Tag: poor

  • Poor People In A Rich Country

    Poor People In A Rich Country

    Cardboard collectors

    Growing up in Singapore through the 1970s and 1980s, the karung guni man was a common feature.  They collected newspapers and cardboard boxes.  Over time, the karanguni men that collected old stuff became more interested in electrical items.  There is a garbage collection/recycling industry out there that is lucrative.  As usual, it is lucrative for those higher up the economic food chain.

    At the lower end of this food chain are those that wheel around a trolley looking for discarded cardboard boxes at rubbish disposal areas behind shophouses and business premises.  Many of us are too busy rushing back and forth from work and we hardly come across these people.  However, I am sure that a growing number of Singaporeans have been noticing a trend of elderly individuals collecting cardboards or tin cans.  When my office was in the Bugis area, I used to come across a regular tin-can collecting uncle probably in his 70s or in his late 60s at the very least.  He would hang around the coffee shops to pick empty cans from tables.  There is an old lady with bent back that can be seen struggling to pull an old trolley loaded with flattened cardboard boxes.  With my office now located near Chinatown, I do come across more such old people in the back alleys of Chinatown.

    These are hardworking men and women. They are around the age of my mother and father or even older.  These are the men and women that have been working hard all their lives.  They struggle but they soldier on.  When I look at these elderly people, the thought that crosses my mind is: ‘Why? Why do they still need to work at this age?’  I know that the answer to this question cannot be unidimensional.  Cardboard collectors don’t make a fantastic amount of money.  I understand that a daily average can be anywhere from $2 to $5.

    Are these elderly people living on their own?  Do they not have children?  Do their children not provide for them?  Is it that their children cannot afford to take care of them?  Do these elderly people want to have their sense of dignity and fend for themselves?  Do they want to keep themselves occupied in their old age by doing the one job that they know?

    The State perspective

    One of the most disturbing aspects of the Singapore government’s official position on poverty has been its non-acknowledgement.  From statements to the effect that there are no homeless persons in Singapore to a refusal to define a poverty line, the state has systematically tried to keep the problem of poverty under wraps.  However, it cannot be denied that the government has rolled out initiatives to assist low-income families.  I remember attending a closed door seminar where Minister Shanmugam characterised the Singapore government as being socialist but giving the appearance of being capitalist.  From what he said on that occasion, I understand that the PAP leaders probably see themselves as being in a position where they need to appear to be very pro-business to keep investment in whilst at the same time quietly carrying out welfare measures.  Perhaps, this could be the reason for often sounding very pro-business and appearing to ignore the existence of a social underclass.  Perhaps, appearing to ignore but not really ignoring.

    That would be a kinder way of looking at how our leaders perceive the masses.  I’m not so sure if that is true.  I truly wonder if our leaders and decision makers are living too much in an ivory tower to fully appreciate what is going on at the ground level.

    Today I noticed some funny comments on facebook about elderly people exercising by collecting cardboard boxes in the hot sun.  I traced those comments to the origin and it turns out that Minister Tan Chuan Jin has posted on his facebook about elderly people collecting cardboard boxes.  To be fair, he appears to acknowledge that there are different reasons why the elderly engage in this work.  However, what is disturbing is that the post is intended to build on the narrative that old people want to have a sense of dignity and they derive that through work and also for the elderly people work is a way of keeping themselves occupied or even getting some exercise.

    I reproduce the Minister’s post in full here as I don’t want to take him out of context:

    “While I often chat with them when I meet them, I haven’t gone so far up the value chain to know the middle man and the whole set-up. I was most happy to join a group of young Singaporeans from Youth Corp on a project they initiated – to get first hand insight into the lives of elderly cardboard collectors: what motivated them to do what they do; and the challenges they face. The youngsters devoted their weekends over a 2-month period to befriend the cardboard aunties and uncles on the streets in the Jalan Besar area, and spent time talking to them to understand what they are going through in life.

    They shared with me that they were surprised by their own findings! The normal perception that all cardboard collectors are people who are unable to take care of themselves financially is not really true. 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.

    For members of the public, the simplest thing that one can do for these people is to talk to them to understand them. More often than not, people make judgements without finding out the facts of the matter, in this instance, the stigma surrounding cardboard collectors. But of course, for those who genuinely need financial help because they are unable to find other jobs to supplement their income from cardboard collecting, the government will do what it can to help these people. If you know of individuals who need help, do let us know.

