Download - 68€¦ · Misperceptions or Gaps: An Assessment of Low-Income Malay/Muslim Households’ 70 Perceptions of Social Assistance Provided by Malay/Muslim Organisations (AMP, 2012). However,

68Misperceptions or Gaps: An Assessment of Low-Income Malay/Muslim Households’ Perceptions of Social Assistance Provided by Malay/Muslim Organisations

Misperceptions or Gaps: An Assessment of Low-Income Malay/Muslim Households’ Perceptions of Social Assistance Provided by

Malay/Muslim Organisations

SITI ADRIANA BTE MUHAMAD RASIP

Abstract

In Singapore, Malay/Muslim organisations (MMOs) are commonly seen by Malay/Muslim (MM) households as responsible for undertaking efforts towards the socio-economic development of the MM community. Despite the MMOs’ efforts, some members of the MM community still view MMOs negatively and find them lacking. This study aims to juxtapose such common perceptions of MMOs against an examination of social assistance, based on data collected from 27 low-income MM households, in order to determine if these perceptions are misperceptions or genuinely reflect gaps that need to be addressed. This paper concludes that negative perceptions held by some of the MM households are misperceptions, based on a lack of information or clarity about the realities that the MMOs face. MMOs also face limitations in outreach due to limited resources and capabilities, which might have given rise to these negative perceptions as well.

Introduction

In Singapore, Malay/Muslim (MM) households commonly view Malay/Muslim organisations (MMOs) as bodies responsible for undertaking efforts towards the socio-economic development of the MM community. Even though the MMOs’ social assistance efforts are aimed at developing the MM community, a handful of members of the MM community still perceive them to be lacking. Some common criticisms of the MMOs include their lack of public outreach, their highly stringent requirements that render social assistance difficult to obtain, and the administrative hassle of applying for assistance. While there have been a few studies that examine the perceptions of the Malay/Muslims towards MMOs, these studies have often been one-sided, and have left out the perspectives of the MMOs. Hence, this research juxtaposes these commonly held perceptions towards MMOs against an examination of actual social assistance rendered to determine if these perceptions are

69 Heartbeats Volume 4

misperceptions or reflect existing gaps that need to be addressed. For the purposes of this research, I focus primarily on the perceptions of low-income MM households.

This research has three main objectives. First, I aim to draw insights into the level of engagement, experiences, and perceptions of low-income MM households vis-à-vis MMOs, to compare against existing literature on commonly held perceptions. Secondly, I aim to investigate the general experiences and challenges faced by the MMOs in their social development and assistance efforts, as well as their responses towards commonly held perceptions. Finally, this research juxtaposes past research against our data collected from MM households and MMOs to offer a more balanced judgment on whether these perceptions are misperceptions or reflect gaps that need to be addressed.

Literature Review

The Singapore government places great emphasis on the ‘many helping hands’ approach in terms of social service provision, which advocates the active involvement of non-state actors to meet the welfare needs of the disadvantaged or less privileged in Singapore (Yap, 2008). A part of this approach involves the disbursement of social assistance via community self-help organisations established along ethnic lines, with each ethnic self-help group responsible for the welfare of its own ethnic community (Wijeysingha, 2005). Many MMOs were established to assist the MM community. Formed in 1970, Pertapis is one of the oldest MMOs in Singapore to provide social services for the community. Likewise, the government-funded Yayasan Mendaki (Mendaki) was set up in 1982 to further the socio-economic development of the Malay/Muslims through social assistance and social empowerment programmes. The Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP) was also formed as an alternative independent organisation to provide thought leadership and social development programmes. In addition, although the organisation 4PM is heralded as a Malay literary youth organisation, it has recently started providing social services to youth at risk, and food rations to the needy in the community.

Despite the MMOs’ efforts in developing the MM community, the community has mixed attitudes towards the MMOs. In a survey commissioned by AMP in 2011 about the perceptions of the MM community, about 72 percent of the participants perceived the MMOs to be effective in providing community services to the society


(AMP, 2012). However, the Suara Musyawarah report, which sought to investigate the aspirations, successes, and challenges of the MM community through focus group discussions, brought forth grievances about the MMOs. It found that those individuals who were most in need of assistance were unaware of the social services or programmes available to them, despite the various modes of publicity (Suara Musyawarah, 2013). Some of the focus group participants also lamented the administrative hassle of filling out the forms and submitting various documents for the social services they were applying for, only to be informed that they were ineligible for the programme. They also mentioned that there were instances where frontline social service staff were condescending and displayed a judgmental attitude towards the applicants, which made them feel reluctant to seek help. The report also discovered that while the focus group participants acknowledged the significant contributions of MMOs, they “questioned the overall impact these MMOs had on the development of community over the years” (Suara Musyawarah, 2013).

