Andrew Loh / Pictures by Joshua Chiang
So, the homeless at Sembawang Park have been relocated to HDB flats. All seem to be well. And on the surface, at least, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, should be congratulated for stepping in and helping find these homeless people proper homes.
Well, not so fast.
This is an update of what has happened since The Online Citizen first broke the news of the homeless people at Sembawang Park on 16 January.
After having been ordered to dismantle their tents and having been issued summons for infringements of the law under the rather obscure Trees and Parks Act 2005, the homeless were initially put up at Angsana Home, located opposite the Institute of Mental Health. There, the homeless were basically given a room to stay in and were not allowed to leave the premises, even for work. They were given, on one instant, two pieces of roti prata to be shared among a family of six, they told The Online Citizen. Some of them had rashes the next morning after having slept on the mattresses provided for them the night before. They also told TOC they’d seen some other elderly folks in the home who were “less than mentally stable” walking around.
Eventually, after having a friend bail them out of that place by telling the home that he had alternative lodgings for the families, they were allowed to leave Angsana Home. But there were no alternative accommodation. The families desperately wanted to get out of Angsana Home because of the restrictive conditions there. After they managed to get out, they went back to Sembawang Park.
After further visits by MCYS and the police at Sembawang Park, these homeless people were finally provided temporary housing at a block of flats in Tiong Bahru. The block consists of three and four-rooms flats. The families occupy each of the rooms in the three-roomers.
They have been told that they would only be staying there for three months. After this period, it is unclear where they will be put up next.
At Tiong Bahru, the families have to adhere to a set of rules which seem rather peculiar – rules which no other landlord would issue.
“Proper attire is to be worn at all times” is one of these rules. “No hoarding of common share area is allowed”. “No possession of prohibited drugs is allowed…” “Laundry is to be hung only at the designated drying area”. “No vandalism, gambling or immoral activities are allowed”. And a more curious one: “No pranks, ragging and rowdy games in any form are allowed”.
Those are the “black and white” rules, laid down and pasted in each of the flats’ living hall. Then there are the “spoken” ones which were told to the tenants from Sembawang Park. Namely three rules: No cooking in the flat, no bulky items are to be brought into the flat and tenants are not allowed to talk to the media.
These rules make one curious about the block of flats – why are tenants subjected to these? What kind of place is this? Who runs this place? But more of this in another article.
For now, the three “spoken” rules are worrying.
These homeless people were told that they would be helped. This was why they were given these flats in the first place. However, it would seem that besides being given a roof over their heads, they are forbidden from doing anything else.
The rule which forbids them from bringing in “bulky items” means there are no bed frames, no chairs or table, no television sets, no cupboards or wardrobes, no refrigerators. Indeed, when we visited the flats, they were entirely empty – save for a few mattresses on the floor and the tenants’ own belongings.
In short, they were to just sleep there, on these bare mattresses, on the floor, for the next three months – and had to pay S$100 per family per month for it.
The second rule says they are not allowed to cook. One would wonder why, with families of children to care for, that such a rule would be imposed on these families. Indeed, this is the biggest worry for them as food is expensive, especially when one is already trying to make ends meet. One of the families living in one of the rooms consists of a family of five, including children. Without being able to cook, food cost in a month would be more than $1,000 for them. Given that these are low-income families, where the father either works odd jobs or works in a low-paying one, this is a huge burden.
The Online Citizen has appealed to MCYS to look into allowing the families to cook, or at least to allow them to have rice cookers and steamers. The ministry has yet to reply to us.
And then there is that rule about speaking to the media. When someone issues such a rule, the first question one would have is: Is there something which needs to be hidden from the public? This rule was most probably issued after TOC’s reports on the homeless and is apparently meant to gag these homeless people from further speaking to TOC. The mainstream media has not even bothered to pick up the story between the time TOC first broke the story and when these homeless were provided with these temporary flats. So it is hard to see that the rule was made to pre-empt the mainstream media from speaking to the tenants.
In short, this is what has happened to the homeless who were ‘helped” by MCYS:
They were put into this block of flats at Tiong Bahru, given a whole set of restrictive rules to follow, disallowed from cooking or making the flat a home (with the prohibitions on bringing in anything which is “bulky”) and told to shut up if the “media” comes calling and asking questions.
