Four weeks ago, Samiah and Eddie* granted Al-Jazeera an interview for their story, ‘Government policies force some onto the streets’. They hoped it would generate greater awareness about homelessness in Singapore and maybe, just maybe, lead to a way out of their dire situation. But help was not forthcoming. Instead, on 27 April 2010, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) published the article, ‘Government takes Al-Jazeera to task for misreporting on homelessness cases’, where Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Vivian Balakrishnan, accused Al-Jazeera of inaccurate reporting.
According to Minister Balakrishnan, checks were carried out on the couple featured and ‘a different story’ was found. He reported that “the man in the video” had made “a tidy sum of over S$220,000 for the sale of three flats”. “The woman” in the video, meanwhile, was ‘found’ to be an owner of a HDB resale flat with her ex-husband. He also stated that the woman was receiving financial aid from the South West Community Development Council (CDC), and that the couple had turned down offers of shelter from social workers.
Conspicuously absent in the article were the voices of the couple. TOC visited the couple, Eddie and Samiah, for their side of the story.
The couple responded to the CNA article with visible frustration. Eddie, in particular, found the allegation of his hefty profits illogical; if he had that much money, he asked, would he have spent the past two years sleeping in a tent instead of providing a more comfortable life for his new wife and children? We then worked through his property ownership history to ascertain how the MCYS minister may have arrived at the S$220,000 figure.
Eddie’s “tidy sum”
Eddie was first married in the 1980s, and bought a three-room flat direct from the HDB for approximately S$12,000. However, he was divorced ten years later. The 3-room flat was sold for about S$30,000; after CPF deductions, he walked away with a profit of approximately S$6,000. He then bought a five-room flat from the HDB upon his second marriage for S$129,000, using both his CPF and the money he had gained from the sale of the three-room flat.
In 1999/2000, financial problems forced him to sell his five-room flat and downgrade to a four-room. The five-room flat was sold for approximately S$290,000; after CPF deductions, the profit gained was S$112,000. However, there were debts to pay: his brother had applied for a personal loan with him as a guarantor. When his brother defaulted on the loan, Eddie was left to pay it off (with interest). Other costs included the renovation and furnishing of his new four-room flat, his children’s education and the wedding of a daughter.
Eddie was again divorced in 2007, and the four-room flat, bought at S$140,000, was sold for S$170,000. As he was already over 55 years old by then, after retaining about $70,000 in his CPF Retirement Account, from the flat sale proceeds to meet his CPF Minimum Sum requirement, he and his ex-wife were left with S$100,000 from his CPF withdrawal after 55, which was divided between them. He used the money to open a food stall in Jurong West. Unfortunately, the business eventually folded, exhausting his $50,000 from his after-55 CPF withdrawal and saddling him with new debts.
So how did MCYS arrive at the “tidy sum of over S$220,000”? We could only surmise this was done by totalling up the profits from the sale of the three flats: S$18,000 from the three-room, S$161,000 from the five-room and S$30,000 from the four-room, which adds up to S$209,000. As Eddie gave TOC approximate figures, it is possible this is how the S$220,000 sum was arrived at.
However the sum may have been derived, the point is the way it was presented by the minister in Parliament, which may have given the impression that Eddie was sitting on a large sum of money. The fact is that this is a simplistic view and rather misleading.
In actuality, this “tidy sum”, as Channel NewsAsia termed it, was earned (and spent) over a long period of time: over twenty years. Similarly left out of the equation were all the other pressing financial burdens Eddie had to shoulder, including debts, divorce proceedings and maintenance of his children.
The above is TOC’s approximation of how the figure of $220,000 may have been derived by the minister.
Perhaps the MCYS minister, who mentioned the figure of $220,000 in Parliament, would be best placed to explain how he arrived at the figure so that there is clarity on the matter.
Eddie retired from the police force in 1982 to work in a shipping firm until he left the company in 2003. By then, he had to settle for doing odd jobs, as his age was an obstacle in seeking employment. With his wife (at the time) not working, the burden was solely on him to support his family with the meagre salary he earned
Eddie has six children in total. [Updated]
He is 60 years old.
Samiah’s resale flat
During our meetings with Samiah over the course of this year, she made no secret of the fact that she still co-owned a resale flat. The problem, however, is that she is unable to live in it. Her ex-husband, who has been abusive towards her in the past, is currently staying there. Samiah once had to make a police report against him after a heated quarrel turned violent.
The flat is in the process of being sold; however all proceeds from the sale must be channelled towards paying off the loan they had taken out to buy it. On top of that, Samiah and her ex-husband still have to come up with more money to fully pay off the loan.
Financial aid for the couple
This is the financial aid Samiah and Eddie have been receiving, according to what they told TOC:
- Since last year, Samiah has been receiving money monthly from the South West CDC. The original S$550 a month was reduced every three months. She now gets S$450 a month for her and her three children. In September 2009, the South West CDC also helped Samiah with pocket money and transport costs for her children.
