Hawker culture debate: The missing ingredient is our willingness to pay

Nostalgia over hawker culture may have trapped us into an outdated view that hawker fare must always be very cheap.

By Chua Mui Hoong, Senior Columnist, The Straits Times, 23 Nov 2024

Perhaps it is no coincidence that while we wring our hands about how to make hawker culture sustainable in Singapore, hawker fare is thriving in Perth.

This crossed my mind while I was having kopi-o gau and kaya toast one morning in Perth, where I now live, and the thought developed over the next day, when I had nasi lemak and kopi peng.

For those who don’t know, Perth is home to a multitude of Singaporean and Malaysian restaurants and cafes whose selling point is hawker food.

My nasi lemak here cost A$14.50 (S$12.70) and came with a small mix of fried peanuts and anchovies, one hard-boiled egg and a whole deep-fried chicken thigh. Kopi peng was A$5. My kaya toast and kopi-o set was A$12.50.

I have gone beyond feeling shock at the higher prices for hawker food in Perth. This is Australia, after all, where the minimum wage is A$24.10 an hour. Restaurants close in the afternoon before reopening for dinner, as it isn’t worth paying wages to remain open for the odd customer who comes in mid-afternoon. Eating out is expensive, so most people cook and eat at home.

In Singapore, cooked food prices remain very affordable, especially in hawker centres and coffee shops. A similar kaya toast set with a beverage, plus two soft-boiled eggs, would cost me around $3 in a hawker centre or coffee shop in Singapore. NTUC Foodfare even sells this signature breakfast set for $2.20, with union members getting a special price of $1.80 for a beverage, one slice of kaya toast and two soft-boiled eggs.

How little is too little for a kaya toast set?

Local food chain Toast Box charged $7.40 for its kaya toast set, drawing flak online. A reader posted a photo that showed the same set had cost $5.70 in 2020. A subsequent online poll found that 88 per cent of 7,425 respondents thought a kaya toast set should not cost above $5.

It got me wondering why hawker culture is facing an existential threat in Singapore, but Malaysian and Singaporean eateries, offering similar fare, do a roaring trade in Perth. Could the prices of hawker fare hold the key?

The issue cropped up in Parliament last week, when the Progress Singapore Party’s leaders moved a motion calling for a review of hawker policies. The motion was reworded by People’s Action Party MPs to call for a regular review of hawker policies that can “sustain and grow Singapore’s hawker culture so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy good and affordable hawker food while enabling hawkers to earn a fair livelihood” (italics mine). The amended motion was passed by all MPs, showing cross-party support for hawker culture.

Hawker culture unifies Singaporeans. Hawker centres bring together diners of different races, ages, and social strata to enjoy food derived from our multiracial heritage. A millionaire towkay may sweat through his bowl of mee rebus, seated at the same table as the single mum sharing wonton mee with her child.

Hawker culture also comes with a certain heritage. The early hawker centres built in the 1970s housed former street hawkers and rented out food stalls at low rates to a generation of less-educated, low-income Singaporeans who sold cooked food or drinks to make a living. A hawker stall provided a humble, yet secure, means of livelihood. My parents, who emigrated from China to Singapore in the 1950s, belonged to that group. Their stall in an ulu (remote) part of Singapore in Pasir Panjang, near an oil refinery, enabled them to sell char kway teow and other dishes, and to put three children to school.

Many Singaporeans, like me, are deeply proud of the working-class roots of hawker culture. We want hawker centres to continue being mass dining halls for all. We don’t want them gentrified or made hipster.

Most Singaporeans will have their favourite hawker stall or coffee shop where they enjoy their morning teh or kopi, where they go for their fix of mee siam, chicken rice or nonya kueh. As an emigrant who now lives overseas, I plan my visits back to Singapore around the hawker food I miss – my favourite bak chor mee in the Veerasamy area, the prawn noodle and chicken rice at Shunfu Mart near my old home, and a recent discovery – the Teochew soon kueh at the social enterprise Yoon’s Social Kitchen in Aljunied. When I meet a new Singaporean kaki in Perth, it is nearly always to catch up over hawker fare in a Singaporean or Malaysian eatery.

Singapore hawker culture has become a strong unifier for its people. We should do our best to promote it, and sustain it.

The way we tell the Singapore Story needs a refresh: Tan Tai Yong

The country’s journey was woven into the personal lives of older Singaporeans. Younger citizens can’t relate to that.

By Tan Tai Yong, The Straits Times, 17 Aug 2024

Addressing the nation in front of the 19th century Sri Temasek building at the Istana, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong opened his National Day message by recounting how, in 1965, founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew had spent the night of Aug 8 there, just before formal separation from Malaysia, “consumed with worry over how to build a nation from scratch”. He added that the then Prime Minister and the founding leaders went on to overcome “enormous odds and laid the foundations” for the modern nation-state of Singapore.

