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),