Asian Social Work and Policy Review 5 (2011) 2032

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Social Policy in Singapore: Insights from a

Social Work Perspective
Kerry Brydon
Department of Social Work, Monash University, Caulfield East, Victoria, Australia

Social work practice, irrespective of the location of practice, is shaped by local conditions, particu-
larly the laws and policies applicable to the practice. Most governments adopt some form of institu-
tional arrangements pertinent to local conditions to meet local needs, such arrangements in
Western contexts commonly being described as the welfare state. In other contexts, notably the
East Asian context, the Western welfare state has been deemed inappropriate for meeting local
needs. In this discussion there will be a focus on arrangements developed in Singapore, a country in
the East Asian region. Although Singapore has eschewed any notion of a welfare state, this discus-
sion will demonstrate that it does have in place a range of policy responses to meet Singaporean
needs and that these measures are consistent with the frameworks adopted by emerging Confucian
welfare states.
Keywords Singapore; social policy; theoretical frameworks
doi:10.1111/j.1753-1411.2010.00046.x

Introduction
The shape of social work practice in any location is determined by local political, social
and economic conditions. A signicant aspect of local conditions, in most instances, is
the laws and policies that are in place to meet the needs of citizens. Consequently, social
workers must develop a sound appreciation of the policy regime in which they will deliver
their professional services.
In adopting this position, it is necessary to remain aware that the study of policy is
not necessarily a preferred topic for many (undergraduate) social work students. Indeed,
it has long been argued that social policy is a neglected dimension of social work practice
(Figueira-McDonough, 1993) and that there are particular challenges to be confronted
and strategies developed to effectively teach policy to social work students (Mendes,
2003).
The underpinning support for this position can be found by considering the denition
of social work proposed by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kerry Brydon, Department of Social Work, Monash
University, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Vic., Australia. Email: kerry.brydon@monash.edu

2011 The Author

20 Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

This denition holds that social work is concerned with the promotion of social change,
problem-solving in relationships and empowerment of people to enhance well-being
(IFSW, 2005). In order to implement this denition of social work in any context it is
important, therefore, to understand the policy context for practice and to assess the rela-
tive strengths and limitations of the particular policy approach. The reason for this is that
social work practice always occurs in a particular local context, and that context is
commonly dened by prevailing policies.
This discussion will rstly offer a brief outline of welfare regime options and secondly
will outline the arrangements in place in Singapore. A central position of this discussion
is that the proper measure of meeting welfare needs ought not to rest upon ideological
frameworks that underpin policy measures designed to meet social need. It is, arguably,
more important to examine and evaluate the ways in which the needs of citizens are met
in reality.

The framework of this discussion

This discussion is based in teaching social work education in Singapore from the view-
point of teaching in a transnational social work education program. In 2004 the Depart-
ment of Social Work at Monash University, Australia, commenced the delivery of the
Bachelor of Social Work degree in Singapore in collaboration with the Social Service
Training Institute, the Singaporean organization charged with developing training for
the social services sector. The degree, the rst time an Australian social work education
program had undertaken such cross-national delivery, was accredited by both the Aus-
tralian Association of Social Workers and the Singapore Association of Social Workers.
As the coordinator of this social work education program, the author undertook
extensive research into social issues and social policy in the Singaporean context. This
research commenced in mid-2004 and is ongoing. While there is no question that the of-
cial position adopted by the Singapore Government is that Singapore does not have a
welfare state (Lee, 2000; Ngiam, 2004), understanding the ways in which any government
meets the needs of its citizens is more complex and multi-layered than the question of
what terminology a government adopts to describe the policy measures in place.

Frameworks for the welfare state

Welfare refers to the institutional arrangements adopted by governments to provide ser-
vices to meet the basic needs of their citizens (Alcock, 2001). Any theory of a welfare state
involves the state assuming some level of responsibility for securing a basic level of well-
being for its citizens (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Specically, this involves state intervention
through social policy. From the perspective of economic prosperity, when there is a lack
of state intervention, a laissez-faire position, it is considered that a good society exists
only where every individual is afforded the opportunity to maximize self-reliance
(Esping-Andersen, 1990). In the formulation of social policy, all states face a fundamen-
tal tension between economic policy and social security for their citizens. The quest is to
offer sufcient state-based intervention to ensure that individuals are not left to penury
2011 The Author
Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 21
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

