YES: Equality for all is a highly achievable aim in Singapore given the many societal conditions and forces which facilitate this aim.
Singapore’s meritocratic ethos is extensively practiced in both the private and public sectors, enabling equality of economic opportunities for all.
Clearer identification of the growing wage gap between the top and bottom quintile of the population by the government and private sector employers, which is then addressed by various programs and institutions tasked to promote economic equitability in the long-term.
The civic rights of citizens are well-protected by the Constitution in both word and deed, ensuring that all are treated fairly and equally before the law.
Funding and resources for key public services are set aside to provide support and subsidies for the less well-off, ensuring that they have access to these services and opportunities that would otherwise be limited to the wealthy.
Community and advocacy groups are increasingly active in championing and advancing the rights of previously marginalized groups, empowering them with more opportunities to achieve success and happiness in life comparable to other mainstream groups.
NO: Equality for all is an increasingly remote possibility in Singapore given the many societal conditions and forces which undermine this aim.
Singapore’s success oriented and failure intolerant system encourages both the private and public sectors to emphasize and provide opportunities for those with proven track records, thereby raising the barriers to entry faced by those deemed prematurely as unsuitable for promotion or recognition in many areas of life.
Economic realities impose constraints on both public and private sector employers, preventing many from responding to short-term but pressing cost-of-living issues faced by the less well-off.
Some civic rights common to other democracies remain absent from the Constitution, thereby disadvantaging individuals who may have the misfortune to encounter the legal system under controversial or problematic circumstances.
The key appointment holders, as well as rank-and-file personnel managing key public services may not be fully cognizant of the difficulties faced by those they serve, leading to insensitive and unfair treatment of the latter.
More individuals and special interest groups have arisen and utilized an increasingly liberalized social media landscape to advocate blatantly biased and discriminatory mindsets, thereby creating frictions rather than harmony and equal treatment for all communities