True Son Betrayed - Tribute to JBJ

I met this man when I was a young man, just out of the army and searching for a job.  I took the MRT to go for an interview  and there was this man boarding the train at City Hall. He smiled at those who acknowledged him and had a very pleasant aura.  I was pleasantly surprised! Was this "The Tiger" of the parliament? I was too shy and too conscious of myself to even say "hello" to this man.  A decision that I regret today as this was the man that I almost called to defend my case while I was a regular in the Republic of Singapore Air Force.  But that is another story for another day.

As I grew in years and matured, I began to admire this man for his "never say die" attitude and for his fighting spirit.  I admired him for standing up against the propoganda that, "nothing is free in this world", that "there is no free lunch, no handouts, no subsidies".  For highlighting the widening gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in Singapore and for advocating the government to lessen the inequalities between the rich and low-incomed Singaporean.  

J B Jeyaretnam was a man who besides his setbacks, truly believed in the everyday Singaporean.  His rallying call was often that "power does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people. They delegate it to the government." He identified himself with the common Singaporean through the slogan "We the People".  Now, the thought lingers in my mind, "was this true son of the people of Singapore, betrayed by the very people he loved so much?"

Beyond managing homelessness

“Meet Singapore’s Nomad Families”, a recent Sunday Times article welcomes the average Singaporean. Homelessness is a major issue in all large cities. The numbers of homeless people worldwide have grown steadily in recent years. A recent estimate states that there are 100 million people worldwide who are homeless. Although the homeless are often “hidden” in a society like Singapore, Singapore is by no means exempted from this worldwide dilemma.

To be sure, a homeless person obviously needs a home. But such a simple observation overlooks the reason why the homeless have no home. Simply demanding more housing for the homeless is like saying that a person with a fever can be cured with a cold bath to bring down the temperature and ignoring the infection causing the fever.

People who are homeless are so for various reasons. Some have made poor choices in life, some are involved with alcohol or drugs, yet others are part of the system of generational poverty in which inadequate life skills are handed down from one generation to the next, resulting in an entire culture of people who do not know how to take advantage of the educational, cultural or employment advantages available to them. Some of the homeless are also those who may have had some education, a job and a place to live, but without a “safety net” of family or friends to help them through a difficult time, found themselves evicted from their homes after they lost their job or had a financial crisis. But whatever the circumstances, homelessness is but the symptom of root problems.

In addressing the problem of homelessness, the focus has to shift from emergency shelters to prevention. Emergency shelters should only be temporary and transitional solutions, to provide a safe housing environment in the interim. The different agencies who want to focus their resources on preventive efforts should:

1. Involve local governments; because the homeless usually qualify for various kinds of public assistance. Voluntary Welfare Organizations need to be involved in coordinating services and referring clients to various programs.

2. Encourage retraining and upgrading; because the workers in the low-income bracket are the most vulnerable to be homeless. As such, they should upgrade and/or retrain, so that they can develop marketable skills to take on and succeed in new, higher value-added, and emerging jobs in the knowledge based economy.

3. Enhance families’ capacity to help them; policies and programs should aim to support and supplement family functioning. Wherever possible, policies and programs should encourage and reinforce marital, parental, and even extended family commitment and stability.

4. Create awareness; about services available for the “at-risk” group among mainstream service providers like schools, utilities suppliers, banks, religious institutions, etc.

5. Launch Public Education campaigns; through public service advertising to modify public attitudes and to promote responsible home ownership, to encourage homeowners and homebuyers to seek housing counseling.

6. Consider forming an inter-agency coordinating body; to coordinate between all the relevant players who are involved in prevention of homelessness (e.g. shelters, Voluntary Welfare Organizations, schools, religious institutions, government, etc). This inter-agency will do a “gap-analysis” to determine the character of the homeless and potentially homeless in the community, the services most in need and how best to provide these services in a coordinated manner.

The problem of homelessness is very complex and simple solutions are often not available in trying to address this dilemma. It is precisely because simple solutions are not available that different agencies with various expertises in service must work together. Long-term plans must be developed not to manage, but to end homelessness.

Views also found in: THE ONLINE CITIZEN

Flawed statement of an opposition politician

After the 10-minute demonstration against maid abuse by a not-for-profit group, Singapore People’s Party chairman Sin Kek Tong was asked for his comments on the necessity for protests and he responded, “Maybe one day, if there are no longer any single-member constituencies in Singapore, I will protest. But can political issues engage Singaporeans’ hearts and minds, when their stomachs are kept well-fed and the standard of living remains high?” (Straits Times)

This statement of Mr. Sin appears to be quite valid on the surface; but is in reality invalid, because it suffers from a number of fallacies and flaws.

Expand perimeters

Mr. Sin says that he will protest when the day comes where there will not be any single-member constituencies. This in reality may never happen. My gut feeling is that there will always be single-member constituencies in Singapore. But even if single-member constituency goes the way of the dodo bird, why wait for that to happen before you speak up? Should we not make full use of existing and available avenues to expand the perimeters of liberty?

The Speakers’ Corner is one such facility to express true convictions.

The government of Singapore may have a phobia of public demonstrations. They may have even convinced themselves to believe that since peace and stability is good for the economy, public demonstrations and public protests will only destabilize the economy and break investors’ confidence. But they may have since realized that citizens who live under pressure, without any avenues to vent their grievances, may be a greater threat in destabilizing the economy and investors confidence, as those that live under pressure may eventually break out into demonstrations that may not be peaceful. In fact, PM Lee acknowledged the existence of such a group when he said in his National Day Rally Speech, “I know that many Singaporeans who are not so poor but also not so well off feel that they are pressured”. (Straits Times) Of course some hold to the idea that “the freedom to demonstrate is meaningless unless it is applicable to all of Singapore”, but I beg to differ.