while ensuring that the level of intervention does not dampen incentives to work and
contribute to economic development.
In all its historical forms, the state has been concerned with two primary aims: the
maintenance of law and order through the promulgation and enforcement of laws; and
the defense of the nation against external threats (Quinton, 1994). The state is generally
structured as comprising three main branches (the judiciary, the legislature and the execu-
tive), but states vary in the extent to which these three functions are independent and a
source of checks and balances on one another. In considering questions about the provi-
sion of welfare, however, it is important not to narrow the focus to welfare alone. There
is also a need to consider aspects of economic management and scal policy (Bryson,
1992), as well as the distinctive rationale that each state offers for its particular stance on
welfare provision (Kasza, 2002).
In the area of policy development the roles and functions of the state, the markets
and the populace intersect. Policy is a major way in which the state intervenes in response
to the needs of its citizens and also to shape its citizens. Social policy involves the state in
securing some basic level of welfare for its citizens (Esping-Andersen, 1990), as well as
ensuring that there is maintenance of social control and the legitimacy of capitalism
(Bryson, 1992). A major determinant of the policy approach adhered to is the way in
which the provision of social policy and welfare is conceptualized in the context of
economic development. Broadly, the Western approach has been to assume a trajectory
that largely disconnects social policy from mainstream economic development. To a
signicant extent, the project of the neo-liberal state, through notions of workfare and
mutual obligation, can be conceptualized as an effort, rightly or wrongly, to re-align the
meeting of welfare needs with the mainstream economy, within a framework of minimal
state provision but greater state regulation.
The conventional view of the welfare state is that there are three primary clusters,
although, as will be addressed later, there is a view that a fourth cluster can legitimately
be added. Firstly, the liberal welfare model characterized by means testing, modest uni-
versal transfers and modest social insurance plans such as are typical of Australia and the
United States (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Secondly, there are corporatist welfare states,
such as France and Austria, where the focus on market efciency was never pre-eminent
and rights are attached to class and status (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Thirdly, social dem-
ocratic welfare states based on notions of universalism and decommodication, such as
the case of Scandinavia (Esping-Andersen, 1990). The welfare regime approach, however,
fails to capture the complex motives that inform the development of welfare programs in
each country (Kasza, 2002). The discourse about welfare states has so far remained
focused largely on Western models, discourse about Asian approaches being noticeably
omitted.
The difculty with the conventional view is that the frameworks and paradigms that
it reects were developed in non-Asian and assorted Western settings. There is, however,
a growing body of literature (Tang, 2000; Rieger & Leibfried, 2003; Zhang, 2003; Ngiam,
2004; Aspalter, 2006; Ramesh, 2004; Vasoo & Lee, 2006) that suggests there are clearly
dened Asian models of welfare provision. A core difference appears to be the breadth of
2011 The Author
22 Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

care providers, with Western views focusing more on the formal provision of services
through government and non-government agencies, whereas Asian views tend to incor-
porate views concerned with informal service provision by families, friends and neighbors
(Tan, 2006).

The Asian policy context

As stated, the conventional wisdom concerning social policy is that the East Asian
region, of which Singapore is a part, has been a region of social policy laggards (Rieger &
Leibfried, 2003; Ramesh, 2004). The question ought not to be whether there is policy lag
but the extent to which there has been the adoption of models that differ from those
commonly used in Western nations.
Countries in the East Asian region present with many differences, but among the
so-called Asian Tigers there are many similarities. The term Asian Tigers refers to
Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, countries that in the past 40 years
have experienced rapid economic growth (Tang, 2000). Each of these countries had faced
devastation and uncertainty in the aftermath of World War II, each achieved developed
country status during the 1970s, each rejected the Western model of the welfare state and
each has been hailed as evidence of the success of the developmental state (Tang, 2000),
whereby welfare goals have been achieved through a process of economic development,
with goals of both growth and development, but welfare remains seen as a privilege
rather than a right (Lee, 2000; Vasoo & Lee, 2006). The central concern of East Asian
nations and their newly industrializing economies was, therefore, to achieve sufcient
economic growth to ensure rising living standards and national survival.
These developing states extensively utilized government intervention to promote goals
of industrialization (Aspalter, 2006; Chua, 2009). In essence, these states were anti-
welfarist in their approach to policy, believing that prosperity would derive from hard
work by their citizens and overall economic development. Perhaps the most notable
exception to the anti-welfarist approach was in the area of education. These states have
each capitalized on the Confucian tradition that emphasizes education and cultural
enhancement and have placed an emphasis on education as an instrument of nation
building (Aspalter, 2006; Mok, 2006).
Returning to the earlier notion that there are three clusters dening the discourse con-
cerning the welfare state, there are compelling arguments to suggest that a fourth cluster,
the Confucian welfare state, ought legitimately to be added. There are distinctive features
across the East Asian region and these features include reliance on charitable provision
of welfare services, only a moderate right to any form of social security, employment-
based welfare and social security arrangements, and reliance on the market and the
family to meet need (Aspalter, 2006).
Confucian welfare states are built on foundations concerned with strong family cohe-
sion and a rejection of individualization, conceptualizing the family as the key social
institution (Tang, 2000). Through the promotion of individual, family and community
responsibility as the preferred means of meeting social need, governments generally hold

