Scan barcode
thearbiter89's review
3.0
While undoubtedly timely and important, This Is What Inequality Looks Like is written in such an unfocused, roundabout way that the message is diluted amidst the discursive dead-ends and pensive paeans.
Inequality is a reality in Singapore, but far from the popular narrative that no one in Singapore is poor and therefore there is no problem, inequality is a problem when it arises from the narrow meritocratic processes of the state and is codified into shamefulness by the state's attitude towards it, as well as the sentiment that because they did not conform to a narrow and technocratic definition of merit, they are differentially deserving when it comes to receiving the rewards of the system.
The poor are people too, with their own aspirations, fears, and need for dignity, and the way the system is arranged against them to continually reinforce their so-called inadequacies through that differential, problem-centric, means-tested assistance, can one blame them for resenting it as it wears down their psyches?
Is it enough to tell them to have fewer kids, or not to have the flatscreen TV that they probably scrounged off a Salvation Army thrift store that is the only thing that provides them entertainment throughout the day, or to tell them that cold showers are good for you? When Singaporeans say these things, even in jest, they are merely reinforcing the notion that these people somehow deserve less, that their poor decision making puts them at fault, that since they own a TV they must be ok, then mentally regard the problem as an illusion of socialistic entitlement, mark it as resolved, and go into full-blown haranguing mode when others point out that their internalised narrative of Singapore-as-success-story leaves out the ways that it has failed some of its people. It creates a sense of us-vs-them, and wears down bonds of social trust.
When people read or hear about the acts of love, kindness and devotion that the poor have for each other as they face the adversities inherent in a hand-to-mouth existence, they nod smilingly to themselves, serene in the sentiment that poverty is ennobling, and can bring out the best in people. But this, too often, translates into believing that the kids will be alright. But the structural conditions of inequality that reverberate across generations remain. Those kids won't be alright - the conditions they grow up in will more likely than not consign them into the ever-propagating cycle of poverty.
It is our self-contradictory system, one that promotes selfish and capitalistic self-reliance even as it exhorts us to come together as one Singapore, that propagates the psychosocial conditions of inequality. The individual social worker, compassionate and filled with the desire to help, is still part of a system that regimentalises assistance in a way that strips it of dignity. Some of these would-be recipients see the emptiness inherent in this, because individual kindnesses aren't backed by commensurate institutional compassion. It is understandable why they would not be inclined to take the dole, to retain whatever shreds of dignity they have.
I think that the book does not intend to strip the poor of all culpability or responsibility for their own poverty, to reify them as blameless victims of institutional heartlessness. Certainly there are the lazy and inept among us. But I do think that what it is saying is that there are certain structural conditions that aggravate the problem by pushing the concept of differential deservedness based on how well you can navigate the narrow meritocratic pathways to success. When people don't fit into that mould, or they fall off the wayside, they are much more vulnerable to the effects of that inequality, and their children suffer the consequences. And is it necessarily better to build filters into the system to weed out the bad eggs from receiving government dole, or to make the assistance more universal in order to try to ameliorate these underappreciated systemic effects of structural inequality?
While I think I got most of that from the book, I do feel that the essays could have been much sharper. In wilfully abandoning the academic mode for these essays, Prof Teo unfortunately swings to the other end of the spectrum, dealing out meandering essays that at times read like streams of consciousness. In it, she tries very hard to situate herself into the narrative, talking about her fieldwork, of how she has become aware of the differential frames that people accord to her because of her status as opposed to a poor person. While I think this is important to a degree, she tends to overdo it in a way that comes dangerously close to platitudinous.
It's not really a surprise, then, that I happen to think that the essay on Differentiated Deservedness, which was consciously written in a more structurally coherent and academic register, was the best of the essays in terms of clarity and message. Followed closely by the last two essays on Airing Dirty Laundry and Now What, because of a clear call to action, and a brave and surprisingly convincing reckoning of the reasons why Singaporeans seem to resent it so much when people point out the flaws in our system, and attempt to shut down discourse by accusing reformers of copying other countries like Sweden.
