Chapter Twenty Two
Toward a History of Engaged Buddhism in Singapore
Jack Meng-Tat Chia
A
s a young man growing up in Singapore, I often heard it said that
Singaporeans are apathetic citizens – that they are often, if not always,
ambivalent about politics, state policies, and social issues.1 Nonetheless,
I never thought I would write a paper to reconsider the label of the apathetic
Singaporean as a myth. Ironically, my inspiration for this paper came not from
a study of Singapore history, but from my research on Buddhism in Southeast
Asia. I noticed that many Buddhists in Southeast Asian countries are active
citizens who are socially engaged with some of the prevalent issues of the day –
education, environmentalism, human rights, social justice.
Engaged Buddhism is a concept which was coined by the Vietnamese activist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, in the 1960s. Writing during the Vietnam War, he
suggested that Buddhists should be socially engaged and concerned with contemporary issues.2 The term later became popular among scholars of Buddhist
Studies. One of the seminal works on Engaged Buddhism is an edited volume
by Christopher Queen and Sallie King (1996). It argues that “Buddhism in
contemporary Asia means energetic engagement with social and political issues
and crises at least as much as it means monastic or meditative withdrawal.”3 The
book points out that engaged Buddhists were involved in non-violent activist
movements to address economic, social, political, and spiritual needs. This book
made me wonder to what extent, if any, Singaporean Buddhists were active and
socially engaged citizens like their counterparts in other parts of Southeast Asia?
If so, what motivated them to act this way?
This chapter will focus on the role of Venerable Yen Pei (Yanpei 演培, 1917-1996)
and the Singapore Buddhist Welfare Services (Xinjiapo fojiao fuli xiehui 新加坡
佛教福利協會). First, I argue that socially engaged Buddhists such as Yen Pei were
concerned about contemporary issues: they were active promoters of religious
philanthropy and social welfare. Second, I want to emphasise the importance
of socially engaged religious activities in the history of Singapore. Such a study
offers new insights into social activism in Singapore and helps debunk the myth
of an apathetic citizenry.
230
Living with Myths in Singapore
A close look at Yen Pei’s social activism reveals two characteristics of engaged
Buddhism. First, Yen Pei relied on his broad knowledge and interpretation
of Buddhist teachings to justify his social welfare work. He was quick to use
Buddhist ideas of compassion, loving-kindness, and the precept of not taking
intoxicants as practical solutions to social issues, including elderly care, organ
donation and transplant, as well as drug rehabilitation. The idea of Humanistic
Buddhism (or Human Realm Buddhism, renjian fojiao 人間佛教), that centres on
putting one’s faith into action for the betterment and improvement of humanity,
was an important source of motivation for Yen Pei and other socially engaged
Buddhists in Singapore. At a spiritual level, proponents of Humanistic Buddhism
believe that enlightenment can be achieved in this world. One of the ways to
construct such a this-worldly ‘pureland’ is to be an active citizen in addressing
contemporary issues.
Engaged Buddhism in Singapore
The social activism of the Buddhist community has to be contextualised within
the history of Buddhism in Singapore and beyond. According to Vivienne Wee,
Buddhism was on the one hand a canonical religion, and on the other, a Chinese
religion. Although approximately 50 percent of the Singapore population declared
themselves as ‘Buddhists’, and used a common religious label, historically they did
not ‘share a unitary religion’.4 Following the independence of Singapore, however,
the establishment of a strong developmental state, rapid economic growth, a rise
in the literacy rate, and the growth of evangelical Christianity forced Buddhism
to adapt and cater to the various modern needs of the believers, the society, and
the state. In her important study on Buddhism in Singapore, Kuah-Pearce Khun
Eng traces the process of ‘Buddhicisation’ of Chinese religious syncretism, leading to a movement towards Reformist Buddhism within the Chinese community
since the 1980s. She observed that 65% of Buddhists now regard themselves as
Reformists. Kuah-Pearce argues that ‘the agents responsible for transforming
the religious landscape of the Singapore Chinese include the Singapore state, the
Buddhist Sangha and the Reformist Buddhist within the community’.5
According to Kuah-Pearce, the activities of Reformist Buddhists span both
the religious and secular domains. In the former, there are six types of activities,
namely, disseminating Buddhist scriptural knowledge, fostering broad participation, educating committed Buddhist followers, engaging in missionary and
proselytising work, putting faith into actual practice and action, and legitimising
Chapter Twenty Two
231
Vesak Day as a public holiday. Within the secular domain, Reformist Buddhists
organise and promote socio-cultural and welfare activities.6 These activities
include contributions to charity and welfare work as well as participating in nongovernmental organisations. Many Reformist Buddhists believe that Buddhist
doctrines and principles can be incorporated into social activism and adapted
to the needs of contemporary society.7 They form, as I will argue, the core of the
engaged Buddhist community in Singapore. They are well-versed in Buddhist
doctrine, practice religious proselytisation, and engage in social activism.
