Historical Development Of Social Service Delivery Process In Singapore

1. Evaluate theories, frameworks, and methods for analyzing social policy and social service delivery systems.

2. Examine how demographics, economics, social and cultural forces and values have impacted social policy and programmes.

How historical factors have affected the social service delivery in Singapore

The write up outlines the historical development of social service delivery in Singapore since the year 1819 up to the present day (Baldock, Mitton, Vickerstaff, 2011).The discussion will describe those historical factors that developed in Singapore how they have affected the social delivery service in Singapore. Also I will analyse the continuous development of social service delivery in Singapore for the prolonged period of time.

The table below analyses how social service delivery developed in Singapore. It comprise the historical development in Singapore including domination of Singapore by the British back in 1800s (Béland & Cox, 2010).Each part analyses the specific phase involved in development of social service delivery process in the country.

(a).How historical factors have affected the social service delivery in Singapore

Historical development of social service delivery process in Singapore (Blau & Abramovitz, 2010). 

From the table above I will use the principles outlined so as to describe how historical factors have influenced the social service welfare in Singapore.

From this phase we identify the aspect of setting up a scene, identifying the problems faced in early days in Singapore and the aspect of network of mutual assistance based on social service in Singapore.

Choon (2010) explains the issue of setting scene. He describes that Singapore was very much controlled by the sole reasons whereby the issue of social welfare was minimal in the country (p.34). This is because it was majorly motivated by the economic factors. On viewing the problems faced there was presence of handoffs whereby resources were allocated inappropriately in the country. The influx of immigrants in Singapore resulted to inadequacy in the country. Resources were void for instance houses, educational facilities and health care services were nowhere to get in the country (Feldbaum & Michaud,2010).The other aspect at this period was the issue of networks to propagate mutual aid in the country. Since the colonial government took away the available resources that were used to boost the social welfare in the country, immigrants in Singapore came up with the new methods of enhancing social service delivery in the country. This promoted mutual aid in the country and later boosting the sense of security.

This phase included the policies such as the Laissez –Faire, the policies on Chinese protectorate and other milestones on issue of social service delivery in the Singapore. Starting on the Laissez –Faire whereby the colonial government started to acknowledge the importance of social service delivery in the country. This occurred since most of the missionaries pressured the British government to appreciate the importance of social welfare to the people of Singapore. Garthwait (2016) explains how missionaries geared the move to end the problems of social service delivery in Singapore (p.87). On the phase of Chinese protectorate the aim was to establish policies to protect the labour and immigrants in the country .The Chinese protectorate continued to fight for the trust and human in Singapore and later on the policy started unofficial practices such as medication, issue of marriage counselling and divorce advice. In addition after development of Chinese protectorate there started a number of private groups in the country who continued to provide the social services in the Singapore. These private organizations included the missionaries and the early philanthropists in Singapore. Developments in different fields started whereby things such as Singapore General Hospital started a new award for the children back in 1933.

Time

During this phase the country was faced by the shortages in food supply and also increased health hazards .This era was characterised by deaths and spread of diseases in Singapore (Hill & Lian, 2013).This suggests that health services were inadequate and increased failure in maintaining the health service measures and practices such as mosquito control in the country. There were no social service activities at this time since Japanese had blocked all the channels used by the Chinese to provide services to Singapore.

It was this era whereby the country established the Social Welfare Department (SWD) in the year 1946.The aim was to come up with an organization that will assist in providing the social service delivery in Singapore and that’s why colonial government decided to form the SWD .Jenson  and Fraser, (2015) describes how  SWD was to function in areas such as the provision of direct services to the citizens such as cash relief, food supply and providing housing facilities to the citizens (p.43).It was also involved in in-direct functions in the country where it was liaison with the private organizations. This era was characterised by different features such as establishment of public assistance scheme which used to fight for rights, development of children and young ordinance policies to protect the well-being of children and youths and lastly establishment of social centres where people could access services such as food, health services, learning services and also serving as home for the poor children in Singapore. Later on SWD started training programs whereby Singaporeans were trained on the social welfare .Staff were sent to the diaspora universities such as in London University where they were to learn a fulltime professional social work on training people on how to practice social service delivery in the country (Jenson & Fraser,2015).This led to establishment of Singapore Council of Social Service (SCSS) in the country .The unit comprised the intellectuals who created awareness on issue of social service in the country. They worked under principle of bringing individuals and organizations together so as raise the sense of social welfare in Singapore. This allowed government to formulate policies on ways of providing essential services to citizens such as Housing, the health care fields including hospitals, education to large number of citizens in Singapore and also development of remedy strategies needed in providing social service.

