Tag Archives: Poverty

Sri Lanka floods – your action requested to help

Following a devastating flood in Sri Lanka that has displaced and impoverished hundreds of thousands of people, a ONE (SINGAPORE) member and her husband, a former ONE (SG) staffer, are taking action to assist affected families.

Iman Hameed and Imran Abdul Careem are raising funds to provide dry goods like rice, dhal and fish as well as hygienic packs and cleaning supplies for more than 160 families in the Puttalam district of Sri Lanka.

You can support their initiative here: https://chuffed.org/project/float-sri-lankan-flood-relief-collection-for-chilaw
31 May 2016

Photo by ucanews.com Sri Lanka

“Almost all of the victims have returned to their homes,” notes Imran, “however most of them are not able to meet their daily livelihood needs, as their belongings have been washed away.”

They aim to raise S$10,000 by 8 June.  The funds will provide three weeks worth of assistance to 163 families.  The food and hygienic packs will be purchased in Sri Lanka, then delivered to the affected families.  Purchase receipts, photos and follow-up reports will be posted online and shared with donors.

Imran and Iman are also setting up a non-profit organisation called FLOAT that will continue to work with these coastal communities to promote public health and education.

How can you help?
1. Donate to the campaign.  S$50 will support 1 family (5 people) for 17 days.
2. Share this email or the link above with your friends.
3. Follow their campaign on Facebook.

While Cyclone Roanu provides a harsh reminder of the devastating intersection of climate change and poverty, Iman & Imran’s initiative highlights the role that each and every one of us can take to make the world a better place.

2015, a Defining Moment to End Poverty in a Generation

By Michel Anglade, Campaigns and Advocacy Director, Asia – Save the Children

2015 could be a momentous year in human history. It could be the year that governments across the world put a deadline on their longstanding commitment to end extreme poverty, ensuring that no child dies unnecessarily, every child gets a good-quality education, and every child is protected from violence. It is the year that governments are expected to agree a new global framework of concrete goals and targets to take the legacy of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) forward, and bring the commitments that were made at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) to life.

The next six months represent a critical phase in the international process to define the post-2015 framework. As governments discuss the shape and contents of the new development goals, they must keep levels of ambition high, putting the foundations in place for a framework that is capable of inspiring real and sustainable change for the world’s poorest children.

Protecting and advancing children’s rights lies at the heart of this process to make the world better and fairer for children. The post-2015 framework must focus on meeting children’s needs. The MDGs spurred political and financial commitments to achieve significant breakthroughs for children. However, the job is still not completed, and the world’s most disadvantaged children are being left behind. The eradication of poverty is not only a matter of social justice, but is also a cornerstone for effective, equitable and sustainable development for all. The post-2015 framework will shape the future, and it is therefore imperative that needs and rights of children, as present and future citizens of the world, are fully reflected within it.

More than a million people from around the globe have shared their experiences, expertise and perspectives about what post-2015 sustainable development goals should look like, via UN and civil society consultations and the MYWorld2015 global survey. A number of considered proposals have also been presented by international institutions and networks. These include the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the UN Global Compact, the outcome of the Open Working Group, the UN Secretary General’s Synthesis report on the Post-2015 Agenda, and civil society organisations from around the world, many of which are members of the international Beyond 2015 campaign and have now joined the Action/2015 campaign.

As the inter-governmental negotiations to finalise the post-2015 framework take place in the UN Headquarters in New York, Save the Children call for a strong focus on equity. Inequalities are not an inevitable outcome of development progress. If we are to recognise the truly transformative potential of the new sustainable development framework we must embed equity at its core. No one must be left behind by virtue of their gender, age, disability, income, geography or ethnicity. Save the Children urge UN member states to ensure that the Declaration of the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda includes an explicit reference to the criterion that “no target should be considered met unless it is met for all social and economic groups”.

Learn more:

Michel Anglade is Save the Children’s Campaigns and Advocacy Director for Asia, based in Singapore. In his role, he coordinates EVERY ONE, Save the Children’s flagship campaign to reduce child mortality. He supports Save the Children country offices across Asia to advocate for better practices and policies to fulfil children’s rights.

Prior to his present position, Michel Anglade worked for Oxfam from 2000 to 2011, in various leadership positions in Asia and in Africa. He started working in the field of humanitarian and development in 1995 and undertook various assignments with Doctors without Borders and with Action Against Hunger in Armenia, Sudan, Somalia and North Korea.

Michel Anglade graduated from Sciences-Po (Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris) in 1989. He also holds a Master in Media and Information Management from the Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Paris.

13 Feb 2015 (2)

Save the Children is the world’s leading independent organisation for children. Save the Children works in 120 countries to achieve breakthroughs in the way the world treats children. Save the Children’s Asia Regional Office is in Singapore.

Sustainable Cities and the Sustainable Development Goals

by Elyssa Ludher, Senior Assistant Director, Centre of Liveable Cities

“Managing urban areas has become one of the most important development challenges of the 21st century. Our success or failure in building sustainable cities will be a major factor in the success of the post-2015 UN development agenda.” ~ John Wilmoth, Director of the UN’s population division.

In 2010, for the first time in recorded history, urban dwellers outnumbered rural dwellers. By 2030, the United Nations estimates that 60% of the world’s population will live in cities.

It is thus propitious that Sustainable Cities are an important focus of the post-2015 agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. A sustainable world cannot be achieved without changing the trajectory of our cities to a more sustainable path. Across the globe, cities are leading the way in sustainability. New York, Copenhagen, Suzhou and Surabaya are just some examples of cities that have adopted more ambitious sustainability goals compared to their national governments. At city level, local governments can focus, channel resources, execute, scale up and achieve results.

Global urban growth will not be proportional; it is expected to double in emerging economies, mainly in existing and new cities in Africa, Latin America and Asia. These rapidly expanding cities face acute pressures on infrastructure and services. Few are equipped with the necessary mandate, resources and capabilities to plan, implement and manage its own development. An SDG focused on cities could thus influence national governments to devolve much needed authority and resources to the local level so they are adequately equipped to address these challenges.

