Sunday, May 11, 2025
30.6 C
Singapore
type here...
Subscribe
Home Blog Page 5198

10 reasons why nobody should be surprised about WP’s town council accounts

The Independent
-
0
10 reasons why nobody should be surprised about WP’s town council accounts

By Augustine Low

When the Ministry of National Development expressed concern with the Workers’ Party town council accounts, it created a buzz. But it hardly came as a surprise.

Here are 10 reasons why no one should be surprised at the latest turn of events:

1. You may be in all-white. You may pledge to uphold values and honour. But hands up those who believe that politics is all purity and integrity? No dishing of the dirt on opponents, by fair means or foul means?

2. The PAP’s loss of a GRC in 2011 meant two things. One, it debunked the notion that GRCs are an impregnable PAP fortress. Two, it had to scramble to make residents repent their choice. It can’t do anything about the first, but it can do something about the second.

3. We are inching ever closer to the next general election. When the stakes are high and time is short, expect greater urgency to undermine opponents. Stay tuned for more dishing of the dirt.

4. The WP has been too restrained and reticent for the PAP’s liking. It would not be baited through taunts and snipes. But controversy to bring on the confrontation? Certainly worth a try,  as part of the PAP game plan.

5. It’s a question of timing. Announce the Pioneer Generation Package and then immediately bring out the hatchet. What better time to strike your opponents than after sweetening the ground for citizens?

6. The WP has found that running a GRC is a different ball game from running a single ward. It may well have stuttered and stumbled. Any surprise in that? The GRC has become a behemoth, a uniquely Singaporean creation that creates a unique set of challenges, especially in the handover process.

7. Government agencies are expected to be compliant with the government of the day. They can be counted on to do the government’s bidding, even the carpentry – that is turn on the screws, hammer in the nails. For us to expect otherwise would be foolhardly.

8. Likewise, the mainstream media can be counted on for compliance. Last Friday, The Straits Times highlighted MND’s concern with a Page One report, followed by a half-page article inside. That same night, the WP released a lengthy defence of its position, but Saturday’s report focused not on the WP response, BUT on the MND response to WP’s response. Baffling, to say the least. But then – why are we not surprised?

9. So, we are reminded yet again that WP members/supporters provide project management services for the WP-run town council. Is anyone surprised? In the wake of AIM (the PAP-owned computer software company with three former MPs as directors), the real surprise would be that none of the PAP-run town councils have any PAP members/supporters, grassroots leaders and ex-MPs involved as service providers.

10. Finally, let’s revisit this quote from PM Lee Hsien Loong in 2006: “Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?”

PM Lee subsequently apologised for his remarks, especially the use of the word “fix.” But did he really, truly, deeply mean it after all?

World Cup rights: Why not this route?

The Independent
-
0
World Cup rights: Why not this route?

By Michael Y.P. Ang

Will the 20th World Cup finals get blacked out in what is being touted as a global city – Singapore? Or will Singaporeans be forced to fork out an exorbitant amount of money to watch the planet’s most popular single-sport event? Unfortunately, Singaporeans are still left in the dark, even though it is less than four months before the sporting world lights up with June’s big kick-off in Brazil.

Singapore had found itself in a similar mess in 2010, when the previous World Cup finals were held. So why did the authorities allow this to happen again?

Most probably think that our Government has no influence over how FIFA decides to sell broadcast rights for its premier event. This, however, is untrue. Some countries have already adopted the “free-to-air only” model for World Cup broadcasts, essentially forcing FIFA to sell rights to free-to-air TV stations.

Worldwide satellite broadcasting of the World Cup finals began in 1966. Matches were shown on our national broadcaster until the 2002 finals. This decades-long tradition was broken in 2006, when MediaCorp stopped being on the ball, reducing itself to showing only four matches and allowing StarHub Cable to profit from telecasting the event.

This unhealthy practice continued in 2010, with SingTel mio TV joining its competitor StarHub in broadcasting World Cup matches. I call it “unhealthy” because World Cup matches are of national sporting interest to Singaporeans and should be broadcast on free-to-air channels.

Although Singapore’s national team has never qualified to play in the World Cup finals and is unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future, the event nevertheless generates nationwide interest every four years.

If the World Cup were not of national sporting interest, why has it been one of the few sporting events to be telecast live in Singapore every time it takes place, even though no Singapore team ever competes in it?