Nevertheless, past research has examined these perceptions rather one-sidedly, without factoring in the positions and perspectives of the MMOs. Hence, this study aims to fill that gap by also documenting the general experience and challenges of the MMOs in administering social assistance and welfare for the MM community.

Methodology

This research involved the study of perceptions of low-income MM households towards MMOs in terms of social assistance. These perceptions were opinions or judgments formed based on past experiences that one had with MMOs, and hence might not be entirely representative in depicting realities. Nevertheless, such perceptions were important in shaping households’ attitudes and behaviours towards MMOs, including their level of engagement with the MMOs. Owing to the limited sample size, this study was more exploratory than conclusive.

I collected data on 27 low-income MM households who resided in rental flats in the eastern part of Singapore (see Appendix A for the profiles of the households). During my door-to-door house visits, I surveyed and interviewed members of these households to understand their engagement with and perceptions towards MMOs. Each household was asked a series of questions pertaining to their opinions on and perceptions of MMOs (see Appendix B for the interview questions). I examined the


data vis-à-vis existing literature, to explore the nuances within the commonly held perceptions towards MMOs.

I also investigated the perspectives of the MMOs and their general experiences and challenges. I conducted interviews with the representatives of 5 different MMOs, who had first-hand experiences with administering social assistance and development programmes to MM households (see Apppendix C for the interview questions). The interviews aimed to understand the MMOs’ general experiences and challenges faced in administering social assistance and executing development programmes, as well as their responses to some of the commonly held perceptions of MMOs. Table 1 outlines the MMOs involved in this study and a brief description of what they do.

MMO Description

Organisation A

• Self-help group formed in 1982 to empower the community through “excellence in education”

• Targets mainly the bottom 30 percent of the MM population, specifically families with school-going children

• Programmes are mostly developmental and preventive in nature, to provide early assistance to the beneficiaries

Organisation B • Has religious affiliations• Social assistance programmes focus on the disbursement of zakats (tithes)

and complementary socio-economic empowerment schemes

Organisation C

• Heralds itself as a thought leader for the community, providing solutions and mobilising stakeholders for the advancement of the MM community

• Social development programmes include an all-encompassing family empowerment scheme, micro-business schemes for housewives, and family counselling services

Organisation D • Formed in 1970 to address social issues in the MM community• Runs a few homes for the elderly, ex-offenders, at-risk youth, and children

Organisation E• Works with youth to ensure that at-risk youth attend and remain in school,

and provides food rations and empowerment programmes for families

Table 1. Description of the five MMOs involved in this study

From these interviews, insights were generated and then juxtaposed against the perceptions data from the 27 MM households, to yield a more informed analysis of these perceptions.


Results

Perceptions of Low-Income MM Families

Profile of respondents. The respondents involved were 27 low-income households living in rental flats in the eastern part of Singapore. Each household had a per capita income of not more than $715 and was receiving social assistance. $715 exceeded the threshold of $650 set by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) for social assistance, in the form of ComCare Short-to-Medium Assistance, by 10 percent. Table 2 summarises the various categories that the households might be classified under, and their corresponding percentages out of all the households involved. It is important to note that a household might fall under more than one of these categories.

Category Percentage (Count)

Household with school-going children 22.2 (6)

Household with elderly member(s) 40.7 (11)

Single-parent household 18.5 (5)

Household with multi-generational family 18.5 (5)

Household that receives caregiving 3.7 (1)

Reconstituted family 3.7 (1)

Table 2. Categories of households and their corresponding percentages

Out of the 27 households, 11 (40.7 percent) households were receiving social assistance from MMOs at the time of questioning. 3 households (11.1 percent) had received social assistance from MMOs in the past. While different household categories faced different needs in terms of social assistance, the social assistance that they received from MMOs was often monetary in nature, as summarised in Table 3 below. Amongst the 14 households who had received MMO social assistance, the number and proportion of households in receipt of each social assistance type are reflected in Table 3. Note that some households might have benefited from more than one type of social assistance.


