Asia Times Online :: Southeast Asia news and business from Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam

Southeast Asia

Feb 26, 2005

BOOK REVIEW
The lowdown on Singapore
Does Class Matter? Social Stratification and Orientations in Singapore by Ern Tan Ser

Reviewed by Piyush Mathur

Based "on a 2001 study on social stratification in Singapore", this slim little academic report put together by Ern Tan Ser of the National University of Singapore should prove useful to professional Singapore watchers. The book has "three main objectives: (a) To map out the class structure in Singapore; (b) To examine the relationship between class position and social

orientations towards opportunity, welfarism, political participation, class and ethnic relations, trade unionism, and Singapore understood as a nation and economy; and (c) To identify problem areas.and economic and social consequences associated with class positions" (p 1).

Because Singaporean society is but a well-known enigma to most outside or neighboring it, Ser's report should also interest those fishing for an inside and contemporary sociological scoop on the country - especially if they wish to assess it as a possible migratory destination. Ser's findings also constitute important society-level input to globalization watchers, given Singapore's special status as an economically successful multiracial city-state with a strong welfare program. The study, however, is not without problems.

The background
Ser tells us that the "bulk of the fieldwork for this study was conducted in the early half of 2001" (p 5). Singapore was going through an economic downturn even prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States; as such, the study captures social indicators from a period that would see further economic weakening in the months after its completion. Quoting domestic journalistic reports, and as a backdrop to the study, Ser underlines the factor of economic insecurity attributable to globalization, whereas "four in 10 of the 9,000 people retrenched in the first half of 2001 were executives" and "16,500 tertiary-educated Singaporeans were jobless in September 2001" (p 4).

That aside, Ser asserts that "Singapore is a middle-class society, which does not mean that it is a one-class society, but that it has a large majority with life-chances and lifestyles normally associated with the middle class, and only a small proportion of low income people" (p 3). Referring to a December 2001 report from Straits Times, Ser points out that 4% - or 120,000 - of Singapore's population of 3 million people is poor; "Census 2000 data indicate that about 8% of Singaporeans live in households with a total monthly income of below $1,000, about 3% of citizens live in one- or two-room HDB [Housing and Development Board] flats, and 22% in three-room HDB flats" (p 4). On the whole, however, "72% of [Singapore's] citizens [live] in HDB four-room apartments or higher-priced housing units; 57% of working citizens [are] in non-manual occupations; and 40% of working citizens [have] at least upper-secondary educational qualifications" (p 4).

Methodology and key questions asked
Ser's study is very careful and professional. For the survey, he used an "eight-page questionnaire" whose design was refined on the basis of prior "32 in-depth interview case materials" (p 7). Translated into Chinese, Malay and Tamil from English - and administered in face-to-face interviews lasting 20-30 minutes - the questionnaire has the following sections: "screening questions and some demographic variables"; "job history and training"; "financial situation, including utilization of the services of social agencies or programs"; "social orientations towards political participation, opportunity, welfarism, social justice, class and ethnic relations, unionism, financial support for dependents, and Singapore understood as an economy and nation"; "subjective class identification of respondents"; and "demographic information not covered" in one of the previous sections (p 7).

Ser had the questionnaire administered to 2,250 people across the island. "It is a disproportionate, random sample," Ser points out, "of Singapore citizens aged 15-64 years, stratified by ethnicity, comprising 965 Chinese (43%), 645 Malays (29%), 515 Indians (23%), and 125 "Others" (6%)" (p 8). Ser under-sampled the majority Chinese while over-sampling the minorities in order "to ensure that there would be sufficient cases of minority Singaporeans for statistical analysis" (p 8). The "results reported", however, "are based on the weighted sample, which reflects the actual ethnic composition of the citizen population" (p 8). The study also included "a smaller sample of 500 respondents living in one-, two-, or three-room Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats" in order to allow a comparison of "the general population with 'lower income' Singaporeans" (p 2).

Singapore's class structure
"An overwhelming 87% of the respondents identified themselves as middle class ... in the six-category class ladder comprising upper class, three middle-class categories, and two lower-class categories" (p 13). But "when the respondents were asked to place themselves in the four-category class ladder (upper class, middle class, working class, and lower class), about half of the self-identified middle-class respondents and half of the self-identified lower-class in the six category class ladder immediately changed their classification to working class. Hence, in terms of the latter subjective indicator of class, the class structure that emerged suggests that Singapore may be characterized as a mix of middle class and working class. It also indicates that a large proportion of working class people will classify themselves as middle-class if the option is between being middle-class and lower-class" (p 14).

