不平等的樣貌：新加坡繁榮神話背後，社會底層的悲歌

by You Yenn Teo, 張優遠, 方祖芳 (Translator)

名列亞洲四小龍的新加坡，向來給人光鮮繁榮的印象，然而作為亞洲最富裕的國家之一，其經濟發展的背後充滿爭議，強調國家榮耀的國族主義，只想揚長避短，對社會不平等問題視而不見。

社會學專家張優遠深入走訪底層社會，歷時三年與低收入者聊天、訪談及觀察，了解弱勢階層面對的困境，結合其十年來對於新加坡家庭、社會福利、性別和公共政策的專業研究，指出新加坡在托育結構、福利制度、教育體系、勞動環境中普遍存在的弊病與不平等，反思改善之道。

本書英文版出版後在新加坡蔚為風潮，激發公眾對不平等現象廣泛、深度的辯論，影響深遠。書中所揭露的問題，在中產階級逐漸增加、都市貧困問題日益劇烈的亞洲主要城市同樣可見到。《不平等的樣貌》貫穿不同階層、城市、國家和地區，掀開亮麗表面下無所不在的不平等環境，將居民百姓連結在一起，並點名我們關心、重視每一個人的尊嚴。

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Essays, Politics, Economics, Asia, Social Science

272 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2018

Reviews

[EL · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was a little hesitant to add this book to my "read" album here, because it would almost be a declaration of the responsibility i now have for the paradigm-shifting knowledge detailed in the book. But not doing so would be maintaining a blind eye to an issue that we collectively have the power to alleviate. And any Singaporean who still has a stake in this land, cannot and should not be blind. In the issue of inequality, it truly stands to benefit us and our next generations, to care about how the game is inherently stacked against those who are on the lower rungs of the social-economic ladder.

This book is not about getting people to be more charitable. Neither is it about stirring up shit and 'whacking' our policies. It's about opening our eyes to matters that we have either over-simplified and/or hidden in our national narrative, so that we have awareness to seek actions for a more sustainable, not-so-distant future.

A must-read for Singapore citizens.

[Jill · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book about inequality in Singapore, based on 3 years' worth of ethnographic research by Teo. In it, Teo seeks to force deeper reflection about the narratives we tell ourselves about inequality and poverty in Singapore - that the story of Singapore is unequivocally one of progress from Third World to First; that while there is poverty (there is poverty everywhere after all), the poor here have it better than their counterparts elsewhere, with roofs over their heads, plenty of government assistance, and opportunities for advancement; that the winners and losers in Singapore are the natural outcome of meritocracy at work - and if you are one of the losers, you must lack merit in some way.

Each essay in This Is What Inequality Looks Like examines a different aspect of the low-income experience - their every day life in rental flats, how they juggle work and family commitments, parenting, how their status shapes their interactions with the government and other citizens, etc. For the winners in life's sweepstakes, it is tempting to attribute success to ambition, diligence and sheer hard work. Conversely, we apply terms like "dysfunctional" or "unmotivated" to the losers; their lack of success is the result of some moral failure and poor life choices. But we don't consider how privilege (and luck) play a role in giving one a headstart in life, in growing and entrenching that advantage.

This Is What Inequality Looks Like forces one to reframe our perspectives, by interrogating some of the assumptions we hold of the low-income. We might consider someone in a rental flat to be extravagant or to have money squirrelled away somewhere, when we see that they have fairly nice furnishings and fancy electronics like flat screen TVs. But Teo argues that "the furnishings people have reflect the excesses of Singapore society - some people with limited income have quite nice furniture because well-to-do Singaporeans throw out nice things that are still in reasonably good condition...It is worth speaking explicitly about televisions. In Singapore and elsewhere, people regularly remark that low-income persons are perhaps not as poor as they claim to be or that they are making bad choices...because they have large screen televisions. I heard this from social workers I interviewed and among people who volunteer for organisations that work with low-income families...There is a popular belief that low-income families buy appliances from furnishing/appliance chain stores and they do so because there are instalment plans. When people mention this, they are usually implying that people are not prudent and giving beyond their means...[But] a common way in which families gather the things they need in their homes - TVs, fridges, sofas, beds, washing machines, study desks - is through donations and second hand shops. People with money in Singapore buy new appliances and furnishings, upgrading to higher resolution TVs for example, before their existing sets break down. Numerous appliances and furnishings in the homes of people I visit are incongruent with their income levels. While some buy these things on instalment plans, many made a point of pointing out: "this one is from [organisation X]...that one [organisation Y] gave me"...TV sets, including large screen TVs, then, tell us less about 'bad choices' by low-income households and more about our society of high consumption and waste."

Through the experiences she describes, Teo asks the reader to consider whether the bad choices made by the low income are the result of bad circumstances (where one can only, at best, choose the option that is least bad) or because of some moral failure. Why doesn't the single mother choose to take a job that pays better, or go for training that will enable her to upgrade to a better job? (How hard can it be to make childcare arrangements for her children, such that she can take a better paying job that is further away from her home?) Why don't children from low income families work harder in school so they can secure better prospects in life? (How hard can it be to catch up with children from middle and high income families who enter school knowing how to read, write and speak fluently, and not believe from the start that one is stupid and slow? And what help can their parents possibly offer them, beyond nagging them to work harder so that they don't end up like their parents?)

This is What Inequality Looks like is thought provoking and reflective. And it is (perhaps most importantly) also highly accessible in its language and style. It forces one to re-examine one's assumptions and prejudices about the low-income, to understand a bit better the texture of the low-income experience, and to consider whether we need to reframe our narrative about inequality and poverty.

[ash | songsforafuturepoet · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very, very important book, not just on inequality and poverty, but as a great tool to allow yourself to learn how to be more critical and observant of structural processes and how they interact to influence an individual's life and choices in ways we don't usually think about.

This is a good book for readers at most levels of understanding of social issues such as inequality. A good few points to take away from this book, which Prof Teo has very clearly broken down into digestible pieces:

1. it's inaccurate to only focus on issues at the individual level, because ultimately an individual's choices and options are within the social structure they are in, and

2. framing the questions with an understanding of social structure will direct the conversation as such.

I will discuss point 2 first.

A key emphasis that comes up in every discussion piece of every issue is the need to define the correct questions or the correct direction for discussion, which I feel often goes ignored. Indeed, I have a friend working in psychology research, and she scoffed when I told her I've taken an interest in the philosophy of psychology, saying that, "Philosophy is useless." Which is ironic because her work is much closer to philosophy than my other peers who are working in direct services. Her base assumptions behind her research lends the direction of which it would take, and yet she has not thought to examine them.

Look at the idea of meritocracy, for example. Prof Teo highlights that meritocracy works on misdirection, by defining the system as something that rewards a person for their hard work and directing the discourse from there.

"Meritocracy... we think it rewards each individual's hard work when in reality it rewards economic and cultural capital."

"By focusing primarily on what individual women can do to improve their own situations, this mode of thinking about women's advancement fails to critique, and ultimately serves to legitimise, the undemocratic and exploitative nature of neoliberal capitalism."

Now on to point 1.

I find that it is extremely important for every discourse on social issues to emphasize and steer the focus back to the structural set-up of the society.

The difference in amount of work life balance between groups of different class, for instance, is often not brought up or even given a second thought about. Work life balance sometimes is a class privilege - this is the logical deduction through the gender lens and when talking about inequality. And it should not be this way. Prof Teo highlights that life - childcare amongst other aspects - should not be compromised for what she terms 'wage work', which is a term I find effective in bringing attention to the fact that there are other forms of unpaid duties that should be recognised as work as well. In another of her essays, she said that the economy - essentially wage work - is inherently dependent on unpaid work. A worker may rely on someone to upkeep the house, cook meals, take care of children, and other things that need time. Without the latter person, the paid worker had to make adjustments to their time - possibly taking less time to do less paid work - to do unpaid work.

When work life balance is a class privilege, it means that persons who are of a lower socioeconomic status has lesser choice and options when it comes to balancing work and other responsibilities. Pairing that against the gender disparity - as in women are more likely to do lesser-paying jobs, have more unpaid care duties, and are likelier to experience other discriminations and inequalities because of their gender - this means that it is more likely that women are more affected by this class privilege.

"The inclination by class-privileged women and men to reject the domestic realm because we see and know that it is the sphere of less power - it is an inclination that gives up too much and we must claw it back."

Prof Teo also talks about less-obvious forms of class privilege:

"Cultural capital", a term coined by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu to describe advantages that higher class parents pass on to their children - ways of speaking, relating to authority, understand art and music - that are eventually translated into formal credentials and status. "They are qualities that schools reward and don't teach."

