Publications from ODSW Social Insights: Letters by DSW (Vol 2) | Page 135

Special Editions
those who are less well-off due to differences in their ability to pay. Recently,
the heavy subsidies have been extended to child development at the
pre-school level. Singapore’s education system, therefore, is an important
vehicle of social inclusion to achieve a ‘levelling up’ effect for those from
lower-income households.
Home ownership
A second pillar of social inclusion is the provision of housing that is
affordable to the vast majority of the population. This is achieved through
the CPF system, which is a centrally managed, compulsory pay-as-you-earn
savings scheme. In addition, low-income families receive a state-sponsored
grant to buy public housing flats, which are subsidised by the government
and purchased under the terms of a subsidised loan. These policies were
formulated and implemented on the belief that housing is an appreciating
asset that promotes social mobility, financial security and a sense of pride
and belonging.
Singapore’s use of public housing for nation building is distinctive. Indeed,
there are no other governments in the world wh ich approach nation
building primarily through building homes for its people and subsidising
it heavily to enable home ownership. In response to an ageing population
in Singapore, housing infrastructure is being re-designed to enable ageing
in place and also to enable elderly with frailty and require assisted-living
to continue living in their current homes. The infrastructure improvements
include enhancing elderly accessibility within public high-rise apartment
buildings (e.g., expanding elevator access in apartment blocks) and within
neighbourhood precincts (e.g., improving walkways).
Wage supplement to low-income workers
Faced with growing income inequality, Singapore has adopted a ‘workfare’
model instead of the traditional ‘welfare’ model. Under a traditional welfare
approach, the state insures citizens against a range of risks, especially
unemployment and illness. In contrast, under a workfare approach, benefits
are targeted at low-wage workers 2. Linking government transfers to work
reduces the problems associated with unconditional transfers to those who
are able to work and have gainful employment. The reason for this approach
is that workfare could work better at redistributing incomes, while preserving
the work ethic and promoting self-reliance for the able-bodied.
2

The Workfare Income Supplement scheme is adapted from the model originally introduced
in Wisconsin, United States. See Poh (2007).
134