How much do you really care about inequality in Singapore?
Tags: Inequality

The current discourse that is rather controversial or has been brought to light is whether Singapore could be a more redistributive state. Welfare state, they say… we will turn into a welfare state and we will lose our economic prosperity.

I can’t speak for a real-time scenario of what would happen if we redistribute some of our progress on the upper-tiers of society and trickle (for real) some of it down but I can speak from a recent paper I did recently when researching on China’s social protection policies reform.

China is huge, and we are small — the magnitude of economic advancement in China is also not one that can be compared to Singapore. Well, honestly, I won’t be talking about how economically viable this could be replicated in Singapore but instead, like what I always do, I want to talk about the normative aspect of this.

China, china, china

China has been undergoing reforms ever since the early 1990s to adapt its’ socialist ideology and policies to meet the demands of being a competitive nation on the world stage. While ideologically extremely distant from the democracies around the world, China remains true to its socialism with Chinese characteristics, adapting reforms under the authority of their one-party rule.

Social security policies in China are surprisingly stronger and more established than we would have thought. The social security system in China covers social assistance, social insurance to social safety net across the board — health, housing, employment, pensions, wages. They have the dibao policy which is their minimum subsistence guarantee that somewhat commits to pay a minimum amount to their poorer workers, especially those in the rural areas.

In previous administration alleviation of poverty was rather seen as a need to ensure that the poor get lifted higher up. This was seen as an economic necessity to ensure that they keep up with the economic progress so as to not hamper the overall economic growth of the nation. Xi’s call to eradicate rural poverty by 2020 seemed to show some form of political impetus in wanting to close the inequality gaps that persist in their massive country.

Now, this is not really an issue in Singapore with regards to the inefficiency emitting from the system nor do we have a rural poor that is unable to physically move to a better stage in life. We have policies that are meritocratic and allows citizens to all move up regardless of whether you stay in the HDBs of Hougang or the landed estates of Tanglin.

Where we differ to China that made poverty alleviation policies a little more aggressive was this:

The focus is not to have the poverty alleviation as the means for a greater China, but instead the ends of a greater China.

Helping the poor is not a subproduct of greater economic might of China but the product of greater economic might of China.

Are we ready to trickle down?

Now, Singapore and China are vastly different in many many, many, many ways. But I think there is some takeaway from the leadership of Xi in looking at closing the inequality gaps that persist in every country. Yes, Xi might be a little more dictatorial than other leaders but his consolidation of leadership in every aspect to garner greater unilateral authority to make the kind of policies is what really matters. I am not endorsing his leadership and I honestly know little about the truths on the ground in China.

But I sense that in Singapore, many are still stuck in the narrative of (strict, national norms) meritocracy, and honestly by all means reasonable and correct in the sense that, we gotta keep growing. However, this notion of growing and wanting people to keep up so that we don’t ever fall into the vulnerable, susceptible, “exceptional” Singapore that many in the traditional war-boomer Singaporeans would see the nation as, is not one that will make changes to the system in looking and thinking about inequality.

How much more growth and prosperity do we need before we decide that maybe some of that can be redistributed to those whom still have to pick up cardboards or clean your dinner table not because they want to pass time but because someone in their family who might be the breadwinner lost their job that pays them enough to only get by? How much hard work and meritocracy do we need to insist on them to work better and harder before we decide that maybe indeed, the poor in Singapore needs to somewhat be seen more as a national policy than “oh, and for them, we’ll give them some of this and that along the way”.

“Just not enough”, by national norms

We have had good aid and assistance to the low-tiers in society by the government. I think that there is more political impetus needed to be seen in the hearts and minds of Singaporeans in thinking about becoming more “welfare” to help the underserved in Singapore. Looking at the response of some people, it is evident that many Singaporeans (and by all means really since they’ve worked hard for their success) are not ready or willing to elevate those underserved, possibly less “skilled” (by national norms), apparently less hardworking (by national norms) to a level that many of us are privileged enough to reach.

As much as we talk about wanting a change in the bureaucracy in thinking about redistribution, the sad fact seems that the people are the ones that are signaling to the government that we as Singaporeans care too much of our own movement to the top than the movement of the underserved to an average level that many of us are at. Maybe Xi doesn’t have to care about the reactions and sentiments of the people since their authority in the government is more or less secured which is why he could make such lofty goals to eradicate poverty by 2020. Maybe, in Singapore, the sentiments of the people are the ones preventing this light and progressiveness for more “equality”, whatever that means.