Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
The stigmatisation of seeking help
After reading Kitana’s entry on the poor man who recently committed suicide by jumping on the MRT tracks, I feel that there is a need for me to say my piece.Â
I have to say that I personally know Mdm Ho Geok Choo, MP of the man of committed suicide. I’ve actually volunteered some of the spare time that I can find to help out a little in her constituency.
To be fair, she’s a nice and sincere woman. I’ve been with her on rounds a few times throughout the Boon Lay constituency and I can see that she’s very people oriented. I don’t think that she can consistently fake something that she doesn’t have.
I’m not pro PAP at all and the only reason why I’m defending her is because I happen to know her at a more personal level. She makes it a point to do house to house visits in her constituency every other week (and not just during elections). I am not aware if other MPs do that as well, but in my own constituency (which is just right next to hers), I never recalled seeing an MP at my door in my entire life.
I do not know why Mr Tan decided to take his own life instead of seeking help. I am inclined to agree with Kitana that our government leaders are so anti-welfare that seeking help becomes a stigma. It’s not that help is not available, but because the government emphasize meritocracy and non-dependence on the state so much that it becomes shameful to seek help.
Seriously, this HAS to change. Our government should make the process of receiving help less tedious. And, our leaders should stop the mentality that making welfare readily and easily available means being a welfare state. As an illustration, I use this same quote that Kitana posted on her blog:
“Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar GRC) warned against encouraging a crutch mentality.
He said: ‘We shouldn’t be waving a red flag for this, telling everyone that there’s this help available. It’s quite a process to go through to get the vouchers. A person with dignity won’t do it unless he’s in genuine trouble.’
So, a person with dignity won’t do it unless he is in genuine trouble. Looking at Mr Tan’s predicament before he committed suicide, it appears he was mentally distressed, but yet did not want to seek help. Why would he not want to seek help? I’m sure he knows help is available. After all, according to newspaper reports, the family sought help from Southwest CDC a few years ago. What gives?
For me, the answer is found in Dr Chong Weng Chiew’s words. Our society has made it shameful to seek help. You need to be either in genuine trouble, or not to have dignity in order to seek help. No wonder Mr Tan committed suicide. If we have to wait until a person is in ‘genuine trouble’, it might be too late. And yes, in the case of Mr Tan, it is too late. He probably couldn’t think straight enough in his state of ‘genuine trouble’ and therefore, he committed suicide.
I don’t think it is coincidential that in the last few years, there are more and more stories of people committing suicide by jumping onto MRT tracks or other means. Our leaders need a mindset shift. We must tell Singaporeans there is nothing shameful about seeking help. Even if unsure, just apply for help or talk to someone who might be able to help.
Such an approach is likely to open the floodgates and cause a wave of applications. Among this wave, there are undoubtly some who will try to have a free lunch. It is up to the government to screen and weed out these kind of people. Knowing the government’s current rhetoric, the reply to such a suggestion would probably be that it is too expensive to do so.
So, it’s not expensive when someone jumps onto the MRT track? Train services get disrupted, the civil defence personnel have to be activated, the hospital has to ready for another case, police have to conduct investigations and the MP, together with the grassroots people have to spend time to investigate as well and figure out how best to assist.
And, is it justifiable that in the name of expense and anti-welfare state idealogy, we make it so shameful and troublesome for someone to reach out for help? Can cost saving and idealogy ever justify the loss of human life?
My conclusion is the same as Kitana: How many more Tan Jee Suans must sacrifice their lives before this message hits home with the right people?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 23/10/2006 at 3:51 am, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 5 years ago
hey aaron,
i was made to go to IMH by NUH. after contacting most of my friends to come (sorry i did not have your number last week), some do. i think they did not regret the visit.
a visit to IMH would greatly help destigmatise seeking help. want to go?
about 5 years ago
NUS by the way.
and I’m certified healthy and sane. just a little bit depressed.
man, you’ll go far if you manage to enter politic.
about 5 years ago
I worked at IMH in the last holidays as an intern in corporate communications. I think I have a good understanding of what goes on there.
After working there, I think that if you need to seek help, you should go. However, the problem is that our society is not helping to perpetuate a view that certain things are normal, such as seeking help. It pains me as to why our leaders are keeping quiet, all the more so when the control of the media here is so strong. All they need to do is to subtly hint to the media to start a series of stories to combat the stigma.
At the very least, it’ll definitely help to reduce the stigma somewhat.
about 5 years ago
In context, I would generally agree with what you had mentioned. I too had mentioned on my own blog that its time that our government should start to open up our administrative services to render aid effectively to those in need.
