ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN
The Homeless Deserve Better Treatment
Letter from Joshua Chiang as published in the Sunday Times on 8 Feb 2010
As a private citizen who is working with other concerned individuals to aid and raise awareness for the homeless in Singapore, I am heartened by last Sunday’s article, “Number of homeless people doubles”, which gave the issue a much-needed public airing.
Among several shortcomings is the treatment of the homeless by some agencies which purport to help them.
For instance, some of the homeless people tell us they are treated rudely by National Parks Board (Npakrs) officials.
Also, a pregnant mother of two told that when she went to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports to seek help, she was advised to rent a room at a backpacker’s hotel for $20 per night.
One of us managed to find her a place at a homeless shelter.
We also learnt that two of the families who were taken to and stayed overnight at the Angsana Home, a home for the destitute mentioned in another article (“Govt help turned his life around”) were not informed of the involuntary confinement there.
Even though two of the family members had jobs, they were not allowed to report for work the next day.
It is also relevant to consider whether the Angsana Home, with its high fences and heavy police presence, and which has patients who may be prone to violent behavior is a good place to house people who apart from a lack of shelter, can care for themselves.
The writer also failed to note why HDB flats are suddenly available to be leased as shelters to the homeless when the authorities must have known about their increasing numbers for a long time?
Also, if there’s a reasonable explanation for the shortage of shelters, why then is Nparks chasing campers away from the beaches knowing full well the homeless had nowhere else to go?
Another article, “Strict housing policies, illness and divorce leave some stuck,” suggests that the homeless are irresponsible and cannot plan for their future, by stating that they do not save for crises like unemployment or illness.
In fact some of the homeless people spend their entire income on the bare necessities, so it would be impossible to have enough money to service a housing loan.
Finally, if the financial crisis is not to be blamed for the increase in number of homeless, is it possible that there are many people who could not afford public housing any more?
Joshua Chiang
Squatting in parks not the same as camping
Joint reply from MCYS, NParks and HDB as published in The Straits Times on 11 Feb 2010
WE REFER to Mr Joshua Chiang’s letter on Sunday, ‘The homeless deserve better treatment‘.
Camping in our parks is for recreational purposes only. Squatting in parks is illegal and not a viable option for people with housing difficulties.
When officers from the National Parks Board encounter squatters, they will refer them to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports for assistance.
Pursuant to the Destitute Persons Act, anyone found in a public place with no means of subsistence or accommodation will be admitted to a welfare home for evaluation and rehabilitation.
In addition, people who need short-term accommodation may apply for transitional shelters run by voluntary welfare organisations. Social workers will help them resolve their social and financial problems. The aim is to help them return to proper accommodation by renting or buying or sharing a flat with relatives.
The HDB flats Mr Chiang referred to are the interim rental housing (IRH) flats. These flats are to help those in financial difficulty with temporary accommodation, while they work out their longer-term housing solutions. IRH is not intended to be used as a permanent shelter for the homeless.
Singaporeans facing social and financial problems should seek help early from family service centres and community development councils so appropriate and timely measures can be taken.
We also urge members of the public to call the ComCare hotline on 1800- 222-0000 if they are aware of any individuals with housing difficulties.
Jason Wong
Director, Rehabilitation, Protection & Residential Services
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports
Kong Yit San
Director (Parks)
National Parks Board
Mike Chan
Deputy Director (Rental Housing)
Housing and Development Board
Related posts:
- Homeless people are “defective”, needs “rehabilitation”?
- Letter to ST Forum
- Tan Kin Lian replies to ST forum page letter
- An expected Straits Times forum letter
- 1987 “Marxist Conspiracy”? People are just “jealous”, says letter to ST forum
Singaporeans deserve better than this reply.
Another ‘template’ response.
I don’t see how any part of their reply can excuse them from treating those people as sub-humans. Their reply regarding the IRH flats also does not answer the questions Joshua put up regarding availability. Another useless template answer. Might as well don’t bother with a reply…
pap tok-long tok-long lah, just call for the election now and let Singaporeans decide once and for all what we think about your performance since the election in 2006. I am sure we will kick some Ss this time round.
There is a typical civil-service process at work here. Look at the first two comments in the joint reply and it is clear what this process is. NParks will refer these squatters to the MCDYS … and so the pushing game begins.
Very much like my encounter with the LTA, Jurong Town Council and my estate’s RC, each pushing the problem I highlighted on behalf of the elderly folks in my estate to the other like a hot potato.
So, the NParks is able to wash its hands by pushing the problem to MCDYS. MCDYS dare not take the issue up with HDB (probably aware that Mabok Tan needs protection) but lends support to an IRH program that no Singaporean has heard of.
Worse is its attempt to vindicate the HDB for being a part of the problem that these homeless were made to face up to, by claiming that its social welfare organization could provide for these homeless people. Wow! Our welfare homes are doing a better job in housing our poor Singaporeans. Whatever happened to HDB’s original goal of providing housing for every Singaporean regardless of financial standings?
