$1.6b Baby Perks

FROM January next year, working mothers will get double the amount of monthly subsidies at childcare centres, from $150 to $300. At infantcare centres, their subsidies will also go up, from $400 to $600 a month.

Child tax relief for parents will extend beyond the fourth child. Also, for each child, parents can claim for $4,000, instead of $2,000. The tax relief for a handicapped child has also gone up to $5,500, from $3,500.

These subsidies are among the new and enhanced package of measures Singapore is introducing to boost births and support parents, an issue that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong highlighted at Sunday’s National Day Rally.

Details of the raft of measures were announced on Wednesday by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, the minister in charge of population issues.

It will cost the Government $1.6 billion – double the budget of the current parenthood and marriage package – and will benefit a wide spectrum of the population with the idea of creating a ‘family-family’ Singapore, he told the media.

‘We need a society that looks upon marriage as something important, something useful in their lives and and to have children is something joyful to have and as a result, they want to have more children,’ said Mr Wong.

Besides subsidies, the perks includes tax reliefs, grants and rebates for parents, mums-to-be as well as employers.

Among the new offerings are:

1. Tax relief

The proportion of tax relief that working mums can claim has also risen: They can claim 15 per cent for first child instead of 5 per cent, 20 per cent for second child (15 per cent); 25 per cent for third child and others (20 per cent for third and 25 per cent for 4th child) .

The total amount parents can claim year for each child has been doubled to $50,000, from $25,000.

In all, the various tax reliefs, including what already exists, can mean up to 16 tax-free years for a double-income couple making $50,000 and have three children.

2. Baby Bonus

Parents will also receive a bigger baby bonus: $4,000 for first and second child instead of $3,000. The government will also contribute to the Children Development Account (CDA) of the first and firth child onwards. Previously, there was nothing for these children.

From January 1 2009, it will match savings dollar for dollar the savings in the CDA up to $6,000. For the 5th child onwards, it will contribute up to $18,000.

3. Leave for parents

Leave for mothers and fathers will be more generous.

Paid maternity leave will go up from 12 to 16 weeks for mothers of Singaporean children born from Jan 1 next year. The last eight weeks can be taken flexibly over 12 months from the child’s birth.

Unpaid infant care leave has been introduced, giving each parent six days of leave a year when the child is younger than two years old.

In addition, paid childcare leave has been extended from two to six days a year for each parent when the child is below age six.

4. Protection for pregnant women

Greater protection will be given to pregnant women at work. They will get maternity leave benefits, if fired without good cause within the last six months of pregnancy. These benefits will also be given if she is laid off in the last three months of her pregnancy.

5. Co-funding of in-vitro fertilisation treatment

In a turnaround, the Government will from next month co-pay fertility treatments for women under age 40 but the treatment must be at public hospitals. Couples can receive 50 per cent funding – up to $3,000 – for each cycle of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) treatments, for a maximum of three cycles.

Even as the Government make these offering to Singaporeans, Mr Wong stressed that ‘getting married and having children is a very personal matter’.

He said: ‘Singaporeans have to decide when to take that step but what the government can do is to create a more family-friendly environment so that Singaporeans will find it more conducive to have children, to get married and have children.’

Source: $1.6b Baby Perks By Lee Siew Hua

A Student’s Perspective: Political Apathy Amongst Youths

A great deal has been made about the alleged political apathy of Singapore’s youth who tend to steer clear of discussing issues which have bearing on Singapore’s political agenda , preferring the safer zones of youthful interests like schoolyard gossip.The political apathy of Singapore’s youth can be ascribed to both the stifling system of government, and the reluctance of youth themselves to raise their voices over barriers that have been put in place.

The space in Singapore for political discourse is sorely limited, both physically and metaphorically. Speakers’ Corner is out of the way, unconducive to public discussion. “Communist” is and has been used to denounce certain people whose views happen to be discordant with those of the government.