2011 The Author

Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 23
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

a view that they are able to avoid the so-called Western disease of welfare dependency
and social decay (Zhang, 2003). Social policy is closely tied to economic development
and the approach to welfare remains minimal in its redistributive function, principles of
universalism and egalitarianism not featuring strongly in the Asian context (Smyth, 2000;
Rieger & Leibfried, 2003; Vasoo & Lee, 2006).

The Singapore position

Singapore has a welfare system that can locate its origins in the efforts of the early days
of colonization from 1819. As will be demonstrated, distinctive ideologies underpinning
the development and provision of welfare have owed from the laissez-faire approach of
the early Colonial days through to a paternalistic approach more concerned with social
control than social welfare. In the more modern context there has been a coordinated
Governmental approach determined to link social development with economic develop-
ment as part of the nation-building project of the Republic of Singapore. Indeed, equity
has never replaced growth as the primary economic goal (Milne & Mauzy, 1990). Perhaps
the most insightful way of understanding the philosophical framework is to consider the
words of the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew: Watching the ever-
increasing costs of the welfare state in Britain and Sweden, we decided to avoid this debil-
itating system. We noted by the 1970s that when Governments undertook primary
responsibility for the basic duties of the head of the family, the drive in people weakened.
Welfare undermined self-reliance. People did not have to work for their families wellbe-
ing (Lee, 2000).
These words offer a rationale for the approach adopted in Singapore from the
perspective of the man who was largely responsible for the development of the rationale.
It remains a rationale deeply embedded in thinking about social policy arrangements in
Singapore.
Singapore is a developed country with a per capita gross domestic product that
exceeds many comparable countries while maintaining a low level of social expenditure
(Khan, 2001; Ghesquiere, 2007; Mendes, 2007). In some ways, Singaporean social policy
presents a paradox. On the one hand there has been, and remains, opposition to the pro-
vision of a welfare state, as already outlined. On the other hand, the Singapore Govern-
ment is the major provider of infrastructure and social services, the government owns
75% of the land and is generally a major actor in the economic and social sectors (Smyth,
2000).
The cornerstone of social policy in Singapore is the Central Provident Fund (CPF),
introduced into Singapore by the British in 1955 (Ramesh, 2000; Khan, 2001; Low &
Aw, 2004; Vasoo & Lee, 2006; Ghesquiere, 2007). The colonial government recognized
the need for retirement benets in view of poor social conditions prevalent in the late
1940s and 1950s, electing to pursue a form of enforced savings for retirement (Low &
Aw, 2004). CPF, as the central form of social protection, is as much about regulation and
social control as it is about protection, lacking redistributive functions and remaining
under paternalistic government control (Zhang, 2003). The view is that the state should

