Tag: poor

Ease Stress Of Day-To-Day Survival So Poor Can Plan A Better Future

When people think about poverty, it is often viewed in the context of money. How much does he earn? Is it enough for the family? But in the course of speaking to people from low-income households last week for a Sunday Times report (“The faces behind the aid figures“; Feb 28), I was struck by something more than their shortage of money: a tendency to shy away from planning for the future, because they are so stressed and concerned about immediate financial worries. This sometimes led them to make decisions that the better-off find hard to understand.

For example, it is baffling why a couple struggling with finances would want to have seven children, and why the single mother would commit to the big purchase of a new four-room flat despite mounting debt. Or why the elderly karung guni man would spend over half of his $450 monthly government handout on cigarettes and beer when he has no savings.

Researchers have found that very poor families throughout the world spend more of their income on alcohol than on educating their children – or even on food. Studies have also shown that they do not plan for the future compared to better-off folk, and some have less self-control and are quicker to turn to instant gratification. While some may take a deterministic view, thinking that people become poor because they have such innate traits, recent research suggests otherwise: that it is the state of poverty, and the stress that comes with it, that pushes very poor people to make bad decisions.

Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan and Princeton psychologist Eldar Shafir, in their 2013 book Scarcity, found that economic stress robs people of cognitive bandwidth – the portion of mental capacity used to make decisions. Rushing around worrying about bills, food or other immediate problems leaves people with less cognitive capacity to make good decisions, think ahead or practise self-discipline.Urgent demands of the moment override planning for the future.

That is perhaps why a food-stall assistant featured in The Sunday Times would rather take on extra part-time jobs in the weekends to get fast cash than go for a skills upgrading course to get a better- paying job. And why the single mother is reluctant to take a little time off work to renew her application for government grants, or meet her debtors to negotiate better repayment plans.

Under overwhelming circumstances, people living in extreme poverty lack the time and mental will to assess their situation or think of alternatives. They may not even realise they have choices.

This creates a vicious circle because people end up making decisions that leave them worse off, such as taking out high-interest loans or buying on instalment. In settling today’s problems, they create debts for tomorrow.

The question then is: How can the poor be relieved of their cognitive stress of day-to-day survival so they are able to plan for a better future?

If extreme poverty exacts a mental toll, the most direct way to help them would be to help them cancel their debts. Methodist Welfare Services (MWS) started a programme in 2014 for low-income families that matches debt repayment dollar-for-dollar up to $100 a month.

It found that the 34 families given such help reduced their debt from a total of $256,000 to $175,000 over a year. In comparison, another 34 families not given the funds saw their collective debt increase by $18,000 over the same period.

MWS assistant director Cindy Ng said: “Chronic debt is one of the major factors that perpetuates their poverty and if they are always fighting fires and thinking about putting food on the table, their ability to deal with longer-term issues is limited. For instance, they are less likely to seek skills upgrading which may help them break out of the poverty circle.”

Another practical way would be to make it easier for the needy to access help. The poor often work long hours and can apply for aid only after work. Yet most of the 24 social service offices are open only during office hours and are closed at weekends.

A third solution is to make it easy for those in dire straits to opt for good decisions. For example, they can be automatically enrolled in a savings scheme, with part of their pay or government grants channelled into a rainy-day fund.

Last, improving their living environment can reduce mental stress. The poor, such as the featured family of eight who squeeze into a one-room rental flat the size of three parking spaces, often have to deal with living in small, crowded spaces. Neuroscientists at Princeton University found that a cluttered environment reduces one’s ability to focus and process information.

Mr Cayden Woo of Chen Su Lan Methodist Children’s Home, which runs home improvement projects for low-income families, said: “Adults often bring their stress back home from work and when they see the physical mess at home, their frustration escalates. But after helping them declutter and reorganise the space, they become more positive when communicating or parenting.”

Poverty has a clear link to bad choices. Rather than blame the poor for making such choices, it is more constructive to understand that the mental stress of coping with day-to-day needs drives them to make bad choices – and then work to reduce that daily stress. Helping struggling families cope better in the present will help them reach a brighter future in which their children will not be propelled towards bad choices.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

March 3, 2016
A Third Of Students Go To School With No Pocket Money To Buy Lunch?

Record No. of needy students helped.

I refer to the article ”ST School Pocket Money Fund helps record number of needy students” (Straits Times, Oct 10).

It states that ”Pocket money is given to students whose families meet the eligibility criteria of not more than $560 in monthly gross household per capita income.”

Why not only for Singaporeans?

According to the SPMF’s web site – “To qualify as a beneficiary receiving pocket money, the child/youth must be:

A Singapore citizen or permanent resident”.