It is here where, I think, the book comes into its own, after the earlier, somewhat over-introspective essays - inequality is not just a problem with the unequal, but for everyone; part of a larger dysfunction in society that values people largely as economic resources, and loses sight of the bigger picture of the state as a system for human betterment. In changing, we do not desire, or need, to turn into another Sweden, because that would be counterproductive - what she says we must do is to become a better version of ourselves - to look at inequality for what it is and to refuse to bend to its logic.
I give this book: 3.5/5 flatscreen TVs
Inequality is a reality in Singapore, but far from the popular narrative that no one in Singapore is poor and therefore there is no problem, inequality is a problem when it arises from the narrow meritocratic processes of the state and is codified into shamefulness by the state's attitude towards it, as well as the sentiment that because they did not conform to a narrow and technocratic definition of merit, they are differentially deserving when it comes to receiving the rewards of the system.
The poor are people too, with their own aspirations, fears, and need for dignity, and the way the system is arranged against them to continually reinforce their so-called inadequacies through that differential, problem-centric, means-tested assistance, can one blame them for resenting it as it wears down their psyches?
Is it enough to tell them to have fewer kids, or not to have the flatscreen TV that they probably scrounged off a Salvation Army thrift store that is the only thing that provides them entertainment throughout the day, or to tell them that cold showers are good for you? When Singaporeans say these things, even in jest, they are merely reinforcing the notion that these people somehow deserve less, that their poor decision making puts them at fault, that since they own a TV they must be ok, then mentally regard the problem as an illusion of socialistic entitlement, mark it as resolved, and go into full-blown haranguing mode when others point out that their internalised narrative of Singapore-as-success-story leaves out the ways that it has failed some of its people. It creates a sense of us-vs-them, and wears down bonds of social trust.
When people read or hear about the acts of love, kindness and devotion that the poor have for each other as they face the adversities inherent in a hand-to-mouth existence, they nod smilingly to themselves, serene in the sentiment that poverty is ennobling, and can bring out the best in people. But this, too often, translates into believing that the kids will be alright. But the structural conditions of inequality that reverberate across generations remain. Those kids won't be alright - the conditions they grow up in will more likely than not consign them into the ever-propagating cycle of poverty.
It is our self-contradictory system, one that promotes selfish and capitalistic self-reliance even as it exhorts us to come together as one Singapore, that propagates the psychosocial conditions of inequality. The individual social worker, compassionate and filled with the desire to help, is still part of a system that regimentalises assistance in a way that strips it of dignity. Some of these would-be recipients see the emptiness inherent in this, because individual kindnesses aren't backed by commensurate institutional compassion. It is understandable why they would not be inclined to take the dole, to retain whatever shreds of dignity they have.
I think that the book does not intend to strip the poor of all culpability or responsibility for their own poverty, to reify them as blameless victims of institutional heartlessness. Certainly there are the lazy and inept among us. But I do think that what it is saying is that there are certain structural conditions that aggravate the problem by pushing the concept of differential deservedness based on how well you can navigate the narrow meritocratic pathways to success. When people don't fit into that mould, or they fall off the wayside, they are much more vulnerable to the effects of that inequality, and their children suffer the consequences. And is it necessarily better to build filters into the system to weed out the bad eggs from receiving government dole, or to make the assistance more universal in order to try to ameliorate these underappreciated systemic effects of structural inequality?
While I think I got most of that from the book, I do feel that the essays could have been much sharper. In wilfully abandoning the academic mode for these essays, Prof Teo unfortunately swings to the other end of the spectrum, dealing out meandering essays that at times read like streams of consciousness. In it, she tries very hard to situate herself into the narrative, talking about her fieldwork, of how she has become aware of the differential frames that people accord to her because of her status as opposed to a poor person. While I think this is important to a degree, she tends to overdo it in a way that comes dangerously close to platitudinous.