Next, it talked about finding flats for these homeless people to rent, buy or share. Here we have a joint statement by three government parties and yet none of them could see that they are not addressing the problem as to why there are these homeless people in the first place. Who is seeing the reason for their displacement in society?
They have no money to even feed themselves and here they are talking about finding accommodation for them to rent, buy or share?
Coming back to the IRH flats. Why is there a need to collect rent when the classification for anyone housed in them is ‘those in financial difficulty’. Realising that these are people with financial difficulty, what then is the rationale for collecting rent from them? Does this sound right to the three parties offering their comments?
Finally, as if the conflicting and confusing reply is not enough, it ended by pushing their responsibility further away from themselves by recommending that ‘Singaporeans facing social and financial problems should seek help early from family service centres and community development councils …’
Can we not have a one stop center for these poor Singaporeans to approach instead of so many government bodies to choose from, with the end result of the one seeking help being pushed here and there to frustration and resignation?
Are we to laugh or to cry?
As far as the 3 agencies are concerned, they have given a reply.
However, irrelevant or off the mark the reply may be, they have given a reply.
How pathetic.
They might as well be replying as such :
” We are sorry to hear about the homelessness. We hope that in due course, the homeless will be able to find shelter on their own. Alternatively, they could also seek help from other organisations who are willing to help them. We wish to assure the homeless in Singapore that the various government agencies are always ready to listen to their plight. If they wish to face any problems, the homeless can contact us and we will do our best to refer them to the necessary avenues from which help would be available. ”
How is that ? Alot of caring words but absolutely not helpful or of any value.
But hey, we have given a reply haven’t we ??
Inhuman and lack of compassion is the gist of their attitude.
Those 3 civil service jokers are paid a combined basic salary of $45,000 every month and this garbage is the best they can come up with — there isn’t even an iota of expression of empathy — their whole reply (more of insult) reeks of this is Stinkapore; you had better accept the rules & consequences.
They are much more interested in checking out the latest offer of swanky city-area condos and worrying if their Lexus is affected by Toyota quality assurance process.
Its the PAP philosophy of zero tolerance for welfare. It may have worked in the past. But today – I think that some kind of welfare scheme is needed.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
@gemami
actually, there are one-stop centres for those in difficulties and that is the CDCs. in some sense, it is also beneficial to approach CDCs because they have a pool of funds which they can use at their own discretion like NTUC vouchers etc. (which is not tied to MCYS programs and eligibility criteria.) FYI, just in case you know of anyone who needs help.
i am personally not surprised at the content/tone of the letter. the default position of civil servants in responding to letters is to explain and clarify rules/regulation. more so in this case, where the issue of homelessness has been politicized and positioned as an election issue, I am not surprise if they respond in such brisk and official-like manner.
but what surprise me though, is that the letter was published in the first place.
Hi RW,
Thanks for the tip.
To tell you the truth, I do not believe that those working in some of these government agencies even know that the CDCs are the best place to approach for help, that’s why all these pointings to the wrong directions or to numerous directions. Even the three parties here are guilty of this by suggesting no les that three different avenues these poor homeless people could go to.
Won’t it be better if they (and everyone else) were told that they need to only approach, say, the CDCs for a one-stop solution to their problems instead of this welfare home for this and that family center for that?
Oops! the typo above should read: ‘…suggesting no less than………‘
It’s very simple. If the various govt bodies felt it’s not their problems and push the problem around, then we voters should make it the govt problem by voting in more opposition into parliament. About 40 opposition MPs to check on them should be sufficient to wake these buggers up.
If any voters continue to vote for PAP, you will then be party directly responsible for such ill treatment of the destitute.
They given you a reply, did they not? You have a choice, don’t you have? Alas the 66.6%!
“rehabilitation” of homelessness?!
homelessness is not an illness – the govt shld stop treating it as if it is.
my goodness!
Guessing it’s a typo. They meant ‘rehabitation’
WOW ! this is really a forum of correctness ! LOL !
don’t worry about the typos. no need to post again to correct them. we get the gist of your message and that is good enough.
good points though
“Camping in our parks is for recreational purposes only. Squatting in parks is illegal and not a viable option for people with housing difficulties.”
Then what is viable ? Having our MILLION DOLLARS ministers to open their landed houses to these destitutes? Will that considered as viable ?
sigh in exasperation….. don’t you all get it ??
They are saying that people without homes to sleep in should not sleep at all. They can go the parks to sit, stand, camp and sleep for recreational purposes, that’s ok…. but if they go the park and sleep for non-recreational purposes (eg. sleep because they are tired), then it is illegal.
Get it huh ?? get it ??
Only an ass would get it…
Dr Alwi,
Nice to hear from you once again.