At the National University of Singapore, there is the NUS Students’ Political Association. Previously, there was also the NUS Democratic Socialist Club, but it has been dissolved, due to poor recruitment and interest. There is also the Current Affairs Society at Nanyang Technological University, and the Current Affairs Club at the Singapore Management University. These undergraduate organisations are now dormant, as much of their sting has been removed when some students were found to be too politically active. University statutes were linked to Parliamentary enactments so as to hinder chances for the students’ unions to amend their constitutions, as well as to structurally divide students at the universities. Even the layout of universities were planned such that quick, large scale mobilizations are prevented.

At the junior college level, there is no form of political education, perhaps only in discussions within the context of the General Paper. Now that National Education is being taught in schools, it primarily focuses on Singapore’s histor, rather than providing a critical political education. Other conduits such as the Singapore International Foundation, National Youth Council and the People’s Association Youth Movement do not have explicit political programmes, but are active on the educational and cultural fronts. The political awareness is very much on the low side for youths.

Some factors for such a sad state of affairs include the PAP’s top-down rather than bottom up approach, the conditioning of youths to by the education system to accept authority without question, the element of fear, which makes youths endorse the establishment’s line of thinking. As such, most youths wholeheartedly accept Singapore’s political system, which offers a simple bargain: Unflinching loyalty to the government in return for security and prosperity.

All these point essentially to a reluctance on the part of the government to allow an onslaught of liberalism to endanger a nation that has been so painstakingly brought up to its current position of economis success. This fear has become so great that political apathy becomes preferable to the greater evil of the opposition. Nevertheless, this mindsetmust shift to accomodate new ideas from the youth; whether or not these views are a practical with the current state of affairs is almost unimportant, for these are the voices of the future.

Therefore, the extent to which political apathy can be solved really hinges on the willingness of those in power to release the minds of the youth which have been shackled for some time now and let them take flight.

Written by Lim Yan Wen, a Temasek Junior College student.

Should Singapore Government legalize organ trading?

 

An important debate is raging in Singapore: Should government legalize organ trade? The debate began last month when two young Indonesians were arrested and jailed for trying to sell their kidneys to a wealthy businessman in Singapore. The Human Organ Transplant Act “bans the supply of any organ or blood for valuable consideration” in Singapore.

mr wang says so articulates the key ethical issue in the debate:

“The key ethical objection is that human organ trading may lead to the exploitation of the poor and of socially disadvantaged donors who are unable to make an informed choice.”

Singapore is fifth highest in the world in terms of incidence of kidney failure. According to a news report, at least 3,500 people in Singapore have kidney failure; 600 are on the transplant list. But they have to wait up to nine years for a cadaveric donation.

Blinkymummy supports the legalization of organ trade:

“I personally believe that there is no good reason to prevent organ trading, provided the transaction is carried out within a well-defined framework. Why should anyone die on the waiting list because his family and friends are not equipped with a compatible kidney?

“On top of willing buyer and seller, these two parties ought to be fully informed of the risks involved. And the best party to be playing referee is the state. Because it is highly efficient and good at rationalising the necessary.”

But a reader has a different opinion:

“Is the state truly a good party to be a referee? In an ideal country, yes. Since no country is ideal, I do not think letting the state act as referee is safe.

“In a trade of organs, the poor will never have the chance for himself to enjoy a better life, only a chance to redeem his family from poverty. I do not think the state has the moral capacity to play this referee of fate.”

Singapore Law Watch uploads an article by Jennifer Yeo & Madan Mohan. The authors believe organ trade is beneficial:

“Organ donation, even if it involves valuable consideration, may make life better for both parties who find no way out of problems of health or poverty. If the state – and the altruists – cannot help the poor in overcoming their problems, it ought not to raise more barriers for them.

“Singapore can take the lead and set a good precedent for the international community by legalizing organ trade. The Republic has the infrastructure to facilitate such transactions.

