Statistical
Handbook
The State of
Youth
Singapore
2 0 1 4
in
YOUTH.sg:
© Copyright 2014, National Youth Council
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing it in any
medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication), republished,
uploaded, posted, transmitted or otherwise distributed in any way without the prior written permission of the copyright owner
except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63).
Published by the National Youth Council
ISBN: 978-981-09-1833-0
At NYC, we believe in a world where young people are respected
and heard, and have the ability to influence and make a difference
to the world. Together with our partners, we develop a dynamic
and engaging environment where young people are inspired to
dream and committed to action.
Our Vision
Inspired and Committed Youth
Our
Background
NYC was set up by the Singapore Government on 1 November 1989
as the national co-ordinating body for youth affairs in Singapore.
NYC is also Singapore’s focal point for international youth affairs.
Mr Lawrence Wong, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth &
Second Minister, Ministry of Communications and Information, is
the Chairman of the 13th Council. The Council comprises members
from various government ministries, youth organisations, academic
institutions, voluntary welfare organisations, media and private
sector organisations.
Our Mission
We connect with young Singaporeans so that their collective voices
can advocate and enable positive change as an:
Advocate
Aggregate youth voices and represent the interests of young
Singaporeans nationally and internationally
Enabler
Enable young people to pursue their aspirations and be positive
contributors to Singapore through our programmes and grants
Partner
Congregate youth leaders and youth organisations to jointly
develop a vibrant youth ecosystem
04
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
Preface
The National Youth Survey (NYS) studies the major concerns and issues of schooling and working youths in
Singapore. It is a time-series survey that tracks and provides updated analyses of national youth statistics and
outcomes to inform policy and practice. Till date, NYS has been conducted in 2002, 2005, 2010, and 2013.
NYS represents a milestone in youth research in Singapore. With its resource-based approach, the NYS
focuses on the support youths require for societal engagement (i.e., social capital) and individual development
(i.e., human capital). Findings and analyses from each cycle of NYS are subsequently published as YOUTH.sg:
The State of Youth in Singapore (YOUTH.sg).
This edition of YOUTH.sg consists of two separate publications. The present publication is the statistical
handbook, which contains statistics collated from NYS 2013 to provide readers with an overview of the state
of youth in Singapore.
Accompanying this publication is a compilation of research articles which explore emergent trends and issues
of youths. Contributors comprise NYS’s academic collaborators (A/Ps Ho Kong Chong, Irene Ng, and Ho Kong
Weng), NYC, and other contributors (A/P Lim Sun Sun, Health Promotion Board, Ministry of Manpower, and
National Arts Council).
PREFACE
05
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
NOTATIONS
NA
Not Available
NOTES
Numbers may not add up to the totals due to rounding.
Survey population figures for NYS 2005, 2010, and 2013 may vary slightly due to sample weighting.
Contents
Preface
1. About the National Youth Survey
2. Youth in Singapore
3. Social Support
4. Social Participation
5. Values & Attitudes
6. Education & Employment
7. Wellbeing
8. Conclusion
05
09
13
17
29
39
49
59
69
08
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
About the National Youth Survey
The NYS is a time-series study that focuses on the major concerns and issues of schooling and working youths
in Singapore. Till date, the NYS has been conducted in 2002, 2005, 2010, and 2013.
The NYS represents a milestone in Singapore’s youth research with its resource-based approach that focuses
on the support youths require for societal engagement (social capital) and individual development (human
capital). Social capital refers to the relationships within and between groups, and the shared norms and trust
that govern these interactions (Putnam, 2000; World Bank, 2011). Human capital on the other hand refers to the
skills, competencies, and attitudes of individuals which in turn create personal, social, and economic wellbeing
(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2001; World Economic Forum, 2013).