The cities of tomorrow also need to consider a model that will maximise efficiency in terms of delivering infrastructure and services, such as public transport, schools, hospitals, sewage and recreational facilities. Planning a city based on a high density model could achieve the scale required to achieve a high quality of life and sustainable environment for its residents. There are few cities that have managed to achieve high density and high liveability. Singapore is one such city, according to numerous liveability surveys.

28 Jan 2015 (1)
Figure 1: the Density- Liveability matrix

Singapore started out as a fledgling city in the 1960s, plagued by challenges commonly experienced in the emerging cities of today, such as high unemployment, slums, road congestion, lack of sanitation and pollution. Singapore has, however managed to transform into a modern and turbhriving global city in just 50 years.

Other high density cities too have successfully transformed themselves to achieve high liveability coupled with high density. New York, Surabaya, Medellín and Hong Kong, for example, while distinct in history, political structure, geography, character and urban challenges, have commonalities in their urban transformation experiences. The Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) Singapore has captured and distilled some of these commonalities, published in Liveable and Sustainable Cities: A Framework. A simple illustration of the CLC Liveability Framework is shown in Figure 2.

28 Jan 2015 (2)

Figure 2: The Centre for Liveable Cities Liveability Framework

The Framework can be summarised in three simple messages:

  1. Have clear vision and goals: Cities must have vision and goals to guide development aspirations. In Singapore, this was to achieve high quality of life for all residents, a competitive economy so that all are able to live a life of dignity, and a sustainable environment for future generations.
  2. Plan Comprehensively: Cities must plan comprehensively to achieve these goals; this requires foresight, pragmatism, and innovation. Agencies must work together not only to plan, but to implement. Plans must also have enough flexibility to adapt to changes which arise in time.
  3. Inculcate Sound Urban Governance: Cities must have governance structures that embody integrity to carry out these plans. Governance implies more than government; it requires the participation of the private and civil sectors as well, working together to advance collectively. Community engagement is vital for ensuring

If cities are able to integrate the three messages above, their path to sustainability will be infinitely smoother. Once sustainability, inclusiveness and fairness are entrenched in cities, this will naturally lead to the transformation of entire nations and regions, bringing us one large step closer to a sustainable world.

Learn more:

Elyssa Ludher is a Senior Assistant Director at the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC), involved in research in urban governance, integrated planning, mobility and food security. She also manages the collaboration with UN Habitat on Capability Development. Prior to working at CLC, Ms Ludher worked in the rural development sector at the Cambodian Organisation for Research, Development and Education (CORDE).

Ms Ludher started her career in urban planning in Brisbane, Australia, first working with Brisbane City Council, and thereafter on major infrastructure projects in Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) Consulting. She was recently published in Liveable and Sustainable Cities: a Framework, and has also published articles on urban governance and community inclusion. Outside of her professional commitments, Ms Ludher volunteers in youth mentoring, in particular through the Junior Youth Empowerment Programme.

28 Jan 2015 (4)

Set up in 2008 by the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) has as its mission “to distil, create and share knowledge on liveable and sustainable cities”. CLC’s work spans three main areas – Research, Capability Development and Promotion. Through these activities, CLC hopes to provide urban leaders and practitioners with the knowledge and support needed to make our cities better.

Chefs from the World Gourmet Summit Volunteer at Willing Hearts

Three chefs from the annual World Gourmet Summit – Australia’s Ian Curley, Lucas Glanville of the Grand Hyatt Singapore and Dallas Cuddy of Prime Society — have volunteered their time at Willing Hearts to help cook-up over 3500 meals for the underprivileged, following an introduction by ONE (SINGAPORE).

27 March 2014 (SINGAPORE) – Non-profit community organisation Willing Hearts had extra hands today as world-renowned Chef Ian Curley spent the morning in their soup kitchen, helping the team of dedicated volunteers prepare close to 3,500 meals for the underprivileged in Singapore. Chef Curley was joined by Grand Hyatt Singapore’s Executive Chef Lucas Glanville and the Head Chef from premium Australian Steakhouse Prime Society,Dallas Cuddy. All three Chefs are taking part in this year’s 18th World Gourmet Summit. Chef Curley, a champion of similar initiatives in Melbourne, Australia, and a close friend of both Chef Glanville and Chef Cuddy rallied the gentlemen to take part in this charitable cause close to his heart.


27 Mar 2014 (1)

[L-R] Chef Lucas Glanville (Grand Hyatt), Chef Ian Curley, Willing Hearts Vice President Charles Liew and Chef Dallas Cuddy (The Prime Society)


Speaking after his morning at Willing Hearts, Chef Curley said, “It’s a privilege to be able to volunteer here at this incredible organisation and support this amazing team of volunteers, day-in, day-out. As an advocate for similar initiatives in Australia, I wanted to spend my time wisely when in Singapore for the World Gourmet Summit, not only with the events lined up over the next week but also getting in touch with the community at all levels and helping out wherever I can. It was even more special with Chef Glanville and Chef Cuddy joining me and sparing their time for this incredible cause.”


27 Mar 2014 (2)

Chef Ian Curley (Left), The Prime Society Head Chef Dallas Cuddy (Centre) and Grand Hyatt Executive Chef Lucas Glanville


Speaking after his morning at Willing Hearts, Chef Curley said, “It’s a privilege to be able to volunteer here at this incredible organisation and support this amazing team of volunteers, day-in, day-out. As an advocate for similar initiatives in Australia, I wanted to spend my time wisely when in Singapore for the World Gourmet Summit, not only with the events lined up over the next week but also getting in touch with the community at all levels and helping out wherever I can. It was even more special with Chef Glanville and Chef Cuddy joining me and sparing their time for this incredible cause.”

Chefs Curly, Glanville and Cuddy were introduced to Willing Hearts by a partner organisation, ONE (SINGAPORE), which works to raise awareness of social issues and eliminate poverty both locally and overseas. “This partnership between the World Gourmet Summit and Willing Hearts is a great example of how companies can apply their core competencies to make a positive contribution to the community,” says ONE (SINGAPORE) President Nichol Ng. “Food issues are close to our heart and we take our hats off to Chefs Curly, Glanville and Cuddy for taking time to volunteer and share their expertise, despite very hectic schedules.”

