inequality in singapore essay

• About Pacific Affairs
• Our History
• Current Editors
• Top Ten Articles
• The Holland Prize
• Announcements
• Current Issue
• Forthcoming Issue
• Back Issues
• Current Book Reviews
• Forthcoming Book Reviews
• Past Book Reviews
• Past Film Reviews
• Forthcoming Film Reviews
• Current Film Reviews
• Subscription Information
• Subscription Policies
• Subscription Order Form
• Mailing & Online Access Dates
• Ingenta Registration Instructions
• Advertising
• Journal Recommendation Form
• Submissions Overview
• Submission Guidelines
• Academic Misconduct Policies
• Open Access Policy

THIS IS WHAT INEQUALITY LOOKS LIKE | By Teo You Yenn

Singapore: Ethos Books, 2019. 312 pp. (B&W photos.) US$19.00, paper. ISBN 978-981-14-0595-2.

Teo You Yenn’s This is What Inequality Looks Like (TIWILL) is arguably the most pivotal book ever written on Singapore’s inequality. Quoted in parliament, selling 30,000 copies within three years, and sparking extended national debates over the next few years, TIWILL breathed new life and insight into discussions of inequality in Singapore.

Clearly written and thoughtfully constructed, TIWILL’s portrayal of poverty, perpetuated by inequality, effortlessly resonates beyond academic audiences without losing theoretical richness. Vivifying Singapore’s poor in the public imagination with heartfelt depictions of their daily lives, TIWILL elicits empathy while provoking awareness of how Singaporeans themselves might perpetuate the structures that trap the impoverished.

Leveraging ethnographic insights from visits to Singapore’s rental public housing neighborhoods from 2013 to 2016, Teo juxtaposes families’ everyday experiences against prevailing narratives of meritocracy and economic survival. These narratives obscure and justify the plight of these families, Teo argues, culminating in a policy system focused on self-reliance through employment and traditional family structures. The result is “differentiated deservingness,” an idea Teo introduces to depict how Singaporeans have “different types of access and degree of public support depending on who they are and how they live” (173). In other words, one’s income heavily influences access to quality public goods and services like healthcare or housing.

Arguing against a “script” of “normal” behavior that renders the choices of lower-income families as “bad” (36–37), TIWILL illustrates how material poverty significantly constrains the options of the impoverished; how it reduces their agency, and snowballs disadvantage for their children even as parents from these households struggle to provide them the same opportunities and life experiences as others. These dynamics also strip the poor of dignity by judging them against “normal” ways of living. When unable to meet these standards, outcomes are misattributed to their personal failings rather than structural conditions.

Overall, Teo’s arguments that systems shape individual outcomes and that bettering the situation for the poor must go beyond financial transfers to changing prevailing narratives and how Singaporeans think about privilege, poverty, and inequality are spot on, and pose a sobering challenge for Singaporean society. However, no single work can comprehensively address an issue like inequality and TIWILL’s methodological limitations leave open questions on the comprehensiveness and accuracy of some insights.

First, Teo argues upfront that TIWILL is an “ethnography of inequality rather than a catalog of poverty” because it situates “the lives and experiences of a group within the larger social context” (19). However, while the title promises an exposition on the state of inequality, the book focuses on a specific group of low-income families, for whom the analysis of unequal structures appears primarily taken to explain their experiences. Essentially, the ethnographic approach—where “data is generated through repeated visits to the same neighborhoods, through many informal conversations…through observations of interactions and space” (283)—fails to deliver an overview by omitting perspectives of groups beyond those interviewed.

By failing to narrate even in rough terms what these other groups experience, Teo overlooks their perspectives and contributions to the structures and narratives that stratify Singaporean society. Even limited to inequalities arising from socioeconomic status (Teo deals briefly with issues of ethnicity), TIWILL’s rendering of inequality omits even oft-mentioned groups like the so-called sandwiched class, said to benefit from neither economic growth like higher-income groups, nor the social policies that cater to lower-income groups.

Explicit comparisons are generally limited to Teo’s own experiences or the expectations of “middle-class respondents” on what was “normal” (107–108) drawn from interviews in 2002–2003. This exclusion of broader perspectives renders the book a tale of poverty, particularly that of rental housing residents in the eight neighborhoods Teo visited, and the structural forces that produced it. Not inequality as many other Singaporeans might understand or experience. This omission is critical since one reason inequality fails to be recognized and acted upon, as Teo rightly points out, is the way society collectively thinks about it.

