Singapore residents say Air-Con, Smartphones, Short Holidays are essential: Study by Singapore Management University
Most Singapore residents prioritise self-reliance for essential needs: Institute of Policy Studies poll
By Shermaine Ang, The Straits Times, 12 Jul 2024
More than nine in 10 Singapore residents polled in a new study said a smartphone with a data plan is essential, while 64 per cent think air-conditioning is a must.
A trip each year to a South-east Asian destination is also essential, said 56 per cent of those polled. And social connections are important too, with 90 per cent saying family bonding is essential.
These were among 40 items and activities that respondents deemed essential in the study on household needs conducted by Singapore Management University (SMU) and funded by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).
It polled a nationally representative sample of around 4,000 Singapore residents and comes amid growing public interest in the resources needed to achieve basic living standards.
Respondents were asked how essential they considered a total of 51 items and activities across categories such as household appliances, digital connectivity and social participation.
Essential items were those perceived to be so by at least half the respondents.
The study – which also included respondents taking part in focus group discussions between May 2022 and February 2023 – focused on affordability of essential items and attitudes on poverty.
For example, two-thirds of respondents said they were able to afford all the items deemed essential.
For the remaining one-third, the top essential items they cited being unable to access or afford included emergency savings of at least three months of expenses and an annual overseas vacation in a South-east Asian country.
A separate study done by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) that garnered 2,000 responses collected in June 2024 looked at public perceptions of who should provide for essential needs, be it the Government, the community, the individuals themselves or other parties.
Key findings from both studies were presented on July 12 at the SMU-DBS Foundation Symposium on Essential Household Needs in Singapore.
Director of SMU Centre for Research on Successful Ageing Paulin Straughan, who led the first study, said the hope is to reveal the gaps that may aid efforts to help disadvantaged Singaporeans break out of deprivation, which is defined in the study as being unable to afford items considered essential.
Sharing other insights, she noted that perceptions towards higher expenditure activities and items like holidays and the need for adequate savings differed across income groups.
Households in the lowest income group earned up to $2,499 a month while the top band earned over $17,000 a month.
One in two among the lowest income band see dining at restaurants once a month as essential, compared with over 60 per cent in higher income bands.
And only 49 per cent in the lowest income band see air-con as essential, compared with 70 per cent in the highest income band.
Items deemed unnecessary by respondents included private tuition – considered essential by 49 per cent of respondents – private enrichment classes (30 per cent) and annual staycations (27 per cent).
Respondents thought students can get help from free tuition classes offered by self-help groups rather than more costly private options – such tuition classes were seen by nearly 60 per cent of respondents as essential.
On poverty, the study showed that most believed it is attributable to personal actions and circumstances. Some 80 per cent think people are poor because they face major problems in their lives, while less than a quarter agreed that poverty is due to external factors like bad luck or divine will.
Prof Straughan said: “There’s a lot more consensus on what we can do to help ourselves... it tells us that from an approach perspective, Singaporeans can be helped and they are willing to be helped.”
She said the next run of the study may be done in five years’ time, to see if new interventions introduced can plug the gaps found, such as the lack of emergency savings.
Speaking at the symposium on July 12, Minister for Social and Family Development Masagos Zulkifli said the studies by SMU and IPS will inform MSF’s ongoing review of its ComCare scheme for low-income families. He cited how ComCare assistance now covers mobile data plans as digital connectivity has become an essential need.
“We will continue to adjust our policies and programmes, recognising that needs evolve over time,” he said.
Mr Masagos said the research shows there are differing views on what needs are deemed essential, particularly for items that go beyond subsistence needs.
Implicit in these views is the public’s understanding that social assistance provided by taxpayers must be reasonable and sustainable, he added.
“The studies also show that there is much room for others besides the Government to provide support for low-income and vulnerable families.”
Most Singapore residents prioritise self-reliance for essential needs: IPS poll
By Chin Soo Fang, Senior Correspondent, The Straits Times, 12 Jul 2024
Singapore residents generally believe they should be responsible for providing their own essential needs such as air-conditioning and emergency savings, but that the Government should help those who cannot afford basic necessities like three square meals.
A majority also prefer to rely on themselves for social participation and leisure needs, but feel that the Government should provide healthcare and childcare-related items, a recent poll by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) has found.
Findings of the IPS poll on Singapore residents’ perceptions of who should provide for essential needs were presented at a symposium at the Singapore Management University (SMU) on July 12, alongside those of an SMU study on what most people here feel are essential items for their daily household needs.
