Category: Singapuraku

Cheng Jun Koh: Yes We Did Speak To The Cardboard Collectors

“What you cannot defend, doesn’t belong to you”

Looking at the comments of the past 24 hours, some referred to my team through our friends, one would have thought that we had committed atrocities and transgressions of the worst nature.

It would be fine leaving the situation as it is; we came across encouraging feedback and were heartened by many who appreciated the hard work of the team. It is expected that certain perennial anti-establishment pages will misconstrue and exploit the issue for their agenda. But it is when the tsunami of negativities started to influence even neutral sources that I believe we should offer more people a glimpse into our project.

We are group of students from different JCs, polytechnics and universities, brought together by Youth Corps Singapore (YCS), a movement that supports youths keen to serve the community. Apart from our team, there were also other teams formed during the induction programme. Under the programme, we had a list of different projects to choose from; we eventually settled on cardboard collection due to its enduring presence in our society – “Why are there still cardboard collectors in our first world country? Who are these people who are slogging away under inclement weather in our neighbourhoods?”

We strived to find out more about them, and we did. This was in January, and we had already started planning about how to approach the cardboard collectors at Veerasamy Road (a scope defined by YCS together with our community partner—Social ServiceOffice @ Jalan Besar). We began with a pilot study of the situation, interviewing residents staying in the vicinity (knocking on doors unit by unit) and talking to shop owners (who provide the cardboards that collectors pick up daily).

What we gleaned from the residents included road safety concerns,and we’ve also read about cardboard collectors who had to resort to sleeping on the streets to look after their cardboards overnight. We started working onsolutions that could alleviate these perceived problems – including installation of signboards to caution drivers and providing storage spaces forthe cardboards.

All these while consistently engaging the cardboard collectors and allowing them to get accustomed to our presence.

We acknowledged the need for a long-term solution; one that would perhaps get them off the streets, but in the short-term, we wanted to respect and support them in what they are doing and making it safer for them.

It is not long after we realised that the collectors are reflecting the same sentiments as some of our previous interviewees. The collectors do not seem to welcome a storage area, or signalers that they could attach to their trolleys; they have been doing this for years and will not change their long-ingrained habits just because we tell them to. This is the moment when we realised that this community has diverse needs, each collector have their story to tell and implementing a blanket “solution” to problems we perceived to exist, would truly be an ostentatious form of “wayang”. We eventually discarded the idea and embarked on a needs analysis research as proposed by SSO.

The team talked to close to 45 cardboard collectors over a 2-month period, including many young foreigners in the trade. We eventually narrowed our interview pool to 13 collectors, on the criteria that they are Singaporeans/PRs aged 55 and above, as suggested by SSO to be the most vulnerable group. This would be the first study of its kind. The questions would focus on health, financial status, social and family support of the collectors.

These are our main findings:

1. Most cardboard collectors do it for the money (no doubts about it).

2. Minority does it for other reasons – form of leisure/exercise, recycling (small but exists).

3. Most hold another job (in orderto earn enough/have other sources of income security, depending on how you seeit).

4. Most are financially able tosupport themselves/deny the need for assistance (again, depending on how you see it).

5. Most are supported/offeredsupport by their families, including a few who do not want their families to know,as they do not approve.

6. Cardboard collectors are facing competition from younger foreigners.

Yes, we met an isolated case of one who stays in landed property. But no, we will not generalise to say that most are not in it for the money. A few shared with pride on how their children have gone overseas for studies or are enrolled into local universities, and despite their financial support and objection to cardboard collection, they prefer to continue working as they’ve been doing it for years and would like to continue seeing their friends/as aform of exercise. Not less than a handful cited flexibility and freedom of this job as the reason behind. We’ve also met one who griped about CHAS and itsinadequacies as she did not know which clinics were involved in the scheme and went to the wrong one. Some lamented about the rise in foreigners competing forcardboards.