I understand that almost all other financial assistance schemes are for Singaporeans only. So, why are PRs eligible? (“Fee hike for international students and PRs attending local schools“, Straits Times, Oct 1).

If the assistance is confined to Singaporeans – perhaps the criteria may be less restrictive, such that more Singaporeans may qualify.

Most restrictive criteria amongst all schemes?

As to “Pocket money is given to students whose families meet the eligibility criteria of not more than $560 in monthly gross household per capita income” – I understand that last year’s criteria was “(the child must be) from a family whose per capita net monthly household income is not more than $450″, compared to the $560 gross income now.

If this is the case – typically the net income after deducting say 20 per cent employee CPF contribution may be $448 ($560 gross income less 20 per cent CPF).

SPMF’s criteria may be the most restrictive, of probably all the financial assistance schemes?

For example, ComCare’s criteria is “Families with a monthly household income of $1,900 and below, or a per capita income of $650 can also qualify for assistance if they meet all other criteria”.

So, why is SPMF’s criteria ($560) – $90 less than ComCare’s $650 per capita income?

Only help for 2 years?

As to “STSPMF is committed to helping children and youth who meet the eligibility criteria by providing them with school pocket money for 2 years” – in the previous year it said “providing them with school pocket money for at least two years. In exceptional cases requiring additional help, SPMF will extend the financial assistance to up to four years”

– Why is it that the term of assistance is only for 2 years – is it still up to 4 years in exceptional cases now?

From my experience doing volunteer work in financial counselling over the last decade or so – I have come across many cases of financial stress when SPMF assistance is terminated after 2 or 4 years.

Since a child generally goes through about 13 years of education – why do we have this “2 years” restriction?

Previously, some criteria don’t make sense?

In fact, the criteria previously was arguably even more strange – “Secondly, post-secondary students who wish to receive aid in the past needed to have either tapped on the fund previously or have a sibling who is drawing on the fund. In future, all who meet the income criteria can qualify. This change will benefit new applicants and those from single-child families”.

Why was there a need for either to “have a sibling who is drawing on the fund” or “to have either tapped on the fund previously”?

Were those who did not “”have a sibling drawing on the fund”, or “tapped on the fund previously”, less deserving – until only recently with the changes announced?

Number needing assistance increase more than 3 times?

Notwithstanding the increase in financial assistance (probably to cover inflation) and the widening of the scope of cover – don’t you find it rather alarming that for a developed country like Singapore – the number of students helped increased from 3,375 in 2001 to almost 14,000 now?

In this connection, Professor Tommy Koh said that “About a third of our students go to school with no pocket money to buy lunch” (“Three wishes for the New Year”, Straits Times, Jan 3).

The assistance disbursed increased from $0.9 million in 2001 to the $7 million for this year, as reported in the subject news report.

How much reserves?

Its accumulated fund is $17.9 million.

SG50 give $300,000 only?

As to “We were fortunate to receive $300,000 from the Government through its Care and Share programme launched to celebrate Singapore’s 50th anniversary” – don’t you think that the Government should contribute more?

Reciprocate trust with more transparency?

Since the people have given their trust and mandate – shouldn’t we reciprocate by spending more to help Singaporeans.

Leong Sze Hian

* Submitted by TRE reader.

Source: www.tremeritus.com

October 16, 2015
Poor Malay Family Living In Staircase Of HDB Estate

I have been living in my neighborhood for years. Never seen this Malay family before. It was until recently that I notice them.

The story was like this…

I was in my living room watching TV around 8pm that I start hearing babies crying sound outside. Initially, I thought its was nothing until the sound keep continuing for 2 hours. Feeling annoy I went out to keep a look out what happen. To my surprise, after I open the door, I saw a family of 5 living on the staircase, even with a mattress lying on the floor. (The type of HDB with door leading to the staircase) They totally treat the staircase as their house… I was speechless and ask them how come they are doing this, I even threaten to call the police as they causing a nuisances to others.

They beg me not to and explain they got chase out of their house, with no place to go to. They will just stay put here for a night and will move to relative house the very next day.

Fast forward to next day, I went to check the staircase and found out that they are gone but they left behind a mess. With rubbish everywhere and a nasty smell of don’t what…

And, this seems not like a isolated case… Just nice happen to check with my neighbour, he said that this couple have been doing this shifting and moving for a couple of months in my neighbourhood le. Everytime when someone complain, they will shift to other block or some other level.

