top of page

Case Study Two

In 2008, more than 1,400 Serangoon Gardens residents, alarmed at the prospect of having foreign workers as neighbours, signed a petition against the dormitory, which they handed to National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan.Read the following articles and links to find out more about the issue.
Straits Times article (adapted from http://www.ngejay.com/?p=560)

 

By Goh Chin Lian

 

It is evening and starting to drizzle. But Chartwell Park is a hive of activity. Residents with children in tow hurry to a brightly lit marquee, which is filling up fast with residents.

 

What has galvanised 250 of them on a Wednesday evening, three days ago, is the news that about 1,000 foreign workers may be housed in an unused school in their neighbourhood. With them are the neighbourhood committee members who had been collecting signatures over the past few days for a petition to oppose the proposal. Also, there is former PAP MP Chay Wai Chuen, who says: ‘I’m an interested party.’ A Serangoon Gardens resident, he too had signed the petition, which has more than 1,600 signatures from the 4,000 households in the immediate vicinity of the proposed dormitory. At around 7.30pm, the area’s MP, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, arrives, followed 15 minutes later by the leader of the Aljunied GRC team, Foreign Minister George Yeo.

 

Sheets of rain start to blow in.

 

Though he was to deliver a speech on developments in Malaysia and Thailand, Mr Yeo cuts to the quick. He says the dormitory issue will be discussed first. 

 

All eyes turn on Mrs Lim, who assures her constituents no decision has been made yet. Everything is at the ‘preliminary technical assessment stage’. But she also spells out the national concern: Singapore is facing a chronic shortage of housing for foreign workers.

It fails to impress the residents, who let fly their objections during the two-hour session. Their relentless pursuit of the issue forced other grouses, such as uncovered drains and overzealous parking attendants, to take a back seat.

 

Madam Lim Chor Yeow, 71, is the first to speak. The retired teacher has been living for 41 years in the estate. ‘No problem of crime, theft and robbery,’ she says. Now, she fears for her safety and that of others her age. Their children have moved out, leaving them with just the maids. MP Lim, who is also Senior Minister of State for Finance and Transport, agrees that security is a ‘valid concern’. 

 

A man who has been living for almost 40 years in the estate emphasises that he has nothing against foreign workers who have contributed ‘so much’ to national development. But he is miffed that ‘any sensible officer’ would think of setting up quarters for foreign workers in a residential estate despite security and social concerns.

 

Minister Yeo thanks him for being frank before he highlights a posting on his online Facebook that morning: Please do not, in our desire to protect our own neighbourhood, cast aspersions on foreign workers as if they were all beasts, murderers, robbers and so on. He also defends the civil servants. They are just doing their job, and it is a tough job, because nobody likes having a dormitory, columbarium, power station or sanitation works near his home.

 

As the downpour gets worse, a white-haired woman declares: ‘I braved this heavy rain. I’m a septuagenarian.’ She describes herself as a former educationist who reads the Bible and knows that God loves migrants, ‘but we have to think of the safety of our family’. She calculates: The dormitory could house 1,000 foreign workers in an estate of 4,000 people. They will make up one-fifth of the area’s total population. Wouldn’t they rush for the same bus services? What about the safety of older people like her?

 

Mr Yeo praises her. ‘You are one feisty septuagenarian. I certainly hope when I reach that status, I will still have that same energy and passion.’ He adds: ‘What you expressed are reasonable concerns.’

 

Mrs Rose Koh, 52, an administrative manager, asks MP Lim if she would do something about the feedback instead of just passing it on.

Minister Yeo notes that while the URA and National Development Ministry have the final say, he and Mrs Lim, as MPs, are working on the issue: ‘We are not just postmen and women transmitting your views,’ he adds. Like several others, Mrs L.S. Lim, 70, starts by stressing that she appreciates the contributions of foreign workers. They are not to be blamed. She blames the system: Why is no one looking for suitable places to house the workers away from all these inconveniences and insecurity that people feel? What about industrial estates where there are no residents? she asks.

 

Minister Yeo says he believes the planners are thinking along these lines.

 

All heads turn when a girl begins to speak. Serene Cai, 16, a Secondary 4 student, says she takes the bus at about 6am and returns home as late as 9pm. She asks: ‘If we meet with danger, what happens to us as there are no police to protect us?’ MP Lim replies: There are police patrols.

 

Ms Chan Mei Yi, 29, a business development manager, recounts an incident involving a foreign worker clearing debris. The man covered his face with a piece of cloth, showing only his eyes. ‘Every time my family members left the home, he’d stop working and look at us. But I don’t think he had ill intentions.’ Her mother had a word with his supervisor, and the man removed the cloth. After that, every time her family members passed by, he would stop his work, move to a corner and turn his back to them to show that he was not looking at them. ‘I don’t think foreign workers have ill intentions, but it makes us uncomfortable and these are things we need to think about,’ she adds.

 

A young man, who identified himself as Benjamin, had a similar experience when he was in his car with his maid. As he drove past some foreign workers, they stared at his maid. ‘Foreign workers are also human beings. They have emotional needs. They may feel lonely. I’m concerned for the general female population in Serangoon Gardens and for the maids,’ he says.

 

A construction contractor who calls himself Kelvin says he struggles to find a place to house his foreign workers. Yet, he opposes having the dormitory, which will put it two houses away from his home. He says he knows all about dormitories: A lot of half-naked men walking around. And no contractor can have 100 per cent control over their workers. He suggests housing them in Kranji, where he reckons there is empty land.