The reference to history is a constant refrain at every National Day commemoration, when Singaporeans are reminded of the country’s journey from a small and vulnerable former colony to a thriving, successful nation-state.

Many older Singaporeans relate to the country’s journey of nation-building. They remember periods of labour unrest, urban poverty, ethnic conflicts, unstable times in Malaysia, and the domestic and international challenges following Singapore’s emergence as a new state. The Singapore Story is interwoven with their personal stories.

But for younger Singaporeans who did not live through these times, what does the Singapore Story mean? With each successive National Day, the events of Singapore’s early years will become more distant, and memories of the past will fade. History will be taught through our schools and public institutions, but a storytelling that does not resonate with personal memories and experiences runs the risk of raising scepticism, leading to a perception that official historical narratives and calls to remember our origin story are merely state-driven propaganda.

Engagements with history get further diluted when physical traces of the past start to vanish. Singapore’s rapid physical and social development since 1965 has challenged the different ways people remember and bind themselves to their community and country.

Herein lies the danger. A people that do not relate to their history will not fully appreciate the journey their country undertook, or why it adopted the values it did. Or why, in Singapore’s context, multiculturalism is such a key pillar, for example. It’s possible that such values will not be internalised and we may risk straying from them. That is why it is imperative that we imbibe our history and it strikes a chord with us, so that the values that the country upholds continue to be deeply and personally meaningful to us. At the same time, we need to understand the context of the decisions we took, so that we can adapt to changed circumstances instead of blindly mimicking past postures.

The future of our past

How, then, do we get the Singapore Story to resonate with younger Singaporeans and remain relevant for future generations?

At the ground-breaking of the Founders’ Memorial in June 2024, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong envisioned the Memorial as a space where Singaporeans can reflect on their ongoing nation-building journey, drawing on an understanding of our past and an appreciation of the “fundamental values and ideals” that set the long-term direction of Singapore.

His call to ensure that the Founders’ Memorial connects with future Singaporean generations presents an interesting task. It goes beyond recalling the words and deeds of Singapore’s founding fathers or knowing the history of those momentous years; it must engage younger Singaporeans who have only witnessed peace, stability and prosperity, and inspire them to understand the fundamental principles that define us as a society and country.

Singaporeans are not unfamiliar with the country’s history. The prevailing national narrative – the Singapore Story – features prominently within the educational curriculum, is recounted in biographies of political figures, showcased at National Day Parades, and exhibited across various national museums. With such frequent exposure, Singaporeans might believe they are fully knowledgeable about their country’s historical journey.

But merely knowing history might not be sufficient, as familiarity with events and personalities of the past does not necessarily make history personally relevant and meaningful. Beyond historical literacy – that is, knowing what happened – it is crucial to develop historical consciousness, which is the ability to make the past have meaning for us as individuals and as communities.

What does historical consciousness entail and how do we develop this in younger Singaporeans?

The danger of nostalgia weighing upon the present

It is good to know our history, but we must be wary of invoking the past to make decisions about the present.

By Simon Tay, The Straits Times, 14 Aug 2024

Talking about the past of our country seems more evident today than ever before. Perhaps it is the National Day mood. As we marked our 59th year, there was a new president and a new prime minister in place, and yet the theme song and dance routines evoked the independence era.

Books, too, have contributed to such discussions, like the recently issued biography of our first foreign minister S. Rajaratnam. For me, personally, awareness is heightened because of Enigmas, my own book about my late father, Tay Seow Huah – a pioneer generation civil servant contributing to security for our then young country.

Singapore is old enough to look back on its founding decade with nostalgia. I felt this strongly when writing about Singapore’s first decade of independence in Enigmas. Beyond the work on pressing issues of the time, it is harmless and fun to remember markers of how we lived, like the eating places that my father and his generation frequented, and which I knew as a child.

But lifestyle aside, one must be wary of nostalgia slipping into decisions of policy. And yet, nostalgia seems to inform some current controversies, in public discussions and in social media.

How’s history relevant here?

A mural on the side of a Chinatown shophouse caused considerable debate with its depiction of a samsui woman, smoking and glamorous. The mural had sidestepped the usual processes of seeking permits for such public art, as well as guidelines that caution against the depiction of smoking.

But many reactions focused on the question of veracity: the fact that these women who contributed to literally building Singapore smoked, as a respite from hard labour. This reference to the past was evoked as a kind of trump card: to overcome current guidelines that censor most depictions of smoking.

That focus downplayed other elements of the mural – the woman was depicted as young, attractive and with elaborately and improbably manicured nails. Nor was its artistic merit much discussed.

My own interpretation was that this mural was not about historical fact. Rather I saw it as a comment about how Chinatown has now been gentrified and glamorised, with prices soaring for the once humble and rundown shop houses.