The IPS survey of 2,000 Singapore citizens and permanent residents, conducted in June, saw 39 essential needs put into categories such as childcare, daily living, transport and household items.
An additional 424 respondents from lower-income households were polled, and the data from the resident population was weighted to be nationally representative.
On average, respondents felt that individuals should be responsible for about 16 of the 39 items, the Government for 10 items, and the community for 9 items.
More than three in five said individuals should be responsible for things that ensure a decent standard of living, such as an annual vacation in a South-east Asian country and dining out in restaurants at least once a month.
Conversely, the top items that people felt the Government should provide were regular preventive health screening (57 per cent of respondents), an Integrated Shield Plan to cover healthcare bills (56.6 per cent) and infant care and childcare services for working parents (46.8 per cent).
Over two-thirds of those surveyed also indicated that the Government should be the main party to support individuals who do not have basic necessities such as shelter and access to healthcare.
Minister for Social and Family Development Masagos Zulkifli said both the IPS and SMU studies were funded by his ministry, and will inform the Government’s ongoing review of its ComCare financial assistance scheme.
Self-reliance held in high regard: Masagos
In his closing remarks at the symposium, Mr Masagos said the IPS poll showed that many Singaporeans believe in individuals taking responsibility for meeting their own needs, especially if they strive for a higher standard of living.
The poll found that while more than four in five surveyed felt that public schemes to help low-income individuals should be more generous, more than two-thirds also agreed that the support available today is eroding recipients’ self-reliance.
“Taken together, this may suggest that while there is a desire for more generous government support for low-income individuals, there are lingering concerns that such support should not reduce recipients’ self-reliance,” said the survey report.
There were generational differences in perspectives, with younger respondents leaning more towards the Government providing for both basic needs and items for a decent standard of living. Older respondents favoured self-provision for items for a decent standard of living.
IPS principal research fellow and head of its Social Lab Mathew Mathews said younger respondents might be looking at models in different countries where there are more public support schemes.
“However, they may not be cognisant of the fact that other societies have other kinds of demands, such as higher taxation,” he said at a media briefing on July 10.
Professor Paulin Straughan, who spearheaded the SMU study, said more opportunities should be created for youth here to volunteer, to show that they can make a difference.
“It’s when you can’t see where you can contribute, then you may begin to say the Government (should provide),” said the director of SMU’s Centre for Research on Successful Ageing.
Reallocation of public funds preferred over higher taxes
Close to 60 per cent of respondents who felt that the Government should provide some of the 39 items said that funding for these essential needs should come from reallocated public funds, as opposed to higher taxes.
There was no clear consensus on where this funding should be reallocated from, though the areas that drew the highest responses were the arts and culture (36.8 per cent), sports (32.7 per cent), and heritage conservation (27.3 per cent).
Implicit in the findings was the public’s understanding that social assistance must be reasonable and sustainable, bearing in mind that it is funded by taxpayers, said Mr Masagos.
Mr Masagos said that while there is a preference for reallocating government spending from other areas, this involves hard choices.
“This is a delicate balance we will need to strike – between which items to provide for through government funding, and the trade-offs we need to make as a society,” he said.
He added that the studies show there is much room for others besides the state – such as individuals, organisations, and businesses – to support vulnerable families in achieving stability, self-reliance and social mobility.
Agreeing, Prof Straughan said a whole-of-society approach is needed as the Government can only do so much, beyond which taxes may have to be raised.
For instance, the desire for travel to South-east Asian countries once a year can be met by community clubs, which may currently be more focused on organising several local outings annually.
They can also open up air-conditioned rooms on their premises for community use on hot days, she suggested.
She also called for more philanthropy, now that the studies have made visible the gaps where people feel help is essential.
“Businesses that are doing well and top income earners here can do their part to bring the community together and make Singapore a stronger and more stable nation,” she said.
8 key findings on what Singapore residents deem essential and who should provide them
By Shermaine Ang, The Straits Times, 12 Jul 2024
Two new studies on what people feel are essential needs for life in Singapore were presented at the SMU-DBS Foundation Symposium on Essential Household Needs in Singapore on July 12. Conducted by the Singapore Management University and the Institute of Policy Studies, the surveys shed light on what items and activities Singapore residents think are essential to life here, and who should provide them.