As someone working in social services and would never become a social worker in Singapore for the reasons she highlighted and critiqued in her book, I applaud her efforts to bring up the deep-rooted issues with the social service system in Singapore:

"Subsidies for services are dependent on rigid familial forms. Being and staying married are preconditions to accessing public goods, most notably housing. A gendered division of labor - where husbands are breadwinners and wives are responsible for care functions - is supposed and reproduced by polices concerning parental support (eg. maternity/paternity leave; childcare center subsides, foreign domestic worker regulations, tax reliefs for married working mothers).

These key principles - employment income as the primary mode for meeting needs, and a specific marital form as criteria for accessing public support - are justified in the language of 'self-reliance' and 'protecting traditional Asian family values'."

"Working in an environment of scarcity - where aid is limited, finite, and highly contingent on narrow criteria - social service providing Organisations and workers operate fundamentally within a world where resources are understood and experienced as limited." In this context, it makes sense that they look out for signs of deservedness as manifested in performances of 'mindsets' so as to decide how to distribute scarce resources."

Her last essay on 'race' and the study of 'racism' was much needed. It was a very readable academic perspective on the phenomenon, and it's a great starting point for someone who wants to know more about the subject.

"'Racism' is a tool too crude to get at the fact that 'race' becomes meaningful and consequential through specific means: "categorisation (including classification, prejudice, and stigma), discrimination (differential treatment based on imputed group membership), segregation (group separation in physical and social space), ghettoization (the forced development of parallel social and organisational structures), and racial violence (ranging from interpersonal intimidation and aggression, to lynching, riots and pogroms, and climaxing with racial war and extermination)."... the word 'racist' is a barrier to analysis."

[Judith Huang · Rating 5 out of 5]

In lucid and often beautiful prose, Teo shines a light on low income people in Singapore. A work of elegance and bravery, it should be a must read for anyone who cares about Singapore, and dispels and questions the many myths we base our society on, particularly that the poor are undeserving or a leech on society. Read it!

[Clara · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The lack of class privilege is about having to play by someone else's rules; the presence of class privilege is about being able to set standards.”

This Is What Inequality Looks Like is a collection of essays on inequality/social classes/poverty in Singapore. We seem to think that poverty isn't as prevalent in Singapore since most low-income persons could apply for rental flats. Hence, rendering them invisible to us.

The author challenged us to think about our privileges and what can be done to reduce the disparity between social classes. She also called on us to examine our prejudices against low-income persons. Many of us hold preconceived notions that the poor lags behind because they're lazy, incompetent and unmotivated. Yet, we see that this isn't always the case through this book.

The fourth essay, I Want My Children Better Than Me, in particular, truly struck a chord with me. I didn't come from a particularly well-to-do family but we are comfortable and we get by. I always knew that my parents don't earn as much as my friends' parents, but they work hard to provide for me, including tuition for my weaker subjects when I was still in school.

The meritocracy education system in Singapore means that students are judged by our academic abilities. This means that the elites will always advance to the top faster while the rest of us need to put in extra effort, especially the poor who could not afford tuition. Even then, hard work doesn't guarantee that we will reach the top. If success is solely based on merit, what should be done so that everyone has an equal opportunity? How do we break the cycle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? These were some of the questions I had in mind as I turned the last page.

Thank you Ethos Books for sending me a copy to review.

[chev ۫ ꣑ৎ · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my first foray into social essays recommended by my NTU lecturer!


The essays were spilt into different sessions, highlighting different aspects of inequality and poverty in Singapore. It covers different parts - from weighing meritocracy to living spaces.


In my highlights
- Their feelings of empowerment are an actual outcome of power, not the cause [of empowering others that are less fortunate]
- Rich social ties exist in these neighbourhoods, in ways that are seen to be thicker than wealthier ones


My reflection
This book is a looking glass as I have lived in Singapore my entire life and to read such a well-researched and investigated piece on inequality has hit me really hard. A good read for every Singaporean or person living in Singapore.

* I am by no means an expert, I am just a student who is a political science and social sciences aspirant.

[Samantha Tan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Teo points out a lot of uncomfortable truths in our society. This is especially jarring for those in a position of privilege who hold the greatest instrument for change, will we be brave enough to make choices that places us at a ‘disadvantage’ for the pursuit of equality? While I don’t agree with all her ideas, it was interesting to read how subtle differences in infrastructure and, of course, policy further enhances the divide. The book does not tell us what we don’t already know, but rather makes us painfully aware of what we have chosen to be complicit to as a society.

I am honestly not a fan of her writing style, which I found a little repetitive.

[Jade · Rating 5 out of 5]

First up, thank you, thank you, thank you. We owe Teo You Yenn a huge thank you: there's been a fair bit of good writing, good producing and good discussion relating to inequality in Singapore (i.e. CNA's wonderful series "Don't Call Us Poor"; numerous articles, speeches on meritocracy and its discontents by various people from all walks of life - Donald Low, Bilahari Kausikan, etc etc.), but I think This Is What Inequality Looks Like is a piece that brings together these scattered conversations, grounds them in empirical, ethnographic experience and presented in writing that's meant for the general public and not just academics. There is something to be said about opening this debate and grounding it in a form of a book: I think (and hope) that the materiality of a physical book can lend permanence to this debate, and, if its sales in Kinokuniya are anything to go by, I hope this book becomes a permanent fixture on the bookshelf of many, many upper and middle-income families that serves as a constant reminder, that This Is What Inequality Looks Like: the privilege of owning a book that sits on a bookshelf; the privilege of having such a book be the closest that many of us will ever encounter to the real, lived, embodied experience of precarity.

I gather that part of what makes This Is What Inequality Looks Like so good and so important is perhaps the way it reveals the realities of inequality and poverty in Singapore, but personally, there is nothing in the book that I found particularly surprising. I don't think you need this book or to be a sociologist to intuit that meritocracy in Singapore works better for the privileged, or to notice that construction workers are almost exclusively low-paid foreign workers, or that our elderly are disproportionately pushed into low-paying jobs as cleaners, cardboard collectors, or that in many of our homes it is the bodies of low-paid foreign domestic helpers that bear the hard, back-breaking domestic labour. But I think it is one thing to notice a fact and another altogether to hold it constantly in our consciousness: to consistently remind ourselves in our comfortable, air-conditioned existence that our easy and comfortable experience comes at a price that isn’t fully paid by us; to not let the hawker centre aunties who struggle to clear our plates fade into the background of our meals. Inequality is perhaps the child Singapore hides in our dark basement who we’d much rather forget. This Is What Inequality Looks Like forces us to stare squarely in the face of this child and reckon with its existence, and that is why even though nothing in the book is particularly surprising, even though the writing is lucid and easy to understand, it is not a particularly easy or comfortable read to push through at times, and I think it is exactly unveiling this discomfort that is Teo Yeo Yenn’s project.

If, as Teo Yeo Yenn points out, the project of knowledge production is necessarily one that is situated – influenced by subjectivities and biases brought about by the habitus of each researcher – so is the project of knowledge consumption. I read this from the perspective of someone who’s lucky enough to have benefitted from the Singaporean education system and who has had some limited experience interacting with residents of rental blocks whom Teo You Yenn interviews, and the chapters relating to the education system reminded me of an experience back in secondary school when we were running tuition programmes for children struggling with their schoolwork as 13, 14-year olds and thinking that what we do in those tuition sessions were pretty useless in the grand scheme of things, because there’s just no way we could possibly tackle the underlying structural problems which characterise the root of the these problems. I haven’t thought about my experience back then for a while now, mainly because I still don’t really know what’s the best way to make sense of it. Back in secondary school and in the formal education system, we talk about volunteering projects as “service-learning” projects and for a good couple of years I didn’t know how to make sense of what I saw and experienced as anything but a “learning” experience, which I now cringe at because there is something clearly inadequate in understanding people’s lives only as a life-lesson for yourself – as a teacher once pointed out, people don’t exist to teach you lessons for your benefit: they exist on their own terms and they should be understood and related to as such.

So, reading This Is What Inequality Looks Like brings me back to this discomfort and confusion in a deeply personal way, during a time of my life at which this serves as a profoundly timely reminder. I have spent the last two years or so studying politics, sociology and anthropology in an overseas academy. I have read and heard of some of the foreign academic works (i.e. Bourdieu, Piketty, Standing, Sitglitz) Teo Yeo Yenn cites in her book, written essays about class inequality and disparity in the UK and gotten involved in an assortment of ad-hoc ways with the highly visible problem of homelessness and inequality in the city where I study in. But it has been a while since I’ve properly reckoned with the realities of these same problems in the place I call home, and I think that’s something which once again speaks to my privileged positioning: the privilege of being able to write, think and act, about these issues as though they are foreign issues but not issues of home and at home, because what I have come to associate and understand as home – with all its comforts and conveniences that I miss when I am overseas – are so far and distantly removed from the conditions of precarity that I don’t think about how the same issues which weigh heavy in the city where I study in weigh similarly heavy in the place I consider home.