The final decision was a compromise. The mural with its depiction of smoking was not erased. But a fine was imposed as prior authorisation for this public art had not been obtained.

The past was also invoked in what would seem a commercial decision. This concerns the sale of a majority stake in Income Insurance to a foreign investor, Allianz. On top of the regulatory issues, some emphasised the original social mission of Income Insurance.

Much respected Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh was among those who took this line as he warned against Singapore becoming “a nation of people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing”, something our first foreign minister had cited.

No one can argue that it is not important to understand what was before. But past examples and statements are best set in context of the circumstances of their time. Otherwise, there is a risk that past incidents and statements can be invoked selectively in ways that may distort.

NTUC ventured into the insurance sector following a suggestion in 1969 by Dr Goh Keng Swee, who later served as deputy prime minister. Dr Goh had felt that a social enterprise by the unions was needed because “social security is in its rudimentary stages”.

Today presents a very different situation. There are many more insurers to provide for life, health and other forms of security for workers. There is, for instance, a nationwide scheme to insure full-time national servicemen on a voluntary and affordable basis. This scheme is provided by another insurer, not Income Insurance.

Can the current competitive market not meet the needs of Singaporeans? If NTUC were to be asked today about the need for unions to run an insurer, wouldn’t it, probably, arrive at a different decision?

These are among the contextual, “what if” questions to be considered if we are to apply past lessons and thinking to changing circumstances. Otherwise, if we allow the past to overly constrain current choices, history would be a heavy, dead hand.

Singaporeans identify items deemed essential for a normal life in Singapore: Household Needs Study by SMU

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 from May 2022 to February 2023

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.”

What the West can learn from Singapore

Data shows that in key areas, Singapore is better at governing than the US and Britain.

By Graham Allison, The Straits Times, 12 Jun 2024

When asked whether the US government works, most Americans say no. According to recent polling by Ipsos, more than two-thirds of adults in the United States think the country is going in the wrong direction. Gallup reports that only 26 per cent have confidence in major US institutions, such as the presidency, the Supreme Court and Congress. Nearly half of Americans aged 18 to 25 say that they believe either that democracy or dictatorship “makes no difference” or that “dictatorship could be good in certain circumstances”. As a recent Economist cover story put it: “After victory in the Cold War, the American model seemed unassailable. A generation on, Americans themselves are losing confidence in it.”

Most Singaporeans have a very different outlook on their government, a managed political system that has elections but nonetheless facilitates the dominance of one party, the People’s Action Party. According to a Pew Research Centre report, three-quarters of Singaporeans are satisfied with how democracy is working in their country. Moreover, 80 per cent think their country is heading in the right direction – the highest number in any of the 29 countries surveyed in the May Ipsos poll.

In 2024, both the United States and Singapore are facing one of the most challenging tests of any system of government: the transfer of power from one leader to the next. Textbooks on government identify this as an arena in which democratic systems have the greatest advantage over authoritarian or managed alternatives. Yet, as 2024 shows, that isn’t always the case.

In May, as then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong passed the baton to his chosen successor, Mr Lawrence Wong, Singaporeans almost unanimously applauded the orderly, peaceful transition. In contrast, Americans’ sense of gloom is growing as they approach a presidential election in which voters will have to choose between two candidates who claim that the other’s victory would mean the end of US democracy. According to an April Reuters/Ipsos poll, ttwo-thirds of US voters believe that neither candidate should be running.

These comparisons invite the question: Is Singapore simply better at governing than other countries?

To answer this, consider the following three Report Cards, which use data from international organisations to assess Singapore alongside two countries holding major elections in 2024: the United States and Britain. Each report card grades the countries on how well they have fulfilled the requirements that Singapore’s founder and first prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew – the father of Mr Lee Hsien Loong – believed were the functions of government: to “improve the standard of living for the majority of its people, plus enabling the maximum of personal freedoms compatible with the freedoms of others in society”.

The first Report Card considers citizens’ well-being, which we’ve assessed based on categories for which there is ample data, such as income, health, safety and sense of security.

The second Report Card covers what the World Bank calls “governance”, or a government’s effectiveness in facing issues, making policy choices, executing policy and preventing corruption.

The third Report Card, which considers both individual rights and citizens’ satisfaction with their government, is more difficult to interpret. It includes the judgments made both by international organisations and by polls that gauge how citizens feel about their democracy.

It’s worth reflecting on nine takeaways related to these Report Cards. First, Mr Lee Hsien Loong left to his successor a population that is now wealthier than Americans – and almost twice as wealthy as their former British colonial overlords.

When he took office in 2004, the so-called Singapore miracle had already happened: Singapore’s economy had soared since the 1960s, taking the country from poverty to having a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita that was approximately three-quarters of that of the United States, where many analysts thought it would remain. Yet 20 years later, Singapore’s GDP per capita is more than 4 per cent higher than that in the United States: $88,500 compared with $85,000.

