OCT 7 — Class — more specifically class divisions — and not race, religion or any other factor is perceived to be the most worrying and divisive issue in Singapore today.

A study by OnePeople.sg, the national body for promoting social harmony, and national broadcaster Channel NewsAsia showed that most Singaporeans see economic inequality as presenting the greatest threat to the nation’s social harmony.

It’s an insightful result and one that is also supported by data from other surveys including another recent survey by the Institute of Policy Studies which indicates the majority of residents in public housing (80 per cent of Singaporeans, largely middle- and low-incomes) had virtually no friends who lived in private housing (condominiums and housing estates — which tend to house the more affluent).

While it’s long been clear Singapore has a reasonably high level of inequality, our GINI co-efficient (statistical measure of inequality) is over 400 (this is higher than Japan or South Korea and around the same level as USA).

The disparity in income between the top 10 per cent of households and the bottom 10 per cent is also large and growing.

Members of the top 10 per cent earn around S$12,000 (RM36,047) more than their counterparts from low income households (that’s S$12,000 more each per month to be clear).

While high level income inequality has been reasonably well documented, it’s only recently that the idea of an entrenched class divide as a threat to social cohesion has come to the fore.

Singapore has long taken pride in being a meritocracy — a place where everyone has a chance to succeed at the highest level regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

As a society comprised almost entirely of immigrants, we have no traditional elite. There is no entrenched class or caste system, no monarch, no feudal rulers, no landlords.

In Singapore, meritocracy has not levelled the playing field but instead given rise to a division among the rich and poor. — AFP pic

We all started fresh here 2,3 4 or at most 5 generations ago so what does class even mean in our context?

Well, simplistically it’s a matter of higher incomes and these incomes turning into greater opportunities and advantages. Crucially, class implies these advantages are passed down across generations.

It seems undeniable that certain groups in the country enjoy clear advantages from birth. At the same time, a percentage of Singaporeans are trapped facing low incomes over generations.

Singapore has quite clearly evolved a class system. The question is what do we do about it?

Education has long been seen as the best means of levelling social divisions. Our strong and affordable education system with scholarships and bursaries allowing everyone a chance to perform is the core of our meritocracy,

But if you look closely, the education system has a problem. Its emphasis on exams and on streaming students based on ability (gauged by competitive examinations) at a young age places children from less affluent families at a real disadvantage.

While results-based selection might seem like a fair way of selecting the strongest students, the reality is affluent children have more resources in terms of tuition, English language skills and parents who have the time to encourage them. This means they tend to perform better at tests.

Performing better earlier in their academic careers means children from affluent households tend to be placed in higher streams — giving them a clear route to the universities and colleges that ensure strong career paths.

Meanwhile, if you look at the lower performing educational tracks like the Normal Academic and the Normal Technical (effectively the lowest track) it’s clear there’s a higher proportion of children from low income families here.

It is equally clear that the student bodies in elite private/semi-private schools have grown more affluent over the years. Even though many of these institutions remain affordable in terms of fees, if you compare the financial status of students at Raffles Institution in 1960, 1980 and the present day you will almost certainly see an increasing proportion of children from affluent families.

This is because elite schools select a proportion of their students based on past connection to the school so if your parents went there, you are more likely to get in.

Proximity also plays a large role; if you live near an elite school, it is easier to gain admission and the affluent can afford to live near the school of their choice.

Parents who spend their time volunteering at elite schools can also help their children secure admission and once more it’s the affluent who can take time off to volunteer at a prospective school.

At every level, therefore, the odds are stacked against the less affluent. This is a clear obstacle to mobility. If elite education is confined to the elite, then social mobility will become a dream.

The other alternative in terms of reducing inequality is redistribution — more taxes on the rich and more grants and subsidies for the poor.

Singapore (while it does engage in some redistribution) has long shunned this approach arguing that it creates dependence. There is truth in this argument — a system of welfare will prevent poverty, but will it allow people to really rise to the top?

Perhaps the real solution lies in channelling the proceeds from higher taxes heavily into educational opportunities for the poor: skills grants, exchange programmes, subsidiaed tuition etc.

On a more fundamental level, however, the education system as a whole may need to be re-geared as our current system is almost inherently elitist and creates a real gulf between those who perform and those who don’t.

Socially and structurally too, Singapore needs to focus on equality. The government has long perceived race and religion as our society’s main fault lines — as such there have long been polices in place to ensure a degree of racial integration.

Public housing, for example, has clear racial quotas in order to prevent ethnic ghettos from forming. However, less of an effort is made to ensure mixing across income groups.

While private and public housing is mixed geographically, there are clearly areas and neighborhoods that contain higher concentrations of the poor.

Of course to some extent this is inevitable. Singapore does suffer from serious inequality, but one could argue it’s no more unequal than other major cities — if one looks at London or New York, they face similar issues.

A complete mertitocracy or flat society isn’t really achievable.

But this doesn’t mean we can shrug our shoulders and say good enough. Singapore, more than most nations, places meritocracy on a pedestal. A basic tenet of the nation is that everyone has a chance and as a young nation committed to building an identity, we cannot allow the rich Singaporean and poor Singaporean identities.

Combatting inequality therefore has to become a high if not the highest priority for the government, our education system and also for every individual Singaporean — all of us need to think of what we can do to ensure opportunity, connection and cohesions.

One nation, one people right?

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.