I am back in Singapore this summer for the longest period since I started university for an internship. It has been a long time since I have been back for so long, and I honestly looked forward to coming home. I thought about the ways in which I could express the sense of homesickness and longing I had for home, and I think I was very much tempted by a very romanticised version of what coming home meant: just thinking about food, for instance, the sheer diversity of food, the cheap hawker centre food, the latest food trends, etc. etc. But thinking about this from the position of someone who is able to appreciate the diversity of food, someone who is able to afford, purchase and consume practically at will, is to perhaps forget that actually so much of what I love about home is a pernicious consequence of inequality: we all know that our hawkers are terribly underpaid; not everyone can afford to walk into the latest cafés and the very fact that I can is almost directly a result of the same structural forces that make it so hard for others.

I wish I read this book earlier: I really, really wish I did. Because it would have served as a much timelier and earlier rude awakening to the image I have of home. But I am very thankful that at least this was one of the first books I picked up upon coming home, because having read this, I can’t think of a better or more appropriate way to think about what it means for me to come home; what it means for home to have me. While studying overseas, I know I am in a sheltered, privileged bubble, but in the day-to-day business and stresses of academic life, that consciousness often fades into the background. I think coming home should mean stepping out of that bubble; thinking about the relation of home to that bubble; and I owe this book a huge debt in pushing me to do that.

*****

A couple of thoughts relating more to the academic, methodological aspects of the book that don't fit in with the main thrust of the review: I think it is clear that this is a book written by a sociologist and directed at the general public as a audience, but I hope that one day perhaps Teo You Yenn can do back to her ethnographic material and data and rework it into a more academic and perhaps anthropological piece of work work. I say this perhaps from the perspective of someone studies anthropology, but what I have come to love about anthropology is precisely the way in which ethnography tends to feature front and centre - the best anthropologists use ethnography as empirical evidence to reveal conclusions / challenge common theoretical frameworks / assumptions, instead of working the other way back in. I can see how This Is How Inequality Looks Like works as a sociological work directed at the general public, but there are actually many moments when I wished there was more attention paid to the ethnographic details - for instance, Teo Yeo Yenn mentions a couple of times that it was the ethnographic method and the process of doing fieldwork that forced her to challenge her preconceptions: I would have given much for her to provide more extended examples, of what exactly these experiences were, and what exactly those preconceptions were. I am also curious as to how her interlocutors think about their own situation, and perhaps the ways in which different interlocutors may be in similar socio-economic positions but conceive of their situations differently. Given the runaway success of This Is What Inequality Looks like, it would also be meaningful to return to the same group of interlocutors and see how they make sense of this national conversation about inequality that has taken on a life of their own when it is, ostensibly, triggered by Teo Yeo Yenn’s experiences of their lived lives. I am aware that perhaps such a project might detract from the main argument that Teo Yeo Yenn wants to make, and perhaps lessen the effectiveness of This Is What Inequality Looks Like as an academic work which acts as a intervention into the public debate about inequality, but I do believe in the merit of such anthropological work, and I hope that either Teo Yeo Yenn, or subsequent academics can engage in such an endeavour. Given that it is Teo's intention as well, for This Is What Inequality Looks Like to signal a beginning of a conversation rather than to have the last word on inequality, I think such a project would be highly in keeping with the spirit of the book, even if - and perhaps, especially if - it may go on to challenge some of the slightly taken-for-granted assumptions which Teo marshalls to make her argument here: theoretically / methodologically for instance, Teo draws heavily upon Bourdieu who has been critiqued for being slightly Marxist and overly deterministic in his framework of capital. I felt like Teo's work falls a little bit into this trap, especially in the last chapter, where it seems to me that she takes the category of "class" much more for granted than she does with "race", even though class is really just as much produced as race (albeit in very different ways!). This is not to say that Bourdieu is not good and therefore This Is What Inequality Looks Like is not good: on the contrary, I think Bourdieu's framework is a brilliant way for us to reckon with inequality in Singapore, and part of what I enjoyed so much in this book is precisely the fact that it has taken academic and theoretical debates based in the West and centred it in Singapore. But I do think that perhaps for future, more overtly academic works which draw upon This Is What Inequaltiy Looks Like, it can be productive and good to perhaps look at other ways of conceiving inequality beyond a Bourdieuian framework, or to employ Bourdieu with a greater acknowledgement or appreciation of the way that he has been critiqued too.

[Dilys · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book speaks to me on so many levels - as a woman (unmarried, and at an age that I probably should); a Sociology graduate; an average income earner; a worker in the social space. I thank the author for this thoughtful piece of work as it had put me on a journey of deep reflection, questioning, and meaningful reconnection with the Sociological perspective.

The author demands the book to be read sequentially, and it is of little wonder, as it starts powerfully with a call to ‘disrupt the narrative’. Essentially, we need to diversify our narratives, recognise the individual biographies within them and be courageous to admit to our own vested interests in perpetuating and sustaining the dominant narrative. Veering off the ‘shared script’ has economic and social consequences, as one is deemed less deserving of certain public goods having fallen off the “normal” path. I feel this as I think of my deep desire to own a personal space. This desire, not just far from the possibility of being fulfilled, sometimes unwittingly gets confused with marriage - as much as we’d like ourselves to be independent thinkers (as she rightly pointed out so).

The following chapters increased my sensitivity to surroundings. I began to pay closer attention to the rental blocks in vicinity and reflected on space issues. As someone working in a context which strives to help people with vulnerabilities lead empowered and dignified lives, the concept of ‘unconditional dignity’ and ‘dignity needs’ couldn't be more relevant. Indeed, dignity as inherent rights of human beings are often forgotten; dignity in needs is also always lost.

Importantly, the book reminds us of the larger system at play when we deal with vulnerable populations and inequality. The next time we slip into over-attributing circumstances to individual factors, we have and are obliged to think again.

[Javier Lorenzana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Poverty can only be fully understood in the context of the structural forces that perpetuate it. This book dives deep into those forces: assessing subconscious assumptions, revealing the flaws of national narratives, and questioning the very principles of the meritocratic system. In doing so, You Yenn Teo also showcases the multidimensional effects that poverty has on real people.

This book showed me much more than poverty or inequality. It opened my eyes to the subtle yet encompassing role structural forces have on our lives: how the interplay between individual and cultural narratives shape our interactions with others; how constant exposure to certain physical settings can have a toll on our psyche.

Admittedly, it also revealed many of my biases. I used to think that people who fell into poverty made bad choices: buying things they couldn't afford or paying monthly installments for otherwise unnecessary goods. But the thing is, people in poverty don't make bad choices, they have bad options. In Singapore, harsh working conditions coupled with a lack of continuous support from society means that people have to make tradeoffs that hurt them either way. If an employee had to miss work because their child was sick, they wouldn't get paid.

These issues cannot be resolved with band-aid solutions such as one-time lump sum grants or wish-fulfillment services (which also require one to jump through various lengthy bureaucratic procedures). While these initiatives do help people in the short run, these people are eventually pushed back down by the system in the long run.

There is so much this book has to say and I am thankful that I get to take part in this discussion. Issues such as inequality cannot be solved through individuals or policies alone. It takes a community. It takes a nation.

Hands down the best book I've read this year so far.

[Grace · Rating 2 out of 5]

I rate this 2 stars not because I think people shouldn’t read it, but I think many people are going to read this and take it as gospel truth, not thinking critically about it because they have no experiences to backup a good argument against this book. If you are thinking of reading this but not going to put on your thinking cap to critique this, then I suggest you don’t read it, if not I fear this might give you a very wrong perspective of what is truly happening.

I agree that this is an important book that sheds light on the life of people that many of us who will read this book will never see. And I agree that this is indeed the situation because I have seen it with my own eyes in the course of my work. I think the part about dignity really explained some of my experiences of why some of the low income behave in the way they do, which I have failed to understand before.

What I really dislike about this book is that it is just from one particular perspective and purposely ignores the arguments on the other side which I know to be anecdotally true, also because I have seen so many cases of poverty in my work. I would say this is because if all your research is based on talking to people with low income, do you think they would criticize themselves? The author herself says that everyone wants to be a good parent, I have no doubt if you speak to them, they would only tell you about how hard they are working and how responsible they are.