Second, while rapid economic growth often produces greater income disparity, over the past two decades, Singapore has reduced inequality significantly – from 0.47 to 0.37 (as measured by the Gini coefficient, a measure by which 0 equals complete equality and 1 represents complete inequality) – while the United States has remained around 0.47. (For comparison, China’s Gini coefficient is 0.46, and the country with the highest level of inequality is South Africa, with 0.63.)

Third, Singaporeans are generally healthier and live longer than their counterparts in the United States and Britain. Just 20 years ago, life expectancy in all three countries was approximately the same. Today, the life expectancy in Singapore is longer (83 years) than that in the United States (76 years) and Britain (81 years). Singapore’s infant mortality has fallen from 27 deaths per 1,000 births in 1965, to 4 in 2004, to 1.8 today – considerably lower than both other countries. Furthermore, 93 per cent of Singaporeans express satisfaction with their healthcare system, in contrast to 75 per cent of Americans and 77 per cent of Britons.

Fourth, Singapore was clearly best prepared for a major public health crisis. Because the Covid-19 pandemic struck all countries around the same time, it provided a clear test of their response systems. On a per capita basis, around 10 Americans or Britons have died from Covid-19 for every one of their counterparts in Singapore.

Cost of living means different things to different folks in Singapore

The Economist’s Worldwide Cost of Living index does not shed light on the bills that ordinary Singaporeans pay.

By Lin Suling, Opinion Editor, The Straits Times, 13 Dec 2023

As a sign of the lengths Singapore will go to in a bid to up its wow factor and entice more travellers here, consider the dramatic four-storey waterfall display unveiled at the recently refurbished Changi Airport Terminal 2 in November.

Just about everyone I know has already visited the attraction, now the centrepiece of the T2 departure hall, and told me the four-minute musical extravaganza is not to be missed.

Now, you may be forgiven for confusing this 14m by 17m digital display with the man-made, HSBC-sponsored rain vortex at Changi Airport’s Jewel, which was opened a mere four years ago. That spectacular sight remains the world’s tallest indoor waterfall.

If two waterfalls – one digital, one physical – sound like overkill, that is probably precisely the intent. Singapore is already home to the world’s largest air-conditioned glass greenhouse, Gardens by the Bay, and hosted the first Formula One night race globally.

We must keep filling this carousel of new shiny things so we can remain vibrant and attractive to visitors, investors and corporate leaders.

Singapore thus far seems to be doing this well. Why else would expats keep coming back to Singapore despite it being billed the most expensive city nine times in the last 11 years by The Economist?

News of Singapore – along with Zurich – topping the 2023 Worldwide Cost of Living index on Nov 30, nonetheless, raised many eyebrows.

Many Singaporeans have suggested that it confirms their longstanding concerns that making ends meet in Singapore is becoming an uphill climb for the man in the street.

Online, netizens cite anecdotal experiences corroborating this jump in prices, from the doubling of the cost of a bowl of fish soup at their local coffee shop to complaints about certificates of entitlement (COEs).

Another pointed to news of thwarted attempts to smuggle 120kg of beef and pork as an unequivocal sign that more Singaporeans are turning to the black market to fill their stomachs. Never mind that meat smuggling is possibly the most creative strategy to beat inflation nobody has ever heard of.

And most discussions eventually reached the same conclusion: that the Singapore Government has slipped, in letting in foreigners who push up prices while leaving Singaporeans behind.

The most expensive city in the world for whom?

What to make of all this? Some information about how the Worldwide Cost of Living is put together offers perspective.

The full index of how cost of living stacks up across 173 countries is available only with a US$1,195 (S$1,602) fee. Its website suggests this full report is useful for human resources, corporates, financial institutions, and legal and insurance firms, as “this purpose-built Internet tool quickly calculates cost-of-living allowances and (aids in) building compensation packages for expatriates and business travellers”.

A closer look at the items used in this benchmark of relative cost of living, which is meant to be a comprehensive dataset of over 400 individual price points across 200 goods and services, throws up things such as international school tuition fees, public golf course fees and three-course dinners.

These may just be a few outliers that stick out. Even so, not only are they hardly stuff the average Singaporean spends on, they are also more accurately the make-up of what the typical expat around the world splurges on.

Here in Singapore, I would also add to this list the doubling of Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty for purchases of homes by foreigners, and higher personal income taxes for top earners beginning from the 2024 year of assessment.

Curiously, despite these higher projected expenses, the foreigners just keep coming.

Tharman is president-elect. Is Singapore a post-race society?

His presidency is a chance to shape race relations positively. Singapore still has some way to go.

By Mathew Mathews, Published The Straits Times, 6 Sep 2023

The election of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam as Singapore’s ninth president stands as a profound testament to the nation’s commitment to racial inclusivity.