It's not really a surprise, then, that I happen to think that the essay on Differentiated Deservedness, which was consciously written in a more structurally coherent and academic register, was the best of the essays in terms of clarity and message. Followed closely by the last two essays on Airing Dirty Laundry and Now What, because of a clear call to action, and a brave and surprisingly convincing reckoning of the reasons why Singaporeans seem to resent it so much when people point out the flaws in our system, and attempt to shut down discourse by accusing reformers of copying other countries like Sweden.
It is here where, I think, the book comes into its own, after the earlier, somewhat over-introspective essays - inequality is not just a problem with the unequal, but for everyone; part of a larger dysfunction in society that values people largely as economic resources, and loses sight of the bigger picture of the state as a system for human betterment. In changing, we do not desire, or need, to turn into another Sweden, because that would be counterproductive - what she says we must do is to become a better version of ourselves - to look at inequality for what it is and to refuse to bend to its logic.
I give this book: 3.5/5 flatscreen TVs
chemistreads's review against another edition
5.0
"Inequalities are also reproduced by the individual choices of those who have the power to make choices. We who have the power to make choices disproportionately shape outcomes and limit options for people who don't have the power to make choices. It follows that if we don't share the power to make choices, we will never see a change to those things we say are bad or unacceptable to our society."
.
"The individualized and differentiated access to public goods in Singapore is deeply institutionalized and reproduced through state institutions. There are specific, regularized, and wide-ranging constrains that shape the path quality and quantity of people's access to various public goods."
.
“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.”
.
.
Gw bisa merasakan ketidaknyamanan yg mungkin dirasakan pembaca Singapura setelah selesai membaca buku ini. Esai-esai dlm buku ini menggoyahkan para pembaca, yg selama ini nyaman terhadap narasi individu maupun nasional yg mengatakan bhw Singapura adl negara maju dan tdk mungkin ada kesenjangan di negaranya. Terlebih mengetahui klo kesenjangan yg muncul diakibatkan oleh sistem yg terbentuk dr narasi tsb, yg dikukuhkan oleh pilihan hidup masyarakat Singapura itu sendiri.
.
Buku ini adl kumpulan esai hasil riset penulis dlm kurun waktu 2013-2016. Topik-topik yg diangkat diantaranya potret kehidupan kelompok 'low-income' disana, bagaimana 'sistem' mengakibatkan kesenjangan (misalnya meritokrasi) dan yg paling utama adl bagaimana pilihan hidup mayoritas kelompok middle to high-class disana membentuk 'sistem'/'narasi' yg ada (bagaimana kelompok tsb membentuk 'standar hidup yg normal bagi masyarakat Singapura') hingga mengakibatkan kesenjangan. Esai-esainya terstruktur dan legit. Penulis sendiri merupakan profesor bidang sosiologi di Nanyang Technological University, Singapura.
.
Membaca buku ini mengingatkan gw pd konsep yg ditawarkan Hans Rosling dlm bukunya 'Factfulness', klo pembagian kelompok negara hny didasarkan pd 'negara maju' dan 'negara berkembang' itu udh usang, dan sbg alternatif diganti dgn 4 kelompok penghasilan.
.
.
"The individualized and differentiated access to public goods in Singapore is deeply institutionalized and reproduced through state institutions. There are specific, regularized, and wide-ranging constrains that shape the path quality and quantity of people's access to various public goods."
.
“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.”
.
.
Gw bisa merasakan ketidaknyamanan yg mungkin dirasakan pembaca Singapura setelah selesai membaca buku ini. Esai-esai dlm buku ini menggoyahkan para pembaca, yg selama ini nyaman terhadap narasi individu maupun nasional yg mengatakan bhw Singapura adl negara maju dan tdk mungkin ada kesenjangan di negaranya. Terlebih mengetahui klo kesenjangan yg muncul diakibatkan oleh sistem yg terbentuk dr narasi tsb, yg dikukuhkan oleh pilihan hidup masyarakat Singapura itu sendiri.
.