Charles Liew, Vice President of Willing Hearts, said, “We consider every volunteer a blessing, and were very happy to hear that an international chef such as Chef Curley and his friend, the renowned Executive Chef of the Grand Hyatt, Lucas Glanville, were making time to spend with us here at Willing Hearts to help in our mission to help prepare daily meals to the underprivileged, needy, and marginalised members of our society. Chefs Curley, Glanville and Cuddy have been an incredible help here today, and more importantly, we hope that their time with us this morning will help to spread the word of what we are doing and to inspire others in Singapore and beyond to volunteer their time for those less fortunate, even if it is just a few hours a week.”

27 Mar 2014 (3)WGS International Masterchef Ian Curley (Front) and Grand Hyatt Executive Chef Lucas Glanville (Back) help cook meals at Willing Hearts


Mr. Peter Knipp, CEO of Peter Knipp Holdings, parent company of World Gourmet Summit organisers A La Carte Productions, said, “Food and water are perhaps the most critical elements in our existence. As a former Chef, I absolutely loved preparing meals for my diners, be it for their special evening or a simple night out. When I prepare a meal now, I still know it makes a difference and means a lot to those close to me.”

“But it goes beyond my kitchen – the work done by Charles and his team at Willing Hearts is simply incredible. Charity is a big part of what we do, specifically our annual World Gourmet Summit Charity Dinner which has raised over S$5 million over the years. But what Chef Curley, Chef Glanville and Chef Cuddy have done today is simply incredible. We are proud of the three Chefs and their dedication to helping the community,” said Mr. Knipp.

Chef Curley was full of praise for the Willing Hearts volunteers. “I’ve only been able to spend a morning here, but together with Chefs Glanville and Cuddy, we were just blown away by these wonderful folks at this kitchen, led by Charles. It was incredibly heart-warming for all of us to see people giving up their own time for those around them, and I would encourage everyone to find the time to spend even just a few hours here whenever they can,” said Chef Curley.

Related Resources

For media enquiries please contact:

Ananya Singhania
Fulford Public Relations
E: asinghania@fulfordpr.com
D: +65 6327 2284
M: +65 9847 5306

Alex Jafarzadeh
Fulford Public Relations
E: ajafarzadeh@fulfordpr.com
D: +65 6324 5286
M: +65 9698 2472


About Willing Hearts

Willing Hearts is a 100% volunteer-based non-profit organisation, registered as a society, with a vision of improving the lives of the underprivileged and marginalised by providing them with daily meals, and helping them to become useful members of society. Founded in 2005, the organisation operates a soup kitchen, preparing, cooking and distributing 3,500 meals across Singapore everyday.

Would-be volunteers can visit the Willing Hearts website at www.willinghearts.org.sg/volunteer to find out more on how they can help.

About the World Gourmet Summit
The World Gourmet Summit is an international gastronomic extravaganza organised by À La Carte Productions (a division of Peter Knipp Holdings Pte Ltd), supported by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), and presented by Citibank. The World Gourmet Summit will celebrate its 18th anniversary in 2014.

An annual epicurean festival that showcases the intricate craftsmanship of prestigious chefs; it is also an exposition of internationally acclaimed vintners. Encompassing a series of dazzling events like the vintner dinners and celebrity dinners, it is a gourmet spectacular specially crafted for discerning individuals who appreciate fine wines and gourmet cuisine.

Since 2000, the World Gourmet Summit has been raising funds through its annual Charity Dinners in support of the Community Chest, the fund-raising arm of the National Council of Social Service (NCSS). The charity dinners have raised over S$5 million (approximately U$3.9 million) with the generosity of its distinguished guests through table sales, charity auctions as well as donations.


EU Nations urged to implement Robin Hood tax

By Melissa Chong

ONE (SINGAPORE) has joined hands with more than 350 civil society organisations from around the world, urging the heads of 11 European countries to implement a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT).

This comes after the European Commission announced plans to severely scale back the FTT, amid opposition on the economic damage it could cause.

5 Aug 2013

But civil society groups continue to argue that a Global tax of just 0.05% on financial transactions could raise up to US$650 billion a year, channeling much-needed funds to fight global poverty and climate change.

They urge that the tax could also dis-incentivize risky speculation and short-term trading, which poses high risks to economic stability. A Europe-wide FTT could set the precedent for reforming the financial sector, which has so far been exempted from the contributing to the common good.

The 355 signatories to the letter include Oxfam International, Greenpeace, WWF International and the World AIDS Campaign. A copy of the letter was sent to Algirdas Šemeta, the European Commissioner in charge of tax policy, who said she was impressed with the level of international support for the FTT. The special advisor of French President, Francois Hollande, has also agreed to pass the letter on to Hollande.

Seven months ago, Germany and France led nine other countries – Italy, Spain, Austria, Portugal, Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Slovakia and Slovenia – to press ahead with the levy, having failed to persuade all 27 EU members to sign up.

The financial lobby continues to attack the levy, raising alarm bells about the economic damage it could cause to industry, jobs and finances. Britain remains fiercely in opposition, believing the levy would drive business from London to New York instead. Sir Mervyn King, Bank of England Governor, said he “could not find anyone within the central banking community who thinks it is a good idea.”

Amid the criticisms, the European Commission announced in July 2013 that it is prepared to consider a redesign of the original proposal. It may now be rolled out six months later than the intended start date of January 2014. The levy could also be reduced by up to 90%, raising just a fraction of the amount hoped.

As the debate in Europe continues, it is likely that anti-poverty campaigners will continue to lobby relentlessly for the Robin Hood Tax to be implemented in full. David Hillman, a spokesman for the Robin Hood Tax campaign, said: “There remains a firm intention to agree to a strong FTT that will be popular with the public and raise tens of billions from the banking industry.”

This article was edited by Michael Switow


Robin Hood Tax, Not Corporate Greed, Should be Focus of Climate Finance Meeting, Say Activists

By Lacy MacAuley and Janet Redman

30 Apr 2013 (1)

Chanting, “Human need, not corporate greed! Robin Hood Tax now!” protesters dressed as polar bears, farmers, and bankers engaged with officials entering the meeting to urge them to support a Robin Hood Tax.

