Dan,

Nice post on the Malay segment of the NDP rally (incidentally I have not had opportunity to watch any part of the telecast).

I must admit to not fully appreciating the nuances of welfare/workfare; both seem essentially the same to me imho. Either way the establishment picks up the tab as opposed to the market which, it is assumed, bears such costs inequitably.

Having said that I would say that phrasology can play a bit part in politics, though I'm not sure if the opposition is up to meeting the challenge without resorting to word-plays. Entertaining it may well be, the overall citizenship goal would not be served through such a strategy.

Indeed based on empirical evidence, there is a growing middle class which encompasses people of all races. I'm not sure if at-risk/endangered would be an appropriate word for describing the situation; the last thing we would want are hunters looking for a particularly rare species of homo sapiens lol... 'disadvantaged' is Spursfan's word of choice ;-) On a side-note, would it be accurate to say that primary and secondary education is provided to such families FOC?

Interesting observation of the need to identify the causes as national rather than communal -- do I sense a certain yearning for the old days of GCT? We have had discussions on the income gap and how it impacts on disadvantaged families for several years now. It doesn't really matter either way what form the presentation takes, so long as actual substance is brought to bear as a result.

Hey spursfan,

Thanks. The essential difference between welfare and workfare is that the latter provision is conditional upon getting the recipient back into the workforce. The former is based on a different, socialistic conception of the social contract, is skeptical of the capacity of the labor market to absorb surplus labor, and sees unemployment as a inherent social characteristic of the capitalist labor market. It may be argued that the state picks up the tab for the market in the former and helps to lower the price of labor, while the state charges the tab to the market via taxation in the latter. Anyways, it is an interesting distinction that bears more discussion.

Hm, yeah, 'endangered' did give me pause because of the association with species conservation. True, 'disadvantaged' is a better word, but perhaps lacking the strong sense of urgency. A handicap is not the same as being caught in a vicious downward-spiraling cycle. But I do submit, it sounds and connotes better. No doubt the middle class is pretty multicultural in Singapore, but the problem here is that the Malay community is more affected by economic disadvantage, and therefore we see more 'endangered' Malay families.

On free education. In the first place, school fees are rather low in Singapore, and MOE has financial aid schemes in place for the lowest 20% of the population in terms of household income and number of children. Which means that poor Singaporeans, regardless of race, get the same benefits. These poorest 20% families get free education from primary school to JC-level, and get free textbooks and a $500 bursary in JC. They get substantial fee waivers for independent schools. For primary education, there is no school fee, it is free for all. Malays do not have to pay school fees for secondary and JC education, which amounts to $5 and $6 per month respectively (they still have to pay the standard miscellaneous and 2nd-tier fees). In other words, in terms of overall cost of living, free secondary and JC education for the Malays is not substantial, and is more a symbolic token, albeit an important one. Since the poorest 20% get free education anyway, free sec and JC education for the Malays very, very marginally benefit the Malay middle-class. For more info: MOE press release 2/22/2006

I guess my point is that it is not welfare handouts that is going to help the disadvantaged/endangered Malay families, mainly because the money (for example, government financial support for Mendaki), the subsidies, they are already there. The PM is right to call on Malay and Muslim groups to join Mendaki to help the situation - what is needed is knowledge, skills, time and effort from the middle class. My point is that since the problem is not due to Malay culture, it shouldn't be a communal issue limited to the Malays. And given the economic scale of things affecting the Malay community on the whole compared to the other ethnic communities, the non-Malay middle class should join in the effort. After all, as a nation, we should cater to the slowest of us all - thus, if anything, I prefer that we de-communalize welfare and self-help altogether and assist all 'endangered' families. But the institutional reality of communalized self-help cannot be denied, and the Malay community is already mobilized to some extent to address this problem - what we can do is to help out the Malay middle class as they lead in a collective effort.

Haha, a yearning for the good ol' days of GCT, no way, this splitting of self-help along communal lines happened under his watch. I have strange pre-birth nostalgia for the 1950s before the PAP was split into two cynical factions that killed our nascent postcolonial soul.