The problem here is, to get those whom are able to effect the change to change. To make those services and aid schemes readily available for a start.
There is also the long term to consider, to educate our populace that to fail is not a disgrace, and that our society is one that is able to accept one that has failed back into the fold, which I feel is one topic which our schools/charities/MCYS should touch on and expand upon, and that is the real start in which our society could progress towards a compassionate community with a soul.
about 5 years ago
In Singapore’s context, it has to start with the top. If our top leaders don’t start the ball rolling, I don’t think the civil servants will bother. That’s the sad fact of life here. You can’t try and move things from bottom up, unless you want to be arrested.
about 5 years ago
It is all about the money. You need the money to give to the poor, in cash. Our national balance sheets are (quite) top secret. Of course, we do not need to use the whole lot of money to help them. They have probably done their numbers. If all the needy people come and ask for the money (assuming that they do open the flood gates wider), then there may not be enough (in cash) to go around. It could be assumed that the money has not been set aside, and it could be from a fluctuating fund. More money is allocated to our overseas investments first. It is still about the money – do we have it? Well, I guess that you and I are not holding the pass books.
about 5 years ago
Not enough to help the needy but enough to give everyone a progress package just before elections. Wouldn’t there be enough money if it wasn’t used to bribe voters?
about 5 years ago
Indeed, overseas investments and progress packages appear to have higher priority than the needs of the poor. We tell the poor that unless you are in genuine trouble, don’t expect help. And Temasek Holding goes around losing billions in Optus and Shin Corp.
Giving away couple of thousand dollars to help poor Singaporeans is not ok but giving away billions of dollars to people of other nationalities is ok. Ironic.
about 5 years ago
Ironic indeed. But the billions are from our piggy bank or from the sharks? If the billions are from the sharks, then we are breaking our piggy bank to feed the sharks. Guess who has been putting those coins into the piggy bank. Remember the recent government bonds issue. Hmm….
about 5 years ago
I really don’t know what the people up there are thinking. Yes, many of their policies make sense in the long term, and on a macro level. However, people are not numbers. They are not some piece of statistic that you gloss over in your economist’s report.
I think most politicians in Singapore have gotten on the moral and economic high horse, and in the process of doing so, they lost their conscience and feelings. What’s the use of keeping so much money if it is not used to benefit needy people?
I hate to say this, but the only two politicians in Singapore with a conscience are LTK and CST. The rest either don’t have a conscience, or do not have the guts to do what their conscience tell them. Ultimately, it’s people like Tan Jee Suan who loses, along with the family.
about 5 years ago
i don’t know what to think, but it must have been the most painful way to die – under cold, hard MRT wheels.
about 5 years ago
Honestly, if he was so distraught, I don’t think he thought about dying under the cold hard wheels. I think he was probably thinking how useless he was. The last gift he could give to his family was $10 for 3 packets of chicken rice. That was all he could afford as a last gift. That totally broke my heart. Even buying chicken rice is a problem.
Sigh.
about 5 years ago
One interesting thing surfaced from this event; the personal (not corporate) donations are higher than the personal donations of the last charity show (discounting the corporate donations). Make you think about this whole thing about having TV charity shows and the people whose give donations and their tendencies towards the chartiable organisations and real life tragedies. But, sad that a life has to be lost to see this …
about 5 years ago
how bout pride? millions of commit suicide on a daily basis and mr tan is no exception. perheps we should stop blaming what the government can do for us but rather consider what we can do for ourselves.
about 5 years ago
I agree with the points in the post…i know of a friend who had problems of the financial kind…he couldnt qualify for some SAF scheme cuz they said he had a television…
it is sad that as more and more people get into soup cuz of the globalisation, there are people in power who have the idea that such people are merely creating trouble (as evidenced by the recent WSM issue)…
anyway perhaps LTK and CST are not the only ones with conscience…perhaps there are those PAP mps who do connect with the ordinary men…but cant do much about it cuz of obvious reasons…
about 5 years ago
Hi nedstark,
I agree with you that there are PAP MPs who do understand how the man in the street feels. I do not believe that people like Vivian and Tharman, who were rather anti-establishment when young could be so easily bought over. They are probably bidding their time for the momentous event to happen. *wink*
about 5 years ago
Hi Clarence,
Since millions are committing suicide daily, according to your line of argument, one additional Mr Tan does not matter.
I beg to differ. I have always stated that human beings are not statistics. If someone commits suicide, no matter who he is, how insignificant his place is in society, we have a moral obligation to determine what caused him to discard his will to live.