Robin Hood Tax campaigners converged on Washington, DC, where officials from the finance and climate ministries of select developed countries met to discuss how to mobilize private sector investment in developing countries to address climate change. Chanting, “Human need, not corporate greed! Robin Hood Tax now!” protesters dressed as polar bears, farmers, and bankers engaged with officials entering the meeting to urge them to support a Robin Hood Tax.

30 Apr 2013 (2)

demonstration drew attention to the fact that trillions of dollars of public money have been spent to bail out Wall Street while government officials pay short shrift to untapped and extremely promising innovative sources of public money like a Robin Hood Tax. In doing so, officials risk putting corporate profits over the needs of climate-impacted people.

Both the financial crisis and the recession have left a massive hole in public finances, threatening job creation, community services, and the ability to address climate change. While Wall Street has already bounced back, ordinary people are still trying to recover from problems caused by corporate abuse in the financial sector. The Robin Hood Tax calls for the institution of a small tax of less than half of one percent on Wall Street transactions in order to generate many billions of dollars each year toward crucial public goods and services, like healthcare, education, and helping the world’s poor confront the climate crisis.

Related Articles

Building a New Social Compact

By Nicole Seah

Inequality hurts not just the poor, but ALL segments of society. Research in the field of social science has shown that social indicators such as life expectancy, rates of imprisonment, social mobility show poorer performance across the board when there is greater inequality.

Inequality has many practical implications, the most important one being dissatisfaction and discontentment across different classes.

Economic progress accounts for more than just pure output or growth. Other indicators of well-being include consumption, health and longevity, leisure time and income distribution.

Even though our per capita GDP was 83% of the US, the well-being of Singaporeans was disproportionately a mere 44% in comparison.

With regards to the issue of inequality, we cannot continue to look outward to other countries and assume that there is less for us to do because we are in a much better off situation on the whole.

Singapore is well-poised to take on the challenges of the global economy with the strong growth policies that have been put in place.  I believe that now is the time for us to look inward and draw our focus back to the core of good governance . . . and the core of good governance is the ability of a state to take care of its people.

So a National Conversation is good. It is important. But if we do dig deep into what makes this country tick, what makes people stay or go, then we will only be left with just that – Conversation. Singapore is in a good position to transform its social policies.

Policy biases

For too long there have been several arguments AGAINST giving more to the poor. We do not want to create a welfare state, we do not have the finances to sustain a greater amount of assistance. Our policies have benefitted the population at large, there will always be poor people in society no matter what you do, so the fact that our numbers are less than other countries means that we are in a good position.

There are so many of these arguments.

And this is where I think, the Singapore government needs to re-engineer the way it thinks about the poor.

Think of them, not just in terms of statistics, but as people. People who could be our neighbours. The uncle next door who might have to take up 3 jobs to provide for his family. The karang guni lady, who makes a pittance sourcing for my broken fan and making her rounds every morning and night.

I know these people, because I live right next to them where I stay in Tampines. And that is why it always breaks my heart, when I meet people who have had a much more privileged upbringing, who have all the creature comforts that they could possibly ask for, say that the government has done enough and that there will always be poor people in this society.

It is easier said than done, when these people will never understand what it feels like to live below media wage. They will never understand what it feels like to get paid by the hour, or to spend their last dollar note in their wallet and not know where the next one is going to come from.

And that is why it is time for us to build a new social compact.

Sceptics may argue that we will not be able to get the money, it is not fiscally feasible.  To that I say, if the government sees value in closing up this inequality gap, if they start to place emphasis on doing so, it will be important enough to have a budget. We could have used the same argument against F1, the Youth Olympics or the Integrated Resorts. But the government felt that the benefits would be important to Singaporeans, and so, money was put aside for these projects.

In that same vein, as we reconsider what it takes to close up the income gap, I’d like to remind all of us that we need to be mindful in the way we render assistance to the poor. Drawing back to the old cliché of teaching a person how to fish versus giving him a fish, we need to relook at our social infrastructure rather than merely increasing assistance or doling out more money, which is important and it is good, but it is not sustainable in the longer term. We need to start looking at things with a new approach and perhaps make unorthodox suggestions to orthodox policies.

One area we can consider is that Singapore needs to create more hands and feet for the people who are down and out, and aren’t able to get up on their own two feet. This can extend to employment agencies, childcare centres, the social work sector. Make the pay packages more attractive. Acknowledge social work as a legit profession. Streamline the job scope so that existing social workers do not wade through a mountain of bureaucracy which may further aggravate an emotionally demanding job. Jobs creation of this nature needs to stem from a willingness to change the system. We can’t just rely on creating ad campaigns without changing what is unattractive about the job. It’s not going to solve the problem of expanding the social work talent pool in the long run.

With that, I’d like to end off on one point about our social spending, and a couple of other possible solutions in brief . . .

Singapore spends 16% of its GDP on social programmes. Other developed economies average out at 25%-30%. While we do not need to go as high as 40%, compared to some other developed countries such as Sweden or France, I believe that alot more can and should be done to push for more social spending in Singapore.

With that in line, the increment in social spending can then be considered for some of the following areas:

(1) Worker retraining and income support – Allow the poorer in society to search for better opportunities

(2) Healthcare – Universal Healthcare insurance models in places like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have seen out of pocket expenses for locals fall significantly. Singapore currently has the highest risk of extremely high personal spending in healthcare compared to other developed Asian economies, which really gave rise to the heartland idea of “Better to die than to fall sick in Singapore.” Currently, the system limits claiming for chronic long term care, which is actually the area that tends to affect low to medium income families the hardest.

(3) More subsidised infrastructure – Void deck or government-owned spaces can be converted into eldercare centres or childcare centres. With subsidies in rent, cost savings can be passed on to Singaporeans who might not be able to afford private facilities.

This article is based on the opening remarks given by Nicole Seah at a panel discussion on “Reducing the Income Gap: Finding Practical Solutions” organised on 12 September 2012 by ONE (SINGAPORE) and the Wee Kim Wee Centre.