I have so many stories about how children from families with low income have climbed out of their circumstances from pure hard work and determination. Sure, they started out on a lower footing, and they probably had to work harder than most other people who were of higher income. But the point is if they wanted to climb out, there are opportunities to help them climb out. Then there are others who have a ladder put in front of them but they just refuse to climb. And so now our sociologist friends are saying that we have to go out of our way to give these people an escalator where they don’t have do anything to get out of their situation? For example, one of the best ways to help people with low income is to educate them on family planning. Having 7 children will surely cause none of them to have a decent life. It’s not a lack of choices that these people have but small bad choices made over the course of their whole life that cumulates in this situation. And then the rest of society is supposed to bail them out of the hole they dug? If they ask for help I think we are willing to help. But I really don’t think anyone should offer help on a silver platter if they are “too proud” to ask for it. In fact, from experience, there are many of those who will dig for help wherever they can get it without any regard for their “dignity”.

The other thing I am disturbed about is about how the author makes inequality sound completely bad. Inequality is actually a very important thing in human society. Without it, we would be a communist society where nobody would want to work because what’s the point of working hard if I couldn’t get more rewards? Inequality forces people to strive to become better, and if you take that away, you have a bunch of animals who don’t need to innovate and improve.

Of course I think more could be done to help those with low income. I think the key is in education. Inequality can always exist, but if an individual makes a choice to get out, he/she should be allowed to. And education is the opportunity that should be open to all to help them out. I can’t say I have the answer to completely level the playing field but I think steps have been taken to help everyone start on a more equal footing, and I think more could be done.

I rate this book 2 stars because I know many people in my circle will read this and use it as fuel to flame the government for not doing enough for these “poor suffering souls” without them knowing the whole story. I urge everyone who reads this book to think critically and find an alternative viewpoint before using this to criticize the world for being unfair.

[Khansaa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Starting this review with a confession: I went to a private school experience and it had me live in a bubble.

Privilege was a foreign concept to me, I thought when people work hard enough, they can achieve anything they want (if I said this on Twitter these days people gonna declare war). Nevertheless, I'm fortunate to be able to change my views. Now I realized that I have a huge privilege since I was born, and I can be who I am right now because of my privilege too.

While inequality seems to be a complicated topic to grasp, author You Yenn Teo explains that actually we see inequality in our everyday lives. To write this essay, You Yenn Teo spent 3-4 hours everyday in the Singapore neighborhood, speaking to 2-3 families each visit. In total, he had more than 90 visits and spoke with more than 200 people. They talked about kids, their families, aspirations, dreams, and even their everyday routine.

The essays vary from diverse topics, but focuses on families with children. Even the research location is in Singapore, you can find many concepts that are similar to us Indonesians, from parenting style, commuting, career, and one of my favorites is work life balance. The difficult topic seems so close to our everyday life that made me look at my life twice.

Upon reading This is What Inequality Looks Like, convinces me (more) not to judge someone else's life choices easily. As the author stated, "Our notions about possibilities, desires, sense of self, are deeply shaped by the society in which we live." So who are we to judge, when we are merely a passerby? Having exposed to many different choices made me believe that we are doing our best to make our own way through the systemic inequality with our own struggles.

While inequality and poverty are systemic, I can't help to think what can I do after reading this book. As someone who is not in a position of power, I think what I can do is to admit my privilege and pay it forward. I am not just merely and individual, I am made by what my parents, my environment, and my surroundings. Most importantly, I am made of my failures that I can afford to have.

[anchi · Rating 4 out of 5]

對於一個非本地人來說，我們很可能只知道新加坡的組屋制度(所謂的HBD)，但卻很少知道組屋也有分租賃與購買兩種，而其中的差別更少為人知，更別提書中提到的種種不平等。作者以社會學的角度出發並以民族誌的方式書寫，讓讀者能以簡白的文字與實際情況來看到新加坡社會的不平等，即使易讀度不是很低，但是對於相關議題有興趣的讀者應該可以很享受，同時也激發不同的思考與辯論。

最讓我印象深刻的一段是，當作者將研究結果分享給大眾時，有些新加坡人便覺得不以為意，因為他們年輕時也經歷過不優渥的生活，而在公共廁所沖冷水澡好像也不是那麼不平等，但他們忽略的是，這些經歷可能是有些家庭長期以來面對的現狀，同時這兩個發言也顯示了有些當地人還是不願意接受不平等現狀的事實，讓整本書讀來有些許矛盾和難過。

過去在新加坡住過半年的我，其實一直很喜歡這個國家，但就像多數的外地人一樣，我看見的都是新加坡光線亮麗的一面，較難看到新加坡社會較為底層的生活，而這本書意外地帶給我新加坡較為真實的一面。推薦這本書給對社會學研究、亞洲不平等議題的討論、和新加坡發展有興趣的讀者。

[LitWithCharles · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was quite underwhelmed by this book, partly due to the high expectations and partly due to various failures I perceived in the book. The first failure is one of framework (or tone?) in that the author almost tries to present the fact that there is poverty in Singapore as an astonishing discovery that she is revealing to the world. Clearly, I'm the wrong audience as it seems obvious that there are income and wealth disparities in this country.

Furthermore, her scope ends up being so local and parochial as to be almost laughable, especially if compared with experiences of hardship and inequality in neighbouring countries. Even in Western countries, many of the anecdotes she shares seem almost quaint compared to tales of violent crime and drugs prevalent in wealthier countries.

Her identification of misguided government policies, stemming from an archaic mindset focused on work, is probably the biggest issue that I have with this book. I believe that Singapore (govt and people) have built an incredible success story, at all levels, with a meritocratic and transparent system which has required a focus on social & economic contribution by all, with opportunities for growth balanced with social welfare as far as resources allowed. Her idea that this narrative needs to be amended is not empirically supported by any data, rendering it almost meaningless.

This is not to say that inequality and poverty are not problems that need addressing; they are issues that need focus and attention. The reason that the poorest in Singapore are vastly wealthier than comparable groups in neighbouring countries is precisely due to this long-term construction of prosperity which she seems to deride. Overall, its ethnographic approach would have benefited from some real data-driven insights rather than personal opinions based on anecdotes.

If you liked this review, follow me on Instagram @litwithcharles, where I do weekly book reviews, quizzes and lots of other fun literary content. I also have a weekly podcast, Lit with Charles, and a YouTube channel, Lit with Charles, where I host interviews with a huge array of writers, academics & publishers.

If you have thoughts on the book I’ve just reviewed or ideas for what you’d like to see me read next, send me a message here – I’d love to hear from you.

[Wyncy · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Why am I inserting myself so much in what I write? This is not typical practice in academic writing. It is actually tremendously uncomfortable. I insert myself because as I get deeper and deeper into this research, I see that this is key to shifting our lenses for viewing inequality and poverty more fully”

—

This quote sums up the reason why I love this book. Inequality, privilege, poverty, class, race. These are topics not openly discussed in Singapore, conveniently swept under the rug of ignorance. Earlier this year I’ve read a similar book, “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City” by Matthew Desmond, and that was depressing, but THIS book is a knockout punch straight to the gut.

For the first time, I am reading about the frustrations, problems, and blind spots in this little “perfect” country. My country. “Those people” in the book are my neighbors; the elderly lady who sweeps my HDB block every morning, the security guard at my office building. The proximity is real; too close for comfort. We are a part of this narrative, and our first step is to face it.

[Calvin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book. The author addresses a real and important issue that many Singaporeans don't think or talk about, but in truth, the book could have been summarised to about 20 pages or so. As I continued reading, I found myself gaining less and less from each additional page that I read, and ultimately stopped about halfway through.

The message is important and relevant - this has been covered quite extensively in other reviews - but the writing could be made more accessible and less repetitive. Find a summary if you can, and read that instead.

[Joy · Rating 5 out of 5]

i was prompted to read this by an NUS friend who had been assigned a chapter from here as a reading for one of his general education mods. naturally, i assumed that the author, who is a local university professor, was an NUS prof. seemingly unrelated backstory is that there's this sociology module called hs2008 social class and inequality which i'm eligible for and have been wanting to take for my second major and which was also recommended to me in year 1 by a ppga senior who said it was the best module she had ever taken in ntu (heads up to any ntu student who might ever come across this – you've been warned). however, due to timetabling reasons, i ended up clearing an equivalent of it on exchange last semester. now fast forward to the present when i get to the end of this very thought-provoking series of essays and i find out teo you yenn is, in fact, an ntu prof, and the lecturer for the very module i wanted to take but can now no longer do in singapore!!!! CUE ANGST AND RAGE @ SELF

anyway, this was a great read. one factor that should not but unfortunately does contribute to that greatness is that not many other books like it exist. inequality in singapore is more rampant than is apparent to the "average" middle-income—probably chinese—singaporean, but most discourse about and research into it have largely never made it beyond the realm of academia. Teo seeks to bring this issue from the hidden corners into which it has been mutely tucked away, more clearly into the light of the public view. it is accessible, honest, and as much a call to action as it is informational.

the essays systematically cover different facets of inequality in singapore - matters of housing, child-minding, family time, jobs and the unspoken prestige they carry, even the dignity they confer. some of these factors tip the balances of social power more subtly than others. in jc, i had had the privilege of organising faculty cip to clean and paint rental flats, and the world of difference between some of those homes and my own had stunned me back then. reading about these now was therefore not totally foreign, but still showed me that there was plenty more beneath the surface that i hadn't been able to see in those three short sessions. some of the problems faced by the lower-income in singapore are structural, institutionalised, but some are propagated by the kiasu culture of everybody else living in this meritocratic country, and therefore we are all implicated in their plight, no matter how indirectly.

