ST Forum letter on homeless situation and official reply

AH TRUTH 1 SG

ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN

Letter from Joshua Chiang as published in the Sunday Times on 8 Feb 2010

As a private citizen who is working with other concerned individuals to aid and raise awareness for the homeless in Singapore, I am heartened by last Sunday’s article, “Number of homeless people doubles”, which gave the issue a much-needed public airing.

Among several shortcomings is the treatment of the homeless by some agencies which purport to help them.

For instance, some of the homeless people tell us they are treated rudely by National Parks Board (Npakrs) officials.

Also, a pregnant mother of two told that when she went to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports to seek help, she was advised to rent a room at a backpacker’s hotel for $20 per night.

One of us managed to find her a place at a homeless shelter.

We also learnt that two of the families who were taken to and stayed overnight at the Angsana Home, a home for the destitute mentioned in another article (“Govt help turned his life around”) were not informed of the involuntary confinement there.

Even though two of the family members had jobs, they were not allowed to report for work the next day.

It is also relevant to consider whether the Angsana Home, with its high fences and heavy police presence, and which has patients who may be prone to violent behavior is a good place to house people who apart from a lack of shelter, can care for themselves.

The writer also failed to note why HDB flats are suddenly available to be leased as shelters to the homeless when the authorities must have known about their increasing numbers for a long time?

Also, if there’s a reasonable explanation for the shortage of shelters, why then is Nparks chasing campers away from the beaches knowing full well the homeless had nowhere else to go?

Another article, “Strict housing policies, illness and divorce leave some stuck,” suggests that the homeless are irresponsible and cannot plan for their future, by stating that they do not save for crises like unemployment or illness.

In fact some of the homeless people spend their entire income on the bare necessities, so it would be impossible to have enough money to service a housing loan.

Finally, if the financial crisis is not to be blamed for the increase in number of homeless, is it possible that there are many people who could not afford public housing any more?

Joshua Chiang

Joint reply from MCYS, NParks and HDB as published in The Straits Times on 11 Feb 2010

WE REFER to Mr Joshua Chiang’s letter on Sunday, ‘The homeless deserve better treatment‘.

Camping in our parks is for recreational purposes only. Squatting in parks is illegal and not a viable option for people with housing difficulties.

When officers from the National Parks Board encounter squatters, they will refer them to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports for assistance.

Pursuant to the Destitute Persons Act, anyone found in a public place with no means of subsistence or accommodation will be admitted to a welfare home for evaluation and rehabilitation.

In addition, people who need short-term accommodation may apply for transitional shelters run by voluntary welfare organisations. Social workers will help them resolve their social and financial problems. The aim is to help them return to proper accommodation by renting or buying or sharing a flat with relatives.

The HDB flats Mr Chiang referred to are the interim rental housing (IRH) flats. These flats are to help those in financial difficulty with temporary accommodation, while they work out their longer-term housing solutions. IRH is not intended to be used as a permanent shelter for the homeless.

Singaporeans facing social and financial problems should seek help early from family service centres and community development councils so appropriate and timely measures can be taken.

We also urge members of the public to call the ComCare hotline on 1800- 222-0000 if they are aware of any individuals with housing difficulties.

Jason Wong
Director, Rehabilitation, Protection & Residential Services
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports

Kong Yit San
Director (Parks)
National Parks Board

Mike Chan
Deputy Director (Rental Housing)
Housing and Development Board

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/st-forum-homeless-situation/

Andrew Loh

The response from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the National Parks Board (Nparks) to a letter by Mr Joshua Chiang on the issue of the homeless is, to say the least, appalling. (See here.)

While it is not surprising that these government departments would defend the government’s stand on the issue, the manner in which Mr Chiang’s points were summarily dismissed or ignored shows the insignificance the officers who signed off on the response give to the issues raised in Mr Chiang’s letter.

But what really takes the cake is the reply that:

“Pursuant to the Destitute Persons Act, anyone found in a public place with no means of subsistence or accommodation will be admitted to a welfare home for evaluation and rehabilitation.”

First of all, why do the officers, in quoting the Act, immediately assume that there is somehow something “defective” about homeless people, so much so that they have to undergo “evaluation” and “rehabilitation”? The reply does not indicate or explain what these “evaluation” and “rehabilitation” mean.

More importantly, such a reply smacks of an appalling lack of understanding of what being homeless is and who these homeless people are. The reply seems to indicate that anyone found to be destitute will automatically undergo such a process of “evaluation” or “rehabilitation”.

The starting point, clearly, for these government officers is that once you’re destitute, you need to be “rehabilitated”.

In short, is the government saying that homeless people are somehow “defective”?

In our interaction with the homeless, they indeed are quite normal people. They have families. They laugh and cry as ordinary people do. They worry and yes, they do have jobs as well. And they aspire to better lives for themselves and their families – just as everyone does.