Organisation Type of social assistance Number of recipients involved

Percentage out of 14 households

Organisation A

Tuition scheme for school-going children

1 7.1

Dry food rations 2 14.3

Laptop scheme for school-going children

1 7.1

Organisation B

Monthly monetary social assistance 6 42.9

Food vouchers 6 42.9

One-time donation during Hari Raya 1 7.1

Free religious classes for children 2 14.3

Organisation C NTUC supermarket vouchers 1 7.1

Organisation E Giant supermarket vouchers 1 7.1

Table 3. Types of social assistance received from MMOs

On the other hand, 13 (48.1 percent) households had not received any social assistance from MMOs. Table 4 lists the reasons cited by these households for not having received social assistance from MMOs. It is important to note that each household might have cited more than one reason. Amongst the 13 households that had not received MMO social assistance, the numbers and percentages of households citing each reason are reflected in Table 4.

Reason givenNumber of non-

recipients involvedPercentage out of

13 households

Not aware of assistance available and how to apply 7 53.8

Inconvenient; hard for elderly to walk 2 15.4

Inconvenient and troublesome; too many documents with no guarantee of getting assistance

3 23.1

Felt that they were self-sufficient 1 7.7

Had applied but was unsuccessful 1 7.7

No reason given 1 7.7

Table 4. Reasons cited for not having received social assistance from MMOs

Recipients’ experiences with MMOs. The 14 households that had received social assistance before were asked to rate if their experiences and interactions with the respective MMOs were positive, mixed, or negative. Their experiences are summarised in Table 5.


Response Reason Number of responsesPercentage out of

14 households

Positive Smooth and hassle-free application 7 50.0

MixedGood initial experience but different subsequent treatment

1 7.1

Negative

Application for assistance was rejected

2 14.3

Received no response with regard to application status

2 14.3

Limitations in assistance provided 4 28.6

Note: Each household could have had more than one response if they had interactions with more than one MMO

Table 5. Summary of experience with MMOs

The limitations in assistance included, for example, restricted choice of stores in the use of vouchers, and hassle in collecting food rations from the respective MMOs.

Overall impression of MMOs. All the households were asked if they thought the MMOs had done enough to help MM households in need. They were given the options “Yes”, “No”, and “Neutral”. 10 (37.0 percent) households answered “Yes”, 11 households (40.7 percent) answered “No”, and 6 households (22.2 percent) answered “Neutral”.

When asked what other efforts MMOs could undertake to better help the MM community, the households offered a variety of suggestions, summarised in Table 6.

Responses Number of responsesPercentage out of

27 households

Assistance in the form of NTUC FairPrice vouchers 5 18.5

Increased assistance for daily living expenses 3 11.1

More outreach to increase awareness of MMOs, and home visits to find out more about living conditions of those residing in rental flats

4 14.8

Regular food rations 5 18.5

Long-term sustained efforts with family instead of one-time food assistance during festive periods

1 3.7

Table 6. Other efforts that MMOs could undertake to help the MM community


When asked for their general comments on MMOs, 5 households (18.5 percent) stated that MMOs should aim to establish more presence and awareness among the households. 3 of them (11.1 percent) compared MMOs to non-MMOs, stating their perceptions that Christian and Buddhist organisations were more willing to offer unconditional help. 2 households (7.4 percent) felt that MMOs should conduct house visits to provide assistance that truly addressed the households’ needs. 1 household felt that there was a mismatch between what the households needed and what the MMOs provided: for example, instant noodles had been given to the elderly as part of the food rations, which might be inappropriate given the elderly’s health issues. 2 households (7.4 percent) felt that MMOs were not very sincere and seemed reluctant in helping them. Meanwhile, 3 households (11.1 percent) claimed that MMOs were very stringent in their criteria for social assistance.

Overall analysis. The findings of this study appear to corroborate with past research findings on the MM community’s perceptions of MMOs. There appears to be inadequate awareness amongst low-income MM households of MMOs and the social assistance that they provide. To reiterate, 53.8 percent of households interviewed that had not received any assistance were unaware of the social assistance offered by MMOs and did not know how to apply for them. This largely corroborates the observation in the Suara Musyawarah report of MM households’ lack of awareness of MMOs and their social assistance. Inconvenience due to mobility issues and administrative hassle with no guarantee of success were reasons cited by interviewed households for not applying for MMO social assistance. Similarly, administrative hassle was also a key reason cited in the Suara Musyawarah report.