2011 The Author

24 Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

not provide nancial transfers, other than minimal public assistance, as these are per-
ceived to undermine work incentives, the role of the state instead being to ensure that
economic conditions are characterized by low ination and full employment (Khan,
2001; Ghesquiere, 2007).
The framework underpinning the CPF is one of full employment (Low, 2004), a posi-
tion not noticeably different from notions of the Australian workers welfare state concep-
tualized in the early parts of the 20th century (Bryson, 1992). From the outset CPF was
not designed for redistribution nor was it designed to offer welfare protection as was the
case with Western welfare states (Low, 2004). The CPF has other political objectives. It
requires the provision of jobs and homes necessary for a harmonious society as well as
full employment to ensure income and wealth creation to sustain a communitarian means
of providing for social security and social welfare (Low, 2004).
The main function of the CPF is to act as a compulsory savings scheme (Khan, 2001;
Vasoo & Lee, 2006; Ghesquiere, 2007). The policy of government requires that people
save for their retirement, individual accounts being contributed to by both employer and
employee, but remaining an account of the employee. All employers are required to con-
tribute; however, foreign employees, casual workers, part-time workers and some other
categories of contract workers are excluded (Ramesh, 2000). CPF accounts are portable,
and withdrawals can be made for the purposes of home nancing, education, and to
make investments. One notion underpinning CPF is that it is a strategy that will maintain
income for the aged but without the necessity of public expenditure (Ramesh, 2004).
Government in Singapore is heavily involved in the provision of healthcare, operating
13 out of 26 hospitals, with public hospitals providing 81% of hospital beds (Ramesh,
2004). From 1984, there were efforts to address the level of healthcare provision by gov-
ernment. MediSave was introduced as a component of CPF in 1984, its primary aim
being to help families and individuals save for hospitalization expenses during retirement
(Khan, 2001; Ramesh, 2004; Asher & Nandy, 2006). MediShield was introduced from
1990 as a belated recognition that a health insurance program was an essential compo-
nent of a modern healthcare system. Since the 1980s the emphasis in healthcare policy
has been to minimize government expenditure, although government expenditure on
healthcare remains substantial and is around 67% of total government expenditure
(Khan, 2001; Asher & Nandy, 2006; Ghesquiere, 2007).
Another key aspect of social policy has been the provision of public housing. In the
1950s, the PAP undertook a survey of Singapore which found that 73% of households
were badly crowded and could be described as slum-like (Pugh, 1987; Low & Aw, 2004).
On winning government in 1959, the PAP created the Housing Development Board
(HDB) and the Economic Development Board (EDB), charged with expanding the public
housing supply and attracting capital for industrialization (Ramesh, 2004). The HDB
was afforded extensive powers in terms of land acquisition, town planning, building
development and management of urban xed investments (Pugh, 1987).
The primary tasks of the HDB throughout the 1960s were to house the nation in
modern dwellings with modern amenities (Chua, 1997). With the centralization of power,
HDB was able to provide housing at a substantially lower cost than the private market
2011 The Author
Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 25
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

(Chua, 1997). From 1964, a scheme was introduced to facilitate purchases of public hous-
ing, the scheme being the creation of a mortgage nance system through the CPF (Chua,
1997), which later became the Home Ownership Scheme from 1968 (Low & Aw, 2004).
By 2005, 88% of the Singaporean population lived in government-built housing, some
93% of occupants owning their own homes (Vasoo & Lee, 2006; Ghesquiere, 2007). How-
ever, ownership is not freehold, but rather a system of 99-year leases. The contention has
been that a home-owning democracy not only raises living standards, but also helps
establish political credibility and loyalty (Low & Aw, 2004), as well as ensuring that own-
ers will have greater concern with the maintenance of their home standards than would
tenants (Low & Aw, 2004).
The nal social policy of signicance is education policy. Under the colonial regime,
education had largely been left to the various ethnic groups in Singapore both to nance
and to organize (Chua, 1995). A priority for government at the time of independence was
to develop an education approach that raised educational standards premised on notions
of education as an investment in human capital (Chua, 1995; Khan, 2001). Education
was to be linked to economic development and it was recognized that such development
would be dependent on the availability of a mass of literate workers (Khan, 2001). Edu-
cation was also geared to the development of human resources able to serve the countrys
drive towards industrialization, and any individual choices about education would occur
within this framework (Ghesquiere, 2007).
While there have been many changes to education policy since its inception in 1950s,
education has largely remained a mechanism through which national identity and citizen
loyalty have been developed. However, these latter educational policy goals are likely to
come under increasing strain as the impact of globalization means that Singaporeans are
increasingly exposed to alternative social and political opportunities (Tan, 2005).

