State help needs flexibility
Any aid system can only be as good as the people who run it
By Radha Basu, Senior Correspondent
TWO weeks ago, a chronically depressed, wheelchair-bound reader called me in distress. 'My days are numbered,' he said, weeping over the phone. 'You must help.'
Mr Frederick Kang, 61, had just sold his flat, as the floor it was on had no lifts, and had bought another on the ground floor. But he had yet to receive the money from the sale and the Housing Board (HDB) would not hand over the keys to his new flat till he paid around $3,400 in stamp and conveyancing fees.
But Mr Kang has hardly any savings, banks had refused him credit and the buyer of his old flat said he had to move in by Oct 8. With no money, and no flat, Mr Kang feared he would be homeless.
I asked if he had spoken to his MP. He had, and Mr Charles Chong, from the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, had written to the HDB on his behalf.
Three days later, Mr Kang called back to say that HDB had agreed to deduct the fees from the sales proceeds of his flat. Mr Chong's appeal had borne fruit.
Late last week, I met another despairing wheelchair-bound citizen, Mr Ang Kah Hin. Tired of waiting for aid from the South West Community Development Council (CDC), the 45-year-old amputee allowed himself to be interviewed and filmed by a social service volunteer on his difficulties in getting government aid. The video was posted on YouTube and the government feedback portal Reach last month, setting the Reach forum abuzz.
The former deliveryman, who lost his left leg to diabetes in 2002, said his wife, a former factory worker, is mentally disabled and seldom leaves her bed. They have a 10-year-old daughter.
Mr Ang gave up his job as a newspaper vendor after a fall early this year. To make ends meet, he rented out a room in his three-room flat for $500 a month. The family also received $200 a month from a temple.
In March, he began receiving $200 a month from the South West CDC, which had been helping him with cash, vouchers and rebates each time he was out of a job since 2002.
But the latest CDC grant had expired on Aug 4. Mr Ang said he called the CDC to request extended assistance later that month and again on Sept 8. The CDC took nearly a month to process the application. Ironically, the final approval came within a day of the video being posted online. The CDC said it tried to reach Mr Ang immediately, but he was unavailable. They finally handed him the money on Sept 30.
The cases above show that Singapore's help system is only as effective as the people who run it. Citizens often need public servants - be they MPs or social assistance officers - to speak up for them. Tardiness or too much paperwork can disrupt the flow of aid. And many are turning to the Internet to air their grievances.
But the Internet is a double-edged sword. While it can highlight genuine cases, sometimes the allegations are exaggerated, or simply untrue.
For example, an arthritic old woman was shown scavenging for cardboard in a video posted online recently. Subsequent investigations by government officials revealed that she was well cared for financially and scavenged largely to while away her time.
If online allegations are baseless, government agencies can and should reply. But there is another way to curb this discontent - to make the help system more nimble.
First, aid applications could be processed faster. Currently, requests are supposed to be processed within six weeks. Average processing time at the South West CDC, for instance, is a month.
Stationing aid officers on the ground rather than in a distant office could help cut down the time needed to verify income and other documents. The North East CDC began piloting such a scheme this July with officers being placed in each of it 17 constituencies.
Aid officers could meet the disabled and immobile elderly in their own homes. Phone conversations should be recorded to get to the bottom of allegations that officers are often rude and impatient.
Regular mental health counselling could also be initiated for those who need it. In my years as a community reporter, I have met some embittered old people who, trapped in imperfect bodies and exigent circumstances, harbour irrational anger, which often ends up directed against the Government.
Above all, we need officers who have the common sense, compassion and courage to ask their superiors for flexibility when a case demands it.
MPs like Mr Chong point out that more flexibility is required on the rule that broadly pegs the amount of government grant and rebates a person can receive to the type of flat he or she lives in.
Those with bigger homes generally get less aid. But those who have lost their jobs, regardless of the size of their HDB flats, have zero income - and may be unable to pay their monthly mortgages.
Selling their flat and downgrading to a smaller unit may not be an option if the property is in negative equity. On paper, it is also not possible to get a second concessionary HDB loan for a second flat if you are downgrading.
Mr Chong cites the case of a jobless constituent, a stroke patient, who was given the least possible aid because a condominium unit was listed as his address. Those who live in private property are deemed richer and get less assistance.
But in reality, this constituent had to sell off his assets in order to survive after he lost his job. When his savings ran out, he had nowhere to stay.
A family took pity on him and allowed him to place a bed and a small table under the staircase in their condominium unit. That was his 'home'. He was obviously in greater need compared to many others who lived in smaller HDB flats but he received little help.
In yet another case, one of Mr Chong's constituents was initially denied financial assistance because she could not produce the income documents of her husband who had abandoned the family and with whom she had lost touch.
In both these cases, flexibility was exercised only after Mr Chong intervened.
Proper checks are indeed imperative before dispensing government funds so as to ward off welfare cheats. However, when officials insist that rules must be followed regardless of the circumstances, it could lead to heartburn - or even heartbreak - for the needy.