Half of the interviewed households who had received MMO social assistance said that their experience had been positive, as they were hassle-free and smooth. The other half said that their experience had been negative. Some of the reasons underlying the negative experiences included limitations in the services provided, rejected applications, and non-response to applications.

In terms of their overall impressions of MMOs, about 37.0 percent of the households interviewed thought that MMOs had done enough to help the MM community, while 40.7 percent thought that more could be done to help the community. Suggestions included increased outreach efforts, home visits to identify the real needs of the community and to prevent mismatch between needs and assistance offered, and more regular and sustained efforts in providing social assistance.


Table 7 summarises the insights that would be used to compare against the perspectives of the MMOs.

Insights gathered from data

A1A number of MM households were not aware of the social assistance offered by MMOs and how to apply for them.

A2Hence, MMOs should improve outreach to the MM community to establish more presence, and to raise awareness of their social assistance programmes and efforts.

BInconvenience due to mobility issues made it difficult for the elderly to commute to the MMOs for social assistance.

C1Inconvenience due to the administrative hassle of submitting too many documents discouraged some households from seeking social assistance from the MMOs.

C2Some households’ negative experience with some MMOs might have been due to rejection following the hassle of applying for social assistance, or non-response to application.

D Some MMOs were very stringent in their qualification criteria for social assistance.

ESome MMOs were perceived to be insincere and reluctant, when the households tried to apply for social assistance.

FSome households perceived limitations in the social assistance given out; MMOs should therefore conduct house visits to determine the real needs of the MM community

Table 7. Summary of insights drawn from interviews with MM households

Perspectives and Experiences of MMOs

Profiles of organisations interviewed. Each MMO was asked to highlight their social assistance and development programmes that were of relevance to low-income families residing in rental flats. Table 8 presents a brief description of the relevant social assistance and development programmes offered by each MMO.


Organisation Programme Details

Organisation A

• Tuition fee waiver for school-going children from low-income MM households• Support groups for low-income MM households to share best practices and provide

emotional support• Literacy and numeracy programmes to equip parents with skills to teach their

children

Organisation B

• Monthly monetary assistance varying from short-term assistance (3–6 months) to long-term assistance for the elderly, people with disabilities, and the chronically ill

• Economic empowerment through coaching, training, educational assistance, and religious programmes to help beneficiaries achieve self-sufficiency

• Network of volunteers who conduct home visits to befriend beneficiaries

Organisation C• Family-based all-encompassing scheme that involves economic empowerment and

socio-educational programmes, including micro-business scheme and financial support for tuition

Organisation D• Empowerment and motivational workshops for beneficiaries• Free tuition for school-going children • Food rations programme

Organisation E• Three- to six-month long food rations programme • Economic empowerment programme in conjunction with the food ration

programme, e.g. sending beneficiaries for upgrading courses

Table 8. Details of relevant social assistance and development programmes offered by MMOs

Experiences of and challenges faced by MMOs. During the interviews, the MMOs were asked to identify their general experiences and challenges when administering the relevant social assistance and development programmes to low-income MM households, specifically in the following areas: (a) assessed impact of their programmes, (b) operational delivery of social development and assistance programmes, (c) community outreach efforts to raise awareness of social development and assistance programmes, (d) administrative and manpower issues in executing these programmes.

Assessed impact of programmes. The interviewed representative of Organisation A said that his organisation undertook a yearly evaluation and review to assess if their objectives had been met. He asserted that the tuition scheme had helped in improving the academic results of children from low-income MM households, by a grade jump on average. The support groups that they facilitated among low-income families met with generally good feedback and were well-received by the beneficiaries.


Organisation B also reviewed its programmes and eligibility criteria annually to continue providing “appropriate support to the vulnerable families”. They also looked into the effectiveness of their programmes through feedback from the beneficiaries of their programmes. Most importantly, the long-term beneficiaries who had experienced the changes that followed from these reviews had provided positive feedback about these changes. At the time of writing, out of the 1,008 families that had participated in Organisation B’s programmes, 738 families had completed the programme and were no longer receiving financial assistance from it.

Similarly, Organisation C had an assessment scorecard to track the progress and achievements of the families that they worked with every year (e.g., whether the families managed their income and expenses well, and whether they paid bills on time). Organisation C also tracked the academic progress of the children in these families. The representative of Organisation C shared that their micro-business scheme had a few success cases. For instance, mothers who had not been working managed to start their own businesses and earned some income to tide their families over their financial situations. One point worth noting is that since the funding for each family came from a private donor, the organisation had to be held accountable to the donors for the progress of the families.