In the light of your post and our previous discussion of this issue, I found myself leafing through Lily Zubaidah Rahim's The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Economic Marginality of the Malay Community (Oxford University Press, 1998), particularly with respect to her proposed solution:

'Collaborative efforts and joint programmes btw the various ethnic self-help groups nd ethnic communities are impt as they help to generate greater public awareness of the similar educational problems and social symptoms which beset the socially disadavantaged across all ethnic groups. Local studies... on "underperforming" Chinese students have revealed that the under-class and academic underachievers across all ethnic communities tend to share a low sense of self-esteem and often give up trying to perserve particularly after repeated failures in school... The significance of class based factors over cultural deficit explanations for educational underachievement has also been verified by the overrepresentation of middle class and upper middle class students at the prestiguous independent schools and tertiary institutions.' (pp.240-1)

Given that the ethnic-based self-help groups have been around for a while already, could it be possible that they are also part of the systemic persistence of an under-class? Could they be reinforcing pre-existing power structures and hierarchies or blindspots? Or is it simply that there's some kind of Parkinson's Law at work whereby the amount of (social) work expands to absorb any additional (social worker) capability deployed?

Hi ringisei, good points, and nice quote from Lily Rahim's work, which is a good work that should be given more attention.

You said, Given that the ethnic-based self-help groups have been around for a while already, could it be possible that they are also part of the systemic persistence of an under-class?. I think that the persistence of an under-class is linked to the socio-economic system here, which tightly weaves the education sector as a functional unit for the production of labor inputs for the economic system. Couple this with the public housing sector, and meritocracy here is seriously moderated by intergenerational wealth, residential location, social capital (the alumni network) and over-structured early-age streaming. The ethnic self-help groups stratify the under-class along racial lines, thus further channeling resources that are already stratified by the above factors. But proper due has to be given to the PAP governments for giving greater proportional funding to Mendaki. However, my point is that money is not the issue, but skills, knowledge etc. that the middle class possess. If the larger Chinese and Indian middle-class continue to help their 'own', then their skills, knowledge etc. will not go to the people that need it the most - or put it another way, the Chinese and Indian underclass will benefit more than the Malay underclass. I agree with Lily Rahim thus that 'self-help' should be de-ethnicized.

Could they be reinforcing pre-existing power structures and hierarchies or blindspots? Or is it simply that there's some kind of Parkinson's Law at work whereby the amount of (social) work expands to absorb any additional (social worker) capability deployed? The question is how the social work capability is deployed, and this deployment should be de-ethnicized. But social work will not be the main thrust of this effort to address the problem of 'endangered' Malay families, since social workers will need to draw on the wider non-monetary resources of the middle-class for this effort. The PM is thus right in calling on Malay-Muslim groups. As much as I support de-ethnicization of 'self-help', the political and institutional reality (the pre-existing structures you refer to) is that we already have Mendaki and a somewhat mobilized Malay community who have been conditioned by the ethnicized self-help structures to treat this as their problem. I think it should be treated as our problem, that is, a national issue. Thus, working with the reality: non-Malay groups should give aid while Malay-Muslim groups and Mendaki lead in the effort. In the long run, hopefully, this will de-ethnicized 'self-help' - dismantling boundaries dividing us one at a time.

Dansong,

Great post.

Sorry for reading this late; I have a few questions, which I hope you could answer.

Firstly, you mentioned that the evidence from the US study concludes that "there is no significant difference in cultural values, norms and aspirations between endangered families and thriving families." Are the endangered families and thriving families studied only African-American families or did they include also families from other ethnic group as well, such as the Asian-American and the Hispanics, so as to compare cultural values? I guess I am unsure partially because of my confusion over the term "cultural values." Are cultural values linked to ethnicity?

Secondly, has the finding in US led to any policy recommendations? Were they implemented and what are the results? What do you think are the lessons, if any, that could be learned from that case? I am asking this partly because I saw great socio-economic disparity in US that I would dread to see in Singapore.

Thirdly, you argue, very convincingly, that "endangered families" are primarily caused by socio-economic forces and has nothing to do with ethnicity; but yet you also suggest that, historically, socio-economic forces affected different ethnic (or communal) groups very differently because of certain colonial policies and their postcolonial aftermath. Other than producing widely held stereotypes of the "lazy native", how has the historically structured connection between socio-economic forces and ethnicity shaped the perceptions those in the "endangered families"? Do you think the self-perceptions of those in the "endangered families" are important to whether the assistance plans you proposed could be successful?

Hey Jette, thanks for these solid 'digging' questions, I'll try to tackle these questions to the best of my knowledge. I do invite everyone and anyone to point me to counter-evidence if you find some, as I am starting to compile sources.

On your first question. Its my fault for not making it clear. What I mean by 'cultural values' is the set of values, norms and aspirations that are clustered as the dominant values of mainstream society, which in the cases of US and Singapore, would be those pertaining to meritocracy. That is, the belief that hard-work + talent (through legitimate means) -> increased social mobility. Migrant communities like the Asian-Americans and Hispanic-Americans have been shown to possess the same beliefs. The implication here is that ethnicity is not influential for determining one's cultural values as they pertain to the socioeconomic sphere here. In fact, it is possible to postulate that ethnic cultural systems in modern societies are often so open to multiple meanings and interpretations, one can probable find elements in any ethnic cultural system to back up the dominant values of meritocracy. Subtext for Singapore: in other words, the Chinese do not have monopoly nor majority share over the 'hard-work' ethics.

