YOUTHsg The State of Youth in Singapore 2014 Statistical Handbook

Welcome to interactive presentation, created with Publuu. Enjoy the reading!

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Made with Publuu - flipbook maker