In essence, we uncovered diverse reasons for cardboard collecting,which is a surprise as we initially thought ALL are in it for the money. Butwithout doubt, the vast majority is in it for the money. However, most are consistent in saying that they do not require assistance. We do not know whether this is due to their resilience and independent streak or there other reasons that theyare unwilling to share. This would require more follow-up investigations.

We presented the facts as it is to Minister Tan at MSF HQ, but werepleasantly surprised when he suggested visiting the scene for himself. Contrary to some suggestions online, the only “sweeping” of the place was done by Minister Tan’s lone security personnel as per the norm. The team was worried that there would be very little to none cardboard collectors on that day; the team had gone down on many occasions and on some days not found any collectors. There was no way of contact beforehand with the collectors and most of them do not have their personal form of contact or are unwilling to share. I hoped for more collectors to be present so that the Minister would have a higher chance of meeting the truly needy ones and offering assistance. The Minister checked their ICs against the record and together with briefing by SSO, had hopefully gotten a better insight into thesituation.

Throughout the process, our team served to be the bridge between the collectors and the SSO officials. The complexity of the issue meant that it took longer than expected.

It was all worth it though, and especially heartwarming when the collectors start recognising you and initiate the morning greetings.

We acknowledge that there are limitations to our research; not least self-selecting bias as those who shared may not be reflective of the entire base; results may differ for collectors in another area etc. But we hope that our research will not be swept under the carpet amidst the cacophony of noises and accusations of political posturing, just like how this social issue of cardboard collecting should not be brushed away as irrelevant, but one that inspires more in-depth studies by other interested parties. We hope that more would be encouraged to participate in looking for ways to help and not be put off by the negativities.

Perhaps it is the election fervour, or the lack of civic society institutions in the past that resulted in today’s association of all grassroots activities with the government. But as the title suggests, the research is a culmination of OUR project, a team of 7 members from various institutions, and we are not political pawns that can be manipulated for reasons other than the genuine desire to serve the community.

Thank You

Source: Cheng Jun Koh

July 14, 2015
Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council Wanted To Disrupt Water Supple On Eve Of Hari Raya

A reader Siti Saad residing in Block 136 Bishan Street 12 got a rude shock when she received a mailer from Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council that informed residents there will be disruption of water supply on 16 July 2015 between 9 am to 5.30 PM for works to replace water pipes.

Ms Siti Saad believe this is insensitive of Bishan Toa Payoh Town Council as the date of disruption falls on the eve of Hari Raya when Muslims Singaporeans will be making preparations for the festive season.

She urged the town council to reconsider the choice or date and remarked if this will happen during “Chinese New Year” or Christmas and ended her comment with hashtags #marginalizedmalays #sg50.

Fortunately, the MP in her area Mr Wong Kang Seng was informed of the incident and promptly took remedy actions. He subsequently notified her that the replacement works will be carried out at a later date.

Prior to the reply from Mr Wong, unhappy Singaporeans gave their opinions and assumptions of the incident.

Do you think Bishan Toa Payoh town council could have done better?

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

July 14, 2015
Why We Shouldn’t Take ‘Cardboard Collectors’ Comments At Face Value

How much do we know about the cardboard collectors we see on the street, pushing along loaded trolleys, backs hunched? Recently Minister of Social and Family Development (MSF) Tan Chuan-jin accompanied a group of students to meet box collectors at Jalan Besar. Yet his findings has raised eyebrows among other volunteers.

Reading his post reminded me of a cardboard collector I’d met last year. It was raining when we met her, and she wasn’t going to get very far walking alone pushing her trolley in that downpour, so she agreed to sit down with us at a coffeeshop for a chat.

She’d earned just a couple of dollars that day. She said she wasn’t one of the regular ones because she couldn’t go around collecting cardboard all the time; her husband was sick and needed to be taken to the hospital, and couldn’t be left alone too long when they were at home. His trips to the hospital had become more and more frequent, but it was being deducted from Medisave, she said. Then she dropped the bomb: the last time he’d been to hospital, they’d been told that he had less than $20 left in his Medisave account.