While they also may have been less than prudent in their plans for their lives or livelihood, this however does not mean they are any less ordinary, or that they are indeed abnormal and in need of “rehabilitation”.

Finally, the government’s reply, unwittingly or not, will contribute to the stereotype of the homeless as “lesser Singaporeans”.

Perhaps what is needed is for government officials to be more careful in their choice of words in describing certain segments of Singaporeans – especially the less fortunate.

And also for these officers to understand that while they may be acting according to the law, the law is not carved in stone or should be applied without compassion and common sense.

It would have been good if the reply had addressed the particular examples raised by Mr Chiang – instead of saying that all is fine and dandy and that the government departments are on top of things.

Clearly, the rising number of homeless people taking shelter in our public areas (which do not just mean our public parks) shows that MCYS, the HDB and NParks are not addressing the issue effectively, despite its claim to the contrary.

Again, in our interaction with the homeless, the behavior of some of these officials, especially those from NParks and the HDB, leaves much to be desired.

The reply may paint these government departments as being caring and wanting to help the homeless, from our observation however, this is far from true in many cases.

For if the claim was true, there wouldn’t be so many homeless people camping out in parks and beaches for months before MCYS, the HDB and Nparks decided to “help”.

Did these departments suddenly become “caring” overnight?

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/homeless-people-are-defective-needs-rehabilitation/

Andrew Loh

If you have always thought the homeless are lazy people or are unemployed on purpose, perhaps you have bought into the stereotype of these people too conveniently. Yet it is not uncommon to find such views of the homeless among Singaporeans.

However, in our visits with the homeless at various places around S’pore it was quite clear to us that these people are no lazy-bones or “beach bums”, as they’re sometimes accused of being.

Indeed, what we saw were people who have, for various reasons, fallen on hard times. But more importantly they are trying to help themselves out of the depths into which they have sunk.

Helping themselves

Take the case of Mohamad Nor, for example. He left his job in F&B to be with his wife and two children at Sembawang Park because he was worried for their safety, particularly for his wife who is pregnant. Their repeated pleas with the HDB for a rental flat were rejected each time. When their story was eventually brought to light through The Online Citizen, they were moved to a shelter and later to a rental flat. Mohamad was relieved and with this peace of mind, he could now go back to work. He started looking for a job – and recently found one. This, hopefully, is the first step of a new beginning for him and his family. All they needed was a little common sense and a little bit of compassion from the authorities to give them a little leg-up.

Khairuddin is 50 years old. He was sleeping at Sembawang Park for seven months before TOC chanced upon him one night. He is an ex-drug addict looking to make a new life for himself. Last year, he suffered a stroke while sleeping at the park. “I could not move the right side of my body,” he says. “I would rather die than be like that.” He was warded for three days in the hospital. He was lucky and has made an almost full recovery. He now works odd jobs such as in delivery but he knows that he cannot do this much longer, given his age and his physical weakness from the stroke. Also, such jobs are ad hoc and not regular. “I hope to work as a security guard,” he says. “But you must go take the course and be certified,” he explains. The problem is that the certification course is about S$1,000 – money which he simply does not have. And so he looks for work wherever he can, which includes visiting construction sites to ask for jobs. “But when they see my age, they say they cannot hire me,” Khairuddin says, his voice trailing off into a sigh.

His next stop will be the CDC. Hopefully, he will be given some assistance to realize his dream – that of having a regular job with a regular income as a security guard and to eventually have a rental flat of his own.

Rahmat does not speak much. He prefers to devote his time thinking of ways to enhance his catch. And so, at his little corner of Changi Beach Park, he lays out the wire mesh, cuts them into appropriate pieces and later joins them to make a cage, a trap for both fish, cockerels and crabs.

When night comes, he takes his canoe (a secondhand one which he purchased cheaply from the canoeing club nearby) and ventures out to sea to lay his traps.

In the morning, he collects his harvest. Sometimes it is substantial, and fetches as much as S$100 when he sells them to the restaurants at Changi Village. At other times, he’d be lucky if it got him S$10. It’s an unpredictable way to make a living but Rahmat does not have many choices. After having been released from prison, it was hard-going looking for a job. In the end, he bought some fishing gear and headed to the beach. He’s been making a living like this for almost a year now.

And then there is Mrs B and her husband, Rahim. Mrs B works as a security guard in the daytime, a job which pays her about $1,300 a month. At night, she returns to her home – a tent in a park which she shares with her husband and her 18-year old son. Rahim, though having contracted colon cancer, works whenever his condition allows. With an ostomy bag attached to his side, to drain his stools, it is not easy for him to find a job. Indeed, he told us that he lost his last job because his employer “did not like the bag”.

