Singapore’s remarkable economic success masks deep inequalities in what’s sometimes called a “first-world country with a third-world wage structure”. Related issues that Lawrence Wong will have to contend with are the public housing conundrum, as well as low fertility and high immigration.
Listen to Episode 3 of “The Neighbourhood Boy” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in again next Friday for Episode 4.
00:00 - The Singapore “miracle”
Various voices: “Y’all I feel like this is what every 80s sci fi movie had as the cityscape. It’s like the future is here. It’s now. It’s Singapore. You don’t even have to do CG, you just put Singapore in the background.”
“Oh my goodness, this actually feels like we teleported into Crazy Rich Asians.”
“There’s so much delicious food at all price ranges and that includes michelin restaurants. And Singapore is home to countless michelin bibs, michelin gourmets, 1 stars, 2 stars, 3 stars.”
“We are in the metro system of Singapore, which in the UK we call the tube. Here, called the MRT. We’re walking down this long corridor, right, the corridor is not filled with litter, or homeless people or piss.”
“Singapore…Lee Kuan Yew…Crazy man uh. Good.”
“You know him ah?” “Respect. Cause’ today Singapore rich country.”
The mythology of a society going from rags to riches grows stronger by the day. Brexiteers hope for a “Singapore on the Thames”. Some Israelis wonder if they can turn Gaza into a “Singapore of the Middle East”. Territories of all sizes and incomes seek to appropriate “Singapore” for their developmental fantasies. For many, Singapore stands for “Instant, do-it-yourself, success”.
It wasn’t always like this. When I was born in 1998, Singapore was already a developed country. But it wasn’t crazy rich. The Asian Financial Crisis had just hit the region. And a young man by the name of Lawrence Wong had just joined the civil service.
From then till now, Singapore has been on a drive to become a global city, the best place for the world’s wealthy. Our population has grown about 57.5 percent. And our per capita GDP has risen about 217 percent. Casinos, Marina Bay Sands, the Formula 1 Night Race, the National Gallery, and our futuristic Gardens by the Bay. Yes, all that happened before I turned 30.
It’s tempting and easy to buy into this fantastic world of “Crazy Rich Asians” and endless possibilities. Especially from the outside. But beyond the wok hey of affordable hawker food, spotless streets and the allure of our city skyline, the reality of Singaporean life is far more complex.
We live in one of the world’s most unequal societies. Next to the Bentleys and Lamborghinis are the old aunties and uncles collecting cardboard for a living. While the world’s rich want to move here, more and more Singaporeans leave, priced out of the place they call home.
Lawrence Wong: “I want to see a Singapore where every Singaporean matters, where everyone is valued for who he or she is.”
Yes, Lawrence, the Marine Parade neighbourhood boy, rode the escalator of social mobility all the way to the top. And yes, he’s promised that he’s going to nurture a more inclusive Singapore.
But amidst such drastic inequality, can he really do so?
We’re going to find out. You’re listening to “The Neighbourhood Boy”, a podcast about Singapore’s fourth prime minister. Over four episodes, we’ll be exploring Wong’s roots, his ascent and his possible future.
My name is Jean Hew. I joined Jom fresh out of university. After three years as its Head of Research, I left to teach yoga and now I’m working in corporate investigative research. I’ve been developing this podcast for the past three years; reading, writing, talking about Wong.
I’m also fascinated by how Wong’s story parallels the Singapore story. What’s changed in the three decades since he joined the public service? And what’s stayed the same? I’m curious about what lies ahead for Singapore and for me. What life opportunities will I have? What kind of life can I build here in Singapore, my home?
Our future, as ever, will depend on the People’s Action Party. And on Wong. But who is Lawrence Wong, the person leading Singapore at this juncture. And what can we expect of him and his party?
In the previous episode, “Party games”, we discussed Wong’s accidental ascension to top dog within the People’s Action Party. Now we are going to examine some of the key challenges Wong’s government will face. Public housing, inequality, and immigration. This is Episode 3, “Growth at what cost?”
05:04 - First-world country; third-world wage structure
Auntie Janet: “Look––the high rise buildings. They’ve also built a lot of government housing flats. The lives of the people are changing for the better. In the past, it used to be very hard. During that period of time, when I was younger, we all used to be very poor. Now, everyone lives and works in peace and contentment, in middle-class status. To have a roof that can shelter us from the rain––that’s already something to be content with, and grateful about. Don’t you think?”