18 ways to reduce the income gap

1 Oct 2012

By Leong Sze Hian

With the gap between rich and poor widening, financial advisor and commentator Leong Sze Hian argues that new government policies are needed in several key sectors. But that Singaporeans need to change their mindset as well.

“We need to tweak our labour policies, then automatically wages will rise,” Sze Hian told a packed room at SMU in a panel discussion about income inequality organised by ONE (SINGAPORE) and the Wee Kim Wee Centre.

But the outspoken advocate of poor and disenfranchised families also notes that the government can not do everything.

“We cannot put all the blame on the government. Look at the issue of cleaners. Two years ago, their pay was S$800, now (the amount is) less. Why? Because every time the workers’ levy goes up, (companies) cut workers pay and we accept it. As Singaporeans, we need to be more compassionate.”

In this article, Sze Hian focuses on four key areas where new policies – or in some cases, a return to previous rules – could reduce the income gap, increase purchasing power and ensure that catastrophic illnesses do not also bankrupt families.

Wages and CPF

  1. Peg the interest rate paid on CPF accounts to the GIC’s historical rate of return (minus a one-percentage administrative fee).

Singaporean’s retirement funds are essentially invested by the government in securities chosen by the Government Investment Corporation. While there has been some controversy about how this works, it appears that the Government sells bonds to the CPF Board and then provides the funds raised to GIC.

Currently, ordinary CPF accounts pay 2.5%. There’s a slightly more complicated formula for calculating the return on Special, Medical and Retirement Accounts (SMRA), but they tend to pay 5% on the first S$60,000 and 4% on subsequent funds.

But the GIC has a historical rate of return over the past twenty years of about 6 percent in US dollar terms. So instead of paying Singaporeans a 2.5% rate of return on their CPF accounts, it would be more equitable to pay about 5 percent (providing GIC with a profit for administering the funds).

By the way, Malaysia’s Employees Provident Fund (EPF) paid a dividend of 5.8 and 5.65 percent in 2010 and 2009, respectively, and has historically paid a return of between 4.25 to 8.5 per cent.

  1. Change the rules for self-employed Workfare accounts.

Self-employed individuals currently do not receive any cash payments from Workfare. Instead, Workfare transfers to the self-employed are paid into their CPF Medisave accounts. This discourages older lower-income self-employed Singaporeans from contributing to CPF to qualify for Workfare.

  1. Require employers to pay CPF for foreign employees too.

Current policy exempts employers from having to pay a 16 percent contribution to CPF for foreign employees. This policy puts Singaporeans at a disadvantage as employers save 16 per cent of salary costs when they employ foreigners.


  1. Pay Medishield premiums

Instead of making periodic CPF Medisave top-ups to older Singaporeans, use the funds to pay for their Medishield premiums instead. Otherwise, such top-ups can easily be consumed by rising medical costs.

  1. Provide coverage for all infants

Currently, CPF Medishield does not cover new-born children with congenital illnesses.

  1. Increase public spending

Singapore’s spending on healthcare is one of the lowest in the world. The government currently spends about 1.6 percent of GDP on healthcare. We need to invest more in the health of our citizens.

  1. Stop Privatising Healthcare

Private sector spending on healthcare, as a percentage of total healthcare spending, has risen from 25 percent not long ago to 60 percent now. We need to reverse this trend. Private healthcare costs patients more.

  1. Subsidise out-patient treatments for those in need

Out-patient treatments at polyclinics can be expensive and a large burden on low-income families and individuals. The government Medifund programme should pay for these treatments. Instead, the government has transferred S$86 million of Medifund surpluses to the Protected Reserves over the past decade or so.

  1. Better coverage for workplace injuries – Part 1

An injury at work can be all that it takes to push a family into poverty. The Workmen’s Injury Act was amended a few years ago to reduce employers’ and insurers’ liability for medical expenses arising from workplace accidents to S$25,000. But according to the Ministry of Health, medical fees from five percent of industrial accidents exceed this cap, placing an unfair – and potentially debilitating – financial burden on employees.

  1. Better coverage for workplace injuries – Part 2

Require public hospitals to extend the same subsidies to all patients, whether they are in hospital due to an industrial accident or other matter. Currently, ‘subsidised wards’ are actually not subsidised at all if you are hospitalised due to a workplace injury. This means that patients are paying five times as much to stay in a Class C ward.

  1. Fight higher costs by changing the way hospitals are reimbursed.

Hospital fees have doubled over the past four years. A major reason for this is that the government reimburses public hospitals based on the MOH’s average treatment type subsidy computation. Yet hospitals are still free to charge higher prices and pass the difference on to patients. Instead, the government should reimburse hospitals for the actual subsidy shown in medical bills.

  1. Better means-testing

Review means testing for patients who request for down-grading to lower-class hospital wards. The last time a reply on this was given in Parliament, it was revealed that only one percent of those who applied for downgrading from a higher class ward were successful.


Information is a key for effective governance and developing solutions. There are a number of facts though that are not currently public knowledge. For example . . .

  1. If someone can not afford medical treatment, what is the likelihood that s/he will receive government support?

MOH discloses the number of successful applications, but not the total number or number rejected. What is the percentage of Medifund applicants that are accepted because they can not pay their medical bills?

  1. Make public the criteria for approving Medifund applications.
  1. Disclose the “Standard Drug List”.

Patients should be able to know in advance which drugs are subsidised and which are not.

  1. How many people discharged from hospital are unable to pay their medical bills?

We know that 21 percent of Singaporeans who seek assistance from Credit Counselling Singapore are requesting help because of medical fees. But we do not know how many patients are left with financial problems due to medical expenses.


  1. Remove the income ceiling of S$2,000 for two-room flats.

This limit is based on a simplistic assumption that every household earning more than $2,000 can afford a three-room flat, regardless of family size or financial circumstances.

  1. Do not increase rents for households earning more than S$800.

Families earning between S$800 and S$1,500 may already be finding it heard to make ends meet. The state does not need to add to their burden by increasing their rent. It’s time to reverse this relatively recent policy change.


By Iman Fahim Hameed

9 Aug 2012 (1)

Volunteers driving beneficiaries to shop for groceries

For many, the holy Islamic fasting month of Ramadan is a time to recognise the hardships faced by those less fortunate than ourselves and to engage in volunteer service to help out.