The social worker at the hospital had offered to help them apply for financial assistance to pay for future medical bills, but her husband had refused. We made the offer again to her at the coffeeshop that rainy afternoon, but the little old lady hunched over the table was stubborn and resolute. “My husband doesn’t like this sort of thing,” she said. “If you apply they will go through all your private things and ask you so many questions.”

She left us to hurry home the minute the rain ceased, leaving us worried but with no way to contact her. She had a phone number at home but didn’t want to give it to us; she said she didn’t want to inconvenience us, but she probably meant that she would prefer privacy to help from volunteers she barely knew. “It’s okay, we can manage,” she said as she pushed her little trolley home.

It’s okay.

“The normal perception that all cardboard collectors are people who are unable to take care of themselves financially is not really true,” wrote Tan on his Facebook page. “There will be some who do this as their main source of income. Some do so to supplement what they have. Some prefer to earn extra monies, treat it as a form of exercise and activity rather than being cooped up at home. They do this to remain independent, so that they can have dignity and not have to ask their families for help.”

There are terms and standards that we need to be mindful of when we speak to people – very often our different life experiences give us very different concepts of what things mean. “Okay”, compared to what? “Prefer”, but what are they preferring this to?

It’s like when we ask migrant workers if they are “satisfied” with their time in Singapore. To us, satisfaction probably means a steady income, comfortable lodgings, an occasional Koi bubble tea or llaollao yoghurt.

But a worker from India once told me that he was “satisfied” even though he earned only $450 a month, with $50 of (totally illegal) “savings” deduction, worked long hours with compulsory overtime and only had one day off a year. But he was satisfied because at least he was getting $350 to send home to his family (saving $50 for himself for a whole month) – it was better than being back in his village with little to no work at all.

Yes, I’m satisfied. It’s okay. This is good exercise for me, better than staying at home.

It’s important to be able to make the distinction between people actually being treated with dignity, and people trying to maintain their dignity while in a bad situation.

Nafiz is the founder of the Happy People Helping People Foundation, a group of volunteers who regularly organise Extend the Feast, which provides cardboard collectors as well as other elderly poor with food and donated rations such as rice, Milo and biscuits.

“In Toa Payoh Lorong 8, the box collectors are earning just 10 cents per kilogram,” he said. “And that’s considered a good rate, because we know of a box collector who pushes her trolley of cardboard boxes from Whampoa all the way to Toa Payoh Lorong 8 just because in Whampoa, the karung guni man is only offering eight cents per kilogram. And how much does she earn per day? On some days, $4 to $5.”

“These people are resilient. They want to earn their own money, despite their age. But if given the choice, of course they want to spend their remaining days not having to work so hard doing such jobs. Unfortunately, many have no choice. Singapore is a very very expensive place for most of us, what more those of their age,” Nafiz added.

There’s pride involved, too. The elderly cardboard collectors I’ve met were willing to admit that it was a tough job, but few would admit to needing help.

“If you are an old box collector, would you, when interviewed, openly say that your own son is not giving you food that’s why you need to scavenge for boxes? I doubt so. Mothers will still protect and not shame their children openly to strangers. These people are very resilient. They do not want to show that they are too old and need help,” Nafiz said.

Yes, we should open our minds and learn more about the cardboard collectors who toil day after day under the Singaporean heat to pick up newspapers, tins and scraps of cardboard. Yes, they are deserving of respect and admiration for their strength. But we shouldn’t romanticise their self-sufficiency, absolving ourselves of all responsibility at the same time.

Just because someone says he or she is all right, managing, satisfied, doesn’t mean we don’t examine the conditions in which they live and work. Just because an old lady might say she is doing all right and just pushing this trolley with 10 kilos of cardboard “for the exercise” doesn’t mean we don’t ask ourselves why, in a country as prosperous as Singapore, an 80-year-old is doing this at all. How likely is it that cardboard collecting was her first choice in daily exercise?