Social and human capital are closely linked. For example, investment in social capital shapes the social networks
of individuals, which in turn influences the extent to which human capital is developed. Likewise, human capital
development may influence the extent to which individuals are able to contribute to the social networks they are
embedded in (Schuller, 2001). Based on these social and human capital theories, the National Youth Indicators
Framework (NYIF) (Ho & Yip, 2003) was formulated to provide a comprehensive, systematic, and theoretically-
grounded assessment of youths in Singapore.
The NYIF draws from the existing research literature, policy-relevant indicators, and youth development models.
It spans six domains of social and human capital. Table I summarises the framework.
TABLE I.
National Youth Indicators Framework
Social Capital
(Putnam, 2000; World Bank, 2011)
Human Capital
(OECD, 2001; World Economic Forum, 2013)
Definition
Social networks and the norms of reciprocity
and trustworthiness that arise from them.
Knowledge, skills, and competencies embodied in
individuals that facilitate the creation of personal,
social, and economic wellbeing.
Domains
• Social support
• Social participation
• Values & attitudes
• Education
• Employment
• Wellbeing
Focus
The power of relationships
The human potential of young people
ABOUT THE NATIONAL
YOUTH SURVEY
09
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
TABLE II.
Profile of NYS Respondents
NYS 2002
n=1,504
NYS 2005
n=1,504
NYS 2010
n=1,268
NYS 2013
n=2,843
Latest
Youth
Population1
Age
15–19
NYS 2002
utilised
nonstandard
age bands
33%
24%
24%
24%
20–24
31%
23%
25%
25%
25–29
36%
25%
24%
24%
30–342
NA
NA
28%
28%
28%
Gender
Male
50%
50%
49%
49%
49%
Female
50%
50%
51%
51%
51%
Race
Chinese
77%
75%
72%
72%
72%
Malay
15%
15%
15%
16%
16%
Indian
7%
9%
10%
10%
10%
Others
1%
1%
4%
3%
3%
Nationality
Singaporean
93%
90%
86%
91%
81%
Permanent Resident
7%
10%
14%
10%
19%
Marital Status
Single
83%
85%
74%
74%
71%
Married
17%
14%
25%
25%
28%
Divorced / Separated / Widowed
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Religion
Buddhism
35%
32%
36%
25%
29%
Islam
16%
17%
18%
19%
18%
Christianity
16%
16%
15%
19%
18%
Hinduism
5%
6%
6%
6%
6%
Taoism / Traditional Chinese Beliefs
6%
6%
7%
7%
8%
Other Religions
2%
1%
3%
1%
1%
No religion
21%
21%
15%
23%
20%
Dwelling
HDB 1–2 rooms
5%
3%
5%
3%
3%
HDB 3 rooms
26%
24%
24%
14%
14%
HDB 4 rooms
33%
43%
34%
37%
37%
HDB 5 rooms, executive, and above
24%
19%
26%
31%
30%
Private flat and condominium
12%
11%
3%
10%
10%
Private house and bungalow
9%
6%
6%
Others
0%
NA
NA
0%
1%
10
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
Research Method for National Youth Survey 2013
NYS 2013 adopted a random (i.e., probability-based) sampling method to ensure responses are representative of the
resident youth population aged 15 to 34 years old. The fieldwork period spanned September to December 2013. A
pilot test was conducted prior to the commencement of fieldwork and the survey was available in English, Malay,
Mandarin, and Tamil. IPSOS Singapore, a research house commissioned by NYC, undertook data collection and
fieldwork management.
Youths were invited to complete the survey over the internet via a mailed household letter with assigned login
credentials. In order to reduce mode effects3 and preserve the value of unbiased sampling procedures (Groves,
2006), and in consideration of the declining survey cooperation and response rates4 over the past decade5, a random
probability-based listing of 22,000 households was adopted. The adoption of this survey mode was made after careful
consideration of the target respondents and survey questions6, given that Singapore’s youths have a near-100% internet
and smartphone penetration rate (Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA), 2013) and are highly mobile.
This survey mode reduces geographical and time restrictions as well as interviewer bias and allows for more honest
disclosures (Bowling, 2005; Lind et al., 2013).