Teo also does a good job of anticipating counterarguments readers might have with her points, which i found very satisfying. i guess the workshops and talks she had conducted prior to publishing this would have helped prepared her for this, content-wise. she takes pains to be fair to both sides of the story and to justify her representation of the lower-income, shares her opinions on race as a categorisation method and explains her choice of research methods. her references are in great order with ample links to more academic sources for the curious reader to look up and verify.

personally, i'd probably need to read this a couple more times before the specific sociological concepts will stick firmly in my head (the short body of this review has already outed me), and as an inexperienced reader of ethnographic methods i can't really comment on the thoroughness of this collection. but i will say that it moved me and has made me think far more intentionally about what i, a privileged individual, can do to help tangibly and/or change the culture of my society – and i think that the aims of this book have been achieved in that.

(also i'll probably try to crash the lectures if i can fit them in my timetable next year!!)

--

01/04/2020: some residual thoughts
one challenge that struck me in particular had to do with being willing to send our children to "neighbourhood" schools, the idea that people with access to educational privilege should actively seek not to reinforce segregation and not succumb to the pressures of boosting our children's grades.

as someone who had been invited to enter the gep and subsequently other "top" schools despite having hailed from a lower-middle income background and a sort-of "neighbourhood" school and with no tuition history, i had always prided myself on my underdog success story and seen my place in various prestigious educational programmes as a deserving reward for my academic achievements. singapore's meritocratic narrative sat very well with me. just like some of Teo's seminar participants who amicably shared their own histories with showering in public toilets and not owning their own flats, my humble origins were something i could speak of lightly and proudly, to differentiate myself from those of my peers who lived along bukit timah, because the unspoken message was that i had "made it" through my own efforts/natural talent despite the odds, very fishing-village-to-world-class-city-esque in trajectory.

this book (and actually also some of the bourdieu/piketty readings i did for the sociology modules i cleared on exchange last year) very astutely pointed out that there were other factors i had overlooked - simple facts such as both my parents being graduates, with—put together—more than decent commands of english, mandarin and mathematics, who had patiently read books to me and with me as i grew up, who were able to afford the very occasional big-ticket family holiday to new zealand, who were heavily into the arts and passed that love down to me and my siblings. cultural capital is a concept that i remember from those readings and that has been pretty real in my life. in neglecting to acknowledge its contributions to my relative academic success, i have been dismissive of and unempathetic to peers of similar income backgrounds who didn't perform as well as i did.

but if the concept of meritocracy is flawed - if streaming may be efficient but promotes needlessly competitive behaviour and is cyclically damaging to the psychological health of those who do not come out on top - and the solution is for those who have been rewarded by the system to use that power to promote social mixing... would i be willing to give up my experiences in these "gifted" programmes for greater social cohesion? these were spaces where i was challenged to think beyond the narrow constraints of exam questions, to ask and discover independently, to read and reflect critically. the opportunities presented to me during my years in "top" schools, surrounded by peers of a similar and higher calibre, were some of the times i see in hindsight that i grew the most tremendously as a person. alongside other experiences which have acted in balance to cull my elitism and complacency, my time in this stream has had a huge role in shaping who i am today.

sure, right now i'd donate or volunteer my time to help those in need, but these are merely symptomatic measures. would i give all of that up for a more equal singapore?

it's a hard pill to swallow.

[Haur Bin Chua · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book covers an important subject and aims to give us a peek into the level of inequality in Singapore especially from the perspective of those who are in the lower rungs of the society.

In the opening chapters of the book, the author laid out hugely significant revelations on the sense of helplessness these people in our society is facing and how real the mental load is in creating a sense of swimming in a viscous body of water. Our society has created convenience and access for the masses but failed to recognise the additional efforts by the poor to complete the same task e.g. paying for bills. On education, the level of inequality in Singapore is well-documented where kiasu-ism drove parents to rely on tuitions and enrichment classes to give their kids a leg up. This then became a new norm hence increasing the gap between the have-nots and the rest as early as preschool level. Consequently, poor children are negatively labelled at the get go, affecting their self-esteem and eventually realising this self-fulfilling prophecy. Important question we have to ask ourselves is how we, as members of this society, make individual choices that exacerbate this issue on equality?

As this book progresses to the later chapters, it evolved frustratingly into hurling criticisms against the establishment without being thoroughly objective and constructive. For example, the criticism on our social services’ goal is to helping poor families being self-reliant hence giving just enough but not more in anticipation of future crises. This seems to imply that by throwing money on the issue of poverty and inequality, the problem will go away which I personally do not subscribe to. While I agree that there are inequalities in education and job opportunities, it is certainly not arisen from lack of resources. These are manifestations of a more deeply rooted culture of kiasu-ism in Singapore and how success in professional realm are largely associated in success in life. And what are the alternatives and what are the costs of the alternatives? This is something that I wished the author had covered in more details rather than mentioning Sweden in one paragraph and then dismissing Sweden in another.

As an academic paper on poverty and inequality, this book skew heavily on the emotional and personal aspects of this subject, using personalised stories to pull our heartstrings on how we the people and government are not doing enough for these people. One piece that I wished this book has covered was the aspect of psychology and personal choices of her respondents. Every one has a story and each their own circumstance. We cannot broad brush every person living in poverty. Uncovering the stories and trends behind these can be hugely beneficial as the help rendered get them out of the viscous cycle have to be personalised beyond Big Brother’s institutionalised solutions. And with the insights, hopefully can help steer discussions on how the rest of the society can change our mindset and attitudes to help bridge the gap. So when I was picking up this book, this was one of my itch that remains unscratched by this book.

Nevertheless, I would also laud the author for being transparent on why the exclusion of race in her study, which could have been a minefield of its own requiring a whole different study to even scratch its surface.

All in all, an uncomfortable but highly important subject that we all need to confront. In our capitalist society, inequality is global and inevitable but the extent of inequality can and must certainly be addressed before we became a society that are stratified into insurmountable class divides. And more importantly, our human needs including dignity have to be classified as basic rights as humans not just in Singapore but everywhere else in the world.

[Nova Rizkiyah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ketika pertama kali ke Singapura akhir tahun lalu, dalam mobil grab yang kami tumpangi, saya bertanya dalam hati: adakah kemiskinan di Singapura? Gedung-gedung pencakar langit yang tinggi menjulang, aspal yang sangat ‘berbeda’ dengan aspal di Indonesia, taman-taman yang indah, dan mobil-mobil bagus bisa melaju teramat kencang tanpa hambatan berarti, tidak seperti di sebuah kota dengan jalan ibarat takeshi castle yang pernuh halang rintang dan jebakan dadakan.

Lalu, buku ini menjawab kegundahan saya, yang saya selesaikan di februari tahun ini. Teo You Yenn, seorang sosiologis dan asosiate profesor di NTU menjelaskan dengan gamblang apa yang terjadi. Bagaimana secara 'sistematis’ kemiskinan disembunyikan di negara dengan sebutan high-income economy tersebut. Esai-esainya mampu menjawab banyak pertanyaan yang saya pertanyakan lalu.

Ia mulai dengan menjelaskan tentang flat alias ruangan/tempat tinggal apartemen di Singapura, bagaimana jomplangnya antara yang hanya bisa menyewa flat seadanya dengan yang mampu beli flat layak. Bagaimana flat yang harganya murah memiliki desain flat yang sangat tidak ramah untuk para penghuninya, dengan banyaknya tulisan, hati2, bahaya dll. Begitu dengan neighnorhood atau lingkungan yang ada pada apartemen dengan harga murah, adanya “bau” yang tercium di sekitar, rebutan 'taman’ dll. Hal ini dapat dengan mudah kita bayangkan bagaimana lingkungan mempengaruhi orang yang tinggal dan suasana ketidaknyamanan macam apa yang terjadi disana.

Lalu, beliau menjelaskan bagaimana orang-orang yang bekerja dengan upah rendah. Seperti yang kita tahu bahwa diantara gemerlap kota dan lampu2 baliho yang menyorot iklan produk merk ternama, terdapat “orang-orang yang tersisih” yang bekerja dengan pendapatan rendah. Orang-orang ini dapat ditemui dengan mudah seperti mbak/mas penjaga karcis dan berbagai pekerjaan lainnya yang selalu dianggap tidak memiliki high skill.