It is this spirit of sadaqah that has driven the Malay Youth Literary Association- better known as 4PM, an abbreviation of its Malay-language name, Persatuan Persuratan Pemuda Pemudi Melayu – to organise Ramadhan-on-Wheels (ROW) to distribute assistance to low-income families and treat them to a day out.

This year — on Saturday 11 August 2012, during the last week before Hari Raya – more than 1000 volunteers and 270 low-income families will come together at ITE East in Simei and visit a local grocery store to stock up on provisions for this annual celebration.

Since 2001, more than 1700 families have benefited from the programme.

V.I.P. for a day

“It’s not just about giving (the beneficiaries) a voucher, but treating them to a day out,” says 4PM case manager Evina Suban.  “They are like a V.I.P. for a day.”

9 Aug 2012 (2)

Volunteers assist with the shopping

This is the second year that Richard, an 82 year old beneficiary, will receive shopping vouchers from 4PM.  He appreciates the time that volunteers take to drive him to and from the market, particularly since his wife must often stay at home due to ill health.

In addition to food vouchers, ROW provides assistance in other ways as well. Each year is different.  In the past, 4PM has distributed computers and baju kurungs, new clothes for the Hari Raya celebrations.  This year, ROW volunteers have helped clean beneficiary homes and provide them with a fresh coat of paint.

Evolution of ROW

In its early days, 4PM volunteers used to row sampans to Singapore’s outlying islands to assist those in need during Ramadan.

But that was back before Singapore became independent — 4PM was founded in 1948 — at a time when most people here still lived in kampongs.

ROW, which is now in its 12th year, is rooted though in those early ideals.  At first, volunteers delivered groceries to the beneficiaries.  However, over the years the ROW committee realized they could do more.

“We used to give in the form of groceries,” says Evina.  “But we realised different people have varying needs (depending on their age and health status).”  In 2009, ROW replaced the groceries with vouchers.

While 4PM’s roots are in the Malay community, it assists families across Singapore, regardless of ethnicity or religion.  Currently about 30-40% of 4PM’s beneficiaries are non-Malay.

Simple gestures

9 Aug 2012 (3)

Each year, volunteers say they gain as much from the outing as the beneficiaries.

Take the example of Nadya Hasheem, a third year volunteer who was initially a committee member.  During a home make-over, she was touched by the experience of an elderly couple who lost their home due to their children’s spending.  The couple never blamed their children.

“It made me realize the lengths of sacrifice parents will go for their children and how they can still love with no bitterness, and only goodwill,” says Nadya.  “I am honoured to serve them.”

And when she heard that this was the first time someone has offered to help the aunty, Nadya says she learned an even more important lesson: “appreciate even a small simple gesture, for all we had done was clean and paint the house for them.”

Volunteering for ROW “is a humbling experience and working with a diverse team of volunteers is very rewarding,” adds 2012 ROW chairman Syed Faisal, who looks forward to making all the participants feel like a VIP-for-a-day.

Join the Fun

You can still join the celebrations – and break the daily fast with the Muslim participants – at ITE East on Saturday 11 August.  In the morning, volunteers pick up the beneficiaries and bring them to ITE East, the festival venue.  At 2pm, the guest of honour, Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan, will present the beneficiaries with the vouchers.  Around 4pm, volunteers will drive the families to the Giant supermarket in Tampines to go shopping. And then finally there will be an iftar break-fast back at ITE after sunset.  While at ITE East, please visit the ONE (SINGAPORE) booth.

If you would like to join the post-fast meal, please call Noraini at 9653-8921 to RSVP.

At the event, visitors can also make donations to 4PM.

Corporations or groups of individuals who are interested in supporting 4PM’s student assistance and mentoring programmes, please contact ONE (SINGAPORE) to ask about our Corporate Adoption Programme.

This article was edited by Rica Facundo and Michael Switow.

The Economics of Living: Discussing Poverty in Singapore

By Dilpreet Kaur and Michael Switow

The seminar room was full house when the moderator, Kirpal Singh, Director of Singapore Management University’s Wee Kim Wee Centre, opened the talk-show style discussion by noting that the topic of poverty in Singapore is an issue that has not set easy with the government here, but that a mandate of the Wee Kim Wee Centre is to address issues that others might be shy or anxious to discuss.

Four panelists – civil society activist Braema Mathi, community reporter Radha Basu, grassroots social worker Nadia Bamasri and Nominated Member of Parliament Laurence Lien – and audience participants from a range of organisations including Beyond Social Services, Mendaki, NCSS, ONE (SINGAPORE) and the catholic church explored the nature of local poverty, government schemes to address and cultural attitudes that help and hinder the provision of essential social services.

Dilpreet Kaur, of the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW), provides a detailed account of the discussion. (Note: this is not a complete word-for-word transcript.)

“What is poverty in Singapore?”

12 Apr 2012 (1)

“Do we have the right to judge
and say ‘sorry we can not help you’?”

Braema Mathi: I’m glad we can use the word “poverty”. I want to broaden it rather than deal with the word ‘poverty’ per say. I am wearing a hat as regional president of the ICSW, a 76 year old organisation, primarily looking at communities in need.  There is a disconnect between social policy and communities in need. Why?  Poverty is a result of income disparities and consequently limited access to basic necessities for day-to-day living.

From our politicians, we hear “cheaper, better, faster”. What does this mean? This rhetoric of “cheaper” can be very problematic if we just keep switching vendors to increase profit margins without a thought for workers’ livelihoods, particularly if there is little governance, few regulatory tools or even a lack of proper laws.

To come back to the question, what do we mean by a person in need? In the 1960s, the person in Singapore in need was different. He didn’t have access to clean water and sanitation. Today, food seems to be in abundance, yet in our midst we see people at hawker centres who pick on the leftovers from your tray and plate.

Homelessness has also been vividly described in the online media – people who are caught out without shelter and by their own silly mistakes. What has gone on from the 1960s to 2012?

