Skip to main content

异地养老终于成为事实 这是我们的又一经济成绩

去年大选前,把国人送到新山养老是个热门话题,当时许文远部长还说,他不是这个意思,为何要送国人到国外养老,做这么不孝道的事呢?言犹在耳,异地养老终于成为事实。虽然,我们是世界上最富有的国家之一, 但是,我们还是做不到‘老吾老以及人之老’。

呜呼,我们真的没有其他方法了吗?我们为国人提供养老服务,真的是一个‘钱’字,压倒一切吗?老一辈国人真的有必要客死他乡吗? 如果社会成本一定要拿经济成本来衡量,来计算,那么,人的一生也就像一堆钱,一堆由钱堆积的纸人。但是,再多的钱,也装不进棺材。

难怪,吴作栋在脸书上一发表外来人才为本国人创造就业机会的言论,就受到网民的攻击。他过后纠正说法,他建议专家们研究,如何计算成本代价和收益。不是说,行动党政府是一个有远见,有计划的政府吗?这种计算,不是早早就进行了吗,研究过了吗?为何当时没有算好好,就大事引进人口?或许,从经济的角度上来看,这是完全正确的,回报高,收益高,但是,却没有计算社会成本,因为,根本没有把人民的福利,人会变老,生病,计算在内。

不知道,吴作栋的意思是不是要把社会成本也包括在内,以便计算出一个比较接近民意的结果。而政府愿意不愿意重新启动新的计算方法,把社会成本,把引进人口的非经济因素也考虑在内。我们在等待,在看这是不是又是另一‘说说而已’的事,反正吴作栋已经不在内阁,他的话的‘含金量’已经大不如前了。

不论怎么计算,在新加坡,算到最后,还是要看你的口袋有多少斤两。

这年头,讲孝心还是要讲经济实力和势力的。不然,就只有忍痛把父母送到邻国去养老。怪只怪自己没有本事,钱不够多,只能把父母送到新山去养老,节省开支,也顾不了前总理曾经说过新山这个地方,治安不好,犯罪率高。看着自己的荷包,也只能如此,难道还要到赌场去试一下运气吗?那结局不是更加悲惨吗?

这个事实,也不就是新加坡人生活的写照吗?钱不够用尤其普遍发生在低收入家庭。没钱养老,就到外国去,没钱在新加坡居住,也到邻国去住。没钱买政府组屋,没钱上大学,没钱看病,当然也没钱养老了。钱,钱,钱,没钱真的办不了事。

养老的根本问题

政府到底是真的了解异地养老的根本问题,还是不知道。或者,还在逃避责任。早报625日的报道,真可以说是一绝。人家已经没有钱了,还要再加上法律的制裁。因为,在新加坡,孩子照顾父母是有法令制约的。
《避免父母异地养老法律只是最后途径  社会发展、青年及体育部代部长陈振声昨天在部长访问选区同居民对话时,回答居民关于政府是否会立法限制国人将父母送到邻国疗养院的问题,解释国会已通过《赡养父母法令》来保护失去依靠的年长者。  但是在新加坡社会里,大多数老人在情感上未必会认同这些法律途径,不愿通过这些途径去解决问题。
  我国年长者入住邻国疗养院,过去几年一直是国人关注的课题。我国人口日益老龄化,一些国人基于经济考量,将父母送到邻国收费较低廉的疗养院。最近,也有媒体报道一名本地男子把母亲送到柔佛新山的一家疗养院,还拖欠住院费。》(早报625日)
养老院越迁越远 孝心跟的上吗?

部长回避了异地养老的根本问题,孩子就是要节省金钱,才把父母迁到新山去养老。不止如此,有一天,新山也变得越来越贵,就要往更远的地方移去,到关丹,到怡保去。那个时候,孩子看望父母的机会,就进一步减少,这么一来,想进孝道孝心就变得越来越困难,很可能从新山的一日游,变成关丹,怡保的两,三日游了。

如果我们在计算养老院的成本时,也向给学生提供学校一样的成本计算时,那么,养老院的成本,尤其是建筑成本,就会大大的降低,但是,这却是违反经济成本的计算。政府怎么可能提供廉价建筑给养老院呢?老人们一方面已经没有生产力,不能做出贡献,另一面却要政府资助津贴,这盘帐是怎样都不划算的,越算越亏本,更何况是行动党,斤斤计较,经济利益第一的思维,因此,它就只有把这个责任往孩子身上压。

你看部长怎么说:《他也指出,政府正检讨疗养院的经营模式,特别是人力资源和费用方面,从而降低疗养院成本,减低我国疗养院收费。》当初政府在租金上给予职总平价津贴时,不也是没有考虑经济成本吗?但是,职总毕竟对维护行动党政权有功,养老院啊!好像没有加分的好处。

有关有没有孝心,有没有尽孝道的问题,真的是‘家家有本难念的经’。不要光凭表面就说这个人不孝,没尽孝道。也不可能依据法律来制裁这个人有没有尽孝道。当然,真的不孝的孩子也有,但是,这恐怕不是一个‘钱’字,就能说清楚的。

养老还是要有经济做后盾的,为何公积金最低存款,年年提高,为何有这么多老人,达不到最低存款的标准,他们如何养老,在法律上,这就成了孩子的问题了,孩子的问题,难道不是国家的问题吗?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...