Future challenges for Singapore

There are concerns as to whether the reliance on people to meet their own welfare needs,
and the failure to offer a safety net, can be sustained. Social security has the function of
guaranteeing protection against worsening conditions brought on by lifes contingencies,
which cannot be overcome by the individual himself or herself (Low & Aw, 2004). Within
this context, there is a widening gap between rich and poor (Neo & Chen, 2007; Ng,
2010). Rising income inequality became apparent from the 1990s on, and is associated
with the changing patterns of unemployment from cyclical to structural (Neo & Chen,
2007).
The accumulated CPF funds have low negative real interest rates and are unlikely to
provide adequate amounts of money to members in the future (Khan, 2001). As well,
there is the issue of the changing demographic composition of the population (Low,
2004). With the total fertility rate remaining below the replacement rate since 1975, there
have also been sharp increases in the proportion of aged people as a percentage of the
population from around 7% in 1998 to an estimated 19% by 2030 (Asher, 2002; Asher &
Nandy, 2006). An additional problem is that CPF is mandated to invest its balances in

2011 The Author

26 Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

government stocks and securities, which arguably serves the state rather than CPFs
members (Low & Aw, 2004).
The ageing population is another future source of challenges. The ageing of Singapore
began in the 1960s, which saw a decline in fertility rates as well as the commencement of
a decline in mortality rates (Tay, 2003). The problem of the ageing population did not
abate through the 1980s and 1990s, with contributing factors including young people
delaying marriage, an increase in the number of people electing not to marry, and fami-
lies having fewer children (Neo & Chen, 2007).The elderly are becoming the most rapidly
expanding group in Singaporean society and by 2030 it is expected that the elderly will
outnumber those in the working age group (Tay, 2003).
This will have many implications for Singapore but will have particular impact in the
area of healthcare. Singapores organization of hospitals and its technical efciency have
been among the more successful aspects of its overall healthcare system. Since the 1980s
there has been an overwhelming emphasis on minimizing Governments health expendi-
ture and making individuals directly responsible for nancing healthcare (Asher &
Nandy, 2006). Singapore, as it adjusts to its afuent and rapidly ageing society, will need
to address more complex healthcare nancing challenges (Asher & Nandy, 2006).
The Singapore Government sees globalization as a changing condition to which it
must respond rapidly and effectively, in order to meet the continuing needs of the society
for which it is responsible (Ho, 2006). Globalization has intensied economic competition
and has made economic decision-making more complex. Globalization will accentuate
social inequality as wages are determined less by local conditions and more by global con-
ditions; it will increase Singapores susceptibility to problems originating elsewhere; and it
inherently increases the range of competing claims for the time, resources and ultimately
loyalty of citizens (Balakrishnan, 2006; Tan, 2007a). Operating in a globalized context
also makes the PAP Government more vulnerable to making mistakes as the domestic
economy becomes more difcult to manage (Tan, 2007a). In turn, the propensity to make
mistakes also risks eroding the political legitimacy of the PAP Government (Tan, 2007a).

Discussion
All welfare systems grow and develop within a framework of time, context and place.
Most states adopt contradictory policies that change incrementally over time (Kasza,
2002). In understanding the philosophy that underpins the approach to welfare adopted
by any country, there are two particular relationships that need attention. Firstly, the
way that Government conceptualizes the nature of the social contract between Govern-
ment and citizens and the extent to which Government should meet the needs of its citi-
zens; and secondly, the way the relationship between mainstream economic development
and the provision of social welfare, in all its aspects, including the provision of social
security, is conceptualized. Further, it is impossible to trace the developmental trajectory
of any welfare system in isolation from the historical and geographical circumstances
within which such development occurs. For this reason, key historical events are as
important as the contemporary ideology that shapes welfare policy.

2011 The Author

Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 27
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

The social development of any country is inextricably linked to economic develop-