In a nutshell, shut up and do as you’re told.
The prohibitions and restrictions show the inept handling of the situation by the MCYS and the HDB and their inability to understand and empathise with what these homeless people are going through. Clearly, MCYS and the HDB seem to think that as long as they provide a room for these people, their problems are solved. However, in this case, it seems that both the MCYS and the HDB have made the situation worse for these homeless people.
MCYS does not seem to have any long term provisions or plans for dealing with the destitute – as evidenced by the ad hoc and haphazard manner of providing “shelters” for these people.
The rule of thumb for government departments such as Nparks and the MCYS seem to be: get these people out of sight as soon as possible. Period. Nothing else matters. There is no dignity in how these homeless folks are treated, from the moment MCYS (and Nparks and the police) descended on Sembawang Park, to the current situation where they are subjected to these ridiculous rules at Tiong Bahru.
It is typical of our government’s much vaunted “pragmatic” approach to solving problems. It is totally utilitarian which also means it is completely devoid of humane considerations for these less fortunate Singaporeans.
This is a complete mockery of what our Prime Minister declared recently – that “the government’s first responsibility is to Singaporeans.” In light of how homeless Singaporeans are being treated, they who are at the bottom rung of our society, the behavior of government officials is a slap on the Prime Minister’s face.
In the meantime, these tenants of block 29 are worried about where they would next be told to go, once the three month period is up. One of them told TOC that he hopes he won’t be thrown back onto the streets again.
To HDB’s credit, however, we have learnt that its officers have been speaking to the tenants to know more about their situation. We hope that this means the authorities is seeking a long term permanent solution to the housing problem which these people face.
That would be a more fitting demonstration of the Prime Minister’s declaration – that Singaporeans, even the homeless ones, do indeed come first.
—–
Read this excellent reply to HDB by Lisa Lee on the waiting period for rental flats.
Also, look out for TOC’s special feature on the curious case of block 29 in tomorrow’s article.
——
Two pictures of block 29, Havelock Road:
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Kudos to TOC for posting an article that we’ll probably never read in the MSM. I suppose what’s worse than the dirty mattresses and cramped apartments are the degrading rules imposed on them. They made these people out to be lowlife. Sticks and stones they break my bones, but words…
Anyway, as a reader I hope there can be more pictures on the plights of the homeless. If possible, let us see how their living conditions are like in the tents, apartments and Angsana home. I mean, I know it’s quite a hard task given that the homeless people may not like it and govt officials are hovering around, but if pictures are ever published they aid greatly in our understanding of the situation. Thanks Andrew and Joshua.
It is truly a sad day for all Singaporeans. We are really treated like dirt y our government when we become penniless and homeless. I am definitely not voting PAP ever again. This is not a kind government. Truly utterly disappointed. TOC has done extremely well in covering this story. It really shown us the ugly side of our GOV.
Yup. No one left behind. “System” in place. Costs to our government minimised. Need further help. “Please see your MP.” Er, homeless, so which constituency?
Hi Marcus,
Thanks for the suggestion. We have included two pictures in the article. ;)
Andrew
Can these families afford rental of $100?
Homelessness is nothing but an aesthetic problem for the politicians. Homeless people can’t vote so no TLC for them. Maybe some kind souls in some GRC can put them up so that these homeless can register their IC there until the election is over. That way, all of them can vote haha … how I wish.
I don’t think the housing authority is unreasonable to impose rules mentioned in your article.Maybe for their
their own safety,cooking is not allowed.Since the flats are bare,we have to assume there was no gas stove
for them to cook.If i were a landlord,i would not want them to bring in any portable cooking equipments into
my house.Moreover,the government does not possess a magic wand by which everything is in place for
the homeless in a moment.Let’s be patient and see what the authority would do for them in the next few weeks.I am sure free food and change of clothings will be provided for them by some charity organizations.
I have to agree with Andrew on that gag rule.It is not necessary.I believe the government is embarrass over the whole situation.
Are you under any illusion that their help is genuine?
While housing the homeless, they would investigate their families, friends etc and call them to push for help.