That’s auntie Janet. She was born in 1946, and spent most of her life working as a manicurist. She’s been doing my mum’s nails for 30 years. Back then, my mum was in her mid-twenties and intensely insecure about her club thumbs. But her wedding was fast approaching, and she desperately needed someone to clean up her nails. My mum scoured Far East Plaza, a haunt for cheap manicures that’s still popular today and somehow stumbled her way into auntie Janet’s tiny shop.
Auntie Janet didn’t make fun of her strange, tiny thumbs or the nails she bit down to the quick. Instead, she methodically cleaned and shaped her nailbeds into the prettiest, cleanest version my mum had ever seen. More importantly, auntie Janet treated my mum with respect and empathy—and she still does. I’ve known her all my life. At 80, she’s still working, relying on a few regular customers for income. It’s been difficult. Before her knee operation last year, she washed dishes at a hotel for $10 an hour in order to earn a little extra cash.
Auntie Janet: “I’m not very educated. I’ve only schooled till Primary 2 level. I really can’t keep up…”
Auntie Janet: “I feel quite worried. I don’t know what will happen to me in the future. When I think about my children, they very poor thing. They have their own families, you can’t expect them to help you. Also, even if they give you allowance, like $100, what can you do with that? So even at my age, I need to work, still. I am still working.”
Auntie Janet and some from the pioneer generation are caught in this economic time warp. Sure, life is more comfortable today than before independence. But it's still a slog for them, and some Singaporeans.
Alongside the roughly 50 billionaires and 250,000 millionaires living in Singapore, there are some 30 percent of working households who earn less than the amount required to meet basic needs. That’s a key finding of the Minimum Income Standard 2023 report, produced by researchers at Nanyang Technological University and the Lee Kuan Yew School School of Public Policy. Linda Lim, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, said “Proportionally, Singapore has twice as many poor citizens as other rich countries”.
Between the rich and poor lies the often forgotten “sandwich class”. Western sociologists first used the term “Sandwich generation” to describe those who support both ageing parents and dependent kids. But one local Hardware Zone commentator described this group a little more quaintly: “not poor enough to qualify for those simi lan jiao subsidies, not rich enough to live comfortably, sandwich in between, basically 吃不饱, 饿不死”. It’s a Chinese phrase which directly translates to: “can’t eat enough to be full, but won’t starve to death”.
For these Singaporeans, the fanciful world of “Crazy Rich Asians” must seem like a galaxy away.
Random voice: “Singapore is the richest country in the world. Singapore is the most expensive in the world. Okay? Singapore is first world country. Citizens is living in the third world! Ah, very simple.”
“A first-world country with a third-world wage structure”, that’s a line we often hear about the realities of living in Singapore. For the filthy rich, this may be a feature, not a flaw. Our policies help shave their tax bills across the world, and our awesome low wages let them get away with offering scraps to domestic workers, hawkers, nurses, and so many others. If they experience any flare ups of class angst, no worries. The gospels of “meritocracy” and “trickle-down economics” are soothing balms.
To be clear, all this is not to suggest that Singapore has ignored the less fortunate.
But are food, shelter and basic healthcare enough? The government criticised the Minimum Income Standard Report and its finding that 30 percent of working households earn less than the amount required for basic needs.
A major disagreement stemmed from differing delineations of “needs” versus “wants”.
For instance, researchers had allocated S$50 per year for “jewellery” like earrings, hair clips and brooches, as well as a budget for a 4-day-3-night trip to Ipoh and Port Dickson by coach. The government said such things are not “needs” but “wants”. But if the goal is to live, and not just survive, if we’re looking to cultivate a sense of “belonging, respect, security and independence” in every Singaporean, surely we must use a broader measure of needs. “Can’t eat enough to be full, but won’t starve to death”. Should that be the mantra for the poor?
10:58 - Donald Low and Gillian Koh on addressing inequality
Donald Low: “All these efforts that, oh, CDC, vouchers, right, com care, what we call welfare, that is aimed at the bottom 10% that's not going to solve our unequal-inequality problem at all!”
Yup, you recognised that voice correctly. Donald Low, academic and economist whom we’ve featured in previous episodes. Low was also Wong’s contemporary in the civil service. He repeatedly emphasises to me that our VCR system—voucher, cash, rebate—simply isn’t enough to address the root of inequality.