Here are eight highlights:
1. Household appliances and digital connectivity deemed most essential
The items which most respondents saw as essential included household appliances like refrigerators (100 per cent) and washing machines (96 per cent), as well as items related to digital connectivity, like smartphones with data plans (93 per cent) and home broadband plans (89 per cent).
2. Air-conditioning, dining out monthly at restaurants also viewed as essential
Higher-expenditure activities, such as dining out at restaurants at least once a month and an annual holiday to a South-east Asian country, were also seen as essential, albeit by a smaller proportion of respondents, at 62 per cent and 56 per cent respectively.
3. Private tuition and enrichment, staycations are non-essential
Fewer respondents saw as essential extracurricular lessons for children, such as private tuition (49 per cent) and private enrichment classes (30 per cent), domestic help (33 per cent), and social participation and leisure activities such as an annual staycation (27 per cent) and streaming services (38 per cent).
Those who earned less or lived in smaller home types were less likely to see these things as essential. The costlier option of private enrichment lessons was deemed essential by fewer respondents, as was private tuition (49 per cent) versus tuition provided by self-help groups (59 per cent).
4. Two-thirds of respondents did not experience any relative deprivation
Two-thirds of the respondents could afford all 40 items that were considered essential by at least half of the respondents. The remaining one-third, who could not afford one or more items deemed essential, lacked access to an average of four essential items.
The top three items with the highest relative deprivation rates were emergency savings – of six months of expenses (24 per cent) and three months of expenses (16 per cent) – and an annual holiday to a South-east Asian country (11 per cent).
5. Most believe that poverty is due to personal actions and circumstance
A majority of respondents believe people are poor because they face major issues in their lives (80 per cent) or spend money on inappropriate items (72 per cent). Conversely, fewer respondents agreed that poverty is due to external factors such as bad luck (22 per cent) or divine will (17 per cent).
6. Most feel leisure and social activities should be provided by oneself
Essential items that most felt should be the primary responsibility of individuals were those related to social participation and leisure, such as an annual holiday to a South-east Asian country and dining out at a restaurant once a month.
Most respondents felt that the community, relatives and businesses should play a larger role than the Government for household goods such as air-conditioning, and social participation activities, such as family bonding outside of home.
7. Most think the Government should help with basic necessities
Two-thirds of respondents felt that the Government should help those who cannot afford basic necessities such as three square meals a day and shelter. Over half also thought the Government should help Singapore residents with items related to healthcare, childcare and public transport.
In particular, more than half indicated that the Government should provide regular preventive health screening (57 per cent), health insurance to cover healthcare bills on top of national insurance schemes (57 per cent), and medicine prescribed by doctors (53 per cent).
8. Most preferred government spending to be reallocated rather than having people pay higher taxes
Six in 10 respondents preferred to reallocate government spending from other areas to fund the provision of essential items rather than fund them through paying higher taxes.
There was no clear consensus on which areas public spending should be reallocated from, but the top two areas proposed were the arts and culture (37 per cent) and sports (33 per cent).
Air-con a need or a want? Evolving expectations require fine-tuning of social support
Government support has its limits, but community partners can bridge the gaps by providing assistance customised to individual needs.
By Terence Ho, The Straits Times, 25 Jul 2024
In Singapore’s sweltering heat, is air-conditioning a mere luxury or an essential need?
At the SMU-DBS Foundation Symposium held on July 12, a social worker highlighted that it was not always possible to draw a clear distinction between needs and wants. For instance, air-conditioning may be a luxury for some families, but it is a necessity for those susceptible to skin conditions in the hot weather, which can in turn also affect mental health.
In fact, 63.6 per cent of Singapore residents perceive air-conditioning as an essential need, according to the Singapore Management University (SMU) study on household needs presented at the symposium.
The study aimed to identify needs that are broadly seen as essential for a normal standard of living in Singapore, recognising that needs go beyond subsistence and should also encompass psychological safety and social inclusion. A complementary survey by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) revealed whom the public felt should provide for each of these needs – whether it was the Government, the community, the individuals themselves, their relatives or friends.
As societal needs evolve, the social support system can be fine-tuned by channelling community efforts in a systematic way to provide support that is both customised and more predictable in meeting identified needs. This is especially important given the limits of government support.
The findings from the SMU and IPS studies can help by identifying essential needs and clarifying roles for different parties.
Support should be customised and flexible
The example of air-conditioning highlights that social support cannot be one-size-fits-all; there must be flexibility and discretion to customise support to individual needs. Such flexibility is provided for through the “many helping hands” approach, which has been a mainstay of Singapore’s social support system for decades.
