Comments
Nas Daily Video, ‘Crazy Poor Asians’ sparks discussion on homeless people in Singapore
Popular travel vlogger Nuseir Yassin, or more famously known as Nas from Nas Daily on social media visited Singapore in the past week and made videos on his Facebook platform, about the land of the “Crazy Rich”.
In one of the videos, entitled, “Crazy Poor Asians”, Nas said that the video represents the reality he found in the ‘rich city’ of Singapore.
After looking for the information from articles, speaking to speaking to locals and professionals who know the figures, Nas pointed out in the video that the stereotype that Singaporeans are crazy rich is far from reality. Covering various aspects of life in Singapore, such as the lack of minimum wage, the average wage of Singaporeans and elderly who have to work beyond the age of retirement.
Reacting to Nas’ statement on the video that the Government is helping the low income, the homeless, and the poor with housing and food, a viewer by the name of Shirley Soares made a comment on the post asking if there’s no homeless in Singapore:
Shirley Soares wrote: “Seems like no homeless in Singapore, is that true?”
This triggered a reaction from the viewers, mostly from Singapore, discussing the homeless in Singapore.
While a few of the readers commented that there are only a few cases of homeless in the country – mostly elderly:
Mohammad Shazwan wrote: “Very few, but the numbers are increasing!”
Andrew Lee wrote: “Here and there.. You’ll see some. Mostly the elderly..”
Rebecca Chong wrote: “Very very few because our government forbids and would step in, in one way or another through social support schemes to aid the poor.. may not gonna be enough but they do help and of course at the expense of our taxes.”
Michael McCormack wrote: “I only saw one or two homeless. What I saw even less was police officers and no garbage on the streets.”
Maria Teresa B. Tejada wrote: “Nas Daily that’ what I appreciate in SG, very few homeless because of the charitable organizations that keeps and provides them “home”. Social and community workers are very active in this country.”
There were a lot of citizens commented that there are many homeless people in Singapore:
Eric Yeo Shumin wrote: “There are tons of homeless elderly in Chinatown.”
Jeeva Eswaran wrote: “Very few young ones and tons of the older generation. Suicide rate is high for them here, as they are unable to afford a home & medical.”
Ai Peng Loh wrote: “Nas Daily did they not bring you out to see all those elderly sleeping on the cardboard boxes or on stone chair surrounded by their ‘pick/collection of the day’?”
Nur Kaii wrote: “Actually there are a lot of homeless people. Mostly elderly people. And a lot of young people who may get kicked out of their homes at any time because living in Singapore is very expensive for the average man who usually makes SGD800-1500. There’s a lot that the world doesn’t know about my country.”
زهرة اميد حان wrote: “There are tons. Just not looking at the right places.”
Steven Junhao wrote: “I saw many elderly being homeless. They can be spotted sleeping at Chinatown and East Coast Park to name a few. There used be this guy who live under the bridge in my old estate.”
Stacy Teo wrote: “Shirley Soares, not true. Go to the beaches and you will find tents. Some homeless set up ‘temporary homes’ there. Apparently to the government it was illegal.”
Abdul Raymax wrote: “I have friends who bums on their workplaces coz they can’t afford to own a home and they are working at least 12 hours a day 6 days a week with earnings of just $2000 a month on gross wage and only getting $1600 nett wage after a 20% deduction from the Central Provident Funds every months, and a small apartment home with a living room and 2 bedrooms may cost you at least $300K to $400K, so that’s why they can’t afford to get a home.”
Aisyah Choo wrote: “Sadly there is.. we came across a few but few organization still try to assist them in getting them a rent home or a temporary shelter.”
Many commented that it is illegal to stay on the street in Singapore and that the Government emplaces the homeless in welfare homes. But others said that they were put in special place to work for very small pay which also deducted for lodging:
Ali Yahya Raee wrote: “Many. They stay with parents, siblings or relatives. To stay on the street, it’s illegal.”
