By Ng E-Jay
It appears that there is absolutely no lack of sophistry and intellectual dishonesty on the part of the PAP government concerning the homeless in Singapore.
It is widely noted that every nation has its share of homeless folk. But our government leaders, who insist on paying themselves multi-million dollar salaries independent of the wishes of the electorate, have thus far taken a reactive, rather than proactive approach in dealing with the situation.
Worse still, the government has engaged in repeated acts of chicanery and sophistry with regards to the homeless.
It is therefore the height of ludicrousness that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, has recently slammed alternative media channels for selective reporting of the facts, when in reality it is the government’s abhorrent track record in addressing the social problems associated with the homeless in Singapore that should be put under intense scrutiny.
Is this a government that truly cares, or is this a government that merely wishes to save face and put up a show when the spotlight has been placed on it? My answer is unequivocally the latter.
The PAP government’s track record of taking a reactive rather than proactive approach regarding the homeless in Singapore
The PAP government has thus far taken a backseat, reactive approach to dealing with the homeless situation, as opposed to a proactive approach. It is both unfathomable and unconscionable, coming from a government that prides itself on being world-class.
Take for example the group of around 15 families who camped out in Sembawang Park for many months until January this year. No government department did anything to help them find appropriate shelter until The Online Citizen ran an article on them. (See here and here.)
A few days after the TOC article was run, officers from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) and NParks, together with some 10 policemen, evicted the campers from Sembawang Park, citing that they had broken “rules and regulations”, even though most of them still had valid camping permits. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had himself visited the camping site earlier.
Two of the families were then escorted to Angsana Home, located at Buangkok Green, next to the Institute of Mental Health. The home is part of Pelangi Village, a purpose-built Social Welfare Complex that houses the elderly, destitute, and ex-drug addicts.
However, at the new facility, the families were not provided adequate food. A woman later lost her job because she was not permitted to leave the facility to go to work.
The homeless families were eventually relocated to Block 29 of Havelock Road, an HDB flat earmarked for demolition 7 years ago under the Selective En block Redevelopment Scheme (SERS). In the interim period, this block could have been used to provide shelter to homeless folk but had been used instead to generate income for the government by renting out to foreign students. (See here.)
Homelessness in Singapore is a symptom of the PAP government’s flawed housing policies
The stark reality is that much of the homelessness situation in Singapore is the doing of the PAP government, as its rigid and inflexible housing policies as well as overly bureaucratic machinery lead to many families falling through the cracks and finding themselves with nowhere to turn.
When families fall on hard times due to the economic downturn, sometimes they are late on their mortgage payments and HDB threatens to repossess the flat. Many choose to sell their flat in order to avoid repossession. Unfortunately, regulations prohibit such families from applying for a rental flat from HDB for a period of 30 months after the sale of their previous flat.
Even those families who qualify to apply for a HDB rental flat have to wait anywhere from 5.5 to 19 months before they allocated a unit. In the meantime, they have no choice but to be homeless, because the PAP government has callously refused to provide ample social safety nets and temporary housing facilities for families who have fallen through the cracks. Families seeking help from their PAP MPs or from the HDB have to jump through hoops of thick bureaucracy and screening before they even have a chance of obtaining assistance. (See here and here.)
Exacerbating the plight of the homeless is the fact that the government continually turns public housing facilities that could be used to shelter them into profit making entities used to provide accommodation to foreign workers and foreign students instead. (See here.)
And while all this chicanery is occurring, the government still unrepentantly pursues policies that continually lead to escalating HDB flat prices which are forcing average Singaporeans out of their own market and which are also resulting in higher incidences of foreclosures and more cases of homelessness. (See here.)
PAP government declines interview invitation by Al Jazeera, then turns around to accuse Al Jazeera of biased reporting
As far as the issue of homelessness in Singapore is concerned, the PAP government has always been more pre-occupied with damage control and face-saving, rather than genuinely providing assistance to those who require it.
