Paying through my house

I like Tharman. It was the first time, ever, that I sat through any budget report. Many of the figures went a little over my head. I was watching his demeanor and I liked what I saw. He sounded more compassionate than many in his team and I liked that. I liked that he saw the difficulty of the poor, the handicapped, the elderly and the less “meritocratic” amongst us. I like the call for dignity for the blue collared workers, although I sniggered that he was quick to qualify that dignity was achieved by attitudes and not by salary alone. Ah well – may write about that one some other time.

 

Of course, the problem of the elderly and their ability to afford healthcare was discussed at length. Much of the help rendered will be well appreciated. There are a host of different subsidies for instance that will bring welcome relief to many. But what really got me thinking is the housing cash grant.

 

Tharman said, and quite rightly, that the elderly worry about healthcare costs. (Dear minister – not just the elderly, but ok, I take your point). He said that what was fortunate for them was that the house they owned was worth a lot, and was something they could tap into. So, if I understood it correctly, his budget proposal was that if they were to downgrade to a three-room flat or smaller, then they would be entitled to a 20k grant, 15k of which would be in cash. The other condition was that they had to first top up their CPF account to fulfill the minimum sum. This in turn would be converted to CPF Life, and would ensure a life-time income of $1200 pm, using the figures he had as an example.

 

It sounded good – $20k is not to be scoffed at. But is this really a good scheme?

 

First of all, the elderly are very afraid of moving. They like the familiar, and to ask them to move is to load them with terrific stress. Be that as it may, moving costs money. For a start, unless the government has ready apartments for them direct from HDB, there is the COV to consider. Then there is the cost of renovation, no matter how minor. How about legal and stamp fees? Should they use an agent to sell/buy their flat, what about the agency fees? The 15k cash can easily be consumed by all these costs. In fact, it may not even cover the costs. Ideally, the sale of the house, after putting in everything back to cover the minimum sum should give the elderly couple decent cash in hand. But would it really? Who would advice them financially and help them do their sums? And would they be moving away from familiar support? Familiar support often comes in the form of children/ family living nearby, and long-time neighbours.

 

Then there are the other family members to consider. Some of these elderly citizens house their children or grandchildren. For them to downgrade will mean tufting their children out. It is easy to say that for most of us, when the children grow older, they will get married and will live on their own. Realistically though, it is getting increasingly difficult for young people to buy their own homes, and mama and papa’s house is where they will have to stay for a while.

 

I suppose my biggest discomfort is the suggestion that, if all else fails, we must pay through our house. Traditionally, the house is a home. It is also probably the only asset of value that we can leave our children. What this is suggesting is that we have to rethink these values, and think of the house as a retirement cum health plan. I am just uncomfortable with that. If there is a chance of downgrading, it is still well and good. But if you are already in a 3 room flat, is there really much to be gleaned to downgrade to a 2 room flat, in the open market?

 

The other day I was just doing some home administration. I happened to look at the medical insurance that my children have. This is a medishield type of insurance. Glancing at the premiums, it is clear that they increase with age – not unfair, since obviously medical needs will increase with age. Premium at age 71 is roughly 2.4k. So for a couple, the premiums will be roughly 5k. Of course this is not the basic plan – I do not have the figures for anything else. Hopefully there is something much cheaper – though that might mean inadequate coverage. In other words, even if there were no need for other costs in the downgrading exercise, the 15k cash the government gives for downgrading can only cover 3 years of health premiums.

 

Tharman said something else. He said that health insurances would be extended to cover those above 90. He also cautioned that this meant that the premiums would go up. Hence the government would be topping up our CPF to soften this increase. Therein lies another problem. The insurance policy that I was looking at stated clearly that premiums were not guaranteed. In other words, as health care costs increase, it is abundantly clear that premiums will go up. With stagnating wages, and cost of living so high, insurance might just be considered a luxury in time to come.

 

At the end of the day, we can drum up ingenious ways to help pay for healthcare. But there is a limit to what can be done. Something has to be done to bring costs down. I feel that too little is being done here. If the hole gets bigger, it will get impossible to patch. A stitch in time saves nine. Using scotch tape will help till the next wash, when the hole will get even bigger.