Donald Low: “The inequality problem is not that the poor are far away from the median income earners. The inequality problem is almost everyone is far away from the top, you know, one, five, maybe even 10%...So anti poverty or or helping the low income, lifting up is cheap. But redistributing in a way that reduces inequality significantly is expensive. It's not just some handouts. You need to work on the tax side as well, right?”
But in Singapore’s classist and stratified society, Low says there’s little appetite to tax the rich because of something Marxists call false consciousness. It’s sort of the opposite of class consciousness, and occurs when the oppressed have internalised and accepted unjust structures. Low tells me that the people most upset at higher taxes are not the top earners.
Donald Low: “You know, the people who get upset the most…are not the top earners, not the 10% not the top 1% the people who get upset are people who have no chance of becoming, of getting in the top 10% these are the, you know, middle income earners who, you know, for for whom being millionaire is aspirational!...If you watch “Parasite”, the Oscar winning movie in 2020 you look at the two working class folks' families. Rather than being in solidarity, they were in competition with one another. And who did they want to earn the affection of? The rich Park family…So I'm afraid that false consciousness is certainly a big problem in Singapore too, right? The middle class and working class have very little solidarity.”
False consciousness? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just do-gooder lefties like Jom and Low who believe that Singaporeans worry about inequality. A conservative might argue that Singaporeans believe there are problems with welfare states and actually prefer what we have, thank you very much.
Perspective is also important. The establishment would argue that it has indeed been trying to address the issue.
Gillian Koh: “Over the past decade, the amount of government spending on social development has risen from, say, fiscal year 2014 to 2024 from $27 billion to $56 billion so that's a doubling, that's a doubling of what is being spent on social support and social development. You know, that's health care, education, so on and so forth.”
Gillian Koh, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies at the National University of Singapore reminds me that our government’s spending on social development is far higher than on security and external relations, or on economic development. Armed with detailed notes and statistics, she’s the most prepared interviewee I’ve spoken to. She speaks intentionally and clearly as she shares her belief that the government has been working on the tax side, trying to redistribute more.
Gillian Koh: “PM Lawrence Wong also helms the Ministry of Finance, and he took the decision that GST should be raised by 2% from seven to nine, staggered over two years, of course, to a lot of objection, but again, the idea is that corporates pay taxes. Wealthy individuals pay income tax. We have luxury taxes. Hell, if you ask people about cars and properties, they will certainly tell you all about it. We then also spread it out so that all of us chip in a little bit to afford a higher social spending bill, which will be required if we want to allow for far more support to our aging population.” The left wants to tax the rich more; the right believes the rich are paying more than their due. It’s a universal issue, and you just heard the Singapore edition. Whatever the case, inequality isn’t yet a major political issue for the PAP. But if false consciousness somehow transforms into proper class consciousness, then Wong may have a problem on his hands. Recall that many of Singapore’s ministers belong to the same elite, wealthy class as some of the plutocrats who’ve moved here. Some ministers live in colonial bungalows—leases obtained fairly, ah.
It’s all the more jarring because Singaporeans feel basic housing is increasingly unaffordable. The great HDB conundrum, tied in to cost of living and inequality issues, is another thing Wong must contend with.
Here, I’ll take a moment to share a bit about Jom’s editorial vision. I joined Jom as its first employee. From the beginning, we were committed to building an organisation invested in independence, rigour and truth-seeking. Every single piece of work involves hours of research, discussion, writing and of course, fact checking. My time at Jom nurtured in me a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the role of journalism in a democracy. I believe that a healthy media ecosystem must consist of more than just the mainstream media. The dream for Jom was always to create a media outfit accountable primarily to you, our reader. If you value our work, if you see potential in Jom’s voice, if you believe in the importance of independent journalism, I encourage you to consider a paid membership. Go to jom.media/jean for 10 percent off your annual membership. Now, back to the podcast.
17:23 - The great HDB conundrum
“85 percent of Singaporeans are living in HDB flats and we intend to keep the values of these homes up. It will never go down! Because it will be renewed, the surroundings will improve, and as Singapore prospers and GDP goes up, the value of homes will go up.”
Lee Kuan Yew’s declaration ahead of a crucial election in 2011 sounds a little ironic in 2026.
As Auntie Janet and many others will attest, Singapore’s public housing model has achieved remarkable success since the 1960s, delivering affordable housing and improved living conditions. But in the 1990s, government deregulation and the financialisation of the public housing system led to a shift in the way public housing, better known as “HDBs”, were perceived. HDBs were no longer just an affordable home, they were an asset. For many who had invested their Central Provident Fund monies to finance HDBs, their homes represented a retirement nest egg.