ment in that country. Industrialization was a phenomenon that gave rise to some particu-
lar social issues that in turn gave rise to modern welfare provision (Alcock, 2001).
However, welfare arrangements are by no means static, and they are subject to changing
perceptions of what arrangements are best suited at a point in time. In particular, there
has been increasing concern that earlier philosophical frameworks for welfare, couched
in terms of humanitarianism and social justice, are no longer appropriate and there has
been, in the Western context, increased emphasis on the utilization of management tools
concerning outcomes and productivity as a guide for welfare provision (Dominelli &
Hoogvelt, 1996; Dolgoff, 1999). Underpinning these issues is a challenge for all govern-
ments to balance welfare provision with the question of costs and the nancial sustain-
ability of the services developed and delivered.
That Singapore operates under a highly interventionist state regime cannot be ques-
tioned (Chua, 1995; Low, 2004; George, 2005; Yao, 2007; Chua, 2009). At the same time,
Singapore is a nation that has enabled its citizens to live well without high levels of direct
public assistance (Khan, 2001; Vasoo & Lee, 2006; Ghesquiere, 2007; Yao, 2007). Rather
than maintaining a stance overtly critical of this position, it must be recalled that modern
Singapore was born out of unique historical, material and conceptual circumstances
(Chua, 1995; Ghesquiere, 2007). At independence from the British in 1959, there was
doubt whether Singapore could survive, driving the formation of an alliance with Malay-
sia; with the ending of that alliance in 1965 Singapore lost both its common market and
its hinterland. Since that time, Singapore has achieved the transformation of everyday life
and rising living standards for its citizens.
As has been pointed out by other commentators (Mendes, 2007), from the Western
perspective Singapore appears to be an overtly neo-liberal welfare regime that is reluctant
to commit to welfare expenditure. The true picture is much more complex and there is
evidence that the apparent similarities between Singapore and other countries, notably
Australia, are less marked than appears evident at rst sight. One dominant aspect of the
Singapore context is the absence of direct cash transfers in the form of pensions and
benets paid, in other contexts such as Australia, to the disabled and the aged, for
example. Nevertheless, Singapore does have in place other universal benet programs in
terms of health, education and housing that arguably support the capacity of citizens to
be self-supporting.
Singapore is one of the most successful countries anywhere in terms of its nation-
building strategy, pursued after achieving independence from colonial masters (Tang,
2000; Ghesquiere, 2007). There are a range of programs and policies in place to meet the
needs of its citizens based on the reality that the Singapore Government has not only
delivered in the past but continues to deliver (Khan, 2001; Yao, 2007).
A feature of the Singaporean context is that the Parliament has a restricted role,
the Cabinet of Government being powerful and vested in a view that Cabinet knows
best what is needed for its people (Milne & Mauzy, 1990; George, 2005). This is a
somewhat authoritarian approach that has relied heavily on coercion, not violence,
and the people have given consent, through democratic elections, for continued
2011 The Author
28 Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

Government by the ruling party on the not-unfounded belief that the Government will
deliver (George, 2005). Within this context, the political elite regard themselves as the
guardians of the state, and therefore of the interests of the people (Ho, 2003). Social
policy, therefore, is not developed in ways that will increase political support but in
ways that will offer the best solutions to social and political problems with economic
development being privileged over all other policy goals (Chua, 1995; Ho, 2003;
Ghesquiere, 2007).
A notable feature of Singaporean social policy is the absence of direct cash transfers
in the form of social security pensions other than benets available through CPF. The
Singapore government proclaims itself as not being opposed to social security, but rather
opposed to programs and policies that impose long-term commitments on government
(Ramesh, 2000; Yao, 2007). To counter rising demands for the expansion of social secu-
rity provisions, the approach of government has been to promote the role of the family
and charity, conceptualizing benets as a privilege rather than a right (Ramesh, 2000)
and through the policy of Many Helping Hands (Ngiam, 2004) which emphasizes the role
of individuals, families and communities in partnership with but not reliant on the state.
In this context there is substantial assistance for families and individuals that reects
charitable models (Ghesquiere, 2007), as well as substantial government investment in
health, education and housing as already outlined. In essence, the approach adopted is
one embedded in a notion of social development whereby the emphasis is placed on
notions of ownership, co-payment and sharing, productivity, self worth and dignity
(Vasoo & Lee, 2006).
This position raises some key challenges for social work as a profession concerned
with barriers, injustices and inequalities in society, as outlined earlier. One particular
aspect of the Singapore context that ought to be of concern for social work is that there
has been a theme of depoliticization as the preferred strategy of government (Chua,
1995). This strategy has included the promotion of the national interest over and above
personal interests and gains (Chua, 1995). That is, social justice, social change and the
empowerment of people become more difcult to achieve if these goals of social work
(IFSW, 2005) are not in alignment with the national interest.
Contemporary commentary from Singapore demonstrates that there is widening
inequality and increased vulnerability of people to social risks (Neo & Chen, 2007; Ng,
2010). While resistance to a move towards a more liberal welfare state continues, there
have been recent additions to welfare provision through increases in the level of public
assistance and the emergence of more programs to assist low-income families (Ng, 2010).
These factors suggest that past policies and strategies may no longer hold the same
appeal and that there is a changing role for social workers in addressing barriers and
promoting social change.
From a social work perspective, some contradictory themes emerge. These themes are
that, on the one hand, government remains dominant and maintains its seeming reluc-
tance to commit to welfare expenditure; but that, on the other hand, there is a responsive
attitude by government towards social need, including through commitment of funds,
along with signs that government is increasingly willing to engage in debate about
2011 The Author
Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 29
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