- In March 2010, the South West CDC gave Eddie food vouchers of S$50 a month for three months.
The money that Samiah gets from the South West CDC goes mainly to her three children for school pocket money and transport. The little that’s left over goes towards purchasing her asthma medication and paying various bills. Obtaining full-time employment has been challenging as she lacks the necessary qualifications, she says. She also suffers from migraines, as well as other stress-related health problems, preventing her from returning to work in the security line, which demands long hours.
Currently, Eddie holds a security job, earning approximately S$1,100 a month. Samiah works on a casual basis, earning about S$40 a day. Between them, they have nine children.
While their children are currently not homeless, that risk remains: Samiah’s three children are currently staying in the resale flat with their father, but once the sale is finalised – which will take several months more – they would prefer to live with their mother.
Eddie’s three children (from his second marriage) are currently living with their grandmother, but Eddie bears all their costs, and the grandmother is hoping for the children to move out soon.
As they lack access to a kitchen, it is necessary for Samiah and Eddie to eat out at every meal, every day. To save costs, they have two meals a day, sometimes just one.
The ‘refusal of shelter’
Samiah and Eddie were both offered shelter at New Hope Community Services, a non-governmental organisation which provides shelters for the needy. The offer was for them and their children. As they are not legally married in Singapore, they were not allowed to stay together. Samiah, who is prone to acute asthma attacks that sometimes require swift hospitalization, was worried Eddie would not be there to take care of her and the children if she were to have a severe attack. Therefore, they decided to turn down the offer so that they could stay together.
Upon his second divorce, Eddie had applied for rental housing under the Single Parent Scheme. Since he had just sold the four-room flat, he was told he would have to wait 30 months before he would be eligible to apply for public rental housing. 30 months later, he returned to the HDB office only to be told that he was still not eligible as he had already bought and sold two flats direct from the HDB.
The ‘findings’ cited by the Minister are not false. They are, however, a selective choice, stripped of their context and grossly misrepresenting a complicated situation. It creates an impression that Eddie and Samiah are sitting on a large fortune, when the reality is very different. Although the financial aid received from various organisations and their current incomes assist in subsidizing daily expenses, they do not allow them to buy a resale or rent a flat in the open market.
The couple are distressed by how their case has been painted in public.
Al-Jazeera has responded to the allegations and maintains that their report is “factually correct”. The news channel acknowledges the couple previously owned and sold homes, but maintains this is “not strictly relevant”. The fact remains that Samiah and Eddie have been homeless for two years and their protracted efforts at accessing state support for housing fruitless. Currently, they both remain ineligible for rental housing; Samiah because she is still co-owner of a resale flat with her ex-husband, she does not have full custody of her children (she shares this responsibility with her ex-husband) and therefore she is not eligible to apply for a rental flat now. Even when she sells her flat and obtains legal custody of her children, she will still have to wait 30 months before she can apply for a public rental flat, not to mention that the current waiting list can be as long as another 30 months from the date of eligibility to apply.
Eddie, on the other hand, first applied for a public rental flat after the sale of his last flat. He was told to wait for 30 months, since he had just sold a flat. However, during this 30-month waiting period, the HDB changed its rental policy to bar those who have sold two flats from renting public rental flats. Of course, Eddie only found out about this policy change when he went back to the HDB after having waited the requisite 30 months.
He was told he was not eligible.
In the meantime, they live in a tent, in a park. At every turn, they face judgement and censure. Now, on top of it all, they have been publicly humiliated by persons they trusted and believed could help them.
This article, while focused on ‘setting the record straight’ on Samiah and Eddie’s situations, is not just about this one couple. TOC ran stories about a number of families who were sleeping in parks because they had no access to a comfortable roof over their heads. Each of those stories were equally complicated, mired with sad tales of mishaps, ill-health and financial woe. Through our reports, we hoped the state would step in and review its policies, that the relevant authorities would be woken up from their stupor and seek ways to remedy an alarming situation. The Minister, despite public proclamations of concern and assurances of assistance, has chosen instead to pick on one homeless couple and publicly discredit them, instead of taking the opportunity to address a serious issue in Parliament with gravity and depth.
————
*Eddie is not his real name.
back in the early 1990s, it’s very fashionable to buy and sell hdb flats
in fact, it’s a common loophole to making money, buying from the hdb and selling in the resale market
many people became rich in this manner, some bought and sold more than 5 times, making 50-100k each time
so, people complained, and said there should not be so many chances at the ‘cherry’ ie subsidised hdb flats
so, the rules were changed…only 2 buys from hdb allowed…no loans from hdb after 2nd flat…etc etc
i had never been able to buy a flat from the hdb…i didn’t get the chance to before the rules were changed
i begrudge the government for denying me the opportunity to also buy and sell hdb flats like the people before me
they made easy money, while i have to work harder for mine
should people who have enjoyed such fortunate, yet who were not able to prudently manage their finances, be enjoying further subsidies, funded by taxpapers money?
i’m not so sure
while i sympathise with the couple, and feel sorry they are in this tight spot
yet, on the other hand, me who was denied a chance to buy and sell hdb flats like them, who was denied a chance to make those easy money, who had to prudently managed my own finances to stay above debts
i find it hard to argue that more money should be spent to ensure these folks have an easy time
you may find me harsh…but, we were all given choices and opportunities
they had a lot
but they blew them
should we, the rest of the nation, pick up the tab?