Two rounds of mail and phone reminders were used. Minority and underrepresented groups were approached at their
respective households to complete the survey using a computing device. A total of 2,843 youths were successfully
surveyed, of which 141 were surveyed at their households. This yielded a cooperation rate of 30% and a response
rate of 14%, comparable with recent surveys7. This provided a confidence interval of 1.8% at the 95% confidence
level with a youth population size of 1,073,400. 40% of respondents were randomly contacted to ensure response
veracity. Responses adhered closely to the youth population.
Table II presents the profile of respondents from NYS 2013, 2010, 2005, and 2002. Figures referenced in all tables in
the publication (with the exception of figures from NYS 20028) were weighted according to interlocking matrices of
age, gender, and race of the respective youth populations.
1 Youth population refers to the most recent available data from the
Department of Statistics (DOS) — age, gender, race, and dwelling (DOS,
2013) as well as nationality, marital status, and religion (DOS, 2010).
2 The 30–34 age band was included from NYS 2010.
3 Although mode effects may not be completely eliminated, steps
were taken to reduce the effects of the adopted survey mode
through the use of a random sampling procedure, mailed household
invitations, multiple completion reminders, approaching minorities
and underrepresented groups at their households, and random
verification of survey respondents. The final survey dataset adhered
closely to the Singapore youth population.
4 The American Association for Public Opinion Research defined
response rate as “the number of complete interviews with reporting
units divided by the number of eligible reporting units in the sample”
and cooperation rate as “the proportion of all cases interviewed of
all eligible units ever contacted”
. More information is available at
http://www.aapor.org/Response_Rates_An_Overview1.htm
5 For example, Pew Research (2012) reported declines in cooperation
(40% in 2000 to 14% in 2012) and response (28% in 2000 to 9%
in 2012) rates. Lower response rates do not necessarily equate to
lower data quality (Groves, 2006; American Association for Public
Opinion Research, n.d.), and recent studies have found minimal
differences between samples of lower and higher response rates
(e.g., Curtin et al., 2000; Keeter et al., 2006; Holbrook et al., 2007).
6 General population surveys which employ multiple modes of responses
have found that internet-based respondents tend to be younger and
more educated, with responses peaking at night (e.g., Chan, 2011).
7 Recent local surveys (e.g., NYS 2010; Institute of Public Policy,
2011 & 2013; and National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre, 2013)
reported response rates ranging from 8% to 30%.
8 Figures from NYS 2002 were not weighted due to the nonstandard
age bands used.
ABOUT THE NATIONAL
YOUTH SURVEY
11
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
References
American Association for Public Opinion Research. (n.d.). Response Rate —
An Overview. Retrieved from http://www.aapor.org/Response_Rates_An_
Overview1.htm
Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious
effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281–291.
Chan, H. W. (2011). Census of population 2010 - Increased use of Internet in
census submission. Statistics Singapore Newsletter. Retrieved from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/cop2010/
ssnmar11-pg1-7.pdf
Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2000). The effects of response rate
changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4),
413–428.
Department of Statistics. (2010). Census of Population. Retrieved from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/Publications/population.html#census_of_
population_2010
Department of Statistics. (2013). Yearbook of Statistics Singapore. Retrieved
from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/
reference/yoscontents.html
Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household
surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646-675.
Ho, K. C., & Yip, J. (2003). YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore.
Singapore: National Youth Council.
Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A. and Pfent, A. (2007). The causes and
consequences of response rates in surveys by the news media and
government contractor survey research firms. In J. M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J.
M. Brick, E. D. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, M. W. Link & R. L. Sangster
(Eds.), Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology. NJ: Wiley.
Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore. (2013). Annual Survey on
Infocomm Usage in Households and Individuals in 2012. Retrieved from http://
www.ida.gov.sg/~/media/Files/Infocomm%20Landscape/Facts%20and%20
Figures/SurveyReport/2012/2012HHmgt.pdf
Institute of Policy Studies. (2011). IPS Perception of Policies in Singapore
Survey 5: Presidential Election Survey 2011. Retrieved from http://lkyspp.
nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/06/POPS-5_Sep-2011_
slides_1011111.pdf
Institute of Policy Studies. (2013). IPS Perception of Policies in Singapore
Survey 6: Perceptions of Singles on Marriage and Having Children. Retrieved
from http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/06/
POPS-6_Aug-12_report.pdf
Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging
the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD
telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 759–779.
Lind, L. H., Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G., & Reichert, H. (2013). Why do
survey respondents disclose more when computers ask the questions? Public
Opinion Quarterly, 77(4), 888–935.
National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre. (2013). Individual Giving Survey
2012. Retrieved from http://nvpc.org.sg/Portals/0/Documents/Research%20
and%20Publications/IGS%202012/IGS%202012%20Media%20Briefing.pdf
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2001).
The Well-being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Pew Research Centre. (2012). Assessing the Representativeness of Public
Opinion Surveys. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/
assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. Simon and Schuster.
Schuller, T. (2001). The complementary roles of human and social capital.
Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 18 –24.
World Bank. (2011). Social Capital. The World Bank Group. Retrieved from
http://go.worldbank.org/X17RX35L00
World Economic Forum. (2013). The Human Capital Report.
World Economic Forum.
12
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
YOUTH IN SINGAPORE
Since the inception of NYS 2002, youths have seen dramatic changes to Singapore society. Youths today reside
in a more diverse environment with a higher proportion of minorities and migrants. Youths also straddle multiple
communities and report higher levels of affluence and education.
Youth Population in Singapore
Singapore is an island city-state with a land area of 716 sq km. It has an overall population of 5.5 million and
a resident population of 3.9 million as at 2014 (Department of Statistics (DOS), 2014). Among its resident
population, the majority race is the Chinese, which makes up 74% of the population. This is followed by the
Malays (13%) and Indians (9%).
Singapore’s resident1 youth population (aged 15 to 34 years old) has increased over the past 40 years. Much of
the growth occurred between 1970 and 1980, before reaching a plateau in the subsequent decades (see Chart I).
CHART I.
Overall population and youth population in Singapore (1970–2010)
Source: Department of Statistics (2000 & 2010)
Resident and
non-resident
population
Resident
population
Resident youth
population
1,000
689
970
981
1,082
3,772
5,077
3,273
4,028
1,052
2,736
3,047
2,282
2,414
2,014
2,075
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
(‘000)
1 Resident population consists of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents.
YOUTH IN
SINGAPORE
13
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
As Singapore’s resident youth population growth has not kept pace with the overall population, the median
age of the resident population has doubled, from 20 years in 1970 to 39 years in 2013 (DOS, 2014). This has
resulted in the decline in proportion of resident youth population (see Chart II). Correspondingly, the proportion
of permanent residents among youths have increased (from 13% in 2000 to 18% in 2010), alongside that of
minorities (from 23% in 2000 to 28% in 2010). Taken together, these trends point towards a greater level of
diversity that exists among Singapore’s youths today.
As social diversity and inequality increase, there is a tendency for trust to erode within and across ethnic
groups in the short-to-medium term (Putnam, 2007; Portes & Vickstrom, 2011), particularly if there is a lack of
frequent, socially diverse interaction (Stolle et al., 2008). Considering the multicultural and multiracial nature of
Singapore society, it is therefore crucial that youths develop deep, meaningful relationships that span multiple
social groups and communities to maintain social trust and cohesion in the face of increasing diversity and
social stratification.
100%
75%
50%
34%
43%
38%
30%
29%
21%
24%
35%
40%
33%
25%
0%
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Resident youth
population as
a proportion
of resident
population
Resident youth
population as
a proportion of
resident and
non-resident
CHART II.
Proportion of youth in Singapore (1970–2010)
Source: DOS (2000 & 2010)
14
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
Youth Development in Singapore
In addition to population demographics, the local youth development
scene has also seen changes over the past decade. Youths today
are more likely to be members of multiple communities and
are at the forefront of a rapidly changing economy.