Yen Pei was one of the prominent socially engaged Buddhist monks involved
in progressive Buddhist ideas and welfare works in Singapore. His life and work
highlights the international and national forces that shaped Buddhist social
activism. Born in 1917 in Jiangsu province in China, he became a monk at a
young age. After receiving his higher ordination, Yen Pei’s master recognised
his potential and wanted him to succeed as abbot of the temple. But Yen Pei did
not like the idea of becoming a temple administrator and wished to further his
studies to become a Buddhist Studies scholar. Therefore, the young monk left
the temple and travelled south to Xiamen in Fujian province to be enrolled in
the Minnan Buddhist Institute (Minnan foxue yuan 閩南佛學院), one of the most
progressive Buddhist seminaries during the Republican period (1912-1949). He
became a student of the renowned Buddhist reformer Taixu (太虛, 1890-1947),
who was actively promoting the concept of “Human-life Buddhism” (rensheng
fojiao 人生佛教).8 Yen Pei was influenced by these ideas that highlighted the need
to make Buddhism relevant to modern society.
Later, Yen Pei was inspired by Humanistic Buddhism, which integrates
Buddhist doctrines into everyday life and shifts the focus of Buddhist practices
from other-worldly salvation to this-worldly spiritual pursuits. After graduating from Minnan Buddhist Institute, Yen Pei became a student of renowned
Buddhist thinker Yinshun (印順, 1906-2005), a former student of Taixu, best
known for his works on Humanistic Buddhism, which had a decisive influence
on a future generation of Chinese Buddhist monastics.9 When the Chinese Civil
War broke out, Yen Pei and Yinshun left mainland China for Hong Kong, before
going to Taiwan in the early 1950s. Yen Pei later became the abbot of Shandao
Monastery (Shandao si 善導寺) in Taipei from 1956 to 1959.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Yen Pei was invited to give several Dharma
talks in Southeast Asia.10 During his trips, he was warmly received and invited
to reside and teach in Malaya and Singapore. In 1963, Yen Pei decided to settle
in Singapore and became the abbot of Leng Foong Prajna Auditorium (Lingfeng
232
Living with Myths in Singapore
bore jiangtang 靈峰般若講堂). During his tenure as abbot, Yen Pei was an active
Dharma teacher and promoter of Humanistic Buddhism. He was a prolific
scholar who produced a 34-volume collection of essays under the title Collected
Works of Mindful Observation (Diguan quanji 諦觀全集).11 He also renovated and
expanded the Leng Foong Prajna Auditorium into a modern centre for Buddhist
studies in Singapore.12
Singapore Buddhist Welfare Services
Yen Pei’s social activism is better understood against the wider context of
Singapore society at the time. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the People’s
Action Party (PAP) government played a dominant role in transforming the
physical, economic, and social landscape of Singapore. The developmental state
introduced its modernisation program, including industrialisation, infrastructural growth, public housing, education and industrial training, and population
control, which had an immense impact on the population. 13 Between 1965 and
1985, Singapore experienced rapid economic growth and was transformed from
a trading port to a major manufacturing hub in the region.14 The rapid economic
development precipitated a rise in the cost of living and the stratification of
Singapore society. As Shirley Yee and Chua Beng Huat point out, sustained
economic growth gave rise to a growing class consciousness in the early 1990s.
Perceptions of large inequalities of wealth emerged, as symbolic goods such as
cars and private property became out of reach of the working class. Furthermore,
incomes diverged between employees in the highly skilled, knowledge-based
professions and those involved in less skilled, blue-collar work. Consequently,
with rising costs of living in the 1980s, the lower-income group experienced
much economic deterioration.15 After the 1991 elections, Deputy Prime Minister
Lee Hsien Loong admitted that ‘between 1972 and 1988, while the bottom 20%
of the workforce had their incomes improved by 3.7%, the top 20% had theirs
improved by 4.2%’.16 The economic effects had wide-ranging social repercussions.