Mr Tharman’s resounding victory, with 70.4 per cent of the vote, realises an aspiration shared by many Singaporeans: to elect a competent and qualified president – whether from a minority race or otherwise – through an open contest in line with the nation’s commitment to meritocracy.

Race was almost a non-factor at the ballot box in some sense. Mr Tharman’s impeccable credentials, coupled with his popularity built over two decades in politics, overcame any lingering racial prejudices.

Racial representation in the presidency

Having good racial representation in the presidency is important for the development of multiracialism in Singapore. Recognising this, Parliament consistently appointed presidents from all the main racial groups in Singapore since Mr Yusof Ishak first assumed the role, even though there was no constitutional requirement to do so.

However, the public was sensitised to this objective only after constitutional amendments were passed in 2016 to reserve the elected presidency for candidates of a particular racial group if there had not been a president from that group for the five most recent presidential terms.

The population has largely come to accept these interventions as necessary to uphold the multiracial character of the presidency. In the 2021 CNA-IPS Survey on Race Relations, over 70 per cent of the 2,000 Singaporeans surveyed believed that the reserved presidency helped preserve racial harmony in Singapore.

Seeing a minority candidate win the race was never a given. The 2011 Presidential Election, featuring four candidates from the majority race, illustrated the growing challenges facing any qualified minority candidate in the race for the top job.

With qualifying conditions subsequently tightened, the very high bar for a nomination meant that only a small number of eminent minority representatives would be eligible to contest the president’s post. They, too, might be concerned that their chances of getting elected might be adversely impacted by the potential influence of racial preferences.

The high-water mark of race relations?

While Mr Tharman’s victory represents a significant milestone, it by no means signals that Singapore has fully transcended racial divisions and become a post-race society.

Race is unlikely to lose its significance entirely after Mr Tharman’s assumption of the presidency, just as it did not disappear as a political force in the United States after President Barack Obama’s historic election win in 2008.

Many observers have remarked on the irony that the mountain top of race relations in the US coincided with Mr Obama’s inauguration as the first African-American president, only to steadily deteriorate to the valleys through his tenure with heightening racial tensions ranging from the riots in Ferguson to the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Singapore has been fortunate in maintaining generally positive race relations due to a combination of state interventions and the resolve of the population. Yet, racial preferences undeniably persist within the population, as highlighted by the same CNA-IPS survey. The survey showed high levels of in-group preferences for various roles, particularly among Chinese respondents.

When asked about the acceptability of different races to manage their business, nearly all were accepting of an ethnic Chinese in that role, although only about half were accepting of a Singaporean Malay (51.9 per cent) or Indian (52.8 per cent). Similar trends were evident when respondents were asked about renting a property to people of different racial groups or having someone from another race marry into the family.

It would be overly simplistic to attribute these racial preferences, and the general proclivity to see one another in terms of race, solely to state policies, such as the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others system and the Ethnic Integration Policy in housing. Research suggests that some of these preferences may be ingrained from infancy and reinforced through early socialisation experiences.

The asset-rich, cash-poor have a housing dilemma

The elderly might not downsize and monetise their homes for retirement income. Their concerns centre on preserving the value of their flat and ageing in place.

By Sing Tien Foo, Published The Straits Times, 12 Aug 2023

Are homes nest eggs for retirement? It turns out the answer is not straightforward.

Delivering his National Day message this week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong highlighted the Government’s desire to refresh its approach to public housing, with a special effort on adapting Housing Board estates and flats to serve a rapidly ageing population.

Although he had referred to physical infrastructure, community spaces and active ageing centres, he also highlighted the importance of retirement adequacy. More details will be announced at the upcoming National Day Rally, he said.

Ageing population, ageing homes

PM Lee’s remarks are timely. By 2030, one in four Singaporean residents will hit 65. Today, only one in three in this age group is employed. We should technically see more monetising their homes to fund their retirement.

In Singapore, the HDB has two schemes by which elderly home owners can unlock the value of their homes – the Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) and Lease Buyback Scheme (LBS).

SHB incentivises eligible households to right-size their homes. If they downsize to a three-room or smaller HDB flat, use the proceeds of the sale of their home to top up their Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Account (RA) and join the CPF Life lifelong annuity scheme, they can receive a cash bonus of up to $30,000.

Similar to a reverse mortgage, the LBS allows seniors aged 65 and older to sell the tail-end of the lease to HDB while continuing to live in their homes. The proceeds will go to their CPF RA and CPF Life, with the home owner receiving a monthly income for life.

Recognising that the LBS holds the key to helping more Singaporeans unlock the value of their homes in their old age, the scheme, which was introduced in 2009 for those living in three-room and smaller flats, was subsequently expanded to include residents in all HDB flat types.