Organisation D, on the other hand, did not have a proper assessment procedure for reviewing the impact that their programmes had on their beneficiaries. Organisation D’s representative pointed out that the existence of programmes such as empowerment workshops and free tuition for children, and beneficiaries’ participation in these programmes, should already be considered successes.

Organisation E’s food rations programme had been successful, with beneficiaries continually coming and returning to the organisation for help. Nevertheless, this situation also proved challenging: there was a limit to the number of beneficiaries that the organisation could help, and not every applicant was eligible for the programme.

Operational delivery of programmes. Operational delivery consists of two components. The first component includes the administrative, manpower, and financial aspects of the organisation’s services. The second component lies in the execution of the programmes and services themselves.

The representative of Organisation A mentioned that all their staff in charge of


managing beneficiaries were well-trained, such that MM households would even call beyond office hours for assistance. The organisation viewed this as a sign of trust that the beneficiaries had in it. Nevertheless, for the organization, the main challenge was manpower. The organisation only had about 100 officers and relied heavily on partner agencies and volunteers to execute the various programmes. The representative also highlighted the need for volunteers to be sufficiently experienced to help out with the programmes; however, this need was difficult to meet. Retaining the volunteers was also difficult, since they often volunteered episodically and did not commit for the long term. The organisation tried to circumvent this problem by developing good coordination and collaboration with other partner agencies and vendors in order to carry out the programmes and social assistance. The representative mentioned that there were people in the MM community who were not wholeheartedly receptive of the programmes. Nevertheless, the organisation did not face significant financial limitations, as it was largely government-funded. Additionally, the organisation did receive donations for scholarships and bursaries from other organisations and individuals.

Organisation B had decentralised its delivery of social assistance to the various mosques, and had a social development officer in each mosque to oversee the disbursement of social assistance. The organisation selected these officers through proper intake assessment and endeavoured to build the capabilities of these officers through training grants and engagements, so as to provide a positive experience for applicants.

Organisation C’s representative said that the disbursement and execution of social assistance was generally quite smooth and manageable. There were only five people managing these operations, handling about 120 beneficiaries altogether. These programmes were highly personal, catering to each family’s specific needs. Should the families need financial help to get food or provisions from the supermarket, the organisation would also help these families out. Families with school-going children who required tuition were also assisted by the organisation. The organisation ran mainly on funds from a limited number of donors and partially on funds from the government. Consequently, it had to keep their pool of beneficiaries small.

For Organisation D, getting beneficiaries to attend its empowerment workshops was a challenge. One way to increase attendance was to offer incentives in the form of vouchers. One plausible reason for this difficulty is that these workshops were


often planned only one week in advance, which gave potential attendees short notice. Students also did not attend the free tuition programmes very regularly; there were instances where more volunteer tutors than students present. The organisation did not face much financial difficulty; the representative shared that they had a considerable pool of donors and were partially government-funded.

Organisation E’s representative mentioned that the organisation’s manpower of about five social and case workers could generally cope with the number of beneficiaries it had. However, its small size limited the number of beneficiaries that it could work with. As it had an Institution of Public Character (IPC) status, the funding that it received came mostly from fundraising efforts or donations. Nevertheless, the funds raised were often limited, constraining the number of people that the organisation could help.

Community outreach efforts. Organisation A realised that its main office’s location was largely inaccessible to the MM community. The organisation undertook efforts to improve its accessibility to households in need, by setting up satellite centres in various parts of Singapore. These centres had been in operation for about three to four years, and were tasked with conducting outreach to the MM households living in the respective areas through house visits. This was to address the lack of awareness among MM households of the social assistance and programmes available to them and to reach out to MM households who might be keen to apply for social assistance. The organisation also used mainstream media such as radio and television to make their social assistance programmes known.

Similarly, Organisation B decentralised its delivery of social assistance to the mosques. On top of that, it maintained a strong network of grassroots clubs, agencies, and schools to raise awareness of its programmes. It also raised awareness via social development exhibition panels in mosques and mainstream media (e.g., television) to promote its programmes and services, especially during the fasting month of Ramadhan. Additionally, it kept a lookout for cases featured in social media.