Britain’s way

The United Kingdom has made it illegal for FIFA to sell World Cup rights exclusively to British payFeTV operators. FIFA tried to fight this in court but lost, despite claiming that it could not sell the rights fairly for their real value.

The British Broadcasting Corporation reported last July that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – Europe’s Supreme Court – has upheld a 2011 European General Court decision allowing the UK to keep the World Cup finals as a “protected” event of national sporting interest to be broadcast for free.

Note that FIFA was not disputing matches featuring British teams, nor the four key matches (opening game, semi-finals, and final), all of which would have been broadcast for free in the UK even if FIFA had won its case.

FIFA was arguing that matches without UK teams should not be shown for free in Britain because such a practice “interfered with their ability to sell television rights at the best commercial price they could get in the marketplace”.

However, the UK argued that all 64 matches were an important part of its national sporting “crown jewels” that must be “made available to the whole population to watch on terrestrial television”.

The ECJ agreed with the UK, saying that European Union countries possessed the right to choose broadcast events “which they deem to be of major importance for society” and show them for free. Belgium has also exercised that right.

The ECJ added that the World Cup finals “in their entirety, have always been very popular among the general public and not only viewers who generally follow football matches on television”.

FIFA boycott? Nah

The ECJ argument could easily be applied to Singapore, given the World Cup’s vast popularity among Singaporeans and immigrants in the country.

What about fears of sports TV rights holders boycotting Singapore altogether if our market is overly regulated? Those who voice such fears perhaps have little understanding of basic economics.

In an imperfect world, no seller will always get to maximise profits. Only gullible buyers allow this to happen. The British and Belgian cases prove that when sellers are unable to maximise profits, they live with the second-best outcome.

If the Government is concerned about Singapore’s relatively small market preventing MediaCorp from profiting through broadcasting World Cup matches and selling TV advertising spots, it should be comforted by the fact that Hong Kong, whose market size is not significantly larger than Singapore’s, will be showing the World Cup on its free-to-air channels.

If Hong Kong can do it, what is Singapore’s excuse?

Does Little India Bill mask the state’s true intent?

The Independent
-
0
Does Little India Bill mask the state’s true intent?

By Vincent Wijeysingha

Home Affairs Deputy Secretary of Operations and Development Roy Quek is the latest government officer to defend the Public Order (Additional Temporary Provisions) Bill currently proceeding through Parliament. Writing in the civil service’s news portal, Challenge, he said powers contained in the Bill already exist in current legislation: “[I]t’s no different from what we already have,” he wrote.

Introducing the Bill in Parliament on Jan 20 Home Affairs Minister Mr Teo Chee Hean said it is scoped more tightly than current legislation and is valid only for one year. Separately, Law Minister K Shanmugam said current legislation is too strong and the new Bill is required due to the numbers of foreigners Little India attracts.

Echoing his political masters, Quek repeated that the Bill will only be on the statute book for one year and defines and limits the powers already existing in legislation such as the Public Order (Preservation) Act.

The incident in Little India on Dec 8 rocked the nation and posed serious questions for us. However, a recent briefing paper produced by a panel of civil society activists noted that government may be acting precipitately if it does not wait for the findings of the Committee of Inquiry summoned precisely in order to, in the words of the Home Affairs Minister, “study the issue thoroughly, come to a fair and objective assessment and submit their recommendations thereafter”.

Last Wednesday, human rights organisation Maruah held a forum to discuss issues relating to the Little India incident. Unsurprisingly, the Public Order Bill took up the greater proportion of the debate, both from the speakers and audience. Professor Kevin Tan, an administrative and constitutional law don, noted that three statutes already exist to deal with public order issues. As a member of the panel that produced the briefing paper, I spoke from the floor. I said that in fact the statute book contains 14 statutes which possess the powers the government is asking Parliament to give it under the new Bill.

To recap, the government has outlined two reasons for the new Bill:

·       That it is required to deal with the vast numbers of foreigners who frequent Little India

·       That current legislation is too strong

By way of placating concerns about the Bill, the government assures us that the Bill should not worry us because

 

·       All powers under it already exist in current legislation

·       These powers are scoped more tightly than current legislation

·       It is only valid for one year and will give more time to formulate longer-term measures following the Committee of Inquiry’s findings.

Indeed, none of these reasons holds up to scrutiny. If the Bill’s powers already exist in other statutes, and if those statutes are strong, and if the government is content to wait until the findings of the committee before enacting longer-term legislation, it is entirely unclear whether there is an urgent need for a 15th Act to maintain public order.

