Coffee Break: Ben Davis NS Deferment, CareShield Premium - YouTube

Uncle, I want a cup of kopi siew dai, two cups of Milo Dinosaur...

kaya toast, two cups of Teh-O, one iced Milo, one iced Horlicks...

(continuous rapping)

Hi! Welcome to another episode of Coffee Break,

where we gather professionals and experts to talk about current affairs.

That's us.

World Cup?

Oh, a potential professional football player?

that had to cut his hair?

- Cut botak (bald) and go to an island for a vacation. - First topic...

...is Ben Davis.

He was not approved to join the EPL Club.

I feel like a fraud, because I don't know anything about soccer.

'Full-ham'.

- What is 'Full-ham'? - 'Fulham'!

"Auntie... I want half ham, half... (inaudible)"

... (He was rejected) because he does not meet the requirement for long-term deferment.

So, the criteria is only granted in...

circumstances where they are assessed to be potential medal-winners

of international competitions like the Olympics.

If he goes for this, he has to give up his Singaporean citizenship.

Which I heard that the family is considering, right?

Actually, the last I read - his father is skewing towards 'just go and serve'.

Oh, really?

I saw the article about giving up citizenship.

- Do you know that it's illegal to give up citizenship? - It is.

Actually, what would you all do if you were Ben Davis?

- I'll serve. - You'll serve? At the expense of your career?

Ok, wait. I didn't think about that. - I'll serve. - You'll serve? At the expense of your career?

Ok, wait. I didn't think about that.

The argument about him serving is basically about policy,

because the government already set the policy. So if we do this, it's a slippery slope.

Then in the future, anyone can be exempted from NS.

The other argument is that they are denying people of the chance to excel in their area.

But there are also people saying that defence is a much more important pillar compared to sports.

I can see the importance of National Service.

One of the points I read in an article is that 'Talent does not go away'.

So even if you give up two years for your country -

there are certain Korean professional footballers who do that -

it shouldn't undermine your football career.

If you are truly motivated to be a professional football player,

maybe work a little harder, you know?

I don't agree. I feel like football in general - maybe work a little harder, you know?

I don't agree. I feel like football in general -

at the EPL level there are millions of teenagers in the UK...

who are trying to make it as professional football players,

only a small percentage of them get to make it to the EPL level.

Which is where Ben Davis has a chance to go and play now.

The main thing here is that...

a lot of people are comparing this with Joseph Schooling,

saying that if he wasn't allowed to defer till 2020,

he wouldn't have gotten the Olympics gold medal for us.

But they don't recognize this EPL thing as something of an international scale.

I didn't know anything about this, so when I went to read the Facebook spats,

most of the people who were angry were saying that it's very unfair for other Singaporeans to serve NS.

So a lot of this anger is stemming from this form of jealousy.

"Oh, it's unfair; why can he go but I can't?" "I had to serve NS, why didn't you?"

A lot of the comments coming up are out of petty anger.

They are not thinking about how they can work to make things like that.

They said they were going to submit an appeal,

but MINDEF said that they did not indicate when he will return for NS in their appeal.

So MINDEF is basically worried that he will not return after deferment.

The thing is, a football career will last him a maximum of 12-15 years.

And if you look at past instances, like Tony Tan's son,

who deferred for 12 years before he came back to serve NS -

and he was a scholar. who deferred for 12 years before he came back to serve NS -

and he was a scholar.

So the question here is: As a scholar, what kind of impact did he really

make to deserve that 12-year deferment?

Probably policy level, which is something we will never see as normal citizens.

I feel that if Fulham had said that they can guarantee he will get at least 5 matches next year,

I think that there's a chance MINDEF will say ok.

But if Fulham is not able to set that guarantee,

there's no reason for MINDEF to agree (on deferment).

That's true.

I don't know... it feels intense.

Moderating 101. "I don't know, man. It feels pretty intense."

But at the same time, I feel that there has to be an evolution in our policies...

on what qualifies for a Singaporean to obtain deferment.

In Korea, they also had cases where footballers were signed.

They allowed them to be deferred, even though

I'd say that defence in South Korea is of critical importance.

- Theirs is so important. - They are at war, man.

But I think that... like what John said, the policies can be evolved...

because it's kind of stuck there.

Ben Davis is lucky as he is appealing during the year of the World Cup.

- Everybody cares about it. - That's going to bring me to my next point.

I read this article online that was not released by any news site,

but I found it very interesting because they talked about

how Singaporeans' relationship with the sports industry is very transactional.

When (teams) are playing in a national stadium,

few people will turn up because they think that the...

what Lions? Don't even know. Red Lions?

Red Lions are from the (SAF) Parachute Team.

Young Lions! Young Lions!

I almost said 'Loung Yions'.

'Lions'!

So it's a combination of this culture and the World Cup thing...

that has caused people to feel emotional.

- But if this happened two years later... - Nobody cares.

Unfortunately, the prevalent culture here is that Singaporeans have this

unspoken mindset that there is no hope for Singapore's sports (scene).

People rarely consider sports as a career.

Even though we have semi-career sportsmen that are...

working their bodies to try and win for Singapore,

Singaporeans are very ruthless and only care about the medal count.

So there's no culture of development when it comes to sports in Singapore.

So as you mentioned South Korean teams defer people and train them for the next World Cup -

there's a lot of culture for sportsmen's development.

They are interested in their sportsmen and their sports pride.

But Singaporeans are not.

- PruAccess. - Pink paper on an envelope.

So this piece of news is about CareShield,

an upgraded version of ElderShield,

Do you know what CareShield is?

(Mumbling) The... upgraded version of ElderShield.

- Paraphrase? - ...compulsory after... for ladies or something.

