When “Unfair” Isn’t Unfair: And When It Actually Is
- 11 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Every few months, a familiar pattern plays out.
A new policy is introduced—more parental leave, rebates for HDB households, targeted subsidies—and almost immediately, someone steps forward to say:
“What about me?”
Sometimes, that reaction reflects a misunderstanding.
But occasionally—though far less often—it points to a real issue.
The challenge is knowing the difference.
The Trap of Viewing Policies in Isolation
It’s easy to zoom in on a single benefit and feel excluded.
A single person sees parents getting more leave
A condo owner sees HDB households receiving rebates
A higher-income individual notices subsidies they don’t qualify for
And the conclusion becomes:“This is unfair.”
But that conclusion only holds if we assume policies are meant to benefit everyone equally.
They are not.
Policies are not standalone perks.They are part of a broader system—designed to solve specific problems.
When you isolate one policy from the system it belongs to, it will almost always look “unfair.”
Not All Policies Are Equal—And That’s the Point
There are policies that apply broadly to everyone:
Income tax
GST
Public infrastructure
But these are the minority.
Most policies are designed for specific groups, at specific times, for specific reasons.
And that brings us to the key distinction.
Part 1: What Good Policy Looks Like
Policy Is Meant to Be Discriminatory (By Design)
In good policy design, “discrimination” is intentional—and necessary.
Resources are limited. So governments prioritise:
Encourage childbirth → parental leave, baby bonus
Support cost pressures → U-Save, S&CC rebates
Help seniors → Pioneer Generation, CHAS
Support SMEs → targeted grants
These are targeted interventions, not universal benefits.
Good policy is about prioritisation to achieve outcomes—not equal distribution.
Access Is Conditional—Not Exclusive
In many cases, those complaining are not excluded.
They can access the benefits—if they meet the conditions.
Want parental leave → have a child
Want HDB-related rebates → live in HDB (if eligible)
Want targeted subsidies → fall within the intended group
These are not closed systems.They are conditional systems.
What is often being demanded is not fairness—but benefits without meeting the conditions.
And that undermines the idea of equity.
The Parenting Example: Incentive, Not Entitlement
Take increased paid parental leave.
This is a policy lever aimed at addressing declining birth rates.
Singapore’s fertility rate has been falling for years, prompting targeted incentives.
Parental leave sits alongside:
Baby Bonus
CDA
Tax reliefs
These are tied to a specific behaviour—raising children.
Expecting the same benefits without that commitment misunderstands the purpose entirely.
The HDB Example: Targeted Cost Support
U-Save and S&CC rebates are designed to help households more exposed to cost pressures.
HDB households broadly represent a wider range of middle- to lower-income groups.
Meanwhile, others are supported differently:
CDC vouchers
Tax rebates
Asset appreciation from private property
Looking at one policy alone creates a distorted picture.
A Simple Framework for Good Policy
Before calling something unfair, ask:
What problem is this solving?
Who is it targeting—and why?
Can I access it if I meet the conditions?
What other benefits exist in the system?
If the answers make sense, the policy is likely doing what it was designed to do.
Part 2: When Policy Actually Becomes Unfair
To be clear—not all policies are good policies.
There are cases where criticism is not only valid—but necessary.
When Targeting Is Misaligned
A policy becomes problematic when:
Benefits go to those who don’t need them
Those who need support are excluded
The targeting criteria no longer reflect reality
For example (hypothetical):
Subsidies flowing to asset-rich but income-poor households disproportionately
Benefits captured by groups who can game the system
Structural shifts (e.g., rising costs) not reflected in eligibility criteria
In such cases, the issue is not that the policy is discriminatory.
It’s that it is discriminating in the wrong direction.
When Outcomes Don’t Match Intent
Even well-designed policies can fail if:
They don’t change behaviour
They create unintended consequences
They disproportionately benefit a small group at the expense of many
At that point, the policy is no longer serving its purpose.
And criticism becomes justified—not because someone feels left out,but because the system is not working.
The Key Difference: System Failure vs Personal Frustration
This is the line most people fail to draw.
Good policy + personal exclusion → feels unfair, but isn’t
Bad policy + poor outcomes → genuinely unfair
One is emotional.The other is structural.
When “Unfair” Is Actually Just FOMO
In many public reactions, the issue isn’t system failure.
It’s comparison.
Wanting the benefit
Without the trade-offs
Without meeting the conditions
At that point, it’s not about fairness.
It’s about wanting the upside without paying the price.
The Bigger Picture
No system will ever feel perfectly fair.
And it shouldn’t.
Because a system that tries to satisfy everyone equally will fail to solve anything effectively.
The real question is not:
“Why don’t I get this?”
But:
“Is this policy achieving what it is meant to achieve?”
Final Thought
Good policy is not equal. It is intentional.
Bad policy is not just unequal. It is misdirected.
Understanding the difference is what separatesinformed critique from noise.
Comments