The inclusive society and its limits

Before the multi-cornered debate on the Population White Paper has even settled, we now have Budget 2013, which provides a fairly detailed analysis of the challenges facing the Singapore economy and society.

It also offers some robust responses on how best to handle the foreign worker issue, while keeping the economy vibrant and productive, and the society, Singaporean-centric.

Budget 2013 comes across as focused on addressing the 2011 General Election and post-election hot button issues — housing, transport, healthcare costs (particularly that of seniors), income inequality and relative social mobility — as comprehensively as possible, and seemingly with greater urgency.

The proposed Budget also dispenses a broad spectrum of support — including some in generous form — to Singaporeans.

But it does not deviate from the fundamentals — particularly that of ensuring financial sustainability, and that every giveaway should serve some purported social or economic end.

Correspondingly, while the Budget items to promote an inclusive society can be construed as welfarist, they do not undermine the ruling party’s known position on the welfare-state model.

MIDDLE-INCOME UNCERTAINTY

What, then, is new about Budget 2013?

For one thing, the term “middle income” appears quite frequently throughout the speech. This differs from previous years where primarily the low-income were slated for assistance, in order to help them achieve some measure of self-reliance, such as through Workfare.

This year specifically, there are various items, such as progressive tax rates on properties and cars, even measures aimed at further controlling the issuing of S- and E-Passes, which can be interpreted as benefitting middle-income Singaporeans.

Also prominent in the Budget statement is the term “social mobility”. Unlike previous official positions on this issue, which argued that social mobility is possible and does occur even for low-income Singaporeans, Budget 2013 recognises that relative social mobility differs across the income hierarchy and that it takes more than bursaries and fee waivers to help low-income Singaporeans rise up socially.

It proposes some Budget items aimed at helping children from low-income families acquire social and cultural capital through enrichment and support programmes in school.

Clearly, there is much to applaud in Budget 2013. However, I am not sure if it can go far enough to help the middle income believe that the Singapore Dream is not only possible, but highly probable.

While real income has risen over the last five years, I reckon the confidence of middle-income Singaporeans regarding job and income security, and the career prospects of their children, has been somewhat shaken.

At the same time, some among the middle income also form part of the “sandwiched” generation. While admittedly there are new proposals targeting elderly Singaporeans, I wonder if middle-income folks who have to support children through university together with uninsured ageing parents in poor health can find any reason to celebrate the senior-friendly aspects of Budget 2013.

On balance, I believe Singaporeans will benefit from Budget 2013, but it would be much harder, though not impossible, to take achieving the 5Cs for granted. I guess a consolation is that we are better off than folks in some parts of the euro zone, precisely because we uphold the principle of fiscal prudence.

Dr Tan Ern Ser is Associate Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore and Faculty Associate at the Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.