The question is particularly relevant since, according to a handout circulated by Minister Teo Chee Hean to Parliament on Jan 20, the riot was contained in two hours. Furthermore, the area has remained calm and peaceful in the two months since, which defends our claim that current measures are effective.

The government’s case for another public order measure has not been articulated with any degree of soundness. The call for a reasoned, considered response which draws on the valuable data that the Committee of Inquiry (and the criminal proceedings) will yield cannot be overestimated, if the government is serious about avoiding a repeat of the riot.

The briefing paper, which the panel submitted to the Speaker of Parliament last week, suggests that “Governance on the basis of reaction rather than data can result in implementing the inappropriate solutions to the problem.” It argued that this can weaken the standing of the Committee  “whose role is to independently and fearlessly identify problems of governance”.

Gay debate: Who should take the lead?

The Independent
-
0
Gay debate: Who should take the lead?
It is time we talk more about our approach towards homosexuality. MP Hri Kumar Nair said that instead of looking to the government, “it is for the society to set the direction” on this matter.

“The furore over Health Promotion Board’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) raises the issue of the Government sending mixed messages to the public,” he wrote on a Facebook note on Friday.

“Taking one side, whatever the reason will alienate the other. That is why you have not heard a peep from the Workers’ Party MPs on this issue,” he said.

But, he said, taking sides would not solve the issue.

“The battle will not be resolved by the attacks that are usually associated with this issue – one side calling the other “evil, paedophiles and deviants”, and the other responding with comments like “ignorant, religious bigots”.

Hri Kumar remained convinced that neither side will bend to the will of the other.

“Let us not forget the reason for the FAQs in the first place: there are people in our society who have questions concerning their sexuality and who are deeply affected by it,” he added, insisting that HPB should not retreat from its role to educate and help them.

While many among the 50 odd netizens who have commented on Hri Kumar’s note applauded him, some netizens questioned why the government should not lead in this matter .

“I read the comments by Mr Hri Kumar with much concern. I thought our government has always taken a more paternalistic role but now it is saying: ” Let our society decide”?

“Some things don’t change and they shouldn’t; for example, values. If even core values that define the way of life are ever changing, what do we as parents teach our kids?” wrote Amy How.

Another netizen, Emeritus Robox, also remained adamant that the government should be the “catalyst” on the LGBT issue.

He noted that if the government were to take the lead on the matter, it would give the LGBT community a sense of acceptance.

“We could begin – just begin – to reverse the effects of decades of deliberate exclusion, marginalisation, and demonisation that we have been subjected to. Only then can they [the LGBT community] begin to feel like they BELONG in Singapore, as it should have been all along,” he said.

Survey: Insights on race, gambling, Singlish and even Orchard Road shopping

The Independent
-
0
Survey: Insights on race, gambling, Singlish and even Orchard Road shopping

Race and religion matter to Malays more, Singlish has popular support, gambling is wrong, and English-speaking helps in Singapore 

 

Race & religion

 

race.png

The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in its insights from a survey of 4,131 Singaporean residents (most citizens) on race, religion and language, revealed in January that 51.9% Malay respondents felt that race is important to them in their overall sense of identity. The percentage for Indians and Chinese on the same question of importance of race was 28.4% and 22.8% respectively. The survey was conducted between December 2012 and April 2013.

 

religion.png

In terms of religion, the percentage rose to 70.1% for Malays, who felt religion is important to them for their overall sense of identity.

 

Language

 

english speaking.png

 

Of all the respondents, 36% believed that English-speaking people have to work “much less/less hard than others” in order to have a prosperous life in Singapore. Contrarily, percentage of respondents who believed that Malay-speaking and Tamil-speaking people have to work “harder than/much more than others” for a prosperous life was 41% and 44% respectively.

Notably, just a little over half (51.9%) of the respondents felt fine if people around them speak a language other than theirs.

 

orchard.png

A telling insights was on the question put to university-educated respondents, which was – “I am fine if a service staff does not speak to me in English in a shop on Orchard Road”. While 65.4% Malays and 66.8% Indians “strongly disagree/somewhat disagree” with the statement, 48.6% Chinese respondents “agreed/strongly agreed” with it. If this was because Indians and Malays felt that the service staff not speaking in English will invariably be speaking Mandarin, and thus showed disagreement, was not clear in the survey findings.