    I’d like to thank Zaihan Mohamed Yusof who started it all with his articlehttp://www.tnp.sg/news/when-cardboard-gold in The New Paper. The youngsters picked up on the idea and followed up. Cheers to Koh Cheng Jun (Tm Lead) and Muhammad Syazwan Bin Mohamed Suhri who were with me on the ground, and thanks to the team who shared their thoughts with me…Goh Pei Yi Valerie, Janarthanan Ahalya, Khoo Lay Keat Bryan, Lee Jun Xian, Serena Mok Jia Xin.

    Inspired by you guys for taking that extra step. We all can too!”

    The truth is that there are bound to be some elderly people working for those reasons pointed out as there will be those that work because they have no other choice. I have nothing against looking at cardboard collecting elderly people from a nuanced perspective by considering all the varieties of reasons for which they collect cardboard boxes. However, I do object to highlighting a particular perspective that assists in bolstering the state narrative that there is no poverty in Singapore.

    I know many of my fellow Singaporeans (especially professionals) have no idea that there is poverty in Singapore. I have engaged in social work with residents in rental flats and some of these in localities such as Chai Chee where the flats house the elderly. Many of these residents are surviving on a mixture of government grants and charitable donations of food and groceries from social workers. (As an aside, the great redeeming feature of our rat-race driven country is the existence of a decent number of charitable, socially conscious and responsible citizens. There is still hope for our society.) The plight of the underprivileged in our society is unpardonable considering that we are a 1st world country. Clearly more can be done by average Singaporeans as well as by the state. It really doesn’t help to build a narrative that eventually makes it acceptable for our pioneer generation to work till the day they die. If they are to work as an MP till the day they die without having to turn up in Parliament or carry out active constituency duties, I don’t think anyone would object to that kind of work for the elderly. If you expect someone in his/her 80s to work as a cardboard collector with no safety net, then somewhere along the way, the system has failed these people.

    One problem with my parents’ generation is that many of them had no retirement planning. That was their background. It is not possible to blame them. To many, their kids would have been the retirement safety net. My parents have been fortunate to be able to retire. I know that this is not the case for many elderly people. Some elderly people have to resort to working because they don’t want to burden their children. They see their sons and daughters struggling to maintain their families. Wages for many have not increased to keep up with inflation and many low-income families find it virtually impossible to fully support their parents. It is true that if you asked some of the working elderly they would reply that they work to have dignity and not to have to ask their families for help. The sub-text in that reply is that their children are not in a position to properly support them.cardboard-collector

    This year we celebrate 50 years of our nationhood. We have progressed economically and many have benefited but many have also been left behind. Let’s not forget the back breaking work of a generation of Singaporeans that continue to work in the shadows of our skyscrapers. There is no point in constructing myths about how the PAP turned a fishing village into a modern metropolis when the people that were responsible for the rapid growth of the 1970s are now left to toil till the day would die.

    Let’s acknowledge the existence of a problem. Let’s see what can be done to solve it.

    (P.S. To be fair to Tan Chuan Jin, he does mention in his post to let the government know if we know of individuals that need help.)

     

    Subra

    * The author blogs at article14blog.wordpress.com primarily about the law & politics in Singapore, occassionally veering off into socio-economic issues. Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution protects the Freedom of Speech, Expression, Peaceful Assembly and Association. But, there are excessive restrictions on these Freedoms. He hopes that he can, in his own small way, contribute to the gradual realisation of these Freedoms in this land.

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • HDB Flats For Even Rich Kids’ Children?

    HDB Flats For Even Rich Kids’ Children?

    It’s difficult for a heartland born-and-bred Singaporean like me to imagine, but there are apparently people in Singapore who have never lived in, or even stepped into, a Housing Board flat.

    When I was discussing property purchases with a group of friends, one of my girlfriends confessed she would not buy a HDB flat because she wouldn’t feel safe in one. She grew up in private property and her first purchase was a condominium.

    I got to thinking about this issue, following reports that National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan wants to make it easier for all couples, including high-earning ones, to own and live in a HDB built-to-order (BTO) flat.

    In a live radio talk show on Chinese-language station Capital 95.8FM, he is reported to have said: “If you ask for my personal opinion … I generally prefer to give every Singaporean couple a chance of living in HDB.