Buku ini adl kumpulan esai hasil riset penulis dlm kurun waktu 2013-2016. Topik-topik yg diangkat diantaranya potret kehidupan kelompok 'low-income' disana, bagaimana 'sistem' mengakibatkan kesenjangan (misalnya meritokrasi) dan yg paling utama adl bagaimana pilihan hidup mayoritas kelompok middle to high-class disana membentuk 'sistem'/'narasi' yg ada (bagaimana kelompok tsb membentuk 'standar hidup yg normal bagi masyarakat Singapura') hingga mengakibatkan kesenjangan. Esai-esainya terstruktur dan legit. Penulis sendiri merupakan profesor bidang sosiologi di Nanyang Technological University, Singapura.
.
Membaca buku ini mengingatkan gw pd konsep yg ditawarkan Hans Rosling dlm bukunya 'Factfulness', klo pembagian kelompok negara hny didasarkan pd 'negara maju' dan 'negara berkembang' itu udh usang, dan sbg alternatif diganti dgn 4 kelompok penghasilan.
.
marinazala's review against another edition
4.0
Update December 12, 2022
I choose to buy this books from Post Santa bookstore! one of definitely that must have to into my book collection!
------------------------------------------------------
** Books 40 - 2022 **
“for higher-class parents, children are ‘projects.’ They have tightly scheduled lives and coordinated activities; high-income parents spend significant time and energy thinking about how to fulfill their kids’ ‘potentials.’ For the working class and poor, Lareau argues, parenting is more about ‘the accomplishment of natural growth.’ Top priorities in these families are safety and health.”
4 of 5 stars!
When we hear about Singapore what first think do you think about? Rich and prosperity for the most of citizens is and also still top 15 of developed countries list 2022 (above UK and New Zealand woww) even their GDP Nominal per capita in USD for 2022 is the highest one in ASEAN Countries. who knows it really makes me shock when i read about another side of Singapore from this books.
Inequality and Poverty between the high-income salary person and Low-income salary person is makes the gap is really high. There is still lack of proper of government's policy how to handle this two community very well. Low-income salary person who lives in a small flat with many children will be different with people with higher-income in comfortable flat.. This is also influence them how to educate their children and the opportunity to grow and develop in society too. It is also breaking my heart when yeah low-income salary person just wanna get the same opportunity, easier bureaucracy and also accesible facility looks like the higher-income salary people but unfortunately it didn't.
I'm curious is there any changes from Singapore's government policy after this books published? or is still same like before :'(
Sources :
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/developed-countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ASEAN_countries_by_GDP
I choose to buy this books from Post Santa bookstore! one of definitely that must have to into my book collection!
------------------------------------------------------
** Books 40 - 2022 **
“for higher-class parents, children are ‘projects.’ They have tightly scheduled lives and coordinated activities; high-income parents spend significant time and energy thinking about how to fulfill their kids’ ‘potentials.’ For the working class and poor, Lareau argues, parenting is more about ‘the accomplishment of natural growth.’ Top priorities in these families are safety and health.”
4 of 5 stars!
When we hear about Singapore what first think do you think about? Rich and prosperity for the most of citizens is and also still top 15 of developed countries list 2022 (above UK and New Zealand woww) even their GDP Nominal per capita in USD for 2022 is the highest one in ASEAN Countries. who knows it really makes me shock when i read about another side of Singapore from this books.
Inequality and Poverty between the high-income salary person and Low-income salary person is makes the gap is really high. There is still lack of proper of government's policy how to handle this two community very well. Low-income salary person who lives in a small flat with many children will be different with people with higher-income in comfortable flat.. This is also influence them how to educate their children and the opportunity to grow and develop in society too. It is also breaking my heart when yeah low-income salary person just wanna get the same opportunity, easier bureaucracy and also accesible facility looks like the higher-income salary people but unfortunately it didn't.