Why do we import so many rich Indonesians for? These homeless or poor would be eventually phased out and be replaced by new citizens. So their votes wont be impacted. What it matters is votes at election, nothing else.
We need to understand the gov is not a compassionate one and they will never be. They will do things if only they are compelled to, this is why the reluctance to take these homeless people. If the whole cabinet and glc ceos donate 100k each a year, i am sure it would be of enormous help to these homeless.
Prester,
If a family of four is allowed to cook, they only need to spend $200 on food every month. The minimum one spends per meal eating out is still $3. Assuming that the family of four eats two meals a day, that’s $720 a month.
That’s a difference of $520 each month. That’s money that could be saved up for the rental of the flats they would be getting eventually.
Now to save money, one of the person we spoke to eats only one meal a day.
There are always compromises and alternatives that can ensure fire safety while keeping in mind the financial situation of the families – for eg, using electric stoves and rice cookers instead. Either that, a common kitchen, or waiving of the $100 rental per person, or engaging the services of a cheap caterer.
The ‘help’ has to be a wholistic one that takes into consideration the other problems the people face, and not – ok, here’s a shelter, happy? – approach.
“In a nutshell, shut up and do as you’re told.” That is no different from all our PAP MPs talking down to us ordinary Spore citizens since time immemorial. Nothing new here.
So when the 3 month period is up will these rental flats be leased to the IR operators: Genting or Marina Bay Sands? Has TOC found out what the “real” purpose of these flats are? Am suspecting that these flats are earmarked for foreigners again!
So those foreign workers living in Tao Payoh rental flats leased out to Genting can DEFINITELY cook as reported in ST, can bring in bulky items presumably and can DEFINITELY talk to the ST press. How nice!!!
Why are our champions of foreign workers like those NGOs who keep shouting for better working conditions for their foreign workers devote some time with your own fellow men & women, Spore citizens to see that their living needs are met instead of doing it for foreigners for once.
“Why are our champions of foreign workers like those NGOs who keep shouting for better working conditions for their foreign workers devote some time with your own fellow men & women, Spore citizens to see that their living needs are met instead of doing it for foreigners for once.”
Erm… I happen to volunteer for a migrant workers rights NGO also…
human rights are human rights, regardless of nationality. Mirgant worker rights and Singapore citizen rights are not mutually exclusive. If the govt brings in so much foreign labor, there is a responsibility to have laws to ensure the workers are treated humanely. Similarly, the influx have to be considered that it does not lead to disadvantages to Singaporeans.
Food…ahhh the sustenance of life…
One wonders how much food get wasted in the army camp every single day…
One man’s waste is another man’s survival…
Singapore has become a place where every man for himself…you wonder why you have incidence of ungracious manners on mrt/bus/public toilets etc etc…If the leaders can’t be gracious,Don’t expect the peasants to be one…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010678268_shelters03.html
Is there a possibility that these homeless people did not want to help themselves in the first place. I know this is a sweeping comment but some do seem very care free and do not mind camping out.
yah. my former camp-mate, family of 4 in total. container truck driver. sold his flat twice, made $$, choose to keep them in his wife’s malaysian account, then declare no $$, asked mp to help. mp no help, stay at void deck. at last, given rental home.
met him last 2 weeks and i was totally pissed off then he was gloating how he managed to ‘cheat’ the system! best part, he got a house, yes, house in kota tinggi. not those posh ones but it is still a house.
blardy sob!
so how many exactly, are the real needy?
Adam
Feb 2, 2010 9:42
Is there a possibility that these homeless people did not want to help themselves in the first place. I know this is a sweeping comment but some do seem very care free and do not mind camping out.
********************
some but not all….
i was at hdb recently to handle some hdb matters for my clients (i am not an agent). got this family, whoa, damn good.
they were there to select rental unitl. their request: must be near mrt, near son’s sch, at least 2 bedroom. and, must have main bus serving the road outside.
this family’s comments: ‘if dun have,i dun wan’
damn arrogant.
the hdb officer look at me, i look at her, i also dunno wat to say. i felt like slapping the wife!
there will always be those needy who REALLY need our help and i will gladly lend a helping hand. but it is this group of people who thinks the whole world owes them a living!