"Proportionately more of the younger working Singaporeans are found in the higher status occupations. This is not surprising, given that a larger proportion of younger Singaporeans have obtained higher qualifications" (p 16).

"Forty-seven percent of those aged 15-29 years identified themselves as middle class, as compared to 37% of those aged 45-59 years, while 16% of those aged 60-64 years placed themselves in the lower class, as compared to 3% of those in the 15-29 age category" (p 17).

"Proportionately more of the majority Chinese are in the service class ... However, the class profiles of the four ethnic categories are statistically quite similar to one another, which means that the subjective ethnic stratification map is not characterized by ethnic inequality [which] perhaps reflects that the minorities are somewhat more inclined to see themselves as middle-class. If there is any validity to this observation, the picture that emerged here augurs well for ethnic relations in Singapore"(pp 17-19).

"Most Singaporean households (82%) are reportedly living within their means at least in the early half of 2001" (p 20). "Household budgets are less likely to be balanced down the class ladder... and.the reported budget profiles of the various ethnic categories are not statistically different from one another ..."(pp 20-21).

"The bulk of Singaporeans, comprising predominantly those in the middle class and the working class, have experienced some degree of upward intergenerational mobility. The middle class saw the proportion of those in service class occupations rising from 54% to 64% across one generation. Among the self-identified lower class, the proportion in working class occupations rose from 42% to 63%, while that in service-class occupations declined from 42% to 17%, an evidence of downward mobility" (p 55).

"The proportions of Singaporeans who described themselves as 'poor' have declined between the time when they were about 15 years of age and the time of the survey. This suggests that Singaporeans generally experienced an improvement in their financial situation" (p 56).

"The perceived 'poverty line' from the perspective of the upper class is much higher than that of the middle class or working class" (p 58).

Social orientations
About "80% of Singaporeans perceive Singapore to be a land of opportunity for achieving a high standard of living"; and, perhaps because they are better educated, "younger Singaporeans are somewhat more inclined to think so" (p 24). Even as "94% of the sample are proud to be Singaporeans" (p 39), "ethnicity does not have a statistically significant impact on how Singaporeans view Singapore ..." (pp 39-40).

"The middle class has the highest.overall life satisfaction and [most positive] orientation towards Singapore ..." (p 42). "Young Singaporeans are somewhat less satisfied with life, perhaps a reflection of their higher expectations or perception of the current economic situation. Ethnicity does not appear to affect overall life satisfaction ..." (p 43).

In terms of success factors, "the middle and working [classes] are ... more likely to emphasize 'ability' and 'education', while the lower class show a greater inclination to subscribe to 'luck'" (pp 22-23). The "Chinese are more likely to consider 'luck' as important" (p 22). In general, however, "Singaporeans, regardless of age, class, and ethnicity", converge in their orientations toward success values (p 23).

As far as state welfarism is concerned, support for it "is more of an age phenomenon than a class or ethnic phenomenon" - "older Singaporeans are somewhat more likely to support welfarism for the poor" (p 25).

Also, "support for unionism is more of an age and class [rather than an ethnic] phenomenon" (p 31). Presumably because of their inexperience as workers and confidence in individual performance as the success factor, younger Singaporeans are less likely to support unionism. On a more critical level, members of the working class are "more likely to support unionism" -61% - "than their service or intermediate class counterparts in the labor force" (p 28). That said, "59% of the self-identified upper class are just as likely" to support unionism (p 28). Ser explains it by noting that "the self-identified upper class may have, in their work experience as managers or proprietors, observed that unions do provide some protection to workers.and ensure that their members are treated fairly" (p 28). In ethnic terms, "the minorities, especially the Malays, are more likely to be supportive of unionism" (p 31).

As far as politics goes, Ser's findings suggest that "political alienation (as measured by the difference between participation propensity and perceived participation opportunity) is not an ethnic phenomenon" but more of a class and age phenomenon (pp 32-33). In Singapore, the "middle class are the least politically alienated, while the upper class remain in the lead, followed by the working and lower class" (p 34). Interestingly, "unlike their relatively weak support for unionism, younger Singaporeans are more likely to have a 'medium' or 'high' propensity for political participation" (p 32). In ethnic terms, "the minorities, in particular Indian Singaporeans, are more likely to have a high propensity for political participations" (p 32).

"Of those involved in business ... close to three-fourths perceive their business prospects to be 'average' or better, including 13% who are upbeat ... [The survey results] show a statistically significant relationship between perceived career prospects and age, occupational status, and class, respectively, but not ethnicity. Young Singaporeans and those in high status jobs are likely to be more optimistic about their future career prospects" (p 47).