What can I do to help this family?

obsceneK2
A.S.S. Reader

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

September 29, 2015
Average Singaporeans: Rich Elites Can Never Understand Our Simple Local Lifestyle

Dear All Singapore Stuff,

I would like to share my reflections on what the upcoming SG50 anniversary means to me, based on my personal experiences as an average Singaporean.

I have come to realize that the poor and lower-middle class represent an entirely different Singapore from the rich and upper-middle class. We are like two different nations.

Kids from the rich and upper-middle class are different from birth. They are equipped with skills an average Singaporean will never get. They are taught to play various musical instruments, taught a variety of sports and even go for supplementary classes from a young age. Not surprisingly these kids end up doing well academically and also excel in other activities. Even if they do not succeed academically,they have the financial support and necessary connections to set up their own businesses to establish themselves. These kids dominate the better schools and will inevitably become the next generation of elites. As an end result, we have the elite producing more elites.

What happens to the kids from the poor and lower middle class? The vast majority ends up in the neighbourhood schools. Less conducive environment, no guarantee of good teachers (I was once scolded by a MOE teacher for bothering her with too many questions about a humanities subject) and limited enrichment programmes. There are less opportunities for students to participate in competitions to boost their own confidence. Many cannot afford tuition. Quite a number are from broken families (myself included), and they are troubled by family problems even as they study. They also have to deal with exposure to kids who smoke, gangsters, bullies and other delinquents. These kids even have to work part-time during school holidays to increase their monthly allowance. Most end up in polytechnics or neighbourhood jcs and very few enter the local universities.

Being one of the few neighbourhood school kids who entered a good jc and then a local university, I experienced a culture shock. I could not relate to the majority of my classmates in my jc. Almost everyone in my jc class stayed in a condo or landed house.

I could not effectively communicate with them because I lacked relevant experiences like overseas trips as well as musical and sports talents. I couldn’t understand why every outing had to involve eating at a restaurant in the city area and why there was so much spending. Most of the girls stayed in condos and frequently called others to come over for tennis games, swimming, barbecues and other frivolous celebrations. I actually felt embarrassed to be staying in a hdb flat with so few fun facilities as I could not engage my classmates in a similar manner. They had perfect families with supportive parents and they went on overseas trips every holiday in contrast to neighbourhood school people who usually worked part-time during holidays.

They were seasoned travelers who had no qualms about staying overseas for weeks without their families! Same thing in university. I found that there were fewer and fewer of the neighbourhood school kids with whom I could better identify. Those I know who went on exchange programmes and overseas CIP trips were mostly scholars and wealthy people. Those with greater purchasing power also enriched their university experience with participation in marathons, camps and clubbing events whereas those who were poorer were stuck with memories of lectures and tutorials, school activities and the inevitable bank loan.

Most of the rich people tend to think and behave similarly. For instance, during jc, they were taking their Grade 8 piano examinations at the same time, they took SATs while preparing for ‘A’ levels and later on in university, they took up driving lessons simultaneously. I could not even afford to take up driving and I didn’t see the point of it because I have no car.

I think the poor and lower middle class appreciate simple pastimes better. A stroll in the park, running at the stadium, playing board games or card games at a void deck or playing basketball at a public basketball court is simply too boring for the wealthier people. Window-shopping without any purchase is ridiculous to them. They will never be seen doing any of these activities and will sneer at you or look bewildered if you even suggest any of these activities. If you say that $13 is too expensive for a movie or that $70 is too much for Universal Studios, they will just scold you for complaining so much. Gradually,they will abandon you for being such a boring and negative person.

I have seen enough to believe that the non-elite can never truly be part of one Singapore with the elites. We have different upbringings, different values, different lifestyles, different educational experiences and a different sense of identity. Our life goals are also different. While the elites love to say that what we see as elite is what they see as meritocracy, the hard truth is that there’s such a thing as inherited meritocracy, and the non-elite lack the necessary resources and upbringing to properly compete with them. This leaves the majority of the non-elite with limited social mobility.

Equality is a lie. Rather than deceive myself into thinking that there can be a true, lasting friendship with an elite person, I choose to believe that elites can never understand or appreciate simplicity while living within the comforts of their condos and landed houses. Of course, I will work hard. But I also accept the reality that I am disadvantaged relative to the wealthier segments of society. Fraternization with them will only be counter-productive to my life goals.

As far as the non-elite like myself are concerned, it is best to leave the elites to their extravagant lifestyles. I strongly believe that the poor should not provide any entertainment to the rich. If we are invited to their parties, we should decline. Leave them to celebrate with their ilk. As we prepare to celebrate Singapore’s golden jubilee, let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking that we are all one. We certainly are not.

Fred
A.S.S. Contributor

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

July 22, 2015
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