Youths are members of multiple communities
Youths belong to multiple communities, from families and
friends, schools and workplaces, to religious communities and
welfare groups. This exposes youths to the effects of socialisation
through sharing and transmission of social norms and values.
These socialisation processes are crucial to building networks
of shared norms and trust (i.e., social capital) of youths. With
a stronger focus on the overall development and community
involvement of youths through national initiatives and programmes
such as the Youth Expedition Project, Youth Corps Singapore,
and Values-in-Action, youths will have a myriad of opportunities
to participate in a variety of communities.
Radically altering the social processes associated with social
groups is the proliferation of internet use among Singapore’s
youths, who report a near-100% internet penetration rate
(IDA, 2013). The internet lowers barriers of access and enables
new forms of engagement, allowing youths to participate in a
greater variety of communities. Social media exposes youths
to information that both aligns and diverges from their own
(Kahne et al., 2012) and is associated with larger and more
diverse social networks, particularly among those of higher
socioeconomic status (Hampton & Ling, 2013).
Social media also allows youths with common interests to form
online communities that would have been otherwise difficult to
establish, such as platforms for political and civic engagement
(Lin et al., 2010). It has also been used to mobilise individuals
for specific causes. For example, during the haze crisis of 2013,
youths tapped on local friendship and online communities to
solicit excess masks and mobilise volunteers to distribute masks
to the needy (Liu, 2013). Such positive civic engagement both
online and offline will be crucial as Singapore matures as a society.
Youths are at the forefront of the changing economy
As a country with no natural resources, Singapore has long
focused on building a highly educated workforce as part of its
human capital strategy in a globalised economy (Osman-Gani,
2004). This push may be seen in the proportion of university
graduates among resident non-students aged 25–34 years
old, which had almost doubled from 31% in 2002 to 49% in
2012 (Teo, 2013).
The majority of youths have also benefited from Singapore’s
strong economic growth and development. The proportion of
heads of households aged 25 to 34 years old residing in private
estates increased from 7% in 2000 to 14% in 2010 (DOS, 2000;
2010) while the median income of youths aged 25 to 34 years
old increased from $2,000–$2,999 in 2000 to $3,000–$3,999
in 2013. However, the median income of youths aged 15 to
24 years old remained unchanged at $1,500–$1,999 over the
same period (DOS, 2000; Ministry of Manpower (MOM), 2013).
Globalisation has increased income and wealth inequalities, raising
new challenges for social mobility, the nature of meritocracy, and
the dignity of workers. This threatens Singapore’s long-standing
social compact which has associated hard work with material
success (Yeoh, 2007; Chan, 2014; Leong & Kang, 2012).
These challenges are not unique to Singapore’s youths.
Developed countries such as the United States of America
similarly grapple with the effects of globalisation. Singapore is
responding by restructuring its economy to achieve a just and
equitable society, a process that will take considerable time and
effort on the part of the government as well as citizens. This is
an opportunity for Singapore’s youths to develop their collective
resilience and wellbeing by being engaged in society to shape
the norms that will guide Singapore in the generations to come.
YOUTH IN
SINGAPORE
15
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
References
Chan, R. (2014, February 11). Income + wealth inequality = More trouble
for society. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/
the-big-story/budget-2014/story/income-wealth-inequality-more-trouble-
society-20140211
Department of Statistics. (2000). Census of Population 2000. Retrieved from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/Publications/publications _and_papers/cop2000/
census_2000_release1/excel/t1-7.xls
Department of Statistics. (2010). Census of Population 2010. Retrieved
from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/Publications/population.html#census_of_
population_2010
Department of Statistics. (2014). Population Trends 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and _papers/
population_and_population_structure/population2014.pdf
Hampton, K. N., & Ling, R. (2013). Explaining communication displacement
and large-scale social change in core networks: A cross-national comparison of
why bigger is not better and less can mean more. Information, Communication
& Society, 16(4), 561-589.
Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore. (2013). Infocomm Usage
in Households and by Individuals. Retrieved from http://www.ida.gov.
sg/~/media/Files/Infocomm%20Landscape/Facts%20and%20Figures/
SurveyReport/2012/2012HHmgt.pdf
Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Lee, N. J., & Feezell, J. T. (2012). Youth online activity
and exposure to diverse perspectives. New Media & Society, 14(3), 492-512.
Leong., C. H. & Kang, S. H. (2012). Report on Singapore Perspectives 2012.
Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National
University of Singapore. Retrieved from http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2013/06/SP2012_report.pdf
Lin, W. Y., Cheong, P. H., Kim, Y. C., & Jung, J. Y. (2010). Becoming citizens:
Youths’ civic uses of new media in five digital cities in East Asia. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 25(6), 839-857.
Liu, E. (2013, August 9). Not your typical misfit. Today. Retrieved from http://
www.todayonline.com/singapore/not-your-typical-misfit
Ministry Of Manpower. (2013). Gross Monthly Income From Work. Retrieved
from http://stats.mom.gov.sg/iMAS_Tables/LabourForce/LabourForce_2013/
mrsd_2013LabourForce_T26.xlsx
Osman-Gani, A. M. (2004). Human capital development in Singapore: An
analysis of national policy perspectives. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 6(3), 276-287.
Portes, A., & Vickstrom, E. (2011). Diversity, social capital, and cohesion.
Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 461-479.
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the
twenty‐first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174.
Stolle, D., Soroka, S., & Johnston, R. (2008). When does diversity erode trust?
Neighborhood diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social
interactions. Political Studies, 56(1), 57-75.
Teo, Z. (2013). Educational profile of Singapore resident non-students, 2002
– 2012. Department of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.
sg/publications/publications_and_papers/education_and_literacy/ssnmar13-
pg1-7.pdf
Yeoh, L. K. (2007, October). Rethinking a new social compact for Singapore.
Ethos, 3. Retrieved from https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/Knowledge/ethos/
Issue%203%20Oct%202007/Pages/Rethinking%20a%20New%20
Social%20Compact%20for%20Singapore.aspx
Overview of Handbook
This chapter introduced Singapore’s youth landscape. The next
three chapters will cover the social capital of youth. That is, the
quality of youths’ social support (such as relationships with
family and friends and time spent on non-school/work activities),
social participation (such as involvement in social groups and
leadership, civic engagement, and internet and social media
use), and values and attitudes (such as life goals and attitudes
towards family, marriage, and society). The subsequent chapters
will relate to the human capital of youth. This includes youths’
attitudes and aspirations towards education and employment
and their subjective, physical, and financial wellbeing.
16
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
Social
Support
Social support refers to the
degree of support that youths
receive from their parents,
families, and communities. This
chapter reflects the important
social processes that influence
youth development. It looks at
youths’ family environment and
social networks.
SOCIAL SUPPORT
The State of Youth in Singapore:
POSITIVE FAMILY ENVIRONMENTS.
Youths in Singapore generally report having
We are willing to help each
other out when something
needs to be done
No matter what happens,
I know I'll be loved and
accepted
SCHOOLS,
Youths’ top sources of close friends are
WORKPLACES, AND OTHER FRIENDS
AND SOCIAL NETWORKS.
10
20
30
40
50
Younger youths spend significantly more time with
compared to older youths.
FAMILIES AND FRIENDS
Age
30-34
Age
25-29
Age
15-19
Age
20-24
Activities with
parents/relatives
10
hours
of time
spent on
≥10
Youths with positive family environments benefit from the
support they receive. Such family environments generally respond
to youths’ needs, challenges them to acquire new skills and
knowledge and to be responsible members of the society. In this
regard, youths growing up in a more positive family environment
tend to be associated with individual wellbeing (National Youth
Council, 2010). Findings from NYS 2103 show that youths
generally report high levels of family support and challenge.