In principle, I agree that we should help ourselves instead of blaming the government. However, the problem is that the government has been blaming us! The government makes the policies, people like Derek Wee follows. Then, one day, Derek realised that the route recommended by the government is not going to give him what was promised then: a well paying and secure job. He writes about it, and the response from the government is that as a graduate, he should not bemoan the government.
The government appears to be always right. They never admitted to making mistakes. Have you ever wondered why people always blame the government? Look at the graduate mother policy, the two child policy and the forced merger of Nantah with University of Singapore. In the end the government backtracked but never admitted that mistakes were made.
There is a limit to what a person can do, unless that person has millions stashed away in the bank. Without money, how much do you think a person can really do to change his fortune? And if we can make things happen on our own, who needs the government?
about 5 years ago
Hi Aaron,
I followed a web trail and stumbled upon your blog and I really love your view and direct style of writing.
Although I agree with your opinon on many issues I disagree with some. People are not numerical statistics and every individual is unique and special. The issue of help is probably not the government but the community. Community has always been the strongest layer of fabric above the family and self. Of course, I do not deny that the government can influence the community.
Ending the stigma to seeking help is hard. Have you seen the street lobos in Japan living in the blue tents? Give them help and they would be insulted.
You are doing a programme which is a product of an earlier programme I did in NUS called ICM. I think you should be well immersed in the understanding of cultural effects in your study of communication studies.
Genuine concerned from the neighbour next door is really the way because policy don’t touch lives but people do.
I think is hogwash(strong word) that people like to implicate the government so much. They have never been effective in solving problem completely because the rationale and the strategy is right but the execution risk are many. Find me a perfect government or a governmental system and prove it and I’ll concede.
In total honestly, I followed a yahoo link on Wee Shu Min (which I initiately did not know about prior to this day) to your site and so I’ve read Derek Wee’s blog too. As much as I agree with him. The policy cannot relent to our weaker brethren unfortunately. Just as we can never eradicate unemployment (because of structural unemployment and the Keynesian princple that unemployment will always stay. Rid and it will come back at equilibrium state) the most we can do is be emphatic, find some gap-stop way to help (be it WDA or whatevernots) and hope that the human spirit would prevail for the same human survival instinct that kept us going for so long to keep us adaptable to change which is inevitable.
Best Regards
Dewayne Wan
about 5 years ago
Hi Dewayne,
Thanks for dropping by. I was in the ICM programme for two years before the department reorganised and expanded the curriculum. So, I’m 50% ICM and 50% CNM. :p
Weel, it’s ok to disagree. I am of the view that disagreement does not equate to opposition, and that disagreement will lead to further discussion and improve our understanding of things.
I do agree with you that the community can help. The outpour of donations for Mr Tan Jee Suan attests to that. However, the problem here is that the community is relatively disorganised compared to the government. This is why I think the government should take the lead in any effort to help the needy of our society.
Also, I never advocated zero unemployment. I do understand why it has to exist, but I don’t think that any reason is good enough to justify not doing anything about its existence. In anycase, how do we know that unemployment must definitely exist? Knowledge is constantly advancing, and who knows, what we know now might not be the true nature of things. While we should not hand out welfare too easily, I think we can hand out compassion more easily.
about 5 years ago
First, lets take a look at our army (NS):
When a person says he is sick, the first thing the medic/doctor thinks is “Hmm.. this guy must be out to bluff me so he can take a rest..”
Hence, the doctor will probably say, “Here, take some panadol, and go back to your training. You will be fine.”
As a result, some people have actually died (eg. the man who died of some rare soil bacteria infection, i think)
The pertinent question is, how do we distinguish between the fakes and the real people who need help?
Even a person with ultra high EQ and intuition may find it hard to do so.
about 5 years ago
That’s why I suggest erring on the side of caution. It may be expensive to do so, but as I pointed out, you cannot tag a price to human life. We can’t bring Mr Tan back to life now. Therefore I believe we should treat each and every case seriously, even if it is going to cost money.
about 5 years ago
Yes. I agree.
Now I understand why all the rich people like some MPs, and the elite do not want a welfare state.
In welfare states, such as France, the income tax is typically 40% or higher. For a poor man, who earns $1000 per month, 40% and 30% is only a difference of $100 dollars. The benefits of the welfare state for the poor man, like free education, free medical care, is worth more than $100 dollars.
However, for the rich kids, who earn 1 million or more a month, 40% of their salary can buy them a luxury yacht, or an extra bungalow. Hence, they do not want a welfare state, but try to hide their real intent by saying that they do not want to encourage a “crutch mentality”, or things like that.