You can’t hide fire with paper…I think this “smart” Dr may not have notice…and now, the truth is out….maybe we will get ” oh it is an honest mistake, let’s move on” or perhaps the blame will be arrowed to someone…
and i hate it, how they step on the downtrodden to pain themselves in a better light
Somehow, after reading this artcile, I pity VB. Why ? Becoz he used to be an idealistic young man who used to be so passionate about people who are being marginalised.
Look at him now. Hastily presenting facts just to gloss over the real problem. Has the $MILLION salary got the better of him that he has turned into another sycophant? What a tragic waste. He could have been a hero. I sincerely hope he wakes up soon.
THIS, is the reason why my friends and I would want to get out of Singapore as soon as we possibly can. The government, the people, and even the minister, all are too rigid and uptight. Where is the heart and compassion?? Everything is so mechanical.
Sometimes I think the labourers and builders are better off than our own citizens. At least the government sets aside rental blocks solely for them. This couple and family are just pariahs to the society in the government eyes.
I really and sincerely hope that this story will outflow to the others who are homeless and needy people. I hope the MCYS will open their eyes and truly help.
No use being a rich nation with lots of reserves but have a poor man’s mentality and lack of compassion.
Kaffein
@zac
“put urself in the minister’s shoes. would you publicly apologise for your overlook and lack of compassion and lose all credibility as a minister or hold firmly on your beliefs and argument and rig everything that comes between to go your way and majority of the country stands by your side?”
Answer: Yes. Did you see Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Australians over the bungled house insulation programme of work? Have you seen the Japanese PM bow low to apologise to the nation? Have you heard Nixon admitting his mistake and resigning?
It’s called integrity. “Mistakes are a fact of life. It is the response to error that counts.”
Kaffein
i think vivian b did a good job….Y?bcos he has managed to distract everyone by throwing a smoke screen.
why must vb harp on the fact that this chap may have made $220k, or if she has welfare benefits blah blah blah…
the point that AJ and TOC is making in the various reports are that there are homeless people falling thru the cracks becos of govt red-tape. Aren’t these reports the extra “eyes and ears” which vb himself was mentioning about.
so instead of taking these reports positively, the minister (and by proxy, the govt) and MCYS goes out of its way to discredit AJ and “irresponsible websites”. When in fact, wouldn’t it be more productive to go out to help these many homeless ppl, who may for one reason or another, perhaps even from their own greed and undoing, really really need a 2nd chance to get them back on their feet.
YES vb and MCYS, as stated earlier by Steve Wu…”it is imperative to recognize and acknowledge the problem, not to deny nor evade the issue.”
In my opinion, the govt’s handling of this situation shows
1. the mindset of the minister & MCYS and the govt that they assume 1st everyone is out to get a free ride.
2. vb’s lack of empathy for those he is suppose to be helping.
& on a personal note, his uglyness of humiliating the couple, who are singaporeans, taxpayers (therefore they paymasters), one even a former civil-service colleague.
It is truely sad that in pursuit of GDP growth and showing to the world SGP is always #1, i think the govt has forgotten its MORAL DUTY to its citizens
yeah. it is convenient to tell off one case (which is actually limited) then to solve the bigger problem.
I cannot believe we paid jokers like Bala to solve social problems in S’pore.
millions for nothing.
Could have gotten a robot to solve this.
So lets see what is the problem here, the problem here is they have a cash profit of $220k over the years. But claim to have spent it all away over the years. How much was this “loan”. So where is his brother? Isn’t his brother then rightfully should repay him? Or at least help him out for accommodation? If his brother isn’t, then it was his poor foresight to help him. Paying off a loan for, for yourself or someone else, is not a good enough reason. What was the personal loan used for?
So renovation and furnishing and elaborate weddings without proper planning. And finally ill financial planning by opening a food stall they have no prior experience in. No, Eddie was not painted as sitting, but is painted to have profited heftily (and probably misspent the money away – which is the case).
So in these 20 years, he doesn’t earn any income? As stated he does, he just has poor financial management, spending over what he earns. Isn’t this leaving above your means? Only NOW then she made no secrets about co-owning a flat, when it was out in the public. At high property prices now (as TOC claims as well), she would have to fork out cash to repay the loans? Are you kidding me? Did they bought 500k above COV?
So the couple HAS been receiving money. So the govt DID help them. 550 a month on top of what you earn is quite considerable already. And so the point here is?
Oh, now she has “stress-related illnesses” and “migraine”. Many of us suffer from “even-more-stress-related illnesses” but continue to work.
Again, TOC is trying to paint a picture that it is right for them to profit from the flats and to ask for help later on. TOC is painting a picture that there is nothing wrong with what the couple did. Why did Eddie sell his last flat then if he was not prepared to find alternative accommodation?
Why Al Jazeera mention that is this not strictly relevant when they had profited and abuse the system?
Mr. Vivian has made quite a tidy sum for himself as well.
Daft Singaporean,
You are really DAFT. $220k Is 100% CASH profits AFter deduction of CPF.
CTL, you are allowed to buy over the other part, I know of many divorcees do that. but they choose to sell and profit AGAIN!
Sorry this doesnt seem like a genuine case to me. Maybe in their minds is “lets put up with this first, get daft fellows like those from TOC to present our situation and pressure the govt into giving us a $26 rental flat, then anytime the govt decided to do something, just ask TOC and AJ to report”
I think the best question to ask is that will anyone sell their flat for profits and bring the whole family to live in the park? I guess if that is the case, that guy is either very stupid or very smart as he knows something about the property market that we all dont know to make such a gamble.
Main stream medias are not pushing hard questions on the ministers that an ethical reporters should. Instead, they let the ministers have full control of how they want people to read. Acting like data entry staff or simply dictating word by word from their master are not the work of genuine reporters. If they are not PAP mouthpiece, what is.
how about suing Al-Jazeera?
Great reporting by Andrew and team there.
It went to show the importance of alternative new reporting. You think ST or Today will dig up such facts?
They will do self censorship and let the story goes or approached the story using another less critical angle.
I am a critic of the government’s welfare philosophy.
I have worked in CDC before and how they approached welfare seekers make u sick in the bone. It is almost the same as begging and no wonder a large majority rather borrow from friends than seek assistance from our five CDCs.
They squeeze our poor when they seek help as they want to deter people from cheating the system but in doing so prevented the many genuinely in need from coming out to seek.
A great article and good work to everyone in TOC.
Will the government close down TOC now??!
It seems that Eddie indeed enjoyed a handsome profit from his sale of HDB flats.
In the boom times, this was of course expected.
But HDB policies still failed when Eddie needed a flat the most, when he was out in the rain and out of shelter!
HDB is just shrugging their hands of the matter, saying, we gave him money, he lost it all, my fault? YES, YOUR FAULT, BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T ACT BUT JUST REACT!
I think the minister needs to clarify his earlier remarks now that even ST has picked up on this story.
But I have to ask if we are putting excessive expectations on our government to solve societal problems? Yes, a government has a responsibility to homeless citizens, but it has to take a macro view (perhaps sometimes to a fault).
Have we compared our homeless situation to that in countries such as the US and Canada – where homelessness can be a death sentence because of the extreme weather – and how what is done here compares to what is done there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Canada
Singaporeans will set up independent shelters for animals, but are there independent shelters for people? How many of us have done anything to help the homeless (this is a question I’m asking myself too)?
Do the people who you’ve featured have family or friends who can help them?
Singapore is just a country that when you lost your job, left with no money to pay off your bills, you automatically become a criminal. Here is some of the truth which is happening in our beloved singapore. When you cannot pay up your hdb loans and arrears or TCs fees, they bring you to face the court and you are forced to plead guilty and slapped further with another fresh summon from the court. When you have no place to live, you can be arrested and fine for sleeping in public areas like parks, void decks and seaside beaches. The funny thing here is the members of the ruling party are all multi-millionaires owing strings of private properties when there are more and more citizens living on the street these days. Great cover ups by the MSM indeed.
I have worked in CDC before and how they approached welfare seekers make u sick in the bone. It is almost the same as begging and no wonder a large majority rather borrow from friends than seek assistance from our five CDCs. – Gilbert
Just like the hospital, my old mom of more than 80 years have to go through a string of interviews at the hospital just to get an approval of some couple of hundred dollars of hospital subsidy that only last for some 6 months, and after that need to go through the whole process again. Sometime, I feel the whole thing is done on deliberate to deter people from seeking financial asistance from the govt.
This case illustrates what I fear is happening in S’pore – with alternative voices like AJ & “some irresponsible websites”, I have to take things with a pinch of salt; with the MSM and ministers, I have to take the whole bag of salt.
On TOC/AJ: You mentioned that MCYS didn’t respond to email, grant interviews, etc… etc, and hence this construes not helping to ascertain the facts. This is pretty lame excuse and to blame MCYS of this practise is rather unfair. The fact is (from my experiences), every ministry doesn’t respond to email requests, not just MCYS. Ask for anything — economical data, climatic historical trends, where to seek what, blah, blah — you are talking to a wall. You have to call, go thru a merry-go-round, and MAYBE you get somewhere. Calling & getting rejected less than 5x is considered (by my reckoning) not trying when dealing with govt bodies. They don’t want to talk to you, you walked away, whose fault?