Maurice Tan wrote: “There are many homeless, just that they are usually chased out by the authorities. I.e sleeping in tents at parks, the park rangers chase them off (even some of this tenting requires a permit). Sleep at the common housing corridors, police chase them away. So they end up usually on the road for a place to snooze in, with much negative anticipation that they will get chased out at any time.”
Yasmin Fantaghiro Yusof wrote: “There is alot actually…they make themselves unseen….Because it is illegal to be homeless in Singapore….”
Han Tiong Khoo wrote: “There is no social help groups or anything. Being homeless or poor is somewhat of a social stigma that the government wants to hide from the world. If caught begging they will put u in a special place where u get to “work” for peanuts and get pay deducted for lodging. That why a lot of homeless prefer not be “helped” by the government.”
Natasha Hassan wrote: “There are destitute people. You just don’t see them as the government will emplace them in welfare homes while they learn to get back on their feet.”
Sera Nygate wrote: “Lots of homeless elderly and young people but the government have kept it well hidden by trying to make it illegal to be homeless.”
Ashton Law wrote: “Well, I know some homeless folks even retreated into the forest and built their place inside as it’s actually illegal to be homeless in singapore. Even made a video out of it.
Elisabeth Frances Wong commented that the homeless are actually put up together in a shelter which creates additional problems to them:
Elisabeth Frances Wong wrote: “Eh. Actually, those in destitute are being put up with other destitutes, which doesn’t always work well. The more aggressive one makes it difficult for the milder one to stay with him/her, which explains why some folks choose to sleep in the open. Technically, they share a rented flat with another person, which puts them out of the homeless category.”
Diana Dee stated that she was a homeless person for years, and she shared her experience and knowledge about the homeless people:
Diana Dee wrote: “I was homeless before for years. Can’t even afford monthly rent. So I slept around places but being young at that time. People never knew I was homeless. They assumed I was some student studying outside or lazy to go home. Because I don’t look homeless.”
Diana Dee wrote: “There are homeless . If you go to the beaches at night the homeless are among the camping tents. They are without housing only sheltered tents. They blend in with the other leisure campers that we have no idea that’s actually their house. I can’t reveal the majority of the homeless location that I am aware. I fear they will ask to be moved.”
Answering to Aisyah Choo who commented (quoted above) that organization still try to assist the homeless in getting them a rent home or a temporary shelter Diana Dee wrote that organization prioritise families that are homeless:
Diana Dee wrote: “Aisyah Choo. Organization prioritise families that are homeless. For lone person it’s harder to get help. I know from experience.”
Comments
Dr Chee Soon Juan criticises Ho Ching’s vision for 8-10 million population
SDP chief Dr Chee Soon Juan criticised Ho Ching’s claim that Singapore could support a population of 8 to 10 million through effective city planning. He expressed scepticism, citing adverse effects like rising living costs and mental health issues. Dr Chee argued that smaller populations can thrive, referencing Scandinavian countries that excelled internationally and produced Nobel laureates.
Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), slammed Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s spouse, Ho Ching, for her assertion that Singapore could accommodate 8 to 10 million people with proper city planning and land reclamation.
In a video message published on 1 October, Dr Chee expressed strong scepticism regarding the narrative of increasing the population, highlighting that the current surge past the 6 million mark had been largely driven by the influx of foreigners, which led to several adverse consequences.
He further highlighted that smaller populations were not inherently negative, drawing examples from some Scandinavian countries that had flourished on the international stage despite their smaller populations and had even produced Nobel Prize laureates.
Ho Ching expressed confidence that with proper city planning, Singapore could accommodate up to 8-10 million people
Last Friday (27 September), in a Facebook post, Madam Ho, who was also the former CEO of Temasek Holdings, highlighted the growing demand for caregivers as the population aged and the need for workers to sustain sectors like construction and engineering, particularly as the workforce shrank due to lower birth rates.
“As we have less children, we need more people from elsewhere to join us to keep this city functioning, from repairing train tracks through the night to serving patients in hospitals through the night. ”
Dr Chee Highlights Risks of Population Growth
In response, Dr Chee recalled his experience of being reprimanded by Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan during the last General Election for raising concerns about the implications of a rapidly growing population.
He questioned why Madam Ho, who shared similar views, had not faced the same scrutiny.
In his video, Dr Chee articulated several concerns regarding the proposed increase in population, highlighting the potential negative impacts, including increased demand for food, housing, and transportation, which would result in a significant rise in living costs.
With a larger population, Dr Chee pointed out that more flats, roads, hospitals, and public transportation would need to be constructed, which would ultimately require higher taxes and fees to maintain the necessary infrastructure.
The SDP leader emphasized that an influx of residents would intensify competition for jobs, exerting downward pressure on wages and potentially leading to higher rates of unemployment and underemployment.
Dr Chee further expressed concern over the environmental degradation that would accompany population growth, citing the recent clearing of forests for housing and industrial developments, including Tengah and Kranji Forests.
Dr Chee questioned the ability of existing infrastructure to cope with a growing population, referencing the persistent issues with the MRT system, including breakdowns and safety hazards.
He highlighted the toll that congestion and overpopulation take on the mental health of Singaporeans, noting a rise in reported mental health challenges.
“All this while the ministers live in secluded and luxurious bunglows and villas, far from the madding crowd which we are subjected to every single day.”
“So, when Ho Ching says that we can accommodate up to 10 million people, I’d like to ask her, where and what type of house she lives in?”
Dr Chee Argues for Innovative Economic Solutions Over Traditional Urban Expansion
Regarding the ruling government’s persistent push to increase Singapore’s population to what he considered “unhealthy levels,” Dr Chee suggested that the PAP lacked viable alternatives for fostering economic growth.
He implied that the government resorted to traditional methods of expansion, such as construction and urban development.
He highlighted that the government is fixated on physically expanding the city—“digging, pouring concrete, and erecting structures”—to sustain GDP growth.
This approach, he argued, creates an illusion that Singapore remains a productive economic hub, despite potential downsides.
Dr Chee Advocates for the Value of Smaller Populations: Cites Political Freedom as Key to Innovation and Success
Dr Chee further contended that a smaller population did not necessarily hinder a nation’s success.
He cited several Scandinavian countries and Taiwan, emphasising their global brands and innovations despite their relatively small populations.
Dr Chee connected the success of these nations to their political freedoms, arguing that the ability to think and express oneself freely fostered innovation and societal progress.
He contrasted this with Singapore, where he claimed that the government controlled media and stifled freedom of expression.
He criticised the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) for its centralised control and for limiting the potential of Singaporeans. Dr Chee used the metaphor of a “grotesque monkey” clinging to the nation, suggesting that the PAP hindered progress and growth.
Dr Chee emphasised that the quality of a population—its talent, energy, and potential—was far more important than its size.
He suggested that Singapore possessed the necessary attributes to succeed on a global scale but was held back by the current political landscape.
He urged Singaporeans to engage in critical thinking rather than passively accepting government narratives.
Dr Chee advocated for a more mature and sophisticated approach to governance and civic engagement, encouraging citizens to take an active role in shaping their society.
Comments
Netizens criticise PM Wong’s video, urge Govt to address root causes of cost-of-living crisis
Netizens have voiced concerns over PM Wong’s approach to addressing the cost-of-living crisis. Many argue that distributing CDC vouchers provides only temporary relief and are calling for more substantial action on issues such as transport and rental costs.
SINGAPORE: In response to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s video titled “Tackling Cost of Living Concern,” uploaded on 2 October, netizens expressed that the Singapore government should address fundamental issues like transport and rental costs, rather than relying on measures such as distributing Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers.
In the six-minute video, PM Wong acknowledged that although inflation has moderated, the cost of living remains a significant issue for many Singaporeans.
PM Wong assured Singaporeans that his team is committed to helping them through this challenging period.
He emphasised that while inflation is expected to decline further in 2024, prices will still rise from time to time.
He explained that delaying price adjustments would only worsen the situation in the future, but the government will work on mitigating the impact of any necessary increases.
The prime minister outlined that the long-term solution to managing living costs is to ensure Singaporeans have access to good jobs with better wages.
He added that higher wages should outpace inflation, allowing citizens to improve their living standards in real terms.
PM Wong also provided an economic outlook for 2024, predicting higher growth and lower inflation, which could lead to increases in real incomes for workers.
He noted that the government is closely monitoring economic conditions for 2025 and will reveal more of its plans in the upcoming Budget.
Recapping earlier initiatives, PM Wong said the government has allocated over $10 billion through the Assurance Package to help Singaporeans cope with rising living costs, including enhancements to the package.
He highlighted that this year, every household has received S$800 in CDC vouchers, alongside utility rebates and cash payouts.
PM Wong also touched on global inflation trends, explaining how disruptions from the pandemic and global conflicts affected prices.
He assured Singaporeans that the government has taken measures, such as strengthening the Singapore dollar, to shield them from the worst of these effects.
Netizens criticise government’s approach to rising cost of living
Hundreds of netizens have voiced their concerns under a Facebook post by The Straits Times on PM Wong’s video, criticising the government’s approach to addressing cost-of-living issues.
Many users expressed frustration, noting that despite the government’s repeated reassurances about helping Singaporeans, there has been a lack of action to address the ongoing increases in utility and transport fares.
Others echoed similar sentiments, with one user blaming the increase in GST to 9% as a major factor contributing to the rising cost of living. As Finance Minister, PM Wong was the key advocate of the GST hike and defended it when the opposition called for a deferment.
One netizen criticised the government’s actions as being counterproductive. They pointed out that while the government raises prices in several areas, it simultaneously claims to be providing help, which they view as contradictory.
Netizens call for action on rising rental costs, criticise reliance on CDC vouchers
Many commenters also criticised the distribution of CDC vouchers as insufficient, urging the government to tackle root issues such as high rental and housing costs.
One netizen argued that CDC vouchers provide little relief, and reducing rental, medical, and food costs would be a more effective solution.
Another user called for standardised rental prices for hawker stalls and suggested that the government should fine landlords who raise rents excessively.
Other commenters focused on the need for more substantial measures, such as controlling hawker stall and coffee shop leases.
They argued that skyrocketing rental prices directly affect consumers through higher food costs.
One user proposed reducing government officials’ salaries and reforming other key policies such as lowering the GST and making housing more affordable as real solutions.
Additionally, some netizens highlighted the need to address transport and rental costs, noting that higher transport and raw material costs will continue to drive up consumer prices.
They urged the government to reduce rent for commercial shops and food stalls.
Netizens call for concrete measures in addressing cost of living
Some netizens expressed doubts about the government’s efforts to address the cost of living, calling for more transparency and concrete actions.
Many have called for clear metrics, such as housing prices, Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices, transportation costs, and population growth, to be presented as proof of the government’s commitment to tackling these issues.
Other commenters urged the government to avoid short-term solutions such as payouts, which could ultimately lead to higher taxpayer costs.
They suggested more long-term measures, including lowering CPF contribution rates, which they view as a financial burden on lower-income earners.
-
Comments1 week ago
Christopher Tan criticizes mrt breakdown following decade-long renewal program
-
Comments3 days ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Crime2 weeks ago
Leaders of Japanese syndicate accused of laundering S$628.7M lived in Singapore
-
Current Affairs2 weeks ago
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
-
Singapore1 week ago
SMRT updates on restoration progress for East-West Line; Power rail completion expected today
-
Singapore1 week ago
Chee Hong Tat: SMRT to replace 30+ rail segments on damaged EWL track with no clear timeline for completion
-
Singapore5 days ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Singapore5 days ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home