But is this thinking one-sided? Based on the 2022 population statistics of the 547,598 HDB dwellers aged 65 and older, and assuming that each household comprises two such dwellers, about 274,000 households are eligible for LBS. However, as at December 2022, only about 9,700 households – or 3.5 per cent of the estimated eligible households – have taken up the scheme.

The low response rate for the LBS betrays the popular sentiment among elderly Singaporeans that may become a problem for retirement adequacy: People seem unwilling to trade their homes for retirement income.

They are asset-rich but cash-poor

Instead, many middle-aged and retired home owners, usually referred to as the asset-rich, cash-poor segment, are more concerned if their homes will preserve their value, even as they stew over whether they can meet their financial needs in old age.

This is a problem because policymakers have long assumed that most Singaporeans purchase homes for capital appreciation, with the wealth accumulated to be freed up in old age.

In this housing life-cycle model, which has a hump-shaped curve, one accumulates wealth with age as the value of a house appreciates and the mortgage is paid off. But as homes age and begin to decline in value, the home owners must at some point sell off the property or find some way to monetise the asset, so that they can live reasonably comfortably in their golden years.

Depending on the amount drawn down, home owners can still bequeath the remaining lease to a loved one. Else, the value of the home is exhausted when its lease runs down to zero.

Persistent accumulation of housing wealth

Why aren’t Singaporeans monetising their homes? The uncertainties associated with life expectancy, bequest motives and medical expenses in old age may encourage many to keep a housing asset intact.

Conversation on euthanasia should enter end-of-life discussions in Singapore

Assisted dying is a sensitive subject but, with its population ageing, Singapore may need to discuss what we think about it

By Salma Khalik, Senior Health Correspondent, The Straits Times, 29 Jul 2023

As more Singaporeans age, urgent discussions are taking place on how we approach end-of-life issues.

The roles of nursing homes, hospices and home palliative care are part of ongoing discussions on easing and widening different approaches towards how we age, and ultimately pass on.

There is, however, one issue that has gained traction elsewhere but which hardly ever figures in our end-of-life discussions here: assisted dying.

Assisted dying can either take the form of assisted suicide, where the final act is undertaken by the person involved, often with the aid of a medical practitioner; or euthanasia, where another person, again often a doctor, performs the act of terminating life.

Assisted dying is illegal in Singapore.

But given that our population continues to age rapidly, and more older people will increasingly find themselves in continuous pain that even palliative care can do little to help, this is not an issue we should entirely ignore. What could be at stake is the dignity and personal choice of a segment of our population.

Several countries are well ahead of Singapore on this count, both in terms of having mainstream discussions, as well as in having legal frameworks on assisted dying.

Most countries that have legalised assisted dying allow both assisted suicide and euthanasia. Some, like Switzerland, which was the pioneer in allowing assisted suicide in 1942, allow the former but keep euthanasia illegal.

Should one or both options be legalised here, to give those desperate to end their lives a way of doing so with grace?

WP and PAP: Counting the costs of scandals

The recent revelations of extramarital affairs within the parties have left the public troubled, with questions about what to expect of their leaders and members, and the standards for politics in Singapore.

By Gillian Koh, Published The Straits Times, 21 Jul 2023

The dust has far from settled. But after leaders of the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the Workers’ Party (WP) recently addressed the questions hanging over the conduct of their members, we at least have more information to help make sense of these politically tumultuous times.

The WP leaders addressed the issue of the “inappropriate exchange” between its parliamentarian, Mr Leon Perera of Aljunied GRC, and its member, Ms Nicole Seah who contested in East Coast GRC in the 2020 General Election – they did indeed have an extramarital affair.

They have resigned from the party, which in effect means that Mr Perera will also no longer be a Member of Parliament.

The ruling PAP has also lost two of its MPs due to similar transgressions – Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, who resigned as Speaker of Parliament, and Ms Cheng Li Hui, who left her Tampines GRC seat.

How do we assess the parties’ responses, and what will these developments mean for the political ecosystem going forward?

Loss of representation

For the Workers’ Party, it is the loss of a second of only 10 duly elected MPs after GE2020, the point being that each one of these was presumably a hard-fought victory.

If it did mean as much as we imagine then it is difficult to fathom why better judgment did not prevail over Mr Perera.

In the case of the resignation of the People’s Action Party MPs, the matter of personal indiscretions and lying to party leadership were equally egregious, if not more so, given Mr Tan’s position.

But the WP as an opposition party has had to struggle harder to establish credibility, build trust, and wrest seats from the PAP.

Arguably, the price paid by the WP is far costlier; the loss in representation of an alternative voice – more significant to us.

Affairs, a cause for resignation?

On another point, the PAP that has built its reputation on high standards of probity, propriety, and personal conduct, has also been bruised by developments in its camp over the past few weeks.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who is the PAP secretary-general, said it had saddened him “to discover that these two PAP MPs have fallen short of the high standards of propriety and personal conduct that we expect from all PAP MPs”.