Yang menarik adalah di bagaian terakhir dan esai favorit saya tentunya bagaimana ketika Teo You Yenn menjelaskan pada publik apa yang terjadi pada orang-orang miskin yang menjadi 'objek riset'nya itu, dan ada tanggapan pendengar yang cukup mengagetkan. Tidak seperti di Indonesia dengan kemiskinan mudah dibicarakan dimana-mana. Di Singapura, tidak banyak orang membicarakan kemiskinan yang terjadi di sekitar mereka. Alih2 begitu, beberapa pendengar Teo You Yenn malah jumping to conclusion dengan menjawab: kenapa tidak bilang saja ke pemerintah Singapura bahwa terjadi A, B dan C dan kenapa kamu malah cerita 'kemiskinan’ kepada kami?

Wow, menurut saya itu sangat aneh. Bagaimana membicarakan kemiskinan saja dianggap tabu. Kita pun juga tahu bahwa kemiskinan tidak akan tuntas hanya jika pemerintah berjalan sendiri sedangkan masyarakatnya tidak peduli bahwa terjadi masalah sistematis. Jadi? mari bicarakan kemiskinan orang-orang yang 'tertinggal’ di kota besar. Lagipula, esai ini juga masih belum menjawab bagaimana ekonomi Singapura ditopang oleh pekerja-pekerja migran dari Indonesia, Malaysia, Filipina yang dibayar murah seperti pembantu rumah tangga, nannys dll, agar ekonominya bisa berjalan optimal.

[aqilahreads · Rating 3 out of 5]

essays on local situations focusing on literally what the title says; inequality - that most singaporeans might not be fully aware about.

finally had some time to read a hype book especially it being recommended by many throughout the years. however, i felt that it was quite overhyped & im quite disappointed with myself for not being able to give my 100% attention into reading something that is so important. not saying that it was really bad but its just probably the way it was written that was not up to my personal liking ((quite info overload)) and it made me distracted a couple of times. found them a bit repetitive but its probably due to it being a collection of essays.

i really do appreciate the hard work of research even though certain things that were pointed out were not new situations to me and it might be because of my experiences. no doubt that more singaporeans need to be aware that these are currently still, is happening and its important to know that a little empathy goes a long way. its great how a lot more things can be discussed among peers who have read this book.

somehow reading this also made me think of a recent read - homeless by liyana dhamirah. probably makes a great pair to be read together with this one ✨

[Lim · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Elitism and marginality are two sides of the same coin."

Borrowed this book from my cousin, who highly recommended it. As a Malaysian, I subconsciously compared this book with "The Colour of Inequality" by Muhammed Abdul Khalid, a book which also lingers around the theme of inequality in Malaysia. Both books were written in different styles, Teo's being more personal and consistently has an emphatic tone. Perhaps their backgrounds do matter, Teo was trained as a sociologist, Khalid an economist.

Another difference I noticed: Teo also consciously tried to avoid using race as a category to label her respondents. She highlighted that low-income groups tend to have similar world views and behaviours, regardless of their racial category. She, however, inserted a chapter "A Memo On Race" to elucidate the role of "race (which is, a social construct that can change over time)" under her editors' insistence. I personally find the syllabus on racial domination module taught by Professor Loic Wacquant included by Teo in her footnote very useful and informative.

[Whitaker · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book made waves among the chattering classes when it was published. It was written by a Singaporean sociologist and deals with the situation of the poor in Singapore. It's not terribly earth shattering if you have even a passing knowledge of the sociology of poverty: that the circumstances of the poor work to keep them trapped in a cycle of poverty. But then, I'm not really the audience for this book. Teo You Yenn wrote it clearly as an appeal to people like this person: a woman who works in my firm as a secretary/personal assistant, very hard working, very driven, very proud that her son is doing well academically and also very contemptuous of the woman who works as the office tea lady. "Should have worked harder when she was young," she sniffs. "Her situation is her own fault." Unfortunately, she is not a person who is going to read this and realistically the biggest political backlash to any increase in welfare policies will come from people like her.

[Sharon Lam · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is either you understand the message or think that she is blaming the government. As someone working in the social service, this has been both real as well as enlightening. It reinforces the advocacy spirit that all social workers in Singapore should have.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read. A nuanced look at income inequality and the struggle of the poor in Singapore.

[A.K. Kulshreshth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an important work that one hopes is helping to change minds -- at least for those for whom that is not ruled out -- or re-articulate some things that we kind of believe to be true but couldn't quite put together.

Narratives are crucial to every "invisible college". For example, there is a narrative that welfare will make people lazy, or that there is such a thing as pure meritocracy that is flawlessly working to give good lives to better people. If people read more, these narratives would have been smashed by this book. As it happens, they are too busy doing other stuff. That's a pity, but this remains a great book.

To me, Teo proved again that data is not the new oil (in any case, look where oiliness got us...). The ability to ask the right questions and then answer them, with or without numbers, is vastly more important than being able to do cool stuff with numbers.

[Sean Goh · Rating 5 out of 5]

To declare that one has read this book, in the words of another reviewer, is to acknowledge that one can no longer turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of our longstanding narratives. It is daunting. It is also necessary.

____
Meritocracy in sociological literature is widely recognised as a system for sorting and then differentially rewarding people; it is a system for legitimising the process and outcomes of sorting, based on narrow notions of what is worth rewarding.
Meritocracy in Singapore works very well in convincing us all - no matter where we are on the social hierarchy, that we deserve to be exactly where we are.

Narratives are not bad things. We need to tell ourselves stories to understand our past, make meaning of the present and aspire to the future. But when narratives are monolithic and singular, they become fortresses of vested interested, biases and blind spots.

Going home to the smells of a rental neighbourhood is going into a space that is distinct, a little apart from the other spaces of Singapore.
Another feature of rental neighbourhoods, the presence of police literally and metaphorically, perpetuated a sense of insecurity and danger, distrust and surveillance.

TV sets, including large screen TVs, tell us less about 'bad choices' by low-income households and more about our society of high consumption and wastage. Many source their belongings from the Salvation Army or online resale websites.
TVs play important roles in the everyday lives of low-income persons. Going out involves money. TV is therefore especially important entertainment.

For a low-income mother, to be embedded in a consumerist culture without money is to be constantly reminded of her inability to meet her child's desires. To long for belongings is to long to belong. (dignity needs)

School holidays in low-income households are major disruptors, as they suddenly have to make alternative caregiver arrangements.

By virtue of rewarding precocity - expecting kids to be able to read and write when they begin Primary 1, for example - the school system values its role in sorting ahead of its role in teaching.

The circumstances and experiences of low-income families reveal the deep inequalities embedded in our education system - the focus on narrow definitions of abilities, the demand for precocity, the reliance on parental involvement and commercial services, together undermine the democratic promise and potential of mass education.

Parenting while low-income is about parenting with the knowledge that one has low status in this society. And so low-income parents find themselves having to do this immensely difficult thing - they have to tell their kids to listen to them and yet also send the message "don't be like me". It is difficult to exercise authority under these conditions.
It is a profound attack on the self.

The idea of our country - made up of people who put society before self - is everyday challenged by the other ethos we face living in Singapore: no one owes you anything and it's everyone for themselves (i.e. their families).

As populations age, family sizes shrink, capitalist crises intensify, and jobs across the board become less secure, we have to face the fact that peoples' needs for social security have expanded.
The conditions of insecurity and precarity the low-income face are not quarantined in that segment of the population.

When we say that we cannot see poverty in Singapore, it is partly because its manifestations are masked and we do not look.

The context of limited aid for a finite time period means that the moment someone seeks and receives help, the social worker's task to essentially to work towards getting them off aid.

Power is not a frame of mind by a material condition. The invocation of motivation, of mindsets, of agency - they are powerful distractions from looking at poverty as linked to inequality.

As long as our well-being and worth as persons are deeply linked to economic productivity, income, a specific way of doing family, then every person's dignity is essentially at risk. In this ethos, no one has inherent worth as a person.

Positive comments (on the PM's facebook page) are largely framed in terms of national pride, and this national pride is tied up in Singapore's purported progress and prosperity in spite of its limited size.
Stories about inequality and poverty disrupt this narrative.

[Min · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book a lot, it was very beneficial to a lot of self-reflection that I have been doing this year.