The representative of Organisation C mentioned that the organisation had an annual target of 100 clients, but the actual number had gone up to 120 clients per year. She agreed that conducting outreach to low-income MM households would be good; however, the organisation did not have the requisite manpower. Nevertheless, she pointed out that catering to a small number of beneficiaries comprehensively


was her organisation’s niche, and that it was important to maintain the quality of services offered.

Organisation D reached out to the community via social media channels such as Facebook. However, the representative of the organisation felt that this method was limited in the extent of outreach achievable and in raising awareness of available social assistance to MM households.

Organisation E kept its client pool limited to its existing beneficiaries, former beneficiaries, and referrals from other programmes. It did not intend to conduct active outreach to encourage more households to apply for its programme, as it had limited funding. The representative of the organisation asserted that “we don’t want to make it loud because we only want to help 150 at a time”. Similar to Organisation C, Organisation E did not want to spread its resources and efforts too thin, but sought to maintain the quality of services provided.

Overall Analysis and Theoretical Propositions

The MMO representatives were asked for their comments on and responses to some of the MM households’ commonly held perceptions of MMOs. The comments and responses of the MMO representatives helped to generate insights into whether these perceptions were mere misperceptions or reflected gaps that truly needed to be addressed.

The juxtaposition of MM households’ perceptions and MMO’s comments and responses resulted in 6 theoretical propositions that could explain the perceptions in distinct ways. These theoretical propositions (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b) are detailed below.

Theoretical proposition 1a. If an MMO has more resources, it would be able to conduct more outreach and raise greater awareness of its social assistance and development programmes.

This theoretical proposition addresses insights A1, A2, and B in Table 7. MMOs varied in their capabilities to conduct outreach due to different constraints in resources and manpower, leading to different qualities of awareness campaigns. This might have been a contributing factor to households’ limited awareness of certain social assistance and development programmes.


Theoretical proposition 1b. If an MMO has more resources, it would be able to reach out to more clients and offer them more social assistance.

Since Organisation A had more resources and manpower, it was able to expand its reach through the creation of satellite centres to decentralise the provision of social assistance. Thus, MM households that faced difficulties with travelling long distances could more easily apply for social assistance (see insight B in Table 7). Also, these satellite centres conducted active outreach through walkabouts, to raise awareness of the organisation’s social assistance programmes. Similarly, Organisation B made use of community structures such as mosques to deliver social assistance and raise awareness. By contrast, Organisations C and E were more limited in terms of resources, and had to keep their pools of clients small. Active outreach was thus not their priority. Nevertheless, they continued accepting MM households who were in dire need of assistance.

Theoretical proposition 2a. If an MMO has limited funding, it would be impelled to keep its client pool small and to reject those who are ineligible for the assistance and programmes, even though these applicants might have gone through the administrative hassle of submitting their applications.

This proposition addresses insights C1, C2, D, and E in Table 7. Some MMOs were limited by their funds and had to prioritise helping households who needed assistance the most, and rejecting a large number of other applications. This rejection might have contributed to the perception that MMOs were stringent in processing applications or reluctant to provide assistance readily (insights D and E in Table 7). Another factor that might have contributed to these perceptions was the households’ lack of awareness that MMOs aimed to complement national social assistance schemes and not to be the main source of assistance to the households. Some MMOs also faced difficulties in communicating to clients the limitations that they faced in providing social assistance, and in managing the sense of entitlement amongst some of their clients.

Theoretical proposition 2b. If an MMO is unable to admit new MM households to its programme, it would try its best to refer the households to other organisations and ensure that their needs are met.

In instances where an MMO was unable to provide direct help or where the MM household applying for social assistance was rejected due to ineligibility, the


MMO would often make good-faith efforts to discuss the issue with the household or refer the household to other viable organisations. This situation was true of almost all the MMOs interviewed in this study. For example, since Organisation E did not conduct family counselling, it often referred households who needed such services to the nearest family service centre. Some households who were successful in their first applications might face rejection for subsequent applications due to changes in focus and criteria of the programmes offered. For example, Organisation E’s focus and criteria for the food rations and empowerment programmes varied from year to year. In 2015, the focus was on families with school-going children. But in 2014, the focus was on empowering family members to attend upgrading courses in order for them to seek employment.

Theoretical proposition 3a. An MMO can improve its understanding of MM households’ needs and develop better policies and programmes.

