Quora Answer: Is Singapore a Possible Model on Eliminate Homelessness & Containing Substance Abuse?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Is Singapore a possible model of how a nation can eliminate street people from cities and contain substance abuse?” 

We can never truly eliminate vagrancy and indigence, or substance abuse.  What we can do is manage it, and address the conditions from which these arise.  People may find themselves homeless for a variety of reasons besides substance abuse.  One of the ways this is addressed is by ensuring that housing is provided at a huge discount, or rental at nominal costs.  It is cheaper to give someone a house than to create shelters to support the homeless.  The homeless are still homeless, and they contribute to the crime problem by being criminals or easy victims.  Homeless people are also disenfranchised from society, and have no stake in its betterment.  Part of policy is to enfranchise them so that they will contribute to the economy.  This means creating a system that houses them, addresses their medical issues, and offers opportunities for job matching and skills upgrade. 

People are a resource, and when that resource is not managed, and groups slip through the system, they are a loss to society and the economy.  If more nations saw it the way Singapore does, they would invest more into managing the issue, instead of having a homeless community.  Charity has a place, but policy needs to address economic realities as well, because we cannot depend on people’s good graces.  Altruism is not a dependable factor for running a society.  It is too arbitrary. 

Substance abuse has two main channels to be addressed: the supplier and the addicts.  From the supply side, the law is strict, with an emphasis on capital punishment and asset seizure.  The idea is that no one should profit out of the misery of others, other than the state.  Capital punishment is not just about security, but an economic exercise.  Drug trafficking robs the state of people, and turns them into a burden on society.  In Singapore, drug trafficking beyond a certain amount, according to the schedule of the Misused of Drug Act, carries the death penalty.  This has a strong deterrent factor.  Once all the appeals are done, the convicted dealer is hanged until he is dead.  This is a lot cheaper than keeping people in prison for a long custodial sentence.  Dead men do not need to be fed and sheltered on tax payer’s expense. 

From the addict side, there is an emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation, instead of pure custodial sentence.  The underlying economic and social factors need to be addressed to that addicts have a chance to get back into society, and contribute to the economic machine of the state.  People need to feel that they are part of a greater whole, and this includes the same job matching, counselling, and other programmes. 

In a society that looks at these factors from an economic perspective, these programmes make perfect sense.  It must be a society that values the collective over the individual, and frown upon wanton libertarianism, where the wants of the individual are perceived to have greater value than the needs of society.  It is a question of societal values.  This is why we are not likely to see more states addressing the issue in the manner Singapore does.