What do we do then if someone got on the bandwagon of upgrading then got caught? The waiting out period is thirty months, which then forces them onto the streets or to bunk in with relatives or to fork out for rentals in the private sector. There is a disconnect here. These thirty months are a definite period, so what do we do during this time? The social policies are limited. What then is the role of society here as well? Do we let them be or do we start to look for ways to help? Do we have the right to judge and say ‘sorry, we can not help you”?

“So then Braema, is there then a remedy, a quick solution or is this is a complicated problem?”

Braema: Despite the government’s Many Helping Hands approach, we have a disconnect where meeting the needs of people are concerned. It’s not that there aren’t schemes or that we’re not doing enough. But people are still falling through. What are we going to do about this? Singapore needs to start thinking about the Social Protection Floor Initiative (SPFI), which is driven by the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organisation and supported by ICSW. The government needs to start reviewing the trends of people falling through the net and what it can do for them in terms of establishing a concrete floor from which they can step up. Developed countries are using the SPFI, especially because of ageing societies. It is time Singapore considers this approach.

“Radha, as a Straits Times journalist, you’ve actively reported on social issues. Could you tell us about some of your personal encounters with people in need?”

Radha Basu: I want to contextualise poverty, which is a very strong word. I’ve covered malnutrition and areas where people have no access to food and shelter. I don’t think anyone dies from starvation in Singapore. But are there unmet needs? Absolutely. And personally, I feel it is growing.

12 Apr 2012 (2)

“We have no minimum wage and limited collective bargaining. We need one or the other and it’s time people started talking about it.”

There is no official poverty line but there are 200,000 local families who are living in the bottom fifth of the income scale.  Their average monthly income in 2010 was $2,040, but the poorest 10 per cent – about 100,000 households – earned only $1,400 per month.

We don’t have current household expenditure figures, but in 2007-2008, the latest year for which figures are available, the average monthly household expenditure among the lowest 20% of resident households was $1,760.   That’s about $500 more than their average monthly income at the time ($1,274).

There is a gap in income and basic expenditure before state cash-transfer policies like Workfare are put into place. There is also a disconnect between people not knowing which schemes are available or considering it onerous to seek help. Recently, though, MP Amy Khor announced that there will be just one form to apply for assistance at the Community Development Councils (CDCs).

Who needs the most assistance? Generally, these individuals have uncommon or multiple needs. The existence of multiple problems is what exacerbates their conditions. Consider these examples:

  • * a low-income earning couple with a special needs child
  • * homeless men who cannot go to CDCs for help because government schemes require an address
  • * foreign brides — with Singaporean children, but estranged or widowed from their husbands — who are not eligible to rent a HDB
  • * the mentally ill, who have homes but cannot get along with parents or family members.
  • * unwed mothers who have been low on the government’s priority list for fear they might procreate more illegitimate children
  • * and foreign workers who have been cheated or injured.

“You must have followed up with the government on these issues? What were the official answers to these hardship cases?”

Radha: There is both a lapse in communication outreach in terms of implementing the schemes by the State as well as the “shame” factor among potential applicants of such schemes. So something needs to be done.

“We are Singaporeans, but yes we have subsets of groups like Mendaki, etc that focus on one group. Nadia, you work with 4PM, Persatuan Persuratan Pemuda Pemudi Melayu. Are we wrong to assume that the Malays are out of proportion when it comes to poverty or hardship?”

Nadia Bamasri: At 4PM, our work revolves around children, youth and their families. We do not only work with Malays; we have a 70-30% policy to help non Malays as well.

12 Apr 2012 (3)

Nadia Bamasri at “Ramadan on Wheels,” an annual project to assist low-income families.

But there is a Malay problem. Statistics have shown that when it comes to education, Malay parents have lower levels of education and as a result are in the lower income bracket.

We don’t see poverty and slums because we live in these boxes called flats. But you just have to open the door and you can smell and see the poverty.

Braema talked about withholding judgement. We are not supposed to judge, but as a social worker, we are required by funders or the government to ask so many questions about income and other family characteristics before we can help these families. However, do we really know what these families/individuals need? That’s a more pertinent question. Handouts are not always the solution. There needs to be more cross cutting measures, not just within the Malay community, but across all groups.

“Radha alluded to single mothers. I was brought up in Geylang in the 1950’s. Malays then were very communal and would support each other all the way. Is this apparent today?”

Nadia: Today, we live in flats and have lots of social issues. Who’s fault is it? We never blame ourselves. If you ask people, they’ll tell you about the government, their long working hours, etc. This is different from the kampong days. People nowadays are much too worried about labels and judgement.

For example, if you are pregnant and Malay, first thing your parent will do is to send you to a home. Why? To cover it up. The pregnancy is taboo. It is very embarrassing to the families. However, there is no support at the home. The young women are allowed to go to work or school. This only entrenches poverty further, especially for these single mothers.

“Laurence, in your maiden Parliamentary address, you spoke about introducing a Social Health Index in Singapore. What is this? And how do we achieve social health?

Laurence Lien: At the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) and the Community Foundation of Singapore, my job is to get the well-to-do to give. Almost all the time, the question I get is: “where are the needs in Singapore?”. I explain, then they say “What is the government doing about it?”. Then I have the burden of explaining why we must not wait for government.

There is little visibility of our social realities on the ground. As a society, we like to hide our problems and the marginalised. We need to stop hiding poverty, especially if we want people to be part of the action to address social problems.

12 Apr 2012 (4)

“We have painted the poor in a way that a lot of Singaporeans feel they are not deserving of help. The government has a fixation that people will take advantage of assistance schemes and over-consume.”

I visited the Boston Foundation in the United States two years ago. This foundation publishes the “Boston Indicators Project” every two to three years. It wasn’t initiated by the government; they started it. They publish this wonderful report that galvanises people to think about how to address issues in society.

We need to do this in Singapore. We track the economic indicators so closely. But isn’t social health just as important?  The last elections demonstrate that social issues are critical to our citizens . When it comes to economic health, the government has all the levers. But when it comes to social health, it’s scared that it doesn’t have all the levers and they don’t want to be accountable in the same way. We need to look at individuals, families, community cohesion and happiness as well. We should measure subjective well-being.  This idea was poo-poo-ed by the politicians. But at the end of the day, this is what we want. What is life for if we do not seek to be happy?