This proposition mainly addresses insight F in Table 7. The representative of Organisation D agreed that more could be done to look into the needs of the MM households, and to come up with better programmes that could effectively address their needs. For example, Organisation D gave out standard packs of food rations, where the quantities of food items were the same for all households, even though different households had varying needs. The organisation gave the same amount of rice to a household with only two elderly members and to a household with many children, for instance. Often, elderly MM households even stated that the amount of rice they received was excessive. The representative acknowledged that instant noodles were also given out, but might not have been the most appropriate or healthiest choice for the elderly.

Theoretical proposition 3b. An MMO can be considered somewhat successful and effective in delivering its social assistance and development programmes, if its programmes has worked for some MM households.

We should not discount the fact that some MMOs had seen their fair share of success stories as a result of their social assistance and development programmes. For instance, Organisation A’s tuition scheme and family support groups gathered good feedback, Organisation B managed to better some beneficiaries’ situations such that they no longer required its assistance, and Organisation C’s micro-finance scheme empowered housewives to start their own businesses to earn extra income


for their families.

Nevertheless, MMOs should always make it a point to review and revamp their policies and programmes when necessary, to continually improve their service delivery and quality, and to ensure the betterment of MM households.

Conclusion

All in all, my study of MM households’ commonly held perceptions of MMOs (supported by data from 27 households), and of MMOs’ perspectives, reveals a more balanced picture of how these perceptions have developed in the first place. These perceptions are often mere impressions, based on the subjective experiences that households have had with the MMOs, and might not be accurate depictions of what MMOs are actually doing or attempting to do in their efforts to provide social assistance and welfare to the MM community.

The negative perceptions held by some MM households are misperceptions based on a lack of information or clarity with regard to the realities that MMOs face. The limitations that MMOs face in terms of resources and capabilities constrain their outreach efforts, their campaigns to raise awareness, and the number of MM households they can help. Furthermore, MMOs try their best to help the MM community whenever they can, through referrals to other MMOs or non-MMOs. However, MMOs should continually review and improve their programmes, as well as engage in ground-sensing to accurately identify the community’s needs and come up with programmes that best address these needs. MMOs should attempt to garner more funds and resources so that they can extend their programmes to more beneficiaries.

The best way to address these misperceptions is through public education. Public education fosters greater levels of engagement and offers opportunities for MMOs to debunk MM households’ misperceptions. Households previously unaware of MMOs’ limitations and constraints would now become more cognizant of them. MMOs can also be more transparent about their situations and make their limitations known to potential clients. If an MMO is unable to help an MM household directly, it should continue to refer the household to an alternative source of help.

To make it more convenient for MM households applying for social


assistance, I suggest an integrated system or database which allows MMOs to share the households’ information. This integrated system can reduce the hassle of households making multiple applications, automatically update MMOs on whether the households are receiving other forms of social assistance, and even help MMOs to develop ways to best complement existing social assistance. All the organisations interviewed for this study responded favourably to this suggestion.

Nevertheless, helping disadvantaged MM households is not merely the onus of MMOs but also of non-MMOs and the households themselves. Successful empowerment and welfare programmes for disadvantaged households rely on the ‘many helping hands’ approach, where different organisations collaborate and where the households themselves participate actively in these programmes to bring about change and improvement in their lives.

This study was conducted on a small scale with a relatively small sample size. Further research could involve the collection of data across more MM households so that the findings could be more representative of the perceptions and opinions that the MM community holds of MMOs. More organisations could be interviewed to glean more comprehensive insights. Most importantly, more focused research could be done within the MM community with regard to the social issues they face, so as to develop empowerment solutions that are culturally and socially compatible with and effective for the MM community.


Association of Muslim Professionals [AMP] (2012, June 30). Perception survey on the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.amp.org.sg/edisi/data/Publications/3rd%20Convention%20Journal/Section%208%20-%20Perception%20Survey.pdf

National Convention of Singapore Malay/Muslim Professionals (2000). Proceedings from the Second National Convention of Singapore Malay/Muslim Professionals: Vision 2010: Setting the Community Agenda in 21st Century Singapore.

Rahim, L. Z. (1998). The Singapore dilemma: The political and educational marginality of the Malay community. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Suara Musyawarah Committee (2013, July 8). Suara Musyawarah: Conversations with the community. Retrieved from http://www.onesingapore.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/Suara_Musyawarah_Report_English_8_July_2013.pdf

Suhaila, A., & Lee, E. (1998). A history of community self-help organisations in Singapore: the case of Mendaki and AMP (Unpublished honours dissertation). National University of Singapore, Singapore.