 

Singlish.png

 

Also, a majority of respondents across all races showed support for Singlish, the unofficial national language of the country. When asked whether “the government should do more to curb the use of Singlish in Singapore”, only 29.3% Chinese, 40.9% Malays, and 40.6% Indians agreed or strongly-agreed with the statement.

 

Gambling

 

gambling.png

A majority (69.2%) of the total respondents saw gambling as “almost always or always” wrong, indicating that the opening of two casinos in Singapore in recent years is yet to influence the local opinion in their favour.

 

Preference to minorities

 

minority preference.png

 

On the question whether “the government should give preferential/special treatment to minority groups”, the answers were much along the racial lines. Among Malays, 40.8% agreed and 25.5% disagreed. In Indians, 33.6% agreed, and 29.7% disagreed. But among the Chinese respondents, the trend was reversed. While only 23.5% Chinese agreed, 52% of the Chinese respondents didn’t feel that the government should give any preferential treatment to minority groups.

Note: All graphs in this story are courtesy IPS

Credit: Newzzit

 

PAP’s point man in Aljunied speaks up

The Independent
-
0
PAP’s point man in Aljunied speaks up

When the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis hit, many Singaporeans lost their jobs. Victor Lye was a managing director of a Spanish investment bank at that time. He only knew too well as he watched his colleagues lose their jobs due to credit lines being pulled.

Lye was concerned about the situation and reached out to his ex-colleagues in government. He started his career at the Ministry of Trade and Industry as an administrative Officer and left shortly after for the private sector.

“When I asked my ex-colleagues in government to do something for the many Singaporeans who were losing their jobs, the message was, ‘don’t look to the government, look to your friends and family, be self reliant,” Lye says.

“That did not strike a chord with me so I decided to go to the ground to help. I wrote letters for people who lost their jobs, to help them find something else they could do,” he says.

And that was the beginning of Lye’s life as a grassroots leader.

“Frankly, you need to get your hands dirty and stop talking about policies and big ideas when you have not rolled up your sleeves and gone down to the ground to help someone,” the 51-year-old gestures as he speaks.

Lye is a straight talker and hard hitter. His recent letter to The Straits Times attacking the Workers’ Party for what he said was the party’s attitude towards the shopkepers at Aljunied raised eyebrows. Previously the town council had insisted that the grassroots groups had politicied the problem in Aljunied while Lye claims that the town council has sacrificed the interests of shopkeepers for their own interests when the town council started the trade fair last year.

Lye’s sharp tongue can also be blunt when it comes to the PAP.

HERE is what Lye told The Independent about the shopkeepers:
[fvplayer src=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=ERfwjmlHSmo”]

1. What made you write that letter to The Straits Times?

My position was that  the affected shopkeepers should approach the town council and not the grassroots organisations  because I didn’t want people with their own agenda to colour and twist the issues.

[Previously, Lye had said he met Ms Sylvia Lim of the WP to discuss the shopkeepers’ concern. He also insisted that he told the shopkeepers to approach the town council]. “Despite my good intentions, they [WP) claimed at a NUS seminar that the problem in Aljunied was due to the politicisation of the grassroots groups. What does that mean? The grassroots prevented them from functioning? I have to stand up to tell the truth.”
2. What would you do if you were running the town council?

I would have spoken to the shopkeepers and looked at myself in the mirror and said: “Wait a minute, I am the town council and I am using common property paid for by my tax payers and residents and renting them out to stall holders as a rental business.”

Why is the town council renting out common property to make money? A town council should maintain common property. They are not supposed to engage in commercial activities.

If I were running the town council, I would not do the trade fair. We don’t take a common property to tender out to the highest bidder and it is no risk to the town council. The bidder takes all the risk and that is what they call a trade fair organiser. They pay a certain amount of money to the town council and organise the itinerant stallholders and charge them for their stalls and hopefully make a profit. But the town council gets the money upfront at no risk using common properties. If I were in the town council, I wouldn’t do that.

 

3. How would you defend the grassroots link to the government? Is it time to re-examine that?

It is not for me to defend. I state it as a fact. The People’s Association is a statutory board and is part of the government. What links are we talking about?

The PA’s volunteers are representatives of the government. They are a bridge between the government and the people. We help to explain government policies, but that does not mean we agree with all its policies.

For example, I disagree with the privatization of mass public transport. It is a public good. When there is a problem with the transport system, people expect the Government to solve it. So, the Government might as well own public transport and let a corporatised entity run it efficiently.