pressing issues, although on the basis of collected evidence and a capacity for debaters to
make a meaningful contribution (Tan, 2007b).
Citizens are said to remain cautious about speaking out, and also remain aware that
many controls remain in place (Tan, 2007b). However, the indications are that there is
increasing space for social workers to raise their legitimate concerns regarding both the
nature of social problems and the preferred social solutions.

Conclusion
As already stated, social policy involves the state in securing some basic level of welfare
for its citizens (Esping-Andersen, 1990), as well as ensuring that there is maintenance of
social control and the legitimacy of capitalism (Bryson, 1992). That Singapore has
achieved this through its particular policy approach appears uncontested.
Singapore has developed a particular response to the social needs of the citizenry.
From an ideological perspective, the approach rejects a Western-style welfare state and
the policy rhetoric denies the presence of any form of welfare state. To focus attention on
ideological perspectives, however, neglects analysis of the historical, political and geo-
graphical factors that are of primary importance to Singapore. Western models may well
be appropriate for Western contexts but cannot be held to have universal appeal. Indeed,
while Western frameworks may nd the social policy approaches of Singapore and other
Asian contexts to be exotic, the same may be said of the ways in which these nations may
view Western social policy.
While there is an absence of social security and minimal unemployment protection,
the Singaporean Government has programs to meet the basic needs of its citizens in
very fundamental ways. The focus of Government has rested on meeting the needs of
its citizens with regard to education, healthcare, housing and retirement. Indeed, part
of this achievement is reected in the fact that Singapore has achieved high standards
of living and high levels of gross domestic product, despite low levels of expenditure on
social welfare that drain the public purse in some comparable nations (Ghesquiere,
2007).
Nevertheless, there remain some citizens who are vulnerable and who need additional
support. Social work, with its mission of promoting social change to enhance well-being,
is in a position of needing to act as advocates for these more vulnerable groups.

References
Alcock, P. (2001). The comparative context. In P. Alcock, & G. Craig (Eds.), International social
policy (pp. 125). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Asher, M. (2002). Southeast Asias social security systems: Need for a systems-wide perspective
and professionalism. International Social Security Review, 55(4), 39.
Asher, M., & Nandy, A. (2006). Health nancing in Singapore: A case for systematic reform.
International Social Security Review, 59(1), 7592.
Aspalter, C. (2006). East Asian welfare regime. In N. Tan, & S. Vasoo (Eds.), Challenge of social
care Asia (pp. 1942). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International (Singapore) Pte Ltd.

2011 The Author

30 Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

Balakrishnan, V. (2006). The impact of globalisation on politics in Singapore. In L. Eng (Ed.),