In March this year, Al Jazeera, the popular news agency based in the Middle East, was in Singapore to do a programme on the issue of homelessness here.
Al Jazeera had contacted MYCS to find out if they were willing to be interviewed and to provide the government’s position on the homelessness situation in Singapore. But after a few phone calls and email requests, the ministry turned down the interview invitation.
After stone-walling Al Jazeera, MCYS then discreetly sent officers to raid Changi Beach of the homeless families camping there. Some of them were fined $200 for breaking NParks’ regulations concerning outdoor campaing. (See here.)
The Changi Beach raid took place at a time when Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had boasted that the government will deliver free meals to the poor and that his ministry has done its duty “for the people who need our help.” (See here.)
Al Jazeera proceeded to do a documentary on the homeless in Singapore, entitled “Singapore policies force some onto streets“. It is uploaded on Youtube here.
On April 27 in Parliament, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan slammed Al Jazeera for not checking the facts about a couple it featured, who claimed they had been homeless for nearly two years following divorce proceedings. (See here.)
Dr Balakrishnan said the man had sold two direct-purchase subsidised HDB flats and one resale flat for a profit of $224,000, and that the woman owns another HDB resale flat with her former husband and has been getting financial assistance from the South West Community Development Council since last July. He also said that the couple had rejected an offer to be placed in a shelter and other services by his ministry.
“This is a clear example where the foreign media has failed to ascertain the facts,” Dr Balakrishnan said. “Even worse, some irresponsible websites had gone on to fuel these falsehoods by circulating this widely on the Internet. Now that the facts are out, let’s see whether these people … have the courage and the honesty to set the facts right.”
On speculation that negative reports by Al Jazeera were the reason it was taken off SingTel’s mio TV, Acting Minister for Information, Communications & the Arts RADM Lui Tuck Yew said: “I would say that this is not unexpected given their penchant for sensationalising such stories and being selective with the facts.”
Al Jazeera has responded to Dr Balakrishnan’s and RADM Lui’s allegations, saying that it stands by its report on the homeless in Singapore. (See here.)
Al Jazeera emphasized that “the homeless couple featured in our report were locked out of the system of state support because of bureaucratic regulation“, and that “the real point of story was to illustrate how the safety net in Singapore sometimes fails to catch those who have fallen on hard times – whatever their background – because of the rules governing access to assistance“.
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
PAP cannot tackle problems anymore, they can’t continue their way of doing things. Wrong policies and people must be changed.
All the websites having turned the fact against Vivian, let’s see whether Vivian has the courage and the honesty (as he claimed to be) to face the truth squarely and answer to the people why he lied in parliament so many times and discredited netizens who have helped him all along to his dismay,
Dear EJay,
Your article struck all the main points. MCYS/ Vivian Balakrishnan should contact Al Jazeera in private before their rant. But in Singapore, we know it is more likely for Al Jazeera to be served a lawyer’s letter.
I also find very disturbing that examples were singled out. It is similar to Mah Bow Tan singling out 3 examples of “choosy” homebuyers. Can you trust your MPs anymore? Do they deserve to be government leaders?
To TOC Editor:
Sorry, a minor digression.
Your story mentioned “Block 29 of Havelock Road, an HDB flat earmarked for demolition..”.
Since it was acquired by the Govt. exercising the Land Acquisition Act, this ex-HDB block belongs to the Govt, not the HDB anymore. The important point here is that the HDB cannot make any subsequent decisions on this ex-HDB block. Only the Govt can. Pls correct me if I am mistaken.
Your story also said: “used instead to generate income for the government..”. You mean EMS is a govt entity?
Election is coming and this Pathetic Action Party (PAP)has no choice but to cover its tracks using whatever means available to deny the truth.
What we are seeing is only the ” nose of a camel”. More and more Singaporeans will become homeless in the near future, a clear indication of what awaits us if we continue to vote in the PAP. What Singaporeans need is a living income not any income. And this is not forthcoming given the cheap foreign labour that the govt has been importing by the millions to solve a flawed economic policy.