Wijeysingha, V. (2005). The welfare regime in Singapore. In A. Walker & C. K.

Wong (Eds.), East Asian welfare regimes in transition: From Confucianism to globalisation (pp. 187–211). Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Yap, M. T. (2008). Singapore’s response to an ageing population. In H. G. Lee (Ed.), Ageing in Southeast and East Asia: Family, social protection, and policy challenges (pp. 66–87). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

References


Appendix A: Profiles of MM Households Interviewed

Household Category of household (archetype)Age

group

Monthly income per capita ($)

Ever received social

assistance from MMOs?

1 Household with school-going children 25–39 0Yes, received and receiving

2 Household with elderly member(s) >65 0 No

3 Single-parent household 40–54 0Yes, received and receiving

4 Household with elderly member(s) >65 0Yes, received and receiving


6Household with multi-generational families; household with health issues

40–54 0 No


8Household with multi-generational families; household with reconstituted family

25–39 602.50 No

9Household with multi-generational families; household receives caregiving

40–54 0 No

10Household with elderly member(s); household with multi-generational family

>65 700Yes, received and receiving

11 Household with elderly member(s) 40–54 0Yes, received and receiving

12 Household with school-going children 25–39 303.50Yes, received and receiving

13 Household with school-going children 25–39 133Yes, received and receiving

14 Household with school-going children 40–54 0 No


Household Category of household (archetype)Age

group

Monthly income per capita ($)

Ever received social

assistance from MMOs?

15 Household with school-going children 40–54 697 No


17 Household with multi-generational families >65 0 No


19Household with school-going children; household with health issues

40–54 50.33Yes, receiving

20 Single-parent household 40–54 675 No

21 Single-parent household 40–54 160 Yes, receiving


23 Household with elderly member(s) 55–65 0 Yes, received

24 Household with elderly member(s) >65 0 Yes, receiving


26 Single-parent household 40–54 477.67 Yes, receiving



Appendix B: Interview Questions for MM Households

MM Household’s Perceptions of MMOs (Focusing on Social Assistance)

Name: __________________________________________

Age Group/Archetype: ____________________________

A. Social Assistance from MMOs and Experiences

A1. Are you currently receiving/have you received any form of social/financial assistance from MMOs?

Yes, receiving social/financial assistance

Yes, received social/financial assistance

No

If yes, go to question 2.If no, go to question 3.

A2. Please specify what type of assistance you have received, and from which MMO(s), and how you knew about the assistance.

MMO(s)

Social assistance(s) given (include year)

How did you get to know about this assistance?

A3. What is the reason for not receiving assistance from the MMOs?

Not aware of assistance from MMOs

Do not need assistance at the current moment

Inconvenient

Application was rejected

Others:

A4. How was your experience interacting with the MMOs when applying for assistance/during the duration of the assistance? Why was it so?


Positive Neutral

NegativeWhy:

B. Overall Impressions of MMOs

General perceptions of MMOs based on MM household’s observations or what MM household has heard.

B1. Do you think that the MMOs are successful in helping Malay-Muslim families who are in need?

Yes No

Neutral

B2. Do you think that the MMOs have done enough to help Malay-Muslim families who are in need?

Yes No

Neutral

B3. If yes, how do you tell? If not, why not?

B4. If not, how else do you think MMOs can better help those who are in need?

B5. Any other comments?


Appendix C: Interview Questions for MMOs

Interview Questions for MMO

1) Introductory Question

Tell me more about what the MMO does and the eligibility criteria for people to receive social assistance.

2) General experiences and challenges that the MMO faces with regard to its social assistance efforts:

A. Assessed impact of MMO’s social assistance programmes

B. Operational delivery of MMO’s social assistance programmes

C. Community outreach efforts to raise awareness of MMO’s social assistance programmes

3) Responses to commonly held perceptions

I have conducted a study and feedback session among the low-income Malay/Muslim households in the eastern part of Singapore during my attachment with the Social Service Offices in the vicinity. I went to ask the households for their perceptions of and comments on MMOs. Some of their perceptions of MMOs include lack of public outreach, difficulty in getting social assistance due to highly stringent requirements, administrative hassle in applying for assistance, social assistance that did not quite meet the needs of the MM community, and lower levels of assistance offered by MMOs compared to non-MMOs. What are your responses to these perceptions, if any?

4) Any other comments. E.g., what kinds of support would be good, be it from the public or the government?