Each home is on a 99-year lease. Given Lee Kuan Yew’s declaration in 2011 that the values of these homes will never go down, many expected the government to extend the leases, or buy the flats back at a high value. But in 2017, Wong, then national development minister, made clear that only a small proportion of flats would be eligible for government buy-back. The rest would see their value decline to zero as their leases ended, a process that could jeopardise their owners’ retirement funds.
While older HDB homeowners want prices propped up, younger prospective owners feel increasingly priced out of the market.
Walid J Abdullah: “The number one material challenge will be the HDB…I think it's unsustainable what we are having. I think the moment the government decided to mark back HDB to market prices, that was a mistake. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.”
Walid J Abdullah is a political science professor at Nanyang Technological University. He's also one of Jom's endorsers. We met in his office at NTU, and I spoke to him about the challenge of managing HDB prices.
Walid J Abdullah: “My house now, I bought this BTO seven years ago for $390,000. It's worth $800,000 now. I can tell you it's not worth $800,000. It's like HDB. It's 113 square meters. It's okay, it's big enough for me, but it's not $800,000 big. And you are what, 23 now, 24? 27. Have you bought a house yet? If, let's say, you buy a house in, I don't know. You can’t buy a house with the prices now, right? So let's say, let's say you buy a house in the next 10 years, right? What's the starting price going to be? That is madness, you know. And you are 27. My son is 10 years old. When he buys a house at 35 or 36, is it going to be 1 million? And that is not an easy problem to solve, short of a radical solution, which I don't know whether the PAP and Lawrence are willing to take. It's going to be very, very difficult to solve. I think that's going to be the number one material challenge. And I think they know it.”
Walid is charismatic, and refreshingly frank.
We agreed that there are no simple answers to the HDB conundrum. We have a variety of policy proposals, some from PAP, some from the opposition, each with uncomfortable trade-offs. If you want to get into the weeds of the issue, check out Jom’s essay titled “Affordability in the Lion City”.
As things stand, in order for HDB owners to live a financially sustainable life, they must engage in a relentless property merry-go-round: upsizing in the early part of their lives as their incomes rise, and then downsizing later as their incomes fall and their property leases decay further.
Moreover, given Singapore’s unique model of land ownership, where the government is by far the biggest landowner, wealth inequality is poised to worsen over time. Why? Two words: family wealth. Rich Singaporeans who own private freehold properties will be able to pass them onto their kids, their values presumably rising perpetually. The rest of us with 99-year leaseholds - including Auntie Janet and my mum - own assets whose values will rise but then start to decline, and will eventually be worth nothing.
Auntie Janet: “Yes, yes. Grandchildren of the rich & wealthy, they definitely won’t struggle that much. Because they are already inheriting so many resources from their parents. So there’s no need for them to worry. But for us, the people at the bottom, we need to worry…Think about it: under such circumstances, how much can things really improve? And yeah, the government is making changes but it’s slow. For my great-grandchildren…Life will be really hard. I don’t even want to think about it. Without money, you can’t do anything. You need money to do anything in this world.”
22:59 - The 5 Cs, fertility, and immigration
Is the Singaporean Dream of 5 Cs—car, cash, condo, country club membership and credit card—still attainable for everyone? Has the escalator of upward social mobility stalled for some, while continuing to uplift others?
One thing’s for sure — to keep that escalator greased and moving, we need people. When Lee Hsien Loong became prime minister in 2004, Singapore’s total fertility rate had already dropped to 1.26, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. In 2025, it hit a historic low of 0.87. This is a serious problem. Singapore’s growth at all costs economic model depends on high population growth to sustain economic development. Among other things, it’s also needed to sustain demand for HDBs, propping up the resale market and hence, homeowners’ retirement funds.
But since locals aren’t procreating, the government has brought in people. Between 2004 and 2025, Singapore’s population rose 42 percent from just over 4million to more than 6million, possibly the highest growth rate of any developed country.
Over the same period, the proportion of citizens fell from over 73 percent to just below 60 percent. This dramatic change has affected the nascent Singaporean identity and sense of belonging.
Auntie Janet: “Yes, there are so many people!...I don’t understand why, as citizens, we need to deal with the government inviting in all these migrants––all these India, China nationals––coming into Singapore. A lot of Singaporeans are having a difficult time finding jobs, with all these immigrants coming, how does it benefit Singaporeans? I don’t think it does us any good.”