    “You may come from, say, an upper-income group. You do not need an HDB flat. But I feel that it’s good for … almost all Singaporeans to have a chance of living in HDB for five years, and interact with the community.”

    He added: “It’s part and parcel of the Singaporean way of life. It’s just like males go for National Service … If we can give them this opportunity of staying in HDB towns, I think there are more positives than negatives.”

    His remarks were made in the context of raising the income ceiling for HDB flats, which he said could happen by Sept.

    Now, a married couple with a joint monthly income of up to $10,000 can buy a subsidised, new HDB flat. It was raised from $8,000 in 2011.

    This isn’t the first time Mr Khaw made such a comment. In an exclusive interview with The Straits Times in April 2013, he had broached the idea of scrapping the income ceiling to allow even couples with very high incomes to own HDB flats, as living in HDB flats would give people more chances to interact with others of different races and incomes. But the lower-income households ones would still get bigger housing grants.

    Mr Khaw said then: “If a rich man’s kid wants to apply for a BTO flat, provided he stays the five-year minimum occupation period, there’s nothing wrong with that to me”.

    My reaction both times was bemusement.

    For most Singaporeans, HDB living is part and parcel of being Singaporean. Most live in HDB estates. Those of us who grew up in one, and moved on to private property, will probably always hanker after the bustle of HDB life.

    You see all the BMW-driving businessmen in long-sleeved shirts wiping away beads of sweat as they wolf down their bak chor mee or mee goreng at their favourite HDB coffeeshop and hawker centre, and you see the looks of blissful content on the well-dressed women as they buy their cheap laundry baskets or pick up kitchen utensils at the household sundry shop, and you know you can take the boy or girl out of the HDB estate, but you can’t take the HDB out of the boy or girl.

    So the idea that a special policy is needed to encourage people to live in and interact with HDB residents will appear slightly surreal to some. On my Facebook, a friend commented that she felt insulted, as though HDB residents were creatures in a zoo that the rich are being encouraged to visit to see.

    I empathise with that comment. It’s like having a special policy to encourage those who live with a permanent bubble around their heads to take their heads out of the bubble and breathe normal air like the rest of us.

    Breathing normal air is the default, and should be so. But I can see that if segments of our population have become so used to living in that bubble of air, it would take concerted policy action to persuade them to try normal air for a change.

    The truth is that Singapore society is stratifying. Whereas many of today’s middle-aged professionals grew up in HDB flats, it’s probably the case that more of today’s 20-something year old professionals and managers grew up in private housing. So the idea of having them live in and experience HDB life, isn’t a bad one. From the point of view of social cohesion, it makes sense.

    In Singapore, public housing caters to the majority of the population – 80 per cent of Singapore resident households live in HDB flats. The idea is precisely that we would all grow up in mixed neighbourhoods that jumble up people of different races, different income groups, and different socioeconomic status.

    So it makes sense to encourage the small minority who never had a chance to do that when they were growing up, and encourage them to do so in their young adulthood.

    I often wonder how many of today’s young Administrative Service civil servants, and the smart youngsters who enter the banks, the legal profession, and even the media, have lived in HDB flats, and if they have empathy for the average Singaporean who does. These people are future leaders and decision-makers.

    If too many of them come from privileged families, they would never have experienced poverty, or suffered from want or anxiety over money problems. But if they had a friend in school or in their neighbourhood who did, and were close enough a confidant to share vicariously in the friend’s struggles, their worldview will be more rounded than the wealthy child who lives with, plays with and goes to school with only other wealthy children.

    If raising the income ceiling to allow more young couples to live in HDB flats can help reduce the social gap that can exist between the privileged and the masses, then there are reasons to do so.

    I know some readers will argue that HDB flats should be reserved for the lower-income. Let the high-income earners who want to live in HDB estates buy flats on the resale market.

    But the fact is that, with 80 per cent living in HDB estates, HDB flat owners already include the high-income. Increasingly, the subsidised HDB flat is being viewed as the birthright of every Singaporean couple. The HDB gravy train gives them a ticket to an affordable first home – and a firm step up the ladder of financial success, if they are lucky enough enough to make hundreds of thousands of dollars subsequently by selling it on the open market.