- No, it's for everybody. - It's compulsory after a certain age.

It's a national disability insurance which apparently guarantees long term payouts.

They just introduced this for people born 1980 and after.

The reason why it's pink here is because the premiums for women are going to be more expensive.

Because their life expectancy rates are higher, according to statistics.

It's 85.2 years, and for guys it's 80.7 years.

Live so long for what?

- We didn't want this. - Did you think we wanted this?

So healthy for what?

Because men are generally dumber... so there's a higher tendency for us to do stupid things.

This is exactly what Sociology 101 would say.

It's going to be implemented in 2020. This is exactly what Sociology 101 would say.

It's going to be implemented in 2020.

The argument is very simple. The 'for' argument is that we live longer.

The 'against' argument is that women have commitment to the family, so they earn less than men.

That's just the fabric of society - that they become housewives.

So women think that it's unfair to them.

Another thing is... because it's not their fault.

- We are just genetically programmed to live longer. - We didn't ask to live this long.

But do you think that it's fair that they have to pay an extra premium?

No, I don't think that it's fair at all.

Do they pay premiums from the start, or after they exceed a certain age?

- When the programme begins. - I think so.

If that's the case, I think it's not fair.

If the reason why they pay more is because they live longer,

only if they live longer then should they start paying.

Would that make sense?

If they do it by age, I think it's a bit more fair.

By saying, 'if you live longer, then you pay'...

it's like saying that you'll buy insurance only after you get cancer.

But it's a bit different, because this insurance is from the government.

The government has a commitment to ensure that the citizens are taken care of.

It's not from a profit point of view.

it's about the government caring for its people. It's not from a profit point of view.

it's about the government caring for its people.

Chris mentioned that the government is supposed to take care of its citizens.

This kind of policy creates unnecessary divides.

Just because of a statistical age - about people having a longer lifespan.

It's not something you can guarantee, so that's why people are getting riled up.

It's not like anyone asked to live longer.

So it's a bit unfair from the start if you're expecting the woman to pay higher than the man.

Because then... what guarantee is there?

But you have to base our policies on something objective.

But numbers are objective, so regardless of how we feel about things,

statistics show that women live longer.

Means that out of 20 women, 5 will probably outlive the guys. statistics show that women live longer.

Means that out of 20 women, 5 will probably outlive the guys.

If that's the case, then it doesn't make sense to say that...

we don't know who lives longer and therefore not have the premium.

It just doesn't make sense for me to have a better reason

to say that we shouldn't have the premium, or that the premium should stay.

But I also think that it doesn't really make sense to say that women generally make less, because...

you cannot on one hand fight for equal wages, but on the other hand say,

'No, we earn less. So we pay less taxes.'

I don't think it's about them earning less...

but they are more likely to be out of the workforce.

If a family forms, it's 80% more likely that the woman will be staying at home.

These days it's different. Women are putting careers ahead...

- of being a caregiver.

So of course the numbers will be different - if you are comparing how we are today,

and how it was back then.

I think it doesn't make sense.

The statistical consideration of whether a woman lives longer than a guy -

based on statistics - shouldn't be up for discussion.

Because it's as if you are penalizing someone for having a longer lifespan.

What happens if this becomes a racial comparison?

It becomes unnecessary. You are unnecessarily drawing divides.

If you flip it around,

and males and females both pay the same,

would you say that the males are unfairly paying more?

- No. - Why?

All of us are under CareShield, something that's provided by the government,

it should come under the fact that we are insuring Singaporeans.

And it ends there.

It shouldn't be about 'I'm insuring a Singaporean guy'. 'I'm insuring a Singaporean Chinese guy'.

All of these cause a lot of unnecessary friction,

And I can see where all this anger is stemming from,

because it feels like a discriminatory move.

People don't see the statistics. People see it as 'because I am a woman'.

Yeah, and this is why there's so much unhappiness.

And it shouldn't be the case.

I feel like if you look at the reason why people are unhappy,

it's because there's this idea of equality, versus inequality.

The thing is that, as an ideal, we like equality.

But for practical reasons, we have inequality.

And we are always fighting to...

find equal ground.

- For example, males have NS, right? - Yeah.

Males also get penalized in terms of divorce; they have to pay, regardless of who is richer.

- Correct. - Females also have benefits.

So I think that maybe anger over this issue is the result of inequality.

Actually, since you bring up NS, it's also a genetic thing.

Men are stronger or more able-bodied and that's why they serve (NS).

Actually, I want to hear from a woman's perspective.

As a female, once this takes effect and you have to pay extra...

are you able to understand the policymaker's standpoint?

And how would you feel about it?

Obviously a lot of the anger is stemming from an emotional standpoint.

You can bring up numbers and statistics,

but ultimately, a lot of the anger that's coming from people is because it's unfair.

But how are you so sure that it's me?

And when you bring up things like NS,

a lot of this is already ingrained in our society

You are able to say that because you come from a place of privilege.

For women, it's still a choice for them to serve NS.

So it's not like women don't have to serve NS.

At the end of the day, you can still push numbers and all, but

we will still think it's unfair, because...

So basically women think it's unfair, so they're right?

It doesn't make sense.

We are not saying we are right.

Because it's a policy that's not set in stone yet,

so if there's a time to voice out, it would be now.

So our discussion was inconclusive.

- There is no pleasing everyone with whatever policy. - That's true.

- It's the way it's being communicated. - Yeah.

Even if it's compulsory, it's not like, 'I disagree and I will need to pay more.'

We're gonna end up paying anyway.

So you need to understand that from their point of view, statistics is what matters.

Thank you for watching another episode of Coffee Break.

If you have any topics you'd like us to talk about, leave them in the comments below.

And watch our other videos over here!

Bye!