Nick, Adam,
“Is there a possibility that these homeless people did not want to help themselves in the first place.”
The answer is in all likelihood there are.
“so how many exactly, are the real needy?”
We don’t know. We haven’t met, or those we met, we don’t suspect their stories are faked.
Think the more important question is, what is the choices we as a people want to make. To have a system that takes care of its poorest at the risk that some people will take advantage of it, or to have a system that is designed to ‘deter’ a crutch mentality to the point that help for the needy becomes rather inaccessible?
To Nick Ong,
You got one fact right… the system is screwed…. taxpayers million dollars went into these elites’ salary whom cannot even tell real and fake. By the way, HDB has all the records of the sale/transaction…
so how many exactly, are the real needy?
>> Because you have a bad experience… does it seems right to extrapolate the other extreme end?
Lao Lee and family, please help your fellow citizens. No body knows there is homeless ppl in Spore until TOC reveals it. I am really surprise !!!
Real or fake. Those who pass such a comment. i suggested you go and find out from the people staying there, if not keep your mouth shut. Questions is, why is there homeless people in first World Country according to LKY. If you choose to vote and pay millions to ministers, and choose to be served by the party in power. Then you ask for it.
Dumb and dumber ,
both systems are screwed.
wat i am trying to put across is that we do not know how many exactly, are the needy, given all those news abt families sleeping in void decks, beaches etc.
when i was involved in distributing food to the poor many many years back, i have seen, how the real needy strive to survive and this makes me ashamed of myself.
i am not saying that they deserve it but i have real respect for them. i will do whatever i can, within my means to offer them help.
however, wat i am reading from the papers etc is these needy are labelled as ‘pathetic’. again, as compared to the 80s, it may different.
are these ‘needy’ not capable of helping themselves? this is an open-ended question.
last but not least, wat i am trying to put across is that while i do feel as citizens, we must help our fellow citizens in times of need. but please do not exploit us in whatever way possible.
to sad and alex tan,
do you even know what the argument is all about?
by slamming lky , the government is not an argument. it is an obvious one-sided statement, not worthy as a comment.
as a citizen myself, i have, to my best, done my fair share of helping the poor. i sincerely hope you have done your part as well.
in TOC, comments are without prejudice. but to ask one to shut up is not very kind. we are all here to discuss a topic.
The rule about the media silence is understandable but no less acceptable.
However, the bulky item rule and the cooking rule are perplexing, to say the least. What could be the rationale for this? Are the flats to be sold at a high price, so scratch or burnt marks should be avoided totally? Or are the people to move every few months or so, and bulky items may hinder that?
But all in all, at least there is some improvement in their situation, even if it is a mere ten steps forward, nine steps backward, and forty-two steps sideways.
Nick,
I do believe that it’s an interesting question you posed. I am now working on an article which I also dunno if TOC would post, but I think it will address some of the points you raised.
The ‘poor’ nowadays are not simply the kinds that straighaway tug at your heartstrings. Not the emancipated old men, nor starving kids etc.
In fact, quite a number of the people we spoke to, if you meet them on the streets, you’ll be surprised they are living in shelters.
Their stories are complex, and we cannot deny that some of them had made some wrong decisions regarding finances for eg. But should we judge them for what they did before, especially when we are so capable of making similar decisions ourselves? The difference is the kind of safety cushion we have. For eg – the difference between me making an unwise foolish decision that makes me $50,000 poorer will at most make me have to sell my car for eg. But to someone else, the same decision costs him his flat. And BOTH of us, regardless of education, are equally capable of that ‘mistake’.
There are homeless couples we spoke to, who because the husband fears for the wife’s safety at the beaches, had to quit his job. But the moment they were given a more stable shelter, the husbands went job-hunting again. What is the issue here is not if they had screwed up before hence they become homeless, but that, if given a little bit of lifting, they would want to be on the road to self-reliance again.
At the same time, just because they are poor doesn’t mean they should be given no choice with regardless to choices of work. Some homeless living at beaches make their living catching fishes and selling them to the seafood restaurants nearby. It isn’t an easy life as well, especially when the best times for catching fishes are usually in the wee hours of night. For that reason too, they have to live close to the beach. Would it be too harsh to tell them go work in factories so they can afford to live in flats?