Stay Away from Her

 

Solomon – a man known for his wisdom, chose to have innumerable wives and concubines. Yet in the book of Proverbs, he warned against adultery and sexual immorality in no uncertain terms. Proverbs 5 alone spelt out in length the ruin that would befall the man who failed to stay away from her (sexual immorality). Unfortunately Mr Yaw would probably be able attest to the accuracy of that proverb.

 

I am upset. Friends who are social workers tell me Mr Yaw did a marvelous job at the grassroots level. He worked hard and he cared. So he had a weakness – but who is without sin? Should he be expelled simply because he had an affair? I am as conservative as they come – but modern society always claims acceptance at sexual dalliances. So are we being hypocritical?

 

I simply feel that we have gotten the order wrong. We often fail to teach the young abstinence and denials as virtues. Instead some label these as archaic and irrelevant in modern society. We tend to close an uncomfortable eye when we see the tell-tale signs of the beginnings of an illicit relationship. But when the shit hits the ceiling fan we cry for public confession and crucify the man. In so doing, we pay little heed to those immediately affected – an aged mother perhaps, a wife in pain or children shamed.

 

So yes – teach abstinence and denials as part of the sex ed programme please, teach – not preach. Teach the young ones how to avoid compromising situations, tell them about the natural urges that healthy males and females will feel, show them what can be done to minimize such urges, explain responsibility, mention the social costs of sexual laxity and warn them about the emotional upheavals they can cause to their loved ones. No one “sins” alone. I am not saying we ignore the other part of sex ed programme. But abstinence must be taught too because it is not natural to want to abstain.

 

Precisely because sex can be so heady, it is wise to have accountability partners. This is by the no means fool proof, but someone who can check in once in a while can help pull one back before one steps over the brink. Like doctors who make sure they have nurses with them during patients’ examinations, politicians too would do well to avoid visiting residents alone.

 

When all has failed, instead of bashing the perpetrator, it is time to have damage control. It is time to move towards reconciliation and healing. In persisting in wanting to punish the villain, often it is the vulnerable that suffers the most pain and shame. Frankly the less said publicly the better. In private though, the parties concerned need the service of a compassionate counselor who can take them through the confession – forgiveness process.

 

I felt that Mr Yaw and WP were doing the right thing when they kept very quiet about the allegations. In my mind, let this issue be settled privately first, then a public statement would be in order. I certainly do not agree with Mr Khaw’s statement about the public figure having no private life – my paraphrase. If that were true, then the citizens will want an accounting from all politicians regarding their rumoured failings, plus details of their personal wealth, and the positions that each of their family members are holding.

 

Then the shocker – Mr Yaw was expelled. I was very upset.

 

Then I thought more about this. It is unfortunate that one of the complainants was a resident. Allegations about an affair with a colleague is a private matter. But if there were affairs with residents that he was helping, then there was a breach of ethics. A lack of denial spoke volumes. I began to understand WP’s move – they could not afford an onslaught of accusations with no leg to stand in terms of defense if Mr Yaw refused to help them. On the other hand, silence need not mean an admission of guilt – he could have his reasons to keep mum. Still, his party leaders could not keep using ignorance to push away complaints.

 

I am sure it was a painful decision for Mr Low Thia Khiang. After all, Mr Yaw was his protégé, and someone he had poured his own life into. Potentially losing Hougang after all the years of work put in would cause Mr Low and WP much. Still, it had to be done.

 

So no, PM, Mr Khaw, I do not see WP as having let the people down. I see a character weakness that was unchecked that brought about a man’s downfall. This can happen to anyone. I see a party that could not and would not protect a member at all costs. A by election in Hougang could be suicide for WP. Still, it was a decision that they had taken to show a sense of responsibility for alleged wrong-doings. It’s not about whether Mr Yaw had broken criminal law or not – it’s really potentially about his apparent unwillingness to be transparent to his leaders and the possibility of a breach of ethics should residents be involved.

 

To me, I feel really sad that Mr Yaw had lost so much in this debacle. No man is beyond redemption. I still believe that this young man can rise again, can be helped once more, should be given another chance – but perhaps after some private time. He needs that privacy to heal – and it will be good if we can leave him alone to do just that.

 

And yes, please stay away from her in the future.