I'm curious is there any changes from Singapore's government policy after this books published? or is still same like before :'(
Sources :
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/developed-countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ASEAN_countries_by_GDP
vickysimansjah's review
5.0
Great book. Super relateable and easy to digest. Insightful in every chapter. Makes you question inequalities in other countries. Living in Indonesia, i look up a lot to Singapore. But its crazy because we get to see so much glam and not the vast difference in income gap. Eye opening. Profound. Highly recommended
lorenzana's review
5.0
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.
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.
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
3.0
The collected essays in this book are incredibly important. Not currently living in Singapore, there's obviously a lot I'm not personally comfortable speaking on, but I do know a fair amount more than the average non-Singaporean about the ongoing situation of migrant or "guest" workers and how terribly they're treated. Dr. Teo's book was published before stricter border control methods further complicated the problem, but that's also an ongoing problem, where workers are allowed (or, as is also common, forced) to stay in the country without being able to see their families. There's a really good essay by Harold Lee, "Servants Without Masters," which gives a good overview of the situation. To quote:
Pre-pandemic, in 2019, around 2.16 million immigrants lived in Singapore out of a total population of around 5.7 million, meaning that roughly 40% of the total population was foreign. More recent data from 2020 estimate the migrant workforce population as around 1.23 million, around a fifth of the entire population—essentially, one foreign worker for every four citizens. The majority of these migrant workers are Malaysian, although many are from other nearby countries such as Indonesia or the Philippines. The majority of migrant workers (nearly 60%) is classified as "unskilled" labour, and most foreigners work in "undesirable" jobs, primarily the service industry and domestic help. Even with border restrictions, nearly 250 thousand foreigners were employed as domestic workers in 2020.
These are depressing numbers. Singapore, like most other "developed" countries, likes to boast its benefits: extremely high percentages of citizens who have secondary education, work in well-paying fields, own property outright, and so on. But these are all concerning citizens, not temporary (or permanent) residents. And so it's easier not to think about the 40% of the population which has no voice.
Singapore’s policy on guest workers would make for an interesting essay in its own right. Briefly, though, the government makes it easy for guest workers to come if they can find work in various industries, including domestic service. Once in, you get a visa for a couple years, which does not come with voting rights or many of the perks of citizenship. But because this system is so rigorous in ensuring that would-be guest workers are net economic positives, it’s politically feasible for Singapore to take in a lot of guest workers. Proportionally, Singapore’s guest worker population is equivalent to the US taking in about two-thirds the population of Mexico – with huge net benefits to them and their families.Dr. Teo doesn't spend as much time discussing the ethnic divide between citizens (who have full access to various privileges, including voting rights, thus allowing them to preserve the status quo—and who wouldn't want to be waited on, after all?) and migrant workers. The predominant ethnicity in Singapore is those of Han Chinese descent, over 3/4 of the entire population; roughly speaking, the ratio of Chinese to the second-largest ethnic group—Malay—is close to 3000:544. (Interestingly, polls show that most citizens think of the relationship between religious and ethnic groups to be good, but remember that only citizens are being polled, not "guests.")
Pre-pandemic, in 2019, around 2.16 million immigrants lived in Singapore out of a total population of around 5.7 million, meaning that roughly 40% of the total population was foreign. More recent data from 2020 estimate the migrant workforce population as around 1.23 million, around a fifth of the entire population—essentially, one foreign worker for every four citizens. The majority of these migrant workers are Malaysian, although many are from other nearby countries such as Indonesia or the Philippines. The majority of migrant workers (nearly 60%) is classified as "unskilled" labour, and most foreigners work in "undesirable" jobs, primarily the service industry and domestic help. Even with border restrictions, nearly 250 thousand foreigners were employed as domestic workers in 2020.
These are depressing numbers. Singapore, like most other "developed" countries, likes to boast its benefits: extremely high percentages of citizens who have secondary education, work in well-paying fields, own property outright, and so on. But these are all concerning citizens, not temporary (or permanent) residents. And so it's easier not to think about the 40% of the population which has no voice.
aqilahreads's review
3.0
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 ✨
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 ✨