In the 1960s and 70s, most Buddhist organisations in Singapore dispensed
charity on an ad hoc basis. A handful of monastics, however, recognised the need
to help the poor and needy by establishing Buddhist welfare organisations. For
instance, Venerable Siong Khye (Changkai 常凱, 1901-1994), a close colleague
of Yen Pei, founded the Singapore Buddhist Free Clinic (Xinjiapo fojiao shizhen
suo 新加坡佛教施診所) in 1969 to offer free medical treatment for lower income
patients.17 As a firm believer in Humanistic Buddhism, Yen Pei saw the need for
Chapter Twenty Two
233
Buddhists to be socially engaged, particularly to address the economic deterioration of the lower income group in Singapore society. He considered the promotion
of social welfare as a way to ‘repay the gratitude of the country, society, senior
monastics, and lay supporters’ (baoda guojia, shehui, zhanglao, hufa de ende 報
答國家, 社會, 長老, 護法的恩德).18 With the help of his disciple Venerable Kuan Yan
寬嚴, Yen Pei gave a Dharma talk to raise funds for the organisation. The SBWS
was officially registered as a charitable religious organisation with the Registry
of Societies on 27 May 1981.19
The work of the SBWS falls into three major areas: elder care and filial
responsibility; organ donation and kidney dialysis; and drug prevention and
rehabilitation. During the late 1970s and 1980s, in response to the perceived
‘crisis of the welfare state’, the PAP government decided to scale back state subsidies and redistribution programs, following similar trends in Britain, western
Europe and the United States. Instead, the government emphasised individual
and family self-reliance to attain their own economic and social well-being.20
Consequently, the government provided social assistance on a selective, rather
than entitlement, basis. Later, it promoted the ‘many helping hands’ policy in
the early 1990s whereby welfare provision was defined as the joint responsibility
of the family, community, non-government groups, and the state.21 The government offered limited support to the unemployed, the poor aged, the ill, and the
disabled, while it would not seek to redistribute income from the affluent to the
poor. The government thus viewed poverty as a short-term problem which had
individual, rather than structural, causes.22
Concomitantly from 1975, there was a decline in the fertility rate and rise in
the proportion of the aged in Singapore. The number of the school-going population declined from a peak of 569,400 in 1970 to 418,800 in 1990 as the birth rate
declined over the two decades.23 At the same time, the ‘old dependency burden’,
defined as the proportion of those aged 60 and over, increased twofold from 3.8
per cent in 1957 to 7.2 per cent in 1980 and 8.4 per cent in 1990.24 In 1982, the
government formed the Committee on the Problems of the Aged to study the
impact of the greying population.25 In line with the government’s approach to
social welfare, the Committee’s report placed the onus of the issue on the family,
community and society. It emphasised the pivotal role of the family in providing
care for elderly, and the need to promote filial piety among young Singaporeans.26
In this context, Yen Pei was concerned with the welfare of poor and elderly
Singaporeans and to address a need that the government did not provide for.
He gave a series of sermons on the Buddhist perspective of elder care and filial
234
Living with Myths in Singapore
responsibility that were subsequently published in the SBWS’s monthly newsletter
Grace Monthly (Ci’en 慈恩).27 In one of his sermons, he argued that ‘Buddhism is
a religion that places utmost importance on filial piety 佛教是最重視孝道的宗教’.28
He also highlighted that many needy elderly were living below the poverty line.29
Concretely, Yen Pei led the SBWS’ active efforts in public assistance. Volunteers
conducted regular house visits to needy elderly in their flats and brought them
food and other daily necessities. In the month of March 1985 alone, SBWS distributed a total of 424 kilogrammes of rice, 469 packages of noodles, and public
assistance totalling $1,038.30
In January 1985, Yen Pei founded the Grace Lodge Home for the Aged (Ci’en
lin 慈恩林) to provide shelter for homeless female elderly, regardless of their race
and religion. The Home offered free residence, food, medical care, and physiotherapy for the residents. Both SBWS and the Grace Lodge were officially opened
a year later on 16 March 1986.31 At the opening ceremony, Deputy Prime Minister
Ong Teng Cheong commended Yen Pei ‘for the practical manner in which he
has translated the high ideals of Buddhism to meet the needs of the people’. He
also lauded the SBWS’ ‘management committee, members, volunteers, followers, and supporters’ for ‘contributing to the well-being of [Singapore] society’.
