When Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong urged citizens to embrace a “we first” mindset in building a more inclusive society, the phrase was meant to signal unity and mutual support. Instead, it has exposed a fault line. A growing number of Singaporeans have taken to social media and public forums to question who exactly counts as “we” in a country marked by widening inequality, demographic shifts and an increasingly assertive citizenry. Their unease, and at times open irritation, reflects deeper anxieties about belonging, fairness and representation in a city state long lauded for its social compact – and now grappling with its limits.
Defining the we in Singapore How race class and citizenship shape who feels included
In a city-state that has long celebrated its multiracial compact, the question of who gets to claim the collective pronoun is increasingly fraught. The ideal of a shared national identity sits uneasily alongside lived experiences that are sharply differentiated by race, class and citizenship status. Minority communities say that official narratives of harmony often obscure everyday slights, hiring biases and the quiet sorting of residents into “good” and “problematic” neighbourhoods. At the same time, a growing group of low-wage workers and precariously employed Singaporeans argue that the language of unity rings hollow when economic mobility feels out of reach. For many, the insistence on a cohesive “we” can sound less like inclusion and more like pressure to keep grievances private.
Who feels part of the national circle is further complicated by the presence of permanent residents, new citizens and a large migrant workforce that keeps the economy running but remains politically invisible. Social researchers point to an emerging hierarchy of belonging, where some are invited to speak as the voice of the nation while others are cast as temporary guests or quiet backroom labour. This stratification is visible in:
- Housing patterns that reflect income and ethnic clustering
- Workplace norms that privilege certain accents, schools and passports
- Public discourse where critics of the status quo are framed as divisive
| Group | Typical Label | Sense of Belonging |
|---|---|---|
| Majority citizens | “Heartlanders” | High, but anxious about change |
| Minority citizens | “Diverse voices” | Conditional, tied to conformity |
| New citizens & PRs | “Foreign talent” | Mixed, often contested |
| Migrant workers | “Helpers” / “Workers” | Low, largely structural exclusion |
From rhetoric to reality Policy steps to build an inclusive society that Singaporeans actually trust
Moving beyond slogans requires policies that tackle the fault lines many Singaporeans feel but rarely name. This means hardwiring fairness and dignity into everyday systems: housing allocation that is more transparent and responsive to diverse households; employment rules that give older workers, caregivers and persons with disabilities real negotiating power; and social safety nets that are less punitive and more enabling. Civil society groups say this also involves changing how decisions are made: opening up data that underpins policies, publishing impact assessments, and institutionalising citizen panels so residents help shape, not just receive, government initiatives.
- Equal respect in public services, regardless of income, race, religion or nationality.
- Predictable protections for workers in gig, care and informal sectors.
- Visible recourse when people feel unfairly treated by institutions.
- Shared voice in national priority-setting, not only at election time.
| Policy Area | Current Gap | Trust-Building Step |
|---|---|---|
| Social support | Stigma around asking for help | Automatic, opt-out assistance |
| Workplace | Uneven protection for vulnerable workers | Stronger, enforceable labour standards |
| Public debate | Limited space to contest policy | Regular, open consultative forums |
| Data transparency | Opaque criteria for key schemes | Published rules and appeals outcomes |
The Conclusion
As Singapore navigates a rapidly shifting social and political landscape, the debate over who counts as “we” in an inclusive society will likely sharpen rather than fade. The government’s calls for empathy and shared responsibility are colliding with longstanding anxieties over identity, inequality and belonging, exposing tensions that can no longer be smoothed over with slogans alone.
Whether “we first” becomes a unifying rallying cry or a source of deeper division will hinge on how convincingly policymakers address questions of fairness, representation and trust. For now, the discomfort voiced by some Singaporeans suggests that inclusion, in practice, remains a work in progress – and that defining “we” may be one of the city state’s most contested projects in the years ahead.