Any aid system can only be as good as the people who run it
By Radha Basu, Senior Correspondent
TWO weeks ago, a chronically depressed, wheelchair-bound reader called me in distress. 'My days are numbered,' he said, weeping over the phone. 'You must help.'
Mr Frederick Kang, 61, had just sold his flat, as the floor it was on had no lifts, and had bought another on the ground floor. But he had yet to receive the money from the sale and the Housing Board (HDB) would not hand over the keys to his new flat till he paid around $3,400 in stamp and conveyancing fees.
But Mr Kang has hardly any savings, banks had refused him credit and the buyer of his old flat said he had to move in by Oct 8. With no money, and no flat, Mr Kang feared he would be homeless.
I asked if he had spoken to his MP. He had, and Mr Charles Chong, from the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, had written to the HDB on his behalf.
Three days later, Mr Kang called back to say that HDB had agreed to deduct the fees from the sales proceeds of his flat. Mr Chong's appeal had borne fruit.
Late last week, I met another despairing wheelchair-bound citizen, Mr Ang Kah Hin. Tired of waiting for aid from the South West Community Development Council (CDC), the 45-year-old amputee allowed himself to be interviewed and filmed by a social service volunteer on his difficulties in getting government aid. The video was posted on YouTube and the government feedback portal Reach last month, setting the Reach forum abuzz.
The former deliveryman, who lost his left leg to diabetes in 2002, said his wife, a former factory worker, is mentally disabled and seldom leaves her bed. They have a 10-year-old daughter.
Mr Ang gave up his job as a newspaper vendor after a fall early this year. To make ends meet, he rented out a room in his three-room flat for $500 a month. The family also received $200 a month from a temple.
In March, he began receiving $200 a month from the South West CDC, which had been helping him with cash, vouchers and rebates each time he was out of a job since 2002.
But the latest CDC grant had expired on Aug 4. Mr Ang said he called the CDC to request extended assistance later that month and again on Sept 8. The CDC took nearly a month to process the application. Ironically, the final approval came within a day of the video being posted online. The CDC said it tried to reach Mr Ang immediately, but he was unavailable. They finally handed him the money on Sept 30.
The cases above show that Singapore's help system is only as effective as the people who run it. Citizens often need public servants - be they MPs or social assistance officers - to speak up for them. Tardiness or too much paperwork can disrupt the flow of aid. And many are turning to the Internet to air their grievances.
But the Internet is a double-edged sword. While it can highlight genuine cases, sometimes the allegations are exaggerated, or simply untrue.
For example, an arthritic old woman was shown scavenging for cardboard in a video posted online recently. Subsequent investigations by government officials revealed that she was well cared for financially and scavenged largely to while away her time.
If online allegations are baseless, government agencies can and should reply. But there is another way to curb this discontent - to make the help system more nimble.
First, aid applications could be processed faster. Currently, requests are supposed to be processed within six weeks. Average processing time at the South West CDC, for instance, is a month.
Stationing aid officers on the ground rather than in a distant office could help cut down the time needed to verify income and other documents. The North East CDC began piloting such a scheme this July with officers being placed in each of it 17 constituencies.
Aid officers could meet the disabled and immobile elderly in their own homes. Phone conversations should be recorded to get to the bottom of allegations that officers are often rude and impatient.
Regular mental health counselling could also be initiated for those who need it. In my years as a community reporter, I have met some embittered old people who, trapped in imperfect bodies and exigent circumstances, harbour irrational anger, which often ends up directed against the Government.
Above all, we need officers who have the common sense, compassion and courage to ask their superiors for flexibility when a case demands it.
MPs like Mr Chong point out that more flexibility is required on the rule that broadly pegs the amount of government grant and rebates a person can receive to the type of flat he or she lives in.
Those with bigger homes generally get less aid. But those who have lost their jobs, regardless of the size of their HDB flats, have zero income - and may be unable to pay their monthly mortgages.
Selling their flat and downgrading to a smaller unit may not be an option if the property is in negative equity. On paper, it is also not possible to get a second concessionary HDB loan for a second flat if you are downgrading.
Mr Chong cites the case of a jobless constituent, a stroke patient, who was given the least possible aid because a condominium unit was listed as his address. Those who live in private property are deemed richer and get less assistance.
But in reality, this constituent had to sell off his assets in order to survive after he lost his job. When his savings ran out, he had nowhere to stay.
A family took pity on him and allowed him to place a bed and a small table under the staircase in their condominium unit. That was his 'home'. He was obviously in greater need compared to many others who lived in smaller HDB flats but he received little help.
In yet another case, one of Mr Chong's constituents was initially denied financial assistance because she could not produce the income documents of her husband who had abandoned the family and with whom she had lost touch.
In both these cases, flexibility was exercised only after Mr Chong intervened.
Proper checks are indeed imperative before dispensing government funds so as to ward off welfare cheats. However, when officials insist that rules must be followed regardless of the circumstances, it could lead to heartburn - or even heartbreak - for the needy.