I do believe we have to rethink the whole concept of ‘social help’. We have to get out of that ‘I will help you only when i know you are completely helpless’ mentality, and work towards something that catches people from falling too far to begin with.
to Nick Ong
I too have done my fair share. The trouble is this little fair share is taken away, by so call charity.
We are all here to discuss the topic. The discussion is about gov responsibility to the people, and not to themselves, if you are one of them then nothing much to say. You have done your fair share, i thank you for it. What first world, what freak event, what affordable, what highest paid gov. Billions loss and you have homelessness. If you are so damp good give all that you have. If i am in their position i will give 50%.
Even the poor and old needs to be treated with a bit more respect. Sigh!!
Looks like the civil servants are doing their best to ensure that the PAP does not get re-elected at the next General Elections. THIRTY CHEERS to them!
[i]I am sure free food and change of clothings will be provided for them by some charity organizations.
[/i]
what makes you so SURED? are you donatin FREE food? don’t be STUPID..
if cannot cook eat what?..every night i come home dead tired from adhoc job…
i still have to make my owned porridge @ the midnight witchin hour in which i taste damned shiok
not because i liked to cook (ps i am a toughguy..not a sissy ahkua hor) i have to watch every dollar saved
now imagined a famiLLEe of 5…just to buy 5 packet of nasi lemak will cost them how much? multiply by 2 meals/day multiply x 5 x 30 days….
worst than hotel a le changi akaprison @ the very least changi jail would feed them
there should be an article called “Singaporeans’ responsibility to Singapore”.
i have been amazed and speechless about the mentality of singaporeans since at least 2 decades ago.
i wonder if any students have done a thesis on this? psychology/law/socio-studies/humanities undergrads can have an award winning thesis writing on the singaporean mentality.
what i don’t understand is : In the Face of so many Questions, why do singaporeans, in general, continue to accept as if these questions do not exist ? why is it they can kpkb about things they buy from shops and services they get from service providers but they can accept and ignore these questions?
HDB pricing for example. so obvious question. singaporeans generally do not pursue this question.
do not be mistaken. Of course, in this world there is rarely an absolute 100% in anything. There are a small pocket of citizens focusing on this question. But these are the minority. Why does the majority ignore or shun away from these topics?
Are they doing a Service to the society or contributing to the problem by being BoChap or Apathetic about this and many other pertinent questions?
and ever wonder why we are so unique? its the people.
I think this article really opens our eyes to the realistic situation we’re facing. Many a times, I believe the Singapore society has often, if not always, been portrayed as a ‘well-off’ and ‘developed’ country where money and knowledge / education speak volumes. Attention has never really been paid on people who are truly in need, sans charities and non-profit organizations (which are sadly in a bad light right now because of certain corrupted people, nevertheless we should not be skeptical about people who really need help out there just because of a few bad eggs).
From what I read in the article, it is not only heartbreaking but appalling to learn that the homeless are ill-treated without proper human rights and even to the extent of lack of respect.
Are they less human just because they pay less, or if any taxes? Does it make them any lesser of a human being to earn little income? The fact that ‘equality’ is even emphasized in our national pledge is a shame. Is there even equality in this case?
Sure, we’re not talking about ‘Mao’s communism’ here, but in the aspects of basic human rights. Not allowed to cook? That’s utter rubbish. Why should the homeless be deprived from a basic need such as cooking? They can’t even afford to eat out! Do people have any general idea how much eating out cost on average per month for an average Singaporean family? We ALL know that the costs of living in Singapore is ONLY RISING. Who is anyone in any position, (directed to the people who imposed such ridiculous ‘rules’) to judge how these people should live? Nobody can truly understand their plight and where they are coming from, as much as we claim to empathize. And to think that empathy for them should come naturally, shockingly it’s not!
And what are ‘those people’, who are paid with OUR taxes to work, doing to help these people? I had rather MY TAX be used to help the homeless, than to contribute to say, the rental of nice luxurious limousines for our ministers to ride on. Can someone differentiate between a NEED and a WANT here?