There is also another point that should be clarified. Often, when the lower-class folks respond with fatalism or cynicism with regards to these dominant values and sometimes replace them with alternative values, it is due to the fact that the pressure of a continued mismatch (cognitive dissonance, as some psychologists will call it) between their belief in the dominant values and the cycle of poverty they are trapped in causes them to change the easier-to-change part, their cultural beliefs. This can be easily tested through interviews.

On your second question, such studies have led to policy interventions in helping families break out of the poverty cycle through micro-financing, provision of public infrastructure like housing and free education, workfare etc. The problem in the US is this: lots of sociologists but the constant change of administration and the lack of political will and motivation on the part of the white majority have led to inconsistent policy interventions. Here is the perversity of democracy in the tyranny of the majority, but not just that, coupled with the electoral college system which has favored republican conservatism (and the conservativization of the democrats). Policy interventions have also been undermined by what some sociologists have called 'American Apartheid' (Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton 1988): white flight and residential segregation leading to the collapse of inner city economies, trapping the immobile largely black working class and underclass. The thing is that Singapore is actually almost opposite in terms of NOT having such problems (administrative u-turns, ghetto-ization), but as I have argued, it is mired in a racialized policy approach to an essentially class issue. We haven't quite try out micro-financing (micro-credit) also, which is an interesting possibility, increasingly backed up by research showing it can be a successful device if properly marketed (the problems with micro-finance thus lies in the supply side not the demand side, the customer's values etc.; the economist) , if we can rid ourselves of racial and class stereotypes.

Concerning the third question. The historical part has more to do with economic structuring and institutionalization than with perceptions. The 'lazy native' myth was instrumental as a British perception for colonial policy (not conspiratorial, but causal) that favored keeping the Malays to till rice-fields as smallholders, which made sure a Malay entrepreneurial class could not emerge because it was deprived of a Malay working class (colonial business networks and companies often depended on kinship and ethnic ties for the guarantee of trust). The British also suppressed lucrative rubber smallholding by Malay rice farmers, which could have spawn Malay entrepreneurial planters. There is more to the story, especially the postcolonial component. But going back to your question then, the perception is important for British colonial policy and perhaps significant today as a pernicious stereotype (the 'lazy' Malay) held by Chinese employers and teachers that lower the employment and educational chances of Malay individuals. In terms of 'self-perception', I would go back to my 'cognitive dissonance' point. People trapped in such poverty cycle turn to alternative ideologies/values, but I strongly doubt the alternative for the impoverished Malay family is the 'lazy native' perception.

;P sorry, turn out to be a rather long response!

I'm not sure I'm in agreement with the term "endangered families". Teen pregnancy, single parenthood and early marriage certainly place an additional burden on the family, but whether you were born in or out of wedlock, and no matter who you were raised by, your father is your father and your mother will not change. "Endangered marriages" would be an apt descriptor for the symptoms listed above, but it invites the focus of the investigation of the problem to shift from identifying ethnic or economic commonalities to determining commonalities in the values, psyche or social pressures placed on the individuals who find themselves in this predicament. "Endangered marriages" as a phrase also connotatively isolates the problem to the relationship between two people, and does not lend enough importance to the long-term impact of the problem: frequently under-privileged children, economically struggling single-income families and the like.

My phrase would be "Initially Disadvantaged Families". I think it describes the economic situation well, and the word "initially" serves both to describe the often rapid onset of the problem as well as to leave the door open to the idea that the disadvantages can be overcome.

Enough semantics, though. I applaud PAP for recognizing that these families need some kind of assistance, and that the failure to act will have a long-term, widespread socioeconomic impact. I do not, however, think that the most effective solution would be to try to tackle this from an ethnic perspective, as I believe the problem is a global phenomenon given the correct social conditions, and is not isolated to the Malay people.

Any list of the social forces that lead to this kind of situation need to include the sexualization of the media and society's increased acceptance and even encouragement of divorce as a solution to a troubled marriage. I do not believe that the problem is isolated to either to the Malay people, Muslims, or to lower-income population, but rather, to expand on the original post, the phenomenon is more widespread in poorer areas in part because they have fewer financial options when faced with a "crisis".