Singapore perspective 2006. Going glocal: Being Singaporean in a globalised world (pp. 639).
Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies.
Bryson, L. (1992). Welfare and the State: Who benets. Melbourne: Macmillan.
Chua, B. (1995). Communitarian ideology and democracy in Singapore. New York: Routledge.
Chua, B. (1997). Not depoliticised but ideologically successful: The public housing program in
Singapore. In J. Ong, T. Kiong, & E. Tan (Eds.), Understanding Singapore society (pp. 30727).
Singapore: Times New Press.
Chua, B. (2009). Communitarianism without competitive politics. In B. Chua (Ed.), Communitar-
ian politics in Asia (pp. 78101). Abingdon: Routledge.
Dolgoff, R. (1999). What does social welfare produce. International Social Work, 42(3), 295307.
Dominelli, L., & Hoogvelt, A. (1996). Globalization and technocratization of social work. Critical
Social Policy, 16, 4562.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Figueira-McDonough, J. (1993). Policy practice: The neglected side of social work intervention.
Social Work, 38(2), 17988.
George, C. (2005). Calibrated coercion and the maintenance of hegemony in Singapore. Singapore:
Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series No 48. Retrieved, October 18, 2005, from http://
www.ari.nus.edu.sg
Ghesquiere, H. (2007). Singapores success. Singapore: Thomson.
Ho, K. (2003). Shared responsibilities, unshared power: The politics of policy making in Singapore.
Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Ho, K. (2006). Singapore: A transitional state in an era of globalism. In K. Ho (Ed.), Re-thinking
administrative reforms in Southeast Asia (pp. 13052). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.
International Federation of Social Workers. (2005). Denition of social work. Geneva: Interna-
tional Federation of Social Workers. Retrieved, February 10, 2006, from http://www.ifsw.org
Kasza, G. (2002). The illusion of welfare regimes. Journal of Social Policy, 31(2), 27187.
Khan, H. (2001). Social policy in Singapore: A Confucian model. Washington DC: World Bank
Working Paper No. 22713.
Lee, K. (2000). From third world to rst: The Singapore story 19652000. Singapore: Times Media
Pte Ltd.
Low, L. (2004). How Singapores Central Provident Fund fares in social security and policy. Social
Policy and Society, 3(3), 30110.
Low, L., & Aw, T. (2004). Social insecurity in the new millennium: The Central Provident Fund in
Singapore. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic.
Mendes, P. (2003). Teaching social policy to social work students: A critical reection. Australian
Social Work, 56(3), 22033.
Mendes, P. (2007). An Australian perspective on Singaporean welfare policy. Social Work and
Society, 5(1) Retrieved, 30 September, 2009, from http//:www.socwork.net/2007/1/articles/
mendes
Milne, R., & Mauzy, D. (1990). Singapore: The legacy of Lee Kuan Yew. Boulder CO: Westview
Press.
Mok, K. (2006). Education reform and education policy in East Asia. Abingdon: Routledge.
Neo, B., & Chen, G. (2007). Dynamic governance: Embedding culture, capabilities and change in
Singapore. Singapore: World Scientic Publishing Co Ltd.

2011 The Author

Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 31
Kerry Brydon Social Policy in Singapore

Ng, I. (2010). Globalization intentions in tension: The case of Singapore. International Social
Work, 53(5), 67185.
Ngiam, T. (2004). Contemporary welfare policy and social well-being. In K. Mehta, & A. Wee
(Eds.), Social work in context: A reader (pp. 81106). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish
Academic.
Pugh, C. (1987). Housing in Singapore: The effective ways of the unorthodox. Environment and
Behavior, 19(3), 31130.
Quinton, A. (1994). Political philosophy. In A. Kenny (Ed.), The Oxford history of western
philosophy (pp. 293390). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramesh, M. (2000). The politics of social security in Singapore. The Pacic Review, 13(2), 24356.
Ramesh, M. (2004). Social policy in east and south east Asia. London: Routledge Curzon.
Rieger, E., & Leibfried, S. (2003). Limits to globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Smyth, P. (2000). The economic State and the welfare State: Australia and Singapore 19551975.
Singapore: Centre for Advanced Studies, National University of Singapore, CAS Paper Series
No 23, May.
Tan, J. (2005). National education. In J. Tan, & P. Ng (Eds.), Shaping Singapores future: Thinking
schools, learning nation (pp. 8294). Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.
Tan, N. (2006). The expanding concept of social care. In N. Tan, & S. Vasoo (Eds.), Challenge of
social care in Asia (pp. 118). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International (Singapore) Pte
Ltd.
Tan, K. (2007a). New politics for a renaissance city. In K. P. Tan (Ed.), Renaissance Singapore?
Economy, culture and politics (pp. 1736). Singapore: National University Press.
Tan, K. (2007b). Singapores National Day rally speeches: A site of ideological negotiation. Journal
of Contemporary Asia, 37(3), 292308.
Tang, K. (2000). Social welfare development in East Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Tay, B. (2003). The graying of Singapore. Singapore: Huminities Press.
Vasoo, S., & Lee, J. (2006). Achieving social development and care through the Central Provident
Fund and housing in Singapore. In N. Tan, & S. Vasoo (Eds.), Challenge of Social Care in Asia
(pp. 16482). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
Yao, S. (2007). Singapore: The State and the culture of excess. Abingdon: Routledge.
Zhang, Y. (2003). Pacic Asia: The politics of development. London: Routledge.

2011 The Author

32 Asian Social Work and Policy Review 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Copyright of Asian Social Work & Policy Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.