Given that Mr Tan was Speaker, this means that the ability to remain impartial in the House was, at least technically, compromised well before the hot mic incident criticising WP MP Jamus Lim took place. What needs to be established is whether it had indeed been compromised in relation to his treatment of fellow parliamentarian Cheng.

On the other hand, the WP did not address the issue of the extramarital affair directly at its media conference announcing the resignations.

Instead, the message was more about the fact that Mr Perera and Ms Seah had not been honest with the leaders when they were asked whether there was any basis to the allegations about their affair.

WP secretary-general Pritam Singh revealed only that the WP leaders did persist in asking Mr Perera and Ms Seah if there was any truth to the allegations, but he did not provide a definitive statement on his party’s stance on extramarital affairs among its members and parliamentarians.

What Mr Singh did refer to was the pain that the Perera-Seah affair must have caused the families concerned and when such affairs happen, identifying with that as a married man himself.

Hence, there was the empathy for the affected families and an appeal to the public to let the matter rest now. When asked, he did not suggest that there was a party line on such affairs, but offered a line on party discipline and accountability to the leadership as the central issue at hand.

He also delivered a more general statement that he wanted his party’s parliamentarians to do Singapore proud and be committed to serving Parliament and Singaporeans well.

It would be useful to learn in the coming days if this is the correct reading of the differences in how the parties view the issue: Is private conduct, such as that engaged in by the four party members, something that is cause for formal discipline within the parties? Is it only a problem if it bleeds into formal public duty or is it a non-negotiable?

Leaders chasing leads, managing the damage

On the detailed management of the problems, in the PAP’s case, the parliamentarians involved admitted to the extramarital affair but lied about terminating it. Questions have been raised as to why such leeway was given since its discovery after the 2020 General Election, and even after February 2023, when firm action is expected by the public, given the PAP’s no-nonsense reputation.

PM Lee has tried to explain it and we can expect more to be said in a ministerial statement when Parliament sits in early August.

In the WP’s case, the members denied it right up to the point when the evidence was made public. And it is of concern to think that Mr Perera was going to victimise his driver, not only by sacking him but checking on legal action in relation to what was presented as a baseless allegation.

After all, we are to believe that Mr Singh and his senior colleagues seemed to have been taken in by claims by Mr Perera that the whistleblower, his driver, was a disgruntled employee, and did not question the latter directly.

In addition, perhaps in due course, we will learn if Ms Seah told the party about the affair when she is said to have confessed it to her family after it ended, or truly kept its leaders in the dark.

Recovery and doing better for parties and nation

Supporters of both parties will be disappointed, but because the next general election is still a while away, there is a lot that the parties can do to rebuild their reputation, their standing with voters, not only by the quality and lived-out values of their candidates but also through how the candidates have engaged and served them, practically.

Meanwhile, it was good that WP chairman Sylvia Lim spoke specifically about how the constituents in Aljunied GRC, where she is an MP, will continue to be served. It assures them that this has been thought about.

It is not new territory of course as MPs in Sengkang are already filling the gap left by the resignation of Ms Raeesah Khan for misleading Parliament in alleging misconduct by the police. Mr Faisal Manap from Aljunied GRC is doing double-duty in Sengkang GRC for minority representation there.

In terms of the future of Aljunied GRC, there is worry about how the issue of costs for improper payments by Ms Lim in relation to historical town council matters in Aljunied GRC will affect her standing, and how the investigations on Mr Pritam Singh in relation to the Raeesah Khan issue is going to affect him too.

This seems perilous.

We do not know yet how this could affect the representation of and service to Aljunied constituents but surely the WP will be considering various scenarios in its forward-planning.

Surely this is the time for the WP’s volunteers and also prospective candidates to rise up. It is unlikely that the battle-hardened WP will waste a crisis. WP secretary-general Singh did say that the search for good candidates is ongoing. Given what has happened, volunteers hoping to stand will be far more cautious in making a decision to put themselves forward, and the leaders, equally careful in their choices.

While case histories will always be instructive, will the WP’s internal codes of conduct be revised to institutionalise its expectations of parliamentarians?

The PAP is undoubtedly impacted by the recent arrest of Transport Minister S. Iswaran by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). If he is proven guilty, it will also deal a big blow to the ruling party, from losing an anchor minister in the West Coast GRC.

With the unequivocal line of its party secretary-general on honesty and personal conduct in recent days, there could be no doubt about the expectations and level of scrutiny that citizens will place on party leaders and their every action going forward.

It has various codes of conduct but yet again, all parts – rules, values, the right people, and peer pressure – have to be in place for a strong political ecosystem to prevail.

Generally, those who wish to be our representatives in Parliament will be reminded to do so for the right reasons, that matters of personal conduct are important in Singapore; that honesty between party members and leaders, parliamentarians and citizens, spouses and family members, is expected.