Moreover, it is not always clear where this dominant narrative comes from. TIWILL variably refers to the state’s official statements, policy design, Teo’s interviews with the aforementioned middle class, and perceptions of the interviewed families. This is particularly problematic when these expectations of “normal” are painted as seemingly ubiquitous and uncontested. While TIWILL’s warm reception implies general resonance with its version of events, breaking down this larger narrative by its sources and their specific contributions helps identify areas of contention and change over time, and to nuance its insights.

For instance, in explaining why some reject depictions of poverty in Singapore, Teo posits indignation against any perceived disruption of “national narratives of economic development, growth, wealth, prosperity” (235). This national narrative is then partly attributed to institutions and personnel dealing with poverty, who frame it “primarily in individual terms, very much in accordance with the ethic of individualism and differentiated deservedness of a neoliberal capitalist state” (216).

Yet, an examination of official narratives reveals an articulation of desired reforms not unlike what Teo advocates for in TIWILL. For example, in 2013, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong unequivocally stated: “Today, the situation has changed. If we rely too heavily on the individual, their efforts alone will not be enough… And there are some things which individuals cannot do on their own and there are other things which we can do much better together. So, we must shift the balance” (Singapore Prime Minister’s Office, “National Day Rally Speech,” tinyurl.com/4mf26t5k). Whether this has successfully translated into policy is beside the point (my own work has argued that it has, but not enough; “Inequality and the Social Compact in Singapore,” Journal of Southeast Asian Economies , 36, no. 3 [2019] ). But simply knowing the official narrative has shifted necessitates nuancing some of TIWILL’s analysis and conclusions.

That said, the limits of Teo’s approach in delivering the promised look at inequality in Singapore does not begin to threaten TIWILL’s prominent position as a cornerstone text for understanding the state of the poor and inequality in Singapore. A must-read for anyone interested in Singaporean society and the forces that reproduce it, TIWILL is a priceless foundation for developing a deeper appreciation of the struggles of those left behind in a country labelled as “crazy rich,” and how to help them.

Nathan Peng

The University of British Columbia, Vancouver Singapore Management University, Singapore

Last Revised: September 2, 2021

New! You can personalise your feed. Try it now

Using the lessons of Covid-19 to tackle 4 types of inequality in Singapore

Advertisement.

Economists use letters to describe the shape of recovery from recessions, and the current recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic is given a new letter: K.

The writer discusses four types of inequalities in Singapore that have been spotlighted by the pandemic: Wage, digital, residency and gender.

Irene Y H Ng

Economists use letters to describe the shape of recovery from recessions, and the current recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic is given a new letter: K. 

This depicts a shape where some industries and individuals ascend, but the rest decline. In the midst of wage cuts, job losses and business closings, stock market prices have been rising and the Big Techs have been thriving.

The K-shaped trend is said to reflect existing inequalities.

In this essay, I will discuss four types of inequality in Singapore that have been spotlighted by the pandemic: Wage, digital, residency and gender.

I would like to suggest going beyond a business-as-usual response to these areas of inequality, failing which we would be wasting the lessons learned from the pandemic and the inequalities that were already there will further divide our society.

WAGE INEQUALITY

First, wage inequality.

Evidently, lowest-income earners have been the hardest hit.

The latest income trends report by the Department of Statistics shows that on a per household member basis, earnings of households in the bottom 20 per cent declined the most.

A Beyond Social Service study of 1,231 beneficiaries found that the largest drops in work income were experienced by the lowest earning households.

Thankfully in Singapore, the government has rolled out multiple aid packages that are buffering the pain of the economic sting.

At the same time, policy is responding to longer-term structural issues.

For example, to uplift low-skilled wages, the progressive wage model (PWM) will be expanded to the retail and food services sector, with more to come.

Coming nine years after the PWM was first introduced, this is long overdue.

It is strange to raise wages at a time when many businesses are suffering, but Covid-19 has spotlighted the fact that existing labour market forces are undervaluing essential work such as in the fields of food and beverage, cleaning and healthcare.

Thus, there is no better time than now to extend the PWM to retail and food service workers, two sectors hard hit by Covid-19 restrictions yet whose workers (for example delivery riders and retail shop assistants) have to keep working in people-facing roles exposed to the virus.

The momentum to correcting wage inequality needs to go beyond these two sectors.

DIGITAL INEQUALITY

Second, digital inequality.

