate over the use of tray return systems at hawker centres, Senior Minister of State Amy Khor has reiterated that the longer term objective is for customers to return their trays “spontaneously”, negating the need for deposits.
Writing on Facebook on Thursday (Feb 1), Dr Khor also acknowledged that suggestions to integrate electronic payments with the systems was “certainly worth considering”. Her comments came after TODAY reported on Tuesday that observers and experts felt the systems — which involve customers paying deposits for their trays — seemed at odds with Singapore’s cashless drive, and could be “slightly confusing” to the average customer.
“The National Environment Agency (NEA) continues to explore and look into suggestions to refine the automated tray return systems,” said Dr Khor, who is with the environment and water resources and health ministries.
On Monday, Dr Khor visited the Marsiling Mall Hawker Centre, which is one of two NEA-managed hawker centres where automated tray return systems and centralised dishwashing have been recently implemented. The other centre is at Block 163 Bukit Merah Central.
The systems at the two hawker centres charge cash tray deposits of S$0.50 or S$1.
NEA had said the systems could be rolled out to as many as 25 hawker centres. But just a week earlier, Nets and EZ-Link announced that ez-link and concession cardholders will be able to electronically pay for their food and drinks at some 1,000 stalls in more than 30 hawker centres here from April.
Noting the efforts to introduce e-payment options at hawker centres, Dr Khor said that in the meantime, the deposit for tray return systems could be included in the bill when customers use e-payment but refunded in cash when the tray is returned. This is already being done at food and beverage firm Timbre Group’s two hawker centres in one-north and Yishun.
continue reading here :
https://www.todayonline.com/singapor...ering-amy-khor
Really still want to force your policy onto the customers ? Looks like you are going to lose more votes . Why also is the PAP government in a rush to push for cashless payment ? Can you assure us that the system will be secure and our privacy protected ?
PM Lee Hsien Loong responds to ESM Goh Chok Tong’s ‘watching’ FB posts
ESM Goh posted photos of himself and an unidentified man on Facebook, accompanied by the caption, “I watch as he ruminates in the calmness of Learning Forest, far from the maddening crowd”.
Published 1 hour ago
Updated 42 min ago
Ng Jun Sen
Political Correspondent
SINGAPORE - Netizens have been following with some interest a Facebook exchange between Singapore’s current and immediate past prime ministers on the country’s leadership succession.
The exchange started on New Year’s Eve when Emeritus Senior Minister Goh urged the younger ministers to pick the next Prime Minister before the end of 2018, calling it an “urgent challenge” for Singapore.
On Jan 26, when quizzed about the matter by reporters during a trip to India, PM Lee said that the process to select the next PM will “take a little bit longer” than ESM Goh’s timeline.
He added: “ESM (Goh) is speaking with the privilege of watching things rather than being responsible to make it happen. I think we know it’s a very serious matter.”
ESM Goh then picked up the “watching” reference in two separate Facebook posts.
Last Friday, he posted on his page MParader about his meeting with former Iranian Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance, Dr Ali Tayebnia: “I recalled my two visits to Iran fondly, the first as Prime Minister and the second, as Senior Minister. Both of us now ‘watch’ things happen, and coincidentally share a common title. He serves as Senior Advisor to his President while I serve as Senior Advisor to MAS!”
On Monday morning (Feb 5), ESM Goh made another post on Facebook with a similar reference.
“I watch as he ruminates in the calmness of Learning Forest, far from the maddening crowd,” he wrote, and posted two pictures of himself and an unidentified man in the distance.
A few hours later, PM Lee shared ESM Goh’s post, adding: “‘Watching’ MParader’s posts: Touché!
- LHL”
The posts have led some people to speculate on the relationship between the two men.
continue reading here :
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...ching-fb-posts
Maybe its time for Lau Goh to retire ?
Facebook exchange between PM Lee and ESM Goh cause netizens to believe internal conflict is brewing
February 5, 2018
An online exchange between Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong and his predecessor, current Emeritus Senior Minister (ESM) Goh has been making waves online, leading netizens to speculate that an internal conflict has been brewing between the two.
The exchange between the top politicians began on New Year’s Eve when ESM Goh urged the younger minister to select the next Prime Minister ideally within 6-9 months time, calling this an “urgent challenge” for the nation.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister commented on ESM Goh’s remarks on 26 Jan and said that leadership succession will “take a little bit longer” than what ESM Goh had hoped. He added, in what appeared to be a pointed comment, that “ESM (Goh) is speaking with the privilege of watching things rather than being responsible to make it happen. I think we know it’s a very serious matter.”