I know why the rich and elite do not like crutches — crutches are made of wood, which is too low-class for them. They want a staff, made of gold, like a king.
about 5 years ago
Well, I bet you the government will start saying things like high taxes will discourage foreign talents, make us unattractive for investment, and we need to expand our talent pool. The PAP government always win the argument because they are the one in power. What can we do?
about 5 years ago
hi aaron,
i beg to differ, im looking at a perspective of a singaporean and the reasons for being well like you said “anti welfare”. i cant help but feel that commiting suicide is a sign that one has given up hope on himself. (i am being very general down here, there are of course many other reasons for suicide, but i feel that this might be the obvious reason why mr tan commited suicide). I believe if one “genuine needs help” there are always help available for them. However for mr tan’s case, he didnt choose that path, he decided to stick with the fact that he’s not gonna make it, he’s gonna stick with whatever selfworth he has and take his own life. Now, im not saying life is not important, in fact on the contrary i respect life and the fact that he took his life is something that i dun feel its right. Sure, the gorvernment can spoon feed us with all the welfare but is that really what we need? i mean, if mr tan, a case whereby “genuine help” was needed could have swallowed his own pride and seek help didnt take that, would openning up the and allowing welfare really help? i highly doubt it, but thats still me.
about 5 years ago
Hi Clarence,
I never said that Singapore should be a welfare state. I don’t think that’s a good idea. My whole point quite simply is that we should not put bureaucratic obstacles in the way of those who need help.
Our government keep emphasizing that we have to be responsible for our own welfare. That is indeed a good thing to encourage. But, people do go down sometimes, and its not their fault all the time. We need to tell the people that. We need to tell people that it’s normal to fall sometimes and when you fall, help is there to bring you back up. Notice that I say bring the person back up, and not feed the person for life. As I pointed out in an earlier comment, we should not dole out welfare easily, but we can dole out compassion more easily.
about 5 years ago
I don’t want to speculate, but I feel that Mr Tan may have been suffering from depression too.
about 5 years ago
Well, I believe so too. How did he get into such a state? I am questioning what led to the trigger of possible depression, and ultimately suicide. I disagree with Dr Vivian’s latest defense of the “many hands helping” approach. It doesn’t mean that shifting the burden of help onto the state means we are going to become a welfare state. It merely means that the state is becoming more compassionate. Seriously, how many more Tan Jee Suans must die? It’s easy to dismiss the slaying of the sacred “many helping hands” cow from the theorectical perspective because it will never happen to them.
about 5 years ago
Certainly the millions invested (and lost) overseas could have been better spent on “welfare” for the country.
So maybe it’s a tradeoff between the search for future wealth and security versus present needs.
Or it could also due to the fact that “meritocracy” aka eliitism has taken us too far down the wrong road that we’re becoming cold and heartless. Last time, HDB flats though older and simpler, had the kampong feel. But now it’s more of everyone hiding behing their doors. It’s all about me, me, me nowadays. With stress on materialism rather than relationships. Has Singapore progressed in the sense that is has become a happier, or sadder nation?
about 5 years ago
Hi Hezon,
People may turn cold and heartless, but a government can never do that. If a government turns cold and heartless, we can all get ready to say our last words. It is harder to change the mindsets of the ppoulation compared to changing the mindset of a government. And, with the government taking the lead, the chances of successfully changing the society into a more caring one would certainly be higher than leaving it to chance.
about 5 years ago
Instead of sending all our “Elite” secondary and JC students overseas for study tours (their parents can pay for their holidays anytime) or even to local old folks home where everything is “managed”. Why don’t inland revenue department give them data on the bottom 10%, 20% and 30% of the population. Assign them a sociology researcher, get these “Elite” students to interview these people at the bottom, find out how effective or ineffective has government policies been for them. What policies should be changed or modified. Let these students come out with recommendations that are supported by proper, in-depth and rigorous research.
I am sure we may see refreshing or bold recommendations that paid career civil servants dare not, or do not have the time to put forward. To get a balance report, get LTK, CST, Tharman, and VBalakrishnan to guide them. Do it in a non-partisan way. If PAP is serious about hearing the unvarnished truth, might as well make LTK and CST earn their MP’s pay. Heck, get Sylvia Lim into the act as well, are we paying her an MP’s pay too?
The downside of course is that some of these Elites may join the other side, then again, instead of going to Cambodia, Laos, India, Nepal and come back thanking the PAP for delivering us the promise land, I think the opportunity to open the eyes of our “elites” to the social challenges in our own backyard is priceless. And, hopefully, they will learn some empathy as well.
Maybe WSM can do the research on “Derrick’s group and better understand why Derrick wrote what he wrote. There is a chance for WSM to be a good MP yet or maybe even PM!
about 6 months ago
Is a URL for copyrighted web content also covered by the copyright?