“One idea is to set up a kidney registry for registering and screening donors and recipients to find matches and ensure that there has been no coercion, duress or exploitation. A charitable foundation or independent administrative body could take care of this and related matters such as informed consent, protection of identities of donors and donees, requirements, medical bills, insurance, compensation and benefits for donors, their families and other post-transplant issues.”

The authors’ proposals were echoed by government ministers who recently hinted that a certain procedure allowing organ trade will be implemented in the future. Carpe Diem – Seize the day also believes that:

“Singapore can take the lead in studying and implementing a system which permits the sale of organs that would strike a balance between individual needs and societal principal.”

But the Singapore Medical Association is opposing organ trade. Angry Doctor criticizes this position:

“Angry Doc feels that while doctors are individually entitled to their own moral viewpoints, and as a profession our ethics allow us to choose whether to participate or refrain from participation in a certain type of treatment, as advocates for our patients our role when it comes to a medical issue should be one of active participation through education and provision of information. We must not try to abdicate our responsibility while using the morality of a portion of doctors as an excuse.”

Catholic bloggers are opposing organ trade. A quiet moment shares a sample of the Catholic perspective:

“A donated organ can save a life but at whose expense? Somebody could be duped, coerced, pressured, offered incentives or even killed to have their organs extracted for the recipient.

“Has the patient been given adequate information, and made to understand what life will be after post-transplant surgery rather than living a life of regret from depression and ailments common to post-transplant surgery.”

Sze Zeng lambasts the commercialization of all aspects of life:

“In the organ trade, the term ‘organ donor’ is an oxymoron for in a trade there is no compensation but payment, and there is no donor but simply owner. The relationship does not bear any altruistic meaning but pure commercial transaction. The attraction in legalizing organ trade is the extension of widespread commercialization over all sphere of reality.”

Javert’s World warns that organ trade will mean the “survival of the rich and extinction of the poor.” Another blogger points out that legalizing organ trade will not eliminate the underground market for kidney sales:

“Should the government decide to legalize organ trade and establish an organized system complete with standard operating procedures, there is no assurance that the black market will be totally eradicated. It is just like how loan sharks can still exist even with banks around, or how underground bets still thrive alongside the legal betting.”

But CTW explains that:

“Having some form of control over organ trading would prevent the middleman from exploiting the would-be donor. I am not suggesting things are simple but the Singapore authorities are good at plugging the loopholes.”

Anders Brink cautions against passing a law that would exploit the poor countries near Singapore:

“What kind of legal position is this, where Singapore can have a law that legalizes exploitation of the neighboring countries’ poor people? What kind of message are we sending to our neighbors? Basically, Singapore is in this position because she is rich, while her neighbors are poor. If when you are rich, you demonstrate to others that you are willing to pass an exploitative law, how do you want to be treated when you are poor?”

Iran is often mentioned in the debates because it is the only country in the world which allows the selling of kidneys (Iranians call it ‘organ sharing’).

A comment written by a reader in the blog of mr wang says so highlights a very significant point:

“I think that a larger issue that has been overlooked is the holistic care of our citizens with chronic illnesses, which includes renal (kidney) failure patients.

“Renal failure patients with poor health are largely from a disadvantaged socioeconomic background. They usually have high blood pressure or diabetes, but could not afford the intensive medical care required to delay the onset of complications. As a result, they progress to renal failure much earlier, which needs to be treated with dialysis.

“How then do we avoid this whole mess? Prevention is really better than ‘cure’, as in this case, kidney transplants are so limited, and essentially priceless. But the prevention is also expensive.

“The question really then, is how much is the government willing to step in to provide cheap healthcare to the people who need it, but are not able to afford it. Based on our national healthcare budget, it doesn’t seem to be a lot, compared to other areas such as defence.”

Source: Should Singapore Governement legalize organ trade by Mong Palatino

WELCOME TO POLITICAL APATHY PROHIBITED (PAP)

Feel free to leave comments on the articles posted!

We love a healthy discussion (: