If you don't listen how would you know?

When sociologist Teo You Yenn wrote an article in the ST "Let's talk about meeting needs and not just equality of opportunity", One Dr. Sudha Nair, who led the Bedok Interim Rental Housing Project, responded in a letter to the forum entitled "Why the poor are poor:$500 a month on cable TV and cigarettes and this family still wants financial aid?"

Teo had basically pointed out the hurdles and stigma families in need of financial aid undergo to receive aid. She highlighted the challenges the families living in rented flats face and in particular how disadvantaged and academically far behind their children are compared to their cohort in school. Dr. Nair in her rebuttal letter basically justified the need to ask seemingly intrusive questions about family genograms and ecomaps and detail income and expenditure assessments. To her these questions help the social workers understand the family's choices and their ability to distinguish between wants and needs. She highlighted that most of these families have sold their owner occupied flat for various reasons, spent the money and were in financial difficulties. By helping these families explore alternatives ( in Singapore for eg. single parents must hold a job to receive child care subsidies) these families are able to move on. Needless to say she cited several cases whose members changed their spending habits or found jobs and were able to buy their own flat.

Dr Maliki Osman, a Minister of State then reinforeced with a rebuttal on Teo You Yenn's book "This is what inequality looks like". An abstract from his commentary include:
"Taxpayers' money should not just be given away, even to the needy, without expecting the recipients to help themselves. Social workers working with low-income households on a daily basis (sometimes for many years) have a good understanding of the difficulties they face, and the challenges in helping them."

What Dr Maliki didn't expect was a response signed by 40 social workers commenting that his rebuttal "presents an incomplete picture of the REALITIES of low-income families". They further remarked "While it is easy to attribute the situation of low-income households to poor decision-making and celebrate tough love, we must also acknowledge the role that systems and structures play in creating the conditions of poverty in the first instance"

One ex student of Dr Nair though respecting her as an engaging lecturer had to differ from her commentary saying:
"But what is lacking in this (her) article is how it fails to appreciate the role structural injustice plays in perpectuating poverty.....Individual "bad" behaviours do not cause poverty though it certainly plays a role in worsening their problems. "Unhelpful" and "harmful" behaviours are usually a result of experiences with marginalisation and oppression, and any family's problems has to be seen in the wider socio-economic context such as low wages, poor working conditions and unaffordable health care and housing."

This, in my opinion, is so well said.

What the above course of events clearly signifies is the government's habitual reflex reaction to defend especially because Teo You Yenn in her book points out that "people's experiences are linked to structural conditions of inequalities", throwing reflections on consequences of state policies.

How I wish our government can reign its hastiness to jump in defence and listens a bit more. Policies and their unintended consequences are forgivable if the government listens and makes changes.

Incidentally if you are wondering why some of the rented flat families have cable TV it is because they have no money to have entertainment outside. The parents refrain from shopping malls to avoid their children asking to buy stuff and the TV is their only semblance of a normal family and it helps keep children from wandering outdoor in an unconducive neighbourhood.

If you don't listen how would you know.