Secondly, sources like Eddie and Samiah that talk too freely to the media could be just taking the opportunity to air one side of the story. They may of course change tune in front of MCYS officers. Best get 3-party sitting together. Even if they have no dishonest intent, they may not fully comprehend the welfare system correctly. They may feel having to jump thru a few hoops is below their dignity but those in ivory towers may feel that is required to prevent abuse of the system. Most importantly, MCYS has the final say on what is Right or Wrong, regardless it is right or wrong.
On VB/MCYS: As a minister, I think blaring out the “facts” in parliament is extremely bad taste and very unbecoming for a minister. This is equivalent to LBW blaring about the STTA coach in public, when such issues should be resolved in private first. On course VB defense of LBW’s behavior then, that is was just a wrong line-call as in tennis, showed he can spin facts into some sort of make-believe that we should shallow. Well, too bad, debating may mean twisting some facts in a well delivered speech & using some eloquent terms to dazzle the audience/judges. But dear Dr., this is the real world, where results count. Your delivery may look good but most importantly, and this is not mentioned, what ultimately happened to Eddie and Samiah after MCYS looked further into their case? Shunned into another dark corner of Singapore & forgotten?
As MCYS chief, his primary concern shouldn’t be to defend his ministry, nor his precious pretty face, nor to highlight that people like Eddie has bad fund-management skills, bad luck, deep pride, etc. After all, I believe all homeless in every country is a victim of their our environment, their bad luck, their poor dealing with money, their illnesses, their being victims to systems that leave people behind if they can’t keep up.
MCYS should also clarify if the number of homeless has gone up over the past years. Judging from the numbers seeking CDC/VOGs help, defaulting on home payments, etc.., I guess it would be on the increase. So, is this increase due to bad fund mgt after a 220K tidy profit, of slaundering their chances in life, of gambling in the newly opened IRs, etc.? What has MCYS done to get these people off the vicious cycle into poverty – scolding them in parliament hoping this will shame them into picking themselves up? Weird therapy method, but of course we shouldn’t question a Ph.D.
Hopefully, VB/MCYS will be able to enlighten everyone fully not just on this one case, but on the whole picture of a easily forgotton segment of our society.
@silenced,
“You are really DAFT. $220k Is 100% CASH profits AFter deduction of CPF.”
This is untrue. The TOC report has already shown that $220k is NOT 100% cash profits, and that it is BEFORE CPF deduction. It also does not take into account the debts, cost of divorce proceedings, expenses of children, etc.
And anyway, the point is that it is all in the past. Do we really expect Eddie to have refused to pay for his daughters’ wedding because in the future he might be homeless and this could be used against him?
Looking back at everyone’s history with such a fine-tooth comb we can find fault with EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, but that doesn’t solve the current problem.
How could you point finger at other people when he creates all the mess himself to exploit the various loopholes of HDB to make profit? As the Malay proverb goes “Siapa makan chili, siapa rasa pedas” (whoever eats chili, he faces the heat). Moreover, he is a police retiree and should have his pension money to tide him over. Don’t cry father and cry mother and expect everybody to help. TOC should help those who really in dire need and not of their own doing.
QUOTE-
” ………let’s see whether these people who’ve been propagating falsehoods have the courage and honesty to set the facts right,’ he said, referring both to the TV station and the website.”
To – MCYS MINISTER, DR. VIVIAN BALAKRISHNAN
WHAT ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID BELOW?
NO FALSEHOODS?
“If you were a poor person, anywhere on this planet, Singapore is the one place ………, where you will have food on the table.
EVEN IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD IT WE WILL HAVE MEALS DELIVERED TO YOU.”
[ http://zh.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/394784?page=1 ]
DR. VIVIAN BALAKRISHNAN, MCYS MINISTER, SO DO YOU,
”…… have the courage and honesty to set the facts right,….’’
Vivian should ask HDB to change its rental policy, to allow those who have sold two flats before, to be able to rent the public rental flats and remove the requisite 30 months waiting period.
It should also start to build more such rental flats. More people may be caught by the downturn or other difficulties.
PAP glamourize their ability to increase our HDB asset value but don’t allow them to take profit. Somemore due to failed marriage they were forced to sell their homes.
Here you are marginalised if you fail in studies, marriage, business or have disadvantaged background. Old, can’t find job, sick also will be blamed by MP as lazy, complain, choosy, daft.
This is the funniest transaction in the whole wide world!
Natives lease a flat from PAP govt HDB as follows:
- Pays down payment to HDB for govt to invest and earn interests by what ever means govt chooses.
- Pays outstanding amount by monthly installments with interests.
- Pays Property Taxes too on the leasehold HDB flat until it is sold.
- In the meantime, CPF account grows more slowly or begins to deplete depending on income.
Anything else folks?
On the balance with now more common 30 yr loans after down payments, do citizens “MAKE” money as LKy kept saying? Has he and MBT or other MND minister ever related these things for citizens understanding?