    But opening up the floodgates this way will inevitably lead to demands from other groups to be given the same access to HDB subsidised flats. Mature couples who missed out on buying HDB flats earlier will also want to be allowed to buy subsidised flats. And singles will demand more leeway to benefit from housing subsidies too.

    The arguments about the social benefits of having every Singaporean experience HDB living applies equally to them.

     

    Source: http://business.asiaone.com

  • MUIS To Disburse $1.74 Million To Poor And Needy In Ramadan

    MUIS To Disburse $1.74 Million To Poor And Needy In Ramadan

    The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) will disburse about S$1.74 million to the poor and needy this Ramadan. The sum is a 20 per cent increase compared to last year, MUIS announced on Friday (Jun 26).

    A total of S$1.28 million will be disbursed to 12,624 recipients, and S$448,600 for programmes in Ramadan for zakat-receiving families as well as gift hampers for Hari Raya celebrations.

    MUIS said it has been able to offer the Ramadan bonus to more recipients as there is an increase in families and individuals who qualify for financial assistance from the revision of the 2014 Per Capita Income qualification criteria review.

    Chief Executive of MUIS Hj Abdul Razak Maricar said that each recipient will receive between S$100 and S$200, depending on family size.

    “MUIS also extends the Ramadan bonus to Muslim residents of 27 children homes and homes for the aged. This Ramadan disbursement is also used to fund mosque support programmes for the poor and needy throughout this month.”

    This year’s Ramadan bonus will be paid out from Jul 7.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Alfian Sa’at: Government Can Do Much More For The Poor

    Alfian Sa’at: Government Can Do Much More For The Poor

    Thank you for all the Ramadan well-wishes. One of the things I like about fasting is the sense of self-mastery over desire (something which is shared with the ascetic aspects of many other religions.) Yet another is this reminder that not having food or water for half a day—or longer—is a lived reality for many people around the world. It’s made me think a lot about the poor in Singapore too, and the verse in the Quran that says:

    “Charity is for the poor who have been restricted in Allah’s cause, unable to move about in the land, seeking work or trade. An ignorant person would think them self-sufficient because of their modesty, that they are free from want. But you will know them by their characteristic sign. They do not beg persistently, or at all. And whatever you spend of good – indeed, Allah is knowing of it.” – Surah Al-Baqarah, Chapter 2, Verse 273

    A recent survey commissioned by Mendaki revealed that two-thirds of low-income Malay-Muslim families do not seek help from social services despite being eligible for them. The researchers noted that though a main issue was lack of awareness of available schemes (and also the sheer volume of forms they need to fill) many among the needy also feared the stigma associated with ‘begging for help’. Because ‘welfare’ is so often articulated as a ‘burden to the state’, rather than a redistributive strategy included in the budget, those who should receive it become hesitant. Who wants to be a burden to anyone? It robs you of your dignity. This is distressing news indeed because apparently there are people in Singapore who, even in struggling conditions, think that there are others who are more destitute than they are and more deserving of welfare.

    “They do not beg persistently, or at all.”

    I’ve often felt frustrated that the government has been reluctant to define an official poverty line, on the pretext that those who are found to live above it might ‘miss out’ on assistance. But seriously, when two-thirds are not getting the help they need to get out of the poverty trap then it seems to me that the real problem is under-utilisation, NOT wanton abuse of the system. The problem with not having an official poverty line is that the poor remain invisible, even to themselves. How can the poor evaluate whether they really need help when they’re not given something to measure themselves against? At which point should they start realising that it’s beyond their capacity to cope—when three meals are reduced to two, when the loansharks start knocking, when chronic illnesses become catastrophic?

    Welfare in Singapore has always been predicated on an inherent mistrust of those who might develop a ‘crutch mentality’. The ‘many helping hands’ are also intrusive ones, frisking bodies, pointing fingers at television sets and smartphones as welfare liabilities (even if they were gifts or hand-me-downs). There’s also a eugenic, Darwinian taint to it, where those who fall behind are seen as those on whom supposedly scarce resources should not be ‘wasted on’. It’s all very pithy to say that you’re providing a trampoline rather than a safety net but what kind of disapproving looks are you giving those in free fall? Something needs to change, and I hope the political parties make this part of their platform for the next elections. In the meantime, some pantuns on the rich and poor:

    1) Kalau beli buah berangan,
    Jangan lupa buah kana;
    Orang kaya jangan diangan,
    Orang miskin jangan dihina.

