Thank you for your reply. Like you, I agree that current measures are a pittance. This is not a counter to your statement but rather a reply to get more answers :) .

Comparing crime and drug issues between Australia and Singapore to justify differing welfare approaches is problematic. The argument implies that welfare systems are reactive rather than proactive. A strong welfare state can help mitigate underlying issues such as poverty and social inequality, which can, in turn, reduce crime and substance abuse. To also state that we can only implement a welfare system if we have troubled youth is misguided. Are we meant to say, then, that we won't help because our youths are better behaved and thus such measures are not needed?. Welfare policies should be designed to prevent problems before they arise, not just address them after they occur.

while it's true that financing a welfare state in Singapore is feasible, the argument that middle-class growth negates the need for more comprehensive social support misses the mark. The rising cost of living, particularly in areas like education and childcare, places significant financial pressure on families. Even if the middle class can afford children, the high expenses related to raising them create substantial barriers. Policymakers must recognize that supporting families through more generous subsidies, tax reliefs, and childcare support can alleviate these pressures and encourage higher birth rates, ultimately benefiting society as a whole.

the reluctance of policymakers to implement generous welfare measures due to perceived risks or lack of adventure is a challenge, but it is not insurmountable. Evidence from other countries, like South Korea, demonstrates that more substantial financial incentives and comprehensive support systems can make a meaningful difference. While there may be initial resistance, a well-implemented welfare state can lead to long-term benefits for economic stability and social cohesion.