Under this approach, the Government partners the community or people sector to deliver social assistance and social services to needy or disadvantaged households.
This strategy mobilises the considerable reservoir of goodwill, resources and expertise within the community for social good, rather than have the Government displace the efforts of corporate, community and religious organisations.
A further advantage of decentralised support is that community organisations, whether grassroots organisations or social service agencies, are well placed to ascertain needs within the local community.
Social workers who work closely with families can assess the additional, context-specific help they may need and match donors with beneficiaries.
Limitations of government support
Currently, the state provides basic financial assistance through various Community Care (ComCare) schemes, along with a range of means-tested healthcare, housing and public transport subsidies.
However, there are in-built limits to the coverage and quantum of government support in the Singapore system.
First, government support has been positioned as a last resort, and not a first resort, and targeted at the most needy. This enables taxes to be kept low, while preserving the ethos of self-reliance.
ComCare support is sized to help needy households with typical daily living expenses.
Although social service officers disbursing support may exercise some flexibility, ComCare does not provide for all living expenses that households with varying circumstances – such as chronic health conditions or disabilities – may face.
These may need to be addressed through other government schemes or sources of help.
Second, most taxpayer-funded schemes are for citizens or residents, and generally exclude foreigners who are not part of Singaporean families.
For instance, foreign former spouses of Singaporeans may not have access to the full suite of support if they find themselves in financial difficulty, compounded by the lack of social support networks in Singapore.
Third, the scope of support which the state provides may not cover certain needs, important as they may be to the families concerned.
An example is help with clearing debt, which social workers have identified as a significant obstacle that makes it difficult for some families to turn their lives around. Some taxpayers may object to public monies being used to clear individuals’ debt, whether on principle or due to concerns such as moral hazard.
It may be more appropriate for other donors such as private corporations to step in. This is being piloted under the new ComLink+ Progress Packages.
Efforts should be systematic and predictable
The limits of state support mean that other helping hands must come alongside the Government to ensure adequacy of support and coverage for essential household needs.
Any shortfalls or gaps in social support could be plugged by a systematic channelling of resources from community or corporate donors to recipient needs. Forward planning and visibility are critical.
If support could be made more predictable, it would give greater assurance to social service agencies and their beneficiaries, and also more confidence to donors that their efforts are making a difference, complementing rather than competing with government support.
For social support programmes whose efficacy has been established, it is important to secure a pipeline of funding to ensure scalability and sustainability. An example is AWWA’s family empowerment programme, which found through a recent study that unconditional cash assistance to needy families improved beneficiaries’ job security and mental health.
Such support, which gives recipients greater autonomy than support that is tied to work or other conditions, is more appropriately funded by private donors. The programme received an initial tranche of funding from Standard Chartered Bank and will now continue with further support from Temasek Trust.
Complementing government support
The IPS study provides some ideas for the respective roles of the Government, businesses and community partners by revealing public perceptions of who should provide for various needs.
Survey respondents generally felt that the Government should provide for basic needs such as healthcare, housing and public transport, while individuals should be responsible for emergency savings as well as leisure needs such as overseas vacations, dining out and outings with friends.
Many respondents felt that the community could fund participation in community activities, and the purchase of school books, stationery and school bags for children from needy families.
About a fifth of respondents also saw a role for businesses in providing for private transportation for medical or caregiving needs, as well as supporting digital connectivity for households.
There is a certain logic to these findings: The Government is better placed to provide services that require significant infrastructure such as public healthcare and transport, whereas personal needs and social activities – important for psychological well-being and social inclusion – may be more appropriately provided for by oneself, family or friends.
Sometimes, families have episodic needs that arise when household appliances break down or a family member falls ill; in such cases, community or corporate donations could supplement the baseline cash support from government schemes. This way, community help will not displace government help or vice versa.
The advantages of community involvement in social support are already evident: Beyond donations, corporate or community volunteers can lend professional expertise in areas such as education, financial management or legal counselling.
More companies are eschewing one-off engagements with social service agencies in favour of longer-term partnerships where staff can better perceive the impact of their efforts on the lives of beneficiaries.
What could make a further difference is to overlay the many commendable efforts and ground-up initiatives with a systematic overview of how essential needs are being met – one that is informed by societal values and expectations.
This would also give contributors greater visibility of how their efforts are making a collective difference.
Terence Ho is an associate professor in practice at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
No comments:
Post a Comment