Tag: Singapore

  • Why We Shouldn’t Take ‘Cardboard Collectors’ Comments At Face Value

    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

  • Gangster LTA Officer Threatened Me With Fxxk Word!

    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

  • MRT Breakdowns: If PAP Does Not Fire Paper General-CEO, Commuters Should Fire PAP

    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
    9044d3da3b6ea02ac17681737ff92684_330.jpg

    Instead, CEO Kuek roped in 4 of his army buddies with ZERO relevant experienceto 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?
    20111223.181808_liat_flood.jpg
    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

  • A DBSS Ceiling For Khaw Boon Wan To Explain

    A DBSS Ceiling For Khaw Boon Wan To Explain

    As The Online Citizen (TOC) reported on Sunday, the Minister of National Development will be questioned about the poor quality of recent flats, especially those under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS), and also those under the Build-To-Order (BTO) programme. (See here.)

    The minister in charge, Khaw Boon Wan, has said little about the many complaints which homeowners have raised so far.

    Besides the by now infamously narrow corridors at Pasir Ris ONE, for example, buyers were also unhappy over an entire slew of defects found in their flats – including leaking pipes, badly located water heaters, hollow tiles in their bathroom walls, scratched tiles, tiles with different shades of colours, windows which are nor properly installed, and so on.

    At Pasir Ris ONE, one of the most obvious and conspicuous anomaly seems to be the ceiling at the ground floors.

    The “gas vent” runs through the ceiling along the corridors, together with what looked like gas pipes, all seemingly put together in haste, and left exposed.

    The “gas vent” looks like an after-thought thing. The developer seems to have forgotten about the gas vent, and then just plonk it up there, hold it up with a few screws and that’s it.

    It is a wonder that such designs have been approved by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) or the Housing and Development Board (HDB).

    TOC visited the DBSS development about a week ago and took a short clip of it.

    Perhaps Mr Khaw will explain why such a design is allowed by the authorities.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • 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

deneme bonusu