But what is a "crisis" to a poor family is not always "critical" to a wealthy family - often, an event that causes a legitimate economic "crisis" in a poor family is merely an "embarassment" in a wealthy family. Job loss, teen pregnancy, legal trouble or unexpected expenses are all agents of dramatic economic situations in a poor family, whereas in a wealthy family, the relative economic impact can be significantly less or virtually nil.

The problem of "endangered" or "initially disadvantaged" families is therefore isolated to the lower income families, but the root of the problem is not, and the long-term economic and social effect of the problem is not. The question then becomes one of responsibility: can the Malays effectively resolve a problem that for various reasons manifests (at least in Singapore) primarily among people of their ethnicity? Due to the long-term impact across ethnic and economic boundaries, does the responsibility for preventing the wider outcome fall on the shoulders of all Singaporeans as suggested here?

Or would the problem would be best addressed not where it manifests or where the impact is most visible, but at it's root? And what is the root of the problem?

Because upper-income families are able to effectively deal with the same crises that place lower-income families in dire straits, we must say that the crises themselves are not the root of the problem. So the solution IMHO is not to try to end alcoholism, eliminate teen pregnancy, etc. (although that would be nice), but to find a means by which those in the lower-income levels have the ability to respond to potential crises with the same effectiveness and result as those in higher-income levels.

I believe that in order to accomplish this, you need to understand the problem effectively from a variety of perspectives. The perspective most often overlooked in this kind of scenario is that of the poor, as they are typically not brought into these discussions, but instead are generally (mis)represented by wealthy, educated folks, resulting in a "fix it" solution that generally involves funnelling money to the poor through an agency.

The poor are much likelier to take us in a more accurate direction for a solution than anyone who is not poor can hope to reach alone. Ideally, the solution will be borne of a combination of scientific research and suggestions coming from those with previous and ongoing experience with the problem.

For example, the United States directs funds to poor families that meet certain economic conditions. Families with more children need more money, and they get it. The result of this policy is that the low-income parent who has the most children and spends the least amount of money on them (i.e. neglects them the most) sees the largest immediate amount of money in their pocket.

The poor may tell us that what they actually need is time. Time to go to school, time to go to work. Time to spend with their children. They may say that what they need is not time or money, but education.

America's representative government does not afford the poor the opportunity to speak for themselves. They must vote for a wealthy person to represent them in government. Singapore is not tied to that dilemma. It has a much more intimate relationship with its citizens than the United States does, and therefore a greater capacity for involving its poor directly in helping determine their needs and an acceptable (i.e. not "have us switch places with the rich") solution.

Sorry for the length.

Hey Random Ang Mo, many thanks for the thoughtful comment. I generally agree with what you are saying.

On the semantic question, it is still bothering me. I know the term 'endangered' is really quite problematic. But to go with spursfan's observation that 'endangered' has very strong meanings of species extinction and conservation, what you said about the global problem having more impact on poor Malay families actually ties in with the problems conservationist face - a global systemic degradation of the planet's ecology that is linked to our current mix of capitalism, consumerism, industrialism etc., having variable impact on species and in localized ways. A local disadvantage in terms of capacity to cope with ecological change therefore turns into species endangerment. Thus, ironically, 'endangered' is congenial to your view.

But the problem with using this term is that it treats the subjects, the poor Malay family members, as objects of paternalistic care and authoritarian welfare, like the way we treat the pandas and the lions. This ties into your point, which I wholeheartedly agree with, that the rest of us should listen to the poor as they know their problems best and will lead us in the right direction in terms of solution. There is a branch of research in the social sciences that is called Action Research, which builds community participation into the research process. The researcher does not go into the field to collect data but constructs his/her research project with the community and then involves the community in the research process. In this sense, the researcher is a facilitator in mobilizing the community to discover the source of their problems and to discuss the solutions to them. This will empower the 'endangered' families to take their destinies into their own hands and ask for specific kinds of help or intervention from welfare organizations or the government. It will also minimize welfare dependency, since the community will be mobilized to deal with their problems and the probability of intervention success is much higher.

But I really wonder whether the self-help groups, welfare groups, community groups led by community elites and government bureaucrats are able or willing to use this approach, as their perception of the 'endangered' families tend to be exactly that, 'endangered' in the paternalistic sense. Besides, a variant of the Parkinson's Law that ringisei brought up may be at work here, as rendering the poor families dependent will expand and maintain the organizations' portfolio. Thus said, our task seems to be twofold, go facilitate the helping of the poor families in a national effort, AND change the mindset of welfare and government organizations (and put in key performance indicators not based on size of portfolio but how many families have been helped OUT of the poverty cycle).