Mrs B would help him empty and clean the pouch each night. At times, Rahim’s clothes would be soiled by stools which leak from it. When we met him, he was wearing one of those scrub pants which was given to him when he was warded in the hospital after an operation. “My other pants are dirty. So now I wear this,” he says.

The family is at the park because they were evicted from their rental flats by the HDB for subletting it. “Damn regret now,” Rahim says as he shakes his head. They had rented out the flat so that they could afford another one nearer their children’s school and didn’t know that it was against HDB rules to sublet a rental flat. They are now barred for five years from applying for such flats from the HDB.

In the meantime, they have nowhere else to go except the park.

It is quite clear to us that many of these families are no “free-loaders” looking for an easy way out of their predicament.

HDB’s rigidity

Perhaps one of the main problems faced by the homeless, as is obvious from some of these stories we’ve covered, is the inflexible and rigid rules of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and its policies and practices. While the HDB would, no doubt, assure the public that each case would be compassionately dealt with, more often than not, it would seem the opposite is true.

How, for example, do you explain HDB’s rejection of Rahim’s application for a rental flat? The man is suffering from cancer. Or its rejection of Mohd Nor’s application – his wife is seven months pregnant and they have another two young children.

While the Minister for National Development has promised that the government will build 7,500 more public rental flats in the next three years, one wonders if this will be enough – given that 300 new applicants join the queue every month. That would be 3,600 more applicants this year, on top of the current 4,550 in the queue. With just 2,500 new rental flats to be built each year, clearly the supply will not meet the demand. In any case, where should the homeless stay while these flats are being built?

HDB’s dual roles

The truth is that there is no shortage of rental flats available. TOC has shown that the HDB has converted and reserved two blocks of flats in Toa Payoh, at least one block in Havelock Road, five blocks in Bedok and five more blocks in Tiong Bahru as rental flats for foreigners.

If all these were given, as a priority, to homeless Singaporeans instead, the long queue and waiting time for public rental flats would be very much alleviated.

The problem is that the HDB is not only the sole provider of public housing flats in Singapore, it is also a player in the rental market. As we have shown, the HDB acquires old flats through the SERS programme, and through its subsidiary, EM Services (the HDB owns 75 per cent of the company), refurbishes or upgrades the flats, and lets them out for rent. Perhaps this is one way the HDB circumvents its own rules which say foreigners are ineligible for rental flats offered by the HDB.

Now, the question of conflict of interest arises – would the HDB rent out these flats to those such as the homeless at rents of between S$26 and S$120 and play its role as public housing provider, or operate as a private company (via EM Services) and rents out the flats to foreigners for profit, fetching anywhere from S$450 per tenant (as in the Havelock Road hostel) to S$5,000 (as in the Global Residence case)?

So, perhaps the question we all should be asking is this: What is the HDB’s priority when it comes to public rental flats? Who should be in front of the queue – Singaporeans who have nowhere else to go but who are working hard to turn their lives around, or foreigners who’re just here for a period of time? Is it the HDB’s role to make flats specially available for foreigners by reserving these public housing flats for them? Or should foreigners, like everyone else, look to the open market for their housing needs?

And should the HDB itself be in the rental market as a player?

The homeless who camp out in public areas have been barked at, have had their rental flat applications repeatedly rejected, fined as much as S$500 for infringing certain park rules, have had their belongings confiscated and told to pay S$300 if they wanted them returned, and generally have been sneered at, ridiculed and treated as outcasts of sorts by the very authorities which could help them.

And the final slap on their faces? Readily available flats are given to foreigners.

Singaporeans come first?

With more than 30,000 homeowners in arrears of three months or more of their mortgage loans, the problem of homelessness is a serious one. How many more will have nowhere else to go and end up in our parks and beaches when their flats are compulsorily acquired by the HDB or the banks?

What is the government’s solution to this potentially widespread problem?

To many of the homeless, a roof over their heads is the start they need to get their lives back together, to have some peace of mind. Yet, many a time, it is the HDB’s strict adherence to its rules – or as in some cases, apparently contravening its own rules – which is contributing to the predicament of the homeless.

If entire blocks of flats can be reserved for foreigners, it is hard to understand or accept why the same cannot be done for homeless Singaporeans who are desperately pleading for help.

In November 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke about tilting the “playing field in favour of the lower income group.” “Our aim is to help the lower income groups and the elderly, not to increase their burdens,” he said.

The Prime Minister also, in his New Year Message this year, said that the government’s first responsibility is to Singaporeans.

So, with regards to public housing flats being reserved for foreigners while S’poreans have to wait for up to two years to have one, what gives?

—-

All the names in this article have been changed and are not the real names of the people mentioned.

—-

This is the last article in our Special Focus Week on the homeless. TOC, however, will continue to keep an eye on the situation on the ground and will report on it when necessary.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/public-rental-flats-singaporeans-come-first/