Ong also recognised the contributions of religious groups in ‘supplementing the
efforts of the government in meeting the needs of the aged and the aged sick’.32
Besides the aged, Yen Pei was also an active champion of organ donation. He
believed that such donation was in line with Buddhist teachings of compassion
and loving-kindness. Yen Pei encouraged the idea that ‘Buddhism encourages all
Buddhists to donate kidney or other useful internal organs to the sick. Buddhists
should participate actively in the launching of kidney donation’.33 To encourage
the Buddhist community, Yen Pei organised the Kidney Donation: Buddhist View
& Medical View seminar on 4 September 1983. While he presented the Buddhist
perspective, three doctors, Dr. Gwee Ah Leng, Dr. Ong Siew Chey, and Dr. Kwan
Kah Yee, discussed organ donation, transplant and kidney dialysis from medical
perspectives. The climax of the seminar was a talk by a kidney transplant patient
and a patient undergoing kidney dialysis treatment. At the end of the seminar,
305 people pledged their support for organ donation.34
Following the success of the seminar, Yen Pei organised a five-day Kidney
Care Exhibition at the World Trade Centre in December 1983. He believed that
‘prevention is better than cure’ 預防勝於治療. The exhibition aimed to generate
greater social awareness of a healthy lifestyle and diet to prevent kidney problems.
Chapter Twenty Two
235
Yen Pei also convened English-language and Chinese-language panels to discuss
kidney disease, prevention, and healthy living.35
A decade later, Yen Pei remained an advocate for organ donation and kidney
treatment. In 1992, he founded the Singapore Buddhist Welfare Services-National
Kidney Foundation Dialysis Centre in a residential estate at Block 114 Hougang
Avenue 1. SBWS became the first sponsor to bear the full cost of S$1.5 million
to build the National Kidney Foundation’s (NKF) fifth dialysis centre in the
northeastern part of Singapore. The organisation also pledged a long-term commitment to kidney patients and became the first to sponsor an annual S$700,000
running cost to support the dialysis centre. The centre was officially opened on
13 June 1992 by George Yeo, the Minister for Information and the Arts. It currently has 22 dialysis stations that can accommodate 132 kidney patients either
residing or working in Hougang and neighbouring districts. It also provides
subsidies and financial assistance to needy patients.36
A third concern for Yen Pei was drug abuse. In the 1970s, the problem of
young drug addicts became an issue of national concern. Young secondary school
students began to experiment with drugs like MX pills, and later, heroin. As
the number of addicts increased, the government argued for ‘a need for harsher
measures to tackle what it considered to be a situation that ‘had reached epidemic, alarming proportions’’.37 In 1971, the government established the Central
Narcotics Bureau—the primary drug enforcement agency in Singapore—to
counter the menace. A year later, the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association was
founded as a Voluntary Welfare Organisation to promote drug abuse prevention
in Singapore. At the time, there was only one government-run drug rehabilitation
centre on St. John’s Island and no halfway houses or aftercare services.38 Yen Pei
recognised the need for Buddhists to be aware of drug abuse and to support the
government’s efforts in combating the problem. In his sermons, he warned that
drug abuse is ‘harmful to one’s health’, ‘ruins a person’s future’, and ‘upsets the
peace and prosperity of the society’. He also stressed that the Buddhist precept
opposes intoxication.
Nonetheless, Yen Pei pointed out that Buddhists should be sympathetic to
former drug addicts and help them to overcome their ‘psychological and material
instabilities’.39 To support former drug addicts in their recovery, he established
Green Haven, the first and only Buddhist halfway house in Singapore in 1993.
