Who Counts as the “We” in Singapore? Turning a Catchphrase into Real Inclusion
When Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong urged a “we first” mindset, the aim was to encourage mutual responsibility and social solidarity. Rather than settling the issue, the slogan kicked off a broad conversation about who is actually included in that “we” – and where the social compact frays. As Singapore confronts widening income gaps, an ageing population and a diverse migrant workforce, the phrase has revealed deep questions about fairness, recognition and civic voice.
Where Belonging Breaks Down: Identity, Income and Status
Singapore projects a carefully managed image of multicultural harmony, but daily experience can be more complicated. Race, class and legal status continue to shape who feels fully at home. For many minorities and lower-income residents, the rhetoric of unity can ring hollow if they encounter microaggressions, biased hiring practices or neighbourhoods that map social divisions.
To put this in context: Singapore is home to roughly 5.6 million people, and about one in four residents is not a citizen. That mix – citizens, permanent residents, naturalised newcomers and a large cohort of foreign workers – creates layered memberships. Social researchers increasingly describe a gradient of belonging, where some groups are treated as the default custodians of national identity while others are seen as temporary, instrumental or peripheral.
Visible signs of exclusion
- Concentrated living patterns that amplify economic and ethnic separation.
- Recruitment and promotion practices that privilege certain schools, accents or passports.
- Public narratives that frame dissent as disruptive rather than as legitimate civic contribution.
Reframing the Categories: A Practical Snapshot
Rather than a short list of labels, it helps to think of belonging as a continuum. Different groups encounter inclusion in different ways – acceptance that is conditional, partial, or largely functional.
| Group | Common Social Image | Typical Experience |
|---|---|---|
| Long-standing citizens | Mainstream “heartlanders” | Generally secure but anxious about rapid social and economic change |
| Ethnic and religious minorities | Valued for cultural diversity | Often conditionally included – acceptance can depend on conformity to majority norms |
| New citizens and PRs | Skilled newcomers | Respected for contributions but sometimes contested in belonging |
| Migrant workers | Essential labour | Economically important yet frequently excluded from civic and political participation |
Why “We First” Both Connects and Divides
Short slogans can rally people quickly, but they also compress complex realities into neat soundbites. For some citizens, “we first” expresses a simple ethic of neighborliness. For others – particularly those on the receiving end of structural disadvantages – it reads as a request to smile through inequality. The result is comparable to repainting a cracked bridge: it looks better from a distance, but structural fissures remain.
Three Domains Where Rhetoric Meets Reality
1. Housing and neighbourhood mixing
Where people live determines access to schools, transit and social networks. Policies like the Ethnic Integration Policy have intentionally shaped housing composition; still, income-based clustering and differential access to private housing risks entrenching opportunity gaps. Practical reforms must balance social cohesion goals with measures that reduce economic segregation.
2. The world of work
Hiring and promotion practices frequently reward specific credentials, language fluency and geographic mobility, which disadvantages older workers, caregivers and those in informal or gig roles. The rise of platform work and temporary contracts also exposes thousands to erratic incomes and limited protections. Portable benefits, sectoral standards and better dispute resolution could reduce precarity.
3. Public voice and civic space
If people believe speaking up will cost them jobs, housing or social standing, they self-censor. Limited avenues for meaningful input shrink the circle of “we.” Expanding deliberative spaces and normalising dissent as part of policy-making can rebuild trust and broaden inclusion.
Policy Tools That Could Make “We” Tangible
To transform a slogan into lived reality requires policies with measurable outcomes and transparent accountability. The following approaches, adapted to Singapore’s context, can help widen belonging.
- Transparency dashboards: publish beneficiary data, eligibility rules and regular impact evaluations for major programmes so residents can see who benefits and why.
- Stronger, portable labour protections: introduce minimum standards for gig, domestic and care sectors, paired with portable social contributions that follow a worker between jobs.
- Housing mixes with teeth: incentives and allocations that promote economically and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, alongside investment in community amenities that knit neighbours together.
- Institutionalised participatory policymaking: create citizen juries, neighbourhood deliberation hubs and public co-design processes with published outcomes and timelines.
- Independent recourse mechanisms: an accessible ombuds-style body and faster administrative appeals so people feel they have real remedies when systems fail them.
- Automatic enrolment for appropriate social supports: reduce stigma and increase uptake by making some benefits opt-out rather than opt-in.
| Domain | Core Gap | Practical Reform |
|---|---|---|
| Social safety nets | Underuse from stigma and complexity | Automatic enrolment, outreach and simplified application processes |
| Worker protections | Inconsistent coverage for non-traditional workers | Sector-specific minimums, portable benefits, and inspection capacity |
| Civic participation | Top-down consultation with limited follow-through | Regularly convened deliberative assemblies whose recommendations become public policy inputs |
| Data and transparency | Opaque eligibility and unclear rationale | Open datasets, plain-language rationale notes, and appeal guidance |
Lessons from Elsewhere (Adaptable Ideas)
Cities and regions abroad offer experiments Singapore could adapt. Vienna’s long-term investment in mixed-income social housing has helped stabilise neighbourhoods. Barcelona’s participatory budgeting programmes have strengthened local accountability and civic interest in municipal spending. Independent labour inspectors and fast-track tribunals in several jurisdictions have reduced exploitation in domestic and care sectors. None of these are plug-and-play, but each offers principles – durable public housing, resident-directed spending, enforceable workplace standards – that can be tailored to local realities.
Measuring Success: From Intent to Indicators
For “we first” to mean anything beyond rhetoric, policymakers should attach clear metrics and deadlines: targets for reduced spatial segregation, timelines for expanding portable benefits, published results from citizen assemblies, and annual transparency reports. A public dashboard that tracks progress – who receives support, which neighbourhoods are mixing, how quickly grievances are resolved – would make inclusion measurable rather than merely aspirational.
Conclusion: Making “We” a Lived Experience
A slogan can start a conversation, but only concrete, enforceable changes turn belonging into everyday reality. Singapore’s challenge is to broaden the circle of inclusion so that “we” is not a branding exercise but a measurable social condition – one built on transparent rules, reliable protections, and genuine opportunities for people to shape the decisions that affect their lives.