Social welfare has thankfully been extended over the years in Singapore. Yet there are core presumptions that remain unquestioned, from the dignity of self-sufficiency to the need to rely on family and relatives first, leaving state support as a last resort.

But the state can provide support without reducing the dignity of those who need it, particularly by creating structures that help everyone even before the situation gets dire. Provisions like universal healthcare would lessen huge burdens and anxieties – the husband of the little old lady mentioned at the beginning of this article would not have had to feel humiliated by means-testing or justifying his need for financial support to a social worker, because his healthcare needs would already have been taken of.

It was good of the minister to reach out to the cardboard collectors. But he shouldn’t be so quick to take their comments at face value. There is much that we can still do to help the vulnerable in society, and we shouldn’t wait for them to ask.

Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.

Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

July 14, 2015
Gangster LTA Officer Threatened Me With Fxxk Word!

On 07/07/2015 around 5pm I was passing by North bridge road I saw an LTA officer suddenly got down from his bike rushing towards a black car. Shortly he just took some picture and started to type on his device as the black car drove off. I also saw him printed the slip and put it inside his pouch.

I approached and asked him, Sir why do you issue the summon though the car already moved off? I was appalled when the LTA officer answered me arrogantly, Who the f*** are you? Is that your car? What f*** do you want?

I calmly told him to talk nicely and don’t have to be rude, instead he continued talking to me abusively along with his “fluent” vulgarities for the next 5mins or so. I was taken aback and told him to stop or I call the police for assistance. He finally stopped when I whipped out my handphone. He went back to his bike, continued uttering his vulgarity and rode off!

It is not my car nor anyone related to me but for the next few moments, I started to wonder is this Singapore? Is this my country which I grew up in? Is this how an LTA Officer does his job? Do we need such an attitude person as an enforcement officer? Why must he misused his authority? Why must he used vulgarity publicly? Why do they simply issue a ticket as and when they wish?
Our father of nation brought us up to SG50 and as a Singaporean, we are excited and looking forward to celebrate the joyous occasion next month.

I have called LTA to complain about this incident and taken down some contacts from the members of public who witnessed the incident. There are so many innocent driver in my country. I dont want them to be the victim of such LTA officer who simply issue summons to achieve their target in order to get their allowance.

This is the photos of the LTA officer or more appropriate to label him, the Hooligan LTA officer?

Ummi Iza

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

July 14, 2015
MRT Breakdowns: If PAP Does Not Fire Paper General-CEO, Commuters Should Fire PAP

The latest SMRT breakdown which affected more than 250,000 won’t be the last. As the population increases towards PAP’s 6.9 million target, rest assured the mother of all SMRT breakdowns will be making her appearance. The government should not continue to deny what’s inevitable.

In URA’s Revised Concept Plan 1991, the government had wanted “to develop a viable land transport network that could meet the demand of a population of 4 million by the year 2030”. Obviously, even if it’s not obvious to our scholars, there are going to be issues. And plenty of them – more than 60 breakdowns and delays after GE 2011.

What we currently have is a broken system and no amount of papering over the cracks from our perpetually-concerned politicians will help. Every assurance coming from the PAP will be another half-truth.

Commuters are not blaming SMRT staff or engineers but PAP for a system which parachutes scholars with ZERO relevant experience into top positions in the civil service and GLCs.

A permanent solution is to get rid of such a non-transparent and unaccountable system, failing which the alternative is to say good riddance to PAP.

In view of the abject failure of ex Ferrari driving CEO Saw Paik Hwa, any responsible CEO would have employed personnel with decades of experience but not Kuek.

Abject failure ex CEO Saw

Instead, CEO Kuek roped in 4 of his army buddies with ZERO relevant experience “to steer the beleaguered transport operator back on track”. How’s that for an insult? Through his action, Kuek clearly had no intention to improve SMRT.

On the latest incident, Kuek reminded the public that “the journey to bringing about a much higher order of reliability and assurance is a difficult one, but we are committed to doing so .”