LEERY or not? Just a thought provoking question haw? And it is for mm and mbt too! We are “daft” did he say? These super-duper paid ministers sure need to “grow up” and be factually honest don’t they. Being a politician is no excuse for deceit by rhetoric right!
LOST ENGINES AND NOW GOING INTO NOSE DIVE!!! MAY DAY MAY DAY MAY DAY SOS to PAP!!!
@Toolang
Eddie didn’t make use of “loopholes” to make profit. If you read the TOC report, each time he sold his flat, he HAD to.
1st time: divorce
2nd time: to avoid bankruptcy
3rd time: divorce
He didn’t just sell his home to make money. What, so should he have not gone through his divorce and just sat tight living with a wife he couldn’t get along with anymore, just to have a house?
Is the solution that difficult.
The hdb encourage all to own flats when most poor are renting, to have a stake.
Now we have some who through no fault of theirs or inconsiderate advice lives on the beach in tents. This is fact, there are a number, until some stupid gov depart comes along to clear them.
In such extreme cases, the only possible thing,possible because all flats are under them, is to provide permanent rental flats to these poor folks and no more buying and stakes, until you strike the big toto, period.
Why the need to prolong and add fire to cover the incompetents ass out there, this i meant hdb, million $$ ministers
and the shit times.
Story over.
@theforgottongeneration
Sir, I read your insightful comments with keen interest. And yes, Government does NOT have to reply to every emails but if it comes from investigative journalism be it TOC/AJ or other – SOMETHING NEEDS ATTENTION and on a subject of homelessness, VB nor MBT is NOT unaware of realities UNLESS BOTH ARE MENTALLY IGNORANT OR BLIND OF VISION OR BOTH AND I DON’T THINK SO. The logical conclusion I came to is FAILED GOVERNANCE.
Homelessness, no matter where is a society problems within the scope of governance because it could have been the consequences of failed ill-conceived government’s economic and social policies triggering this social dilemma. But that is debatable from sunrise to sunset where to allocate faults of self-induced misfortune (dare I say mischief of luck and failed enterprise etc) or Government’s housing policies. If I sleep in a park in Sydney or USA, nobody cares but it is illegal to sleep in a tent in a public park in Singapore. That is the trapped enigma of law unique to Singapore.
But let us venture the space a bit further.A lot of angst could have been avoided and maybe solution found for homeless if we had freedom of information law which investigative journalism or social workers could access subject to consents of the homeless.
WHY CAN’T WE HAVE FOI LAWS IN SINGAPORE as part of our legal framework to assist resolution of social issues and situations like this?
@theforgottongeneration
Take it one step further, if we have an Office of Ombudsman, I don’t see why the MCYS has the final say or should have the final say. Ministerial decisions are NOT infalliable proof nor is the law perfect to justice to account for those unfortunately felling through the net.
If you follow administrative law concepts in many common law jurisdiction, the unfortunate couple could have access and sought a legal appeal to the Office of Ombudsman. The Ombudsman in countries like Australia is a neutral quasi-legal entity to review any disputed administrative decisions of bureaucracy including the Minister. Where appropriate, it could rule a decision against the Minister or his delegate and require the Ministerial decision be set aside and be substituted by an order of its detemination as it sees fit having looked thoroughly at the relevant circumstances and the law – particularly the grounds of natural justice application in administrative law. Where the Ombudsman’s decision is refused of acceptance by the Minister, the Minister will find himself as a defendant in legal proceedings and the Office of Ombudsman the complainant ( plaintiff). The avenue of natural justice law is wide and include any one of the following
a) Contrary to law
b) Unreasonable,unjust,oppressive, or improperly discriminatory
c) In accordance to a defective rule, law, practice or regulation
d) Otherwise wrong
By application of a) or b) or c) or d) legal grounds of administrative law, the Ombudsman could have ruled against VB’s discretion and resolve this matter.
Anyone disagreeing???
@anonymous, 1 May 2010
Thks for sharing the concept of Ombudsman. How wonderful if we could objectively adopt the best concepts from around the world in order to move towards “… a democratic society, based on justice and equality…”.
I think our supposedly version of it is the NMP scheme. Either that or the pay-minister-highest-salary project so that we are guarantee the best ministers that the human race can offer & thereby there is no blemish & need for ombudsman. These failing, we still have the goon squad – the ISD. Per VB mentioning, you want your meals at a hawker center, a food court or a restuarant?
Wishes one & all a happy May Day…
@ theforgottongeneration
The homeless couple or any other homeless in question is trapped by life’s turbulent circumstances but THEIR QUAGMIRE IS MORE DAMAGINGLY TRAPPED BY UNYIELDINGLY DEFECTIVE LAW APPLICATIONS. VB must be aware of this. In the meantime, bureaucracies failed.