This principle marked a new era in the history of Singapore. It included formation of housing and development boards and development of peoples associations. Housing and development services were provided to the citizens in the country (Karim, Eikemo, Bambra, 2010).

Historical principles in reference with the social service delivery

Kirst-Ashman (2015) summarises how transformation led to growth of professionalism in Singapore (p. 20).This facilitated the growth of social service institutions, formation of voluntary organizations in the country and development of social worker scheme in Singapore.

 (b)The relevance of the principles in view of emerging changing social trends

The Singaporean welfare is a constituent of the East Asian welfare regime which is defined as a productivity welfare state. In this, Human capital investment is the vital consideration of social expenditure. It is relevant that the economic development in Singapore has arrived at a similarly high level as a result of such policies. In addition, focusing on significant human being development indexes such as improved education performance and improved health results regarding maximum life expectancy rates indicates that Singapore is quite improved in comparison with its developed nation's counterparts. This is because its government size is smaller (Midgley & Conley,2010).Its social expenditure is less considering its relatively small government authority size. It is approximated to be 1.33 % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The significant high performances in income distribution, the education sector and health outcomes that are achieved by such a small government shows that welfare regime in Singapore should be broadly valued in terms of the government social expenditure policies.

Social principles in Singapore have strategically be changed over the years. There have been global campaigns and various movements to raise the rights of women and trends in housing policies.

Singaporean state has several emerging trends resulting from evolving political, social cultural and key economic favourable conditions. From, Midgley and Conley  (2010) it is evident that Singapore welfare state can quickly recover because of trend costs, institutional, incurred cost and also trends revolving around emerging massive interest parties in Singapore (p.71).Also, aims, functional structure and high institutions of this particular state have changed over a given time horizon. Typically it has the ability to have immediate responses to trends in economic and social policies. New upcoming trends in specific policy directions, for example, active labour policies enacted, pension plans and optimum family merits have been established in Singapore.

Social and economic policies and conditions in Singapore have largely been diversified. The aging population and decreased fertility rate have become a challenging matter. Consequently, there have been anticipations of expected changes in both health care and pension plan government expenditures. Midgley and Piachaud (2011) shows how employment hazards have changed in Singapore (p.72). As a result of low unemployment rate employees have had strategies to incorporate the rapidly changing economy. Equal Income distribution in all skilled employees is rising. In this aspect, social policies implemented such as health and existing workfare have been incorporated to meet the requirements of these trends or alternative changes.

1819-1875

Conversely, it is evident that the Singaporean welfare state is extensively looking for a maintained balance between both the existing productivity nature and protective nature of the available welfare policy regime.

Focusing on the current policy responses witnessed in Singapore to the ultimate trends or changes in the economic and social policies, there is a need to highly develop this particular welfare state (Pierre & Rothstein, 2011).

In the recent studies, Singapore performed highly in the research results involving UN development index. It usually measures performance rates in terms of the education sector, healthcare and matters of increased economic growth. In addition, its students performed highly in terms of intellectual abilities in science subjects .It is deemed as a productivity regime. This is in conditions where existing social policies are lowered to represent implementation economic policies. Available social service principles can be implemented as vital policy tools need in order to enhance economic development (Poon, Musti-Ra, Wettasinghe, 2013).The Singaporean welfare state acquires rye ability to positively modify the social service delivery principles in the fields of education and healthcare. It does this with the fact that it owns a smaller government authority and its less expenditure structure together with distinct institutional relationships. This is implemented in close comparison with all the other East Asia states.