On a random thought, I think if everyone had an option to choose where/how they want their taxes be used, I believe nobody would want their taxes to be paid to people who are ‘using it for the wrong reasons which have been glamorized or justified to seem ‘right”.
Finally, let’s all hope that someone or some people will do something to help the homeless. As much as we can rant or appeal, we can’t really do anything much except to stand up for what we believe in and hope for the best!
Just my 2 cents worth of thoughts! =)
I thought LKY recently said that his govt gave each Singaporean family a very valuable asset that will appreciate in value.
So these homeless families should actually approach LKY and ask him whether his promise is bullshit or not ?
maybe you should ask the homeless if they sold the asset or not first.
Adel ,
if you read only the shitty times or any newspaper from SPH, you will be brainwashed left, right and centre. Luckily, we have new media such as Internet now.
Anyone read the news on the strategic report.
The report failed to address the inequality of S’poreans and PR.
Basically, there is nothing to celebrate about from the report.
“No one will be left behind.”
“Shut up and sit down!”
And best of all, these homeless people are enjoying “the Golden Age!”,
courtesy of lky Himself.
If you read the chinese papers, it seems like pap is using young female to get people to vote for them.
VERY cheap copy.
//hmmmm
If they didn’t sell, how did they end up without the shelters.
May be the proceeds is just sufficient to pay for the fines for late payments.
>> Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)
Hi Zefly,
I am glad that there are people like you who care enough to bring these stories out to us and are actively helping them. The fact that you help the less fortunate- regardless Singaporean or foreigners is something that Singapore need.
I think the discussion between you and Nick is particularly interesting.
What kind of social system does Singapore want?
Obviously, there is a tradeoff between criteria tightness and effectiveness.
If we make criteria tight, genuine deserving cases may slip through the cracks. However, if we make criteria too loose, we have more people taking advantage of the system. Now, one may ask- what is wrong with making it too loose and letting people take advantage of the system. Apart from it being inefficient, it can also lead to a public backlash against the system. As working tax payers- I do not mind if my money goes to deserving cases. But if I am like Nick- who met people who game the system, don’t work, take my money and then gloat about it, I will be mighty pissed. If there are too many of such cases, I will not support helping anybody anymore.
I personally believe that people should be given second chances if they fall and make an effort. The key to that will be to manage the tradeoffs. (I have some opinions on what the govt can do better- but that is too long for comments section.)
But I guess the most controversial issue for Singaporeans to grapple with is this: What to do with the truly bad cases- those who refuse to work and help themselves? As acknowledged earlier, cases like this do happen.
Do we leave them alone to their own devices
or should we force taxpayers to pay for them?
- RW
Is anything done to help them get jobs instead of moving them from places . Y treat them like refugees? This is a very sad story.
Hello RW
Thanks for your considered response.
I think before we even start looking at policies, we have to first look at what’s the prevailing attitude. I just had another discussion with another person on my FB group who insisted very stidently that he isn’t against ‘the poor, but very much against people who abuse the system’. On the surface, a very reasonable mentality. Hell, if someone were to con me, I’d hunt the bugger down too.
But then again when you look deeper, there wasn’t, at any time during the discussion a question like the way you posed – How do we help the ones in need? Let’s ignore the qualifier ‘without get screwed by opportunists’ first. It has its rightful place, but not now.
See, the moment we start thinking the former FIRST before the latter – a more prevalent attitude of “I dun want my taxpayers’ money spent on bums. I don’t want people to develop a crutch mentality’, we will put others first. Our policies will be geared FIRSTLY towards giving swift help to those in need, with appropriate ‘deterrence’ measures in place, as opposed to having the deterrences first, then the help latter. The current system I observe seems to be such that in the effort to weed out ‘opportunists’, those in need have to go through the 12 tasks of Hercules just to get some EFFECTIVE help. (It’s not that they don’t get help at all, but the help aren’t effective)
True life example – homeless couple, waiting for HDB rental flat. When husband working used to make $1200. I asked them, why not just get a room in the open market while waiting? Yes, have to pay maybe up to $500 for a room now but still better than now he cannot work because he’s worried for his wife. They said, to pay for downpayment and everything need up to 2k. Where to find money? Other family members had their own problems. There are of course some CDC funds available etc etc, but the process seems quite long, and the sums given are usually up to a few hundred for three months at most.