SBWS fully funds and operates the institution. Green Haven provides a 6-to-12
month long residential rehabilitation and treatment program for former drug
236
Living with Myths in Singapore
addicts. It offers a wide range of services, including individual, family and group
counselling, enrichment courses, community services, aftercare services, and
religious, cultural and recreational activities. More importantly, Green Haven
assists former drug addicts in seeking both accommodation and employment
in the final phase of their rehabilitation program; this would help them return
to their family and reintegrate into society.40
Yen Pei passed away unexpectedly on November 11, 1996. More than 60,000
Buddhists showed up at his funeral to pay their respects. Hundreds of Buddhist
leaders and politicians attended the cremation ceremony at the Kong Meng San
Phor Kark See Monastery, including Senior Minister of State for Community
Development Ch’ng Jit Koon, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Ho Kah Leong, and
Member of Parliament for Changi, Teo Cheong Tee.41 Yen Pei’s disciple, Kuan
Yan, succeeded him as president of SBWS. The organisation continues to offer a
wide range of services that includes medical and nursing care, public education,
childcare, and other social welfare and community services.42
Epilogue
This chapter demonstrates that the Buddhist leaders of the SBWS were actively
engaged with social issues, helping to meet a need that the government did not
fulfil. Certainly, socially engaged Singaporean Buddhists were only involved in
philanthropy and social welfare, not in politically sensitive concerns over human
rights, the environment and labour issues as in other countries in Southeast
Asia. The nature of Buddhist activism in Singapore was limited by the political
context. The strict laws of the government prohibited civil society and religious
organisations from organising mass political movements. Rather than engaging
in militant confrontation with the government or antagonising the authorities
through public protest, Buddhist activists such as Yen Pei worked intimately
with the state to provide social welfare and community services.
In fact, the PAP government readily co-opted engaged Buddhists and was
pleased to endorse their efforts. In other words, engaged Buddhism was adapted
to the state of Singapore politics. Yen Pei seemed happy to collaborate with
the state authorities. He was a pioneer member and Buddhist representative of
the Singapore Presidential Council for Religious Harmony established under
the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act that was enacted in Parliament in
November 1990. He invited PAP ministers such as Ong Teng Cheong and George
Yeo to officiate the opening ceremonies of his social welfare organisations.It was
Chapter Twenty Two
237
no surprise that Yen Pei’s contributions to social activism was recognised and
honoured by the government. He was awarded the Public Service Medal (PBM)
in 1986 and the Public Service Star (BBM) in 1992.43
In the history of social activism, it is important to note that the Buddhists
were not the only religious community involved. Some Christian activists were
also concerned with poverty and labour rights in Singapore in a similar period
of history, sometimes utilising the more critical methodology of community
organisation. In 1980, working with activist lawyers, Catholic activists and social
workers set up the Geylang Catholic Centre to provide counselling, education,
and legal services to the poor and needy. Unfortunately, their social activism
was clamped down in May 1987 and the activists were alleged to be Marxist
conspirators and detained without trial.44 The efforts of the Law Society in the
1980s, discussed by Teo Soh Lung in this volume, represent another aspect of
social activism that did not collaborate with the government. It is therefore
worth asking what social activism could and could not be accepted under the
PAP government. This also raises the question of the achievements, as well as
the limits, of accepted religious social activism in postcolonial Singapore.
297
1975 conviction for rioting, as it was based on Phey’s testimony. See “In view of Phey Yew Kok’s judgment, Tan Wah Piow asks AG to quash his 1974 conviction”, 29 January 2016, http://theindependent.
sg/in-view-of-phey-yew-koks-judgment-tan-wah-piow-asks-ag-to-quash-his-1974-conviction/
16
C.M. Turnbull, A History of Singapore: 1819-1988 (Singapore : Oxford University Press 1989), 209.
17
Malayan Undergrad, 27 April 1957, 7.
Huang, “Positioning the student political activism of Singapore”, 403.
19
Simon S.C. Tay, “Towards a Singaporean Civil Society”, Southeast Asian Affairs, 1998: 255-256.
18
For Further Reading
Yeo Kim Wah, “Student Politics in University of Malaya, 1949-51”, Journal of Southeast Asian
Studies, 23 (2) September 1992: 346-380
Huang Jianli, “The Young Pathfinders: Portrayal of Student Political Activism”, in Paths Not Taken:
Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore, eds. Michael Barr & Carl A. Trocki (Singapore: NUS
Press 2008), 188-205.