Homelessness is a very serious concern. It eats into the core of nationhood and clearly demonstrates the incompetency of the PAP govt. The name of the game is: If you cannot fix it, hide it or deny it. It is a big time bomb that will explode and destroy the govt if the truth is revealed . And the govt knows it.
I must congratulate Online Citizen for revealing the true social situation in Singapore. Our country is in steep decline towards total ruin because this incompetent govt does not even have a modicum of ideas on how to manage this country. How can we expect progress when the ministers are mere fire fighters who do nothing but simply react to situations to ensure its own survival. The stark truth of its incompetency is beginning to reveal itself, like a Tsunami looming and destined to destroy our nation.
Good article.
Vivian had done TOC a favour,now it is in the MSM and more people can and will read about the real issues and the challenge put forth to him.
Your story also said: “used instead to generate income for the government..”. You mean EMS is a govt entity?
…..
noped belon to temasek inc…happy now?
now it generates income for temasek inc…more happy? or else how do temasek inc hav $17 billion$ to burn under miscellinous expenses..do you or your company hav $1.7million$ to be used as petty ca$h voucher$?
This situation highlighted the fact we need more opposition MPs in parliament. Not just one or two but at least 30% so that they can raise a motion of no confidence against the government.
Opposition MPs can also help to present your views in parliament to rebut the minister instead of most people hearing only from one side.
As such, TOC and other similar websites must now see that you have no choice but to promote opposition and help them get elected as PAP has lost the ability to engage with the people.
No wonder, the other day some giant or carrefour was advertising 2 man tents and four man tents, wow i say, very cheap, 4 man tent is $109 and divide by 4 is 20 only, business must be improving.
anyone wants a tent, maybe we should have a tent city within a city.
wow, no wonder temasek is so rich, maybe they should take over wall street, since obama is killing goldman sachs and all others there.
maybe replicate wall street here also and kill off all competitors, hah should ask that donkey lim boon heng “how to do it”
Yes, under all enbloc, the flats and land revert back to IRA and they will send you a letter stating, “you’re squatting on gov land, illegally.”
Good, we’ll be the “world’s first”, to have a tent city within a city.
Good for singapore, always wanting to be first, in mobile t.v. in buses, mrt (oh, this failed) never mind, still first in everything.
The problem with the minister’s reply is that, all he has shown is only one couple, out of many, may have actually been better than they were portrayed in non-MSM.
An example cannot be generalised to a rule; the minister has to argue that a significant proportion of the homeless are actually well off before he can level that criticism at Al Jazeera and TOC.
Moreover, one case of homelessness is one too many, especially in light of ministerial claims that it is best to be poor in Singapore.
Quote -
‘’ No child in S’pore will be left without a home, says Dr Balakrishnan ‘’
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/YourDiscussionCorner/tabid/117/ptid/414/page/1/totrecs/15/threadid/3206/forumtype/posts/Default.aspx
” At a forum organised by REACH, the government’s online feedback portal, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, said:
“………..if you were a poor person, anywhere on this planet, Singapore is the one place where you will have a roof over your head, ……..”
http://zh.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/394784?page=1
MCYS MINISTER SHOULD BE INCHARGE OF HDB RENTAL FLATS,
HDB RENTAL FLATS HAS BECOME A COMMUNITY SOCIAL [MCYS] ISSUE,
not a housing [HDB] issue.
Bibian TL coz no longer in running to become next PM. Spotlight now on the Sleepy Minister.
“……there is absolutely no lack of SOPHISTRY and INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY on the part of the PAP government concerning the homeless in Singapore…”
Well said! Well said!
This is confirmation of the disgusting PAP Political Mindset of “You Die, Your Business!”.
S’poreans say:
Where got time to care for the people and the homeless ???
