Two surveys — the Household Needs Study and the IPS poll on ‘Public Perceptions of Provision of Essential Needs’ — have generated valuable data on what Singaporeans believe are essentials in life and who they think is responsible for ensuring access to those essentials.
In the Household Needs Study (HNS), 40 out of 51 items polled are regarded by a majority of Singaporeans to be essential for their daily household needs. These items comprise household appliances like refrigerators and washing machines; items related to digital connectivity; as well as social activities like going out with family and friends.
This study surveyed 4,014 respondents. It was conducted from May 2022 to February 2023, and was spearheaded by Prof. Paulin Straughan, Director of SMU Centre for Research on Successful Ageing (ROSA), and Dr Mathew Mathews, Head of Social Lab, and Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).
The HNS was presented at the ‘SMU-DBS Foundation Symposium on Essential Household Needs in Singapore’ on 12 July.
Speakers from the academic, social service and corporate sectors gathered to discuss findings from the HNS, and share views on how to enhance vulnerable segments’ access to essential needs.
Both the HNS and the IPS poll were conducted as part of the Singapore Ministry of Social and Family Development’s regular partnerships with academics to enable informed and evidence-based policy making, and were funded by the ministry.
The HNS aimed to identify what Singaporeans deem to be essential for a normal life in Singapore and examined Singaporeans’ ability to afford such items and activities (across different household income, housing type, and age groups), and their general attitudes and beliefs towards reasons for poverty.
The study found that Singaporeans were divided on whether other items, such as air-conditioning and dining out at a restaurant at least once a month, were considered essential. Other items, such as an annual staycation, were not deemed essential by most respondents.
It was revealed that income or housing type affected whether respondents thought certain items were perceived as essential. For instance, 34 per cent of respondents living in 1- and 2-room HDB flats thought air-conditioning was essential, compared to 78 per cent in private housing.
Two-thirds of respondents reported that they had access and/or could afford all 40 items deemed essential items identified in the study. The remaining one-third lacked access to an average of four essential items.
Key findings of Household Needs Study
40 out of 51 items and activities were deemed essential by at least half of the respondents, including social participation activities.
- The items which most respondents saw as essential included household appliances such as refrigerators (100 per cent) and washing machines (96 per cent), as well as items related to digital connectivity like smartphones with data plans (93 per cent) and home broadband plans (89 per cent).
- Essential social participation activities included family bonding outside of home (90 per cent) and free time for hobbies (86 per cent).
- Higher expenditure activities, such as dining out at restaurants at least once a month (62 per cent) and annual vacation to a Southeast Asian country (56 per cent), were perceived as less essential.
- Items deemed non-essential included private tuition (49 per cent) and private enrichment classes (30 per cent), as well as activities like annual staycations (27 per cent).
Two-thirds of the respondents did not experience any relative deprivation, defined as the inability to access and afford items that were considered essential by at least half of the respondents.
- The remaining one-third who experienced relative deprivation lacked access to an average of four items deemed essential.
- The top three items with the highest relative deprivation rates were: emergency savings of six months of expenses (24 per cent), emergency savings of three months of expenses (16 per cent), and an annual vacation to a Southeast Asian country (11 per cent).
- Housing type and monthly household income were found to be correlated with relative deprivation rates — those in smaller housing types and those with lower income tended to experience higher rates of deprivation.
The majority of respondents believed that poverty is attributable to personal actions and circumstances, such as facing major issues in their lives (80 per cent) or spending money on inappropriate items (72 per cent).
- Conversely, fewer respondents agreed that poverty is due to external factors like bad luck (22 per cent) or divine will (17 per cent).
Survey supports social policy and practice
As a nationally representative population-based survey, the Household Needs Study can help academics, government agencies, social service practitioners, and philanthropists to understand and develop social policy and practice — in particular, to ensure that essential items are provided for those in need.
The survey also highlights the importance of considering activities pertaining to social inclusion as essential to one’s quality of life.
At the HNS release event, Prof. Paulin Straughan said, “SMU ROSA is delighted to continue its partnerships with the government and industry to foster a more inclusive society through research. It is crucial for us to understand and address these needs to advance health span and holistic well-being for Singaporeans.”
Monica Datta, Lead, Fostering Inclusion, at DBS Foundation, said, “We’re privileged to be part of today’s symposium, and of an essential conversation with like-minded parties who share our commitment to taking a whole-of-society approach to drive change.”
She added, “In today’s fast-evolving world, there is an urgent need for us to lend support to those who need it most, and empower them with the skills, tools, and opportunities to build towards better circumstances. At DBS Foundation, we hope to join forces with those who share our goal of uplifting the vulnerable and creating a more inclusive Singapore for all.”
At the symposium, Dr Mathews also presented findings of the IPS poll. It found that respondents were inclined to view the self as the main provider of essential items, followed by the government, community, relatives/friends, and then businesses (in that order).
Breaking down the list of essential items, 67 per cent of respondents believed the government should help Singaporeans who cannot afford basic necessities (e.g., three meals a day, shelter, access to healthcare), while 62 per cent believed that individuals are responsible for providing themselves items associated with a decent standard of living (e.g., dining out at restaurants once a month).
Key findings from IPS poll
With reference to the list of essential items identified by the HNS, most respondents felt that individuals should primarily be responsible for providing a larger number of items than other parties.
- Respondents had a higher tendency to indicate the Government as the party to provide for healthcare- and childcare-related items.
- Items that respondents most commonly indicated that the individual should primarily be responsible for were items related to social participation and leisure (e.g. annual overseas vacation in a Southeast Asian country; dining out at a restaurant once a month).
- For a number of household, daily living, and social participation items, more respondents agreed that community, businesses, and relatives/family should play a larger role than the Government.
Respondents agreed that the Government should be the main party in providing ‘Basic Necessities’ to those who cannot afford it, while the individual should be the main party responsible for ‘Items which Provide a Decent Standard of Living’.
- When asked about who should support individuals who could not afford items that were ‘Basic Necessities’, the Government (67.3 per cent) was selected by most respondents, followed by the community (59.3 per cent), and the self (41.3 per cent), i.e., self-reliance.
- For ‘Items which Provide a Decent Standard of Living’, most respondents felt that responsibility should lie with the self (61.7 per cent), followed by the Government (34.1 per cent), and the community (31.6 per cent).
- Two-thirds of respondents felt that two or more parties should be responsible for helping Singaporeans afford basic necessities, with the individual and the Government more commonly ranked as the primary party to ensure this. The community was most commonly ranked as the second party to provide for basic necessities to those who cannot afford them (after either the individual or the Government).
- Amongst respondents who chose ‘Government’ as an option to provide for basic essential items, most respondents (58.1 per cent) preferred to re-allocate Government spending from other areas to fund such provisions rather than to pay higher taxes (17.9 per cent).
- Of the items that respondents felt should be funded by a reallocation of Government spending, the top three categories were items related to healthcare, child-related expenses, and public transport.
- There was no clear consensus among these respondents on which areas this funding should be reallocated from. The top two areas from which resources could be drawn were Arts (36.8 per cent) and Sports (32.7 per cent).
- Of the items that respondents felt should be funded by higher taxation, the top three categories were items related to emergency savings, digital connectivity, and social participation and leisure.