Meredith Weiss. “Still with the people? The chequered path of student activism in Malaysia”, South
East Asia Research, 13 (3) November 2005: 287-332
Poh Soo Kai, Tan Jing Quee and Koh Kay Yew. The Fajar Generation: The University Socialist Club
and the Politics of Postwar Singapore (Petaling Jaya, Selangor: SIRD, 2010)
Meredith Weiss. Student Activism in Malaysia: Crucible, Mirror, Sideshow (Ithaca, New York;
Singapore: Cornell University, NUS Press 2011)
Loh Kah Seng, Edgar Liao, Seng Guo-quan, Lim Cheng-Tju, Tangled Strands of Modernity: The
University Socialist Club and the Contest for Malaya (Singapore; Amsterdam; Amsterdam
University Press; Singapore University Press 2012)
Toward a History of Engaged Buddhism in Singapore
1
See Loh Kah Seng’s chapter for a discussion on the myth of apathy.
Thich Nhat Hanh, Interbeing: Fourteen Guidelines for Engaged Buddhism (Berkeley, Calif.:
Parallax Press, 1993).
3
Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King, “Preface,” in Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation
Movements in Asia, ed. Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King (Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1996), ix.
4
Vivienne Wee, “‘Buddhism’ in Singapore,” in Understanding Singapore Society, ed. Ong Jin Hui,
Tong Chee Kiong and Tan Ern Ser (Singapore: Times Academic Press, 1997), 130-162.
5
Kuah-Pearce Khun Eng, State, Society and Religious Engineering: Towards a Reformist Buddhism
in Singapore (Singapore: Eastern Universities Press, 2003), 1.
6
Ibid., 233.
7
Jack Meng-Tat Chia and Robin Ming-Feng Chee, “Rebranding the Buddhist Faith: Reformist
Buddhism and Piety in Contemporary Singapore,” Explorations: A Graduate Student Journal
of Southeast Asian Studies 8 (Spring 2008), 1-9.
8
For a study of Taixu’s reforms, see Don A. Pittman, Toward a Modern Chinese Buddhism: Taixu’s
Reforms (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2001).
9
Charles Brewer Jones, Buddhism in Taiwan: Religion and the State, 1660-1990 (Honolulu: University
2
298
Living with Myths in Singapore
of Hawaii Press, 1999), chapter 4; Pittman, Modern Chinese Buddhism, 263-270.
Yen Pei’s travel accounts were later published in Yen Pei 演培, Nantian youhua 南天遊化 [Teaching
in the South] (Taipei: Tianhua, 1990).
11
A 12-volume sequel was subsequently published as A Sequel to the [Collected Works of] Mindful
Observation (Diguan xuji 諦觀續集).
12
Yen Pei 演培, Yige fanyu seng de zibai 一個凡愚僧的自白 [Confessions of an ordinary and foolish
monk] (Taipei: Zhengwen chubanshe, 1989), 493-507.
13
Shirley M.S. Yee and Chua Beng Huat, “Sociological Research: Following the Contours of Social
Issues,” in Singapore Studies II: Critical Surveys of the Humanities and Social Sciences, ed. Chua
Beng Huat (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1999), 230.
14
Carl A. Trocki, Singapore: Wealth, Power and the Culture of Control (London: Routledge, 2006), 107.
10
15
Yee and Chua, “Sociological Research,” 239.
Straits Times, July 30, 1991, quoted in Yee and Chua, “Sociological Research,” 239.
17
Y.D. Ong, Buddhism in Singapore: A Short Narrative History (Singapore: Skylark Publications,
2005), 123-124.
18
Yen Pei, Yige fanyu seng de zibai, 508.
19
Ibid., 510-511.
20
Chua Beng Huat, “Singapore: Growing Wealth, Poverty Avoidance and Management,” in
Developmental Pathways to Poverty Reduction, ed. Yusuf Bangura (New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2015), 205-206.
21
Ang Bee Lian, “The Soul of Nation Building in Singapore: Contributions from Social Work,” in
50 Years of Social Issues in Singapore, ed. David Chan (New Jersey: World Scientific, 2015), 142.
22
Philip Mendes, “An Australian Perspective on Singaporean Welfare Policy,” Social Work and
Society, 5 (1) 2007: 35.
23
Saw Swee-Hock, The Population of Singapore (Third Edition) (Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies, 2012), 36.
24
Ibid., 37-38. For distribution of Singapore’s population by age group from 1901 to 2010, see Saw,
The Population of Singapore, 37.