When these Muddle-headed Million-dollar Ministers are so preoccupied with counting every cent of their world-infamous/obscenely-humongous/million-dollar salaries,bonuses and other perks.
That’s why PAP = Pathetic And Pathetic !!!
The PAP is treating citizenry like mushroom – keeping them in the dark. So it is easy to just posture politics with the unwavering assistance and connivance of morally-bankrupt media but no substance. Its policy formulation on homeless stands for nothing and achieve exactly the same – NOTHING.
Without the chicanery of bunker protection afforded by its GRC fortifications, their politics of poverty divide and the deceptive manipulations of the housing crisis are enough to sink the PAP to the deepest depth of the Pacific Ocean.
Hello there. I’m trying to form an opinion about the situation. I am grateful to TOC for providing between-the-lines analyses and behind-the-scenes reporting on events, giving an alternative angle to MSM stuff. However, sometimes, though not often, it does sensationalize some issues and is guilty of taking issue with a particular course of action pursued by the PAP for the sake of it. Playing the devil’s advocate, after all, is its role. I’d also like to state here that I am a huge fan of TOC and not so big a fan of the PAP and the elitism it often stands for.
Ok enough beating about the bush. What I’d like to know is the actual extent of the homeless problem. This will help me, and I suppose, many others to form a more informed value judgement about the situation. If the situation is as bad as TOC has concluded in one of its reports, putting forth a tentative 7-10,000 household figure (for estimated real rental flat demand), then indeed the PAP’s policies are in need of some serious overhauls. However if the situation is such that the only truly homeless are those who refuse places in shelters, then I think that we are crying foul over a glass that is 10% empty (but 90% full). To begin with, these two pictures are so vastly different in part because the Government’s classification of “homeless” excludes the population living in shelters, whereas many of TOC’s reports on homelessness do not.
I agree; the PAP’s line, that we have NO homeless problem, is unrealistic and probably some ways off the mark. However, I would say that if there is a small percentage (1-2%) of the population facing really bad housing problems (shuttling between rental flats and shelters), and perhaps 200-300 or so truly homeless families (void decks and campsites, without access to shelters), we cannot say that they have done a terrible job, especially compared against many other countries. I would think that no government, opposition or otherwise, will be able to push figures any lower than these barring robot slaves and cheap, clean energy for the world. My main concern here is, are homeless figures in Singapore really this low?
Please don’t flame me from the moral highground (but feel free to if my figures are way off the mark; I’d be grateful). My heart indeed goes out to the homeless. However, I also accept that every society in the real world will have an underclass of people who are stuck in a bad rut. In successfully socialized countries, these numbers are minimized. As long as Singapore’s numbers are low, I’d say we should give credit to our policies (admittedly, a job the media is already doing), instead of looking at the glass as half empty. I am not a PAP cheerleader but if the truly homeless figures are as advertised I would think that it is a rather decent job.
A note on socialism and work towards a society with no underclass. In many parts of Europe, the burden is borne by society, which is crippled by high taxes and chronically high unemployment (10-13%). This was one of the factors for the current crisis facing the EU (tax evasion and heavily encumbered economies). I won’t go on further here but my point is that wide-ranging social welfare has its drawbacks.
In conclusion, I’d like to know if the actual homelessness situation is really as bad as it seems, reading TOC’s articles. Take note here “homelessness” is distinct from “facing severe housing difficulties”. I would think that, while unpleasant, the population in shelters cannot be considered “homeless”, unless they face the prospect of being mandatorily evicted after a certain period (do they? I don’t know…).
Hope I made some sense. I know I was rambling.
Daniel
PS I think, from the articles on TOC, the biggest problem in the housing system here lies with the eligibility criteria for rental flats, which are a much more preferable solution to shelters, namely, the criteria against divorcees. This is the most serious issue and I think that it’s great that TOC is putting pressure on it.