I think this government has come to a point where it sees too much of a need to protect the reserves from its citizen, always suspecting that each case is a fraudulent one, believing these poor folks as thieves out to rob the national reserves.
Their paranoia will one day do them in, especially now that Temasek & GIC are continuing to bleed us dry. Their unrelenting focus (because of greed) to recover the losses of last year will eventually bring the downfall of Singapore.
One need only consider what these losses could do for all these poor Singaporeans calling out for help. Instead we see losses in term of billions of dollars at the simple conversion of one financial transaction in an instant.
How long more can we tolerate this?
Great….when LHL recommend a rise in GST to 7%, the people are suppose to be helped…
but now, years after the implementation, do we see the needy been helped at all? Tai-chi seems to be the way to go….recommending the needy to this these scheme and that, however it is subject to approval, and let’s not forget the humiliation some face when requesting for aid.
and lastly, to be such “extraordinary” salary for this type of average civil servant, never cease to “amaze” me…Warren Buffet says that It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. Guess it is Singapore style not to follow this wise advice…our SWF seems to buy fair company @ wonderful price…and we are paying wonderful salary to our civil servant for a fair performance….although i feel that I am saying it too nice in this case
so what else is singapore “good” in?
The poor and homeless will always be among us. Before pointing fingers, what have YOU done to help the poor and needy?
Armchair warriors, save your witty rhetoric and make a difference. Think about who you VOTE for.
Jason Wong, Kong Yit San and Mike Chan could use some of their precious salaries (paid by the citizens they are supposed to serve) to hire someone who can read for them.
The message is already clear – there are lots of people at the park with ‘housing difficulties’, and yet they can still tell us, “We also urge members of the public to call the ComCare hotline on 1800- 222-0000 if they are aware of any individuals with housing difficulties.”
I think I’d prefer these agencies to hire people (with our taxpayers monies who can read and think). F me, I could come up with an answer (and a bloody good solution) even if I were paid a quarter of whatever they’re getting!
i believe there is a strong statistical correlation between the number of homeless Singaporeans and the number of foreign residents in Singapore.
While correlation may not point to direct causation, it’s not inconceivable that the homeless Singaporeans had been priced out of the market by foreigners who have gotten a job in Singapore at the expense of another Singaporean.
Vote for change. Vote Protest!
EVIL is ruling Singapore and it is NOT afraid.
One possible way -Vote CHANGE !
Seriously, at this rate that everyone is Bleeding, NOTHING can be worse.
stupid person, waste taxpayer’s money for those in court.
Aiyah you people talk like champions for the homeless, then if govt say they gonna build rental flat near your homes you will complain.
I don’t like the word “rehabilitation”. They are not drug addicts, gambling addicts or family abusers.
@jason,
You’re wrong, our old forecaster, once told the Americans that there are no beggars and homeless in Singapore!
The GST increase from 5% to 7% is to help the POOR. That’s what our present $million PM told
Singaporeans. So you go ask him why there are still so many poor and homeless people out there!
Whilst you are at it might as well ask him what happened to the 2% GST money collected. Has they
been used to fill up the hugh holes which GIC & TH created?
Btw why should the citizens be doing the works which the highly paid ministers are supposed to do?
The citizens voted them in precisely to do what are required of them. If they cannot perform and are unable to deliver, then they deserved to be kicked out come the election day!
They can splash $millions on the foreigners for integration and other things like free English courses, welcoming parties etc. whereas in our own backyard, the homeless and poor are conveniently ignored and neglected! Is that what they have preached all along?? That Singaporeans always come
first? That we are a caring Govt.?? Whatever happened to the Swiss std. of living?? What happened to the Gooood Years??
Come on, this govt. does not come cheap!! They are paying themselves by the $millions and we, citizens expect no less!! So far, what have they done to alleviate the poor, the homeless, the underprivileged in Singapore?? The answer is obvious !!
they were so expecting a letter to be written to Strait Times
….another sick bloody day in “Animal Farm” with the self serving PIGS in charge!
Regards to all these useful comments…Personally i know a family who have suffered even at the hands of a reputable Shelter home.Apparently the authorities,asked the entire family inclusive of a baby and three other kids,husband and wife to move out of the shelter with no notice given inspite of knowing that they had no place to go.And when questioned “it was due to that fact that one of the occupants had talked rudely to the authority”.In which organisation do they eradicate the entire family cause of this reason!And the poor family was asked to seek help at once again ‘CDC,FAMILY SERVICE CENTRE AND SINDA’.When these departments were contacted again they pushed responsibilities to each other and said the applying for any assistance would require at least a month and the poor family were once again advised to go to their relatives and friends.So they washed their hands finally!!!!!
If you want your voice to be heard then vote many more oppositions, enought to face the PAP head on otherwise we are doomed, back here talking about stuff that will never see the light.