Economic Connectedness through Interaction between Families of Low and High Socio-economic Status

Mdm Deputy Speaker, social mobility has been a key long-term outcome in the Government’s programme to address inequality since Independence. As more in our society progress, the Government endeavours for society to continue progressing together.

Various studies, including the ones cited by the Member in a past Parliamentary Question (PQ), suggest that “economic connectedness” supports social mobility. In our public policy design, we also consider how best to promote social interaction, including among different income groups of our society.

In our residential estates, we have actively sought to foster a good mix of socio-economic groups. We provide common spaces where Singaporeans from all walks of life congregate, such as parks, hawker centres, playgrounds and sporting facilities. We have actively integrated public rental flats with sold flats in the same Build-To-Order (BTO) projects and within the same blocks where possible, including in Prime Location Housing areas, to enable social mixing.

We work to ensure that our schools remain open and accessible to students from different backgrounds. In addition, there are opportunities for students from different schools to interact with one another and with the larger community, such as through co-curricular activities (CCAs), values-in-action projects and cluster-based activities and competitions.

We have also sought to increase the social capital of those from lower-income backgrounds through volunteering and mentoring opportunities.

Many community partners and volunteers from diverse backgrounds provide services and programmes to lower-income families under our "Many Helping Hands" approach. Through Community Link, or ComLink, volunteers are matched to families as befrienders to better understand the families’ needs and aspirations, co-create individualised action plans with them and match them to relevant schemes, services and programmes.

More recently, we launched Mentoring SG, a national movement to support youth development through mentoring opportunities. Youths, including those from lower-income backgrounds, can be connected to mentors to build their tenacity, soft skills and knowledge. The close bonds fostered allow for useful information and opportunities to be shared with youths and families.

With targeted programming, connections across socioeconomic backgrounds offer information exchange, mentorship and job referrals that could shape aspirations and expand opportunities for material improvement.

While the Government can shape diverse environments and channels for interactions between different socio-economic groups, all of us must play our part to reach across the lines of status and class. In particular, those who are more privileged and better-connected should realise that their success in life is also because of the kind of society we have built over time. So, we hope they will always step forward to contribute their time, networks and effort to uplift those with less. We need a whole-of-society effort to help lower-income families as they work towards stability, self-reliance and social mobility.

Madam, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. I think he mentioned there is some peer-to-peer social mixing in CCAs and then, peer-to-mentor social mixing in some of the programmes through ComLink.

Could I ask whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) is rolling out new programmes that will have peer-to-peer social mixing within the community? So, making friends with the same age group and not just the peer-to-mentor.

Secondly, I think the study that we are talking about was done in the US, where it showed that economic connectedness – or basically, social mixing – is probably the most important factor, more than family structure, school or job availability. Could I ask whether MSF can conduct a similar study in Singapore to see whether it holds true that social mixing is the most important factor so that we can tailor our programmes and have a more targeted impact on the ground?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. His points are well-noted. In today's programmes – not within the ambit of MSF but me wearing my Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) hat – we do have programmes where peer-to-peer interaction across different socio-economic groups is already taking place. For instance, under Sport Singapore (SportSG), there is SportCares, which reaches out to youths from low-income families through sports. Young talents who are good with their fundamental movement skills are recruited and scouted for their abilities at sports and then, placed in Junior Sports Academy or centres where talents from across different socio-economic groups are placed together. That is where the interaction across socio-economic groups already takes place.

I cite this as one of many other examples across the different agencies' programmes and services that we provide.

I do note the Member's suggestion to replicate some of these studies in our context here in Singapore. I will take that back to the Ministry, but I do want to put forth a note that we might not want to replicate every study that is out there, because that would not be a judicious use of our resources.

I also want to draw some reference from the study which points to a finding, such as the stickiness with respect to how members of each socio-economic status group are having a resistance to mixing with members from a different socio-economic status group. A finding, such as this, is somewhat confirmatory of what we know intuitively – we do not really need additional research in order to confirm or conclude as such. But I do note the Member's suggestion for such studies to be conducted in the local context, so that it can better appreciate the nuances or the different nuances.