PPS I am, however, rather incensed by the act of discrediting the homeless couples’ story with distorted facts. VB’s a politician. That means when he ain’t kissing babies he’s stealing their lollipops.
@Daniel L
Your dichotomy of shelter and homeless is interesting of richly-textured academic discourse. In practical term, can children be sufficiently sheltered of “quiet peaceful enjoyment” of normal family accomodation of even a 3-bedroom or 2 bedroom rental setting to live, pursue education and nurturance of living in permanency of ‘shelter” accomodation? You are trapping poverty within poverty to no future economic advantage for the poor and country.
The minimum definition of no homelessness to me must be rental accomodation. So the Government blurring of shelter giving is NOT homelessness is deceptive politics and hypocritical economic-social policy. IT IS THE SAME HYPOCRISY OF MIXING PR AND CITIZENRY TO CONCEAL AND DISTORT real citizenry unemployment – the same fudging of graph, statistical claims and black-dyed-white false political rhetorics that hallmarked our political landscape well-concealed and oppressed of truth publishing and denied of opportunity of fair public protest.
Is this the way, you want Singapore to progress? I share not. The couple’s detriment and dilemma epitomises the wider failures of a slew of ill-conceived policy formulations which is self-feeding of vicious circle.
TOC is right to keep the public informed of rigorous debate here. I applaud them of civic-consciousness. This is our country, nothing wrong to love your country I hope – regardless of politicians usual wagging tails of falsehoods. I AM NOT EXTREMELY IMPRESSED.
@ anonymous
Only in Singapore is the idea of “home ownership” nearly this universal an indicator of a “normal” household. This is due to Government policies which encouraged home ownership. At 88.8%, Singapore’s home ownership rate is among the highest in the world.
I strongly disagree with your nonsensical stance that “the minimum definition of no homelessness to me must be rental accomodation”. This statement reflects the views of an armchair critic who complains about Government policies just because they came from the PAP. It is unrealistic, unreasonable and listens to an anti-PAP heart rather than rational and objective evaluation of policy and its effects.
By your definition, 57% of Germany is homeless. And by the way, by your definition, Singapore has one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the world, comparing favourably against the US, Denmark, Germany, the UK, Canada etc. Among these countries, the average home ownership rate is about 50-70% (I assume here that those who do not own homes rent or are truly homeless). Sorry to be so harsh, but I have little patience for Government naysayers who rant and complain about everything the Government does. By setting unrealistic and unattainable utopian standards, the PAP fails as a Government. Of course; we do not live in Utopia.
What we need to look at here to decide how effective housing policies here are are two separate and different indicators.
The first is true homelessness. This is the non-institutional population (prisons, shelters, military) which does not have accommodation. Basically, people who live on the streets. More importantly, we have to look at VOLUNTARY homelessness, that is, people who want to live in at least a shelter, but were turned away. This will represent people who have fallen through the net altogether, people for whom the system completely failed. We have to exclude the voluntarily homeless, people who have turned down offers for shelter accomodation. Quite frankly, the Singapore Government has done an excellent job here; most of the stories I read about homeless beach-dwellers turned down shelters for one reason or another. Please note that I am not a PAP bootlicker. But I do not criticize what they do for the sake of it; where they have done right, the do deserve credit. So, to state once again, Singapore’s housing policies are rather successful at eliminating the problem of homelessness. However, this is not the complete picture if we are to evaluate housing policy here.
Secondly, we have to look at the affordability of housing to the population which is NOT homeless. This is where the success of the government’s housing policy is much less clear. Unlike “homelessness”, affordability is not easily measurable. It is relative. Where are the goalposts? What is “affordable”? By certain definitions, the housing in Singapore is affordable. By others, it is not. Let’s take a look.