25
Olivia Goh, “Successful Ageing: A Review of Singapore’s Policy Approaches,” Ethos (1) October
2006: 16-17.
26
See Report on the Committee on the Problems of the Aged (Singapore: Ministry of Health, 1984).
27
See, for instance, Grace Monthly, July 1983; Grace Monthly, May 1984; Grace Monthly, June 1984;
Grace Monthly, May 1985; Grace Monthly, December 1985.
28
Grace Monthly, May 1985.
29
Singapore has never had an official poverty line. See Teo You Yenn’s chapter for a discussion on
poverty in Singapore; Grace Monthly, April 1985.
30
Grace Monthly, April 1985.
31
The opening ceremony marked the opening of the new SBWS and Grace Lodge premises on
105 Punggol Road.
32
Grace Monthly, March 1986.
33
Grace Monthly, August 1983.
34
Grace Monthly, September 1983.
35
Grace Monthly, December 1983.
16
299
36
Grace Monthly, December 1991. “SBWS-NKF Dialysis Centre,” accessed 11 April 2016, http://
www.sbws.org.sg/4f_nkf.html.
37
Noorman Abdullah, “Exploring Constructions of the ‘Drug Problem’ in Historical and
Contemporary Singapore,” New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies,7 (2) December 2005: 50.
38
“History of Drug Abuse & SANA”, accessed 11 April 2016, http://www.sana.org.sg/about-us/
history/; For a history of anti-drug movement in Singapore, see Tan Ooi Boon, Slaying The
Dragon: Singapore’s Fight Against Drugs (Singapore: SNP International Publishing Pte Ltd, 2006).
39
Grace Monthly, April 1983.
“Green Haven,” accessed 11 April 2016, http://www.sbws.org.sg/4l_gh.html.
41
The Straits Times, 17 November 1996.
42
“Our Services and Affiliates”, accessed 11 April 2016, http://www.sbws.org.sg/4o_sbws.html.
43
Xinlu 心路 [A journey within] (Singapore: Buddhist Cultural Centre, 1997), 82-83.
44
Michael Barr, “Marxists in Singapore? Lee Kuan Yew’s Campaign against Catholic Social Justice
Activists in the 1980s,” Critical Asian Studies,43 (3) 2010: 335-362; See also Fr. Guillaume
Arotçarena, Priest In Geylang: The Untold Story of the Geylang Catholic Centre (Singapore:
Ethos Books, 2015).
40
Poor people don’t like oats either: How Myths about Poverty and Wealth
Matter
1
This chapter draws from ongoing research on the experiences of being low-income in Singapore.
Between 2013 and 2015, I conducted fieldwork in two neighborhoods where residents live in
public rental flats. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) rent out the flats to residents
whose household monthly incomes are below S$1500. Based on the average household size in
such flats—2.4 persons (Singapore Department of Statistics 2014b)—this implies per capita
monthly income of roughly S$625. This is about a quarter of the median monthly household
income from work per capita (S$2,380 in 2014) (Singapore Department of Statistics 2014a). To
date, I have visited the neighborhoods seventy times and spoken with about a hundred people.
2
To ensure that money is spent “wisely,” vouchers are usually from supermarkets such as NTUC.
These vouchers may be stamped with the message, “No purchase of cigarettes or liquor allowed.”
3
As scholars have shown (Ash Amin, “Telescopic urbanism and the poor.” City: analysis of urban
trends, culture, theory, policy, action,17 (4) 2013:476-92; Timothy Mitchell, Rule of experts: Egypt,
techno-politics, modernity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); Tania Li, The will to
improve: governmentality, development, and the practice of politics (Durham: Duke University
Press, 2007)), “experts” of various stripes have had great influence in shaping how poverty and
development are defined, understood, and thus resolved.
4
Teo Youyenn, “Interrogating the Limits of Welfare Reforms in Singapore.” Development and
Change, 46 (1) 2015b:95-120.
5
Teo Youyenn, “Differentiated Deservedness: Governance through Familialist Social Policies in
Singapore.” TRaNS: Trans -Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 3 (1) 2015a:73-93.
6
Nancy Fraser, Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1989); Ruth Lister, “’She Has Other Duties’ - Women,
Citizenship and Social Security.” In Social Security and Social Change: New Challenges to the
Beveridge Model, ed. Sally Baldwin and Jane Falkingham (UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994),