Friends are another important source of support and resource
valuable to individual development. Top sources of close friends
for Singapore’s youths are schools, workplaces, and through other
friends and social networks. Younger youths are more likely to
report close friends of a different race and religion, while youths
aged 15 to 19 and 30 to 34 are more likely to report close friends
of a different nationality. Overall, youths continue to spend much
of their time outside of school and work with their families and
friends, and on online activities.
Percentage of youths
I’m given responsibility for
making important decisions
affecting my life
School
Workplace
Friends &
social networks
78%
29%
20%
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
4.36
4.35
4.28
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
Activities with
friends
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
18
Family environment, particularly parent-child interaction, affects youth development. The quality
of parent-child interaction may be seen through the extent in which youths are supported and
challenged positively (Csikszentmihalyi & Schneider, 2000). Singapore’s youths in 2013 continue
to report high levels of family support and challenge (Tables A1 and A2).
Section A1
Family Support
& Challenge
Part 1A
Family Environment
Q. To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding your family?
(Based on a 5-pt scale, where 5=”strongly agree”, 3=”neither agree nor disagree”, and 1=”strongly disagree”.)
A1Mean ratings of youths’ level of family support over time
(with standard deviations in parenthesis)
2010
2013
n=1,268
n=2,843
I feel appreciated for who I am
4.24 (0.60)
4.18 (0.84)
If I have a problem, I get special attention
and help from family
4.08 (0.77)
4.13 (0.87)
No matter what happens, I know I’ll be
loved and accepted
4.36 (0.63)
4.36 (0.77)
We enjoy having dinner together and talking
4.24 (0.72)
4.25 (0.83)
We compromise when our schedules conflict
4.01 (0.72)
4.06 (0.83)
We are willing to help each other out when
something needs to be done
4.26 (0.64)
4.35 (0.70)
15–34 years old
A2Mean ratings of youths’ level of family challenge over time
(with standard deviations in parenthesis)
2010
2013
n=1,268
n=2,843
Individual accomplishments are noticed
4.05 (0.62)
4.01 (0.85)
I’m given responsibility for making important
decisions affecting my life
4.09 (0.68)
4.28 (0.73)
I’m expected to do my best
4.10 (0.73)
4.22 (0.75)
I try to make other family members proud
4.08 (0.69)
4.20 (0.77)
I’m encouraged to get involved in activities
outside school and work
3.70 (0.87)
3.89 (0.90)
I’m expected to use my time wisely
4.10 (0.65)
4.14 (0.76)
15–34 years old
SOCIAL
SUPPORT
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
19
Alongside families, friends form another anchor of youth development and social support;
in particular, close friends whom youths are able to approach for personal advice and help.
Singapore’s youths’ number of close friends has remained consistent over the years (Table B1),
with the majority of youths having at least two close friends. Youths’ number of close friends
declined with age, with older youths reporting a smaller group of friends (Table B2).
Section B1
Number Of
Close Friends
Part B
Friendship
Q. Close friends are people you feel at ease with, can talk to about private matters, or call on for help… how
many close friends do you have?
B1 Youths’ number of close friends over time
B2 Youths’ number of close friends by age
2002
2005
2010
2013
2010
2013
n=1,501
n=1,504
n=918
n=2,061
n=1,268
n=2,843
More than 5
24%
30%
20%
29%
19%
26%
4 to 5
23%
26%
28%
30%
27%
30%
2 to 3
44%
35%
42%
31%
45%
32%
6%
6%
9%
7%
9%
8%
None
3%
4%
1%
4%
1%
4%
15–29 years old
15–34 years old
15–19
20–24
25–29
30–34
Overall
n=686
n=700
n=675
n=782
n=2,843
More than 5
35%
28%
23%
18%
26%
4 to 5
28%
33%
28%
31%
30%
2 to 3
28%
30%
36%
36%
33%
6%
6%
8%
10%
8%
None
3%
3%
5%
5%
4%
YOUTH.sg: The State of Youth in Singapore 2014
20