Publications from ODSW Social Insights: Letters by DSW (Vol 2) | Page 146

Special Editions
well-being at both the individual and societal levels. These virtues may
also drive private initiative and enterprise. But as needs and demand for
human services grow, how does one foster social inclusion and safeguard
the culture of supported self-reliance? Prior to addressing this question, it is
useful to examine three pillars that uphold the social safety net.
Subsidy in education
Subsidised education is a key component of Singapore’s approach to social
inclusion. Premised on the belief that education promotes social mobility,
the Singapore government has focused much attention on ensuring equal
opportunities to quality education. Education is heavily subsidised to prevent
wide differences in educational opportunities between the better-off and
those who are less well-off due to the 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.
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 illnesses. In contrast, under a workfare approach,
benefits are targeted at low-wage workers. 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.
145