In response, the ESM took to Facebook last Friday and posted a comment that appeared to throw subtle shade at the PM’s “watching things” comment. Posting about his meeting with former Iranian Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance, Dr Ali Tayebnia, the former PM said:
“I recalled my two visits to Iran fondly, the first as Prime Minister and the second, as Senior Minister. Both of us now ‘watch’ things happen, and coincidentally share a common title. He serves as Senior Advisor to his President while I serve as Senior Advisor to MAS!”
continue reading here :
(Next) PM: From 4G back to 3G?
Sense And Nonsense - by Tan Bah Bah
February 4, 2018
There is a very strange rhythm to all the talk about who the next Prime Minister will be. Where is it leading to, exactly? Follow the trail closely.
Since PM Lee Hsien Loong said he would be stepping down by 2021, we all expected that he would clarify his decision of who his successor would be by then. No one was hurrying him since he has three years between now and 2021 and the 4G ministers have already been in place. Until Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s Facebook reminder that time is running out.
What was Goh up to? Did he throw in the thunderflash on his own? Speculation in the mainstream media differed. I saw one report that he must have had clearance from the top before he wrote his comment that the issue should be settled early, in six to nine months, to give the anointed next PM enough time to settle down. Another hinted that Goh did it without consulting PM Lee. Does it really matter?
Two other reactions seemed to suggest it was not something that people were nervously biting their fingernails over.
We are aware of our responsibility, we will act in good time, said16 PAP office-holders, including the three frontrunners, Heng Swee Keat, Chan Chun Sing and Ong Ye Kung. So, back off, we will take our time.
Then there was Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance Indranee Rajah:
“That topic has been over-discussed…essentially the 16 have said what we need to say about this. It’s really not about us, it’s about Singapore. While leadership succession is a pressing issue, Singapore’s 4G ministers want to focus on other important topics such as jobs and social issues.”
continue reading here :
In less than a week, PAP whip Chan Chun Sing changes mind over whether MPs should write to courts or not
This despite sharing their ’longstanding’ internal protocol that MPs ‘may sometimes’ send letters to court in ‘urgent’ cases.
By Jeanette Tan | February 9, 2018
If you’ve been following this from last weekend, you’ll be aware of the story of the lady who got her Member of Parliament (MP) to write to court to appeal against her jail term on her behalf:
It was thanks to The Straits Times‘s digging on this that we heard from labour chief Chan Chun Sing, also the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) whip, about the “longstanding” internal party protocol for its members of parliament (MPs) writing letters.
It includes, among other things, these points:
•If the resident requests the MP to do so, he will write a letter to present the resident’s case. The letter will be based on the resident’s assertions, as the MP will usually not be in a position to verify the facts stated by the resident.
• Who the MP’s letter is addressed to will depend on what stage the case is at, and the nature of the request.
• The MP may write to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) under these two conditions — if charges have not yet been brought against a person, and if the MP is appealing for the AGC to not pursue charges.
• Where the case is already before the courts, and the appeal concerns a matter that is for the court to decide, such as an appeal for leniency in sentencing, MPs are generally advised to write to the Ministry of Law (MinLaw). MinLaw will then forward the letters to the courts for consideration.
• In urgent cases, such as if the court hearing is in the next few days, MPs may sometimes use their discretion to give letters by hand to residents to be used in court.
– via The Straits Times, Feb. 4 2018 (emphases ours)
So it does say quite clearly that “in urgent cases… if the court hearing is in the next few days, MPs may… give letters by hand to residents to be used in court”.
continue reading here :
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sharklaserscom
Today got robbery at Singpost sia
Looks like they still have not caught the robber .
Minister Chan Chun Sing flipflop on MP letters to Court
February 9, 2018
After being criticised by States Times Review for exerting political pressure on the judicial process, Minister of State Chan Chun Sing now flipflopped saying that PAP MPs should no longer directly write letters to the Court. Just a week ago, the PAP Whip said that MPs can write to the Court if the matter is “urgent”:
“MPs should write letters of appeal directly to the courts on behalf of residents, saying this is usually done only for urgent cases.”
Without giving an explanation for his U-turn, Minister Chan Chun Sing yesterday (Feb 9) issued an internal memo to all PAP MPs not to write to the Courts anymore:
“PAP MPs must not do anything that may give rise to any misperception that they can influence or interfere in the judicial process.”
PAP MPs’ letters recently hit the headlines after PAP MP Lam Pin Ming’s letter was slammed by the High Court as “misrepresentation of facts”. Despite been proven to influence the judge using false information, no charges was filed against the PAP MP.
continue reading here :
http://statestimesreview.com/2018/02...ters-to-court/
So why should you vote for a PAP MP who cannot help you ?