By Dennis Sale
In the two previous columns, I provided a context for understanding the multi-faceted concept of wellbeing. A key summary is that:
-
Human suffering is an objective existential fact, experienced subjectively at the individual level, and in a myriad of forms.
-
As humans we cannot avoid facing, and having to deal with, a range of developmental challenges and internal conflicts which impact our wellbeing.
Scary stuff, right! – but we have choices, both at the level of individual human consciousness, and at the level of society. In this column, I focus on society and what are key areas for decision-making, and their potential consequences. Society itself is a complex and contested concept and sociologists have had a field day in defining it – and the literature is extensive. I am not going to go there here, for purposes of brevity.
The Big Questions are these:
In our society, what are the desirable, the acceptable and, equally important, the viable and effective facilities/services that can be provided to promote wellbeing and mitigate human suffering. These questions are played out in the arenas of social policy and the gambit of organised health structures, facilities and services that are provided. For example, in the UK, there is an established welfare state based on a framework and set of values that seeks to provide a safety net for its citizens, ensuring that everyone has a certain standard of living and access to essential services. The framework includes the following main areas:
-
Social security: Financial support for those who are unable to work, such as the elderly, sick, or unemployed.
-
Healthcare: Free at the point of use for all citizens, through the National Health Service (NHS).
-
Education: Free, compulsory education for all children, with further education opportunities available.
-
Housing: Subsidised housing for those in need, and regulations to ensure safe and affordable housing.
-
Other services: Additional support for vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly, and disabled people.
While the welfare state and its specific programmes and benefits have varied over time, the underlying principles remain the same: to provide a basic level of security and wellbeing for all citizens – often captured in the phrase “from the cradle to the grave”. The components and services provided are seen as the key areas of human life where interventions are most effective in supporting the wellbeing of individuals.
How successful the welfare state has been in terms of its objectives is complicated to measure accurately in many areas though evidence suggests that it has, since its inception in 1948, reduced poverty, improved life expectancy, enhanced educational opportunity, and provided a safety net for millions. However, there is growing concern that an acceptable level of provision and access is now decreasing, especially in terms of health provision and housing.
Perhaps, the biggest influencing factor is the increasing cost of living and an ageing population. Financial resources are limited but demand for health provision is potentially exponential as both medical advances and life expectancy continually increase. To be able to offer all the best facilities/services to everybody may be desirable, but as we see in the NHS scenarios in the UK, a still relatively wealthy nation in global terms, it’s being stretched – very stretched.
Furthermore, there are arguments that even with more funding, the cost-benefits may not be favourable in terms of desired outcomes. Their contention is that over-reliance on the welfare state can discourage work and create a dependency culture. For example, and comparison, I lived and worked in Singapore for 25 years and it has an interesting perspective in terms of welfare provision and promoting wellbeing. Singapore does not have a welfare state in the same vein as the UK. While both countries prioritise the wellbeing of their citizens, their approaches to achieving this goal are fundamentally different. Key features of the Singapore system include:
1. Emphasis on self-reliance:
Singapore strongly emphasises personal responsibility as a core value. For example, the government has implemented The Central Provident Fund (CPF), which is a mandatory savings scheme in which all working Singaporean citizens and Permanent Residents must contribute a portion of their salary to the fund. Both the employee and employer contribute a specific percentage of the employee’s salary to the CPF account. The money in the CPF account can be used for:
-
Retirement.
-
Housing.
-
Healthcare.
-
Investment.
2. Comprehensive education and training provision:
The Singapore education system is consistently ranked as among the highest in the world on all international measures of school attainment. Also, studies have shown that Singaporean students report higher levels of happiness in school compared to their counterparts in other countries. For example, a significantly higher percentage of Singaporean students reported being happy in school compared to Finnish students in an Organisation of Economic Co-operation & Development report. This is interesting as Finland has long been (and still is) held up as a model for education systems worldwide, where teaching is a high-status profession. For vocational training, Singapore has implemented SkillsFuture, which is a national initiative aimed at providing Singaporeans with the opportunities to develop their fullest potential throughout their lives, regardless of their starting points. Its key objectives include:
-
Lifelong learning: To cultivate a culture of continuous learning and skill development among Singaporeans.
-
Skill upgrading: To equip the workforce with the skills needed to adapt to the evolving economy and job market.
-
Career progression: To help individuals advance their careers and realise their full potential.
-
Inclusive society: To create an inclusive society where everyone has opportunities to learn and grow.
3. Targeted assistance: Social assistance is primarily focused on the most vulnerable groups in society, such as the elderly, disabled, and low-income families.
4. Strong family support: The family unit is seen as the primary safety net. The government encourages strong family ties and provides support to families in need.
5. Meritocracy: Singapore places a strong emphasis on meritocracy, where individuals are rewarded based on their abilities and contributions to society.
Hence, while Singapore does have social programmes to support its citizens, the overall philosophy is to create a system where individuals are empowered to take care of themselves, with the government providing a safety net for those truly in need.
In this third column of the series, I have focused on the areas, issues, and key questions related to societies contribution to supporting wellbeing. It is a crucial area of national interest, as beliefs about what are the best ways to promote wellbeing are contested, with different beliefs about what is to be provided to whom and how, and on what basis. In the next column, the focus is on the individual, as it’s here at the level of subjective experience where wellbeing is ultimately determined. This is a meaty area, and the one I largely work in.
-
Dennis Sale worked in the Singapore education system for 25 years as advisor, researcher, and examiner. Visit dennissale.com.