    If you buy chestnuts,
    Don’t forget to buy Chinese white olives;
    The rich should not be envied,
    The poor should not be despised.

    2) Dari teluk pergi ke pekan,
    Singgah bermalam di Batu Lima;
    Sekalian makhluk Tuhan jadikan,
    Kaya miskin dipandang sama.

    From the bay one journeys to the town,
    Spending a night at Batu Lima;
    All beings are created by God,
    The rich and poor are equal in His eyes.

    3) Baju kebaya disulam kelimkan,
    Dipakai mari dara berdandan;
    Miskin kaya jangan bezakan,
    Budi jadi satu ujian.

    The kebaya is embroidered with silver,
    And worn by fashionable maidens;
    The poor and the rich are not to be distinguished,
    The real test lies in their good deeds.

    4) Kalau tuan merendam telur,
    Jangan terlupa telur yang masin;
    Kalau tuan sudah masyhur,
    Jangan lupa keluarga yang miskin.

    If you find yourself soaking eggs,
    Don’t forget to soak the salted ones;
    If you find yourself surrounded by wealth,
    Don’t forget those families who are poor.

     

    Source: Alfian Sa’at

  • 12,000 Households Receive Financial Help But 360,000 Still Live In Poverty?

    12,000 Households Receive Financial Help But 360,000 Still Live In Poverty?

    According to GOH LI SIAN, RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY COORDINATOR, AWARE’s letter ”Most govt reports do not deal with policies’ budgetary impact” (Today, May 21) – “While these (Government) reports provide some helpful information, they do not tend to address the impact of budgetary policies per se. The statistics referenced in most of these reports relate to the social phenomena within these ministries’ remit, such as the level of crime or number of workplace accidents, rather than the allocation of expenditure under specific initiatives and policies.

    ComCare – no applications’ statistics

    The ComCare Annual Report is a welcome exception, as it shows how much money is given out under the various ComCare schemes. However, these statistics could be more comprehensive, since figures on the number of applications received are not released.”

    My curiousity was aroused by the above, as the ComCare statistics did give the number of applications for financial assistance and the success rate in the past – which apparently has disappeared, according to AWARE’s above letter.

    As I had just wrote “1 million living in poverty?” – I looked at the ComCare statistics to see how many needy families actually received financial assistance.

    15,699 households received ComCare financial assistance

    According to Social Statistics 2014  – the number of families that received ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance was 12,535 in 2013.

    The number that received ComCare long-term assistance was 3,164 (I understand that this figure has remained at around 3,000 for more than a decade!).

    So, the total number on Short-to-Medium Term and Long-term Assistance was 15,699 (12,535 + 3,164).

    But 107,490 households per capita income $494

    Even if we do not talk about the bottom second and third deciles of employed households or the 3.4 per cent of non-retiree households with no working persons and 7 per cent of retiree households which may fall below the ComCare criteria of $650 household per capita income – the bottom decile alone had about 107,490 employed households with per capita monthly income of only $494 (including employer CPF).

    Only 15% of bottom decile received ComCare financial assistance?

    So, does it mean that only about 15 per cent (15,699 ComCare financial assistance divided by 107,490 bottom decile households) actually received ComCare financial assistance?

    Only 4% of those in poverty received ComCare financial assistance?

    If we relate this to the 360,000 (30 per cent) households) estimated to be in poverty – does it mean that only about 4 per cent (15,699 divided by 360,000) received ComCare financial assistance?

    Short-term financial assistance less than $200?

    According to the ComCare Annual Report FY2013 – $31.36 million was disbursed to 17,182 households on short-term assistance in FY2013 – with only 6,867 households remaining (still on) assistance as at 31 March 2014.

    So, does it mean that the average monthly financial assistance per household was less than $200 ($31.36 million divided by 17,182 = $152)?

    Medium-term financial assistance less than $250?

    Similarly, $24.34 million was disbursed to 8,774 households on medium-term assistance – with only 5,520 households remaining as at 31 March  2014.

    So, does it mean that the average monthly medium-term financial assistance was less than $250 ($24.34 million divided by 8,774 = $231)?

    Please tell us more

    Why can’t the ComCare annual report just disclose the average amount of monthly financial assistance per household?

    Win battles lose war

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com