The Public Order Act forbade their one man or one woman protest for attention and plea for help. It is criminal. They are homeless but cannot be publicly homeless sleeping in tents in the park. THEY ARE IN FACT AND IN LAW OPPRESSIVELY TRAPPED BY IMPOSSIBILITY OF LAW APPLICATIONS. In this dire imposibility, would the MCYS Minister or any other Minister be gracious to offer them a bedroom his or her accomodation to save this destituted couple from offending the law? If he or they did, we have not seen any evidence of that. Maybe a third-party investigative journalism of ST could do that!
If we had the Office of Ombudsman, the Ombudsman must rule in favour of the applicant – the homeless couple against MCYS and/or Ministerial decision . They are in fact and in law satified NOT just one but all 4 grounds of common law grounds for relief. Satisfying just one would be sufficient. The gravity of injustice and inequality is starkly staring in the face of the Ombudsman.
Why?
Homelessness is contrary to the law because it was illegal. By definition of that, Parliament therefore never intended that there will be impermissible homelessness to offend the law. So ground a) (contrary to law) is satisfied. It was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory because this couple had NO PHYSICAL or LEGAL OPTION of law-offending avoidance. The law is defective – entrapment of the homeless as they are statute-barred from homeless. It is like you are NOT allow to breathe oxygen! So in totality of no protest and unlawful homelessness in the park, the entire law and its regulations is ‘OTHERWISE WRONG” to apply.
We, compellingly needs an Office of Ombudsman to check and balance bureaucratic insensitivity, carelessness, incompetency, overbearing laws and or otherwise a seemingly absolutely overpowering Ministerial power which is not infallible-proof. As George Yeo says in Stockholm, the old ways do not work in the present. So what is MCYS’s Minister waiting for?
And yes, Happy May Day to all Singaporeans who at least got a roof over their heads. The plight of the homeless? Wait for divine rescue – patiently I guess.
@eaglefly
Most if not all poor have ownership of their flats, its just how not to abuse that system for quick cash
@Kaffein
well maybe they are strategising on the best solution still, considering that they are kind of quiet recently. they might, as you say, use the integrity card and admit their mistake. but personally, i feel that too much is at stake, and i dont think they would take that much risk, considering that the election is coming.
@ ridiculous singaporean
Life is NOT a problem solving equation but a puzzle-solving journey.
If life is just 1+1=2, there is no poor man or woman in this world. Life is 1+1+?= ? of infinite possibilities and consequences stretching to both the extreme of wealth or poverty. There are rags to riches and riches to rags.
There is NO voluntary poor by intent. So let us NOT be ridiculous to be pedantic of someone’s misfortune.
Those Singaporeans who have not finished paying of your HDB loans will forever be indebted to the government but the fact remains that you DO NOT own your home….only 99 yrs!! That means you can never keep it for your grandkids if you so choose!
agreed with anon.some people really CMI. you cannot bail out everyone.
Samiah and Eddie are looking for a rental place to stay. Otherwise, like many other homeless, they are contended to live in tent on the beach and rework their lives and opportunity. Don’t think they are dangling out a “begging bowl” for public charity.
Leaving that aside, there are other cases of misfortune for all varied reasons. Life is a journey, never a destination until it ends.
Wait till one fell into a ditch to see reality of fallen. Until then, best not to prejudge or point with a wavering finger.
Hi anonymous,
Agree with you totally in your last thread.
Esp. Life is a journey, never a destination until it ends.
@ SG in UK
Yes, mindsets of “problem-solvers” and “puzzle-solvers” are very different.
The enigma of homelessness are stark evidence and indictment of policy failures of both MCYS and the Law Ministry and neither got an answer to their dilemma – “problems solving” mentality prevails when the crisis faced by the homeless are the misfortune of a “puzzle-solving” nature. It is a FAILURE of governance.
In globalisation, lives have become a journey of continual puzzle-solving and adaptation search of varied solutions set.. Even FM George Yeo conceded in Stockholm, the old ways of doing things does not work – exactly the comments that keep haunting my ear from successful businessmen ever so often.
The political institution and framework of novel solution finding must change. Or we rot in failure of stale dogma of deadwood rigidities and hollow pathetic pride.
@anonymous,
FM George Yeo conceded in Stockholm….
This reminds me of the incident in UK, Mr Gordon Brown encounteded with 68-year-old Gillian Duffy — he called her a ‘Bigoted woman’!
Gordon keeps talking and is not listening! He needs to listen to his voters, and not just keep talking ‘at’ them. I really hope PAP is listening to the people and not just talking ‘at Singaporean’.
yes anon,
life is 1+1+?=?, but what if someone does 1-10+?=? Homeless is not voluntary, it is not an action, it is a consequence, consequence from ill planning.
I dun see why we should when they were having the time of their lives the past 20 years squandering all the money. Situations are not always unique, my family was as poor, if not poorer then them, but we scrimp and save, even when we can afford it.
So tell me, what is the solution? Give them a rental flat? Give them a new flat? (Oh wait but PAP the MAC says HDB will make them permanently indebted) And for free? Or for how much? And should we bail out every single person?
