![]()
SECTION TWO
New Tensions When Global
Meets Local: Social Class, Liveable
Space, Bicultural Ideologies,
and New Media Forms
![]()
Chapter 5
TWO STORIES ON CLASS IN SINGAPORE: DIVERSITY OR DIVISION?
Tan Ern Ser and Tan Min Wei
TWO SINGAPORE STORIES
There are two stories to be told about class in Singapore. Neither of these is unknown, but each is substantially different from the other.
The first is the equivalent of a national ideology, which suggests how Singapore is a āland of opportunityā where citizens believe, with some concrete justifications, that they are able to improve their socio-economic status based primarily, if not entirely, on their own talent, ability and effort. The second is an undesirable scenario, where not only is meritocracy as a system not enough to enable one to be socially mobile, but it can also be undermined by the presence of inequality of opportunity, therefore becoming in effect the lock on aspirationās door.
A MIDDLE-CLASS SOCIETY
The first is best reflected in a speech given in August 1987 by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (hereafter, āthen PMā). In this speech, he emphasised that Singapore had become a middle-class society, as reflected in, among other indicators, the fact that, in 22 years of independence, Singapore had been transformed from a country where 94% of the population lived in villages or kampungs or in inner-city neighbourhoods with poor utilities and sanitation amenities into one where more than 80% of the population lived in āsoldā, quality public housing, and most of the rest reside in private condominium apartments or landed properties (Lee, 1987).
In the same speech, the then PM also utilised a simplified version of what class divides are in other countries, and specifically in Japan and the United Kingdom, as a starting point to share his vision of a fair and equitable society. He made particular mention of ways in which social class may be determined ā the ownership of property, oneās occupation, educational attainment, spoken accent, lifestyle and culture. He went on to claim that Singapore was not āplaguedā by such class distinctions.
To him, Singaporeās class distinctions were fundamentally dichotomous: those who own property and those who do not. More importantly in his view, Singapore had, under his government, done its utmost to ensure that Singaporeans could own their homes through individual effort and ability, progressive social policy and sustainable programmes, and strong economic growth; in short, self-reliance with government support for education, healthcare, housing and employment creation.
This definition of class may seem archaic in the last quarter of the 20th century, but it hews to a broader tradition in a past era where class, property and most importantly political power were tied intricately together ā it used to be that only the land-owning class was entitled to vote before universal suffrage was given to all citizens in older democracies like that found in the United Kingdom.
However, quite apart from the issue of granting political power to citizens, the government under the Peopleās Action Party (PAP) has assigned housing and eventually home-ownership as a key priority and a means for inculcating in citizens a sense of being stakeholders of a nation. This policy resonated well with Singaporeans, given Singaporeās past and how the people who became citizens overnight at Independence were mostly poor, and the vision of owning a home and a property-based asset through work and heavy government subsidy would have been an attractive one, despite some initial reluctance to take to high-rise living. The public housing scheme has since become a much taken for granted facet of Singaporeansā expectations and, more importantly, a facilitator and dimension of the Singapore Dream characterised by a desire for upward social mobility and achieving middle class status.
In a nutshell, therefore, public housing can fulfil several goals at once: it provides citizens with relatively high-quality and reasonably affordable housing in satellite towns equipped with a comprehensive range of amenities; it facilitates urban redevelopment; it can instil in citizens a sense of belonging and identification with the community and nation; it redistributes land and resources; it motivates citizens to work hard for themselves and their families in a land of opportunity; and if it succeeds in these, it could contribute towards enhancing the governmentās political legitimacy.
The two-class model depicted in the then PMās speech must also be seen in the context of the year it was spoken about ā 1987 was when Operation Spectrum, otherwise known as the Marxist Conspiracy, came into the spotlight. By adopting a broad class dichotomy to describe Singapore, the then PM was able to explain in simple terms how the government he led had prevented leftist elements with their notions of class exploitation and warfare from gaining ground among the population, while Singaporeans had acquired a stake as citizens in the running of the country, benefitted from its progress and would continue to do well in jobs generated by a vibrant economy and as property owners, with many joining the ranks of the middle class.
The then PM also went on to stress the importance of excellence as part of a national culture and individual mind-set to ensure that Singapore and Singaporeans continue on an upward economic trajectory. He reiterated that all citizens should strive for excellence in whatever fields of endeavours or occupations, and that excellence should be celebrated, and never be allowed to slip into mediocrity and complacency. Indeed, excellence as both a quality and goal is institutionalised in one of the countryās founding ideals, that of āmeritocracyā, which as a system would enable all citizens, regardless of race, language, religion or class to access opportunities to improve their lot in life through education, good jobs and all the public services provided by an effective and honest government. It should, however, be noted that the nuance of meritocracy as practised and spoken of by the Singaporean elites is that of āequalising opportunities, not outcomes; and allocating rewards on the basis of an individualās merit, abilities and achievementsā (Low, 2014).
KEY AS LOCK, LOCK AS KEY
The second Singapore story assumes as a given that class exists, and has always existed. However, it is not as neat and clear-cut, and as positive in tone as the first story would have it. It is also not about the simple fact of overall residential mobility and what this signifies in regard to the permeability of class boundaries, nor about the possibility of upward social mobility, but about how inequality at the level of everyday life can, even if unintended, distort the desired outcome of meritocracy, notwithstanding the governmentās efforts at equalising opportunities.
Essentially, in the early years of Singaporeās independence, the āplaying fieldā for achieving upward mobility and success was largely even, which means that meritocracy could operate at an optimal level, and that merit, rather than social origin, determines destiny. However, through time, as those with more merits surge ahead of those with less, a class hierarchy eventually emerged. What ensues is that while education continues to be accessible and affordable to all citizens, and the system remaining meritocratic, there is nothing to prevent the off-spring of those in the higher classes from legitimately using their access to the economic, social and cultural capital of their parents to develop merits of their own. This process does not undermine the functioning of the meritocratic system per se, but it does have the unintended consequence of reproducing and reinforcing the class hierarchy, which leads some to question its credibility as a mechanism for class allocation.
However, the lingering doubt about meritocracy is somewhat misplaced, since rewards are given on the basis of merit, not class origin. The real āculpritā is that class advantages which could enhance oneās merits can be legitimately ātransferredā from parents to children through several means, thereby privileging those with the means over those who do not.
One of the best-known means is private tuitio...