 

Jonathan Maximilian Wong, 19, a music student, worries for the safety of the girls of CHIJ Our Lady Of Good Counsel primary school as they wait for their school bus, and the children at a nearby kindergarten, taken there by their maids.

 

MP Lim seems confident the residents’ distress will make an impression on National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, as it did on her. She told reporters after the session that the residents’ arguments have helped reinforce her initial view of the situation, like whether the transport infrastructure can cope should the dormitory get the nod. She hopes their feedback will help Minister Mah understand their opposition is not based on an irrational dislike, but on ‘very sound concerns’. She also felt the way the Government officers got feedback gave residents the impression ‘as if the Government was doing it rather quietly and hoping nobody finds out, which I am quite sure is not their intention’.

 

Minister Yeo wrote in his blog that a police officer had casually asked for views on the dormitory, word spread and the neighbourhood committee alerted him and MP Lim. 

 

As the dialogue comes to a close, the rain eases and the crowd heads home. Some, like student Serene Cai, are not persuaded by the answers. But ex-civil servant E.T. Mohan Dass is more circumspect. The 60-year-old told The Straits Times: ‘We’ll have to wait and see. I hope that as the message has been strongly put forward, the MPs will do the same thing for us.’

 

chinlian@sph.com.sg

Wake-up call from dorm issue (The Straits Times, 17 October 2008, Page 32) 

 

By  Tan Hui Yee

 

They came, they protested and they walked away defeated. Serangoon Gardens residents who signed a petition against a dormitory for foreign workers in their neighbourhood were told two weeks ago that the plan would go ahead after all, albeit with mitigating measures such as having the facility house 600 instead of 1,000 workers and a new $2 million road to ease traffic congestion in the area.


Anxious to placate angry residents, the area’s Member of Parliament, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, spent three hours visiting them to address their fears that the low-skilled foreigners will soil their parks, clog up their streets as well as violate their children and womenfolk. The debate over whether such fears are founded seems moot now that the dormitory is a done deal. But the entire two-month-long episode bears important lessons on how such issues could be better handled.


In all likelihood, the fate of the former Serangoon Gardens Technical school was probably sealed as soon as the residents went public with their protest. Under the glare of media attention, it would have been almost impossible for the Government to shelve plans for the dormitory, however tentative the proposal had been before. Doing so would have sent the message to residents elsewhere that future such dormitories could be shunted far from their homes if they made enough noise. That would have been a tall order, given that about 80,000 to 100,000 of the roughly 580,000 foreign workers here are living in illegal or less than ideal accom-modation. And the number of those living in such conditions is set to increase if nothing is done to ease the housing crunch.


The Serangoon Gardens affair is just a microcosm of the larger debate on the extent to which Singapor-eans are prepared to accommodate and co-exist with the foreigners imported to do the work they shun. Due to a leak of information – the former Serangoon Gardens Technical School was only one of several state properties considered for temporary worker housing – residents there became the first community in recent times forced to confront their own attitudes towards foreign workers living in their midst.


The issue was even more controversial than usual because it challenged previous assumptions that only people living in distant Housing Board estates like Jurong or rundown shophouses in Little India would have to deal with living next door to foreign workers. Serangoon Gardens was neither. It was a gentrified landed housing area with popular eateries and its very own country club. ‘Why here?’ the Gardenites cried. ‘Why can’t we house foreign workers in the ‘usual’ places?’


In the Forum pages, and on online forums, enraged residents went as far as to call for the ministers preaching tolerance to lead by example and accept dormitories in the exclusive district of Bukit Timah, where many ministers live. Overnight, the lines were drawn in the sand: Some Gardenites called for the dormitory to be moved to the HDB heartlands, while public housing residents recoiled at the idea of their neighbourhoods being considered somehow less worthy of regard. And those Singaporeans expressing disgust at the xeno-phobia on display were promptly labelled as hypocrites by the embattled Gardenites. The uproar brought to the surface tensions that have lain latent for years and were formerly couched in platitudes.


On the flip side, the bare-knuckled debate was invaluable for the honesty that it reflected. It forced Sin-gaporeans to examine their own attitudes and reflect on the kind of adjustments they have to make in an in-creasingly globalised world. It compelled parties both for and against the dormitory to speak out, and fence-sitters to weigh in on the issue. The dust seems to have settled – for now – but is almost expected to be stirred up again when the Ministry of National Development announces the rest of ‘fewer than 10’ sites picked for foreign worker housing. The question, going forward, is whether the Government should stick to its current policy of keeping mum about its choice of such dormitory sites until they are selected.


Some may argue that the Serangoon Gardens uproar justifies its current practice, though one wonders if there are grounds for more openness about the process. Although such transparency could slow down poli-cymaking, it would also give laymen greater insight into the nation’s constraints. Singaporeans, as a matter of conditioning, have grown too used to being told about a decision after it has been cast in stone. We react to such decisions from a purely personal perspective because we are not consulted on the larger national issues beforehand.


Would the Serangoon Gardens debate have been more measured if the Government had been more upfront about its considerations?

 

Would residents, being more educated on the nation’s options, have been more open to living next door to foreign workers?


A lot of good can come out of this bruising affair, if we allow it.


tanhy@sph.com.sg

bottom of page