I also believe the government need to have more compassion for Singaporeans. It has to be prepared to subsidise a bit more.

But as the grassroots officers, it is our duty to explain the government’s policies to the community. It also means we have to understand them ourselves. But let me be frank, many of our grassroots leaders are still not able to fully understand the policies. So my view is that perhaps our government needs to work harder at communication.

But let me ask you a question, if you separate the grassroots groups from the government, what do you get? Are you going to create another grassroots group outside of government? That is what you call a non-governmentl organisation. You can do that today. Why would you want to separate. After all the grassroots groups are part of  the government; why separate them from the government? That does not make sense at all.

It looks like an extra advantage for the government if you look at it from the opposition’s standpoint. But the grassroots groups are transparent. They are part of the government. Let me ask you a question. In an opposition ward, does the government still have the responsibility to look after the people? “The answer is yes. So the grassroots groups must still serve in the opposition ward. Why must they withdraw?”

 

4. Would you run in the next general election?

I believe that if you want to serve, you do not ask for a position. If it happens, it happens. But if I were not open to it, I would not be here; I have not run away. [What I am doing right now as a grassroots leader] this is what makes me who I am. I can feel that it makes me whole.

I am already doing something for the people and that is what matters. Of course, I believe I can do more. If the people were to support me, certainly.

Watching LKY grow old

The Independent
-
0
Watching LKY grow old

By Augustine Low

At 90, Lee Kuan Yew’s public appearances are understandably rare. It has become a question of will he, or won’t he attend a key event. Earlier this month, he skipped the Tanjong Pagar constituency Chinese New Year dinner but five days later, he attended the CNY party at the Istana.

The big question is whether he will attend the National Day parade in August. As Singapore’s founding father, he always receives a rousing welcome at every parade. And he has attended every single one since 1966.

Next year will be even more momentous. LKY’s presence will be the icing on the cake for Singapore’s 50th birthday celebration, and for him personally, it must mean absolutely everything.

Minister Heng Swee Keat said in a tribute speech to LKY last September that “his every waking moment is devoted to Singapore”. I believe there are few who doubt the truth of this assertion.

LKY is still a topic of discussion among friends and family, and the usual refrain is that “he has done his part for Singapore.” To see him age before our very eyes is therefore a little painful, because we see the slow but sure decline of a man who has devoted his life to Singapore. The contrast is especially stark because ever so often, we see television footage of him in his younger days – with a timbre and resonance in his voice, with clenched fist, and with an unmistakable aura of authority.

To see him age is also a blessing. He has remained relatively healthy till the age of 90 (he turns 91 on Sept 16), so he has been given the gift of old age. And that is a gift that cannot be taken for granted.

There are those who fear old age, and those who embrace it.

In the past year, one of the most beautiful lines I read was from Caroline Heilbrun, who wrote in a memoir on growing old: “Since we do not wish to die, surely we must have wished to grow old.”

Those words ring truer each time I read them.

Old age is a curse because we decline physically and mentally. But it is a blessing in more ways than we can count.

Info-graphics on Singapore’s arms imports, exports and ownership

The Independent
-
0
Info-graphics on Singapore’s arms imports, exports and ownership

After seven long years of negotiations, the United Nations in April last year overwhelmingly adopted the first ever treaty to regulate the US$70 billion global trade in conventional arms such as tanks, warships, attack helicopters, as well as small arms and light weapons (SALWs). Here, we present a few tables to demonstrate Singapore’s ranking in terms of arms ownership, imports and exports worldwide.

While US tops, SG lags far behind

– in gun ownership

table 1

Note: The above data is courtesy Small Arms Survey, whose most recent data on gun ownership is from 2007.

While Switzerland tops, SG lags far behind

– in small arms trade transparency barometer

table 2

Note: The above data is courtesy 2013 edition of the Small Arms Trade Transparency Barometer, which has a seven categories assessment: timeliness, access and consistency in reporting, clarity and comprehensiveness, and the level of detail provided on actual deliveries, licences granted, and licences refused. Major exporters are countries that export—or are believed to export—at least USD 10 million worth of small arms, light weapons, their parts, accessories, and ammunition in a given year. The 2013 Barometer includes all countries that qualified as a major exporter at least once during the 2001–11 calendar years.

