
Ravi Philemon grilled on RDU's Citizens' Dividend For All—but wins resonance with younger voters
SINGAPORE: In his recent appearance on The Daily Ketchup podcast, Red Dot United (RDU) secretary-general Ravi Philemon found himself under the spotlight. What started as a tough grilling on the party's flagship policy—the Citizens' Dividend—ended with many viewers shifting their stance in support, swayed by his mix of policy clarity and poignant storytelling.
Ravi's interview offered more than just campaign promises. It revealed the growing disconnect between Singaporeans and the ruling government's approach to social welfare, and it shed light on how the alternative parties are being shortchanged even before the votes are cast. A Rigged Format: CNA roundtable leaves opposition in the lurch
Philemon opened with a criticism of the recent CNA Roundtable, where opposition candidates were given just one hour to prepare for policy questions, with each response limited to a one-minute time slot.
'I was expecting a debate,' Ravi said, referencing how past debates—especially those featuring the PAP's Dr Vivian Balakrishnan—set the standard for robust discourse. 'This time, we were just given questions one hour before. No time for prep, and no real debate.'
The format not only stifled meaningful dialogue but exposed the structural bias against opposition parties, who often lack the institutional support and resources the ruling party enjoys. From Food Stamps to Freedom: Why CDC vouchers miss the mark
Ravi didn't hold back in his critique of the CDC voucher scheme. Drawing from his decades in social work, he likened the vouchers to America's food stamps—well-intentioned but ultimately degrading.
'These schemes take away dignity,' he asserted. 'If you're poor, you should be supported, not branded. In the U.S., people line up [for] food stamps. Here, we get vouchers that say what you can't buy—no alcohol, no cigarettes. Why are we policing the poor?'
He shared a touching anecdote of a mother with nine children, walking three kilometres with groceries because she couldn't afford transport. He gave her his last $20 for a cab ride, only to later see her smoking a cigarette. 'At first I was angry,' he admitted. 'But then I realised—this was her holiday. We all decompress. She just didn't have any other way.'
That story, humanising the choices of the poor, although he did not morally agree with the action, resonated with the hosts and the live audience, many of whom initially questioned the need for universal handouts. By the end, minds had changed. The Citizen's Dividend: Redistributing Dignity
RDU's Citizens' Dividend proposes a bold yet fiscally responsible vision: a monthly cash payout of $200 to all Singaporeans, funded by annual budget surpluses and modest tax reforms targeting billionaires and mega-corporations. Importantly, it mirrors the funding source for CDC vouchers, without the red tape, stigma, or spending restrictions.
Ravi emphasised that this isn't a raid on reserves, nor a populist free-for-all. 'We're starting with a $1.3 billion pilot. We've done the math,' he said. 'We're not touching the reserves. We're simply using the same surpluses the government has used to fund CDC vouchers—just returning them as cash instead.'
And yes, the dividend would go to all, including the rich. 'It's an ecosystem,' Ravi explained. 'The wealthy will receive it too, but they'll also pay more into the system through fairer taxes. We're not asking the rich to sacrifice; we're asking them to contribute justly.' Moving beyond short-termism
Ravi also voiced concern that Singapore's welfare model is increasingly short-sighted.
'CDC vouchers were a response to inflation. If they're now permanent, then why not just give cash?' he asked, noting that the vouchers are often forgotten, underutilised, or limited to select retailers. 'Cash boosts all businesses, not just supermarkets. It gives people the power to decide.'
He pointed out that GST affects the poor far more than the rich. 'They say the rich pay more GST. Yes, but from their loose change. For ordinary Singaporeans, GST is paid from what we barely have. That difference matters.'
One of the podcast hosts posed a pressing question: What if Singaporeans use the Citizens' Dividend across the border in Malaysia, where the exchange rate offers more bang for the buck?
Ravi didn't dodge the concern—instead, he reframed it.
'That just goes to show,' he responded, 'that people can enjoy a better quality of life across the Causeway. What are we doing as a nation?'
His point struck at the heart of Singapore's cost-of-living crisis. Rather than seeing cross-border spending as a problem, Ravi challenged Singaporeans to reflect on why such a choice is so appealing in the first place. 'It should set off alarm bells,' he said. 'We need to ask—why is life becoming unaffordable here?' A Generational Shift
Despite initial scepticism from younger viewers, Ravi's authenticity and honesty resonated. His policy explanation was clear. His empathy was real. And his commitment to long-term reform over quick political wins was palpable.
Ravi closed on a personal note: 'I'm a father and a grandfather. The question I ask myself every day is—what kind of Singapore am I leaving behind for them?'