For the 88.8% of Singapore who own their own housing, I would say that most of them are in economically viable financial situations. After all, they do own their property. However for many, the loans they have taken have left them with huge financial burdens, with 30 year loans etc. This is a sign of unsustainable housing policy; loan durations have been rising over the years. Surely we do not want a situation like that in Japan, where loans routinely last 2-3 generations. The problem here is twofold; households who buy property they cannot afford, and property prices that are increasing faster than real GDP per capita is growing. Sound housing policy has to follow the demands of the free property market (unless you want a command economy), yet has to be managed by policies such that it grows with the economy, not at speculative rates. Any prolonged period of property price inflation which is higher than real GDP growth tends to lead to housing bubbles. Japan and the US are prime examples, as was Singapore in ’97. Here, the HDB’s housing policies clearly need relooking; upward pressure caused by speculation has been driving up home prices much faster than our economy is growing.
Secondly, the affordability of rental housing and policies surrounding eligibility. Now here the Government definitely has to take a hard look at their policies. For some of the rental market, we have to accept that, hard as life is, it is sustainable. Every society will have a small percentage that is economically disadvantaged. We cannot expect that in a country, everybody can make a decent enough living to own a house. For those that cannot, rental is an option. The problem here with the Singapore housing policy is the long waiting list. This has to be resolved by the construction of more rental flats, and NOT, as TOC has suggested in some articles, providing ALL rental flats earmarked for foreigners to Singaporeans.
The last segment of the population I have not covered is the one which Singapore’s housing policy has truly marginalized. These are the households earning poor salaries and feeding many dependents, some suffering from illness but do not meet eligibility criteria for assistance and end up living hand to mouth. Examples include divorcees with low income and sole breadwinner households with disabled family members. As this segment of society is small, perhaps 1-2% of our population, I believe that society can support them without significantly affecting our budget deficit. In fact, if we had, for example, bought one less F15SG, we could easily subsidize the rental for 6000 households for 100 months. Since the military does not contribute to our GDP, I would think that it is a price well worth it, to ease the suffering of the lives of the poorest of our citizens.
In conclusion, Singapore’s housing policies have done a good if not great job at eradicating homelessness. However, they are still significantly flawed and have resulted in a small but growing number of households undergoing uneccessary hardship. Easing eligibility criteria at the lowest ends of the spectrum to help the poorest of the poor is not going to open the floodgates to social welfare. As a developed society, it should be our responsibility to help ease the burdens of these people, especially since it involves such small amounts of our country’s wealth.
@ Daniel L
Thank you for your rejoinder.
Your post is more emotional than substance and statistics. I am looking for rational debate, so it is hard of my comprehension of emotional screams like “bootlicker…harsh….little patience…anti-PAP heart…etc that has no relevance of import here. And the statistic of 88.8 unclear of HDB or HDB & private together.
The simple true of material fact, law and substance is either you own a private property, lease a HDB – no other measurement of accomodation other than rental. If you had NOT access to rental accomodation and neither own nor lease an accomodation, you are PHYSICALLY AND LEGALLY HOMELESS because you cannot sleep on HDB’s void deck or the beach. So your emotion-drilled outburst of my definition defied reality and substance. Quite simply camping out on the beach attracts legal sanction. Nobody cares if I do that in Australia, in fact and in law.
I can’t speak for your definition as relevant to Germany, Denamrk et al. I can speak from Australian experience. A lot of Aussies don’t own property but rent. Whenever I am there ( not intending to own one ever), I rent. If there is no rental market, it is either hotel or homeless. I have no other. Local poor unable to rent commercially Australians have access to Housing Commision apartment for nominal rent. And by your numbers, 11.2% without undefined “ownership” would be without a roof over their head, if there is no rental option. And HDB only in recent year relax a bit rental rules. Do you think the 11.2% have got accomodation in a Minister’s home?
After that verbal deluge, I still agree with you that property prices in Singapore runs way ahead of GDP growth. Increasing demand for rental accomodation reflect that pressures. More homelessness can be expected.
If you want to debate, please be rational and leave the emotional drivel private. Many thanks,Daniel L.