While India leads, SG follows suit

– in arms import

table 3

While China leads, SG stands third

– in arms export from Asia

table 4
Note: The above data is courtesy the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook 2013. The report says “China may represent the vanguard of an increase in the significance of Asian suppliers in the international arms trade, as South Korea is an emerging arms supplier and Japan and Singapore have potential to become major suppliers”.

http://newzzit.com/stories/info-graphics-on-singapores-arms-imports-exports-and-ownership

Is Singapore’s Healthcare System Better Than Other Countries?

The Independent
-
0
Is Singapore’s Healthcare System Better Than Other Countries?
healthcarex-2

Whether you believe it or not, Singapore’s healthcare system is not only one of the best in the world statistically, but it’s also envied worldwide for its efficiency and low cost. Whoa! No need to toss rotten tomatoes at me and brandish pitchforks! It’s true!

In fact, even Forbes and Slate have reported how even the United States looks at Singapore as a healthcare model to follow.

And if you look at the infographic below (taken from Bloomberg’s Most Efficient Health Care statistics), you’ll see why other countries hold Singapore’s healthcare system in such high regard:

Should Singaporeans Complain About Healthcare?

Why then do people complain so much about the healthcare system? Simple – people feel the government is being too stingy efficient with healthcare spending. At only 4.4% of GDP, you’ll find no argument there.

But on the other hand, the government subsidizes up to 80% of your healthcare expenses and forces you to save for future health-related expenses through your CPF (Medisave) – limiting your out-of-pocket expenses.

So who’s right?

Well… that might not matter much in the coming decades, because regardless of your opinion, costs will skyrocket for everyone involved. All you have to do is look at the infographic’s last statistic – the rapid ageing of Singapore’s population.

Once Singapore starts going “grey,” citizens will need to pay higher taxes and Medishield contributions to cover increasing medical costs while the government will have no choice but to up its GDP spending to meet the growing demand for healthcare services.

Only time will tell if Singapore can hold onto its status as one of the world’s most efficient healthcare systems. Stay tuned with us on Facebook as we keep you up to date on developments in Singapore’s healthcare system.

What do you think about these healthcare statistics? Do they change your mind about Singapore’s healthcare system? Share your comments here!

Image Credits:
Fotos GOVBA

Homelessness: 404 families and 565 individuals supported in the last three years

The Independent
-
0
Homelessness: 404 families and 565 individuals supported in the last three years

Singapore’s ministry of social and family development (MSF) acknowledged providing shelter to the needy in the recent sitting of the country’s Parliament

Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing in an oral reply to a question by member of Parliament for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap recently informed the Parliament, “Between 2011 to 2013, MSF provided support and shelter to 565 individuals and 404 families. About 80% are of low-income and have weak social support.”

“Three out of four were previous flat owners who had sold their flats for a variety of reasons, such as settling financial or debt problems, divorces, cashing out to make a profit, etc. After the sale of their flats, they find themselves not being able to afford to buy or rent another flat. Another one-quarter had fallen out their families and friends whom they were living with, due to reasons such as strained relationships, anti-social behaviour or addiction-related problems.”

Enumerating the assistance his government gives to these individuals and families in exploring “sustainable housing options”, the minister added, “Sometimes, social workers help them to reunite and stay with their family members. For those with no options, the Housing Development Board (HDB) will assist them with rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme. For those who need temporary rental accommodation while they wait for or work out their longer-term housing option, HDB may refer them to interim rental housing.”

Additionally, the government also provides financial assistance and social support to enable the families to regain their independence, Chan said. Importantly, “efforts are taken to ensure the children continue to attend school and that the safety, welfare and interests of vulnerable family members are taken care of”.

Finally, the minister emphasised on the role of cooperation and positive action by such families, and concluded, “Homelessness is a complex problem. We want to provide help to families facing housing issues. But there will be little progress if families are unwilling to work with government officials and social workers to resolve their problems.”

Credit: Newzzit

1...5,1975,1985,199...5,255Page 5,198 of 5,255

The Independent SG

Singapore News

‘Do you check your helper’s luggage on her last day of employment?’ — Maid’s employer seeks advice

0
SINGAPORE: An employer took to social media to seek...

Singapore richer, healthier than most English-speaking countries?

0
SINGAPORE: Singapore is getting so accustomed to superlatives that...

Singaporeans more open to talking about death, but few take concrete steps to prepare

0
SINGAPORE: A recent survey by the Singapore Management University...

‘This is daylight robbery’: Toast Box patrons upset with difference in menu pictures and actual items

0
SINGAPORE: Some Toast Box patrons have raised concerns over...

Business

Singapore Politics

© The Independent Singapore