@ridiculous singaporean
“….life is 1+1+?=?, but what if someone does 1-10+?=? ….”
That comment is straight out of the book of mythically-inclined “problem-solving” mentality. You planned your life according to 1+1 = 2 and comes in as you meticulously planned?? Niavety of simplicitic thoughts, I would say.
Why? We won’t have the Asian currency crisis, 2008/2009 global meltdown destroying jobs even for millions who are not “gamblers” on Wall Street as businesses collapsed like a pack of cards globally. If you are in the business world, I cannot fathom for one moment the “rationality” of your thought arguments. The world is a “puzzle-solving” maze and nobody is stupid enough to get into a 1-10=? quagmire for “business” or “pleasure or both.
Your OPENING comment of “but what if” betrays belligerent logic – that is engaged in pure speculative conjectures irrelevant to facts. The fact is that this unfortunate couple is engaged in tent-living (illegal made by law) trying to sort out the UNRAVELLED puzzle that confused their life’s journey. THEY ARE NOT ENGAGING IN STRETCHING OUT A BEGGING BOWL TO YOU OR ME. And one more truth is that Eddie went through a divorce. Can you stop your wife from divorcing you? ASKED YOUR QUEENS’ COUNSEL what is the meaning of “no-fault” divorce legal precepts and you won’t argue from the precepts of fantasy world of make believe of 1+1= 2 imperatives.
And it is the same for business failures. Nobody of any rationality intentionally engage in business failure to wreck his dilapitating life circumstances. The moral of my argument is circumstances ruled your life journey and not the other way around, ridiculous Singaporean.
Please refrain from belittling someone’s life misfortune from a protected perspective of false caricature or speculative conjectures. By doing otherwise, you are denying justice to truth – valueless except for academic spinning and no value added to the broader issues of escalating housing ill-affordability which must aggravate the homelessness problem in this country.
Dear anon
I already said I agree with you. You can twist all you want, I am just drawing an analogy to fit yours. Why are you constantly mentioning 1+1=2 when I said i agree of the unknown factor? Selective attention?
Yes, there is nothing wrong to divorce. I had also not going to made a judgement call on how they trivalize the sanctity of marriage. However what you do with the cash proceeds after, is a different story altogether.
So except losing your job, what other “trauma and shock” would you. If you invest, it should be your spare cash, and if because of investment, I can still understand and sympathize to a certain extent, however just expense it on a lifestyle, spending above and beyond your means etc. is unacceptable
Please also refrain from belittling other’s opinion from a protected prespective of a false caricature as well.
I asked you for a solution, which I see none. Throwing money at the problem is not the solution, what if 20,10, 5 or even 1 year(s) down the road they end up in the same predicament again? I doubt you or anyone have a solution.
@ ridiculous singaporean
Thank you for your rejoinder. Alas, I am impressed that you agree with me that imponderables rules our lives’ journey.
My point of divorce is not my preferred “twist and turn” spin of shared thoughts. The import is that divorce is unstoppable and the law recognised it is “no fault”. NO ONE IS TO BE BLAMED OF MARITAL FAILURE. That was a major contributing factor stifle the life and homeless misfortune of Eddie and his ex-spouse. Had they been together, it might have different ( and better???) outcome as well. Business failure is also not extravagant risks. They tried and failed – maybe in desperation and exasperation in trying to crisis salvage their disintegrated lives and economic circumstance. GENUINE EFFORTS BUT FAILED NOTWITHSTANDING.
The ideal solution would be to allow them access to rental option for some duration to give them time and space to rebuild their life – the Government failed this WHEN IT AGGRAVATED THEIR PAINFUL DILEMMA OF LEGAL SANCTION trying to survive in the park at night – THAT IS A RIGHT OF SELF-PRESERVATION AND SHELTER ( not a charity handout to a begging bowl) that this Government and its law failed and aggravate this fallen couple’s already difficult circumstances.
THERE MUST BE OTHERS LIKE THEM ALL OVER SINGAPORE. Their rights to self-preservation and shelter are of concern to me. It is NOT too much to ask that the Government to be of asistance to them to provide access to some rental accomodation when MINISTERS ALL LOOKING FOR MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR SALARY PACKAGES. Their own welfare and well-being is EXCLUSIVE AND PRIMARY – the fallen – “you-die-your-business” politics is unacceptable to me.
To me it is morally bankrupt when MIW wants luxury for the political class and condemned misery for the “lesser than mortal kind” – i.e. they are walking both sides of the streets, head I win, tail you lose.
TERRIBLE TERRIBLE AND TERRIBLE. Hope you can agree with me in this regard.
Have a nice day.
Hello everyone!i have similar problem like Mr Eddie and Samiah…who shlould i seek help or advise?
There has to be a line drawn on where welfare ends. The government and taxpayers in general cannot pick up the pieces of everyone’s failure to manage their own lives. This couple had their chances and messed them up with divorce and poor financial management. I’m sure that they are not the only one.