The perimeters of freedom to demonstrate can be gradually increased and extended. Champions of worthy causes should make use of the existing avenues and facilities to prove to the government that public demonstrations and protests can be held peacefully and even to the benefit of the economy of the country; and using the examples of such events to lobby the government, to expand the territory, to eventually cover the whole of Singapore.

Illusion of the well-fed Singaporean

Mr. Sin seems to be under the illusion that Singaporeans are well fed. A Straits Times article dated April 13 2008 states that “rising food prices have prompted more people to turn up at places serving free meals”. (Straits Times) One temple alone, reportedly feeds 1500 people on weekdays and 6000 people on weekends. Some free meals centres have also reportedly had to turn away the hungry as they could not cope with the demands. Of course it can be argued that those who eat at the free meal centres are ‘free-loaders’. But this is a simplistic argument. Of course there will be ‘free-loaders’ in any social benefit programme; but the majority who benefit from the free meals programme are the homeless, the elderly and the low-income workers. Even the government acknowledges that not all Singaporeans are ‘well fed’.

Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan admits that the government is looking out for such people, “to help families in need with additional vouchers for food or even additional cash vouchers, as well as to work with local organizations and vendors and hawkers, so that we make sure that we can give the assurance, that nobody will go hungry in Singapore”. Even if ‘no Singaporeans go hungry’; and it is a very big IF, it begs the asking, ‘how many meals a day do they have?’, ‘How filling is the meal?’ and ‘How nutritious is the food?”

Myth of high living standards

Singapore’s Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang stated recently, “Whether there is an increase in the cost of living for a particular household depends on that household’s spending patterns. Switching to cheaper products can reduce the cost of living despite a rise in the CPI.” (MTI) The recent widespread inflation in Singapore has caused an erosion of the purchasing power of Singaporeans. The lower-income Singaporeans, especially, and the “sandwich-class” people have been affected by the spiraling cost of living. Switching to cheaper products, besides reducing the cost of living can also lower the standard of living.

Singapore is a country that has the highest GDP per capita in Asia after Japan; but it ranks alongside Burundi, Kenya, Philippines and Guatemala in terms of income disparity.

It certainly seems that Mr. Sin who is an opposition politician, has bought wholesale the myth created by the government that all Singaporeans enjoy a high standard of living. More than 1/8 of the resident population of Singapore has only secondary school or lower education. This group of people often also has very little marketable skills. Unless a concerted effort is made to raise the standard of this group of people and improve their marketable skills, besides further falling in the standard of living, we can expect other pressing social issues to rise.

Harmful perception

There is a perception that the opposition politicians in Singapore are only talking about human rights issues and are not properly informed about the ‘bread-and-butter’ issues of the ordinary Singaporean; that they go into hibernation for about five years and only come out during election time.

Mr. Sin’s statement seems to reinforce this perception of the opposition politician among Singaporeans once again. These perceptions of the general public are harmful to the cause of opposition politics. The social landscape of Singapore is quickly changing and policies or policy initiatives to ride on this new wave of social changes, should be quickly thought through and advocated by the government, opposition parties and even agencies and individuals who champion social causes; and by doing so they will remain viable in the dawn of a new era.

Picture of needy from Straits Times

Views also found in THE ONLINE CITIZEN

Liberal Policy of a Conservative Government

All conservatives are not ‘religious’. The majority of the population of Singapore are conservatives. But ‘conservative’ is not universal. it is fractals; infinitely complex.

Some liberal NGOs like Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA), were used by the conservative government of Singapore in the late 60s to early 80s, for their “Two is Enough” propaganda, which was bought wholesale by a huge population of Singapore. When they tried to reverse the trend, upon realizing that it is a mistake, the damage has already been done! In fact SPPA claim on their website that, “It was instrumental in helping to persuade the government to adopt an official population policy in 1966. With the government providing family planning, the Association began advocating family life education and sexuality education promoting programme initiatives and services in the key areas of public education, counselling and training.”

SPPA claims to be pro-choice. But what does it actually advocate? In an article titled “Risque Teens at Risk”, dated September 18, 2008 in the Mind & Body subsection paper of the Straits Times, Ms. Kelly Lee, programme officer and counsellor at SPPA when asked for comments on sexually active teens said, “We believe in giving youths the right to choose. We provide information on sexual health and ask them to consider the consequences of their actions. The best choice when you’re not ready though is definitely abstinence.” With surging hormones, many youths do not have the capacity to choose. In the same article, Ms. Lee admits that youths as young as 12 or 13, are beginning to get curious about sex. How does a 12 or 13 year old know if he or she is ready for sex? How than can choice be even an option? Do they even have the capacity to consider their actions? Ms. Lee continues to add, “They should know that there are responsibilities that come with sex.” How can a 12, 13 or even an older youth comprehend the gravity of sexual relationships? The abstinence spoken by SPPA is only a mirage to cover their true intentions. Pro-choice usually means pro-promiscuity. And the real dilemma faced by many post-abortion youths is often not adequately addressed.

Despite calls to review Singapore’s pro-choice law, the government unreservedly said that the law would remain as status quo. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said in Parliament that the decision has previously been debated at length and is one that respects “the different views that some community and religious groups” have. The minister gives the impression that the government does not cave in to the conservative lobbyist to amend the pro-choice law. But in doing so, the government is continuing a policy which was lobbied upon it by a liberal NGO, which may not reflect the actual opinions of the population at large.

Demonstrating against the public transportation fare hikes