SOCIAL QUALITY INDICATORS: SINGAPORE M Ramesh LKY School of Public Policy National University of Singapore Paper presented at the Asian Conference on Social Quality and Sustainable Welfare Societies, Taipei, March 2007

Introduction Singaporeans a “happy” lot, overall! Yet it is difficult to assess the real conditions in the country Both traditional and social quality approaches have limitations Traditional approach difficult to apply to Singapore: Does not fully capture the contribution of economic growth to social policy Does not deal with different emphasis on components of social policy. Example, education and housing instead of social security and health. Ad hoc discretionary payments

Introduction Social Quality approach difficult to apply due to its dependence on subjective data, which is not readily available. Social indicators hard to separate from economic indicators: the former shaped by latter Severe data limitations for Singapore Patchy social data Objective rather than subjective data Available data more likely to show island in good light! Restrictions on conducting social surveys

Socio-Economic Security One of the highest economic growth rates in the world for four decades, except for Per capita income of USD 29,000 in 2006 High income inequality: 0.53 gini Necessities consume 56% of household expenditures. Shares largely constant since early 1990s Little difference between the richest and poorest Probably explained by higher savings by the former

Socio-Economic Security No official poverty line. Various government documents refer to SGD10/day as poverty line. 4% of population poor. Public assistance available to less than 0.1% of population PA rate about 4% of per capita GDP

Socio-Economic Security 93% home ownership. One of the highest in the world 65% live in public housing. Almost all public housing (95%) privately owned. Very short waiting time for heavily subsidized rental housing Crime rate of 0.9 per capita Very low by international standards Environment quality better than most comparable cities.

Socio-Economic Security Healthcare – no right to it. Yet (almost) everyone who needs it gets it. One of the best health status indicators in the world Education Not compulsory, until 2005, when primary education made compulsory Yet universal enrolment Enrolment and completion rate for primary and secondary education almost universal.

Socio-Economic Security Drop-out rate of 0.2% at primary level and 1.6% at secondary level. Nearly all primary and secondary education paid by state. Nearly 75% of tertiary education expendituresw paid by state Tertiary education enrolment rate of 50% 92% of graduates find employment within 6 months of graduation

Socio-Economic Security Very low unemployment rate Average paid hours/week per employee: 46.5 Labor participation rate of of 76% for men and 54% for women 83% of the labourforce in formal employment. Ie small informal sector Accident rate at workplace of 5 per 100,000 (twice the EU average. Little formal employment protection Mitigated by low unemployment Unionization rate of around 25%

Social Cohesion Low volunteer rate: 16% of population Low blood donation rate Low trust Only 17% believe “most people can be trusted. High trust in family Over 99% believe family important Over 93% believe friends important Politics unimportant For 47% of respondents: 70% Not in favour of immigration

Social Empowerment 18% of seats in parliament held by women Women’s salary compared to men’s: 77%