Auntie Janet isn’t alone in her views. I hear similar ones all the time. On online forums like the SgRabak subreddit, the vitriol reaches fever pitch. The entire subreddit has now been banned and removed for hate speech. These are new dynamics in Singapore, a city-state that for over 200 years has depended on immigration.
In recent years, we’ve seen racial violence and the public scrutiny of inter-racial relationships. In 2021, a man used an ethnic slur and delivered a flying kick on a 55-year old Indian woman because he thought she should have been wearing a mask while exercising. The same year, a Chinese man publicly scolded a mixed couple. He told them:
“I have nothing against Indians, but I think it is racist for an Indian to marry a Chinese girl,”
The video of that encounter went viral, and the backlash was immediate. Home affairs minister K Shanmugam expressed surprise, saying, “I used to believe that Singapore was moving in the right direction on racial tolerance…I am not so sure anymore.”
Racism and xenophobia are often conflated in a potent mix. Moreover, it's difficult for new migrants to engage deeply with Singaporean issues and policies because the sword of foreign interference forever dangles above them. What can I say? What can't I say? Many simply don't say anything, and become exactly the kind of detached, aloof transplants many here fear and slam. And so, a genuine unity of purpose, a truly shared journey of human progress seems further and further away. All of this happened on Lee Hsien Loong’s watch.
How might Wong approach immigration differently? It’s too early to say, but at the moment it seems like business as usual. Population growth and immigration will be managed top-down, with the average Singaporean having little say in the kind of society they want.
Deeper inequality. Exorbitant housing prices. Intra- and inter-ethnic tensions. Away from the glitz, success and development, this is also the Singapore that Wong has inherited. He’s now advocating for a new Singaporean Dream. One grounded in inclusivity, fairness and unity, more than just material success.
Lawrence Wong: “I hear similar feedback from many young Singaporeans I have spoken to. They don’t want their self-worth and success to be defined by narrow metrics of academic and material achievements…so as we refresh our Singapore dream, let us also redefine what success should mean for Singapore.”
A Reddit comment on r/Singapore reads. “Says the person with the 5Cs…”
Clearly, some Singaporeans are skeptical. Who does this “refreshed” Singaporean Dream really benefit? To many on Reddit, transforming the Singaporean Dream sounds awfully convenient for the ruling party, who may no longer be able to provide the lifestyle so many Singaporeans have been taught to strive for.
Another comment reads: “Correct me if you guys think otherwise, but the reason I feel why the younger generation has stopped chasing [the 5Cs] is because it's so out of reach now that it's unrealistic for most of us, not that we don't actually want to stay in a condo and have a lot of cash.”
But the comment that really stayed with me: “I'm just so tired of everything and being left behind by a society that doesn't seem to care the least bit about me apart from my GDP value”
A growth-at-all-costs approach also poses a real danger of burn out, an erosion of national identity and belonging, as well as feelings of dehumanisation.
Can Singapore narrow the gap between the rich and the poor? Reconcile the differences between citizens and non-citizens? Heal the cynicism and disillusionment of drained and fatigued working people? Wong bears the weight of these grim, daunting challenges.
Jean Hew: “Do you think he also possesses the kind of gumption and courage it takes to make unpopular decisions?”
Donald Low: “The issue is not whether he has courage. He can have as much courage as we want him to have, but if he throws himself against the party or the establishment positions on these too often, they will cut him off. They will cut him out…it's not one man against the party. He operates within the party. He can only do what the party, or I would say more than the party, I would say the party state, the establishment allows him to do so. So that's his… That's his ultimate binding constraint.”
Donald Low and I recorded this interview well before the 2025 General Elections. Neither of us knew we’d see a Lawrence Wong full of gumption and courage leading the charge. The neighbourhood boy is full of surprises.
In our final episode “Akan datang”, we discuss Wong and the PAP’s performance during the 2025 General Election, and what it might signal about Wong’s style of leadership moving forward.
“The Neighbourhood Boy” is brought to you by Jom, a weekly digital magazine about Singapore. If you believe in the importance of independent journalism, please consider a paid membership. Go to jom.media/jean for 10 percent off your annual membership.
“The Neighbourhood Boy” is produced and hosted by me, Jean Hew. The script is co-written by Sudhir Vadaketh and myself, with input from Abhishek Mehrotra. This podcast is edited by Artwave Studio, with original music by lowkeii.