At the top end, technology companies have been profiting so greatly in the last decades that western governments have mooted technology taxes and other restrictions.

Now, Covid-19 restrictions have further boosted their profitability.

At the bottom end, some children and adult learners from low-income households became unable to attend classes or do their homework when classes and assignments went online.

Some did not have laptops, some did not have internet access at home, and many did not know how to use these resources.

Some migrant workers and the elderly did not have the up-to-date devices, language or knowledge to use contact tracing applications and online services such as banking.

The tremendous outpouring of donations, volunteerism and government support has helped bring much-needed digital resources and knowledge to many low-income families, the elderly, and migrant workers.

However, they have plugged only the current urgent gaps.

As digital transformation accelerates post-pandemic, concerted and continuous actions to help these digitally excluded groups level up are necessary, or digital inequality will worsen the social inequalities that already disadvantages these vulnerable groups.

That is why some colleagues and I are advocating universal digital access, that access to digital devices, internet and digital skills are no longer wants but needs to be provided as public utilities like water, electricity and education.

This rethinking of what are necessities in a digital world is but a small sliver of the paradigmatic changes that will be needed as coming digital transformations continue to worsen inequalities, from rehauling tax regimes to including non-traditional workers such as platform workers in labour protection laws.

INEQUALITY IN RESIDENCY STATUS

A third inequality is by residency status.

Singapore’s response to the pandemic has been exemplary, except in one aspect which checkered our record.

The rapid spread of the coronavirus in migrant worker dormitories highlighted the crammed living conditions in the dormitories.

It prompted the building of less densely designed dormitories.

At the same time, to contain the spread of the virus, restrictions on migrant workers were harsher and longer than they were for the rest of Singapore. 

Until the end of last year, dormitory residents were not allowed out of their rooms.

Till today, they are not allowed outside of the dormitories except to go to work, run essential services and visit specific recreation centres.

The plans are for further easing when more workers get vaccinated and infection rates remain low .

In contrast, the rest of Singapore was out of the Circuit Breaker in June, and even when confined at home, our living environments are far superior.

The government has provided help to migrant workers, for example by ensuring payment of wages and working with volunteer groups to provide medical and mental health support.

Looking ahead, commentators have called attention to this blight in our Covid-19 response as reflecting the fact that we are only as strong as how we treat the weakest in our land. 

They have called for a rethinking of our heavy reliance on low-skilled foreign workers, but others have drawn attention to the challenges of doing so, for example in terms of competitiveness and hiring local.

I wonder whether the debate should pivot away from these pragmatic considerations and towards one of considering equality and value as fellow humans.

While the tight controls on dormitories are necessary to contain a deadly and infectious virus, it calls into question a stark segmentation in Singapore society.

Foreign workers in Singapore make up a particular category of individuals with lower status than those who are residents.

They are temporary workers treated differently in employment laws and in terms of access to health and social services.

Can we continue to find the resident-foreign worker duality in our society acceptable?

If not, then the practical challenges around foreign worker issues will have to be dealt with no matter what.

GENDER INEQUALITY

Fourth is gender inequality.

2021 has been declared the year of celebrating Singapore women.

This is therefore a year to also dig deep to overcome existing gender fissures.

Restrictions from Covid-19 have heightened the uneven distribution of home responsibilities along gender lines and the prevalence of domestic violence, whose victims are predominantly women and children.

While social service professionals do the remedial work with families under repair, there is much opportunity for the rest of us in society to prevent the perpetuation of misogynistic and patriarchal ideologies, which underlie the ill-treatment of women.

The privileged in society have a role to play.

First, not to perpetuate inequalities; second, to better understand the most vulnerable in society; and third, to use our privilege to speak up for and uplift the under-privileged.

There is great influence when employers speak with other employers on behalf of employees; the digital haves advocate for equal access for the digital have-nots; citizens appeal to citizens on behalf of non-citizens; and men tell other men to respect women.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Irene Y H Ng is an associate professor at the Department of Social Work, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore (NUS) and a co-director of the Social Service Research Centre at the faculty. This piece first appeared in NUS News.

Related topics

Read more of the latest in

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.

Recent Searches

This browser is no longer supported.

We know it's a hassle to switch browsers but we want your experience with TODAY to be fast, secure and the best it can possibly be.

To continue, upgrade to a supported browser or, for the finest experience, download the mobile app.

Upgraded but still having issues? Contact us