The Enchanting Echoes of ‘We First’: Singapore’s Verbal Balm for a Widening Chasm
Ah, Singapore, the gleaming city-state where efficiency reigns supreme, meritocracy is the national religion, and inequality? Well, that’s just a minor hiccup in our relentless march toward prosperity—or so the government would have us believe. In recent months, as whispers of discontent over growing income disparities have turned into audible grumbles, our esteemed leaders have stepped up with reassuring platitudes, chief among them the nebulous mantra of “we first.”
How nice. Everyone gets a gold medal.
This phrase, rolled out like a shiny new policy initiative but lacking any meaningfully actionable teeth, promises to knit “us” all together in harmonious collectivism. I’m sure our leaders are not talking about socialism, but something a lot less concrete
Let’s dive into the recent utterances from Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth David Neo and Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, delivered at the Institute of Policy Studies’ Singapore Perspectives conference in late January 2026. Their words sound oh-so-inspiring on the surface—full of calls for mindset shifts and fraternity—but scratch beneath, and you’ll find a masterclass in eloquent evasion, where lofty ideals substitute for tangible action.
First, let’s turn to David Neo, the former army general turned acting minister, whose maiden speeches have been laced with the kind of motivational rhetoric that could double as a self-help seminar. In his address at the IPS conference on January 26, 2026, Neo waxed lyrical over the challenges of building a “we first” society, declaring that it “requires a profound shift in how people here relate to one another, prioritising community over individual interests.” How touching! Imagine that: in a nation where the Gini coefficient—our go-to measure of income inequality—has supposedly dipped to its lowest in two decades thanks to government tweaks, the real barrier isn’t systemic flaws like skyrocketing property prices or stagnant wages for the lower middle class, but our pesky individual mindsets.
Yao mo gao chor ah? Neo insists that while the government will graciously “provide a blueprint for change,” the heavy lifting falls on us mere mortals to enact it through daily actions. Because, of course, nothing says “addressing inequality” like telling overworked Singaporeans to simply think more collectively while juggling two jobs to afford their HDB flat. And I don’t even know what the blueprint looks like. Anybody has any idea?
From one angle, this sounds like empowering rhetoric—encouraging personal responsibility in a meritocratic paradise. But let’s explore the nuances: in a society where social mobility is already showing signs of calcification (as acknowledged in broader government discourse, like Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s own speeches on narrowing gaps), Neo’s call for mindset shifts seems to be telling us to just suck it up. Consider the context: Singapore’s wealth inequality persists despite progressive taxes and CPF top-ups, with the upper tier still holding a highly disproportionate share of assets.
Instead of proposing bolder measures—like capping executive pay ratios in government-linked companies, capping ministers’ pay or expanding wealth taxes on ultra-high-net-worth individuals—Neo opts for vague blueprints. The implication? If inequality lingers, it’s not because of inadequate redistribution or foreign talent policies flooding the job market; it’s because you haven’t shifted your mindset enough. It’s your mindset. You haven’t been lifting enough. You have not followed that elusive blueprint.
Elderly citizens scraping by on minimal CPF payouts? Do they count as part of “we”? Neo’s words might inspire a TED Talk audience, but for the struggling heartlander, they ring hollow when anonymous PLPs on social media justify selfish behaviour. They think they are on the safe end of the boat. And let’s not ignore the irony—a military man preaching community harmony while the system he defends continues to reward the scholars a clear path to military “stardom” and golden parachutes into political office.
Now, pivot to Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, whose dialogue at the same IPS event on 26 January 2026 offered a buffet of feel-good abstractions, served with a side of economic realism that somehow avoids the main course of solutions. Gan emphasised that “fraternity is what allows diversity to be a source of strength rather than a cause of fragmentation,” positioning it as the “glue” for a cohesive society. Charming, isn’t it? In a multi-ethnic, multi-racial hub like Singapore, where integration has long been a point of pride, Gan’s nod to fraternity evokes images of kumbaya circles bridging divides. He even extended the “we first” ethos to potentially include foreigners, arguing that the focus should be on “collective benefit rather than individual personal benefit.” How inclusive! But wait—amid rising anti-foreigner sentiments fueled by job competition and housing strains, this inclusive “we” feels like a polite way to say, “Suck it up, locals; the global talent pool is part of your community now.” Gan also touched on health inequality and the risks of AI deepening divides, noting in a separate World Economic Forum dialogue that “even as we talk about the benefits of AI, we need to acknowledge the risk that AI can further deepen inequality.” Profound observation, DPM! But we know that already. Where are the specifics? No mention of regulating AI deployment to protect low-skilled jobs, or expanding retraining programs beyond the existing SkillsFuture credits, which many find insufficient for meaningful upskilling.
Yao mo gao chor ah? I’m sure voters didn’t see this coming when he was parachuted into Punggol like a saviour to rescue us from the horrors of Trump tariffs.
Minister Gan’s statements reveal a pattern of high-level acknowledgment without low-level intervention. Economically, he frames growing the economy and creating good jobs as “twin challenges,” which is code for admitting that GDP growth no longer automatically trickles down—a truth long evident in stagnant median wages relative to living costs. But rather than outlining aggressive strategies like mandating higher minimum wages or curbing corporate tax breaks, he throws out a nebulous call for integration across widening class rifts not just within our society but also along nationality lines. Can it be that simple?
Our disastrously low birth rate has always been a cause for concern and it’s often the perfect excuse for bringing in more foreigners. But what is causing it? Nuances here include the burden of Singapore’s rat race, BTO waits and student loans. Bring in more foreigners? How does that help? Older Singaporeans recall a time when meritocracy worked a lot better. And to rub it in, Minister Jeffrey Siow seemed to suggest that integrating foreign migrants is our job and not the job of the migrants to adapt to our culture. Our corporations want to hire cheaply, our banks want billionaires to park their money here, our leaders open the gates, grow the economy and we had better learn to live with it.
The government’s broader “Forward Singapore” exercise, which birthed “we first,” has produced reports and dialogues, but anyone waiting for his circumstances to improved can see that it’s all “consultation theatre” than reform engine. In essence, Miniter Gan’s niceties placate stakeholders—businesses love the pro-growth (cheap labour) talk, immigrants appreciate the inclusions. But what about “us”? It’s like being told to appreciate the diversity when you work longer hours for less pay while rent skyrockets. Remember Minister Gan might not have won in GE2025 if he hadn’t been touted as someone who could mitigate Trump tariffs which turned out to be some red herring?
Tying it all together, these statements from Minister Neo and Minister Gan exemplify the government’s artful dodge: soundbites that shimmer with optimism but dissolve under scrutiny. In the grand tapestry of Singapore’s inequality narrative, where official metrics like the Gini boast improvements, yet lived experiences tell a different story which need the “we first” rhetoric to serve as a convenient smokescreen. Is there one policy that can truly level the playing field?
Do our leaders seriously believe in “we first”? I’m not sure who coined it, but we as in kami in Malay, is exclusive. It excludes the person you’re talking to. The Malay word kita includes the person you’re talking to and negate all priority. Who is second when we’re all first? To me, all this rhetoric is not even logical and if we keep accepting such nonsense, we’ll keep getting such nonsense.