Now, the first question to ask is – do we want to help this couple? ‘Cos if we do, we’ll make sure they get the money quick enough, and then figure out a way which they can repay the money gradually, taking into account their combined income and other expenditure.
Policies are man-made, and imperfect, and always in need of being ironed out. And the best policies will also have its opportunists who will exploit the loopholes. But if we keep putting the fear of opportunists first, we’ll get nowhere with helping the ones who matter.
Second – and I find those who use the examples of the people who sold their flats, live on the beach, and yet have savings have not considered is – assuming they really have money but they’d rather play hide and seek with Nparks people… now, no one wants them on the beaches. But certain HDB policies means they are not eligible for flats even if they can afford to. What then? Because of these black sheep we have others suffer along? Shouldn’t the black sheep cases be dealt with in isolation instead?
And lastly, on the note of taxpayer’s money… I’d rather it goes into helping the poor (and some opportunists) than being flushed down the drain in some silly overseas GLC investment.
Hi Zefly,
Thank you for your reply.
I think you are right- the focus move beyond the paranoia against the opportunist and on to how to help the poor.
I think the issue is not only of people’s attitudes against opportunists, but also the fact that these opportunists take up resources meant for the real, genuine needy.
Without a proper needs assessment, the allocation of rental flats will be on a first-come-first-serve basis, rather than to the people who really need it. And that is just the static perspective. Imagine if people were to know that there is no proper screening, more people will be enticed to ‘try their luck’, thus exacerbating the free-for-all. In that scenario, lesser genuine cases are helped.
IMO, the solution is not to reduce the bar for needs assessment, in hope for expediency-
even though it’s the politically appealing thing to do.
Instead, the govt should focus on the efficiency of the needs assessment process. This means increasing social workers to assess the cases and let the same case worker be in-charge of the various aspects of their needs. This allows for a holistic management of needs and reduces the no. of needs assessment that poor family has to go through with different agencies. Plus, there is scope for govt to better plan the help given such that the family can get back on its feet.
But of course, the big moral qns comes when we encounter those who refuse to help themselves? Should society leave them alone in the streets or should society knowingly spend taxpayer’s money to cajole those who refuse to help themselves because they will starve/be homeless?
It is by no means, an easy question.
Like all moral questions, there is no right or wrong answer-
just how much everyone agrees to the same answer.
And I guess, from your facebook conversation shows,
we may be far from consensus.
- RW
Thank you for that piece of investigative journalism which the MSM continues to ignore.
It’s clearly shocking to see a so-called first world nation perceived as a rich country by the world treating its own helpless citizens this way.
MND and MCYS can do better than the present treatment of its own citizens. It symbolises the utter lack of empathy and grace for its own citizens. These agencies seem to be more concerned about preserving their own images than helping them.
Their behaviour is really instructive as it tells us that this is how you will be treated if ever you are out of luck.
The only way to help the poor is to instill in them the need to be self reliant. Helping them through acts of charity may appeal to the moral instinct but in the long run does more harm them good both to the recipients as well as to society as a whole. It blunts the urge to work and take responsibility for oneself. Those who are temporarily down and out in Singapore but who are willing to pick themselves up and start from the bottom again would not go hungry (or homeless).
I know of families who were brought up on a single salary of a hawker assistant or a cleaner or a taxi driver. Of salaries less than 1000 bucks a month. It all depends on whether these people are willing to do these jobs. Make free food, free shelter and free gifts the way of life and more people would become more reliant on others to carry them through life. This is something Singapore can ill afford.
I think it is a good idea for all those who feel strongly enough to start a a private fund to care for the homeless. You will understand when it is time to do some reaal decision making.
As for the flats, I dont know why HDB has not redeveloped the three blocks mentioned, but there will be a problem of squatters and problem of maintenance, leading to an unmanageable deficit cos these people surely would not be able to afford the costs of maintenance. We then get the seeds for slums and squatters and run down estates.
Oh btw, there are homeless in almost all 1st world countries in the world, be it Europe, US or even Japan.