Modifications of such policies made expenditure on social service insurance, social aid delivery, and labour market domains to highly account for an estimate of 3.4% of Singaporean GDP.

Over the years, the structural modification, alternative design, and establishment of social service principles or policies in Singaporean state have been related with a diverse and economic principles rationale. The context of institutional relationships for the social service delivery principles needs to be clearly comprehended .One of the modified distinc6 factor in this particular Singaporean social service delivery context is the agenda involving new Singapore dollar as implemented in the year 1967(Poon et al.,2013).This dollar was a replacement to the initially used Malayan or Straits dollar. Its government adopted this principle.

Initially, the principles were not quite relevant because of the available small local market and also less competitive industrial firms in the existing global market. It also had a low social and economic growth strategy (Tremewan, 2016).The tax rate was set at a minimal level thus those principles were difficult to deliver the social services. The corporate firm and individual tax rates were relatively low.

What needs to be done?

Presence of minimal intervention social service delivery – presence of laissez-faire

To enhance the social service delivery the government has to put more effort on social service processes.

Development of social service institutions in the country to fight for the social service strategies in the country. This will provide basics needed in social service delivery. Government should ensure this services are available for the citizens.

Tremewan (2016) explains on development of master social worker schemes in Singapore. This will provide a mentorship and essential skills needed by the citizens on the aspect of social service in country. It will aim to impart and harness knowledge and skills needed to foster professionalism when handling social welfare in Singapore.

Conclusion

In conclusion, service support from family and society at large is required. It is important for the social service welfare provision in many perspectives (Xu & Chow, 2011).A policy involving promotion of helping hands from the government should be encouraged. This will aid in forming self-help groups among society and organization. It is also vital to support the central provident Fund. In Singapore, it serves as its main social protection system. Health, education and housing policies should also be protected in the future.

Reference

Baldock, J., Mitton, L., & Vickerstaff, S. (Eds.). (2011). Social policy. Oxford University Press.

Béland, D., & Cox, R. H. (Eds.). (2010). Ideas and politics in social science research. Oxford University Press.

Blau, J., & Abramovitz, M. (2010). The dynamics of social welfare policy. Oxford University Press, USA.

Choon, C. N. (2010). Social protection in Singapore: Targeted welfare and asset-based social security. Social Protection in East Asia-Current State and Challenges, 90.

Feldbaum, H., & Michaud, J. (2010). Health diplomacy and the enduring relevance of foreign policy interests. PLoS medicine, 7(4), e1000226.

Garthwait, C. (2016). The social work practicum: A guide and workbook for students. Pearson.

Hill, M., & Lian, K. F. (2013). The politics of nation-building and citizenship in Singapore. Routledge.

Jenson, J. M., & Fraser, M. W. (Eds.). (2015). Social policy for children and families: A risk and resilience perspective. Sage Publications.

Karim, S. A., Eikemo, T. A., & Bambra, C. (2010). Welfare state regimes and population health: integrating the East Asian welfare states. Health policy, 94(1), 45-53.

Kirst-Ashman, K. K. (2015). Empowerment Series: Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives. Nelson Education.

Midgley, J., & Conley, A. (Eds.). (2010). Social work and social development: Theories and skills for developmental social work. Oxford University Press.

Midgley, J., & Piachaud, D. (Eds.). (2011). Colonialism and welfare: Social policy and the British imperial legacy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Pierre, J., & Rothstein, B. (2011). Reinventing Weber: The role of institutions in creating social         trust. Lagreid P, Christensen T. The Ashgate research companion to New Public Management. Burlington: Ashgateg, 2110, 407-419.

Poon, K., Musti-Ra, S., & Wettasinghe, M. (2013). Special education in Singapore: History, trends, and future directions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(1), 59-64.

Tremewan, C. (2016). The political economy of social control in Singapore. Springer.

Xu, Q., & Chow, J. C. (2011). Exploring the community-based service delivery model: Elderly care in China. International Social Work, 54(3), 374-387.