The Social Health Index is to help identify the needs of the people and what the government is doing about it. For it to work, the community must be accountable as well and it must have equal ownership of the issues

We are so fixated with economic indicators, don’t we care about social health indicators?


Dr Kirpal thanked all the speakers for their answers and sharing of experiences. One hour into the discussions, it was time for the audience to pose some tough questions . . .

People are falling through the cracks. What is the real role of elected govt in resolving poverty problem?

Laurence: I see the government as putting big stones into a container. It has the power to tax and redistribute resources. They must use the levers; these are the big stones. But there will be gaps and that’s where civil society comes in. The government must have a cutoff by income, but often that criteria is insufficient. This is where civil society can come in to play a role. The government can also set a poverty line and minimum wage. I’m not convinced by the arguments against the minimum wage. We need more informed dialogue about this.

Braema: MCYS receives the smallest budget of all the ministries. This is unacceptable. When I started the Straits Times School Pocket Fund, it was because the criteria were too tight. But today 1700 is not enough for children and their families. The goal posts have shifted.

Radha: It’s too easy to bash the government. In fact, a lot of the anti-government bashing online is misinformed. Take Comcare. It’s a 1 billion dollar fund. When I asked Mdm Halimah last year, she told me that only 1 out of 10 families in the bottom fifth of the income scale uses Comcare. Why? Because, when asked, most needy families said they don’t need government assistance; they say their relatives will help them.

And take the recent discussion about cleaners wages. The first reply is that foreign workers are pushing down the wages. But three-quarters of our cleaners are local. What’s the elephant in the room? It’s cleaning contacts. The town councils enter into blatantly one-sided contracts. Cleaners earn $40 a day, but and be fired at will for no reason.

We can say the government isn’t doing enough, but will Singaporeans accept higher conservancy charges?

Braema: I need to reply to that. During the budget discussions, a minister asked ‘Singaporeans, would you like for your tax to increase?” I’m quite tired of this manner of discourse. Every time we raise a social issue, the politicians response is ‘are we willing to pay more?”. We are complicit in this way of thinking. It’s become like a contract we have with each other and we have to break it. It’s a question of shared responsibility.

Another member of the audience from a large local non-profit organisation shared these observations:

  1. When this forum started, I was taken aback with being uncomfortable with the term ‘poverty’. Factually the underclass community in Singapore is present. How come the word ‘poverty’ is seen to be so strong and taboo?
  2. Today we have more working class with low wages. Permanent jobs are scarcer and scarcer. Contractual work is becoming much more common instead.
  3. Bluntly speaking, the ‘blaming the victim’ attitude is quite prevalent, from the apex of the hierarchy to the bureaucrats at the bottom rung. Self-help bodies, including my organisation, are so busy trying to be politically correct that we lose sight of the well-being of our clients. The public at large is not used to the term poverty, but that doesn’t mean we should shy away from getting to know what poverty is all about.

Another participant comment:

Our government has consistent budget surpluses, except in 2009. After a period of time, the surpluses are locked into reserves. This comes from the society, but what’s being done with the surplus?

The conversation in singapore drifts towards schemes and an incrementalist approach. We should move towards a different type of score card. By changing the method of assessment, we can measure the unmet needs more easily, for example, how many people with income less than $5000 have had to pay $100,000 out of pocket due to catastrophic illness?

A woman from another social agency disagreed with a suggestion by Braema that Singapore needs more social workers . . .

We need to shift the discussion to ‘what can i do’ to help people in need. Otherwise the blame game will continue. We need to shift policy. How do we handle the poor? Can we resolve poverty? Who should be resolving it? As professionals, what can we do to activate the citizenry?

A member of the clergy added this reflection:

It’s not lack of money that prevents the government from helping. 25% of the budget goes to defence. My feeling is what’s lacking is the voice of the poor. The poor here are docile. We need stronger unions.

The Panelists’ Final Reflections

Laurence: We are confronting this not just as a nation, but as a globe. Income inequality is hitting the whole world. The whole capitalist model has to be reviewed. We shouldn’t be ashamed. There are poor here and we need to talk about it more openly. But they are not helpless and always receiving. We have painted the poor in a way that a lot of Singaporeans feel they are not deserving of help. It’s the mindset. The government has a fixation that people will take advantage of assistance schemes and over-consume.

Nadia: I think I speak for social workers and all the wonderful people who do this work, we need a lot of workers who are passionate . . . we see are a lot of people with zero income and nothing in the bank. How do you compare that with 1500 a month? These are the people we look at. I agree with Laurence, I see our beneficiaries with strengths. They are resourceful, but their basic needs are not met. How much can we really do?


  1. We touched on minimum wage and contract jobs. Go to wikipedia and type in minimum wage and collective bargaining – almost all developed countries have one or the other, if not both. We have no minimum wage and limited collective bargaining. We need one or the other and it’s time people started talking about it. Contract jobs and immigration may be worldwide phenomena, but other countries have support systems that we don’t.
  2. We need more discussion as well from welfare groups. When I asked them for interviews to discuss unmet social needs, they refused to talk because they saw our story as being ‘too negative’.
  3. Should we be spending $850 million on baby bonuses every year, but less on welfare?

Braema: At the end of the day, we are talking about people in need. We need to treat the person coming through the door with dignity. Yes, they have a blame approach. Now they talk about teaching the person to fish, but what if you fence the pond or what if the pond has no fish? Having a conducive environment is equally important. I want to go to fish, but i can not find the pond because there are too many obstacles in my way.

Kirpal: Sometimes, it’s easier to say yes and sign protocols, but when you visit them on the ground they are not as good as Singapore. There’s a lesson by old guys like me. We always begin by saying to government, ‘it’s your job to help me’. The government might be less anxious if we see them as a partner rather than always putting them on the defensive. They’re human too. There are practical ways of moving forward, without judgement and the blame game.

resized to width 750 15/4/2012 13:43:43

Joe Wan, Michele Yap, Braema Mathi, Laurence Lien, Radha Basu, Nadia Bamasri, Hani Mohamed, Thulasi Mahadevan, Michael Switow