Some of my highlights:

No matter what it is we know, and regardless of what empirical truths have informed our knowledge, we retain blindspots. These are remnants of some earlier learning; they are deeply embedded prejudices; and they are ways of seeing (or not seeing) that we share with many others in our society. (25)

Inequality, in fact, is a logical outcome of meritocracy. What the education system does when it selects, sorts, and hierarchizes, and when it gives its stamp of approval to those 'at the top,' is that it renders those who succeed through the system as legitimately deserving. Left implicit is that those at the bottom have failed to be deserving. (46)

Misrecognition happens when we think that a system is based on a certain set of principles when it really works on the basis of another, when we think it rewards each individual's hard work when in reality it rewards economic and cultural capital passed on from parents to children. (54)

Annette Lareau

The lack of class privilege is about having to play by someone else's rules; the presence of class privilege is about being able to set standards. (206)

We need to recognize this: the fact that individuals make the best of their circumstances does not mean that their circumstances are acceptable. (240)

To be young and middle-class is to be able to delay autonomy, to hold off responsibility toward others, to be given the benefit of the doubt when one makes mistakes, to have time to learn, to live under parental protection until one is ready to fly. Youth from low-income families do not have the luxury of time to ride this stage out. (246)

To pay attention not just to discrimination but also to differentiation is to see that the categories—husbands/wives, straight/gay, old/young, employed/non-employed, married/unmarried, parent/childless, able-bodied/disabled, graduate/non-graduate—become socially relevant categories in contemporary Singapore precisely because they are so significant in our public policies and for our fulfilling of key needs. (276)

...power is not a frame of mind but a material condition. People sitting in positions of authority are powerful not because they feel empowered but because they have power. Their feelings of empowerment are an outcome of their actual ownership of power, not the cause. (348)

It occurred to me then that the examples I gave of myself feeling esteem, respect, self-worth—they are fleeting. The respect I am accorded are conditional on my participation in society as an economically productive and relatively wealthy person. (353)

As long as our well-being and worth as persons are deeply linked to economic productivity, income, a specific way of doing family, then every person's dignity is essentially at risk. In this ethos, no one has inherent worth as persons. (355)

Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index

Inequality measures capture where countries are at any given point without necessarily signaling where they may be headed. (420)

The passive voice is not just a matter of style, it is a matter of accountability. (439)

[Aliciatay88 · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I was planning to write my thoughts about Ocean Vuong's On Earth We're Breifly Gorgeous, I just happened to pick up This Is What Inequality Looks Like. And reading this brought me a sense of awakening that I did not expect.

This Is What Inequality Looks Like is an ethnology that studies poverty and inequality in Singapore through various essays, each taking a closer look at various aspects interlinked with class differences such as education, implementations and even dignity.

I first saw this book 2 years back, laying on the shelf that was labeled Top 10 Non-fiction books in a Popular bookstore. Back then, I had little to no intention of picking this up. That was before I got the chance to study Social and Cultural Anthropology. Through that subject, I was exposed to various ethnologies and recognised its importance in highlighting societal and cultural elements that would have otherwise have gone unnoticed. Thus, in 2020, I finally asked: Why not?

And I am glad I did because it made me realise that poverty is not just an independent problem. Rather, it stems from a larger issue of inequality and quoting from Teo:

how once we see, we cannot, must not, unsee.

Most of her essays were enlightening and sometimes heartbreaking to read. But, my favourites have to be the ones that deal with the education system and peoples' dignity and self worth. Maybe it was due to the fact that I had been a student for 14 out of the 17 years of my life, but the emotional consequences of systems like banding have never hit me until now. Even when I think back to a debate about nurture versus nature that happened in a MOE teaching internship program I participated in, there was this underlying connotation that everyone had equal opportunities to grow, that a child's growing mindset could still occur when one is placed at the lower ends of a banding which obviously devalues one's worth. Recognising my own ignorance has never truly been so revolting. While I am aware that being a 17 year old student puts me in a powerless position to change any sort of system, I do hope that issues like inequality and poverty can be brought into discussions more often.

For my own documentation, here are a list of quotes that hit hard:
- "From a sociological point of view, meritocracy in Singapore is working exactly as it can. And it works very well in convincing us that we all – no matter where we are on the social hierarchy – deserve to be exactly where we are. Those who cannot get their children to have qualities legible as merit pay its price."
- "Narratives are not bad things. We need to tell ourselves stories about ourselves, in order to understand out past, make meaning of the present, and aspire to the future. But when our narratives are monolithic and singular, they become fortresses of vested interests, biases and blindspots."
- "No one should have to be super in order to be human."
- "It is when we do all this that we can have a more complex and accurate understanding of how kids from low-income families, within this system, are compelled to play a game they cannot win because someone else is setting the rules."
- "By virtue of rewarding precocity – expecting kids to be able to read and write when they begin Primary 1, for example – the school system values its role in sorting ahead of its role in teaching."
- "the choices we make, even when we think are just about us, are in fact also about others"
- "We need to recognise this: the fact that individuals make the best of their circumstances does not mean that their circumstances are acceptable."
- "when we say we cannot see poverty in Singapore, it is partly because its manifestations are masked and partly because we do not look"
- "As long as our well-being and worth as persons are deeply linked to economic productivity, income, a specific way of doing family, then every person's dignity is essentially at risk. In this ethos, no one has inherent worth as persons."

[Kuang Ting · Rating 5 out of 5]

上個月去新加坡找另一半，她現在外派星國，在南洋待了一個星期，以前只有在樟宜機場過境，這次可以入境這座傳說中的城邦國家，非常興奮。喜歡讀文學的人應該都對南洋有一點憧憬，椰子樹搖曳的身姿，懶洋洋的海島氣息，以及可歌可泣的殖民歷史。年紀大了，現在對旅行有另一番感受，心裡很懷念二十幾歲時那種對一切事物都充滿好奇心的衝動，歲月催人老，搭上飛機的那一刻少了某種新鮮感，以前會幻想即將踏上冒險的征途，但當下的腦袋是想著有沒有機會到新加坡”打工”，好讓薪水翻倍跳，為五斗米折腰。

喜歡看書的人應該都有透過書籍去認識一個國家的嗜好吧，至少我很熱衷此道。如果要到一個陌生的地方，第一件事就是搜尋「best books about (somewhere)」，這一次空格填入Singapore，跑出來很多推薦書單。話說這一陣子開始感覺越來越多關於書單的網站或文章，從最受矚目的比爾蓋茲書單，到上市櫃公司的CEO都洋洋灑灑列出影響自己最深的幾本書。通常這些書都無法挑起我的興致，閱讀久了就會養成一套自己選書的手感，坦白說就是”看心情”，我很喜歡那種直接去(網路)書店閒晃，然後跟某本書不期而遇的樂趣，閱讀反映當下自己的心境，這句話有它的道理存在。

查閱一下各領域專家推薦的新加坡書單後，標題這一本《This Is What Inequality Looks Like》不斷出現，但我瀏覽完這些清單後，反而沒有動力把任何一本加到Goodreads的待讀清單。老狗常常趴在店門口眼光呆滯，有點擔心自己是否也變成這副模樣了，我不敢說自己見多識廣，不過過往幾年一直閱讀，好像對幾乎所有領域都有皮毛般的了解，久而久之，漸漸疲乏，現在看著那些社科作品常常五味雜陳，因為書中的論述從人類文明初始便已開始論證，只是時空背景不一樣，不然內容其實大概都同樣的套路，不斷的繞圈圈。

知識分子有一種很滑稽的宿命論，就是在文本裡一直辯證，結果根本對社會毫無影響，世界繼續運轉，知識人就哀怨不被世人理解。大量閱讀的人最終一定會有這種感觸，心境上產生一種異類感(otherness)，好作家似乎都跟社會格格不入，站在邊緣才能觀看的更清楚? 忘了誰說過，當一個人開始去反思「思考」這件事，他就會頓悟思考是一件很荒謬的事情。人生有限，開開心心，吃喝拉撒睡，其實就很幸福了，愛思考的人是自找罪受，吃飽沒事做。呵呵，這一點我深有同感!

*
但思想模式已經定型，無法打掉重練，所以只好將錯就錯。4/20入境新加坡以後，就決定去探索一下當地的書局。打開旅遊文學家最討厭的Google Map搜尋bookstore，跑出幾間紀伊國屋和indie bookshops。下午第一站先去牛車水(中國城)的草根書室吧，畢竟跟台灣有所淵源，也久仰大名。有趣的是，書局中可能超過一半的書都是台灣的出版物，價格是台灣2~3倍，還沒有萬惡的79折XD，可見台灣真的是華語世界的文學燈塔，黑暗中的一盞明燈啊! 在台灣當讀者是多麼幸福的事情，要多珍惜才行~

店名叫grassroots，所以書局裡一定有很多極具深度的社科著作，關心時代，針砭時事，果不其然，選書反映了從南洋視角，擁抱世界的胸襟。店門口右側的第一個書架陳列的都是新加坡當地作家的書，這也是最吸引我的角落。我已經養成一種習慣，可以一手看實體書，另一手用手機查GR，因為紙本書太貴，有興趣的書還是買kindle版比較實在，又不佔空間。新加坡的閱讀地景也很奇妙，她是一個僅有約一甲子歷史的年輕國家，要在一個多種族的國家凝聚統一的國族認同，是一件很微妙的社交工程。除了官方英語，還有華語、馬來語、印度語系等語言，這也反映在文學作品上。

新加坡好多某種主題的合集(anthology)，例如Malay sci-fi(馬來族群的科幻小說)、Singaporean Noir(新加坡犯罪小說)、Best Singaporean Short Stories等。還有一本《The Naysayer's Book Club: 26 Singaporeans You Need to Know》，看到這種書名想要不買也很難，而且這本有得獎，2019 Singapore Book Award的Book of the Year。
作者訪談26位新加坡的意見領袖，並請他們分享閱讀書單，這個主題太特別了，我覺得是一個認識新加坡很棒的切入點!

