Zia is a 42-year old divorcee with five children. Four of the younger ones are in school whilst her eldest son is due to complete his National Service this year. As a Patient Service Assistant at a health care centre, she earns a gross income of $1500 a month. After deductions, she takes home approximately $1100.

Over the last twenty years that Zia and her ex-husband were together, they bought and sold four flats. The first two bought directly from the HDB were a four-room and then a five-room. The third and fourth were four-room flats from the open market. The last one was sold because of their separation. She tells The Online Citizen (TOC) that she did not receive any proceeds from the sale of her flats from her husband.

Following the divorce, she and her five children lived with her mother for more than three years, until her mother decided to sell the three-room flat at the end of 2008.

Zia then applied for HDB’s Public Rental Scheme as the eligibility conditions seemed to apply to her. She is a Singapore Citizen. She earns less than $1500 per month. Her children are legally under her custody. Her last flat was sold more than 30 months ago. And she does not currently “own nor have an interest in any property”, as stipulated by the HDB’s rules.

However, her application was flatly rejected –  because she failed to meet one condition. According to the list of criteria, applicants of the scheme face debarment if they had previously owned and sold two or more direct-purchased flats from the HDB. She is now permanently disqualified.

HDB Says Not Their Problem

The options offered to her by the HDB were to either rent from the open market or to take out a bank loan to buy a flat, both of which are obvious impossibilities. Zia made an appeal to the HDB to exercise some flexibility with regards to the regulation, reasoning that as a single mother with five children and a net salary of $1100, she could never afford to rent from the open market nor borrow from the bank. The response from the HDB officer in charge of her case was, “Your predicament is not my problem”.

Angered but undaunted, Zia made a second appeal, this time to a manager. However, she was turned down again. This was in early 2009 when the HDB’s interim rental housing measure was first announced. So the manager offered Zia a three-room flat at a monthly rent of $300 with the tenancy agreement to be reviewed bi-annually. Along with the flat, Bernard also offered Zia, a secondary school dropout, a piece of advice: seek a better paying job since, he said, she “sounds educated” – referring to her good command of English.

A year and two reviews later, Zia was recently informed that her rent will be raised to $420 in accordance with interim housing policies.

Fed up, Zia enlisted the help of The Online Citizen a month ago, which wrote to the HDB with a list of questions, among which were:

(a) Does the HDB have a long-term solution for single, low–income families like  which cannot rent from the HDB, and which also cannot afford to rent from the open market?

(b) What is the rationale for the increase in rental for the interim housing when the lease is extended?

(c) What is the action that HDB would take if the person is unable to find affordable housing once the lease on the interim housing expires?

TOC has yet to receive any replies from the HDB..

Zia never expected the consequences of her divorce to last this long. “Who am I going to blame? I didn’t ask to be divorced. I am independent, I work very hard. I just need extra help. They didn’t help just because of their policies. The government only will help me when I become a destitute.”

Zia is not the only ‘victim’ of the HDB’s inflexible application of rules and regulations.

Idah’s Story

Idah is another single mother with two children. Her daughter is pursuing her Masters degree, and her youngest son, in Primary 5.

Since her divorce seven years ago, Idah has been renting a two-room flat from the HDB. Up until last month, her clerical job at the People’s Association earns her a  gross salary of $2000. But Idah, who started working at a young age, has sufficient  CPF  to buy over her current rental  flat. Her request to do so was declined as these flats are specifically for rental, the HDB told her. Her only alternative was to purchase a three-room flat from the HDB as anything from the open market was beyond her means. This, however, would require her to take out a small HDB Concessionary Loan. But she was turned down when she applied for it. Based on Condition (c) of the ‘Who Can Apply’ list of rules, Idah is ineligible as she and her ex-husband had been granted two similar loans before.

Things are coming full circle for Idah. Until recently, her rent was $250 a month. With her income, she could hardly keep up with rent payments, and ended up accumulating $1,700 in arrears. She was recently served a “Notice to Quit” and told to clear out of the flat by the end of this month. To top it off, the renewal of her latest tenancy agreement was accompanied with a $100 rental increase to $350, as her recent $65 pay rise to $2065 means that she now falls under another bracket of the rental scheme.

Her several written appeals to the HDB to reconsider her loan application were futile. Idah then decided to seek help from her Citizens’ Consultative Committee Chairman, Mr Chia Ngiang Hong. After hearing her out, Mr Chia’s first words were, “You’re rich” – in reference to her $2000 salary, Idah tells TOC He went on further to say that in  Chinese culture, the older child would sacrifice for the younger siblings. So Idah’s daughter should have worked to help the family out instead of pursuing a Masters’ degree.

Since then, Idah has had to terminate her fixed phone line to cut back on expenditures. She also works as a helper at a food stall during the weekends to earn some extra cash. When I last spoke with her, she was recovering from an asthma attack brought on by stress due to her housing problems.

Zia, on the other hand, is at her wits’ end. “[For now] we may have a roof but it’s still a question mark because”, she says, “I don’t know when they can take it away from me”. She feels the government is penalising her for what happened in her marriage.

By Yong Pagit

______________________________________

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Online users furious after NUS undergrad molester only gets probation due to good grades

An undergraduate student from the National University of Singapore (NUS), who molested…

DPM Tharman is wrong about Sinking Fund: AHPETC

The following is a statement issued by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council…

Yes to recommendations to improve progression prospects: MOE

By Howard Lee The Singapore government has accepted the 10 recommendations proposed by…

罗厘脚车争道 司机否认撞骑士

遭脚车骑士挡道,罗厘司机鸣笛示意对方让路,骑士也不满地打落罗厘的左侧镜,自己随后也被撞倒在路旁草坪上。 但是在面控时,罗厘司机却表示自己没有触碰到脚踏车,否认涉及鲁莽驾驶。 有关事件发生于去年12月22日,当时58岁的张胜仲,和35岁的英国籍脚车骑士张豪宇,在巴西立第三通道和巴西立坡交界处发生冲突,两人在事后,于今年1月皆被控上庭。 然而张胜仲面对的控状,于今年三月份,遭控方将从原本的“疏忽行为”修改为更严重的“鲁莽驾驶”,指控他突然左转罗厘并撞上脚车司机,导致对方自脚车上摔下,倒在草坪上。 据《刑事法典》,疏忽行为导致他人生命受危害可被判入狱不超过六个月、或罚款不超过2500元、或两者兼施;而鲁莽驾驶刑法则是疏忽行为的一倍,即罚款不超过5000元、入狱不超过一年、或两者兼施。 供证人指罗厘曾越界 张胜仲表示不认罪,并且没有接触到脚踏车,只是查案人员陈俊严指出,张胜仲所驾驶的罗厘当时曾一度越过分界线,再从隔壁车道左转向脚踏车骑士。 身为控方第一个供证人的陈俊严也法庭上投放出三段行车记录的画面,以证实其说辞。 惟,张胜仲的代表律师对此表示,其被告人当时听到类似有东西被压碎的声音,而且也听到右边德士鸣笛,以为已经撞到德士了,所以才左转。 而张胜仲始终坚持,他的罗厘并没有和脚踏车接触。 另外,张胜仲也因为没有在事发24小时内报案,因此触犯公共交通法令,一旦罪成将可被罚款不超过一千元,或者坐牢不超过三个月。