These are teachable moments for politics and governance in Singapore and if absorbed for what they are, will serve us well in the future, when the hurt is over.

As GST goes up, is it time to rethink support from Government?

As prices stay high and Singaporeans get older, some are calling for more government help. But what kind of help do they need, and where should the money come from?

By Grace Ho, Insight Editor, The Straits Times, 1 Jan 2023

For many, getting older stirs mixed feelings of anticipation – finally, retirement! – and anxiety for the future.

With one in four citizens here aged 65 and older by 2030, more Singaporeans will have to grapple with the challenges of living longer, from maintaining job security and health, to caregiving and finances. As seniors become more well-educated and have richer work experience, they, too, are likely to be more vocal about their needs and wants.

How can their expectations be funded sustainably? Is government aid a universal right of citizenship, or should it be targeted at the poor? These and other burning questions were tackled in a recent study on ageing-related policies by researchers from the National University of Singapore.

As part of the study, two workshops were conducted with 82 citizens of different ages and socio-economic backgrounds. Participants took a survey before the first workshop to establish their baseline sentiments on policies, and were surveyed again after the second workshop to measure the change in their opinions.

More help wanted for caregiving and health

When asked how they would make use of an extra $10,000 per person for age-related government policies and programmes, participants cited the following:

• Health ($2,900)
• Caregiving, to help with physical mobility ($1,700)
• Transfer payments to seniors ($1,700)
• Housing ($1,200)
• Social and emotional support ($1,200)
• Transport ($970)

Health and caregiving were top-of-mind. Those in the sandwiched generation were worried about sacrificing their wages and time, should they become caregivers for their elderly family members and children.

They felt that the Home Caregiving Grant – $200 a month in cash to support family members with at least permanent moderate disability – was not enough to tip the balance in making the decision to take on caregiving responsibilities easier.

They also wanted the state to come up with nursing care and broader caregiving arrangements, including those to manage dementia among the growing number of seniors.

Middle-income participants felt they did not have the heavily subsidised support that lower-income households enjoy. Means-testing, they said, is too blunt an instrument, especially for those who are asset-rich yet cash-poor. They proposed assistance that is more attuned to the health rather than socio-economic status of seniors.

What about caregivers whose work is unpaid and invisible? The study suggests that tax reliefs and having caregivers’ savings multiplied through the Central Provident Fund (CPF), compared with just having family members contribute to their personal bank accounts, can move the needle.

Today, the maximum annual tax relief for cash top-ups to family members’ Special/Retirement Accounts and/or MediSave Accounts is $8,000 – not a huge sum considering that some caregivers have to completely give up work, and hence their retirement security, to look after an unwell senior.

One solution is to extend this tax incentive so that caregivers have up to the Basic Retirement Sum for CPF Life, or achieve a payout equivalent to it, said Institute of Policy Studies deputy director for research and senior research fellow Gillian Koh, who is one of the study’s co-authors.

“The difference would be to either remove the current cap of $8,000 or provide more leeway to reach a sensible limit, so that anyone who is a caregiver has that assurance of a basic payout sum from CPF upon reaching 65 years of age,” she said, adding that a more ambitious target could be the Full Retirement Sum.

Depending on whether the support is more generous or restrained, some criteria can be set, such as whether there has been significant disruption to a person’s earnings. More discussion and design work are needed to identify a suitable upper limit for the top-ups. But as Dr Koh pointed out, this is not an insurmountable problem.

Where will the money come from?

At first, the participants’ preferred sources to fund the increase in public expenditure were:

• Corporate tax ($2,200)
• National reserves ($2,100)
• Income tax ($1,600)
• Stamp duty on purchases of property ($1,600)
• Goods and services tax ($1,300)
• Carbon tax ($1,200)

This isn’t surprising; people the world over love taxing corporates and the rich. But what’s interesting is that after they attended the workshops, 15.2 per cent of the participants said the Government should draw more on GST to meet demands for ageing-related social support.

There was a distinct shift in attitudes towards the use of GST when the policy trade-offs – as well as greater help for lower-income households, such as permanent GST vouchers and cash transfers through the Assurance Package – were explained to them.

There’s an educational dimension here: Participants with only post-secondary education were more likely than those with polytechnic diplomas, university degrees or other professional qualifications to indicate support for generating more resources from GST.

This is because those in the lower socio-economic strata, of which education is a proxy indicator, understood that they would benefit significantly from the help.

Another notable point is that participants ranked the national reserves second highest among the funding sources.

Not only did this not decrease after the workshops, but 8.3 per cent of the participants allocated even more to the reserves to finance expanded age-related policies. A similar proportion of participants also allocated more to property tax.

Does this mean that Singaporeans expect the Government to tap its own resources before relying on individual efforts or families? Not quite: The participants said in the same breath that they planned to save more and get more help from family and friends.