The problem and hence solution I think is not so simplistic.
if these vacant flats are given freely to the homeless to stay
@abf : Do we know, if they are given jobs. There are many sg who are looking for jobs, but not given a chance. If you are forty and above and are out of job like some of my friends, looking for one is difficult and competing PR and F workers make even harder. I would suggest cpf be used for emergency. This is your own money and saving. And,why won’t the people be more reliant on others to carry them through life. There are country that provides this thru pension. Maybe a private fund be first set up by the billions we have in the reserve(How about just a billion for a start). Not too much, if the gov can loss 50billion. Some of the reason why there are homeless in 1st world country is not because of no jobs that is unique to sg. The solution in sg is simple …$. Equal opportunity and support.
hi abf,
There are homeless in ALL 1st world countries, not almost. When comparing with other countries, i would always bring up how much their leaders are paid… If we paid our leaders so much more than other countries, i would expect our leaders to perform so much better than their leaders, right? I cannot accept the same bs reasons like other countries also have these problems, damn difficult to resolve, blah blah blah. Then our leaders’ quality can’t be better than the rest of the world. Why are they commanding such high salary then?
i know its the same old argument on politician salary in singapore, just that every topics posted in TOC all point to the same problem… ineffective governance of singapore by too highly paid civil servant (or should it be civil master).
Why MCYS forbidded the homeless to speak to the media? PAP only wanted to paint themselves as good image on national TV and hide the bad news? Fortunately we have new media to go into the root of many of our national issue and expose what was untold by main stream media. As such, the online citizens should deserve more journalism awards than Channel News Asia (who always give themselves award every year and nobody else). Singaporeans should continue to log into new media for more credible news in future.
Dear Whatever
If there are homeless in every country then the allusion to poor governance because there are homeless in Singapore holds no water. I know many people cannot understand the hgh salaries enjoyed by our civil servants, but this cannot be the be all and end all argument for all anti government proponents.
Dear Sad
I am sad as well when people suffer through no faultr of theirs. However, there are really jobs available for local Singaporeans. In Europe, there are graduates working as waiters, graduates working as housemaids etc. In Singapore people are just more reluctant to take on jobs that they deem below their status. Hence the need for foreign labour. As for using reserves the way you mentioned, my humble opinion is that it will be quite disastrous in the long run (see my earlier post)
TR has clearly show , jobs application are for PRC only. I also know that one PRC( not sure if she is citizen) working in UOB bank in TP as banker officer. Yes, I do know in Australia, graduates work as waiters that is the culture and beside they learn to be independent. Singapore people are not taking up jobs they deem below their status, i guess it’s because that’s our upbringing. We do not dispute we need foreign labour (eg in construction, food, factory), but to have foreign working taking over jobs that an sg should be given (i cannot accept).
@I think it is a good idea for all those who feel strongly enough to start a a private fund to care for the homeless. You will understand when it is time to do some reaal decision making.
Also, in my humble opinion so far it has been more disastrous for losing 50billion, then to lose one billion. Beside, this one billion, is to support needy family, help them to seek shelter, to seek jobs, set up small businesses and not giving out to them like some charity.
HDB objective is to built home for Singaporean without profit period.
Elected government of the day is to take care of Singaporean period.
Cut out all the craps about foreigners, they have their own government to take care of them. They are here to make money without any other obligations. They should be thankful to Singaporean allowing them to work here and make money. If they dont like here, can leave anytime. Someone else will always come and grab the jobs.
Foreigners dont create jobs for us, it is the other way. So beg us to stay here. Without us, you have to return to your country without any food.
Funny how every single issue comes back to foreign workers (from the comments here). I wonder who got them in at the fist place… how, of course a government elected by Singaporeans. And who hires them? Singaporean bosses from Singaporean companies. And they “spoil” the housing market… by getting sold overpriced flats by Singaporeans who got them at a discount from the government (and still complain about it). And of course, foreigners do not buy anything here from Singaporean businesses nor do they pay taxes to the government. Maybe all the foreigners should go back to their country at once so Singaporeans could experience the life of a foreigner, living in a workers dormitory or in a converted toilet as a maid, doing jobs than Singaporeans feel too superior to do and getting paid less for it. As for TR, it would probably be sued in many Western countries for its racist, xenophobic slant that has no place in a civilized society.