順便說一下，這本亞馬遜賣USD12，現場要新幣28.8元，換算一下就知道經營實體店面的成本多沉重。亞馬遜說spend less, smile more. 《一鍵購買》(木馬文化的新書)讓美國付出多少代價? 好啦我知道，思想要neo-liberal才行，不能太左膠，所以要推崇《贏家全拿》的信念，資本市場就是真理，亞馬遜甚至影響了當代的小說創作，有一本書《Everything and Less: The Novel in the Age of Amazon》就在探討這個現象。

我問型男店員說如果要推薦一本書認識新加坡，他會推薦哪一本? 他拿標題這一本《This Is What Inequality Looks Like》給我，他說這本書有在國會引發熱烈討論，也是現象級暢銷書! (上網一查發現新加坡熱銷超過三萬冊)。我剛剛已經有翻過了，但第一時間沒有心情再讀這種書，這跟《窮人的經濟學》和《游牧人生》本質上都是一樣的作品，聚焦在窮人身上，批判惡化中的貧富差距。有時候心裡常常自我調侃，就是這種書害我沒辦法像有錢人一樣思考，在資本主義的世界中，應該要先爬到金字塔頂端才有資格悲天憫人，而且這種書也會讓自己變得有點距離感，不喜歡講太多垃圾話或聊美食。若要維持活潑開朗的主流氣質，這種書少碰為妙。不過店員真心推薦，心一橫還是買下去了(新幣27.9元)，加上《The Naysayer's Book Club》和另一本香港、新加坡兩地作家合著的選集，《Tales of Two Cities》(新幣21.4元)，買回台灣慢慢讀。

*
在新加坡待了一周，後面幾天也有去烏節路最大間的紀伊國屋。紀伊國屋面積很大，藏書豐富，但是我以前就逛過類似的書店了，英語世界的大型書局逛多了會有既視感，我感興趣的反而是當地文學的書架。紀伊國屋有五六個書架的分類主題是Asian Literature，也有看到三毛和幾個台灣作家的英譯版。這些書常出現在書評網站Asian Review of Books，如果你對這一塊有興趣，可以去研究一下。

紀伊國屋收藏比較多新加坡當地的文學作品，大概瀏覽一番後，對於新加坡文學關注的主題有了一點認識，用英文來形容就是the subtlety of Singaporean identity. 某種微妙的新加坡身分認同。另外，新加坡雖然常被西方外媒批評不民主，類似披著民主外衣的獨裁國家，但他們的公共辯論場域也還算自由吧，只要不碰觸到禁忌話題，對於大部分社會議題都能提出自己的看法。反觀台灣百無禁忌，真的很棒，不過難免有點混亂就是了。各有利弊，新加坡那種井然有序的秩序感，我個人滿喜歡的。

*
Google Map另外有推薦一間叫BookActually的獨立書店，我循線來到小印度的一間”倉庫”面前，納悶這哪是書店? 可是玻璃門內側又呈列好幾本文學作品，伸手去轉門把竟然鎖住，驚動印度女店員走出來問我：「Are you taking your order?」 我問她這裡不是書店嗎? 她說原本是，但已經改成線上經營了，店鋪改成倉庫。心裡覺得很可惜，從Google Map上的圖片感覺原本是一間很溫馨的indie bookshop。進一步搜尋才發現這間書局的老闆被以前的年輕女店員控訴有不恰當的romantic advances，引發整個新加坡出版界的譁然。因為這間獨立書店本來在當地享有盛名，算是一個愛書人的公共空間，沒想到被玷汙了。後來經營權移轉，加上租金高昂，只好轉成線上書局。

看來不只台灣，全世界閱讀的人口都在減少，紀伊國屋這個月(五月)也關閉了另一間分店，新加坡只剩兩間門市。這讓我想到台灣現在還在討論究竟要讀紙本書還是電子書，這個問題從我小時候到現在，21世紀已經過了20年，我們還在”轉型”階段，心裡真的覺得閱讀會讓人過度懷舊，沉迷在已逝的黃金年代，然後那位新加坡老闆對女性的”浪漫”幻想，搞不好也是文學害的，相信熱愛文學的人應該都懂，閱讀有時候會讓人不切實際，與現實脫鉤，文學與女性? 還是文學與貓比較安全啦，當個喵星人。

*
如果你想驚鴻一瞥新加坡的出版世界，可以去讀《The Straits Times》記者Olivia Ho的報導，感覺她是新加坡出版圈的首席報導者。很多相關新聞都由她執筆。

這篇文章本來要寫《This Is What Inequality Looks Like》的讀後感，可是一查竟然發現已經有中文版了啊! 那就寫一點其他相關聯的內容好了。中文書名叫《不平等的樣貌：新加坡繁榮神話背後，社會底層的悲歌》，一月初由聯經出版，Okapi也已經有超級優質的書評簡介了! 如同那位男店員所說，這本書對於想深入了解新加坡的讀者來說，確實非常好看! 私心的說，如果英文能力許可，可以直接讀原文版，這種社科作品讀起來竟然可以有韻律感，作者的文筆實在優美。我以前就知道新加坡「唯才是用」(meritocracy)的議題，但讀了這本書才知道整套系統如何運作。

新加坡光鮮亮麗的成就背後，隱藏許多不為人知的社會議題，本書替讀者一一解答，雖然聚焦在不平等及貧窮身上，但作者也介紹了新加坡社會的集體思維，而且作者的筆觸非常溫柔，閱畢，心裡竟有一絲絲療癒感。若你想認識這個城邦國家，可考慮翻閱本書。之後如果有機會，也希望多透過閱讀，更深入認識這個迷人的國家~

[Seng Wee Wong · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is about poverty and inequality in Singapore. For foreigners not living in Singapore might not be able to visualise a global cosmopolitan state having people from the lower working class struggling with their daily lives. From a foreigner's perspectives, Singapore is blessed with world class leadership and with good leadership, poverty and inequality are likely to be mitigated to a large extent. Yes but not entirely true. I myself, a Singaporean whom come from a low-income family fully empathize with the sentiments mentioned in the book. There is so much more than just providing financial aid to the needy people. They too, need to feel like they are members of the society and not just the group of people who are reliant on the government. Yes the low income people have dignity as well, just like people from the middle and upper classes.

I think the book addressed a commonly disputed point of whether poor people are poor because they did not work hard enough or are there other factors resulting in their poverty. Simple answer is NO, you shouldn't blame the poor people for their laziness and depending on a myriad of reasons, they do not have the nurturing environment most Singaporeans enjoy to prosper. Someone who does not have spare money to send their child to a childcare centre may lead to the parent bringing their child to work, thus depleting the child's opportunity to study in a conducive environment.

The author reminded me of a very important point - that meritocracy, the very policy that promises hope for the low income group is in fact the policy that resulted in inequality. Students are only rewarded if they perform well academically. Given the poor environment for the children from the low income families to study, it is increasingly difficult for them to do well for exams. They may not be getting the tuition classes like their peers because their parents just couldn't afford an extra monthly expenditure of $300. Money has to be prioritised for essential goods and for Singaporeans whom are struggling to make ends meet, tuition fees have to step aside for tomorrow's breakfast.

The book mentioned several other points such as Singaporeans' nationalism and our unwillingness to address the 'ugly side' of Singapore which are all valid and worthy for Singapore politicians to explore. Likewise I also have the tendency to defend Singapore's pride in front of my foreign friends for the country has provided a safe haven for me to grow up and be strong in face of global adversities.

The book highlighted many issues with Singapore's ways to deal with inequality but offered no solutions to these problems. It is a pity. Given her stature as a Sociology professor, she could do more by proposing possible plans to uplift the low income families from their current social class. Since she mentioned that inequality and poverty in Singapore has been an institutional problem, there would be a way to alter the system to help these poor people out of the poverty cycle. If the author wrote about the solutions to these problems, it would be icing to the cake. Perfecto.

Nonetheless, the book is a good read and recommend all Singaporeans and foreigners interested in learning how Singapore deals with inequality at large.