Hmm .. still dare to TKSS after inconveniencing more than $250,000 commuters? If his task was so simple, he would be earning a 5-figure annual salary, not $2,300,000. Without PAP support, Kuek would have been history. In fact, he wouldn’t be able to insult commuters as SMRT CEO.

When we look at other parts of PAP’s system, we can see that it is rotten to the core and in urgent need of a revamp.

As the regulator of SMRT, LTA is headed by ex navy chief Chew Men Leong. Not only did SMRT CEO have zero experience, neither did the head of its regulator!

Zero experience + zero experience = trial and error/need more breakdowns to learn lessons/commuters suffer.

After Chew left the navy in 2011, he was parachuted into PUB and became CEO with zero relevant experience. When flash floods hit Singapore in December 2011, Chew was praising PUB for its efforts to alleviate floods and claimed that we are the “victims of our own success”. Chew could not empathise with businesses which had lost millions. To Chew, PUB was a runaway success and it was really not their problem.

Trial to use buildings for water storage by PUB?

Image credit: STOMP

What about ex LTA CEO, Chew Hock Yong, who needs to shoulder some of the blame for the recent breakdowns? Under PAP’s merry-go-round system, Hock Yong was promoted to Second Permanent Secretary, MND, to oversee the newly-formed Municipal Services Office. Does one need to have extensive experience at LTA in order to be promoted to MND Perm Sec?

In a statement, the Ministry of Transport extended its appreciation to Mr Chew for his significant contributions in his four years as LTA’s chief executive. It sounded like Chew Hock Yong did a perfect job as LTA CEO overseeing SMRT and one should not link any SMRT breakdown to him.

During Roy’s cross-examination on 1 July, PM Lee had agreed that the CEO should take responsibility for MRT trains breakdown. 31 years earlier, Lee Kuan Yew had also said that if things did not work, the chief would be held responsible and “firing the chief is very simple”. (quoted from TOC article)

Sadly, the reality is PAP is all talk but no action, one rule for ordinary Singaporeans and another for elites. Instances of unaccountability:

During the twice in 50 years Orchard Road ponding in 2010 and 2011, PUB CEO Khoo Teng Chye put the blame on everything except himself and refused to apologise. Khoo was not fired but went on to head theCentre For Liveable Cities, fully funded by taxpayers.

For serious lapses at CPIB involving $1.7 million in public funds, which tarnished its reputation, director Eric Tan was not fired but merely redeployed to another department in 2013. Instead of an internal promotion, Eric was replaced by Workforce Development Agency’s Wong Hong Kuan who had ZERO relevant experience. Before Eric became CPIB Director, he was with the ICA and had ZERO relevant experience. More about Eric Tan at Singapore Notes.

And surely nothing beats this – a commissioner of police becoming PUB CEO.

If there was succession planning, surely there must be employees within the organisation with more extensive experience to become CEO than appointing a scholar with ZERO experience. Truth be said, meritocracy is dead and promotion under the PAP is based on loyalty, nothing to do with merit.

There are too many instances of PAP not holding itself accountable for epic screw ups. PAP can’t simply issue statements of perpetual concern and let the matter be. Instead of transferring a deadweight to another government department, it’s about time to let SMRT CEO go. Being a scholar with decades of experience in the military and government, Kuek should be able to find meaningful employment anywhere.

By “firing the chief”, LKY must have meant letting him go before he wreaks more havoc on people’s lives, not transferred. With the mess that PAP has created, LKY is likely to be turning in his grave.

Conclusion

Public transport commuters must demand for Kuek to be held accountable, ie fired, or it will be too late after a disaster has struck. From the above examples, it is obvious PAP has acted irresponsibly by allowing government organisations to be helmed by parachuters with zero experience.

Promotions in the civil service and GLCs are based on loyalty to a political party and unrelated to meritocracy. PAP is self serving and does not serve citizens. Such a system is rotten to the core.

If PAP can’t even show that it’s serious on accountability for once by firing SMRT CEO, commuters should not hesitate to fire the PAP at the next election.

Source: https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com

July 13, 2015