"Minority Singaporeans are somewhat more optimistic about skills upgrading or professional development than their Chinese counterparts" (p 49); on a different level, "those doing well in their careers are.more likely to pursue skills upgrading or professional development " (p 52).

A "large majority of Singaporeans believe that successful people have a responsibility to help the less successful ones in their midst ... older Singaporeans are more likely to hold this view ... the Malays have a greater likelihood to agree that successful people should help the less successful ones ... Like the item on state welfarism, orientation towards community support is not a class phenomenon ..."(p 27).

Problem areas
Ser's study isolates varying degrees of computer competence-digital divide-among Singaporeans as a problem area for the future of Singapore. "Older Singaporeans and those in working-class occupations ... and the lower class ... are more likely to be found on the wrong side of the digital divide. Paradoxically, these same categories of Singaporeans are also less likely to indicate 'perceived inadequacy of computer skills'"(pp 59, 61).

Another problem within the Singaporean society relates to so-called "sandwich generation". An individual "is deemed to be in the 'sandwich' generation if he or she indicates a high degree of difficulty in providing financial support for his or her parents as well as children ..." (p 63). The sandwich generation, Ser rushes to stress, "is a class phenomenon: the people in the lower-class category or working-class occupations are more likely to experience being 'sandwiched'"(p 64).

That said, "the three-roomers are more likely to be affected by the 'sandwich' generation problem [perhaps because] the 'three-roomers' category contains a higher proportion of middle-aged people" (p 78). Accordingly, "the three-roomers are somewhat more likely to utilize counseling centers (for domestic violence and abuse) and family service centers" (pp 79-80).

At any rate, "class and age matter more than ethnicity" even in the problem areas (p 86).

Conclusion
On the whole, Ser's study puts forward a pretty optimistic future for Singapore: The nation appears set to continue on its harmonious path paved with sufficient monies. Here, any ethnic rivalries are overshadowed by the overall trust in Singaporean meritocracy; general economic stability (the interim phase of economic downturn aside); and disproportionately optimistic, politically active, and culturally intermixing minorities. This message is reiterated in the final section of the report, in which Ser stresses that the "minorities are more likely to have cross-ethnic ties than the Chinese" and that they "have experienced some degree of upward social mobility, and are, in relative terms, more likely to feel optimistic about their future financial situation" (p 86).

Nevertheless, the monies are not sufficient enough to ensure the path to be perfectly harmonious or easy for all. Hence "there are good reasons for social policy in Singapore to pay close attention to the class dimension", Ser concludes (p 83).

While there is little to doubt about Singapore's meritocracy or Ser's professionalism in the conduct of the study, a sensitive reader cannot fail to notice how the rhetoric of the study becomes particularly defensive in tackling the issue of ethnicity. Ser typically races to point out, through the whole course of the book, how a particular issue is not an issue in ethnicity - but in something else.

It is as if there is some internal backdrop to the study, some inconvenient denial of debate within Singapore precisely on ethnicity, that has asked for such a covering defense of Singapore's core neutralistic values. For all that, and knowing Singapore's highly monitoring political system that simply does not allow many different investigative frameworks to flourish within its academies, this study retains some outstanding problems of validity - and no amount of internal statistical discipline could resolve that.

But on a separate front, this sociological study on Singapore's national orientations (in addition to its class structure) is conspicuously silent on the issue of gender. Nowhere does Ser consider it necessary to discuss why he did not include the gender perspective in addition - and in relation - to class, age, ethnicity, and room-occupancy. The study would have gained in validity if it had included the differential and similarities of male versus female attitudes toward social and economic issues in Singapore.

All that apart, and as its title clearly suggests, the book has a very narrow academic focus - and it is not intended as a cultural or political essay on Singapore; those looking for a juicy or colorful account of life in Singapore would also be sorely disappointed. In general, the book is written in a lifeless social-science register and contains lots of statistical tables; the standard of editing is also less than exemplary. The most interesting aspect of the book, at least for someone residing outside Singapore, is the six case studies provided in Appendix I.

Does Class Matter? Social Stratification and Orientations in Singapore by Ern Tan Ser. World Scientific: Singapore, 2004. ISBN: 981238829X; 130 pages.

Piyush Mathur, PhD, an alumnus of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and Virginia Tech, US, is an independent observer of world affairs, the environment, science and technology policy, and literature.

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)

Head Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110

Asian Sex Gazette Southeast Asian Sex News