By the end of the episode, audience sentiment had visibly shifted. What began as a grilling evolved into a genuine conversation—one that many left feeling hopeful about.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Kennedy dismisses entire US CDC vaccine panel, replacing all 17 members
Acip provides guidance to the CDC on which groups of people would most benefit from an already-approved vaccine. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has fired all members sitting on a US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel of vaccine experts and is reconstituting the committee, his department said on June 9. Mr Kennedy removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (Acip), the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement, and is in the process of considering new members to replace them. 'Today we are prioritising the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda,' Mr Kennedy said. 'The public must know that unbiased science – evaluated through a transparent process and insulated from conflicts of interest – guides the recommendations of our health agencies.' Mr Kennedy claimed that Acip is rife with conflicts and has never turned down a vaccine, but the decision to approve vaccines rests with the US Food and Drug Administration. Acip provides guidance to the CDC on which groups of people would most benefit from an already-approved vaccine, and when they should get it. 'That's a tragedy,' former FDA chief scientist Jesse Goodman said of the firings. 'This is a highly professional group of scientists and physicians and others... It's the kind of political meddling that will reduce confidence rather than increase confidence.' Shares of vaccine makers Moderna and US-listed shares of BioNTech fell more than 1 per cent while Pfizer was down marginally in extended trading on June 9. Mr Kennedy, who for many years has questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines, making claims contrary to scientific evidence, said most Acip members receive funding from drugmakers. But Acip members are required to declare any potential or perceived conflicts of interest that arise in the course of Acip tenure and any relevant business interests, positions of authority or other connections with organisations relevant to the work of the Acip. Acip members are required to disclose everything as part of the application process, said one fired member who spoke on condition of anonymity, including investments and all sources of income. Mr Kennedy and HHS provided no specific evidence of industry conflicts of interest among departing Acip members. The CDC's web page for conflicts of interest, last updated in March, showed that one current member had recused herself from votes on a handful of vaccines because she had worked on clinical trials for their manufacturers. All 17 sitting Acip members were appointed under former President Joe Biden's administration, including 13 in 2024, HHS said. Not removing them would have prevented President Donald Trump's administration from choosing a majority of the committee until 2028. 'This is not a political committee, it's never been partisan,' said Professor Dorit Reiss, a vaccine law expert at UC Law San Francisco. 'It's an expert committee. Presidents have never been involved in Acip membership.' The decision drew criticism from Democrats in Congress, and one key Republican expressed concern. 'Of course, now the fear is that the Acip will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' said Republican US Senator Bill Cassidy in a post on X. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' Dr Cassidy, a doctor from Louisiana who had expressed wariness about Mr Kennedy's anti-vaccine views before clearing the path for him to become the nation's top health official, said at the time he had received assurances Mr Kennedy would protect existing vaccination programmes. Acip will convene its next meeting June 25-27 at CDC headquarters in Atlanta, the department said. Once the FDA approves vaccines for sale to the public, Acip's role is to review data in a public meeting and vote on vaccine recommendations, which are then sent to the CDC director to sign off. The Affordable Care Act generally requires insurers to cover vaccines that are listed on the CDC vaccine schedules for adults and children. The recommendations also determine which vaccines the CDC's Vaccines for Children programne will provide free of charge to those without insurance. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Straits Times
4 hours ago
- Straits Times
Forum: What about a safety net for local students wanting a place in university?
I was heartened to learn that our Government is extending support to the 151 Singaporean students at Harvard (S'porean undergrads at Harvard can continue studies in universities here, June 6). I am sure the Government will similarly extend support to Singaporean students at other elite US universities if the situation deteriorates there. I sympathise with the Singaporeans studying at Harvard, but I wonder if the message is that our local universities do in fact have the capacity to take in more local students. Or is it that our local universities will reduce the number of places available to local students, to accommodate the returning US students? Many local students do not have the financial resources to seek an overseas education, and universities at home are their only option. But due to limited capacity, not every eligible applicant is accepted. So, I was surprised to learn that local universities are able to accommodate the affected Singapore students at Harvard. Wouldn't this be at the expense of eligible local applicants? Finally, these Ivy League students no doubt have the ability and resources to study in the US. They took the decision to study abroad willingly. In the face of adversity, is our Government expected to offer a safety net back home? What about a safety net for local students? Roy Tan Choon Kang More on this Topic Forum: What readers are saying Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.


CNA
11 hours ago
- CNA
Singaporeans living in Los Angeles take extra precautions amid immigration protests
Some Singaporeans living in Los Angeles say they are taking extra precautions, like avoiding downtown LA, as US immigration protests enter the fourth day. They tell CNA that the Singapore embassy has also not issued any warnings or advisory notes, as the bulk of the Singaporean community who are still there feel relatively safe.